1) the allies should have cut back on lend lease in 1943 or 44.
2) this would have resulted in more allied deaths, but kept the Soviets out of Central Europe. I get why they didn’t do it and hindsight is 20/20, but it’s amazing how much slack westerners had to communism. Basically because a lot of them liked it ideology.
3) the real scandal in my mind is that they didn’t do more to make sure the KMT win the civil war. They continued to treat communism as a legitimate political movement rather than something roughly as evil as Nazi-ism. They wanted the KMT to form a government with them, and asked to KMT to stop their advance in Manchuria when it had momentum.
And a lot of the weapons mao got came from the Soviets. In an alternate scenario where the Soviets don’t invade Manchuria this doesn’t happen.
Losing China obviously continues to hurt to this day.
Acheson and Marshall were quite right to avoid any commitment to the KMT. One should not make the error of looking at the post-1949 KMT in Taiwan. John Service had argued that Chiang needed to initiate land reforms in China. Chiang refused to do this on the mainland but then accepted Service’s argument from 1950 onward and carried out land reform in Taiwan. That changed everything. But Chiang didn’t do the right thing on the mainland when he had the chance. That was because the warlord class was still too strong for him to handle. But the type of economic development which eventually happened in Taiwan from 1970 on cannot be used as a gauge for judging what would have existed if Chiang had somehow been held in power by US intervention in the 1940s.
Acheson and Marshall were correct in telling Chiang that he should follow the path of France and Italy. The Communist Parties were very strong among the working classes there after World War II. But Stalin had told the leaders that they needed to cooperate with the Allies in order to secure the advantageous peace terms which the USSR had achieved. This was also Stalin’s advice to Mao. Work out agreement with Chiang in order to advance the Soviet interest as part of new balance of power in Asia reached between the US and USSR.
Mao didn’t like the idea but would have been in a difficult position to defy Stalin if it had come to that. Chiang made this unnecessary, since Chiang was determined to prosecute the civil war himself. Chiang never lacked for any weapons. There was a brief period when Acheson and Marshall halted the delivery of further weapons because Chiang had enough and didn’t require any more. Then they resumed the delivery of arms. All of that is documented in The China White Paper.
If Acheson and Marshall had committed themselves to bailing out Chiang, it would have meant Vietnam magnified on the scale of China. It’s also likely that further rebellions would have spread to other parts of Asia if the US had committed itself to such a large-scale intervention. It’s just unfortunate that the consequence of their wise decision in 1949 was that subsequent politicians were hesitant to get out of Indochina.
The fundamental problem with this analysis is that communism is absolutely fucking terrible. Anything that isn't communism, even that which is pretty sub-optimal, is still better. Lots of corrupt dictatorships that kept capitalism turned out alright, especially in East Asia.
China is such a big prize that you just hold your nose and do what needs to be done.
The KMT had momentum early on in Manchuria and was told to halt. If they had continued they might have ended the Civil War before it really got going. We also let the Soviets basically supply Mao with all of Japan's weapons it left behind.
It’s weird, the first “serious” book I ever read was Halberstam’s _The Best and the Brightest_ (1971), the starting point of which was that of course we had been on the wrong side in China and that all our subsequent misfortunes in Asia stemmed from that, that the China Hands had been unjustly purged, that of course China wasn’t ours to lose and that the Reader’s Digest article that kicked off the controversy in 1949 was misguided. I think in the final years of the Vietnam War something like 90% of people who could find China on a map would have agreed with Halberstam. Interesting to see that this is still a live controversy today.
It's difficult to overstate how lazy Hablerstam's book is. He paints Communist victory as inevitable in both countries despite the fact that the Communists themselves, in both conflicts, did not think so, even in retrospect. In China, especially the KMT, Americans who fundamentally did not understand the country repeatedly undermined it.
We put an army in Korea and fought a real war and South Korea is a developed democracy today. It was a backward corrupt dictatorship like south Vietnam when the war took place. Who cares, they had capitalism.
Vietnam is of course a different context requiring its own decision set , but the point is that fighting the commies and pushing them out really did work in Korea. If we didn’t let China go red we wouldn’t have had a Vietnam or Korea.
Throughout the 1940s there was a general belief in the west that the communists were basically just more hardcore versions of social democrats. Therefore they deserved to be treated as legitimate political movements that deserved to be integrated into the government, rather than as absolutist tyrannical radicals to be put down (which they were).
Relations between China and the us were pretty atrocious. We basically told the KMT to halt their advance or lose support. If they wrapped up Manchuria quickly they could have ended the civil war before it got going. When Korea came around we learned the lesson that you can’t expect your anti-communists to be perfect. All that matters is they kill communists.
When was the KMT told to halt, and why did they listen? Not being difficult, I don’t know much about the Chinese Civil War and the lousy sources I’ve read so far (chiefly McMeekin and Wikipedia) tell diametrically opposed stories.
Been reading this book off and on and always got the sense something was off but couldn’t quite put my finger on it. It’s a huge book and IMO not credible that this important context was left out by mistake.
1. Roosevelt wasn't as naive as he is made out to be. The real naivete is from the author, who doesn't understand FDR as a shrewd politician who knew how to hide his communist sympathies when it was diplomatic to do so.
2. The author makes no mention of rail. Without a mention of railroad supplies provided, including trains, cars, and steel, the full impact of lend-lease cannot be assessed.
Agreements:
1. Britain would not have won the war without Soviet help.
2. It was in America's and Britain's selfish interest to help the Soviets.
3. Had Lend Lease been cut off in 1943, Stalin would have made peace with Hitler, and the Germans would have smashed the Americans and British. The Battle of the Bulge demonstrates the German superiority over the British and Americans.
4. Had FDR and Churchill cut off Stalin entirely, he may have gone back to fueling the German war machine, as he did in 1940. The Germans, at no point in the war, lacked manpower. What they lacked was oil. The Soviets had oil. Had German-Russian trade resumed in 1944, the German war machine would have been superior than it was in 1941. This would have been a catastrophic failure of Anglo-American policy and led to the absolute destruction of Anglo-American influence in Europe. Eventually, Spain would have fallen to the Nazis, and the conquest of the Middle East and Africa would not be long afterwards.
The paleo-con take, which is that we should have let Stalin and Hitler kill each other while waiting it out, would have very likely resulted in the total victory of Hitlerism over Eurasia. Without Russian cooperation against Japan, the Japanese would not have surrender in 1945.
On 3-4, it seems to me unlikely that, after declaring a war of extermination on each other, and committing war crimes not seen in Europe for hundreds of years, Germany and the SU could have patched things up. Hitler and Stalin were strong and unprincipled leaders, but not that strong.
On Japan, a big part of McMeekin's argument is that Stalin acted like a massive dick, refusing to take any part in the war against Japan, and then joined when victory for the Allies was already assured to get free territory. If the SU had declared hostilies with Japan in 1941 it would have substantially helped the US war effort, if only because Japan would have been forced to put more troops to defend the northern border of their empire.
I also disagree with #3 on the merits. Yes, the Germans were good soldiers, but if the other side has over 400,000 planes, it doesn't matter how good a solider you are. Also at some point the Allies begin nuking German cities.
The Normandy landing doesn't succeed without Stalin's absorption of Hitler's armies. The Germans would have surely developed their own nukes shortly after, as the Soviets did in 1949.
The Germans basically gave up on the atom bomb in 1942 because they didn’t have the resources to spend years on something that might not work at the end. Even with the USSR out, the basic problem the Germans have economically is that they’re a middleweight against a heavyweight and a cruiserweight. The only thing that would have prevented Germany from being obliterated by nukes would be Hitler’s assassination (which I would regard as a near certainty once an atom bomb was dropped).
This theory that countries automatically surrender when bombed with no threat of invasion isn't certain to me. Japan was being invaded on two fronts by Russia and America -- invasion was imminent and had a 100% chance rate of success.
36% of Hiroshima and 67% of Nagasaki were destroyed, not in the direct blast, but in fires. However, heavy electrical equipment such as turbogenerators and substations 1.5 miles from ground zero survived the explosion. For context, the radius of the city of Berlin was 16 miles wide.
The ratio of wood buildings in Japan was typically 70-90%, while in Berlin it was closer to 10-30%. Conservatively, we should estimate that a nuclear bomb in Berlin would have a damage radius and effect of between 11% to 42% that of the Japanese damage. Therefore, we should expect that a nuclear bomb would destroy (at minimum) 3.96% of Berlin's industry, and at most, 28.14% of Berlin's industry.
I am not considering death count due to radiation, which would be significant, but focusing on material assets.
Assume that America drops 11 nuclear bombs by 1946 (it only had 2 in 1945, which it used on Japan, but let's assume they were saved and used on Germany instead).
This would affect 11 of Austria-Germany's biggest cities, where 9.5 million people lived out of a total population of 74 million. This was 12.8% of Austria-Germany's total population. 11 nuclear bombs would therefore affect between 0.5% and 3.6% of Germany's total nuclear capacity by the end of 1946.
Assume that, so long as the German army remained intact with oil supplies, it would continue resist until/unless 10% of the population or industry was destroyed. Admittedly, much of Germany was destroyed in our timeline, but in this non-Soviet timeline, the destruction would have been less, since the German air raid defense would have been much more effective.
In this case, it would require at minimum 31 nuclear bombs to force Germany to surrender, and at most 220 nuclear bombs. America was not able to achieve 31 nuclear bombs until 1948, which is plenty of time for the Germans to develop their own bomb and destroy London.
After the first two bombs were dropped, the Germans would take the following steps:
1. Evacuate as many people from the cities as possible.
2. Relocate all industry to underground bunkers / mountains
3. Convince the German people that the allies would never stop bombing until every single German was dead, and so it was useless to resist or surrender (there would have been no one to surrender to anyway, since the Normandy landing would not have been successful)
4. Invest all resources into building a nuclear bomb.
The Manhattan Project cost $30 billion (2025 dollars). By 1945, the Germans had only invested ~$150 million (2025 USD).
In 1944, the German GDP was $500 billion (2025 USD). I am using this figure to reflect the fact that German territory would not be occupied by Soviets, and they would still be trading with the Soviets and receiving oil from them by 1945.
75% of GDP was dedicated directly to the war, which gives a total military budget of $375 billion. If the Germans felt that nuclear weapons were deadly enough to surrender over, it is entirely conceivable to imagine that the Germans would dedicate 10% of their military budget to developing them.
The problem in 1945 is that there was no incentive to develop nuclear weapons. Hitler wasn't aware of them; he was interested in tanks, planes, jets, submarines, and rockets. Had Germany been nuked, the attention span problem would have been solved.
If 10% sounds high to you, consider how much the Germans spent on "Wunderwaffe," like the Me 262 and the V2 rocket.
The bombing of London would have ended the war, because it would usher in the age of mutually assured destruction.
Also, the Reich’s awful resource allocation during the war, for military problems that were staring it right in the face and slapping it around, casts real doubt on the plausibility of counterfactual scenarios where Hitler decides to throw everything at his own Manhattan project.
The wonder weapon problem is a good example of this, and it’s evident in every field of German military production, from subs to aircraft to armor. The totally factionalized character of the Reich, combined with Hitler’s abysmal managerial skills and bizarre military obsessions, just seem very difficult to overcome in counterfactual scenarios, given that they could not be overcome even with the extremely powerful incentives provided by WWII.
Worth remembering that low American atomic capacity from 1946-1950 was a deliberate policy choice by Truman, who was under huge pressure to demobilize and redirect economic resources. Truman also severely limited access to the nuclear program and distrusted the military, and so preferred to keep the arsenal small and under direct civilian control.
The massive atomic rearmament during the Korean War shows exactly what the Americans were capable of in terms of a nuclear arsenal when they chose to get one, and your counter factual would provide even stronger motivation for that choice than Korea did. Indeed, this rearmament, including its atomic elements, was precisely the American plan for fighting a future world war during 1946-49, when it was assumed that it would take a few years and they might have to irradiate much of Europe but that victory was assured eventually.
In your counterfactual, where the American industrial machine is still hot and roughly the entire state of Tennessee is still devoted to uranium enrichment, this timeline is even faster. I see no reason to believe the Germans survive 1946 in your scenario—a state can only take so many atomic strikes and continue to function, even if they are the cap guns like the bombs dropped on Japan.
I certainly wouldn't expect the war to be similar, probably fighting shifts to Italy, Norway and the Balkans where ease of supply limits German capability to field troops - until finally bomber command wins the war by dropping nukes on every German population center until they surrender.
I cannot see how the Germans would be able to develop their own nukes in time before needing to surrender (or such a degradation of their warfighting capability that they could not put up effective military resistance) - paticualarly given they would be under nuclear attack. The soviets took years and they weren't feeling the tender ministrations of Bomber Command.
• 6 June 1944, allies attempt landing. There is no front against Russia, so Germans can concentrate all their forces against Britain.
• 21 July 1944, allies are conclusively and decisively defeated at Normandy, forcing all American and British troops out of Europe. The loss of landing vessels means a new attempt cannot be made for another 2 years.
• You suggest that the allies would have instead focused on Italy, Norway, or the Balkans. However, Italy was only successfully invaded in 1943 because of the defeat at Stalingrad. Without Stalingrad, there is no invasion of Italy. Norway and the Balkans would have been just as hard to invade (if not harder) than France.
• America could not have attempted an invasion of Europe prior to 1943 due to its preoccupation in Japan.
• The German airforce was depleted and out of fuel because it was denied Soviet oil after 1941, and had to rely on Romania, which was occupied by the Soviets in September 1944. Had the Luftwaffe been at full strength, the air battle would have remained over London and would have never reached Germany.
• Assuming that a combined British-American force could have defeated the German Blitz in 1943, a bombing campaign of Germany would not have stopped a German atomic project. The Germans were able to increase production throughout the war, despite the bombing campaign, and the V2 rocket program was a success.
• German nuclear scientists were years ahead of Soviet nuclear scientists, so a German atomic bomb by 1947 is entirely reasonable. With a Normandy invasion defeated in 1944, the earliest the allies can re-attempt is 1946, and the battle for France would take a year to reach Berlin, by which time Hitler could deliver a nuclear bomb to London.
Western Allies certainly have naval dominance and once they win in Africa can choose their engagements - if they can't win a campaign they don't need to fight it. No reason to expect a landing that fails. With no eastern front - much less pressure to open a second front. Instead probably landing craft focus in far east with mostly an air war in the west.
UK on its own outproduces German and Italien aircraft production in 40, 41, 42, 43. Only in 1943 does German aircraft production overtaken UK production, but at that point US industrial output has ramped up to over twice German production. Industrial production massively favours Western Allies - especially from 1943. Frankly the Soviets played little role in the outcome of the air war. The fuel would help - but you need aircraft to fly as well.
We know the US gets nuclear weapons in August 1945. I very much doubt the German will and capacity to resist endures for over a year against a nuclear wielding US. Moreover I think expecting no delay on their nuclear weapons program would be ridiculous.
Stalin made several peace overtures which were refused. It was Hitler who was being the stick in the mud. But I think by 1944 he was ready for peace. I don't think Stalin had the capacity to fight a two-front war against Japan and Germany until 1945, but he could have at least done some performative strike maybe.
McMeekin's argument is that Stalin acted like a massive dick, refusing to take any part in the war against Japan, and then joined when victory for the Allies was already assured
That indicates a very unrealistic view by McMeekin. After the Battle of Midway, the Allies made steady progress against Japan. There’s no reason to think that Stalin could have done anything to speed this up. But the Allies who were committed to the defeat of Germany clearly gained from every Soviet blow on the eastern front. McMeekin seems to be substituting his own brand of political correctness here for an actual military analysis yet trying to make it sound as if he is offering a military analysis.
If you say “if I give Stalin everything he’ll work with me for a world of democracy and peace” you are in fact naive as fuck and failing to hide your communist sympathies
“discussion of the relative merits of high-level military equipment distracts from probably the most useful goods the Allies provided, trucks and jeeps as well as fuel and industrial inputs, notably aviation fuel, LOCOMOTIVES, metals, TNT, and ammunition”
FDR wasn't naive; the naivety is the people who claim FDR wasn't a shrewd politician. He wasn't being honest in that quote.
You didn't mention rail, which is separate from locomotives, and was crucial for Soviet logistics.
92% of Russian trains were produced by Lend-Lease: 1,911 locomotives and 11,225 railcars.
The important of railways for the Soviets has to do with the speed and maneuverability of their forces. As German forces became overextended at Stalingrad, for example, Soviet reinforcements were able to encircle and capture German army groups. Had the Soviets lacked the ability to transport troops quickly and efficiently, they would have been forced to mass their troops in defensive positions, and await German attack, or very slowly conduct their offensive. Counter-attacks and quick encirclements would have become impossible. The Germans could have more effectively retreated and avoided encirclement. This is crucial, because about 3 million German soldiers were captured by the Soviets, as compared with roughly 4 million who died in battle. Had the Russians lost 40% of their capacity for rapid movement, perhaps as many as 1 million German soldiers could have evaded capture.
None of land-lease would have been possible without Soviet rail, so it was fundamental.
I'm not sure you were aware of that. I'm not trying to BTFO you, just provide my perspective.
Thank you, that was indeed helpful. Is there a WWII or Eastern Front history that gets into detail on rail (I know the Germans were frantically narrowing railway gauge as they moved East in 1941).
This really doesn't talk about the degree to which Roosevelts government was completely infiltrated by communists and other Soviet sympathizers (Roosevelt was himself one to a significant extent).
It talks about nothing besides Sean McMeekin's shameful lies about Lend-Lease. However, aid to the USSR during World War II was supported by lots of people with zero sympathy for Communism, such as Winston Churchill and Henry Stimson and Frank Knox. And Communist infiltration of the U.S. government did not prevent far more aid going to non-Communist Britain than the Communist USSR. So what is your point?
The most damning indictments (or highest praises) of Lend Lease focus on how it provided the bulk of certain things the Soviet Union was unable to produce in large quantities: the fuel, the motorized transportation, even things like boots, rather than the weapons themselves. Some claim that this aid was instrumental in giving the Soviets the ability to run large counteroffensives which would otherwise stall out. We will probably not live to ever learn the full truth of this.
The characterization of Roosevelt as a confident leader of a confident nation is weak. FDR was a dictator in all but name, and his popularity came from buying the votes of unemployed people with patronage (and the lackluster opinion of the prior administrations) rather than being a just leader. Americans didn't want to enter WWII, but Roosevelt did, so he pulled every sneaky lever in the book to make it happen. Now Trump, a confident man, wants to leave the WWII entanglements finally in the dust, and many Americans support him in such an endeavor. Is this really not confidence at work?
Must be why I wrote ”discussion of the relative merits of high-level military equipment distracts from probably the most useful goods the Allies provided, trucks and jeeps as well as fuel and industrial inputs, notably aviation fuel, locomotives, metals, TNT, and ammunition.” If you’d followed the links you’d see the numbers you think don’t exist. Saying that Trump is walking away from “WWII entanglements” is pretty funny, given that he is currently sucking up to a Russian dictator like no president has since Roosevelt.
Roosevelt sucked up to a Russian dictator because he believed that the two of them could split the world, and that a utopia might emerge from the death of all right wing movements. Trump sucked up to a Russian dictator because he believes that fighting is expensive and should be done versus real enemies.
An Israeli Jew calling someone else a liar while telling lies? An Israeli Jew defending American aid to foreign regimes? An Israeli Jew vulgarly defaming the right while claiming to be right wing and understanding? I am shocked.
FDR also forgave the Soviet's debt from WW1 when he was elected (arguable more egregious than the war aid since this was in 1933 during the depression at the start of his presidency), or about another 1.5 billion then/30 billion today. Plus Britain gave the USSR another 5 billion in aid or roughly another 100 billion today. The ships for bases was retarded on Britain's part, they got shitty boats that did not see combat while giving up their territory to America.
Yes giving entire factories to the Soviets, the most genocidal regime on the planet that was openly hostile to everyone, was foolish. The aid could have been better given to the Chinese (or you know, the American people). Also how should China be valued in this since FDR handed it over to the Soviets after the war? How should the Hull Note be factored which saw Japan fight America instead of the USSR, as Stalin planned? How should the fact supplies were sent by the US navy to the USSR instead of picked up by the Soviets resulting in otherwise avoidable US causalities?
McMeekin's book is excellent for it's work on Stalin and FDR, it's not so great for viewing Britain however which also should have gotten a whopping zero dollars from America, I do agree with you there. Truly a modern Molotov Ribbentrop pact. Buchanan's book is better about Britain but I'm guessing that you won't agree with him.
Important to note, Hitler did not want war, these genocide remarks are slander. Unlike for Stalin and Netanyahu. Even had Hitler won and even if we pretend he wasn't an anglophile, he would have been easier to contain than the victorious USSR. As bad as the Soviet and British aid was, it pales in comparison to the over 2 trillion dollars we've sent Israel (including the Iraq war fought on their behalf).
I see, you're just posted by an Israeli Jew, my mistake. That's drastically worse because that means you're a retarded slave, even your masters laugh at you. You don't benefit from repeating lies about Germany. Buchanan's book is excellent and to complain about him means you're flatly not right wing, the neocons are dead. The Allies started the war and killed more people than the Axis who wanted peace, their rule plainly has been a disaster for everyone except Jews. It borderline doesn't sound like you read the book. No one cares about Germany remilitarizing the Rhineland, it was an unjust and unpractical demand of France in the first place and one Hitler campaigned on ending, but without Britain it was unenforceable. The Munich agreement did not assure Czech rule of Slovakia or even independence. You clearly don't believe your nonsense on agency because it's clear that you think going to war with Germany was justified due to your misunderstanding of Hitler's actions (or your hatred of Whites), that too was the Allies' decision that they didn't have to make. Buchanan's point is that Czechia was a better line in the sand than Poland because it was a well armed democracy, but that the war was a disastrous decision made by Britain either way. Also funny to say if Buchanan was around then, he was. While probably unaware of the reality at the time he was pointing out that in WW1 the Lusitania was a munitions ship while in school during WW2.
To pretend to be right wing or moderate when you're writing about how it was good to give the Soviets billions of dollars in aid when they were openly hostile and already set the record for killing Whites, to Stalin who no one disputes was worse than Hitler, even after 1942 so flagrantly shows your colors I have to wonder why you pretended to be right wing or neutral in the first place. You aren't, you support the most extremist allied view of history that is based on what are now obvious lies, you hate Germans if not all Whites, and you support FDR enabling Stalin. You dressed up this whole argument by saying Britain got aid too (although considering Eastern Europe and China were given to Stalin it was still arguably less), but Britain also did not deserve American aid, your real point is Germany and it's allies needed to be destroyed in the war the Allies started. Your vulgar hatred to anyone who knows more than you is unbecoming of a White, if that is what you're claiming to be. If you aren't then you have even less reason to slander the Germans.
It’s always funny to be excused of extremism by a ranting looney who has to clean spittle off his screen after every post. And anyway, what are you doing posting on an Israeli Jew’s Substack, you white-hating faggot?!?
You say that as though you haven't bitched about everyone who criticizes not only the Allies, not only Churchill, but even Stalin himself. Your identity is bitching about people who point out historical fact to you, what a sorry existence.
I'm pointing out for others that you're full of shit. This is entire essay was total nonsense and an excuse to hate Whites. What an original insult, unfortunately I'm not the one slandering Whites and vilifying the only group who stands up to White genocide, that is openly you, dog.
> Also how should China be valued in this since FDR handed it over to the Soviets after the war?
China never belonged to the Soviets at all. If Stalin had had his way, Chiang would have accepted a system of parliamentary government in which Mao was told by Stalin to follow the course taken by the French and Italian Communist Parties from 1945 on. Chiang refused to do this and rejected John Service's advice that land reform was a necessity, although Chiang retroactively accepted that Service had been correct when he later carried out land reform in Taiwan. None of this had anything to do with an imaginary event of FDR somehow handing China over to the Soviets.
He talks about the fact control of Manchuria was given to Stalin then, and thus China, was handed to them. But your existence is based on hating all things White and Christian, so telling you is pointless.
I'm not convinced you can read so that means very little. You openly worship Jews, lied about being moderate or even right wing, lied about the total aid sent to the Soviets, and are lying again because McMeekin made it clear he believed FDR's and his administration's actions handed China to the Soviets. As did Hoover, MacArthur, and others from the time.
> The Soviets were given control of China at the Yalta conference,
What a bizarre lie that is! There was talk at Yalta of granting the USSR a naval base at Port Arthur, but nothing remotely like granting Moscow control of China.
Chiang Kai-Shek signed an agreement with Stalin that the Soviet navy could maintain a base in Port Arthur. This in no way gave control of Manchuria to Stalin. Chiang made the deal with Stalin because he knew that he did not have the forces to keep the CCP from taking over after a swift Soviet departure. It was Chiang, not Roosevelt, who sought to keep the Soviet forces for a while longer in the hopes of gaining control of Manchuria.
The most important thing which the Soviet forces did in Manchuria was the massive dismantling of industry which was then shipped to the USSR. This didn't really provide any net benefit for either the PLA or KMT, since the loss of industry affected any party which might be in control of Manchuria. KMT troops were then airlifted by the US into the major cities of North China, while the PLA took the countryside. In the cities which they had occupied, the KMT forces carried on widespread corruption and graft, and this was what cost them North China. It had nothing to do with any deal between Roosevelt and Stalin.
Again, this is largely communist propaganda. Chiang signed the agreement because the Americans and British made him, and because the Soviets had already entered Manchuria when he signed it. The agreement also gave the Soviets control of Manchuria's railway system, but they exercised further control than that.
What cost Chiang the war besides the Soviets giving the industrial spoils of Manchuria to the communists (obviously this was beneficial to the CCP), was the US cutting aid to Chiang, as insisted by General Marshall under Truman. The US very clearly handed China to the Soviets, to claim otherwise is to either deny history, or to proclaim Maoist propaganda.
1) the allies should have cut back on lend lease in 1943 or 44.
2) this would have resulted in more allied deaths, but kept the Soviets out of Central Europe. I get why they didn’t do it and hindsight is 20/20, but it’s amazing how much slack westerners had to communism. Basically because a lot of them liked it ideology.
3) the real scandal in my mind is that they didn’t do more to make sure the KMT win the civil war. They continued to treat communism as a legitimate political movement rather than something roughly as evil as Nazi-ism. They wanted the KMT to form a government with them, and asked to KMT to stop their advance in Manchuria when it had momentum.
And a lot of the weapons mao got came from the Soviets. In an alternate scenario where the Soviets don’t invade Manchuria this doesn’t happen.
Losing China obviously continues to hurt to this day.
Acheson and Marshall were quite right to avoid any commitment to the KMT. One should not make the error of looking at the post-1949 KMT in Taiwan. John Service had argued that Chiang needed to initiate land reforms in China. Chiang refused to do this on the mainland but then accepted Service’s argument from 1950 onward and carried out land reform in Taiwan. That changed everything. But Chiang didn’t do the right thing on the mainland when he had the chance. That was because the warlord class was still too strong for him to handle. But the type of economic development which eventually happened in Taiwan from 1970 on cannot be used as a gauge for judging what would have existed if Chiang had somehow been held in power by US intervention in the 1940s.
Acheson and Marshall were correct in telling Chiang that he should follow the path of France and Italy. The Communist Parties were very strong among the working classes there after World War II. But Stalin had told the leaders that they needed to cooperate with the Allies in order to secure the advantageous peace terms which the USSR had achieved. This was also Stalin’s advice to Mao. Work out agreement with Chiang in order to advance the Soviet interest as part of new balance of power in Asia reached between the US and USSR.
Mao didn’t like the idea but would have been in a difficult position to defy Stalin if it had come to that. Chiang made this unnecessary, since Chiang was determined to prosecute the civil war himself. Chiang never lacked for any weapons. There was a brief period when Acheson and Marshall halted the delivery of further weapons because Chiang had enough and didn’t require any more. Then they resumed the delivery of arms. All of that is documented in The China White Paper.
If Acheson and Marshall had committed themselves to bailing out Chiang, it would have meant Vietnam magnified on the scale of China. It’s also likely that further rebellions would have spread to other parts of Asia if the US had committed itself to such a large-scale intervention. It’s just unfortunate that the consequence of their wise decision in 1949 was that subsequent politicians were hesitant to get out of Indochina.
The fundamental problem with this analysis is that communism is absolutely fucking terrible. Anything that isn't communism, even that which is pretty sub-optimal, is still better. Lots of corrupt dictatorships that kept capitalism turned out alright, especially in East Asia.
China is such a big prize that you just hold your nose and do what needs to be done.
The KMT had momentum early on in Manchuria and was told to halt. If they had continued they might have ended the Civil War before it really got going. We also let the Soviets basically supply Mao with all of Japan's weapons it left behind.
It’s weird, the first “serious” book I ever read was Halberstam’s _The Best and the Brightest_ (1971), the starting point of which was that of course we had been on the wrong side in China and that all our subsequent misfortunes in Asia stemmed from that, that the China Hands had been unjustly purged, that of course China wasn’t ours to lose and that the Reader’s Digest article that kicked off the controversy in 1949 was misguided. I think in the final years of the Vietnam War something like 90% of people who could find China on a map would have agreed with Halberstam. Interesting to see that this is still a live controversy today.
It's difficult to overstate how lazy Hablerstam's book is. He paints Communist victory as inevitable in both countries despite the fact that the Communists themselves, in both conflicts, did not think so, even in retrospect. In China, especially the KMT, Americans who fundamentally did not understand the country repeatedly undermined it.
We put an army in Korea and fought a real war and South Korea is a developed democracy today. It was a backward corrupt dictatorship like south Vietnam when the war took place. Who cares, they had capitalism.
Vietnam is of course a different context requiring its own decision set , but the point is that fighting the commies and pushing them out really did work in Korea. If we didn’t let China go red we wouldn’t have had a Vietnam or Korea.
Throughout the 1940s there was a general belief in the west that the communists were basically just more hardcore versions of social democrats. Therefore they deserved to be treated as legitimate political movements that deserved to be integrated into the government, rather than as absolutist tyrannical radicals to be put down (which they were).
Relations between China and the us were pretty atrocious. We basically told the KMT to halt their advance or lose support. If they wrapped up Manchuria quickly they could have ended the civil war before it got going. When Korea came around we learned the lesson that you can’t expect your anti-communists to be perfect. All that matters is they kill communists.
When was the KMT told to halt, and why did they listen? Not being difficult, I don’t know much about the Chinese Civil War and the lousy sources I’ve read so far (chiefly McMeekin and Wikipedia) tell diametrically opposed stories.
Financial aide that never really materialized and an arms embargo that did.
Great work here. I have always wondered how much lend lease really helped the Soviets win the war. This would be interesting to read more about.
Been reading this book off and on and always got the sense something was off but couldn’t quite put my finger on it. It’s a huge book and IMO not credible that this important context was left out by mistake.
Thanks for this.
Disagreements:
1. Roosevelt wasn't as naive as he is made out to be. The real naivete is from the author, who doesn't understand FDR as a shrewd politician who knew how to hide his communist sympathies when it was diplomatic to do so.
2. The author makes no mention of rail. Without a mention of railroad supplies provided, including trains, cars, and steel, the full impact of lend-lease cannot be assessed.
Agreements:
1. Britain would not have won the war without Soviet help.
2. It was in America's and Britain's selfish interest to help the Soviets.
3. Had Lend Lease been cut off in 1943, Stalin would have made peace with Hitler, and the Germans would have smashed the Americans and British. The Battle of the Bulge demonstrates the German superiority over the British and Americans.
4. Had FDR and Churchill cut off Stalin entirely, he may have gone back to fueling the German war machine, as he did in 1940. The Germans, at no point in the war, lacked manpower. What they lacked was oil. The Soviets had oil. Had German-Russian trade resumed in 1944, the German war machine would have been superior than it was in 1941. This would have been a catastrophic failure of Anglo-American policy and led to the absolute destruction of Anglo-American influence in Europe. Eventually, Spain would have fallen to the Nazis, and the conquest of the Middle East and Africa would not be long afterwards.
The paleo-con take, which is that we should have let Stalin and Hitler kill each other while waiting it out, would have very likely resulted in the total victory of Hitlerism over Eurasia. Without Russian cooperation against Japan, the Japanese would not have surrender in 1945.
On 3-4, it seems to me unlikely that, after declaring a war of extermination on each other, and committing war crimes not seen in Europe for hundreds of years, Germany and the SU could have patched things up. Hitler and Stalin were strong and unprincipled leaders, but not that strong.
On Japan, a big part of McMeekin's argument is that Stalin acted like a massive dick, refusing to take any part in the war against Japan, and then joined when victory for the Allies was already assured to get free territory. If the SU had declared hostilies with Japan in 1941 it would have substantially helped the US war effort, if only because Japan would have been forced to put more troops to defend the northern border of their empire.
I also disagree with #3 on the merits. Yes, the Germans were good soldiers, but if the other side has over 400,000 planes, it doesn't matter how good a solider you are. Also at some point the Allies begin nuking German cities.
The Normandy landing doesn't succeed without Stalin's absorption of Hitler's armies. The Germans would have surely developed their own nukes shortly after, as the Soviets did in 1949.
The Germans basically gave up on the atom bomb in 1942 because they didn’t have the resources to spend years on something that might not work at the end. Even with the USSR out, the basic problem the Germans have economically is that they’re a middleweight against a heavyweight and a cruiserweight. The only thing that would have prevented Germany from being obliterated by nukes would be Hitler’s assassination (which I would regard as a near certainty once an atom bomb was dropped).
This theory that countries automatically surrender when bombed with no threat of invasion isn't certain to me. Japan was being invaded on two fronts by Russia and America -- invasion was imminent and had a 100% chance rate of success.
36% of Hiroshima and 67% of Nagasaki were destroyed, not in the direct blast, but in fires. However, heavy electrical equipment such as turbogenerators and substations 1.5 miles from ground zero survived the explosion. For context, the radius of the city of Berlin was 16 miles wide.
The ratio of wood buildings in Japan was typically 70-90%, while in Berlin it was closer to 10-30%. Conservatively, we should estimate that a nuclear bomb in Berlin would have a damage radius and effect of between 11% to 42% that of the Japanese damage. Therefore, we should expect that a nuclear bomb would destroy (at minimum) 3.96% of Berlin's industry, and at most, 28.14% of Berlin's industry.
I am not considering death count due to radiation, which would be significant, but focusing on material assets.
Assume that America drops 11 nuclear bombs by 1946 (it only had 2 in 1945, which it used on Japan, but let's assume they were saved and used on Germany instead).
This would affect 11 of Austria-Germany's biggest cities, where 9.5 million people lived out of a total population of 74 million. This was 12.8% of Austria-Germany's total population. 11 nuclear bombs would therefore affect between 0.5% and 3.6% of Germany's total nuclear capacity by the end of 1946.
Assume that, so long as the German army remained intact with oil supplies, it would continue resist until/unless 10% of the population or industry was destroyed. Admittedly, much of Germany was destroyed in our timeline, but in this non-Soviet timeline, the destruction would have been less, since the German air raid defense would have been much more effective.
In this case, it would require at minimum 31 nuclear bombs to force Germany to surrender, and at most 220 nuclear bombs. America was not able to achieve 31 nuclear bombs until 1948, which is plenty of time for the Germans to develop their own bomb and destroy London.
After the first two bombs were dropped, the Germans would take the following steps:
1. Evacuate as many people from the cities as possible.
2. Relocate all industry to underground bunkers / mountains
3. Convince the German people that the allies would never stop bombing until every single German was dead, and so it was useless to resist or surrender (there would have been no one to surrender to anyway, since the Normandy landing would not have been successful)
4. Invest all resources into building a nuclear bomb.
The Manhattan Project cost $30 billion (2025 dollars). By 1945, the Germans had only invested ~$150 million (2025 USD).
In 1944, the German GDP was $500 billion (2025 USD). I am using this figure to reflect the fact that German territory would not be occupied by Soviets, and they would still be trading with the Soviets and receiving oil from them by 1945.
75% of GDP was dedicated directly to the war, which gives a total military budget of $375 billion. If the Germans felt that nuclear weapons were deadly enough to surrender over, it is entirely conceivable to imagine that the Germans would dedicate 10% of their military budget to developing them.
The problem in 1945 is that there was no incentive to develop nuclear weapons. Hitler wasn't aware of them; he was interested in tanks, planes, jets, submarines, and rockets. Had Germany been nuked, the attention span problem would have been solved.
If 10% sounds high to you, consider how much the Germans spent on "Wunderwaffe," like the Me 262 and the V2 rocket.
The bombing of London would have ended the war, because it would usher in the age of mutually assured destruction.
reference: https://www.atomicarchive.com/resources/documents/bombing-survey/section_IV.html
Also, the Reich’s awful resource allocation during the war, for military problems that were staring it right in the face and slapping it around, casts real doubt on the plausibility of counterfactual scenarios where Hitler decides to throw everything at his own Manhattan project.
The wonder weapon problem is a good example of this, and it’s evident in every field of German military production, from subs to aircraft to armor. The totally factionalized character of the Reich, combined with Hitler’s abysmal managerial skills and bizarre military obsessions, just seem very difficult to overcome in counterfactual scenarios, given that they could not be overcome even with the extremely powerful incentives provided by WWII.
Worth remembering that low American atomic capacity from 1946-1950 was a deliberate policy choice by Truman, who was under huge pressure to demobilize and redirect economic resources. Truman also severely limited access to the nuclear program and distrusted the military, and so preferred to keep the arsenal small and under direct civilian control.
The massive atomic rearmament during the Korean War shows exactly what the Americans were capable of in terms of a nuclear arsenal when they chose to get one, and your counter factual would provide even stronger motivation for that choice than Korea did. Indeed, this rearmament, including its atomic elements, was precisely the American plan for fighting a future world war during 1946-49, when it was assumed that it would take a few years and they might have to irradiate much of Europe but that victory was assured eventually.
In your counterfactual, where the American industrial machine is still hot and roughly the entire state of Tennessee is still devoted to uranium enrichment, this timeline is even faster. I see no reason to believe the Germans survive 1946 in your scenario—a state can only take so many atomic strikes and continue to function, even if they are the cap guns like the bombs dropped on Japan.
I certainly wouldn't expect the war to be similar, probably fighting shifts to Italy, Norway and the Balkans where ease of supply limits German capability to field troops - until finally bomber command wins the war by dropping nukes on every German population center until they surrender.
I cannot see how the Germans would be able to develop their own nukes in time before needing to surrender (or such a degradation of their warfighting capability that they could not put up effective military resistance) - paticualarly given they would be under nuclear attack. The soviets took years and they weren't feeling the tender ministrations of Bomber Command.
Let's look at the alternate timeline:
• 6 June 1944, allies attempt landing. There is no front against Russia, so Germans can concentrate all their forces against Britain.
• 21 July 1944, allies are conclusively and decisively defeated at Normandy, forcing all American and British troops out of Europe. The loss of landing vessels means a new attempt cannot be made for another 2 years.
• You suggest that the allies would have instead focused on Italy, Norway, or the Balkans. However, Italy was only successfully invaded in 1943 because of the defeat at Stalingrad. Without Stalingrad, there is no invasion of Italy. Norway and the Balkans would have been just as hard to invade (if not harder) than France.
• America could not have attempted an invasion of Europe prior to 1943 due to its preoccupation in Japan.
• The German airforce was depleted and out of fuel because it was denied Soviet oil after 1941, and had to rely on Romania, which was occupied by the Soviets in September 1944. Had the Luftwaffe been at full strength, the air battle would have remained over London and would have never reached Germany.
• Assuming that a combined British-American force could have defeated the German Blitz in 1943, a bombing campaign of Germany would not have stopped a German atomic project. The Germans were able to increase production throughout the war, despite the bombing campaign, and the V2 rocket program was a success.
• German nuclear scientists were years ahead of Soviet nuclear scientists, so a German atomic bomb by 1947 is entirely reasonable. With a Normandy invasion defeated in 1944, the earliest the allies can re-attempt is 1946, and the battle for France would take a year to reach Berlin, by which time Hitler could deliver a nuclear bomb to London.
I disagree on a number of points here.
Western Allies certainly have naval dominance and once they win in Africa can choose their engagements - if they can't win a campaign they don't need to fight it. No reason to expect a landing that fails. With no eastern front - much less pressure to open a second front. Instead probably landing craft focus in far east with mostly an air war in the west.
UK on its own outproduces German and Italien aircraft production in 40, 41, 42, 43. Only in 1943 does German aircraft production overtaken UK production, but at that point US industrial output has ramped up to over twice German production. Industrial production massively favours Western Allies - especially from 1943. Frankly the Soviets played little role in the outcome of the air war. The fuel would help - but you need aircraft to fly as well.
We know the US gets nuclear weapons in August 1945. I very much doubt the German will and capacity to resist endures for over a year against a nuclear wielding US. Moreover I think expecting no delay on their nuclear weapons program would be ridiculous.
Stalin made several peace overtures which were refused. It was Hitler who was being the stick in the mud. But I think by 1944 he was ready for peace. I don't think Stalin had the capacity to fight a two-front war against Japan and Germany until 1945, but he could have at least done some performative strike maybe.
McMeekin's argument is that Stalin acted like a massive dick, refusing to take any part in the war against Japan, and then joined when victory for the Allies was already assured
That indicates a very unrealistic view by McMeekin. After the Battle of Midway, the Allies made steady progress against Japan. There’s no reason to think that Stalin could have done anything to speed this up. But the Allies who were committed to the defeat of Germany clearly gained from every Soviet blow on the eastern front. McMeekin seems to be substituting his own brand of political correctness here for an actual military analysis yet trying to make it sound as if he is offering a military analysis.
If you say “if I give Stalin everything he’ll work with me for a world of democracy and peace” you are in fact naive as fuck and failing to hide your communist sympathies
“discussion of the relative merits of high-level military equipment distracts from probably the most useful goods the Allies provided, trucks and jeeps as well as fuel and industrial inputs, notably aviation fuel, LOCOMOTIVES, metals, TNT, and ammunition”
FDR wasn't naive; the naivety is the people who claim FDR wasn't a shrewd politician. He wasn't being honest in that quote.
You didn't mention rail, which is separate from locomotives, and was crucial for Soviet logistics.
92% of Russian trains were produced by Lend-Lease: 1,911 locomotives and 11,225 railcars.
The important of railways for the Soviets has to do with the speed and maneuverability of their forces. As German forces became overextended at Stalingrad, for example, Soviet reinforcements were able to encircle and capture German army groups. Had the Soviets lacked the ability to transport troops quickly and efficiently, they would have been forced to mass their troops in defensive positions, and await German attack, or very slowly conduct their offensive. Counter-attacks and quick encirclements would have become impossible. The Germans could have more effectively retreated and avoided encirclement. This is crucial, because about 3 million German soldiers were captured by the Soviets, as compared with roughly 4 million who died in battle. Had the Russians lost 40% of their capacity for rapid movement, perhaps as many as 1 million German soldiers could have evaded capture.
None of land-lease would have been possible without Soviet rail, so it was fundamental.
I'm not sure you were aware of that. I'm not trying to BTFO you, just provide my perspective.
Thank you, that was indeed helpful. Is there a WWII or Eastern Front history that gets into detail on rail (I know the Germans were frantically narrowing railway gauge as they moved East in 1941).
This really doesn't talk about the degree to which Roosevelts government was completely infiltrated by communists and other Soviet sympathizers (Roosevelt was himself one to a significant extent).
It talks about nothing besides Sean McMeekin's shameful lies about Lend-Lease. However, aid to the USSR during World War II was supported by lots of people with zero sympathy for Communism, such as Winston Churchill and Henry Stimson and Frank Knox. And Communist infiltration of the U.S. government did not prevent far more aid going to non-Communist Britain than the Communist USSR. So what is your point?
The most damning indictments (or highest praises) of Lend Lease focus on how it provided the bulk of certain things the Soviet Union was unable to produce in large quantities: the fuel, the motorized transportation, even things like boots, rather than the weapons themselves. Some claim that this aid was instrumental in giving the Soviets the ability to run large counteroffensives which would otherwise stall out. We will probably not live to ever learn the full truth of this.
The characterization of Roosevelt as a confident leader of a confident nation is weak. FDR was a dictator in all but name, and his popularity came from buying the votes of unemployed people with patronage (and the lackluster opinion of the prior administrations) rather than being a just leader. Americans didn't want to enter WWII, but Roosevelt did, so he pulled every sneaky lever in the book to make it happen. Now Trump, a confident man, wants to leave the WWII entanglements finally in the dust, and many Americans support him in such an endeavor. Is this really not confidence at work?
Must be why I wrote ”discussion of the relative merits of high-level military equipment distracts from probably the most useful goods the Allies provided, trucks and jeeps as well as fuel and industrial inputs, notably aviation fuel, locomotives, metals, TNT, and ammunition.” If you’d followed the links you’d see the numbers you think don’t exist. Saying that Trump is walking away from “WWII entanglements” is pretty funny, given that he is currently sucking up to a Russian dictator like no president has since Roosevelt.
Roosevelt sucked up to a Russian dictator because he believed that the two of them could split the world, and that a utopia might emerge from the death of all right wing movements. Trump sucked up to a Russian dictator because he believes that fighting is expensive and should be done versus real enemies.
An Israeli Jew calling someone else a liar while telling lies? An Israeli Jew defending American aid to foreign regimes? An Israeli Jew vulgarly defaming the right while claiming to be right wing and understanding? I am shocked.
FDR also forgave the Soviet's debt from WW1 when he was elected (arguable more egregious than the war aid since this was in 1933 during the depression at the start of his presidency), or about another 1.5 billion then/30 billion today. Plus Britain gave the USSR another 5 billion in aid or roughly another 100 billion today. The ships for bases was retarded on Britain's part, they got shitty boats that did not see combat while giving up their territory to America.
Yes giving entire factories to the Soviets, the most genocidal regime on the planet that was openly hostile to everyone, was foolish. The aid could have been better given to the Chinese (or you know, the American people). Also how should China be valued in this since FDR handed it over to the Soviets after the war? How should the Hull Note be factored which saw Japan fight America instead of the USSR, as Stalin planned? How should the fact supplies were sent by the US navy to the USSR instead of picked up by the Soviets resulting in otherwise avoidable US causalities?
McMeekin's book is excellent for it's work on Stalin and FDR, it's not so great for viewing Britain however which also should have gotten a whopping zero dollars from America, I do agree with you there. Truly a modern Molotov Ribbentrop pact. Buchanan's book is better about Britain but I'm guessing that you won't agree with him.
Important to note, Hitler did not want war, these genocide remarks are slander. Unlike for Stalin and Netanyahu. Even had Hitler won and even if we pretend he wasn't an anglophile, he would have been easier to contain than the victorious USSR. As bad as the Soviet and British aid was, it pales in comparison to the over 2 trillion dollars we've sent Israel (including the Iraq war fought on their behalf).
I'm not Jewish or Israeli, Buchanan's book sucks (https://open.substack.com/pub/kvetch/p/what-ive-been-reading?r=2y2mz&utm_campaign=comment-list-share-cta&utm_medium=web&comments=true&commentId=80631388, https://open.substack.com/pub/kvetch/p/what-ive-been-reading?r=2y2mz&utm_campaign=comment-list-share-cta&utm_medium=web&comments=true&commentId=80631425), and you're a tard.
I see, you're just posted by an Israeli Jew, my mistake. That's drastically worse because that means you're a retarded slave, even your masters laugh at you. You don't benefit from repeating lies about Germany. Buchanan's book is excellent and to complain about him means you're flatly not right wing, the neocons are dead. The Allies started the war and killed more people than the Axis who wanted peace, their rule plainly has been a disaster for everyone except Jews. It borderline doesn't sound like you read the book. No one cares about Germany remilitarizing the Rhineland, it was an unjust and unpractical demand of France in the first place and one Hitler campaigned on ending, but without Britain it was unenforceable. The Munich agreement did not assure Czech rule of Slovakia or even independence. You clearly don't believe your nonsense on agency because it's clear that you think going to war with Germany was justified due to your misunderstanding of Hitler's actions (or your hatred of Whites), that too was the Allies' decision that they didn't have to make. Buchanan's point is that Czechia was a better line in the sand than Poland because it was a well armed democracy, but that the war was a disastrous decision made by Britain either way. Also funny to say if Buchanan was around then, he was. While probably unaware of the reality at the time he was pointing out that in WW1 the Lusitania was a munitions ship while in school during WW2.
To pretend to be right wing or moderate when you're writing about how it was good to give the Soviets billions of dollars in aid when they were openly hostile and already set the record for killing Whites, to Stalin who no one disputes was worse than Hitler, even after 1942 so flagrantly shows your colors I have to wonder why you pretended to be right wing or neutral in the first place. You aren't, you support the most extremist allied view of history that is based on what are now obvious lies, you hate Germans if not all Whites, and you support FDR enabling Stalin. You dressed up this whole argument by saying Britain got aid too (although considering Eastern Europe and China were given to Stalin it was still arguably less), but Britain also did not deserve American aid, your real point is Germany and it's allies needed to be destroyed in the war the Allies started. Your vulgar hatred to anyone who knows more than you is unbecoming of a White, if that is what you're claiming to be. If you aren't then you have even less reason to slander the Germans.
It’s always funny to be excused of extremism by a ranting looney who has to clean spittle off his screen after every post. And anyway, what are you doing posting on an Israeli Jew’s Substack, you white-hating faggot?!?
You say that as though you haven't bitched about everyone who criticizes not only the Allies, not only Churchill, but even Stalin himself. Your identity is bitching about people who point out historical fact to you, what a sorry existence.
I'm pointing out for others that you're full of shit. This is entire essay was total nonsense and an excuse to hate Whites. What an original insult, unfortunately I'm not the one slandering Whites and vilifying the only group who stands up to White genocide, that is openly you, dog.
> Also how should China be valued in this since FDR handed it over to the Soviets after the war?
China never belonged to the Soviets at all. If Stalin had had his way, Chiang would have accepted a system of parliamentary government in which Mao was told by Stalin to follow the course taken by the French and Italian Communist Parties from 1945 on. Chiang refused to do this and rejected John Service's advice that land reform was a necessity, although Chiang retroactively accepted that Service had been correct when he later carried out land reform in Taiwan. None of this had anything to do with an imaginary event of FDR somehow handing China over to the Soviets.
This is outright communist propaganda. The Soviets were given control of China at the Yalta conference, Stalin himself was shocked by this.
China handed to Stalin at Yalta? Not even McMeekin says anything so daft.
He talks about the fact control of Manchuria was given to Stalin then, and thus China, was handed to them. But your existence is based on hating all things White and Christian, so telling you is pointless.
I’ve got the book, stupid Nazi fuck. You’re making shit up again.
I'm not convinced you can read so that means very little. You openly worship Jews, lied about being moderate or even right wing, lied about the total aid sent to the Soviets, and are lying again because McMeekin made it clear he believed FDR's and his administration's actions handed China to the Soviets. As did Hoover, MacArthur, and others from the time.
> The Soviets were given control of China at the Yalta conference,
What a bizarre lie that is! There was talk at Yalta of granting the USSR a naval base at Port Arthur, but nothing remotely like granting Moscow control of China.
Lmao okay faggot, it was for control of Manchuria, and defacto China.
Chiang Kai-Shek signed an agreement with Stalin that the Soviet navy could maintain a base in Port Arthur. This in no way gave control of Manchuria to Stalin. Chiang made the deal with Stalin because he knew that he did not have the forces to keep the CCP from taking over after a swift Soviet departure. It was Chiang, not Roosevelt, who sought to keep the Soviet forces for a while longer in the hopes of gaining control of Manchuria.
The most important thing which the Soviet forces did in Manchuria was the massive dismantling of industry which was then shipped to the USSR. This didn't really provide any net benefit for either the PLA or KMT, since the loss of industry affected any party which might be in control of Manchuria. KMT troops were then airlifted by the US into the major cities of North China, while the PLA took the countryside. In the cities which they had occupied, the KMT forces carried on widespread corruption and graft, and this was what cost them North China. It had nothing to do with any deal between Roosevelt and Stalin.
Again, this is largely communist propaganda. Chiang signed the agreement because the Americans and British made him, and because the Soviets had already entered Manchuria when he signed it. The agreement also gave the Soviets control of Manchuria's railway system, but they exercised further control than that.
What cost Chiang the war besides the Soviets giving the industrial spoils of Manchuria to the communists (obviously this was beneficial to the CCP), was the US cutting aid to Chiang, as insisted by General Marshall under Truman. The US very clearly handed China to the Soviets, to claim otherwise is to either deny history, or to proclaim Maoist propaganda.