4 ms·
In the podcast We Have Ways of Making You Talk, James Holland and Al Murray repeatedly make the point that differences in production of weapons, fuel, and every
by gramie 4y ago
In the podcast We Have Ways of Making You Talk, James Holland and Al Murray repeatedly make the point that differences in production of weapons, fuel, and everything else (including penicillin) made the outcome of the war inevitable.
A very entertaining podcast, and well worth listening to!
- nl 4y agoIt's true that US production enabled the allies to win the war. But it's a mistake to think that the country with more economic resources will inevitably win. There's too many counter examples for that to be the case. Some include: Korean War 1967 Arab/Israeli war (Note that this was before mass support of Israel by the US) Vietnam War US/Taliban conflict
- yazantapuz 4y agoSoviet-Afghan War.
- beckingz 4y agoUS-Afghan War.
- nl 4y agoListed: > US/Taliban conflict
- nl 4y agoI deliberately left that out because it was to a large extent a proxy conflict once the US started delivering weapons to the Muhajirin in large numbers. (Or at least there's a reasonable argument for that case and I didn't want it to distract from the key point).
- robbiep 4y agoI heard this argument the other day around the Ukraine conflict being a US - Russia proxy war and the person promoting this view was vigorously rebutted - saying that it can’t be a proxy war because even though Ukraine is being significantly supplied by western allies (and Russia itself), it is Russia that is actually fighting. And that made sense to me definitionally. So I’ll make the same point here about the Soviet-Afghan war. Yes the US pumped in supplies, but it wasn’t a proxy war because one of the powers was actually one of the forces. So, I think I understand better now and maybe no historians will yell at us for mis describing proxy fights
- nl 4y ago> saying that it can’t be a proxy war because even though Ukraine is being significantly supplied by western allies (and Russia itself), it is Russia that is actually fighting. This doesn't make much sense - I think every definition of a proxy war has included things like the Vietnam war, the Soviet/Afgan war etc: > That encouraged the American practice of arming insurgent forces, such as the funneling of supplies to the mujahideen during the Soviet–Afghan War. Other examples of proxy war are the Korean War, the Vietnam War[1] To be clear, proxy wars are ones where at least one party is a proxy for another power. By this definition yes, the Ukraine conflict could be viewed as a Western/Russian proxy war (not US, since significant arms for Ukraine are also coming from other Western powers). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy_war https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy_war
- pdonis 4y agoAll of your counterexamples except for the 1967 Arab/Israeli war (which I would argue is an outlier due to an extreme difference in military competence between the two sides) share a key factor: political unwillingness to do whatever it took to win. In WW II, there was no such hampering factor in play.
- nl 4y agoYes exactly. But that's the reality that many desktop generals don't understand - you fight a unpopular war you are going to fight with one hand tied behind your back.