@elorti5 That story is far more complex. Yes, there was noticeable pro-Nazi sentiment in parts of the US and the UK. There was also considerable anti-Nazi sentiment in both countries, including by Churchill and Roosevelt. (And the US had a lot of isolationist sentiment, independent of pro-Nazi types. It is likely that Roosevelt would have entered the war sooner were it not for the isolationists, including in his own party—but the state of the US military was such that it was known in *1940* that a major attack on the European continent couldn't take place until 1944—and Stalin kept begging the US and the UK to launch a second front to reduce the pressure on his forces.) Yes, there USSR suffered far more casualties, and if Hitler hadn't decided to attack the USSR it's far from clear that D-Day could have succeeded. But the USSR and the UK benefited hugely from the output of American industry, and it's far from clear that either could have held out without that, especially once the US entered the war after Germany declared war on the US following the attack on Pearl Harbor.
This is a subject on which I've done a lot of reading—and as I said, it's quite complex. But you're certainly right that few people in the US understand the importance of the Soviet fight, or the losses they took.

@Cdespinosa June 6 >> January 6…

In honor of June 6, International Antifa Day.

@sjmurdoch Really interesting; thanks!

@timbray @mattblaze @carlmalamud Yes, that's an old tradition. Look at, e.g., RFCs 822, 2822, 5322.

@mattblaze @carlmalamud When I was on the IAB, we were writing an RFC on cryptographic technology and the Internet. Looking at where we were in the numbering, I emailed Jon Postel and asked if it could be RFC 1984. Jon replied, "We never reserve RFC numbers—but coincidences can happen". Guess what happened…

@mattblaze @rfceditor RFC 1 is from April 1969. RFC 100 is February 1971. RFC 1000 is August 1987. But hey, the metadata is all machine-readable (https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc-index.xml); let's fit a curve…