Was the USSR a True Ally in World War II? (WW2, Roman)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is not so, since the war lasted 1941-1945 with the USSR. In the summer, too, did the General Winter help all four years? so this is the Delusion created in the West, to belittle the Red Army. And to justify the collapse of fascist Germany. As well as with Napoleon.
Let's return to the flow.
I do not want to pollute this stream any more. If you want to talk on this topic, you can create a thread.
I accept the invitation.
Over the years, it has been assumed that the USSR was a true ally in WW II. During the period of the war after late 1941, the Allies were usually denominated as the U.S., Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the USSR. Later, they were called the "United Nations," the predecessor to the now largely useless organization headquartered in New York. Indeed, newspapers celebrated Russian wartime victories. The U.S. dutifully slowed its advance so that our armies met near Berlin. But was this a true alliance?
Certainly not at the beginning of the war. The USSR and Germany signed the The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact (August 1939) which defined the relationship. Under it Germany and the USSR carved up Poland. The USSR allowed its erstwhile ally, Czechoslovakia to be consumed by Germany. It was only when Germany turned on the USSR by invading it that the USSR pleaded for help.
Stalin was known with some affection as "Uncle Joe." The U.S. surrendered to the USSR's territorial ambitions a Teheran in 1943 and Yalta in February 1945. True, Roosevelt was enfeebled at both conferences but his pre-existing agenda was to tilt towards the Soviet Union. At the outset of his first term, when he was quite well, he ignored Soviet atrocities such as the Holodomer and the enforced famines to reestablish diplomatic ties. Not that Roosevelt had a moral compass; he had none, but I digress.
Almost immediately after V-E day, the USSR showed its fangs. Democratic elections were not held in Poland. The Iron Curtain quickly dropped across East Germany, Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria, North Korea and to a lesser extent Albania, Yugoslavia and Romania. Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia totally lost their independence.
And, for that alliance and opening the second front, what did we get in return?
The western Allies and the USSR had some common interests. They also had some disparate interests. This much is true of any grouping of allies. Yes, even of the United States and the United Kingdom. Of course, it is true that American and British interests aligned more than the interests of either of those countries with the interests of the USSR. But then, the definition of 'ally' is not dependent upon having causes as common as the U.S. and the UK during World War II.
The western Allies worked with the USSR to the mutual benefit of the western Allies, collectively and individually, and the USSR. That is the very definition of a functioning alliance.
That the USSR was a repugnant state ruled by a paranoid and ruthless despot, and it bothers you to think of your nation as having allied itself with such an entity, is irrelevant to the reality of that alliance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbgusa
But we didn't need them to win. They had good reasons to fight and they would have diverted the Germans anyway.
Without active cooperation - materiel providence, intelligence sharing, coordination of action, etc. (like the way air crews from the Pacific War, interred as required by the USSR, always seemed to 'escape' and make it back to the West) - the war would have been longer and bloodier. That seems to be a price you'd happily have had them pay so you could feel better about American history. Happily, such was not the mindset of the leaders of the western Allies at the time.
With the USSR and Germany it was a case of the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
Perfect summation...
Only thing I would add.. Germany was more threatening to Western Europe than USSR. We're more invested in Western Europe, so I think we (USA) viewed Germany as a more immediate threat. USSR was more of a threat to Eastern Europe, etc.
It's sort of a tricky question. Certainly the USSR and the Western Allies had a shared goal; defeating Nazi Germany. Beyond that, though, they really weren't close allies, as the decades of Cold War following WWII showed. I won't belittle the Soviet contribution. Had Hitler not invaded the USSR, the combined forces of Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia likely would have been able to dominate Europe. They may not have subdued Britain and surely the idea of invading and conquering the US would have been completely laughable, but I don't think with the entire Wermacht focused on defending France that an Overlord type operation would have been remotely possible. Without the USSR, Britain and the US likely would have been forced to accept a peace where Hitler dominated Western Europe and Stalin dominated Eastern Europe.
Over the years, it has been assumed that the USSR was a true ally in WW II. During the period of the war after late 1941, the Allies were usually denominated as the U.S., Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the USSR. Later, they were called the "United Nations," the predecessor to the now largely useless organization headquartered in New York. Indeed, newspapers celebrated Russian wartime victories. The U.S. dutifully slowed its advance so that our armies met near Berlin. But was this a true alliance?
Certainly not at the beginning of the war. The USSR and Germany signed the The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact (August 1939) which defined the relationship. Under it Germany and the USSR carved up Poland. The USSR allowed its erstwhile ally, Czechoslovakia to be consumed by Germany. It was only when Germany turned on the USSR by invading it that the USSR pleaded for help.
Stalin was known with some affection as "Uncle Joe." The U.S. surrendered to the USSR's territorial ambitions a Teheran in 1943 and Yalta in February 1945. True, Roosevelt was enfeebled at both conferences but his pre-existing agenda was to tilt towards the Soviet Union. At the outset of his first term, when he was quite well, he ignored Soviet atrocities such as the Holodomer and the enforced famines to reestablish diplomatic ties. Not that Roosevelt had a moral compass; he had none, but I digress.
Almost immediately after V-E day, the USSR showed its fangs. Democratic elections were not held in Poland. The Iron Curtain quickly dropped across East Germany, Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria, North Korea and to a lesser extent Albania, Yugoslavia and Romania. Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia totally lost their independence.
And, for that alliance and opening the second front, what did we get in return?
As Churchill said "WW2 was won with British Intelligence, American Steel, and Russian Blood". The path to US war with Germany was almost inevitable after Poland, and sealed when France fell. If not for Hitler's miscalculations with Russia the war would still be won, but it would be much more American blood. Russia was immaterial to why the US entered the war and opened up the second front. What did we get for opening a second front? A liberated western Europe, that's who we went to war for - England, France, Belgium, Denmark, The Netherlands, Luxembourg, Italy, etc. If it was only Russia vs. Germany fighting to carve up Eastern Europe we likely would not have cared. Keep in mind also Russia was on it's own land grab similar to Germany at the time. Now, the UK and France went to war for Poland, and it's ironic that the the totalitarian regime of Nazi Germany rule was replaced by the totalitarian regime of Stalinist Russia.
You have to separate the war itself with the postwar agreements at the time. Of course Stalin betrayed Eastern Europe, he was STALIN. Roosevelt was fooled. Regardless, this is part of a second conflict - the cold war. My mother is from Eastern Poland. Russia was always the enemy, not Germany. Russia was the one that invaded them in 1939, not Germany. To this day she will still curse Roosevelt for giving up Poland to Russian puppet state status after the war.
Maybe the OP could argue that the Western Allies and the Soviet Union were "Co-Belligerent" rather than true allies? I am not really sure. Co-Belligerents are nations that are fighting the same enemy but are not necessarily full allies to each other.
A good example of that is Finland in World War where they and the European Axis Powers - Germany/Italy/Hungary/Romania were all at war with the Soviet Union but Finland was not at war with the USA.
Another example of that might be the War of 1812/Napoleonic Wars where the USA and France were both fighting Great Britain but the USA was not fighting all of Britain's allies like Austria and Prussia. The Americans and French were Co-Belligerents against Great Britain, not full allies of each other.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
