Actually, the US and UK airforces took very different strategies. And different things worked for them.
The US went during the day mostly aiming for precision bombing of targets. The UK went at night with mass bombing runs.
The UK had horrible casualties until the introduction of chaff. After that they shut down the German air defense and took out Dresden. The USA had lighter casualties but didn't dare hit targets at the same range until they had better fighter escorts. Fighter escorts didn't work so well for the British because the German planes had better radar.
And while we are at it, the European war was mostly won by American manufacturing and Russian soldiers. During the Cold War decades, we retold the story in ways that minimized the Soviet contribution. But more German soldiers died fighting on the Eastern front than were killed by all other countries in all other theaters of war combined.
> the European war was mostly won by American manufacturing and Russian soldiers.
That's one way to think about it. Another way to think about it is that WW2 was two separate campaigns: one between all the powers you normally think about, and the other just between Germany and Russia, an entirely-optional war that likely wouldn't have begun if Germany hadn't decided to start it. It's not really that Russia was aiding the Western powers in a single fight; it's more that an independent, simultaneous Russo-German conflict starved Germany of the materiel it needed for its other campaign.
If Germany didn't invade then the USSR would attack first (and WW2 would be over sooner, probably with larger part of Europe under Soviet control). Both powers had attack plans, Germans executed theirs sooner. Some historians claim that Germans got ahead if Soviet attack just by few weeks.
There's also the point that Germany absolutely needed the oil fields to keep their war machine running.
I'm skeptical on the USSR executing on a plan to attack Germany only two weeks later given how disorganized they were in the face of the German attack. The Russian army isn't something you can move across the country in a couple of weeks.
The argument as I've seen it presented was that a large part of the army was already moved up close to the border and in attack positions, and not set up for defensive operations. Which is why, the argument goes, there were so many soldiers to surround and cut off.
I'm not endorsing the argument, note; I haven't looked into this enough to have anything resembling a useful opinion.
You have to rush to disseminate it. If you don't, the topic drops off the front page and eventually it gets locked. Hacker News has many pros, but it doesn't exactly facilitate slow, careful and thorough discussion. (Old fashioned mailing lists might've I guess, but I'm not aware of any contemporary platforms that do.)
This is absolutely funny how balanced unopinionated comment providing additional information gets downvoted. If this is not monoculture then I don’t know what is.
Possibly, although as I mentioned he's not alone in his claims, he does have a fair bit of evidence, and he is most certainly not western nor is his claim new.
> It's not really that Russia was aiding the Western powers in a single fight;
Setting intentions aside, as mentioned by the OP, the Eastern front is where Germans lots the most blood and resources. If not for that, the resistance in the other theaters would be fierce.
>an entirely-optional war that likely wouldn't have begun if Germany hadn't decided to start it
There is a great deal of consensus among historians that it was absolutely inevitable and unpreventable. A reasonable minority even support Suvorov's claims that the USSR was planning to start the conflict and Germany only beat them to it by a couple of weeks.
And while we are at that, if the russians hadn't made a deal with the nazis to steal poland, there wouldn't have been a war to begin with and all those untold lives would be alive.
Many European states other than USSR made non-aggression pacts with Nazi Germany:
- Poland [1]
- Estonia [2]
- Latvia [3]
- UK, France, Italy [4]
It is important to note that all of these pacts were made prior to the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact.
Your comment misrepresents the historical situation, which is that USSR observed many powerful Euro countries making agreements with Nazi Germany, and Stalin realised that USSR would be on their own in a war with Germany. Which is in fact what happened.
Not just non-aggression - Poland, in particular, directly participated in the partitioning of Czechoslovakia under the Munich Agreement, forcibly annexing parts of its territory under the threat of a military invasion.
Poland fought Germans in 1939, so the USSR wasn't "alone in their own war with Germany". It was just that the USSR decided to invade Poland instead of joining the fight against Germans in 1939.
If you want hypotheticals, here is what Winston Churchill had to say on the topic in a speech to the US Congress after the war was won.
President Roosevelt one day asked what this War should be called. My answer was, "The Unnecessary War." If the United Stated States had taken an active part in the League of Nations, and if the League of Nations had been prepared to use concerted force, even had it only been European force, to prevent the re-armament of Germany, there was no need for further serious bloodshed. If the Allies had resisted Hitler strongly in his early stages, even up to his seizure of the Rhineland in 1936, he would have been forced to recoil, and a chance would have been given to the sane elements in German life, which were very powerful especially in the High Command, to free Germany of the maniacal Government and system into the grip of which she was falling.Do not forget that twice the German people, by a majority, voted against Hitler, but the Allies and the League of Nations acted with such feebleness and lack of clairvoyance, that each of Hitler's encroachments became a triumph for him over all moderate and restraining forces until, finally, we resigned ourselves without further protest to the vast process of German re-armament and war preparation which ended in a renewed outbreak of destructive war. Let us profit at least by this terrible lesson. In vain did I attempt to teach it before the war.
In his book The Gathering Storm, he adds several more points where Hitler could have been easily stopped before he started.
Here's another view, from the economist John Maynard Keynes (of Keynesian economics fame), regarding the devastating reparations that were imposed by the Allies on Germany after the end of WW1:
...Keynes began work on The Economic Consequences of the Peace. It was published in December 1919 and was widely read. In the book, Keynes made a grim prophecy that would have particular relevance to the next generation of Europeans: "If we aim at the impoverishment of Central Europe, vengeance, I dare say, will not limp. Nothing can then delay for very long the forces of Reaction and the despairing convulsions of Revolution, before which the horrors of the later German war will fade into nothing, and which will destroy, whoever is victor, the civilisation and the progress of our generation."
Germany soon fell hopelessly behind in its reparations payments, and in 1923 France and Belgium occupied the industrial Ruhr region as a means of forcing payment. In protest, workers and employers closed down the factories in the region. Catastrophic inflation ensued, and Germany's fragile economy began quickly to collapse. By the time the crash came in November 1923, a lifetime of savings could not buy a loaf of bread. That month, the Nazi Party led by Adolf Hitler launched an abortive coup against Germany's government. The Nazis were crushed and Hitler was imprisoned, but many resentful Germans sympathized with the Nazis and their hatred of the Treaty of Versailles.
A decade later, Hitler would exploit this continuing bitterness among Germans to seize control of the German state. In the 1930s, the Treaty of Versailles was significantly revised and altered in Germany's favor, but this belated amendment could not stop the rise of German militarism and the subsequent outbreak of World War II.
It is way more complicated then just "reparations and inability to pay for them" economics only makes it sound.
The stab in the back Jews made us loose WWI myth started right after WWI ended. Nazi and other radicals were very active well before Ruth and did engaged in Ruth making happen the way it did too.
The continuing bitterness among Germans was something Hitler not just exploited, but actively worked on keeping and inflaming. He actively worked against solutions and agreements that could make situation better.
Significant portion of Germans did not believed they actually lost the WWI and really wanted to redo - not just for economy. But also because Germany had long militaristic tradition and values that did not just died after war.
Of course it'd have been easier to pay reparations if Germany wasn't squirreling away money to sidestep the treaty's prohibition on further preparation for war. Nazi Germany didn't place an Amazon Prime order for next day delivery of bomber aircraft and submarines the night before they invaded Poland - preparations took many years, and cost a lot of money.
You've got this badly out of sequence. There's fifteen years of Weimar struggling to pay the Versailles reparations in more or less good faith.
On small scale, the Prussian old guard tried to side-step some of the armament restrictions - notably doing some joint tank development with the Soviet Union - but before Hitler said piss off and began rearming in earnest, the Wehrmacht was limited to 100k, virtually no planes, and a remnant of the Kaiser's fleet.
At that point, it was too late. WWII was caused by Woodrow Wilson. He lied to USA voters, with the campaign slogan "He kept us out of war!" that was widely celebrated until a month after his re-inauguration when he rushed us into war. With USA saving their asses, UK and France had no reason to negotiate with Germany in good faith. If we had left them to suffer the consequences of their poor decisions, they would have found a way to live in peace with the Germans.
"if the russians hadn't made a deal with the nazis to steal poland"
And how exactly do you know this?
Maybe if the USSR hadn't bought the time and buffer space by this deal, the Germany would've taken the whole Poland and continued with the attack on the USSR?
Maybe the West would've been standing aside (like it did during the Munich Betrayal, like it did during the Phony War) and watching with satisfaction how Nazies are killing Communists?
And later watching how all Slavic and Jewish population of occupied territories gets exterminated?
If they wouldn't split Poland, then both of them would have tried to just capture it, and essentially the same end result would be achieved. Both powers were primed to go to war.
The US went during the day mostly aiming for precision bombing of targets. The UK went at night with mass bombing runs.
The UK had horrible casualties until the introduction of chaff. After that they shut down the German air defense and took out Dresden. The USA had lighter casualties but didn't dare hit targets at the same range until they had better fighter escorts. Fighter escorts didn't work so well for the British because the German planes had better radar.
And while we are at it, the European war was mostly won by American manufacturing and Russian soldiers. During the Cold War decades, we retold the story in ways that minimized the Soviet contribution. But more German soldiers died fighting on the Eastern front than were killed by all other countries in all other theaters of war combined.