The 80th. Anniversary of World War II.

[The Romulan Republic]

80 years ago today, the deadliest war in human history began. It ended with the defeat of the fascist, genocidal Axis of Nazi German, Imperial Japan, and Fascist Italy.

May the fallen rest in peace, may their suffering and that of the survivors never be forgotten, and may we continue the struggle against despotism and genocide, that their suffering and deaths will not have been in vain.

[K. A. Pital]

I would disagree with the dates.

The “interwar” period proceeded into war since 1936-1937, so a more appropriate chronology would include the first conflicts that started the vortex which was pulling in more and more countries.

The invasion of China by the Japanese Empire, the Spanish Civil War, the Italian actions in Africa, dismemberment of Czechoslovakia, conflict between the USSR / Mongolia and Japan were all huge conflicts that immediately preceded and have flown into World War II, were actually often a part thereof.

The Axis was clearly genocidal, but the conflict itself has preceded death of almost all colonial empires: due to the immense strain metropole economies were ravaged and colonies changed hands all too often within the 10 or 6-year war period (depending on how you count, see above).

The aftermath of WWII was the downfall of the British, Dutch, Japanese colonial Empires; millions of people received their own national states in the period following WWII.

It has shown not just the scale of slaughter imperialistic war can bring, but also just how shackled the world was under only a few industrialized European or Asian nations with claim to Empire.

The aftermath of WWII needs to be studied in great detail. Sacrifices which were made to defeat the Nazis and their Japanese variety cannot be forgotten.

But the real struggle of the oppressed against colonial dominance of a few has effectively only started with WWII; it was the starting point that led us to the current world with around two hundred national states.

[Tribble]

Was western Europe and the USA's involvement necessary?

Even if they stayed neutral, the war in Europe may have played out more or less the same: namely that Nazi Germany eventually goes to war against the USSR and loses. Let's be honest: everything else in Europe was more or less a sideshow in comparison to the fight between those two. Sure, a war in Eastern Europe may have lasted longer and involved more USSR causalities without western intervention, but I doubt that Germany had a chance of pulling off a win (just like they had no realistic chance of successfully invading the UK).

And as for Japan, I don't see how America's absence on the scene would have changed all that much: Japan would still get bogged down and worn out in its conflict with China - again the conflict may last a lot longer and involve a lot more casualties on China's end, but any victory by the Japanese would have been Pyrrhic at best.

[K. A. Pital]

Was western Europe and the USA's involvement necessary?

Depends on whether you find it necessary for parts of Western Europe to later fall into the US sphere of influence, or if you’d be happy to see USSR on steroids, Red France and basically all of Europe being Soviet. I have no issue with that, but eh.

Even if they stayed neutral, the war in Europe may have played out more or less the same: namely that Nazi Germany eventually goes to war against the USSR and loses. Let's be honest: everything else in Europe was more or less a sideshow in comparison to the fight between those two. Sure, a war in Eastern Europe may have lasted longer and involved more USSR causalities without western intervention, but I doubt that Germany had a chance of pulling off a win (just like they had no realistic chance of successfully invading the UK).

Yes - but the USSR would see to that in post war elections, socialists and communists take the power. Also, it would make its own version of history (that only Soviet forces fought and defeated fascists) absolutely true with little exceptions. Suffice to say this will not do wonders to the reputation of the remaining non-Soviet Western countries.

And as for Japan, I don't see how America's absence on the scene would have changed all that much: Japan would still get bogged down and worn out in its conflict with China - again the conflict may last a lot longer and involve a lot more casualties on China's end, but any victory by the Japanese would have been Pyrrhic at best.

China would be badly screwed and suffer even more casualties. As the USSR is fighting alone, it would not see fit to attack the Japanese forces in the East to fulfil allied obligations, and thus the Japanese empire would continue ravaging Asia literally for decades to come. *shrugs* If you think Iraq is bad, think decolonization wars multiplied by a factor of ten.

[MKSheppard]

Sure, a war in Eastern Europe may have lasted longer and involved more USSR causalities without western intervention

It's easy to produce 58,701 T-34 when you can abandon all heavy locomotive and rail production and divert both

Steel
and
Factory floor space -- factories capable of moving steam locomotives around are handy for handling 30 ton medium tanks.

to AFV production.

92%+ of all Soviet Railroad Rail was from Allied Lend Lease and the USSR only built 92 locomotives in WW2; relying on USA to provide them with 1,900~ Soviet 2-10-0 designs built in US factories, 66 diesel locomotives, and 11,075 railroad cars.

If you want to keep the railroads running with no USA aid; that means corresponding decrease in AFV output as AFV factories have to be diverted to producing locomotives, and steel mills have to split time between AFV armor and steel rail.

Elsewhere, a complete brand new (opened 1938) $85 million tire plant built for Ford at River Rouge was crated up and sent to the USSR; it's capacity was 1~ million tires a year.

USSR copper during wartime was 53%~ lend lease. Without that, you have to divert manpower and equipment to open more copper mines/smelters/refineries, taking away from as mentioned before, AFV production.

Likewise 40% of Soviet AFV on the Caucasus front in 1942 were early lend lease models; allowing scarce T-34 to be reserved for the "main fronts" near Moscow.

At the start of 1942, Soviets had 318,500 motor vehicles of all types, with 34,976 motor vehicles being produced in the USSR in 1942, with 79,000 being delivered by Lend Lease in 1942. Delete that; and more people get taken away from T-34 production to truck production.

Likewise; the increased mechanization provided by Jeeps etc, allowed the Red Army to mechanize it's AT Gun formations, allowing them to be moved around to blunt German armored counterattacks.

Lend Lease food supplies basically increased the caloric intake of the Soviet people by 50% percent; allowing more productive workers who were able to work the factories making guns instead of farming.

50% of all aluminum used in Soviet Aircraft production was allied supplied. None of that = more people making aluminum in the factories, instead of working on AFV or airplane production lines.

59% of AvGas used by the USSR came from lend lease, particularly the higher grades that were needed to develop full power for later war engines.

Basically, think logistics -- the USSR stalemated the Germans on their own in 1941-1942; the key battles were over then, before significant amounts of aid arrived; but for the later war battles of 1943-1945; I'm less sanguine on the USSR's capability.

In the end, it probably comes down to mutual exhaustion between the two combatants; all the more so that with no USAAF in the ETO forcing significant amounts of german aircraft to be deployed to Defense of the Reich duties against Daylight bombing, since Night Bombing can be countered with modified versions of obsolete aircraft (Me-110, Ju-88, etc) as night hunters.

In July 1943, the Luftwaffe had:

2,400 a/c on East Front
1,700 a/c in Germany
1,200 a/c in Mediterranean
800 a/c in France
200 a/c in Norway/Denmark

In January 1943, 51% of all Luftwaffe losses were on the East Front; by November 1943; it had fallen to just 21%. The raw losses for the Luftwaffe during this period were 11,934 a/c of which 4,830 were fighters.

Breakdown by theater of losses was:

East Front: 3,773 (1,099 fighters)
Mediterranean: 3,936 (1,520 fighters)
Western Europe: 4,225 (2,211 fighters)

Etc.

To quote Adama; the "list goes on".

[K. A. Pital]

It's easy to produce 58,701 T-34 when you can abandon all heavy locomotive and rail production and divert both

It's actually not directly diverting production, like in a strategy game. More like being able to free working hands, but even that is a bit suspect (given the factory locations). The locomotive production collapsed anyway (was nonexistent in 1940-1941) and the bulk of T-43 production was done by only a few factories: 183, 112, 174, STZ, UZTM and ChKZ. Steam locomotives were produced at Bryansk, Voroshilovsk etc. factories.

Locomotives were taken out of pre-war stocks, which were over 20k of various loco's, of which Germany could only capture 2k something (citing figures off-hand - feel free to correct). These pre-war stocks dwarfed the newly-arriving steam locomotives, which anyway first arrived around 1944, because special ferries were necessary to transport them.

If you want to keep the railroads running with no USA aid; that means corresponding decrease in AFV output as AFV factories have to be diverted to producing locomotives, and steel mills have to split time between AFV armor and steel rail.

Why? The pre-war stocks were so massive that the USSR had increased its railway stocks by 2k locomotives and railcar stocks by over 50k cars during 1943 alone, before the arrival of LL railway aid - with no production, as it was. It is quite certain that the USSR would scrape the bottom of its barrel more intensively and make everything that is able to run, run. Perhaps at a slower pace and with lesser reliability compared to new production, but it would make those railways go. Not that the Germans failed to realize the efficiency of Soviet utilization of railway stocks that they moved inland and then kept throwing forces at critical moments increasing capacity of railways to far beyond what Germany could achieve with its captured railways lines. All that in 42-43.

Bear in mind once the Reich started folding, the USSR got its own thousands of trophy railways locomotives. Not that they were useful on our gauge, but they could be used to support further advances.

92%+ of all Soviet Railroad Rail was from Allied Lend Lease

Isn't the figure for rail track more like 56%? But in any case it wasn't used up fully until post-war... The ability of the USSR to lay railway track wasn't infinite. It laid IIRC around 9 thousand km of rails during the war. Which would be only a small fraction of the sent rail. Most of the re-laid railway track anyway used "locally sourced rails" (that is, rails plucked out of less-important lines or rails abandoned by the enemy in key points), and this applies for 1941-1943 throughout.

In 1944-1945, the rail track sent by the Allies certainly helped, especially with the reconstruction, but - as mentioned above - the stocks sent were simply so massive that it is unlikely it was fully used up until years after the war - and not just that, it is unlikely it was even transported to the frontline during 1943-1945.

That is just me bickering, tho - the more important point is: even if the other Allies try to just ignore the fact Germany's at war with them (IRL, Germany declared war against the USA, for example), it's not a given they would not maintain lend-lease support even if they would not be in active combat themselves. Logistics, eh... even the capacity of the Transsiberian itself constrained the ability to transport inputs en masse to the West - and this with the Pacific route being responsible for like half of all the cargo that arrived.

Delete that; and more people get taken away from T-34 production to truck production.

Not necessarily - it's not a strategy game where you have extra workers. It'd mean just poorer motorization of the army, which would curtail the ability to strike as far and as deep and may prolong the war significantly (not that time is playing in favor of the Reich here: they would likely be running out of manpower and their rule in Eastern Europe, short and brutal as it was, made them no friends - Yugoslavia would still be ablaze and other nations might very well join with their own large-scale uprisings).

In the end, it probably comes down to mutual exhaustion between the two combatants

The USSR is more or less a fixed entity, but the Reich just got all those territories in merely a few years preceding 1941; like mentioned above, I wouldn't take the agency from the people in territories controlled by the Germans. They were ready to fight and as it started seeming that the German cause isn't as strong - by 1943 evident through the failure of the attack - they'd start fighting even more ferociously.

[Tribble]

Depends on whether you find it necessary for parts of Western Europe to later fall into the US sphere of influence, or if you’d be happy to see USSR on steroids, Red France and basically all of Europe being Soviet. I have no issue with that, but eh.

Really depends on what stage of the war we're talking about.

If in 1939 France and Britain stayed neutral and Hitler eventually decided to invade the USSR while leaving the west alone, then we're really only talking about all of Germany being under USSR control than just part of Germany, since I highly doubt the USSR would be in any condition nor would it be inclined to keep plowing on west with an untouched France and UK.

If we're talking 1941 German invasion with France and/or the UK knocked out, then yes the USSR would likely have control of all of Western Europe (though I doubt they'd be able to take the UK directly for the same reasons Germany couldn't).

And either way why would it matter, particularly in the case of the USA, which is more than self-sufficient in the Americas already? If anything, in some ways staying out of it would have benefitted the US more than participating did since it would have meant a weaker Germany and/or USSR in the long run. I don't think Germany and the USSR were ever in a position where they could seriously threaten the American continents with invasion.

Yes - but the USSR would see to that in post war elections, socialists and communists take the power.

Depends on at what point we're talking about. I highly doubt they'd succeed in a scenario where France and/or the UK stayed out the fighting. In the event France and/or UK went down in defeat, sure (though again I doubt the USSR would be in a position nor inclined to try and conquer the UK directly.)

Also, it would make its own version of history (that only Soviet forces fought and defeated fascists) absolutely true with little exceptions. Suffice to say this will not do wonders to the reputation of the remaining non-Soviet Western countries.

Why? As far as the West was concerned such a scenario would have been seen as little more than two blood thirsty dictatorships having a go at each other.

Plus, this would meant no indiscriminate western bombings of Germany and Japan and no use of nuclear weapons.

China would be badly screwed and suffer even more casualties. As the USSR is fighting alone, it would not see fit to attack the Japanese forces in the East to fulfil allied obligations, and thus the Japanese empire would continue ravaging Asia literally for decades to come. *shrugs* If you think Iraq is bad, think decolonization wars multiplied by a factor of ten.

And how may millions more were killed by Western interventions in WW2 and afterwards? And why should that have been be our problem, given that China became one of our main enemies shortly afterwards?

Hell, one could argue that US involvement in WW2 actually made things worse in some respects since it kicked their industrial military complex and desire to conquer new territory up to eleven.

IMO the US founding fathers may have been entirely correct in their belief that nothing good would come from the US involving itself in world affairs in the long run.

[Rogue 9]

In the end, it probably comes down to mutual exhaustion between the two combatants

The USSR is more or less a fixed entity, but the Reich just got all those territories in merely a few years preceding 1941; like mentioned above, I wouldn't take the agency from the people in territories controlled by the Germans. They were ready to fight and as it started seeming that the German cause isn't as strong - by 1943 evident through the failure of the attack - they'd start fighting even more ferociously.

Yeah, for instance witness the liberation of Warsaw. Oh wait.

[K. A. Pital]

Yeah, for instance witness the liberation of Warsaw. Oh wait.

For instance witness the partisan warfare in Yugoslavia and Greece. I see nothing of value in this disparaging remark about the Warsaw uprising, either. The war would not end with the uprising for Germany, it would move to the country. The level of violence inflicted by the Reich was massive, so the resentment and desire to resist will grow with time. The idea that conquered people have no agency at all is, to put it plainly, wrong.

[K. A. Pital]

Really depends on what stage of the war we're talking about.

If in 1939 France and Britain stayed neutral and Hitler eventually decided to invade the USSR while leaving the west alone, then we're really only talking about all of Germany being under USSR control than just part of Germany, since I highly doubt the USSR would be in any condition nor would it be inclined to keep plowing on west with an untouched France and UK.

That is if France would remain neutral and manage to avoid getting crushed by the Reich. Even in this case, bordered by the Soviet sphere of influence, it would probably exist in a state of “Finlandization”. The USSR does not need to embroil itself in a conflict with Britain. They would not need to take over the UK.

And either way why would it matter, particularly in the case of the USA, which is more than self-sufficient in the Americas already? If anything, in some ways staying out of it would have benefitted the US more than participating did since it would have meant a weaker Germany and/or USSR in the long run. I don't think Germany and the USSR were ever in a position where they could seriously threaten the American continents with invasion.

Of course it would not matter for the USA. No power could ever seriously contemplate invading it. But that is not what I said. It mattered for the USA in a way the loss of colonies matters to an empire. Their sphere of influence would be nonexistent if they did not participate in the war at all.

Why? As far as the West was concerned such a scenario would have been seen as little more than two blood thirsty dictatorships having a go at each other. Plus, this would meant no indiscriminate western bombings of Germany and Japan and no use of nuclear weapons.

The West would consist mostly from the US and Britain; and this claim was not exactly holding up all that well in the continental post-war Europe, despite the US/Britain even purposely leaving networks of clandestine fascists to counter “the left”.

And how may millions more were killed by Western interventions in WW2 and afterwards? And why should that have been be our problem, given that China became one of our main enemies shortly afterwards?

Um... less? China lost between 20 and 30 million, which is either first or second highest absolute loss of life in WWII. All post-war interventions combined would probably come close to this number.

Hell, one could argue that US involvement in WW2 actually made things worse in some respects since it kicked their industrial military complex and desire to conquer new territory up to eleven.

You know I am not a person who goes lightly on US imperialism, but tell me which new colonies did the US get and which territories did it annex? As far as Empires go, the US colonies actually started acquiring formal independence in the war aftermath - see Philippines.

IMO the US founding fathers may have been entirely correct in their belief that nothing good would come from the US involving itself in world affairs in the long run.

You seem to be confusing a necessary evil with greater good. The US involvement in WWII was necessary to shorten the war and end Axis rule faster (the Axis was genocidal, unlike the other involved powers, and its dominion in Asia and Europe was leading to massive loss of life every year through the genocide, starvation, deliberate infection and partisan warfare).

This does not excuse what the US did afterwards, trying to prop old colonial Empires and especially Vietnam, tons of agent Orange and such, but it is also not a given that staying out of WWII would mean the US wouldn’t involve itself in decolonization wars later! One does not follow from the other.

[Rogue 9]

Yeah, for instance witness the liberation of Warsaw. Oh wait.

For instance witness the partisan warfare in Yugoslavia and Greece. I see nothing of value in this disparaging remark about the Warsaw uprising, either. The war would not end with the uprising for Germany, it would move to the country. The level of violence inflicted by the Reich was massive, so the resentment and desire to resist will grow with time. The idea that conquered people have no agency at all is, to put it plainly, wrong.

I didn't say they didn't; they obviously did. I was referencing the fact that the Red Army left the Poles hanging out to dry after promising to attack the city when they rose up.

[K. A. Pital]

I didn't say they didn't; they obviously did. I was referencing the fact that the Red Army left the Poles hanging out to dry after promising to attack the city when they rose up.

It also reneged on Greek partisans in agreement with Britain, which was a far clearer incident. But a lot depended on the situation on the ground - without Western allies opening a 2nd front in the South and the West either due to non-participation or inability, who but the partisans could help the USSR in fighting the Reich? As it stands, the Reich was doomed in 1944, regardless of the uprising. This would be much less certain if we're grinding year by year into the Reich alone from the East.

[Rogue 9]

I didn't say they didn't; they obviously did. I was referencing the fact that the Red Army left the Poles hanging out to dry after promising to attack the city when they rose up.

It also reneged on Greek partisans in agreement with Britain, which was a far clearer incident. But a lot depended on the situation on the ground - without Western allies opening a 2nd front in the South and the West either due to non-participation or inability, who but the partisans could help the USSR in fighting the Reich? As it stands, the Reich was doomed in 1944, regardless of the uprising. This would be much less certain if we're grinding year by year into the Reich alone from the East.

Of course. I'm not at all suggesting that the involvement of Western Europe and the United States in the war was unnecessary or didn't foreshorten it, or that partisans played no role; I was ragging on the Soviet Union for promising aid to the Poles with the explicit intent of getting them to make a suicide attack on the occupying Germans so the Soviets wouldn't have to deal with them when they occupied themselves.

[K. A. Pital]

Of course. I'm not at all suggesting that the involvement of Western Europe and the United States in the war was unnecessary or didn't foreshorten it, or that partisans played no role; I was ragging on the Soviet Union for promising aid to the Poles with the explicit intent of getting them to make a suicide attack on the occupying Germans so the Soviets wouldn't have to deal with them when they occupied themselves.

Did the USSR actually ever promise to take Warsaw? From what I could gather, the Polish partisans started an uprising anticipating that the USSR takes Warsaw soon. The Soviet Army airdropped ammunition and weapons, but did not take the city in time. As far as I understand, the uprising was coordinated by the government in exile, which the USSR did not recognize, so there was almost no communication between the leaders of the uprising and the Soviet government. Rokossovsky had our agent fighting together with the rebels (Kolos), but I doubt he has made promises via him, or at least, this is not what I’ve learned.

[Rogue 9]

Of course. I'm not at all suggesting that the involvement of Western Europe and the United States in the war was unnecessary or didn't foreshorten it, or that partisans played no role; I was ragging on the Soviet Union for promising aid to the Poles with the explicit intent of getting them to make a suicide attack on the occupying Germans so the Soviets wouldn't have to deal with them when they occupied themselves.

Did the USSR actually ever promise to take Warsaw? From what I could gather, the Polish partisans started an uprising anticipating that the USSR takes Warsaw soon. The Soviet Army airdropped ammunition and weapons, but did not take the city in time. As far as I understand, the uprising was coordinated by the government in exile, which the USSR did not recognize, so there was almost no communication between the leaders of the uprising and the Soviet government. Rokossovsky had our agent fighting together with the rebels (Kolos), but I doubt he has made promises via him, or at least, this is not what I’ve learned.

Soviet broadcast radio urged the Poles to rise up, promising that the Polish Army was joined with the People's Army and would soon be joined by the sons of Warsaw. The uprising began with the Red Army sitting right outside the city. I don't know of extant evidence that there was direct communication between the partisans and the Soviets, but their propaganda was certainly aiming to get the partisans to do what they did.

[Zinegata]

Was western Europe and the USA's involvement necessary?

Yes, because the West failed to cooperate with the Soviets to stop the rise of Nazi Germany. The Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact - which basically turned two ideological rivals into allies - only came into fruition because of Munich. Selling out the Czechs to the Germans basically demonstrated that Britain and France could not be relied upon as trustworthy allies, so the Soviets essentially chose to support the Germans instead.

The central problem, which has been almost entirely ignored in conventional historiography, was that Germany was in fact very much picking a fight against the West, which had in fact become so economically dominant that it threatened to create a global hegemony. Same with the Soviets, although they were much more concerned originally with the Nazis at their doorstep.

The US in particular had a much greater share of the world economy back then than it does now - and 1916-1929 was in fact closer to the "lone superpower" narrative that we often associate with the US today. There was in fact an attempt to install a great one world order in the inter-war period; and a lot of the dictatorial regimes that emerged saw themselves as resisting this world order.

The problem is that this was largely obscured by the Great Depression, and the "innocent isolationist America" narrative.

I highly suggest taking a look at Adam Tooze's book Deluge for this particular re-interpretation. It's the usual case of people getting used to repeating the same "truth" over and over, without realizing that there were in reality many competing truths.