9 ms·

Knowing that US was supplying USSR with weapons,airplanes, trucks and helping build entire factories right up until the end of the war and then wanted to nuke t

Knowing that US was supplying USSR with weapons,airplanes, trucks and helping build entire factories right up until the end of the war and then wanted to nuke the same ally is really buffling. One one hand can be said, yes they wanted USSR to bleed fighting Germany (or do the harder fighting part) on the other hand it's just confusing and possibly different fractions within US government wanting different things.

legitster 3y ago
It was purely a functional alliance - no more. I don't think anyone had any preconceived notions that it was anything other than a marriage of convenience. Keep in mind that Stalin himself professed and acted on the belief that coexistence with capitalism was impossible and thought that conflict with the West was inevitable within 15 years of WWII. We're all lucky that he died before then and the cooler head of Khrushchev prevailed.
dmix 3y ago
The weapon part of the US contribution is way overrated. The Soviets produced 157k airplanes, the US only gave them 11k (7%). US gave 7k tanks, Soviets produced 87,500 (8%). The main contribution by the US was support vehicles like jeeps and trucks and fuel. Neither the aircraft or tanks were very notable beyond the very early years. The Soviets largely did it on the own armour/aircraft wise. Which was why Hitler was so obsessed with invading in the first place. He knew unless they rushed to invade Russia could unleash it's massive capacity for production that'd they'd be impossible to invade on their own, or at a minimum be way harder to beat.
- fishtockos 3y ago
  > The main contribution by the US was support vehicles like jeeps and trucks and fuel Obviously, these are all absolutely critical. As is the aluminum, high-octane avgas, etc that the Soviets obtained via Lend-Lease
  - WalterBright 3y ago
    As the Ukraine-Russia war illustrates, supply chain (support vehicles) are critical.
- m2fkxy 3y ago
  you overlook that those weapons were supplied at critical times, when the Soviet war machine had not ramped up yet. entire offensives were led with nearly only lend-lease kit.
- baybal2 3y ago
  [dead]
- BlueTemplar 3y ago
  Also small compared to what the British got. But what matters more is how critical they were : the Nazis culminated in view of the Kremlin (also, notably, a couple of days before Pearl Harbor and the US officially joined the war).
rad_gruchalski 3y ago
There’s nothing baffling about it. An Enemy of my enemy is my ally. But when the business is done… keep your friends close but your enemies closer.
- neffy 3y ago
  Both FDR and Churchill are on record as saying variants of "it is permissible to walk with the devil if it gets you to the other side of the bridge" about the alliance with Stalin.
  - LargeTomato 3y ago
    This sort of ruthless pragmatism is sadly missing from today's politics. Recently people are more focused on imposing their will on the others instead of compromising, however unsavory the other side may be.
    - nl 3y ago
      I find this statement one of the most astonishing things said on HN that I can remember. The entire history of US foreign relations in South and Central America and the Middle East (at least!) is dominated with compromises similar to this. It's difficult to know where to start a list!
      - whimsicalism 3y ago
        I would be curious of the start of your list in the Americas, as I don't feel like making compromises with our adversaries is actually a common approach there.
        com 3y ago
        I suspect that GP believes that US-supported strongmen and right wing dictators in Latin America were US adversaries, rather than useful, crafted actors for US interests in their countries, who were managed and supported until and unless they markedly diverged from US interests. If you’re swimming in a sea of US-standard media and patriotic narratives, I suppose it’s easier to believe the former rather than the latter.
OO000oo 3y ago
Not baffling if you know anything about the history of the US or the USSR.
PKop 3y ago
"If we see that Germany is winning, we ought to help Russia, and if Russia is winning we ought to help Germany, and that way let them kill as many as possible" - Harry Truman Geopolitical realism has always involved turning on your allies as soon as they become the primary threat to your power; or even better to induce two rival competitors to fight each other[0] See Mearsheimer and political realism. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bait_and_bleed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bait_and_bleed
- smallnix 3y ago
  "If we see that Germany is winning, we ought to help Russia, and if Russia is winning we ought to help Germany, and that way let them kill as many as possible, although I don't want to see Hitler victorious under any circumstances."
matheusmoreira 3y ago
Western nations were also uncharacteristically tolerant of Hitler's militarization while he opposed the communists. Then they signed a non-aggression pact. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pac...

legitster 3y ago

It was purely a functional alliance - no more. I don't think anyone had any preconceived notions that it was anything other than a marriage of convenience. Keep in mind that Stalin himself professed and acted on the belief that coexistence with capitalism was impossible and thought that conflict with the West was inevitable within 15 years of WWII. We're all lucky that he died before then and the cooler head of Khrushchev prevailed.

dmix 3y ago

The weapon part of the US contribution is way overrated. The Soviets produced 157k airplanes, the US only gave them 11k (7%). US gave 7k tanks, Soviets produced 87,500 (8%). The main contribution by the US was support vehicles like jeeps and trucks and fuel. Neither the aircraft or tanks were very notable beyond the very early years. The Soviets largely did it on the own armour/aircraft wise. Which was why Hitler was so obsessed with invading in the first place. He knew unless they rushed to invade Russia could unleash it's massive capacity for production that'd they'd be impossible to invade on their own, or at a minimum be way harder to beat.

fishtockos 3y ago
> The main contribution by the US was support vehicles like jeeps and trucks and fuel Obviously, these are all absolutely critical. As is the aluminum, high-octane avgas, etc that the Soviets obtained via Lend-Lease
- WalterBright 3y ago
  As the Ukraine-Russia war illustrates, supply chain (support vehicles) are critical.
m2fkxy 3y ago
you overlook that those weapons were supplied at critical times, when the Soviet war machine had not ramped up yet. entire offensives were led with nearly only lend-lease kit.
baybal2 3y ago
[dead]
BlueTemplar 3y ago
Also small compared to what the British got. But what matters more is how critical they were : the Nazis culminated in view of the Kremlin (also, notably, a couple of days before Pearl Harbor and the US officially joined the war).

rad_gruchalski 3y ago

There’s nothing baffling about it. An Enemy of my enemy is my ally. But when the business is done… keep your friends close but your enemies closer.

neffy 3y ago
Both FDR and Churchill are on record as saying variants of "it is permissible to walk with the devil if it gets you to the other side of the bridge" about the alliance with Stalin.
- LargeTomato 3y ago
  This sort of ruthless pragmatism is sadly missing from today's politics. Recently people are more focused on imposing their will on the others instead of compromising, however unsavory the other side may be.
  - nl 3y ago
    I find this statement one of the most astonishing things said on HN that I can remember. The entire history of US foreign relations in South and Central America and the Middle East (at least!) is dominated with compromises similar to this. It's difficult to know where to start a list!
    - whimsicalism 3y ago
      I would be curious of the start of your list in the Americas, as I don't feel like making compromises with our adversaries is actually a common approach there.
      - com 3y ago
        I suspect that GP believes that US-supported strongmen and right wing dictators in Latin America were US adversaries, rather than useful, crafted actors for US interests in their countries, who were managed and supported until and unless they markedly diverged from US interests. If you’re swimming in a sea of US-standard media and patriotic narratives, I suppose it’s easier to believe the former rather than the latter.

OO000oo 3y ago

Not baffling if you know anything about the history of the US or the USSR.

PKop 3y ago

"If we see that Germany is winning, we ought to help Russia, and if Russia is winning we ought to help Germany, and that way let them kill as many as possible" - Harry Truman Geopolitical realism has always involved turning on your allies as soon as they become the primary threat to your power; or even better to induce two rival competitors to fight each other[0] See Mearsheimer and political realism. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bait_and_bleed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bait_and_bleed

smallnix 3y ago
"If we see that Germany is winning, we ought to help Russia, and if Russia is winning we ought to help Germany, and that way let them kill as many as possible, although I don't want to see Hitler victorious under any circumstances."

matheusmoreira 3y ago

Western nations were also uncharacteristically tolerant of Hitler's militarization while he opposed the communists. Then they signed a non-aggression pact. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pac...