Comments by "Digital Nomad" (@digitalnomad9985) on "The University of Chicago" channel.

  1. What an absurd generalization. If your prohibition were a principle of US foriegn policy, the Third Riech would have ruled the world.
    3
  2.  @faithingood3863  "the US wasn't even at war with Nazi Germany until the Soviets were already pushing back on all fronts." False. The US declared war on Germany on December 11, 1941. The Battle of Stalingrad, the turning point of the war in the east lasted August 1942 to February 1943. By that time US material aid to the Soviet Union was well underway starting with food and proceeding through trucks, oil, and war machines. Without the early food aid, the defenders of Stalingrad would have starved (they almost did as it was). The vast bulk of the trucks and fuel for the counteroffensive came from US aid. Ninety percent of the trucks the Soviets used for the counteroffensive were either shipped directly from the US, or were produced in the truck factory whose tooling was shipped from the US. The bulk of the fuel that propelled that offensive was imported from the US as well. The US and the UK supplied vast numbers of tanks which were used in the offensive as well. The US also provided warplanes in bulk to the USSR during this period. It is a simple, verifiable, and prosaic fact without the early US food aid, the Rec
    1
  3.  @faithingood3863  "the US wasn't even at war with Nazi Germany until the Soviets were already pushing back on all fronts." False. The US declared war on December 11, 1941. The turning point of Germany's eastern front, prior to which Germany was totally on the offensive was the Battle of Stalingrad (23 August 1942 - 2 February 1943). By the time the Battle of Stalingrad had even begun, the US was already shipping aid in buld to the Soviet Union, mostly food a first, but constantly trucks and fuel, shipped in by Anglo-American convoys fighting through the German attempt at blockade. The defenders of Stalingrad almost starved as it was, and would certainly have starved without that aid. By the time the USSR had turned to the offensive, The US had been supplying, and continued to supply, Sherman tanks in vast numbers to all the allies including the Soviet Union. The UK also supplied the USSR with some tanks. The US and the UK also supplied the Soviets with combat and logistics aircraft. 90% of the trucks supporting the Soviet offensive logistical effort were Studebaker trucks shipped in from US factories, and the bulk of the fuel was from the US as well. Without that aid the Soviet offensive would not have been possible. Shortly after the US declaration of war, the US sent ground forces to aid the British effort to push the Axis powers out of Northern Africa. In November of 1942, the US opened an African front of its own in Operation Torch. The Anglo-American offensive pushed the Axis out of Africa, and deprived them of their main source of oil. This began well before the end of the Stalingrad battle and the start of the Soviet offensive, and paved the way for the subsequent Anglo-American invasions of Sicily and Italy, which took Italy out of the war. Moreover, any analysis of the USSRs contribution to the allied war effort is incomplete without factoring in their prior contribution to the Axis war effort. The first Soviet intervention in events was its joint operation with the Reich in the conquest of Poland, accompanied by the non-aggression pact between the USSR and Nazi Germany. Not only that, but the USSR was supporting the Reich with its propaganda and vast amounts of material aid shipped across Poland by rail. While the US was already becoming the Arsenal of Democracy by sending material aid to the UK prior to the declaration of war, the USSR was simultaneously becoming the Arsenal of Despotism by sending material aid to Hitler. The courage of the Soviet peoples in the latter part of the war was commendable, but a complete analysis of the net Soviet contribution to the war must take into account that the problem the USSR helped solve was largely a problem they helped create.
    1
  4.  @osmanjerry3272  "Haven’t the two world war bring enough misery to mankind?" This begs the question of whether war always brings more misery than the best alternative. That is a question whose answer is most certainly "no". It seems obvious that history is full of useful as well as useless wars. That may be a warning against pitching our propaganda too high, but it is not a coherent comprehensive argument against war.
    1
  5.  @ugooko7569  "you seem you like or want a war?" I seem that way to absolutely no one. A binary choice between loving war and failing to realize that it is sometimes necessary is a false dichotomy, of course.
    1
  6.  @edgepixel8467  " if you think certain wars are needed" He says, as though I had expressed an opinion.
    1
  7.  @edgepixel8467  I find the discussion satisfying and complete as is.
    1
  8.  @osmanjerry3272  Now you try to change the meaning of "advocate of war" which in the context of the thread would mean "anyone who advocates any particular war for any reason", and say that you really mean "one who advocates war for its own sake."
    1