Economic war against Belarus, historical paradox of US

Moderators: DrVolin, 82_28, Elvis, Jeff

Economic war against Belarus, historical paradox of US

Postby ChurlishBeaver » Mon Jun 11, 2012 6:50 pm

The Global reserch article Sanctioning Progress: The Secret Economic War against Belarus of 6 July 2012 by Gearóid Ó Colmáin has also been posted to the web-site candobetter.net.

That copy also include the footnote below. That footnote suggests that there now exists a historical paradox by which the very country whose leaders are now attempting to drive the world into a new age of barbarism may well have prevented the world from descending into an era of barbarism by having fought against Nazi Germany. The foot note is:

[1] Whist I find my find myself strongly in agreement with the rest of this article, this claim, often made by people who share my left-wing world views, seems not to be born out by the evidence. Whilst it is true that the Soviet Union 'won' its war against Nazi Germany, it won at a terrible cost of 23,400,000 lives as was noted in the article "Need 60 million have died to rid the world of Hitler?" of 17 Dec 2011 on candobetter. It needs to be asked: How many more lives could the Soviet Union have lost without losing the ability to further resist Nazism? It seems to me that this number was not unlimited. Had the Soviet Union suffered more reverses, for example, had they lost Stalingrad and had the Germans gained access to the oilfields in the Caucasus or beyond there, Iran, could the Red Army have continued the fight? Had the red Army lost the massive tank battle of Kursk in 1943, could they have pursued their war to defeat Nazi Germany or would they have felt no alternative but to sign a truce with Nazi Germany?

One factor that could well have made a difference between defeat and victory for the Soviet Union was the supply of equipment, particularly trucks from the United States. In fact, more of the credit for defeating Nazi Germany may rightly lie with the capitalist United States than with the 'socialist' (or 'post capitalist') Soviet Union. Even if the sacrifice of American lives was much less than that of the Soviet Union -- 418,500 as opposed to 23,400,000 according to Wikipedia --- it seems to me that what was far more decisive than the sacrifice of manpower in winning that fight was the supply of hardware, particularly vehicles for transport and fighting, fighter aircraft, bombers and warships. That hardware was supplied to itself and to allied nations far more abundantly by the United States than by any other single nation.

Whilst the United States military industrial complex appears to have, on a number of occasions, acted to deliberately prolong the Second World War, for example by having failed to bomb the Nazi German ball bearing factory at Schweinfurt, which would have very rapidly ended the production of any heavy equipment necessary for Germany to fight a modern war, it nevertheless appears that the United States and not the Soviet Union had the most decisive impact on that war.

Whether that was due to the innate superiority of 'capitalism' over 'socialism' or simply the United States' better access to petroleum, coal, metals and other natural resources is another question.
ChurlishBeaver
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Sat Jun 02, 2012 10:20 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Return to Deep Politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest