8 ms·

>It’s no secret that the Allies won World War II on the back of the U.S.’s enormous industrial output. The author ignores the USSR completely in their article,

by kgeist 2y ago

>It’s no secret that the Allies won World War II on the back of the U.S.’s enormous industrial output. The author ignores the USSR completely in their article, except for a brief mention in the graphs (where it's #2). 157k planes is impressive, too, considering that many of the factories had to evacuate to Siberia. 22k planes were also additionally leased by the US and the UK.

TulliusCicero 2y ago
It definitely is, but the US' industrial output wasn't limited to just planes, and the USSR received a ton of supplies and equipment from the US to bolster its war machine.
NotSammyHagar 2y ago
That's true, the ussr did some impressive things, and the millions of deaths they suffered fighting the germans in ww2 can't be forgotten, along with the impact of their weakening of the german forces over time.
- Koshkin 2y ago
  A 1000-mile “weakening”
pie420 2y ago
The vast majority of the USSR factories were funded by american cash. Without the US, Germany wins WW2 handily. Without the USSR, the united states drops nukes on berlin in 1946 and handily wins ww2 by 1947.
- jltsiren 2y ago
  Those factories were paid with Soviet money, but many were built by Western companies in the 20s and 30s. Because apparently communism was not such a big deal after all, as long as you could benefit from it. Germany had already lost the war before Lend-Lease had a significant impact. The offensives of 1941 and 1942 failed before Western aid started arriving in significant quantities. The aid had much more impact on the Soviet offensive, particularly on the logistics side. It can be argued that Lend-Lease won Eastern Europe for the USSR. As far as I understand, there are two schools of thought on what would have happened without Lend-Lease. In one, the USSR would have won anyway, but the war would have lasted until 1946 or 1947 and it would have been even bloodier and more destructive. In another, the USSR would also have lost, and there would have been an uneasy peace between them and Germany. In both cases, I'd assume the US would not see the Continental Europe worth fighting for.
guurfhihh46775 2y ago
[flagged]
- yreg 2y ago
  True, but that's also partially thanks to the Russian propaganda at its best. (I live in a post-communist country.)
- Someone 2y ago
  The Soviets weren’t very popular at the time in most of Europe, especially in the parts the Soviets drove the Germans away from, so I doubt people would have admitted to that, even if they thought it to be true. I also think it isn’t quite true. Leaving out a lot of nuance I would say “American industry and Russian blood”
- morkalork 2y ago
  There's an old tank factory in my north American city that's been repurposed as a trendy office space. Inside you can see photos of the production line and the celebration for tank number 1,000 being completed. Every single one was shipped to the USSR.
  - cpursley 2y ago
    And even still, the USSR produced more tanks than all the other allies combined (many of those in Ukraine).
    - shakow 2y ago
      > many of those in Ukraine *with factories & workers relocated from Ukraine. The SSR of Ukraine having been under the Nazi yoke for most of the war, what could be saved was moved to the East, to the famous factori complexes of e.g. Tchelyabinsk, Nijni Tagil, Gorky, etc.
    - FredPret 2y ago
      Note that large amounts of resources were sent to them for free to help them do this. It was definitely a team effort.
martythemaniak 2y ago
Nope, the USSR's efforts were also the result of US's industrial and financial output. Here's an essay to get you started: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1505247886908424195.html https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1505247886908424195.html
- mizzao 2y ago
  > Why Russia can't win against the West Is this still true in light of the recent Ukraine events? Russia certainly isn't losing if no one's going to stand up to it.
  - afavour 2y ago
    Sort of an interesting argument, I suppose. Militarily Russia is heavily outclassed by the West. But perhaps that’s why they’re engaging in information warfare: western populations are weary of war and with sufficient prodding Russia can keep the major western powers away from their conflict. I feel like I’m playing Civilization again.
    - dylan604 2y ago
      > western populations are weary of war are they? for the most part, Americans haven't really noticed apart from family and friends of service members. There's been no rationing of goods, there's been no campaigns to buy war bonds, there's essentially been no burden on the citizens. In fact, we've had multiple tax cuts and gains in the financial markets. The sheep have been well fed.
      - afavour 2y ago
        I suppose I’m speaking theoretically here. But American populations tired of Afghanistan and Iraq. The war in Ukraine does not involve US boots on the ground and thus is a very different proposition.
        dylan604 2y ago
FredPret 2y ago
The West rendered massive aid to the USSR in WW2. Lend-lease was not only a US-Britain thing. Tousands of planes and tanks were sent as well as raw materials to keep their factories pumping. This after they were initially on Hitler’s side. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease
Beijinger 2y ago
[flagged]
- mellow-lake-day 2y ago
  Soviet Union* Which is more than just Russia Ukraine, Belarus, etc are significant contributors and bore some of the heavy causalities
- cladopa 2y ago
  That is Russia's propaganda at best. It was Russia the one who started the war in the first place, as friend of Hitler. Something convenient to forget.
  - shakow 2y ago
    > It was Russia the one who started the war in the first place I'm all to shit on stalinism, but let us not jump into absurdities here. The USSR didn't start the war, Germany did. The USSR then feasted on Poland's carrion like a vulture.
    - kibwen 2y ago
      Indeed, it would be absurd to attribute to Russia that which was undertaken by the USSR. And Stalin only deserves at most half the credit, the rest goes to Hitler. Molotov and Ribbentrop send their regards: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pac...
    - tim333 2y ago
      Yeah Stalin and Hitler together. Credit where credit is due.
  - faeriechangling 2y ago
    Stalin would object and claim it was Japan that started the war, and he signed Molotov-Ribbentrop because the allies were purposefully giving Germany a long leash and appeasing them and Japan so they could go around thrashing people and become a bigger menace to contain the soviets. Japan and Russia were fighting eachother long before poland got invaded. Molotov-Ribbentrop happened AFTER the appeasement of Hitler. Stalin would argue it’s not a way to make friends with Hitler - but a way to fracture the fascist-imperialist-capitalist bloc while giving the glorious Soviet Union a free hand to liberate the workers. It was an enemy of my enemy is my friend situation. Realistically, no matter what Stalin did, Hitler was always going to go stomping around Europe, Germany was backed into a corner by debt and spending into doing something to expand the economy, and the Nazis were very ideological about these matters practical concerns be damned.
cpursley 2y ago
Exactly. And the USSR built more tanks than all the other allies combined, while under bombardment.
- kibwen 2y ago
  Conveniently forgetting that without the fuel sent by the US, those tanks would have been pretty paperweights. Y'all, it's true historically that the US has oversold its personnel contributions to the European theater, but overcorrecting with this weird nonsense about the USSR single-handedly winning WWII is just beyond bizarre.
  - faeriechangling 2y ago
    I recall Zhukov didn’t think they could have won without the Wests help in supplying things like Steel, regardless of machismo from later USSR leaders who claimed they always had it all under control. FDRs death was gravely mourned in the Soviet Union. Stalin praised the allies for distracting them with the invasion of Italy. The USSR did the most in that war but they were not in fact capable of winning by themselves.
    - MaxPock 2y ago
      They would have won but it would have taken a little bit longer.Lend lease was only 10 % of Soviet materiel
      - faeriechangling 2y ago
        The Americans had some resources the soviets were in short supply of so their impact was greater than them just contributing 10% of materiel. Also again, Hitler had a lot of resources tied up in the west because of the allies. Germany got pretty close to Moscow. A little different of a tactical situation would have been a big deal in that theatre of the war.
      - flavius29663 2y ago
        > only 10% That does not mean anything. A car's engine contains only 10% of the parts in that car.
ranger207 2y ago
The USSR probably couldn't have won without the US, and the US probably couldn't have won without the USSR
- bee_rider 2y ago
  Any two of the big 3 (US, SU, UK+commonwealth), plus all the partisans and smaller allies could have done it. It was a dumb hopeless war that the Nazis picked because their ideology was incompatible with accurately evaluating their opponents. But, it is good that all of the allies decided to band together and get it down a little bit faster. Every moment that Europe spent occupied was just another mountain of human suffering. Plus, getting that theater done before nukes really became available probably saved some historical German cities.

by kgeist 2y ago

TulliusCicero 2y ago

It definitely is, but the US' industrial output wasn't limited to just planes, and the USSR received a ton of supplies and equipment from the US to bolster its war machine.

NotSammyHagar 2y ago

That's true, the ussr did some impressive things, and the millions of deaths they suffered fighting the germans in ww2 can't be forgotten, along with the impact of their weakening of the german forces over time.

Koshkin 2y ago
A 1000-mile “weakening”

pie420 2y ago

The vast majority of the USSR factories were funded by american cash. Without the US, Germany wins WW2 handily. Without the USSR, the united states drops nukes on berlin in 1946 and handily wins ww2 by 1947.

jltsiren 2y ago
Those factories were paid with Soviet money, but many were built by Western companies in the 20s and 30s. Because apparently communism was not such a big deal after all, as long as you could benefit from it. Germany had already lost the war before Lend-Lease had a significant impact. The offensives of 1941 and 1942 failed before Western aid started arriving in significant quantities. The aid had much more impact on the Soviet offensive, particularly on the logistics side. It can be argued that Lend-Lease won Eastern Europe for the USSR. As far as I understand, there are two schools of thought on what would have happened without Lend-Lease. In one, the USSR would have won anyway, but the war would have lasted until 1946 or 1947 and it would have been even bloodier and more destructive. In another, the USSR would also have lost, and there would have been an uneasy peace between them and Germany. In both cases, I'd assume the US would not see the Continental Europe worth fighting for.

guurfhihh46775 2y ago

[flagged]

yreg 2y ago
True, but that's also partially thanks to the Russian propaganda at its best. (I live in a post-communist country.)
Someone 2y ago
The Soviets weren’t very popular at the time in most of Europe, especially in the parts the Soviets drove the Germans away from, so I doubt people would have admitted to that, even if they thought it to be true. I also think it isn’t quite true. Leaving out a lot of nuance I would say “American industry and Russian blood”
morkalork 2y ago
There's an old tank factory in my north American city that's been repurposed as a trendy office space. Inside you can see photos of the production line and the celebration for tank number 1,000 being completed. Every single one was shipped to the USSR.
- cpursley 2y ago
  And even still, the USSR produced more tanks than all the other allies combined (many of those in Ukraine).
  - shakow 2y ago
    > many of those in Ukraine *with factories & workers relocated from Ukraine. The SSR of Ukraine having been under the Nazi yoke for most of the war, what could be saved was moved to the East, to the famous factori complexes of e.g. Tchelyabinsk, Nijni Tagil, Gorky, etc.
  - FredPret 2y ago
    Note that large amounts of resources were sent to them for free to help them do this. It was definitely a team effort.

martythemaniak 2y ago

Nope, the USSR's efforts were also the result of US's industrial and financial output. Here's an essay to get you started: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1505247886908424195.html https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1505247886908424195.html

mizzao 2y ago
> Why Russia can't win against the West Is this still true in light of the recent Ukraine events? Russia certainly isn't losing if no one's going to stand up to it.
- afavour 2y ago
  Sort of an interesting argument, I suppose. Militarily Russia is heavily outclassed by the West. But perhaps that’s why they’re engaging in information warfare: western populations are weary of war and with sufficient prodding Russia can keep the major western powers away from their conflict. I feel like I’m playing Civilization again.
  - dylan604 2y ago
    > western populations are weary of war are they? for the most part, Americans haven't really noticed apart from family and friends of service members. There's been no rationing of goods, there's been no campaigns to buy war bonds, there's essentially been no burden on the citizens. In fact, we've had multiple tax cuts and gains in the financial markets. The sheep have been well fed.
    - afavour 2y ago
      I suppose I’m speaking theoretically here. But American populations tired of Afghanistan and Iraq. The war in Ukraine does not involve US boots on the ground and thus is a very different proposition.
      - dylan604 2y ago

FredPret 2y ago

The West rendered massive aid to the USSR in WW2. Lend-lease was not only a US-Britain thing. Tousands of planes and tanks were sent as well as raw materials to keep their factories pumping. This after they were initially on Hitler’s side. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease

Beijinger 2y ago

[flagged]

mellow-lake-day 2y ago
Soviet Union* Which is more than just Russia Ukraine, Belarus, etc are significant contributors and bore some of the heavy causalities
cladopa 2y ago
That is Russia's propaganda at best. It was Russia the one who started the war in the first place, as friend of Hitler. Something convenient to forget.
- shakow 2y ago
  > It was Russia the one who started the war in the first place I'm all to shit on stalinism, but let us not jump into absurdities here. The USSR didn't start the war, Germany did. The USSR then feasted on Poland's carrion like a vulture.
  - kibwen 2y ago
    Indeed, it would be absurd to attribute to Russia that which was undertaken by the USSR. And Stalin only deserves at most half the credit, the rest goes to Hitler. Molotov and Ribbentrop send their regards: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pac...
  - tim333 2y ago
    Yeah Stalin and Hitler together. Credit where credit is due.
- faeriechangling 2y ago
  Stalin would object and claim it was Japan that started the war, and he signed Molotov-Ribbentrop because the allies were purposefully giving Germany a long leash and appeasing them and Japan so they could go around thrashing people and become a bigger menace to contain the soviets. Japan and Russia were fighting eachother long before poland got invaded. Molotov-Ribbentrop happened AFTER the appeasement of Hitler. Stalin would argue it’s not a way to make friends with Hitler - but a way to fracture the fascist-imperialist-capitalist bloc while giving the glorious Soviet Union a free hand to liberate the workers. It was an enemy of my enemy is my friend situation. Realistically, no matter what Stalin did, Hitler was always going to go stomping around Europe, Germany was backed into a corner by debt and spending into doing something to expand the economy, and the Nazis were very ideological about these matters practical concerns be damned.

cpursley 2y ago

Exactly. And the USSR built more tanks than all the other allies combined, while under bombardment.

kibwen 2y ago
Conveniently forgetting that without the fuel sent by the US, those tanks would have been pretty paperweights. Y'all, it's true historically that the US has oversold its personnel contributions to the European theater, but overcorrecting with this weird nonsense about the USSR single-handedly winning WWII is just beyond bizarre.
- faeriechangling 2y ago
  I recall Zhukov didn’t think they could have won without the Wests help in supplying things like Steel, regardless of machismo from later USSR leaders who claimed they always had it all under control. FDRs death was gravely mourned in the Soviet Union. Stalin praised the allies for distracting them with the invasion of Italy. The USSR did the most in that war but they were not in fact capable of winning by themselves.
  - MaxPock 2y ago
    They would have won but it would have taken a little bit longer.Lend lease was only 10 % of Soviet materiel
    - faeriechangling 2y ago
      The Americans had some resources the soviets were in short supply of so their impact was greater than them just contributing 10% of materiel. Also again, Hitler had a lot of resources tied up in the west because of the allies. Germany got pretty close to Moscow. A little different of a tactical situation would have been a big deal in that theatre of the war.
    - flavius29663 2y ago
      > only 10% That does not mean anything. A car's engine contains only 10% of the parts in that car.

ranger207 2y ago

The USSR probably couldn't have won without the US, and the US probably couldn't have won without the USSR

bee_rider 2y ago
Any two of the big 3 (US, SU, UK+commonwealth), plus all the partisans and smaller allies could have done it. It was a dumb hopeless war that the Nazis picked because their ideology was incompatible with accurately evaluating their opponents. But, it is good that all of the allies decided to band together and get it down a little bit faster. Every moment that Europe spent occupied was just another mountain of human suffering. Plus, getting that theater done before nukes really became available probably saved some historical German cities.