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.
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?
USSR was a temporary ally based on necessity. It's like if aliens invade Earth, humans would have to align to go to war against a common enemy. Then go back to fighting each other after aliens are gone.
USSR was a temporary ally based on necessity. It's like if aliens invade Earth, humans would have to align to go to war against a common enemy. Then go back to fighting each other after aliens are gone.
It's not the temporary nature of the alliance that I have a problem with; it is the long term (though not necessarily permanent) surrender of territories to them, and surrendering people to enslavement. I also object to allowing them to have disproportionate influence at the U.N. though that is more a petting zoo or debating society than serious organization.
It's not the temporary nature of the alliance that I have a problem with; it is the long term (though not necessarily permanent) surrender of territories to them, and surrendering people to enslavement. I also object to allowing them to have disproportionate influence at the U.N. though that is more a petting zoo or debating society than serious organization.
Yah. Once France & UK (& Luxembourg & Belgium) failed to contain the German offensive in Western Europe, & UK decided to fight on (& Germany invaded the USSR), there was no other choice. Either UK & Commonwealth & the US put in the manpower & materiel to back it up with (US estimated 213 Army divisions, plus Navy & Marines). The US eventually settled for 90 divisions, but kept producing war materiel for itself & Allies.
Failing that containment, either UK or US would have to put in the military, in numbers, & heavily supported with arty, transport, tanks, aircraft, POL & etc. UK didn't have the manpower to spare, the US didn't get into the war until Dec. 1941 - two years after Sept. 1939. The Soviets lost lots of military & materiel & space - but they kept forming divisions & fighting. US & UK were supposed to open the Second Front in Europe in 1942, but that didn't happen. Churchill kept wanting to nibble @ the edges of Nazi Germany's holdings in Europe - but that would never end the war.
All of that defaulted to the Soviets conquering E. Europe - & no one was going to drive them out once they fought their way in. Stalin shot his way into power in the USSR - he wasn't about to be negotiated out of conquered territories that the Soviet military bled for.
All of that defaulted to the Soviets conquering E. Europe - & no one was going to drive them out once they fought their way in. Stalin shot his way into power in the USSR - he wasn't about to be negotiated out of conquered territories that the Soviet military bled for.
US & UK were supposed to open the Second Front in Europe in 1942, but that didn't happen. Churchill kept wanting to nibble @ the edges of Nazi Germany's holdings in Europe - but that would never end the war.
They did open a second front - in North Africa.
Opening a front in France in 1942 would've been suicide, and the Germans would've thrown the Allies into the sea in no time. Churchill remembered his blunder at Gallipoli in WWI.
Quote:
Originally Posted by southwest88
US & UK were supposed to open the Second Front in Europe in 1942, but that didn't happen. Churchill kept wanting to nibble @ the edges of Nazi Germany's holdings in Europe - but that would never end the war.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ariete
They did open a second front - in North Africa.
Opening a front in France in 1942 would've been suicide, and the Germans would've thrown the Allies into the sea in no time. Churchill remembered his blunder at Gallipoli in WWI.
Yah, but Stalin wanted a second front in Europe - to pull German forces off the Russian front. We - the US - badly needed more ports in Europe, once we'd landed in Normandy. (& a massive storm wrecked one of the dry docks, cross-Channel POL lines, & caused damage & chaos all over the beachhead.) Churchill & Montgomery ignored Antwerp, which was one of the key Channel ports. Because of that, & over Churchill's pissing & moaning, the US mounted landings in S. France - which went very well - no thanks to Churchill, who had objected & procrastinated & kept suggesting hare-brained schemes to go up through the Balkans, & done everything he could to prevent or delay the landings in S. France.
France was in constant turmoil from 1914 on - look @ the number of governments that rose & fell, the parties that jumped every which way, while trying to convince the citizens that their party held all the answers to the French economics, politics & German questions. Looking @ France today, they're still fighting some of the same internal political battles going back to 1914.
And that would've been impossible in 1942, regardless of how much Stalin wanted it.
I didn't understand anything else of what you wrote.
Yah, we didn't have the logistics in place yet in 1942 - & we hadn't yet begun to crank out combat-ready divisions in the US. So we needed to get the manufacturing & training & supply depots in place, both in the US & in UK. In retrospect, it was probably better that we practiced amphib landings & convoys & coming in over the beach in Africa, against some resistance from Vichy, rather than fully contested amphib landings against entrenched & combat-hardened German regulars.
It worked out, we weeded out some commanders, refined tactics, & got blooded. Very steep price on the learning curve, though.
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.
It simply wasn't negotiable
