4 ms·

This perspective suffers really badly from Main Character Syndrome. The United States didn't win World War II by itself, nor did the Axis powers position themse

This perspective suffers really badly from Main Character Syndrome. The United States didn't win World War II by itself, nor did the Axis powers position themselves directly against the United States, but the article spends a lot of time acting like both of those are true. And then it talks about upcoming American decisions in a vacuum, as if it doesn't have current and potential allies who would be quite important in a world war scenario!

wslh 2y ago
I assume you mean United States won the WWII together with Russia? or are you including other countries as well? It is important to also highlight that Russia was invaded while USA was far from the conflict.
- Yoric 2y ago
  Wikipaedia lists 24 countries amongst the allies. And the war in Europe was mostly piloted from the UK.
  - DiogenesKynikos 2y ago
    > mostly piloted from the UK This is ignoring the Eastern front, which was, many times over, the largest, most intense theater of the war.
    - Yoric 2y ago
      Fair enough.
DiogenesKynikos 2y ago
It also severely misrepresents the relationship between the USSR and Germany. Hitler made no secret of the fact that one of his chief aims was to destroy the Soviet Union. The Soviets feared a German invasion and pursued an alliance with France. The USSR wanted to intervene to prevent a German invasion of Czechoslovakia, but after the British and French signed the Munich agreement with Hitler, the Soviets feared the western powers would let the USSR and Germany fight it out and moved to make their own accommodation with Hitler. Both sides regarded that deal as temporary, and knew that it would come to war later. The Soviets wanted to buy time to build up the Red Army.
- calaverainfo 2y ago
  This narative omits the contradicting fact that Soviet Union decimated Poland and others it conquered in alliance with Germany. If the alliance was just to buy time for Red Army, then it would not make sense for Red Army to spend time massacring the elites and armies of conquered states [0] that could become their buffer against Germany or even become their allies. This narative, which I started hearing after the start of last Russian war, is therefore pretty naive attempt of current day Russia to spin the story of their initial alliance with nazi Germany which was definitely real. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katyn_massacre https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katyn_massacre
  - DiogenesKynikos 2y ago
    > If the alliance was just to buy time for Red Army, then it would not make sense for Red Army to spend time massacring the elites and armies of conquered states The USSR did not have to expend much effort in taking eastern Poland. It moved in after the Polish army had been largely defeated by the Germans in the West. The USSR's actions here were opportunistic. > This narative, which I started hearing after the start of last Russian war This "narrative" has been around for many decades, and is not particularly controversial. Even at the time, the fact that the USSR and Germany signed a pact at all stunned the world, because they were arch enemies. It was not a marriage of love, and calling it an "alliance" is a major stretch. It was an opportunistic move by two enemies that each had their reasons to temporarily put off their conflict. The Red Army was in turmoil because of the purges and Stalin was deathly afraid of a German attack. The Germans wanted time to go after Poland and the western powers. A central tenet of Nazism was its hatred for Bolshevism (and that was tightly connected to the Nazis' antisemitism as well). Hitler had openly stated his goal of destroying the Soviet Union, and it was clear that any pact could not last.
    - mopsi 2y ago
      > A central tenet of Nazism was its hatred for Bolshevism (and that was tightly connected to the Nazis' antisemitism as well). Another central tenet of both Nazism and Bolshevism is their hatred for capitalism and democracy. Their alliance allowed to suffocate Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Finland (attempt failed), and expand their borders until they met, as they had agreed in the secret protocol to the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact - without triggering a direct conflict between Germany and the USSR. The obsolete narrative that portrays USSR as the victim or opportunistic bystander fails to explain why the USSR murdered Polish officers, scholars and other members of the national elite by tens of thousands, and unleashed similar terror in every other occupied country, or why the USSR tried to invade Finland and allocated a significant part of its entire military to the task while it was allegedly so worried about German attack, or why it supplied Germany with incredible amount of raw resources bypassing the British naval blockade, or why Germany initiated large technology transfer to the USSR, including drawings, performance testing data and actual samples of their latest fighter planes and bombers and a ton of other equipment. The argument that Germany and USSR were on long-term collision course in terms of ideology doesn't change the fact that the alliance was very beneficial to both of them while it lasted and allowed them to maul Europe with impunity. That's why USSR denied until its final days that the secret protocol to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact even existed; the protocol and events that followed completely shatter the myth of USSR as opportunistic bystander. Even in the present day, Russian goverment (including Putin personally) can't make up its mind whether Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania all saw "working class uprisings" at the same time and joined the USSR "voluntarily" (one narrative), or whether USSR performed a clever trick on Germany and invaded those countries on its own initiative to win time (another narrative). The narrative keeps shifting to whatever is convenient at the moment; it has become a meme.

wslh 2y ago

I assume you mean United States won the WWII together with Russia? or are you including other countries as well? It is important to also highlight that Russia was invaded while USA was far from the conflict.

Yoric 2y ago
Wikipaedia lists 24 countries amongst the allies. And the war in Europe was mostly piloted from the UK.
- DiogenesKynikos 2y ago
  > mostly piloted from the UK This is ignoring the Eastern front, which was, many times over, the largest, most intense theater of the war.
  - Yoric 2y ago
    Fair enough.

DiogenesKynikos 2y ago

It also severely misrepresents the relationship between the USSR and Germany. Hitler made no secret of the fact that one of his chief aims was to destroy the Soviet Union. The Soviets feared a German invasion and pursued an alliance with France. The USSR wanted to intervene to prevent a German invasion of Czechoslovakia, but after the British and French signed the Munich agreement with Hitler, the Soviets feared the western powers would let the USSR and Germany fight it out and moved to make their own accommodation with Hitler. Both sides regarded that deal as temporary, and knew that it would come to war later. The Soviets wanted to buy time to build up the Red Army.

calaverainfo 2y ago
This narative omits the contradicting fact that Soviet Union decimated Poland and others it conquered in alliance with Germany. If the alliance was just to buy time for Red Army, then it would not make sense for Red Army to spend time massacring the elites and armies of conquered states [0] that could become their buffer against Germany or even become their allies. This narative, which I started hearing after the start of last Russian war, is therefore pretty naive attempt of current day Russia to spin the story of their initial alliance with nazi Germany which was definitely real. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katyn_massacre https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katyn_massacre
- DiogenesKynikos 2y ago
  > If the alliance was just to buy time for Red Army, then it would not make sense for Red Army to spend time massacring the elites and armies of conquered states The USSR did not have to expend much effort in taking eastern Poland. It moved in after the Polish army had been largely defeated by the Germans in the West. The USSR's actions here were opportunistic. > This narative, which I started hearing after the start of last Russian war This "narrative" has been around for many decades, and is not particularly controversial. Even at the time, the fact that the USSR and Germany signed a pact at all stunned the world, because they were arch enemies. It was not a marriage of love, and calling it an "alliance" is a major stretch. It was an opportunistic move by two enemies that each had their reasons to temporarily put off their conflict. The Red Army was in turmoil because of the purges and Stalin was deathly afraid of a German attack. The Germans wanted time to go after Poland and the western powers. A central tenet of Nazism was its hatred for Bolshevism (and that was tightly connected to the Nazis' antisemitism as well). Hitler had openly stated his goal of destroying the Soviet Union, and it was clear that any pact could not last.
  - mopsi 2y ago
    > A central tenet of Nazism was its hatred for Bolshevism (and that was tightly connected to the Nazis' antisemitism as well). Another central tenet of both Nazism and Bolshevism is their hatred for capitalism and democracy. Their alliance allowed to suffocate Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Finland (attempt failed), and expand their borders until they met, as they had agreed in the secret protocol to the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact - without triggering a direct conflict between Germany and the USSR. The obsolete narrative that portrays USSR as the victim or opportunistic bystander fails to explain why the USSR murdered Polish officers, scholars and other members of the national elite by tens of thousands, and unleashed similar terror in every other occupied country, or why the USSR tried to invade Finland and allocated a significant part of its entire military to the task while it was allegedly so worried about German attack, or why it supplied Germany with incredible amount of raw resources bypassing the British naval blockade, or why Germany initiated large technology transfer to the USSR, including drawings, performance testing data and actual samples of their latest fighter planes and bombers and a ton of other equipment. The argument that Germany and USSR were on long-term collision course in terms of ideology doesn't change the fact that the alliance was very beneficial to both of them while it lasted and allowed them to maul Europe with impunity. That's why USSR denied until its final days that the secret protocol to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact even existed; the protocol and events that followed completely shatter the myth of USSR as opportunistic bystander. Even in the present day, Russian goverment (including Putin personally) can't make up its mind whether Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania all saw "working class uprisings" at the same time and joined the USSR "voluntarily" (one narrative), or whether USSR performed a clever trick on Germany and invaded those countries on its own initiative to win time (another narrative). The narrative keeps shifting to whatever is convenient at the moment; it has become a meme.