5 ms·

> If I was an American, I wouldn't want to be footing the bill for Global Security either. There is a deep and nuanced conversation to be had here, though I wi

> If I was an American, I wouldn't want to be footing the bill for Global Security either. There is a deep and nuanced conversation to be had here, though I will say fourstar already made one important point very succinctly. [1] I will point out that it has been the position of the American people since WWII that we are happy to foot the bill for global security. So while you might not feel that way, Americans feel differently. I'll give a bit of background on how that came to be. While Hitler was cutting through Europe there was a extensive internal debate in the US whether just focusing on defending the Pacific would be sufficient. During the time leading up the Battle of Britain, we decided the US view of security needed to be global-- if Hitler overran Britain the threat was just too large. It would turn out that the Brits won one of the most significant military victories in history [2], but prior that fact emerging American policy had come to the firm conclusion that we had to defend east as well as west. The Brits handled it, but it was tough to know that at the time. Since WWII we have not really reevaluated this policy. Some in the US believe it is time to do so and the current election will decide much of this. But in the last 10 years we have witnessed the biggest land grab in Europe since World War II [3], so now might not be the time to dissolve the world order. This may be more detail than you were expecting, but I hope you found it interesting. The world is a much more fragile place that I wish and at the end of the day we all need to chip in for global security. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25004863 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25004863 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Britain#Aftermath https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Britain#Aftermath [3] https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2020/03/17/crimea-six-years-after-illegal-annexation/ https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2020/03/17/c...

mapgrep 6y ago
Ww2 in Europe was largely won by the USSR. Britain and the US opened a western front quite belatedly after years of begging by the USSR, after the Soviets sacrificed 15+ million lives to turn the tide, and after a lot of wasted time focusing on minor gains in North Africa (at Churchill’s insistence). Combined US and UK military’s deaths were less than a tenth those for USSR. We love to pat ourselves on the back with movies about D Day though. (They should be about Stalingrad.) Finland incidentally was a key ally for Hitler in his attack on the USSR.
- Retric 6y ago
  The USSR acted as a serious meat grinder, but a little less than half of German losses where on the eastern front which also included polish forces and the USSR had minimal impact on the Pacific front. The US footed a lot of the material costs needed for Europe and the USSR to stay in the fight via lend lease. To the tune of about $575 billion inflation adjusted, and 22% of that going directly to the USSR. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease So, the USSR played a significant role, but where far less effective than your suggesting.
  - D_Alex 6y ago
    >a little less than half of German losses where on the eastern front Where did you get this from? According to Wikipedia, and most other sources, 70-80% of German military casualties were on the Eastern Front. >The US footed a lot of the material costs needed for Europe and the USSR to stay in the fight... More than 80% of the aid to USSR was delivered after the Battle of Stalingrad was won by the USSR, and the outcome of the war was pretty much settled. >the USSR played a significant role ...far greater than what you are suggesting.
    - timsally 6y ago
      > More than 80% of the aid to USSR was delivered after the Battle of Stalingrad was won by the USSR, and the outcome of the war was pretty much settled. If you think WWII was settled in February of '43 then that says all we need to know regarding your credibility on this matter. I only mean to be as harsh as is necessary, but it is crazy to be as cavalier as you are being regarding the history of a war where so many lives were lost.
    - Retric 6y ago
      If you’re thinking of losses as lives in the German army and you include non German forces added to the German army and you assume all deaths on the eastern front where with the USSR then you can get very high numbers for German deaths due to the USSR. On the other hand if you look at losses as the capacity to make war then things are different. As a land war the German navy for instance was largely uninvolved so you need to consider how many tanks was a battleship worth. How critical was a lost factory or oil field etc. And in that context while Germany gained some men from their invasion of the USSR* a major goal was the acquisition of oil in the caucuses, because having been cut off from other sources they would have likely lost with or without the invasion. In the end it was the loss of aircraft factories more than aircraft that really cost them the air war. While we think of WWII as a modern war, Germany used 2.75 million horses in WWII. Fuel, raw materials, and industrial capacity for engines where tight. *~230,000 of the deaths on the eastern front where originally from the USSR but fighting for the Germans.
xyzzy_plugh 6y ago
This is an interesting discussion but wholly irrelevant. Either I'm in the US paying these taxes or I'm not. As an individual I'd rather have my taxes benefit me as much as possible. The US military isn't going to directly help feed my newborn child, especially if I'm not an American.

mapgrep 6y ago

Ww2 in Europe was largely won by the USSR. Britain and the US opened a western front quite belatedly after years of begging by the USSR, after the Soviets sacrificed 15+ million lives to turn the tide, and after a lot of wasted time focusing on minor gains in North Africa (at Churchill’s insistence). Combined US and UK military’s deaths were less than a tenth those for USSR. We love to pat ourselves on the back with movies about D Day though. (They should be about Stalingrad.) Finland incidentally was a key ally for Hitler in his attack on the USSR.

Retric 6y ago
The USSR acted as a serious meat grinder, but a little less than half of German losses where on the eastern front which also included polish forces and the USSR had minimal impact on the Pacific front. The US footed a lot of the material costs needed for Europe and the USSR to stay in the fight via lend lease. To the tune of about $575 billion inflation adjusted, and 22% of that going directly to the USSR. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease So, the USSR played a significant role, but where far less effective than your suggesting.
- D_Alex 6y ago
  >a little less than half of German losses where on the eastern front Where did you get this from? According to Wikipedia, and most other sources, 70-80% of German military casualties were on the Eastern Front. >The US footed a lot of the material costs needed for Europe and the USSR to stay in the fight... More than 80% of the aid to USSR was delivered after the Battle of Stalingrad was won by the USSR, and the outcome of the war was pretty much settled. >the USSR played a significant role ...far greater than what you are suggesting.
  - timsally 6y ago
    > More than 80% of the aid to USSR was delivered after the Battle of Stalingrad was won by the USSR, and the outcome of the war was pretty much settled. If you think WWII was settled in February of '43 then that says all we need to know regarding your credibility on this matter. I only mean to be as harsh as is necessary, but it is crazy to be as cavalier as you are being regarding the history of a war where so many lives were lost.
  - Retric 6y ago
    If you’re thinking of losses as lives in the German army and you include non German forces added to the German army and you assume all deaths on the eastern front where with the USSR then you can get very high numbers for German deaths due to the USSR. On the other hand if you look at losses as the capacity to make war then things are different. As a land war the German navy for instance was largely uninvolved so you need to consider how many tanks was a battleship worth. How critical was a lost factory or oil field etc. And in that context while Germany gained some men from their invasion of the USSR* a major goal was the acquisition of oil in the caucuses, because having been cut off from other sources they would have likely lost with or without the invasion. In the end it was the loss of aircraft factories more than aircraft that really cost them the air war. While we think of WWII as a modern war, Germany used 2.75 million horses in WWII. Fuel, raw materials, and industrial capacity for engines where tight. *~230,000 of the deaths on the eastern front where originally from the USSR but fighting for the Germans.

xyzzy_plugh 6y ago

This is an interesting discussion but wholly irrelevant. Either I'm in the US paying these taxes or I'm not. As an individual I'd rather have my taxes benefit me as much as possible. The US military isn't going to directly help feed my newborn child, especially if I'm not an American.