If you are french, you should thank the russians for liberating france from germany. Certainly not the US. The russians beat the germans in ww2. Not the british, not the US, not anyone else. Just look at the data.
Also, if the germans won ww2, you'd be saying the exact opposite. You'd be saying how thankful you are that germany gave you freedom from the anglo imperial economic world order.
- Russia did tie up the bulk of the German forces. And they suffered and inflicted the bulk of the causalities. So in a sense, this is true.
- Regarding the topic at hand, the US and UK literally liberated France.
- As others mentioned, Russia was reliant on critical US industrial help. They didn't do it alone.
- The US had still not fully mobilized when the Germans and Russians were having some of their largest conflicts. I would argue that the US had not fully mobilized even by the end of the war (e.g., look % of population enlisted, industry still ramping up). Even if Russia had not fought, the US/UK would still have defeated the Germans. If you look at the size of the Armies that could be fielded, the Germans had little chance. Their best bet was to reach some agreement with the US and UK, occupy Europe and focus on the Russians. Having said that, when their opening push against Russia failed, they'd were doomed there also (i.e., once Russia regrouped, they could have defeated Germany alone).
- The US had strategic plans to defeat the Germans if both the UK and Russia fell. The size of the planned navy, army and air force proposed was bonkers.
The Russians did take part in beating Germany, I didn't want to imply it wasn't the case, but they did with heavy logistical support from the US, which is what the comment was about ("guns made, ships launched"). And can you really say that the US were for nothing in Germany's defeat when more than half of the Panzer divisions were fighting in the Western front?
> Also, if the germans won ww2, you'd be saying the exact opposite. You'd be saying how thankful you are that germany gave you freedom from the anglo imperial economic world order.
well, I don't have a time machine to go and test that hypothesis, but considering how Germany was treating occupied territories, I think we got a better outcome under anglo imperial order than under German occupation (or soviet occupation had they continued West after taking Berlin).
> You'd be saying how thankful you are that germany gave you freedom from the anglo imperial economic world order.
No. Very few people were happy with the German occupation. Many occupied countries had very active resistance movements. The only people who were happy with the German occupation were fascist collaborators.
The western allies gave the countries they liberated their freedom and autonomy back. Neither Germany nor the USSR did that, and that matters a lot.
> Also, if the germans won ww2, you'd be saying the exact opposite. You'd be saying how thankful you are that germany gave you freedom from the anglo imperial economic world order.
Probably not, no. Germany was not promising freedom to people on the west. The plan was living space and genocide in east and domination under Aryan rule in the west. The freedom for French was not the plan. So, nazi in west would be remembered the same way Russia is remembered now.
And looking at history, Russia is not remembered as liberator in Ukraine or Poland or Czech Republic or Slovakia or Estonia either. Russia is remembered as the country that too away freedom, that stole and that killed or tortured people.
Then, Hollywood won.
[0] https://www.ifop.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/3025-1-study... (page 5)
China switching sides is one of the many factors. An important one, but not as important as US/NATO matching and outspending (adjusted per-capita) the USSR in military buildup and proxy wars.
> Not a single bullet or tank or missile contributed to you being "free". But bullets, tanks, missiles, etc kept you under soviet rule.
Sorry, what? You're responding to someone who was born behind the Iron Curtain, and you're saying that Western "bullets, tanks, missiles, etc" kept him/her under soviet rule? As in, if the west had been militarily weak, the CPSU would have stopped occupying?
> Because north korea is constantly under threat of an attack from the greatest bully in the world ( who constantly increased military spending ), they have to set aside a significant portion of their budget to defense which leads an unhappy population which leads to suppression of the population.
Not because of the dictatorship then.
China switching sides is the factor. USSR was never going to outspend the US let alone NATO.
> Sorry, what? You're responding to someone who was born behind the Iron Curtain, and you're saying that Western "bullets, tanks, missiles, etc" kept him/her under soviet rule?
Soviet "bullets, tanks, missiles, etc" did. Our bullets, tanks, missiles, etc kept japan, germany, korea, etc under US rule.
> As in, if the west had been militarily weak, the CPSU would have stopped occupying?
Do you think poland was occupied without bullets, tanks, missiles? Do you think korea, germany, japan were occupied by accident?
> Not because of the dictatorship then.
You need a dictatorship to protect a small nation free from a much larger power with a history of all kinds of evil.
That evil seems to be way less for small nation than the one coming from a dictatorship. If I was North Korean I'll vote with both of my hands to not "be free" and ingested as one more state of the US.
In reality this however also leads to the US destroying countries and leaving them in the state of disrepair. And due to the US having the biggest military and economy dick it risks no punishment.
If you think they were under US rule in the same way that Poland, say, was under USSR rule, then... well, if you mean pre-1957 or so, then yes, Japan and West Germany were flat-out occupied. After that, no, they were not "under US rule" in any meaningful sense.
So far, Ukraine is showing this statement is false.
No it didn't. China switching sides and joining the US is what led to the fall of the soviet union. Just like if china, india, etc abandoned russia today, the russian federation will implode within a generation.
> rather than living in a North Korea-type Gulag.
North korean style gulag exists because of increased military spending. Because north korea is constantly under threat of an attack from the greatest bully in the world ( who constantly increased military spending ), they have to set aside a significant portion of their budget to defense which leads an unhappy population which leads to suppression of the population.
> Edit: they also contributed to a few other hundred million ( W Europe, Japan, etc) continuing to be free rather than being occupied by the USSR.
It also led to much of europe being turned into rubble and japan being nuked.
Not a single bullet or tank or missile contributed to you being "free". But bullets, tanks, missiles, etc kept you under soviet rule.