Downplaying Russia's Role

Zhukov · 05-01-2005, 06:06 AM

It's sad that the effects of the Cold War are still around. Russia's role is still downplayed and most Americans still think that they "won world war 2" (as an average American would put it).

You live in a democracy now; you have no excuse of being brainwashed! The statistics and the numbers and the stories and the facts and the... they are all out there. Read them! Observe them! Think about them! And only then make up your mind.

D-Day was not a turning point - of any kind! To my surprise, there were even some American historians that admitted it. D-Day only shortened the war and decreased casualties on other fronts. Operation Overlord achieved what would otherwise have been achieved by – at that time – rapidly moving Soviet army.

Battle of Britain was a stalemate! But if the Battle was lost, it would NOT mean the end of the Eastern Front. The defeat over skies would only result in the invasion (Nazi’s Operation Overlord?), in order to guarantee a full defeat of England. As a result Hitler would end up stretching his forces into England. If that would happen, we today would be posting that in the “Hitler’s Biggest Mistakes” thread.

The supplies that were sent to Russia by the American government were absolutely nothing! If you are someone who is deceived by it and cheer, “Oh my, the great USA, if it wasn’t for the supplies the Russians would never stand a chance”, you are a sad person who would listen to anything your government would say. It was actually documented that most of the equipment sent, was either obsolete or outdated or old or even non-functioning, and the quantities were only a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of what a country that wasn't bombed on a daily basis could send. The USA was just looking to clean up their image while Russian soldiers and civilians were being killed by the millions.

Imagine World War 2 without Zhukov, or Choikov just to name a few. You can forget your Patton and Eisenhower. Without Zhukov for instance, Stalin would find out that Moscow has been taken, Stalingrad has fallen, and Kursk was just another victory for the Nazis. Next thing you know, all of USSR has fallen to Hitler (the actual consequences are another “what if”, as without a question there would be the strongest partisan movement in history). With USSR in his hands, Hitler could proceed with the original plan of merging with the African and Middle Eastern Theatre. Invading Europe – or any occupied region – at this point would not be “Operation Liberating Mankind”, but “Operation Suicide”.

And as for Japan, well, unless you actually listen to Russian Veterans, chances are you won’t even think about what that front would be like, and of course not bother reading. Russia fought there long before USA did, and a lot of Asian countries are thankful for that up to date, despite other hates that they have against Russia. Later of course came the “great United States of America” and gloriously continued the campaign. Like in March 9 and 10 in 1945 for example, by attacking incendiary bombs, that killed roughly 100,000 civilians.

The facts are out there. The numbers are out there. Read them. Think about them. Please stop the egoism and the showing off (using wrong information for that matter). There are no excuses!

P.S. When I thank veterans, I thank them all along with the civilians who died for the war effort and the partisans. While a typical American for instance only thanks his own countrymen, sometimes managing to forget even the British and the French. Shame!

nolanbuc · 05-01-2005, 08:22 AM

First, welcome to the boards, always nice to see such enthusiam for history.

Quote:

Originally posted by Zhukov+Jan 5 2005, 12:06 AM-->

Quote:

(Zhukov @ Jan 5 2005, 12:06 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'>It's sad that the effects of the Cold War are still around. Russia's role is still downplayed and most Americans still think that they "won world war 2" (as an average American would put it). [/b]

The Allies won WWII. Certainly the Americans played a pivotal role, but so did many other nations, not the least of which was the Soviet Union.

Quote:

Originally posted by Zhukov+-->

Quote:

(Zhukov)</div><div class='quotemain'>You live in a democracy now; you have no excuse of being brainwashed! The statistics and the numbers and the stories and the facts and the... they are all out there. Read them! Observe them! Think about them! And only then make up your mind.
[/b]

I, for one, have always lived in a republic, but democracy has been the order of the day for as far back as I can remember. I'll grant you that most Americans (or people of any nation) believe a large part of what they are told about history without doing their own investigation. However I think you'll find most of the posters on this board are the exception to that rule.

Quote:

Originally posted by Zhukov
D-Day was not a turning point - of any kind! To my surprise, there were even some American historians that admitted it. D-Day only shortened the war and decreased casualties on other fronts. Operation Overlord achieved what would otherwise have been achieved by – at that time – rapidly moving Soviet army.

D-day not a turning point? Wow. There's so much evidence to the contrary, I don't know where to begin in refuting that statement. I'm sure most of the Soviet high command at the time would have disagreed with your assessment, even your favorite, Marshall Zhukov.

While it can be argued that eventually the Red Army may have in fact driven the Nazis all the way into the Atlantic, who knows how long that would've taken? And it is also true that once the western Allies got out of the hedegrow country the Germans didn't put up quite as much of a fight until they neared the Fatherland, but valuable German units were thrown into the Wetern front that would have been bound for the East.

Quote:

Originally posted by Zhukov
Battle of Britain was a stalemate! But if the Battle was lost, it would NOT mean the end of the Eastern Front. The defeat over skies would only result in the invasion (Nazi’s Operation Overlord?), in order to guarantee a full defeat of England. As a result Hitler would end up stretching his forces into England. If that would happen, we today would be posting that in the “Hitler’s Biggest Mistakes” thread.

Perhaps the air war in western Europe meant little to the Soviets on the Eastern Front, but if Germany had succeded in knocking Britain out of the war altogether, the Germans would have ruled the Atlantic (at a time when the Japanese held sway over much of the Pacific) which, I assure you, would have been of great concern to the Soviets.

Quote:

Originally posted by Zhukov
The supplies that were sent to Russia by the American government were absolutely nothing! If you are someone who is deceived by it and cheer, “Oh my, the great USA, if it wasn’t for the supplies the Russians would never stand a chance”, you are a sad person who would listen to anything your government would say. It was actually documented that most of the equipment sent, was either obsolete or outdated or old or even non-functioning, and the quantities were only a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of what a country that wasn't bombed on a daily basis could send. The USA was just looking to clean up their image while Russian soldiers and civilians were being killed by the millions.

We can argue all day about to what extent Lend-Lease helped the USSR win the war in the East. But if you can call $11 billion in war related materials "absolutely nothing", then I want to try some of what you are smoking. Like you said, the facts are out there. As for cleaning up images, the US has never been close to morally perfect, but the Soviet Union's image was in severe disrepair (what with the purges, gulags, and the like) at the time. To even compare the two is both laughable and tragic at once.

Quote:

Originally posted by Zhukov
Imagine World War 2 without Zhukov, or Choikov just to name a few. You can forget your Patton and Eisenhower. Without Zhukov for instance, Stalin would find out that Moscow has been taken, Stalingrad has fallen, and Kursk was just another victory for the Nazis. Next thing you know, all of USSR has fallen to Hitler (the actual consequences are another “what if”, as without a question there would be the strongest partisan movement in history). With USSR in his hands, Hitler could proceed with the original plan of merging with the African and Middle Eastern Theatre. Invading Europe – or any occupied region – at this point would not be “Operation Liberating Mankind”, but “Operation Suicide”.

Had Zhukov been purged like many other capable Red Army officers following the Soviet Revolution, we could have easily imagined WWII without him. Would it have been different? Probably. But it might have been even more different had those purged officers been spared to serve during WWII. The survival of the USSR was vital to the anti-Axis cause, without question, but that fact alone doesn't marginalize the importance of other fronts.

Quote:

Originally posted by Zhukov
And as for Japan, well, unless you actually listen to Russian Veterans, chances are you won’t even think about what that front would be like, and of course not bother reading. Russia fought there long before USA did, and a lot of Asian countries are thankful for that up to date, despite other hates that they have against Russia. Later of course came the “great United States of America” and gloriously continued the campaign. Like in March 9 and 10 in 1945 for example, by attacking incendiary bombs, that killed roughly 100,000 civilians.

The USSR fought two or three major battles vs the Japanese in Machuria in 1938-1939. They did soundly defeat the Japanese, but then they signed a neutrality pact in 1941. If anything, it could be argued that the success of the Soviet's in Manchuria nad the Neutrality Pact actually made things worse for the other anti-Japanese allies later on by forcing the Japanese to abandon the Mengukuo strategy (yet securing their Northern flank) and reinforcing the desire for creating the East Asian Coprosperity Sphere, an idea which eventually led the Japanese to attack British, Dutch, & US interests.

<!--QuoteBegin-Zhukov@
The facts are out there. The numbers are out there. Read them. Think about them. Please stop the egoism and the showing off (using wrong information for that matter). There are no excuses!

I couldn't agree with you more there. The facts are out there. But I think if you are looking to stamp out wrong information and egoism, you may have come to the wrong place. Not much of either here as far as I can tell.

<!--QuoteBegin-Zhukov
P.S. When I thank veterans, I thank them all along with the civilians who died for the war effort and the partisans. While a typical American for instance only thanks his own countrymen, sometimes managing to forget even the British and the French. Shame!

Quoted post

Again, I agree, all veterans who fought against the Axis deserve a share of the accolades. Not sure what a "typical American" looks like, but (speaking as an American) we are taught that many nations sacrificed greatly in WWII, and a simple glance at the dates would tell any thinking person that the Americans were the "Johnny-come-lately's" to the war. However, a serious student of American history would realize the reasons why the US was not in the war prior to Pearl Harbor, and the enormous leap of faith it was to send their sons off to fight in a war in Europe they seemed to have no immediate interest at stake...in what appeared at the time to be one more in a series of endless European wars.

Still, they went and while they may not have won the war single-handedly (as you seem to think we believe), they did help abit.

angie999 · 05-01-2005, 03:44 PM

I think that there is a tendency in all countries to talk up the part played by their own forces. After all, most people do not give a hoot for the details of history, but they know that "we won the war".

An honest assessment of the British and American role in WWII would not be as flattering as many would like, but the same is true of the Soviet role - and for that metter to start calling it Russia's role is tending towards Russian nationalism in itself, ignoring the other nationalities within the Soviet Union.

If anyone wants to have an honest discussion on this, I am up for it, but on the basis that we try and avoid "national" positions, as this will get us nowhere.

Kiwiwriter · 05-01-2005, 04:00 PM

Zhukov, your point that the Russians don't get as much respect in the West is noted, but the vehemence with which you shout it is really unnecessary. The Soviet war effort would probably get more respect from Westerners had World War II not been immediately followed by the 50-year Cold War, and Josef Stalin had not been such a ghastly tyrant, both at home and abroad. It's unfortunate that the heroism and achievements of the Russian people and armed forces don't get their fair share of respect and attention in the West. Another problem is that most available accounts of the War in the East come from German sources, and they have a tendency to blame Hitler for all the mistakes, insist they were not butchers, and claim the Soviets won through sheer numbers, not through operational excellence. Which, of course, is rubbish. Soviet accounts during the Cold War suffer from the heavy hand of their own political writers -- switching between adulation and vilification of Stalin. For example, it took until 1990 before the Soviets confessed to the Katyn Wood massacre. This is not to suggest that American and British historians are models of objectivity...I have seen too many "historians" in other web yack groups whose entire knowledge of World War II consists of either technical details of firearms or repeated watchings of the movie "Patton." So don't yell at us...you're shouting at the choir, and it's not necessary.

Zhukov · 05-01-2005, 07:15 PM

Shouting is not expressed in writing, unless it is wrapped around [shouting][/shouting] tags or typed in ALL CAPS. That's because I wasn't shouting. See, how right away you jumped to conclusions? From the very start, there is already trouble.

Quote:

Originally posted by nolanbuc+Jan 5 2005, 07:22 AM-->

Quote:

(nolanbuc @ Jan 5 2005, 07:22 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'>...most Americans (or people of any nation) believe a large part of what they are told about history without doing their own investigation. However I think you'll find most of the posters on this board are the exception to that rule.
[/b]

I browsed around; I don't see too much evidence of that.

Quote:

Originally posted by nolanbuc@Jan 5 2005, 07:22 AM
D-day not a turning point? Wow. There's so much evidence to the contrary, I don't know where to begin in refuting that statement. I'm sure most of the Soviet high command at the time would have disagreed with your assessment, even your favorite, Marshall Zhukov.

You are sure (as in: you are thinking) that the Soviet high command would disagree with me. Funny that you put it that way, because there is no need to even think about that (it's on record; you just have to look for it). To the Soviet high command (as well as all of Russia) D-Day was always known as "The Second Front". But then again you probably never even heard of that.

What exactly was this "The Second Front"? Well, as the saying, which originated somewhere in Eastern Europe I believe, goes "He who enters a fight last, will proclaim himself as the winner". In this one Russian movie *, about Zhukov, it is clearly stated, given all the dates and events, that the United States (specifically), "... enters the war at a point of no return [to the German's], in order to crown itself as the winner of the war”. Please read the asterisk before reply to this one. There was another movie which was actually closely monitored by Zhukov himself, which stated something of the kind. And of course there are countless others.

It’s unfortunate that these movies are not available with English translation, and they probably never will be. And speaking of translation, there is an ongoing effort in www.battlefield.ru to bring “gygabytes of documents” about the Eastern front, specifically for westerners. You can contribute by reading what is available there right now. Sadly it’s not enough, there are so many more things that you really need to read.

Quote:

Originally posted by nolanbuc@Jan 5 2005, 07:22 AM
if you can call $11 billion in war related materials "absolutely nothing", then I want to try some of what you are smoking.

Well, you can set the books you read on fire and inhale that smoke, as I don’t “smoke” anything (aside from downtown pollution). Why are putting the help in cold cash? The help may have totalled up at $11 billion, but once again, “…the equipment sent, was either obsolete or outdated or old or even non-functioning, and the quantities were only a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of what a country that wasn't bombed on a daily basis could send.”

For a country that was not at war, the very least they could do was send $11 billion dollars in “new” and “functioning” equipment. I just remembered a hilarious phrase from “Pearl Harbor” by Roosevelt, “We are still making refrigerators, while out enemy is making bombs”. Or something like that, I really wouldn’t bother watching that movie again for the sake of finding out.

Quote:

Originally posted by nolanbuc@Jan 5 2005, 07:22 AM
… it could be argued that the success of the Soviet's in Manchuria nad the Neutrality Pact actually made things worse for the other anti-Japanese allies later on by forcing the Japanese to abandon the Mengukuo strategy (yet securing their Northern flank) and reinforcing the desire for creating the East Asian Coprosperity Sphere, an idea which eventually led the Japanese to attack British, Dutch, & US interests.

But where were the “other anti-Japanese allies” at that time. Why were they there “later”? It could be argued in many ways of course, but the Russians were there, and they didn’t have to be there. You can argue that all you want, but the actual decision at the very beginning was to “help China”, otherwise they indeed didn’t have to be there.

<!--QuoteBegin-nolanbuc@Jan 5 2005, 07:22 AM
Not sure what a "typical American" looks like

From your very own post, “I'll grant you that most Americans (or people of any nation) believe a large part of what they are told about history without doing their own investigation. However I think you'll find most of the posters on this board are the exception to that rule.”

In our discussion, it is the way you put it, “most American[s]”.

I wish I had the time to comment on everything, but I just don’t. I am pretty sure that you get what I am trying to imply. And continuing on with that for a minute, what about the small details such as this board? Under “War on the Home Front” there is no “Russian home front”. Why? Any reason for that? Just a thought.

But then sadly, even if it did exist, there probably would not be too many posts there.

I most certainly am not stamping out wrong information or egoism for that matter, but I wonder why you assumed that. Exclamation marks, emphasize points, and I did not type in all caps, have I? And as for proper footnotes... well I wish I had all the material here with me, but I am not writing a book, am I?

“Russia's role is tending towards Russian nationalism in itself” is not true. Because that indeed is what USSR was commonly called, even by the Americans back in those days and is still referred to today. There are even Ukrainians who talking about the war (even today), would use the term “Russia” and not “USSR”. It has nothing to do with nationalism.

Fire away!

* Russian movies up until only very recently (even though some still follow this tradition today) had to be historically accurate. For many of Zhukov’s movies (about him or mentioning him), he even was on the credits list, because he wanted to ensure that everything was done correctly. Russian war movies are not Hollywood movies! They are great to watch in addition to books. Filmmakers knew that the Soviet government could even jail someone who would dare to deviate from what was on record. I believe that the movie Patton, doesn’t quite follow that tradition. And as for “Saving Private Ryan”, well, I didn’t finish watching it, but I could clearly see why some of the British veterans hated it.

Kiwiwriter · 05-01-2005, 08:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Zhukov@Jan 5 2005, 02:15 PM
Shouting is not expressed in writing, unless it is wrapped around [shouting][/shouting] tags or typed in ALL CAPS. That's because I wasn't shouting. See, how right away you jumped to conclusions? From the very start, there is already trouble.

I know about that Internet rule, but I still regard electronic communication as written communication, and when someone writes with such vehemence, it comes over as shouting, whether or not it is in capital letters. Your anger burns through your prose. And you don't know me from Vassili Zaitsev, so you shouldn't accuse me of jumping to any conclusion. I'm just urging you to lower the temperature. This is an internet discussion group, not the assault on Bobruisk in Operation Bagration. For once, I'd like to see a little civility on the web.

plant-pilot · 05-01-2005, 09:51 PM

A brave attempt to right what may be some people's incorrect views of the Soviet contribution to the war. These views may be due to a 'natural one-sided reporting' in the contribution of one's own country or by the prolification of facts and figures pertaining to your own contry's contribution.

But to try and bring attention to the Soviet Union's contribution by rubbishing the rest of the allied role does your cause no justice at all. The Soviet Union's contribution was valued and very important, but in no way did they win the war, nor could they have on their own.

The mere fact that the Germans had to keep so many front line troops and equipment in the west meant that they were robbed of the perfectly achievable goal of over-running the industrial heart of the Soviets before they had a chance to be halted by weather and supply problems.

The major limitation on the 'lend lease' arangement, was not the amount of equipment rolling off the production lines, but the nuber of ships that could get through to the northern ports. The losses suffered by the seamen on the Northern Convoys was terrible and to belittle their efforts is not going to put you in a very good light.

At the same time, the US was preparing their forces for the future conflict. Equiping their expanding forces and supplying aircraft, tanks, guns and other equipment to the rest of the allies. Is it surprising that not all the best equipment was shipped directly to the Soviets when much of it had a high chance of being lost at sea?

It's nice of you to point out that Operation Overloard was classed as the opening of a second front. Correct in that when there is only one front, a second is a new one, but in every other respect you are, I believe wrong. There were already other fronts open agains the Germans, North Africa for instance, which was open before the Germans rolled over the border heading East. The British had not stopped fighting once they had been pushed across the channel and without that very quiet front, there would have been no place to launch overloard from.

Could the Soviets have made it to the atlantic without Overloard or lend lease? No, without the German troops firstly being held in the west and secondly being pulled away from the east after Overloard to defent the industrial heartland of the Ruhr, the Soviets would have probably lost their industrial centres or at the very least, not had the supply capability to fight across the German homeland.

Once again, I am in no way belittling the contribution made by the Soviets during the war, but I cannot agree with your very forcefull comments pointing out to everyone else that everyone else's contribution was nothing. Your very manner comes across as the very arrogance that you tell us that are not happy with in your idea of 'most Americans'.

angie999 · 06-01-2005, 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kiwiwriter@Jan 5 2005, 03:00 PM
Another problem is that most available accounts of the War in the East come from German sources, and they have a tendency to blame Hitler for all the mistakes, insist they were not butchers, and claim the Soviets won through sheer numbers, not through operational excellence.
Quoted post

Yes, if the role of the former Soviet Union is ever to be fully recognised in the west, I think it is vital that the archives are opened up in full for independent research, which has not happened so far. In fact, in some ways access is now less easy than in was in the late 1980s.

A full reassessment of the Eastern Front is long overdue in the west, but for it to be credible it needs to be the truly independent work of military historians of international repute. There are examples of this, such as Glantz and House on Kursk, but not enough by a long way.

And please, please, please let us stop talking about just the Russians. All the nationalities of the Soviet Union were represented in the Red Army.

plant-pilot · 06-01-2005, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by angie999@Jan 6 2005, 01:14 PM
And please, please, please let us stop talking about just the Russians. All the nationalities of the Soviet Union were represented in the Red Army.

Quoted post

I quite agree, which is the reason I used the term 'Soviet Union' in my post as opposed to 'Russian' which refers to one of the nations in the Union, albieit a lage and central one.

angie999 · 06-01-2005, 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Zhukov@Jan 5 2005, 06:15 PM
* Russian movies up until only very recently (even though some still follow this tradition today) had to be historically accurate.
Quoted post

No they didn't. They had to follow the official party line and in those days this was taken to be historically accurate, even though it often wasn't.

Some of the internal Red Army studies written soon after the war were pretty accurate, but they remained secret for decades and did not necessarily accord with the published party line.

05-01-2005, 04:00 PM	#4 (permalink)
Kiwiwriter Very Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Newark, NJ, and Christchurch, NZ Posts: 2,431	Zhukov, your point that the Russians don't get as much respect in the West is noted, but the vehemence with which you shout it is really unnecessary. The Soviet war effort would probably get more respect from Westerners had World War II not been immediately followed by the 50-year Cold War, and Josef Stalin had not been such a ghastly tyrant, both at home and abroad. It's unfortunate that the heroism and achievements of the Russian people and armed forces don't get their fair share of respect and attention in the West. Another problem is that most available accounts of the War in the East come from German sources, and they have a tendency to blame Hitler for all the mistakes, insist they were not butchers, and claim the Soviets won through sheer numbers, not through operational excellence. Which, of course, is rubbish. Soviet accounts during the Cold War suffer from the heavy hand of their own political writers -- switching between adulation and vilification of Stalin. For example, it took until 1990 before the Soviets confessed to the Katyn Wood massacre. This is not to suggest that American and British historians are models of objectivity...I have seen too many "historians" in other web yack groups whose entire knowledge of World War II consists of either technical details of firearms or repeated watchings of the movie "Patton." So don't yell at us...you're shouting at the choir, and it's not necessary. __________________ "My intensity is intense." -- Roger Clemens "We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender." -- Winston Churchill. "I am not a hero. The heroes are all dead. I am a survivor." -- Sgt. William Guarnere, Easy Company, 506th Parachute Regiment, 101st Airborne Division. Check out my little contributions to World War II history at my web pages: World War II Plus 55 or http://davidhlippman.wildbillguarnere.com

05-01-2005, 09:51 PM	#7 (permalink)
plant-pilot Very Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 1,014	A brave attempt to right what may be some people's incorrect views of the Soviet contribution to the war. These views may be due to a 'natural one-sided reporting' in the contribution of one's own country or by the prolification of facts and figures pertaining to your own contry's contribution. But to try and bring attention to the Soviet Union's contribution by rubbishing the rest of the allied role does your cause no justice at all. The Soviet Union's contribution was valued and very important, but in no way did they win the war, nor could they have on their own. The mere fact that the Germans had to keep so many front line troops and equipment in the west meant that they were robbed of the perfectly achievable goal of over-running the industrial heart of the Soviets before they had a chance to be halted by weather and supply problems. The major limitation on the 'lend lease' arangement, was not the amount of equipment rolling off the production lines, but the nuber of ships that could get through to the northern ports. The losses suffered by the seamen on the Northern Convoys was terrible and to belittle their efforts is not going to put you in a very good light. At the same time, the US was preparing their forces for the future conflict. Equiping their expanding forces and supplying aircraft, tanks, guns and other equipment to the rest of the allies. Is it surprising that not all the best equipment was shipped directly to the Soviets when much of it had a high chance of being lost at sea? It's nice of you to point out that Operation Overloard was classed as the opening of a second front. Correct in that when there is only one front, a second is a new one, but in every other respect you are, I believe wrong. There were already other fronts open agains the Germans, North Africa for instance, which was open before the Germans rolled over the border heading East. The British had not stopped fighting once they had been pushed across the channel and without that very quiet front, there would have been no place to launch overloard from. Could the Soviets have made it to the atlantic without Overloard or lend lease? No, without the German troops firstly being held in the west and secondly being pulled away from the east after Overloard to defent the industrial heartland of the Ruhr, the Soviets would have probably lost their industrial centres or at the very least, not had the supply capability to fight across the German homeland. Once again, I am in no way belittling the contribution made by the Soviets during the war, but I cannot agree with your very forcefull comments pointing out to everyone else that everyone else's contribution was nothing. Your very manner comes across as the very arrogance that you tell us that are not happy with in your idea of 'most Americans'. __________________ M3... the ship of the desert 2003

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
The role of Garbo, the spy.	arneken	General	2	29-03-2008 10:37 PM
Bulgarian Role in WW2	BulgarianSoldier	Others	17	18-05-2006 10:13 PM
Finland's Role In Barbarossa	angie999	The Eastern Front	4	03-01-2006 12:02 PM
Russia's Back Door to the West	Dac	The Eastern Front	14	23-09-2005 06:13 PM

05-01-2005, 06:06 AM	#1 (permalink)
Zhukov Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 6	It's sad that the effects of the Cold War are still around. Russia's role is still downplayed and most Americans still think that they "won world war 2" (as an average American would put it). You live in a democracy now; you have no excuse of being brainwashed! The statistics and the numbers and the stories and the facts and the... they are all out there. Read them! Observe them! Think about them! And only then make up your mind. D-Day was not a turning point - of any kind! To my surprise, there were even some American historians that admitted it. D-Day only shortened the war and decreased casualties on other fronts. Operation Overlord achieved what would otherwise have been achieved by – at that time – rapidly moving Soviet army. Battle of Britain was a stalemate! But if the Battle was lost, it would NOT mean the end of the Eastern Front. The defeat over skies would only result in the invasion (Nazi’s Operation Overlord?), in order to guarantee a full defeat of England. As a result Hitler would end up stretching his forces into England. If that would happen, we today would be posting that in the “Hitler’s Biggest Mistakes” thread. The supplies that were sent to Russia by the American government were absolutely nothing! If you are someone who is deceived by it and cheer, “Oh my, the great USA, if it wasn’t for the supplies the Russians would never stand a chance”, you are a sad person who would listen to anything your government would say. It was actually documented that most of the equipment sent, was either obsolete or outdated or old or even non-functioning, and the quantities were only a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of what a country that wasn't bombed on a daily basis could send. The USA was just looking to clean up their image while Russian soldiers and civilians were being killed by the millions. Imagine World War 2 without Zhukov, or Choikov just to name a few. You can forget your Patton and Eisenhower. Without Zhukov for instance, Stalin would find out that Moscow has been taken, Stalingrad has fallen, and Kursk was just another victory for the Nazis. Next thing you know, all of USSR has fallen to Hitler (the actual consequences are another “what if”, as without a question there would be the strongest partisan movement in history). With USSR in his hands, Hitler could proceed with the original plan of merging with the African and Middle Eastern Theatre. Invading Europe – or any occupied region – at this point would not be “Operation Liberating Mankind”, but “Operation Suicide”. And as for Japan, well, unless you actually listen to Russian Veterans, chances are you won’t even think about what that front would be like, and of course not bother reading. Russia fought there long before USA did, and a lot of Asian countries are thankful for that up to date, despite other hates that they have against Russia. Later of course came the “great United States of America” and gloriously continued the campaign. Like in March 9 and 10 in 1945 for example, by attacking incendiary bombs, that killed roughly 100,000 civilians. The facts are out there. The numbers are out there. Read them. Think about them. Please stop the egoism and the showing off (using wrong information for that matter). There are no excuses! P.S. When I thank veterans, I thank them all along with the civilians who died for the war effort and the partisans. While a typical American for instance only thanks his own countrymen, sometimes managing to forget even the British and the French. Shame!

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)