Was it acceptable to ally with Uncle Joe in WWII?

[Patroklos]

Don't you guys know, Cutless is the only TRUE lefty.

 

[Patroklos]

Does the Invasion of France escape you?

Not even there, most French divisions were neither overrun or annihilated which was routine for the Russians, but rather bottled up and/or bypassed. There simply is no equivalent to the massive encirclement/annihilation of massed Russian formations even into 1943. The Kiev and Minsk encirclements nearly yielded more casualties and prisoners than the entire Battle of France.

Of course it happened to the Germans themselves in the later half of the war, but that's a different story.

 

[red_elk]

The Soviet Union really won WWII. By comparison, the US and the UK were merely bystanders when it comes to the number of military deaths, much less civilians.

Enough to say that USSR inflicted about 80% of Axis military casualties in Europe.

 

[Dachs]

So then, why are people constantly bringing up the fact that we armed some people, to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan, who later under Pakistani guidance created the Taliban?

That didn't actually happen. Insofar as American aid to mujahid organizations was controlled at all, it was directed away from religious wackos. Bin Laden himself, for instance, attempted to siphon cash and arms off of a larger group in the late eighties; he was found out and the funds were promptly cut off. The Taliban did not even exist until the early 1990s and acquired most of its weapons and resources from defeating groups that had been backed by either the US or the USSR. When the Taliban captured Kabul in 1993, Secretary Albright cut off American aid to Afghanistan.

Most of the American-backed groups were either defeated by the Taliban and allied militias in the mid-1990s or retreated away from Kabul to form the Northern Alliance, which in turn formed the backbone of the Afghan provisional government after the fall of 2001.

 

[warpus]

You said the eastern europeans felt betrayed for not gaining their freedom immediately and having to wait 50 years for it. You said they had a "justified betrayal" - i assume you mean they felt betrayed by the western allies;

Yes

I suggest a possible solution to free the eastern europeans which would be favourable to your position. Seems reasonable to me.

You did not do that. You said

So you expected the exhausted western alies to declare war on the SU and start another war with 10s of millions of deaths?

which was not expected by anyone.

You'll have far more luck engaging people in conversation if you're honest about it.

 

[History_Buff]

That didn't actually happen. Insofar as American aid to mujahid organizations was controlled at all, it was directed away from religious wackos. Bin Laden himself, for instance, attempted to siphon cash and arms off of a larger group in the late eighties; he was found out and the funds were promptly cut off. The Taliban did not even exist until the early 1990s and acquired most of its weapons and resources from defeating groups that had been backed by either the US or the USSR. When the Taliban captured Kabul in 1993, Secretary Albright cut off American aid to Afghanistan.

Most of the American-backed groups were either defeated by the Taliban and allied militias in the mid-1990s or retreated away from Kabul to form the Northern Alliance, which in turn formed the backbone of the Afghan provisional government after the fall of 2001.

The US still provided plenty of resources to guys like Hekmatyar though, who was a complete and utter scumbag, but preferred by the Pakistanis for some time.

 

[Dachs]

The US still provided plenty of resources to guys like Hekmatyar though, who was a complete and utter scumbag, but preferred by the Pakistanis for some time.

Sure. A lot of American aid was very poorly managed, and the US's willingness to let the ISI spend much of it basically without oversight was stupid. I'm just sick of the claims that the US funded AQ and/or the Taliban.

 

[red_elk]

No German division ever had the field day they routinely had whole Soviet armies (though small units than Western armies) with a Western equivalent formation.

Perhaps, because Western armies opened second front only in Summer 1944, fighting against remains of Wehrmacht. The Soviets were also quite successful dealing with them, by that time. Arguably, more successful than Western Allies, if compare operations "Overlord" vs "Bagration".

 

[Dachs]

The real comparison is between Bagration and Cobra, not Overlord.

 

[innonimatu]

We could have nuked Moscow. We had enough Uranium and Plutonium by September of 45 I think to drop another one.

Doubtful the world would have been with us on that one though.

Doubtful your own people would be. Just as they were celebrating the end of 4 years of hell, and the return to normal life and family, they'd be told that they had to fight another long (and this time very doubtful) war against a country that had just been their ally? I don't know about the US, but the UK's government would fall for sure, and de Gaulle wouldn't ever embark on that insanity.

Plus, the Allie's bombers couldn't reach Moscow, could they? Drop a nuke on the soviets anywhere else and they'd go into desperate/rampage mode overrunning Europe right to the Atlantic to make sure those bombs couldn't reach their territory. With France refusing to embark on the war and the UK in turmoil they'd gain hegemony over all of Eurasia, and get the sympathy of much of the world's population in the warring areas for being victims of a sneak attack. The US had spent years disseminating anti-japanese propaganda based, among other things, on their sneak attack, it's worth remembering.
Then the USSR would probably be getting their own nukes long before they could be defeated (sooner that in the real timeline, perhaps). The US would be confined to The Americas, south america would become a battleground. and the UK would probably play neutral. If France escaped as an independent and non-aligned state also then they (UK and France) might even, together, make something of their colonial holdings and remain as relevant powers, as the USA and the USSR would be busy fighting each other.
Operation Unthinkable was politically and strategically so foolish that it might very well end with a worldwide soviet victory. Even Churchill came to see that. But it might also end in a more favorable scenario for the British Empire that the one that developed under the Cold War (totally dismantled under the US's and USSR's pressure).


Also, how the hell did the Allies "betray" eastern european governments to the USSR? Afaik only the poles had some kind of alliance in place before the war, and then only with France. And all pre-war governments were de facto gone by 1945.

 

[Dachs]

Plus, the Allie's bombers couldn't reach Moscow, could they? Drop a nuke on the soviets anywhere else and they'd go into desperate/rampage mode overrunning Europe right to the Atlantic to make sure those bombs couldn't reach their territory.

Allied airpower would make that proposition a non-starter.

 

[red_elk]

The real comparison is between Bagration and Cobra, not Overlord.

That was just example, you can as well consider Yassy-Kishinev offensive or even Berlin battle.

 

[innonimatu]

Allied airpower would make that proposition a non-starter.

Allied airpower against a Germany with virtually no air force left failed to make the advance of the allies from the west very fast...

edit: in the meanwhile could allied air power cover the Middle East front at the same time? Quell rebellions in the asian colonies? Intervene in China? It's a tall order. The soviets have the advantage of interior lines there, which were still pretty relevant for aviation at the time. If resources are concentrated in Europe for blocking soviet advance there, they get a new India into the communist field, destroy british influence in the Middle East (unless Turkey is somehow bribed into slowing them down), humiliate the UK... how long can a UK government that started this war remain in power?

Operation unthinkable had a good name but it could also have been called operation suicide.

 

[Cutlass]

The B-29 could reach Russian targets. The older bomber types couldn't without far further forward bases.

As I understand it, in 1945 the Red Army was at the end of their supply lines and logistics. It would have been really hard to push them back. But they were not going to go forward against an enemy that was not collapsing.

 

[Dachs]

That was just example, you can as well consider Yassy-Kishinev offensive or even Berlin battle.

Cobra and the destruction of Army Group Center are directly comparable in terms of political and military effect, along with territories liberated. Cobra had greater political relevance and was a severe shakeup to the Nazi hierarchy and the military, and had an enormous impact among the German citizenry. The destruction of Army Group Center was, militarily, more impressive in many ways but was widely regarded by people at the time as being more of the same. Both operations also saw the Allies miss golden opportunities to deal the Wehrmacht an even more devastating blow; the war in the West was crippled by certain British commanders' decisions, while the Red Army opted for a suboptimal route of attack in order to achieve operational surprise, and furthermore failed to penetrate the East Prussian defensive perimeter.

Allied airpower against a Germany with virtually no air force left failed to make the advance of the allies from the west very fast...

You're comparing dissimilar things. Allied airpower would do a very good job at preventing a Soviet offensive. Paving the way for one of their own would be nowhere near as effective.

 

[Patroklos]

That was just example, you can as well consider Yassy-Kishinev offensive or even Berlin battle.

There really isn't much sport if overrunning divisions at half strength on a good day nearly devoid of heavy weapons. Even at during the Vistula and Oder offensive quite a few Russian formations were mauled, though due more to their commanders focus on speed of advance than proper tactics in most cases.

I am not saying that the Russians never acquitted themselves well again the Germans, just that there are myriad examples throughout the war where they were absolutely spanked and there really are no similar examples in the West. France (40) is probably the closest, but still not the same.

We also have the performance of the allies in North Africa and Italy, again with no western formation suffering the fate of hundreds of Russian divisions.

 

[bhsup]

The US still provided plenty of resources to guys like Hekmatyar though, who was a complete and utter scumbag, but preferred by the Pakistanis for some time.

The US still provided plenty of resources to guys like Stalin though, who was a complete and utter scumbag, but preferred because he was at war with Germany.

 

[GhostWriter16]

No, just no. I know this narrative is popular especially in the US for some reason, but it has no basis in reality. It's the "comic book villain" narrative I've alluded to earlier. Apparently you think that these leaders or countries were simply crazy and wanted to conquer everything they could for no logical reason. I assume while laughing maniacally as they blow up the Statue of Liberty or something.

Japan clearly wanted to build a huge sphere of influence in East Asia and the Pacific.
Germany clearly wanted to build a huge sphere of influence in Central and Eastern Europe first, then later on the whole continent.
Italy clearly wanted to build a huge sphere of influence in the Mediterranean.

None of them had any interest in actually occupying American or even British soil (other than forcing a capitulation in case of the latter). If you really think American intervention into WW2 was motivated by preemptively protecting the American homeland than you're utterly mistaken. Of course neither of the goals of the Axis powers I've listed above were desireable for the US, but none of them in itself were a direct threat. So if you want to build some narrative around WW2 as a case of offensive self-defense, you could only do so in the long term (and since the actual WW2 diplomacy produced a rival superpower anyway it's questionable if there's any difference in the outcome, but that of course is speculative territory), otherwise it's very spurious. America got into the war to protect its interests, which of course is entirely valid in my opinion, but you can hardly call yourself an anti-interventionist when holding the same opinion.

Not to mention that this whole "Japan attacked us!" argument is almost equally annoying, because it often carries the implication of an America that just minded its own business when suddenly the Japanese attacked for no reason, when in fact the US opposed Japan in almost every way short of war, leaving no other possibility for Japan to attack when the circumstances were most favorable to them.

In short, don't try to rationalize your history by treating foreign leaders as cardboard cutouts, no matter how despicable they might have been objectively.

That may not have been his immediate goal, but I don't think Hitler would really have been content with just Europe. You might think he would have been, but that's just an assumption.

I don't buy the "Japan is innocent" crap either. Sure we refused to trade with them, that doesn't justify war!

and you expect me to believe that?

He wasn't really a communist but he was hardly a conservative either

FDR was a staunch authoritarian more than anything else considering his support for warantless arrests, packing the supreme court, and forcing people to make purchases that anything good he may or may not have done economically doesn't matter when it comes to assessing him.

His crappy economics just put him as the worst. (Honorable mentions to Adams, Wilson, and Lyndon Johnson.)

 

[Quintillus]

There was simply no choice, IMHO.

I agree. The Axis attacked the western allies, and then the Soviet Union, and the the United States. I suppose you could argue that perhaps the U.S. should have allied with Germany (prior to being attacked itself), but I don't see any benefit for the U.S. in doing so over preferring an independent Britain (and eventually France). So as it happened, the Axis forced the alliance.

Actually, Hitler was stupid enough to declare war on teh Yanquis

If I remember correctly, Hitler was furious upon learning that Japan had attacked the U.S. Germany did declare war on the United States before vice-versa, but likely would not have for a decent amount of time had Japan not done so first.

You could still argue it was stupid to do so rather than let Japan fight by itself, but by that time the die was cast. The U.K. had already declared war on Japan, so the alliances were pretty much set.

In summary, while neither Germany nor the Soviet Union was ethically a good potential ally, it was Germany who was both a greater threat to the western allies' interests, and far more imperialistic. The Soviets may have established a zone of control in Eastern Europe, but were not nearly as outwardly aggressive as the Germans.

I also agree that greater antagonism than actually happened towards the Soviets after WWII was not an option. As others have said, who would have stood for it?

 

[Ajidica]

Sure we refused to trade with them, that doesn't justify war!

It wasn't just a refusal to trade, we were also openly supporting Americans fighting in China against the Japanese.

(Honorable mentions to Adams, Wilson, and Lyndon Johnson.)

Considering how much your parents, and by extention, you, have benefited from the Great Society opposition to them is laughable.