Comment by RcouF1uZ4gsC | Hacker News Reader

Comment by RcouF1uZ4gsC | Hacker News Reader

> Within just weeks Stalin violated protocols signed at the conference that should have guaranteed democratic freedoms for the countries of Eastern Europe, and the Iron Curtain began to descend.

> The new United Nations organization set up at Yalta should have been able to intervene, but the voting arrangements agreed there allowed the Soviet Union, as one of the five permanent members of the Security Council possessing a veto, to prevent action.

The Soviet Union had 6.4 million men along the Eastern Front [0], composed of battle hardened veterans led by brilliant generals such as Zhukov, with many millions more back in Russia that could be called into service. In 1945 there was no military force in the world that could have dislodged the Soviet Union from Eastern Europe.

In addition, while the US was developing nukes, nobody really could be sure how effective they would be. Thus, Yalta was very pragmatic in not wanting to get into a futile struggle with Stalin over Eastern Europe as well as enlist his aid in what was anticipated to be a very bloody invasion of the Japanese homeland.

0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Front_(World_War_II)#F...

If you read a little further in the article you cited, you'd see:

    Among other goods, Lend-Lease supplied:

    58% of the USSR's high octane aviation fuel
    33% of their motor vehicles
    53% of USSR domestic production of expended ordnance 
    (artillery shells, mines, assorted explosives)
    30% of fighters and bombers
    93% of railway equipment (locomotives, freight cars, wide gauge rails, etc.)
    50–80% of rolled steel, cable, lead, and aluminium
    43% of garage facilities (building materials & blueprints)
    12% of tanks and SPGs
    50% of TNT (1942–1944) and 33% of ammunition powder (in 1944)[55]
    16% of all explosives (from 1941–1945, the USSR produced 
    505,000 tons of explosives and received 105,000 tons of Lend-Lease imports)

And that is to say nothing of foodstuff.

So had the the British and Americans turned on the Soviets, they would have faced Zhukov and 6.5 million soldiers, but with limited supplies fuel and bullets.

Don't confuse facts with a logical argument.

Stalin didn't care if they all died charging with empty magazines.

Just for the note:

Here is the scan of original Stalin's letter to Soviet ambassador in Britain:

https://ic.pics.livejournal.com/yuripasholok/765139/15022510...

about situation when Britain decided to left to itself 156 American Aerocobras that was shipped to USSR as one of Lend-Lease shipments. This was before Stalingrad - at the time when Germany advance was perceived as unstoppable.

Yet to note that GB received 3 times more stuff on Lend-Lease than USSR.

My translation (as a beginner in Russian language) of Stalin's letter is:

"In negotiations with Eden on the issue of Aerocobras you acted cowardly. This is not worthy of the Soviet ambassador. The British behaviour on the question of the Aerocobras, I consider the height of arrogance. The British had no right to redirect our cargo to their account without prior consent. The reference of the British to the fact that forwarding occurred by order of America is a jesuitism(?). Not hard to understand that America acted here at the request of the British. Don't let the British think that we will tolerate the insults inflicted on us not the first time by the English rulers. Soviet government requires that 154 Aerocobras captured by the British be immediately returned to the Soviet Union. We urge you to bring this British piracy to the attention of layers of British society. I regret departure of Beaverbrook: while Beaverbrook was in charge of British supply, England faithfully fulfilled its obligations, after Beaverbrook departed England became treacherous."

Even if there was a force capable of pushing back the USSR in 1945, I dread to think what a retreating Soviet Army would have done to the civilian population of occupied countries.

They treated them well when they were liberating them why would they harm them if they were retreating? Did you mean scorched earth policy?

I'd use the word liberated when referring to the peoples of Western Europe. But I'd be much more hesitant say Eastern European nations were liberated... Especially considering most would be Soviet puppet states for decades to come.

Does your comment about "treating them well" mean objectively well, or merely in comparison to the Nazis?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com