posted on May, 13 2007 @ 02:33 PM
It is simply silly to quantify a country's role in modern warfare based solely on how many casulties they suffered. So Russia lost 25 million? I
think Richard Overy, the acknowledged expert in Russia's wartime experience, says that there were 10 million lost. But hey, whatever, we'll go with
wikis numbers. Did China have a greater impact on ending WWII than Russia and the US and France combined because they(probably) lost more people
(records are scattered)? Doubtful.
The simple fact of the matter is that war is not so much a questions of war as it is of economics. Thucydides said this, and it is even more true as
systems of infastructure, technology, communications, etc. become more sophistocated. Simply put, without US aid in the form of Lend-Lease and later
direct aid, then the Soviet Union would not have been able to survive the war. Don't take my word for it. Zhukov said that on numerous occassions
during and after the war. For a historians take on it, look at the immenient Boris Sokolov who has studied the effects of Lend-Lease his entire
career. Without the supplies, Russia would have been finished.
I can't speak to the actions in Asia, since I am only qualified to speak of European history, but given the gross ignorence and lack of credible
sources when talking about WWII, then I would also doubt what you say there.
To the person who said that the US gave Smallpox infected blankets. That is simply a false, urban legend. History has a record of sources, and
rather than engaging in lying about the past, it makes more sense to be honest about what the sources say. There is plenty of terrible things that
the USA has done, but lets not make things up.
There has been one documented case in which it was considered and debated (though the sources don't actually say whether it happened). It was
considered by the BRITISH commander Lord Jeffrey Amherst during the 1763 Pontiac Rebellion. It is a bit disingenious to blame "America" for the
actions of a British peer, acting under direction of the crown, and under functioning as a member of the British Regular Army. Especially since we
don't actually know whether or not the blankets were ever distributed. Further making the story doubtful is where exactly did the blankets supposely
come from? Good question, there was an epidemic at Fort Pitt, (which was in the middle of "the Indian country"). Very likely the Native population
was already experiencing small pox. Eighteenth century smallpox epidemics were terrible, but relatively common. Of course the one we tend to think
of is on the 1775 one, but 1763 was also a year of smallpox outbreak. The best and most recent book dealing with the spread of smallpox in the
eighteenth century is Elizabeth Anne Fenn's _Pox Americana_. I would consider reading it before making claims that are false, and show that you are
just likely to believe something that you "heard" once about history but haven't bothered to research whether or not it is true.