6 ms·
Sad to see the Soviet complaints about the allies not opening a second front in Europe until 1944 uncritically reported. The allies invaded Italy in 1943.
by azeotropic 7y ago
Sad to see the Soviet complaints about the allies not opening a second front in Europe until 1944 uncritically reported. The allies invaded Italy in 1943.
- jkingsbery 7y agoThe Allies also went in to North Africa earlier too. The article also says nothing about the fact that the US also fought in the Pacific theater without Soviet help.
- dagenleg 7y agoI think you are forgetting the Manchurian operation and the impact it had on bringing down the Japanese war machine.
- _bohm 7y agoIndeed. Many historians cite the opening of another front in the Pacific theater by the Soviets as the primary cause for the Japanese surrender (although this is a hotly debated issue).
- NotPaidToPost 7y agoChina is often hardly mentioned at all in narratives on WWII as a whole or in the Pacific.
- stochastic_monk 7y agoIt’s always mentioned in the context of Japanese aggression, e.g., the “Rape of Nanking”.
- NotPaidToPost 7y agoI agree, China is always mentioned in the context of the Japanese invasion of China...
- NeedMoreTea 7y agoNor any mention of the clear delays to D Day as a direct result of the sheer quantity of war materiel sent to Russia via the Arctic convoys and through Iran. Hundreds of thousands of trucks and jeeps, tens of thousands of tanks and aircraft. Not second rate or surplus but Spitfires, Hurricanes, Sherman tanks and so on, and enough to restrict the allies. It was deemed more important to try and help keep Russia in the war. Reporting the claim uncritically is the distortion to my mind. The role Russia played in allied victory, but clearly not D Day, is rarely forgotten.
- edraferi 7y agoI’ve never heard of this before. Any good place to learn more?
- hardlianotion 7y agoYes, the Artic convoys, protected by the Royal Navy, delivered enough equipment to completely equip an army, and at horrible cost in ships and me. These routes had the largest number of ship losses in the war.
- cik2e 7y ago> Nor any mention of the clear delays to D Day as a direct result of the sheer quantity of war materiel sent to Russia via the Arctic convoys and through Iran. This idea sounds patently false and I can't find a single source to support it. According to Wikipedia, the total US expenditure on Lend-Lease was 48 billion, with 31 of those going to Britain and 11 to the USSR [1]. But saying that D-Day was delayed as a result of the sheer quantity of aid sent to Britain would still be incorrect. Nearly the entirety of Soviet economic aid during the war can be attributed to the U.S. It provided the bulk of the actual raw materiel and effectively paid for the rest through the funding British production. Now combine this with the fact that Roosevelt and his advisors were pushing to open up the Western European front in 1942, a year after Lend-Lease had gone into effect, with Churchill winning out in opposition to the idea. It simply doesn't make sense that the cost of aid to the Soviet union was even part of the equation. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease#Multilateral_Allied_support https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease#Multilateral_Allied...
- C1sc0cat 7y agoAnd an invasion in 43 would have had a much greater chance of failing which would have lead to the war lasting longer. And the Ruhr and possibly Berlin getting Glassed (nuked) in late 45
- Symmetry 7y agoItaly was a much narrower front and thus a smaller and safer commitment, along with most of the rest of the fighting in the Mediterranean. Mostly Stalin wanted an invasion of France ASAP, Churchill wanted to be cautious, and FDR vacillated but eventually pushed the France invasion.