4 ms·

I'm not sure how you explain WWII in this framing. There was a very easy way to help Nazis beat Russia in WWII, and uh, we did the opposite thing.

miroljub 3y ago
> There was a very easy way to help Nazis beat Russia in WWII, You mean like being neutral and refusing to open a second front for years, while Russians were fighting against Nazis. > and uh, we did the opposite thing. What, landed in Normandy in 1944 when the war was already decided because you were afraid of Soviets reaching Paris before you?
- justrealist 3y ago
  The US was shipping huge quantities of material aid to the Soviets long before 1944. And invaded Italy and North Africa years before, if you had any knowledge of history. If you're going to be one of those tiresome "Russia would have won WWII alone!" nationalists then this conversation isn't worth having, but I'm happy to show evidence you're wrong, if you aren't.
  - cmrdporcupine 3y ago
    It's not like it wasn't explicit strategy of the US to try to work on two fronts -- defeat the NAZIs while also containing the Russians. At the end of the war a giant rush to prevent Soviet takeover of swathes of Europe and the far east, and some historians have spent whole careers analyzing how seriously the Americans considered opening a new front against Russia right at the end of the war. And there were certainly strong voices in North America pre-WWII that saw Hitler as a fairly useful bulwark against the red menace. Despite the way popular history paints these things, the game that folks in the allied command played was not some grandiose good vs evil fight with two clear sides. It was complicated and dirty and awful things were done by everyone including the Americans.
  - miroljub 3y ago
    > The US was shipping huge quantities of material aid to the Soviets long before 1944. And those "huge" quantities were just a small drop in the sea of the total effort. Their significance was more for propaganda purposes than actual military impact. > And invaded Italy and North Africa years before, if you had any knowledge of history. If you had any knowledge of history, you may be aware of the fact that the total German Afrika Korps consisted of merely 35,500 soldiers [1], while there were millions fighting on the Eastern Front. And you managed to drag those Africa operations for years. And Italy was selected as a target for the invasion exactly because it was strategically relevant. It was again defended by a minor German force for more than a year. It wasn't even a distraction for the Nazis. But I understand the USA didn't want to actually engage fighting Germany and end the war. It was in their interest to let them slaughter each other, regardless how many civilians get killed. > If you're going to be one of those tiresome "Russia would have won WWII alone!" nationalists then this conversation isn't worth having, but I'm happy to show evidence you're wrong, if you aren't. I never claimed Russia would have won WW2 alone. What I said is that the Soviets (not only Russia) did win against the Germany alone. The influence of other "allies" war minor. The USA had its role fighting against the Japan, but that was a completely separate fight. And even there, the Soviets helped the USA, by binding significant Japanese forces on their borders, that would otherwise be used against the USA, and maybe change the flow of war. They even did a similar move like the USA in Normandy, by defeating the Japanese expeditionary army in China. The only difference, they left China afterward, while the USA army stayed in Europe as an occupying force, and is there up until now. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afrika_Korps https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afrika_Korps
    - justrealist 3y ago
      It's not obvious that there are any actual sources you are willing to consider, but here's a try: https://www.reddit.com/r/history/comments/8uatt5/how_important_was_lendlease_for_the_soviet_war/ https://www.reddit.com/r/history/comments/8uatt5/how_importa... for example: > Lend-Lease trucks were particularly important to the Red Army, which was notoriously deficient in such equipment. By the end of the war, two out of every three Red Army trucks were foreign-built, including 409,000 cargo trucks and 47,000 Willys Jeeps. [Note, Glantz's 2/3 stat is a higher ratio than Ellis indicates, but Ellis still points to 2:1 import/production, and regardless there may be other caveats in play] The shipment of finished trucks, planes and tanks was very important in the early years of the war, and forced a stalemate in early battles (we both know, that Moscow was about a hair from being captured). Yes, the material aid became relatively less significant as Soviet production ramped up, but that wouldn't have happened if the USSR had collapsed in 1942 or 1943. Oh lol I almost missed this gem. > The only difference, they left China afterward, while the USA army stayed in Europe as an occupying force Absolutely incredible to describe the US forces in Europe as "occupying" and not mention what the Soviets did. Yeah I think we're done here.
dirtyid 3y ago
Framing is America foreign policy, WW2->Coldwar was US helping Soviets defeat the Nazis on the battlefield and subsequently coordinating with Nazis to try to undermine Soviets / Communists post war or for various US interests.

miroljub 3y ago

> There was a very easy way to help Nazis beat Russia in WWII, You mean like being neutral and refusing to open a second front for years, while Russians were fighting against Nazis. > and uh, we did the opposite thing. What, landed in Normandy in 1944 when the war was already decided because you were afraid of Soviets reaching Paris before you?

justrealist 3y ago
The US was shipping huge quantities of material aid to the Soviets long before 1944. And invaded Italy and North Africa years before, if you had any knowledge of history. If you're going to be one of those tiresome "Russia would have won WWII alone!" nationalists then this conversation isn't worth having, but I'm happy to show evidence you're wrong, if you aren't.
- cmrdporcupine 3y ago
  It's not like it wasn't explicit strategy of the US to try to work on two fronts -- defeat the NAZIs while also containing the Russians. At the end of the war a giant rush to prevent Soviet takeover of swathes of Europe and the far east, and some historians have spent whole careers analyzing how seriously the Americans considered opening a new front against Russia right at the end of the war. And there were certainly strong voices in North America pre-WWII that saw Hitler as a fairly useful bulwark against the red menace. Despite the way popular history paints these things, the game that folks in the allied command played was not some grandiose good vs evil fight with two clear sides. It was complicated and dirty and awful things were done by everyone including the Americans.
- miroljub 3y ago
  > The US was shipping huge quantities of material aid to the Soviets long before 1944. And those "huge" quantities were just a small drop in the sea of the total effort. Their significance was more for propaganda purposes than actual military impact. > And invaded Italy and North Africa years before, if you had any knowledge of history. If you had any knowledge of history, you may be aware of the fact that the total German Afrika Korps consisted of merely 35,500 soldiers [1], while there were millions fighting on the Eastern Front. And you managed to drag those Africa operations for years. And Italy was selected as a target for the invasion exactly because it was strategically relevant. It was again defended by a minor German force for more than a year. It wasn't even a distraction for the Nazis. But I understand the USA didn't want to actually engage fighting Germany and end the war. It was in their interest to let them slaughter each other, regardless how many civilians get killed. > If you're going to be one of those tiresome "Russia would have won WWII alone!" nationalists then this conversation isn't worth having, but I'm happy to show evidence you're wrong, if you aren't. I never claimed Russia would have won WW2 alone. What I said is that the Soviets (not only Russia) did win against the Germany alone. The influence of other "allies" war minor. The USA had its role fighting against the Japan, but that was a completely separate fight. And even there, the Soviets helped the USA, by binding significant Japanese forces on their borders, that would otherwise be used against the USA, and maybe change the flow of war. They even did a similar move like the USA in Normandy, by defeating the Japanese expeditionary army in China. The only difference, they left China afterward, while the USA army stayed in Europe as an occupying force, and is there up until now. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afrika_Korps https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afrika_Korps
  - justrealist 3y ago
    It's not obvious that there are any actual sources you are willing to consider, but here's a try: https://www.reddit.com/r/history/comments/8uatt5/how_important_was_lendlease_for_the_soviet_war/ https://www.reddit.com/r/history/comments/8uatt5/how_importa... for example: > Lend-Lease trucks were particularly important to the Red Army, which was notoriously deficient in such equipment. By the end of the war, two out of every three Red Army trucks were foreign-built, including 409,000 cargo trucks and 47,000 Willys Jeeps. [Note, Glantz's 2/3 stat is a higher ratio than Ellis indicates, but Ellis still points to 2:1 import/production, and regardless there may be other caveats in play] The shipment of finished trucks, planes and tanks was very important in the early years of the war, and forced a stalemate in early battles (we both know, that Moscow was about a hair from being captured). Yes, the material aid became relatively less significant as Soviet production ramped up, but that wouldn't have happened if the USSR had collapsed in 1942 or 1943. Oh lol I almost missed this gem. > The only difference, they left China afterward, while the USA army stayed in Europe as an occupying force Absolutely incredible to describe the US forces in Europe as "occupying" and not mention what the Soviets did. Yeah I think we're done here.

dirtyid 3y ago

Framing is America foreign policy, WW2->Coldwar was US helping Soviets defeat the Nazis on the battlefield and subsequently coordinating with Nazis to try to undermine Soviets / Communists post war or for various US interests.