Oliver Stone's Untold History of America

[Eddie Teach]

Americans did the building, Soviets did the dying. Would have been a much tougher war without either.

Also the allies diverted a lot of German troops and weapons from being usable on the Eastern Front. And Stalin really didn't do squat in defeating the other land-hungry Axis empire.

[Ed Anger]

And Stalin really didn't do squat in defeating the other land-hungry Axis empire.

Smart man.

[Razgovory]

You can go too far the other way in giving credit for Soviets.  Yes, it was Soviet soldiers who were getting slaughtered, but they were taken to the slaughter by American trucks and rail cars.  If Soviets had to take care of their own secondary, but still very much critical, materiel needs, how much more trouble would they be in than they already were?

Well the Western Allies also took prisoner millions of German soldiers, soldiers who would have likely fought on in the East rather then be taken captive.  The US had around 7 million captured in Northwest Europe.  That's a lot of people that the Soviets would have had to fight through.  Not to mention that the Western Allies force Germany to spread their resources thinly over several fronts rather then focus on one front.

[Richard Hakluyt]

You can go too far the other way in giving credit for Soviets.  Yes, it was Soviet soldiers who were getting slaughtered, but they were taken to the slaughter by American trucks and rail cars.  If Soviets had to take care of their own secondary, but still very much critical, materiel needs, how much more trouble would they be in than they already were?

Yes, there is no doubt that the Eastern Front was where the bulk of the fighting actually took place. But it was a close-run thing and without the distractions provided by the allies things could have turned out differently.

The USSR also contributed fuck-all to the war with Japan of course.

[DGuller]

The USSR also contributed fuck-all to the war with Japan of course.

That's not a bad thing.  It was lack of war with Japan that saved Moscow, and likely the war.  Allies were better off with Soviets not "helping" with Japan.

[Richard Hakluyt]

The USSR also contributed fuck-all to the war with Japan of course.

That's not a bad thing.  It was lack of war with Japan that saved Moscow, and likely the war.  Allies were better off with Soviets not "helping" with Japan.

Yes, my understanding is that it allowed Stalin to send 40 divisions of high-quality troops from the east to the front with Germany, at a crucial time too.

I'm wondering now if Stone contemplated the fact that the USSR was nearly as bad as Nazi Germany from a moral point of view 

[CountDeMoney]

And Stalin really didn't do squat in defeating the other land-hungry Axis empire.

Smart man.

No shit.  "Americans did the building, Soviets did the dying" was wholly dependent on which time zone discussed.

[viper37]

So there's this new show on cable. Was interested in it except I find out the first episode sets out to show that it wasn't the USA involvement in WW2 that defeated Hitler but rather  the Soviet Army that did the brunt of the work.

And I'm like....yeah, I knew this in Grade 2. But maybe Americans don't know this. I'm not sure.

http://www.avclub.com/articles/oliver-stones-untold-history-of-the-united-states,88625/

Oliver Stone's Untold History Of The United States isn't quite that. For the most part—at least in the first episode, which focuses on World War II—it's just recounting stuff that history tomes that dig a little bit deeper than the official story would get into. Stone bases much of the first hour around the thought that the Nazis lost World War II not because of the American military launching an offensive in France, but because the Soviet army eventually exhausted and beat the German forces back. At that point, what the Americans and British pulled off at Normandy was important, but the course of the war was essentially set. The Germans had essentially defeated themselves, thanks to Hitler's hubris and Stalin's gutsy decision-making and, well, the Russian people's willingness to sacrifice itself out of its sheer refusal to give an inch. In this episode, Stone, who narrates, constantly praises the battles on the Eastern Front as the greatest ever fought, and when he's talking about them, it's not hard to agree.

And how did Stalin manage to beat the Nazis?  Without the allied supplies, there's no way he could have beaten Germany so bad.  An eventual stalemate, but difficult to see a massive counterattack being successful.

[Zanza]

The US had around 7 million captured in Northwest Europe.

When? In May 1945? The crucial point of time was certainly before the invasions of Italy in 1943 or even Normandy in 1944 and I doubt the US had captured very many German soldiers before that.

[Richard Hakluyt]

What effects did the British naval blockade have in that critical period of the war, significant or marginal?

[Razgovory]

The US had around 7 million captured in Northwest Europe.

When? In May 1945? The crucial point of time was certainly before the invasions of Italy in 1943 or even Normandy in 1944 and I doubt the US had captured very many German soldiers before that.

June of 1945.  Any point in time would have meant that the Soviets would still have to fight them if there wasn't a Western release valve.

[Valmy]

What effects did the British naval blockade have in that critical period of the war, significant or marginal?

I would like to think this combined with us carbet bombing German cities helped the Soviets out a little bit.

[Berkut]

What effects did the British naval blockade have in that critical period of the war, significant or marginal?

Critical, IMO.

German shortages of war materials were always a huge throttle on their operations.

From the obvious (oil, steel) to the not so obvious (tungsten).

[Berkut]

The US had around 7 million captured in Northwest Europe.

When? In May 1945? The crucial point of time was certainly before the invasions of Italy in 1943 or even Normandy in 1944 and I doubt the US had captured very many German soldiers before that.

I think that is a vastly overly simplistic view. The outcome of the war was not binary, and the procces of winning, losing, or some other result was not driven by some "crucial point in time" prior to which the outcome was in doubt and after which the outcome was no longer in doubt.

IN other words, less earlier interference of any kind could have resulted in a change in outcome later, even after the "crucial point".

The Soviet Army, for example, reached peak combat strength sometime in late 1943, early 1944. From 44 to 45 it steadily declined in overall combat power measured by resources such as men, materials, fuel, and such. So while there was not much doubt as to the final outcome as early as January of 1944 (for example), it is the case that the USSR could have simply exhausted their ability to drive the Germans out of the USSR before the German Army finally cracked apart as it did. A stalemate could have ensued - with neither side having the critical weight to move the other.

This did not happen, at least in some part because of the support the USSR received, both directly and indirectly from the Western Allies.

[Berkut]

I find it amusing that Stone's very first episode of the "Secret history of America" is about the Soviet Union defeating German in WW2.

Wouldn't that be the secret history of German, or the USSR?