Intellectual yet idiot. When fanatical beliefs override simple facts.

An interesting little dust-up on Twitter which is revealing.  First up is Roman Sheremata, an economics professor at the Case Western Reserve University.  A reasonably strong academic powerhouse.  His self-description:

Click to enlarge.

Looks like a reasonable amount of intellectual horsepower there even though there may be some reaching.  He made the following post:

Click to enlarge.

OK.  He hates Trump.  But is the claim that Russia defeated the Nazis self-evidently wrong?  

No.  In fact, it is well settled historical fact that the Allies (Britain, China, France, USA, and USSR) defeated the Axis (Germany, Italy, etc.) and that Britain, China, USA and the USSR were the indispensable core of the alliance.  

It is also well recognized that the bulk of German losses were in the East to the Soviet Union and that the Soviet Union in turn suffered the great majority of combat and civilian losses among the allies.  

As always, what is the most generous interpretation of the argument one can make?  How can we reverse engineer into an interpretation that makes Sheremeta's position at least comprehendible.  

Sheremeta's argument seems to be that Russia did not defeat Hitler and that Trump is stupid for believing this.  

I see three lines of possible redemption. 

Maybe he is arguing that Russia did not defeat Germany alone.

Maybe he is arguing that because Hitler committed suicide (with Soviet troops knocking at the outskirts of Berlin) that Russia did not defeat Hitler. 

Maybe he is making a distinction between Russia versus the then USSR (of which Russia was the primary component).  

But none of these possible interpretations is inconsistent with Trump's "Russia is a war machine" argument which make's these lines improbable.

But that's all I've got.  To be more tidily precise, it is reasonably indisputable that the USSR was an indispensable member of the Alliance which defeated Germany, Naziism, and Hitler and that the USSR both inflicted the greatest damage and suffered the greatest proportion of losses among the Alliance members (other than China in the Pacific theater.)  Sheremeta's argument that Russia did not defeat Hitler is hard to defend other than at the margin in terms of wanting more precise language.

Fortunately, from an argument making perspective, Sheremeta doubles down once he sees the ratioing he is getting on Twitter.  OK, on X.  He posts a follow-up with a thread justifying his position

Click to enlarge.

The Argument as presented is:

My post about Trump’s ignorant and stupid comment that “russia defeated Hitler” went viral. One thing that surprised me is how many brainwashed people still believe in this myth. No, it was not russia who defeated Hitler.

1/ First, the Soviet Union included, not only russia, but another 14 countries. Ukraine alone lost over 8 million people in WW2. As a percentage of population, Belorussia lost 25% and Ukraine 16% of its population, while russia only 12%.

2/ Second, just because the Soviet Union had the  most causalities, doesn’t mean that they won the war. The reason Soviets had such large casualties is because they used people as cannon folder. Something russia is still doing today.

3/ Third, the Red Army was poorly equipped and heavily relied on the US support. Through the lendlease, the US has provided over 400,000 trucks, 14,000 airplanes, 13,000 tanks, and more.

4/ Forth, Nazis were defeated only after the second front was open. Nazis had to fight against the US, UK, and all their allies.

So, it is plain stupid to attribute victory over Hitler to russia.

Stripping out the vitriol, invective, ad hominem, no-true-scotsman, and non sequiturs fallacies and you aren't left with much.  

Sheremeta seems to acknowledge that the USSR played a critical role but wants to downplay Russia's role within the USSR.  Historically and empirically, that's very weak tea.

Sheremeta seems to want to downplay the contribution of USSR by highlighting the material support provided by the UK and USA.  Again, historically and empirically, that's very weak tea.  FDR and Roosevelt were desperate to appease Stalin with material aid because they depended so heavily on the USSR meat grinder on the Eastern Front.  They understood what Sheremeta denies.  

Finally, Sheremeta seems to want to make the distinction that because it was an Allied victory, it must mean the Russia did not defeat Hitler.  

Woof.  The hole is deep and Sheremeta keeps digging.  There is a little of the Salena Zeno point in Taking Trump Seriously, Not Literally.

It’s a familiar split. When he makes claims like this, the press takes him literally, but not seriously; his supporters take him seriously, but not literally.

Except in this case, Trump's argument is facially well established - The Allies defeated Germany, Naziism and Hitler.  The USSR was an indispensable element of the Alliance.  Russia was an indispensable element of the USSR.  Sheremeta is working hard at trying to take him literally (Russia as distinct from USSR, Russia as opposed to the Allies, etc.)  

Sheremeta's argument is fundamentally indefensible and his conclusion that Trump was stupid to make the argument that Russia was a war machine is also indefensible.  

I am not sure how anyone can make Sheremeta's argument work.  

This feels like another example of the weakness of experts as highlighted by Philip Tetlock's work.  They can be smart and deeply knowledgeable in their domain but they often lack context.  Or rather, sometimes their strongest opinions are about things well beyond their knowledge domain.  

Sheremeta hates Trump and make an insultingly hostile argument that is also facially wrong.  Trump was correct that Russia was an indispensable element in the defeat of Germany, Nazism and Hitler.  Sheremeta then repeats his insults and advances some statements which are true but do not refute Trumps argument.

It is both a vitriolic and unpleasant little spat but also valuable.  The internet is highlighting and refuting error even in domains (such as academia) which are especially susceptible to suppressing error and consequences.  

It is a great example of the value of free speech - especially when dealing with those prone to fanaticism.