User:North Shoreman/Sandbox10

The problem is that the editor has already done this -- see the edit history of the article and the earlier discussion. His additions were found to be very problematic and were deleted and contested by several editors. In the current discussion he has repeated the two paragraphs and apparently thinks they should be in the article.

The first paragraph that was added starts (referring to the Weeks quote), ""This point of view (the exceptional importance of lend-lease for the USSR) is not generally accepted among Russian historians." The expectation by this topic sentence is that it would produce a discussion of what specific Russian historians concluded -- instead what follows is a rambling recitation of background and statistics.

The second paragraph starts, "In his 1944 book, Stettinius (Secretary of State under Presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt) wrote ...". The problem here is that this reflects the understanding of a political actor back in 1944. A lot of analysis has occurred since 1944, including the opening of Soviet archives that forms the basis for Weeks analysis (he did not view the archives himself) of how Russian scholars have used this information. It is unclear from the discussion whether there are a significant number of current Russian historians who have looked at the archives and reached different conclusions.

It seems with the addition of the Glantz quote, an acceptable balance to the Weeks quote has been accomplished. Glantz wrote, "Although Soviet accounts have routinely belittled the significance of Lend-Lease in the sustainment of the Soviet war effort, the overall importance of the assistance cannot be understated." I read the Hill article referenced above which included analysis of the earliest Lend Lease aid provided to the USSR. From that article:

"It would be difficult and unconvincing to argue that Lend-Lease "saved" the Soviet Union from defeat in 1941. Axis forces were, for instance, halted before Moscow with Soviet blood, and to a large extent with Soviet-manufactured arms and equipment. Nonetheless ... Lend-Lease aid provided during the period First Moscow Protocol had a far more significant impact on the war effort and indeed on frontline capability both during and after Battle for Moscow than the Soviet and indeed Western historiography would suggest. What is perhaps of particular note is not only the speed with which Britain in particular was willing and able to provide aid to the Soviet Union after initial hesitation, but how quickly the Soviet was able to put foreign equipment into use. This is testimony both to the political and military realism of Churchill and other key British ministers in this instance, and to the effectiveness of the Soviet command economy when faced with a clearly defined task."

David Glantz the American military historian known for his books on the Eastern front is quoted as saying:

Without Lend-Lease the Soviet economy would have been even more heavily burdened by the war effort. But it’s unlikely the aid turned the war entirely in the Soviet Union’s favor, as the German military was overstretched even during the 1941 invasion. That vulnerability was exposed terribly during the Red Army’s 1941–1942 Moscow counter-offensive and it’s unlikely Germany would have won the war even if it had captured Moscow. And that was when Lend-Lease was just beginning.

But Lend-Lease certainly helped in many ways. If the Western Allies had not provided equipment and invaded northwest Europe, Stalin and his commanders might have taken twelve to eighteen months longer to finish off the Wehrmacht.

The result would probably have been the same, except that Soviet soldiers would have waded at France’s Atlantic beaches rather than meeting the Allies at the Elbe.

The Red Shirts or Redshirts of the Southern United States were paramilitary groups active during the last days of the Reconstruction era of the United States through the end of the century. They served as the military arm of the Democratic Party whose political goal was restoration of the white supremacy in state governments and society that had existed before and during the American Civil War.

Red Shirts first appeared in Mississippi in 1875, when private terror units adopted red shirts to make themselves more visible and threatening to Southern Republicans, both white and freedmen. In 1876 they were an integral part of the 1876 election campaign in South Carolina that restored whit government to that state. Nationally, the 1876 election marked the end of Reconstruction throughout the South.

appeared in Mississippi in 1875, when Democratic Party private terror units adopted red shirts to make themselves more visible and threatening to Southern Republicans, both white and freedmen. Similar groups in the Carolinas also adopted red shirts.

Among the most prominent Red Shirts were the supporters of Democratic Party candidate Wade Hampton during the campaigns for the South Carolina gubernatorial elections of 1876 and 1878. The Red Shirts were one of several paramilitary organizations, such as the White League in Louisiana, arising in the continuing efforts of white Democrats to regain political power in the South in the 1870s. These groups acted as "the military arm of the Democratic Party."

While sometimes engaging in violence, the Red Shirts, the White League and similar groups in the late nineteenth century worked openly and were better organized than the secret vigilante groups such as the Ku Klux Klan. They had one goal: the restoration of the Democrats to power by getting rid of Republicans, which usually meant repressing civil rights and voting by freedmen. During the 1876, 1898 and 1900 campaigns in North Carolina, the Red Shirts played prominent roles in intimidating non-Democratic voters.

xx

A recent biography of Hampton by Rod Andrew Jr. (a professor at Clemson) gives a nuanced view of Hampton's racial attitudes, but they were all based on "the assumption of white supremacy and/or leadership by elites (p.xiv)." There is no question that throughout the South the so-called redemption efforts achieved the goal of whites at the top and blacks at the bottom -- this is the definition of white supremacy no matter how much paternalism defenders try to claim existed.

The 1876 biography listed by KAvin as a source is questionable. Much of the history of Reconstruction through the Dunning era is itself based on Lost Cause rhetoric and an acceptance of white supremacy. KAvin provides a quote from a third source that is not on point.

A better source is "Religion, Gender, and the Lost Cause in South Carolina's 1876 Governor's Race: "Hampton or Hell!" by W. Scott Poole (College of Charleston) in The Journal of Southern History, Vol. 68, No. 3 (Aug., 2002), pp. 573-598. Poole speaks of Hampton's "white supremacist paternalism" and his concept of it"as both biracial and white supremacist". Similar thoughts are found in "Two Roads Tried: And One Detour" by Lewis P. Jones of Wofford College in Spartanburg in The South Carolina Historical Magazine, Vol. 79, No. 3 (Jul., 1978), pp. 206-218. Jones states that "phrases as 'white supremacy' were muted although all Democrats were committed to it." Martin Gary, the actual leader of the Red Shirts, feuded with Hampton over leadership and actually "charged Hampton with infidelity to the party and thereby not being sufficiently devoted to white supremacy."

After reading Agtx's response below, I went to the site of the encyclopedia and found that searching for the term "white supremacy" produced 33 different page hits -- all within the context of this either being the goal or result of white southern opposition to Reconstruction. Interestingly the intro to the book is by Eric Foner, probably the most influential historian writing about Reconstruction. Foner in the introduction to his own work "Reconstruction: America's Unfinished Revolution, 1863-1877" states that "home rule" was othing but "a euphemism for white supremacy" (pp. xix-xx).

[1]

One Goal

A sentence in the 3rd paragraph of the lead says, "They had one goal: the restoration of the Democrats to power by getting rid of Republicans, which usually meant repressing civil rights and voting by freedmen." It is sourced to pp. 74-80 in Lehmann,s book redemption. However what the source actually says is, "Well-financed terrorists ... were engaged in what seemed to be a planned campaign to unseat the Republican Party, and undo Negroes' civil rights and voting rights, by means of violence against its officeholders and voters." I'm going to change the language to be more in keeping with the original source. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 02:28, 16 December 2016 (UTC)