I think the point is that you can choose to go live somewhere that is not the USA and you continue reap the benefits you describe, all the while paying a different countries taxes and personally benefitting much much more.
If I was an American, I wouldn't want to be footing the bill for Global Security either.
Yes, but I won't last forever either. I have, if I try very hard, 40 years of useful employment left in me. It's possible that the Holy Karelian Empire will displace US hegemony in the next 40 years, but it's not that likely. It's also possible - and much more likely - that Finland will end up on the wrong side of the US and maybe be a site of a hot proxy war between the US and some upstart superpower within the next 40 years, but that also seems fairly unlikely.
Forty years ago the world was not too different - the USSR and East Germany existed and China was not so strong, but the shape of the rest of it was otherwise broadly similar. There are very few countries that were prosperous and peaceful and lightly-armed in 1980 that are bad choices today.
It is way too generous towards the USA to describe its military as "Global Security". The U.S. military main job overseas consists in defending north-american economic interests by military means. If this implies overthrowing democratic governments or supporting dictatorships, or the inverse, so be it. It is more a like a mafia (that protects the economic interests of the people who support them) than a police force (that is supposed to protect everybody).
> If I was an American, I wouldn't want to be footing the bill for Global Security either.
There is a deep and nuanced conversation to be had here, though I will say fourstar already made one important point very succinctly. [1]
I will point out that it has been the position of the American people since WWII that we are happy to foot the bill for global security. So while you might not feel that way, Americans feel differently. I'll give a bit of background on how that came to be.
While Hitler was cutting through Europe there was a extensive internal debate in the US whether just focusing on defending the Pacific would be sufficient. During the time leading up the Battle of Britain, we decided the US view of security needed to be global-- if Hitler overran Britain the threat was just too large. It would turn out that the Brits won one of the most significant military victories in history [2], but prior that fact emerging American policy had come to the firm conclusion that we had to defend east as well as west. The Brits handled it, but it was tough to know that at the time.
Since WWII we have not really reevaluated this policy. Some in the US believe it is time to do so and the current election will decide much of this. But in the last 10 years we have witnessed the biggest land grab in Europe since World War II [3], so now might not be the time to dissolve the world order.
This may be more detail than you were expecting, but I hope you found it interesting. The world is a much more fragile place that I wish and at the end of the day we all need to chip in for global security.
Ww2 in Europe was largely won by the USSR. Britain and the US opened a western front quite belatedly after years of begging by the USSR, after the Soviets sacrificed 15+ million lives to turn the tide, and after a lot of wasted time focusing on minor gains in North Africa (at Churchill’s insistence). Combined US and UK military’s deaths were less than a tenth those for USSR. We love to pat ourselves on the back with movies about D Day though. (They should be about Stalingrad.)
Finland incidentally was a key ally for Hitler in his attack on the USSR.
The USSR acted as a serious meat grinder, but a little less than half of German losses where on the eastern front which also included polish forces and the USSR had minimal impact on the Pacific front.
The US footed a lot of the material costs needed for Europe and the USSR to stay in the fight via lend lease. To the tune of about $575 billion inflation adjusted, and 22% of that going directly to the USSR. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease
So, the USSR played a significant role, but where far less effective than your suggesting.
If you’re thinking of losses as lives in the German army and you include non German forces added to the German army and you assume all deaths on the eastern front where with the USSR then you can get very high numbers for German deaths due to the USSR.
On the other hand if you look at losses as the capacity to make war then things are different. As a land war the German navy for instance was largely uninvolved so you need to consider how many tanks was a battleship worth. How critical was a lost factory or oil field etc. And in that context while Germany gained some men from their invasion of the USSR* a major goal was the acquisition of oil in the caucuses, because having been cut off from other sources they would have likely lost with or without the invasion.
In the end it was the loss of aircraft factories more than aircraft that really cost them the air war. While we think of WWII as a modern war, Germany used 2.75 million horses in WWII. Fuel, raw materials, and industrial capacity for engines where tight.
*~230,000 of the deaths on the eastern front where originally from the USSR but fighting for the Germans.
Just to add, the most extreme version of this was probably the thousands of miles worth of defenses Germany built along the coast which diverted a great deal of men and resources without meaningful associated deaths.
The French resistance was again almost completely useless in terms of killing German soldiers. However, they had a more meaningful impact on German military effectiveness as demonstrated by deployment of forces.
To be clear, I am in no way debating the casualty figures, but winning a war isn’t just about running out of people. Militaries trade off between different types of resources.
> More than 80% of the aid to USSR was delivered after the Battle of Stalingrad was won by the USSR, and the outcome of the war was pretty much settled.
If you think WWII was settled in February of '43 then that says all we need to know regarding your credibility on this matter. I only mean to be as harsh as is necessary, but it is crazy to be as cavalier as you are being regarding the history of a war where so many lives were lost.
> Finland incidentally was a key ally for Hitler in his attack on the USSR.
It is extremely callous to Finland to put it that way!
The USSR attacked Finland while Germany and the USSR were allies against Poland. Understandably, Finland defended itself from this attack and entered into a defensive war with the USSR. Two years later, while this war was still going on, Germany attacked its ally the USSR. Thus Germany and Finland became allies by accident, because they were both fighting the same country. As the Russians started defeating Germany, the Finns expelled the (very few) German troops that they had allowed into their territory, who had to escape to Norway (still occupied by Germany) through the north.
You are wildly incorrect. The Winter War ended well before the Continuation War began. See: The Treaty of Moscow. And it was not just a few German troops. Finland served as a staging point for a major if unsuccessful assault on Murmansk. More important, the Finnish invasion (and taking of Karelia) helped tie down Soviet forces near Leningrad. The alliance was eagerly sought by Finnish politicians convinced (not unreasonably) the Soviets would attack after many months of belligerence toward the Finnish ambassador by Molotov. But they were also convinced that Germany would inevitably defeat USSR and usher in a New Europe (code for fascist Europe - long racist toward Russians, the Finns relished the fraternal ties to Germany and the privileged place they could assume in this new world order).
Finnish leaders actually served time in prison after the war for their war crimes. I am sympathetic to Finlands position but to say the Winter War never ended is an absurd falsehood. An entire book was written about the period between the wars by AF Upton. Finland In Crisis. It is superb. It details extensive deliberate planning at the highest levels between Finland and Germany for months prior to Germany turning on its then ally USSR.
(Here’s a quiz for you. If it was only a few German troops in Finland who quickly left, why is it they burned so much of the north and center of the country e.g. Rovaneimi on their way out and why did Finland have to fight them to get them to leave? They were dug in in bases supplied by Finland.)
Thank you very much for your corrections! I wrote my reply in the spur of the moment. This is a fascinating part of European history. I like to think that, after the Moscow peace treaty, the Finnish continued to prepare for war in an undercover way. Thus in my head the war never actually "ended". I'm definitely going to read the book you recommend by Upton.
Oh, I'm glad to hear, it really is a good book although you have to get it used.
Part of the reason I clicked into this thread is if I have been fasicnated with Finland, especially the last 12 months or so, so you caught me at a time when I have Finnish history particularly close to my memory :) I am reading a book by the same author AF Upton presently on the Finnish "revolution" (peaceful) and civil war. I read a winter war book at the start, also good. That's all my Finland knowledge, beyond wikipedia.
I don't blame you for defending Finland, it is a wonderful country, one of my favorites. I don't think of them mainly as German collaborators or anything. They did have to defend themselves against some pretty terrible USSR behaviour. Cheers.
PS Do you watch any Aki Kaurismaki? Great Finnish filmmaker, lives in Portugal these days.
Yes, the USSR paid a very high price for the defeat of Germany. And yes, the US and UK could have stayed out of it and the USSR would have rolled up to the Atlantic Ocean and we'd be talking about the amazing growth of the Finnish economy since it's independence from the USSR in 1990.
It's unlikely that the USSR would have been able to defeat Germany on its own. In addition to opening a second front in Italy and a third front in France, and sharing military designs to improve Soviet tanks - direct US aid included:
"more than 400,000 vehicles, 14,000 aircraft, 13,000 battle tanks, gasoline and explosives, and thousands of radio sets and motorcycles, as well as food, blankets, machine tools, factory equipment, and boots. The U.S. had provided 55% of the aluminum and 80% of the copper used by the Soviets."
This comment is unrelated to the discussion you are replying to, but I'll give it a brief response. First, all you need to know about whether the Soviet efforts in WW2 and the American efforts in WW2 were better for Europe is to consider the outcomes of East and West Germany. Second, I have serious doubts whether the USSR alone could have prevailed against Germany and Japan. But as to whether the US and the UK could have, you need only ask Oppenheimer.
>Finland incidentally was a key ally for Hitler in his attack on the USSR.
Key ally how? Beyond diverting troops from the southern front to the finnish theater, how did finland contribute to the german war effort?
You also seem to forget that then leader marshall mannerheim refused to advance on key cities in the north, such as st. petersburg and petroskoi even though hitler was quite insistent.
Finland was really between a rock and a hard place, as the international community was basically a lame duck after the Soviets attacked Finland in 1939 by staging a false flag in the small village of Mainila. Although some in Finland tend to forget it, Sweden provided substantial amounts of men and material which helped a lot, but it wasn't quite enough. The only other player with enough muscle was Germany, to which Finland had good historical connections traditionally, going back to the days of the Finnish Civil War.
Also, East Karelia as an area was Finland's strategic target. Finland hoped to regain what the Soviets stole and to have a buffer in place for the next Soviet attack. Many Finnish people recognize the saying "If the enemy does not come from the East, they have taken a detour", a reflection upon historical facts.
As for Leningrad, Finland didn't really care about Leningrad, but Finland had to do something to keep Germany happy. According to Kastari, Finland made strategic errors in the East Karelia war effort, however it seems that Finland's aim was actually to get as short a border with the least effort [1]. Hence the siege ring which didn't really go anywhere nor do attacks against Leningrad.
[1] Kastari: Suomen armeijan toiminta Karjalan linnoitusaluetta vastaan syyskuussa 1941. MPKK, 2019
I get that Finland was in a crappy position during WW2. Aligning with the Nazi's was a matter of realpolitik.
And I agree that their involvement in the Siege of Leningrad amounted to a blocking force, but mother of god, that blocking force contributed to an absolutely horrific existence for the civilians inside the city.
One could maybe argue that if the Finns didn't help the Nazi's the Nazi's would have been enable to lay siege to Leningrad anyways, but the Finns are definitely tainted by their involvement.
I agree that the Leningrad siege was a terrible suffering for everyone inside the city, no question about it.
I'm not sure though what Finland could have done otherwise; if they had not been where they were, Leningrad would have received shelling from all sides, and like you say, the city would have been under siege anyway - possibly with worse consequences, since the Lake Ladoga route would've likely been cut then as well.
Actively resisting the Germans in their aspirations was not feasible, as Finland needed the German military muscle to repel Soviets then and in the years to come.
So, Finland could not not be there, and if Finland had not been passive, then the only option available would have been to actively contribute to the siege and fire at an innocent civilian population. I'm not saying the decision to avoid this was because of moral or ethical concerns; the reason was probably more mundanely a lack of material. Artillery shells and bullets were best reserved for soldiers and not starving civilians in a strategically uninteresting city.
A side note about the "Nazi alignment": if that taints Finns, then it should, strangely enough, taint Russians as well; even the Soviets aligned with Nazi Germany. The secret clause of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact divided Europe to Soviet and German spheres of influence. Then, soon after the pact was signed, Poland took the first hit in 1939 with attacks by both Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. And weirdly enough there was even a joint Nazi-Soviet military parade in Brest-Litovsk.
I mean, I'd argue Finland should have no been there. Sure, the Nazi's would have probably taken their place, but it's better than having your country associated with such a horrendous siege.
And yes, there is plenty of Nazi "taint" to go around that was pretty quickly forgotten/forgiven after WW2. The Russians are definitely the big ones, but also the Finns, the Hungarians, the Romanians, and of course the Italians.
This is an interesting discussion but wholly irrelevant. Either I'm in the US paying these taxes or I'm not. As an individual I'd rather have my taxes benefit me as much as possible. The US military isn't going to directly help feed my newborn child, especially if I'm not an American.
If I was an American, I wouldn't want to be footing the bill for Global Security either.