Out of the hundreds of examples that one might choose, take this question: Which of the three great allies, the U.S.S.R., Britain and the USA, has contributed most to the defeat of Germany? In theory, it should be possible to give a reasoned and perhaps even a conclusive answer to this question. In practice, however, the necessary calculations cannot be made, because anyone likely to bother his head about such a question would inevitably see it in terms of competitive prestige. He would therefore START by deciding in favour of Russia, Britain or America as the case might be, and only AFTER this would begin searching for arguments that seemed to support his case.
It’s U.S.S.R., easily. Why is this even a question? The US (correctly, imo) let the great dictatorships bleed each other. The US was a financier but did not do most of the fighting. The UK is a tiny nation.
By and large I think you are right. But I am also keenly aware that my opinion formed when I discussed the subject with Russian friends and family (and probably the same can be said for you). I’ve taken a college class on World War II, but I came into it with very specific beliefs, and so it doesn’t seem terribly surprising that I left with the same beliefs.
It’s not that I just have a bare, unsupported opinion in my head: if I wanted to, I could go on for quite a bit about the reasons that the USSR was crucial to the defeat of Germany while the US and UK played less significant roles. But I imagine the American readers of LW have equally good reasons why the intervention of the US made all the difference.
Really, the idea that this question is important to me troubles me more than the question itself, and I would rather work at disentangling it from my own identity than work at establishing the truth.
The Battle for Stalingrad, which is the beginning of the defeat of the Nazis, starts in Nov. 1942. What are the Western Allies doing then? Invading North Africa, which I think was fairly irrelevant to the outcome of the war.
Wikipedia says that 80% of German military casualties were on the Eastern Front.
My impression from reading When Titans Clash is that the USSR could have won WWII without D-Day. Obviously, it would have taken much longer (and ended up with Soviet puppets all the way to the Atlantic Ocean).
Considering how long and how much it took to defeat the Nazis, it’s at least plausible that all three were necessary, or it would have taken much longer.
“Contributed” seems ambiguous. Are we talking about who took the most damage or who did the most damage?
Alternate preconceived conclusion: All three contributed a lot and there’s no way to settle the question. That’s because I think arguing about which of the three did the most is tiresome.
And there are whole strings of kindred questions to which you can only get an honest answer from someone who is indifferent to the whole subject involved, and whose opinion on it is probably worthless in any case.
Out of the hundreds of examples that one might choose, take this question: Which of the three great allies, the U.S.S.R., Britain and the USA, has contributed most to the defeat of Germany?
I’m not convinced that question is even well defined. What does “contributed most” mean when mapped onto causality graphs?
This is relevant not only to “Politics is the Mind-killer” but also to “The Bottom Line” and the notion of motivated cognition:
It’s U.S.S.R., easily. Why is this even a question? The US (correctly, imo) let the great dictatorships bleed each other. The US was a financier but did not do most of the fighting. The UK is a tiny nation.
By and large I think you are right. But I am also keenly aware that my opinion formed when I discussed the subject with Russian friends and family (and probably the same can be said for you). I’ve taken a college class on World War II, but I came into it with very specific beliefs, and so it doesn’t seem terribly surprising that I left with the same beliefs.
It’s not that I just have a bare, unsupported opinion in my head: if I wanted to, I could go on for quite a bit about the reasons that the USSR was crucial to the defeat of Germany while the US and UK played less significant roles. But I imagine the American readers of LW have equally good reasons why the intervention of the US made all the difference.
Really, the idea that this question is important to me troubles me more than the question itself, and I would rather work at disentangling it from my own identity than work at establishing the truth.
Depends on what you mean by “contributed most”. One reason for the high casualty rate from the USSR is their leaders’ we have reserves attitude.
The Battle for Stalingrad, which is the beginning of the defeat of the Nazis, starts in Nov. 1942. What are the Western Allies doing then? Invading North Africa, which I think was fairly irrelevant to the outcome of the war.
Wikipedia says that 80% of German military casualties were on the Eastern Front.
My impression from reading When Titans Clash is that the USSR could have won WWII without D-Day. Obviously, it would have taken much longer (and ended up with Soviet puppets all the way to the Atlantic Ocean).
Considering how long and how much it took to defeat the Nazis, it’s at least plausible that all three were necessary, or it would have taken much longer.
“Contributed” seems ambiguous. Are we talking about who took the most damage or who did the most damage?
Alternate preconceived conclusion: All three contributed a lot and there’s no way to settle the question. That’s because I think arguing about which of the three did the most is tiresome.
The very next sentence is, in fact,
I’m not convinced that question is even well defined. What does “contributed most” mean when mapped onto causality graphs?