2 ms·
That's very funny. I'd have thought they'd be hard pressed to get details of the Eastern front, while American involvement was right in front of them. As far a
by jfengel 2y ago
That's very funny. I'd have thought they'd be hard pressed to get details of the Eastern front, while American involvement was right in front of them.
As far as I can tell, the Americans and Brits took too much credit. Then the Soviets and Russians insisted on more credit -- arguably too much. Of late I'm hearing historians say "Yeah, the Germans overextended themselves at the start and likely would have lost even if Hitler hadn't betrayed Stalin". I'm sure that analysis too will change.
- bee_rider 2y agoI wonder if the “biggest contribution” was parsed differently in different eras. The Soviets clearly sacrificed the most, which probably was very felt by people who were surrounded by all the dying and personally experienced the violence. The US industrial contribution is easier to understand looking back. It makes a lot of sense to us nowadays, looking at it in a table (not to cheapen it, it was an astonishing amount of stuff that was produced). It seems entirely possible that the Soviets gave up more for the victory, while the US contributed more to victory.