nations thoughts ??

[raf]

ive recently been working with a few Slovakian guys and they were really interested in my interests of wwII.

i got the understanding that general history of there countrty wasnt really teached within schools or maybe they saw learing 3 other languages as more important ..anyway each to there own.



i asked him do you think the war was won in the west or east or a combination.

with my understanding there are alot of definig moments like

dunkirk
BOB
the atlantic war
hitler turning east
north africa
japan
usa

but his opinion was it was won in the east ...i disagreed but said it played its part.

do you think his opionon is something the eastern countries believe in or is it a lack of knowledge

[Gotthard Heinrici]

Ok, Well I would tend to agree with him for the following reason

80% of the Wehrmacht were fighting in the East from 1941. Most of the land fighting took place in Russia as it was continuous from June 1941 to May 1945. In the west the North African Campaign was small compared to the Russian Front and nothing happened in the West until 1944.

[von Poop]

While I refuse to see the ultimate victory as anything other than the result of a remarkable cooperation between the allies across all theatres I do think there's much justification for the oft repeated comment that the bulk of Germany's actual fighting strength was 'bled white in the East'. (can't remember the specific quote now, or who said it)

Cheers,
Adam.

[Owen]

Paul,
If you're still working with them, print this off and see what they say.
Slovakian Axis Forces in WWII
Are they viewing the war from a Slovakian post-war Communist aligned country or as one of Nazi-Germany's Allies?

[Gotthard Heinrici]

I would also like to say that Final Victory was achieved from an Allied effort. Germany could probably have prevailed if it faced only one front but a two frnot war condemned it to ultimate annihalation.

[raf]

thanks owen

yes i still work with them and the link makes some interesting reading

i'll print it off and see there reaction

[Harry Ree]

Well of course Slovakia was a Nazi puppet state and it has to be said when it was granted "independence" from Czechoslovakia by Hitler it desired close political,economic and military ties with Germany.It was this dream of 'independence' which drove it aimlessly into the arms of Germany.It had maintained these views from May 1918 when it wished some measure of autonomy from the Czecks.

Czech and Slovak emigres in the US signed an agreement in May 1918 which provided for the Slovaks having their own government,parliament and government.However the agreement was not recognised by the Prague powers and come the German occupation of Czechoslovakia in March 1939, the Slovaks wish was to be fulfilled. Germany received a further base in the East for further expansion as the outcome and also welomed an subservient ally.

The Eastern front was a continual burden on Nazi military manpower resources and its economic ability to wage war. A war of attrition which finally led to the gradual and eventual collapse of resistance on the Eastern Front.

After Kurst, the battle front could only move westwards and overall, the Red Army's contribution to smashing the Nazi Regime was the destruction of at least German 250 Divisions.That has to be a major factor in bring down Hitler's Germany. Whilst not discounting the Russia contribution to victory,Russia's contribution did not extend to the effort to overwhelm the Japanese in the Pacific until a late declaration of war against the Japanese.

[smc]

Originally Posted by raf

ive recently been working with a few Slovakian guys and they were really interested in my interests of wwII.

i got the understanding that general history of there countrty wasnt really teached within schools or maybe they saw learing 3 other languages as more important ..anyway each to there own.



i asked him do you think the war was won in the west or east or a combination.

with my understanding there are alot of definig moments like

dunkirk
BOB
the atlantic war
hitler turning east
north africa
japan
usa

but his opinion was it was won in the east ...i disagreed but said it played its part.

do you think his opionon is something the eastern countries believe in or is it a lack of knowledge

Please don't take this as a dig but could it be that it is you who lacks knowledge? And that could well be because of the emphasis on media and learning in this country rather than you yourself.

There are two ways of understanding WW2, through the prism of your own nationality/country or surveying it as one big whole. By doing the former you ignore what happened elsewhere which results in a skewed view of the conflict. By concentrating on the latter you have to understand what went on everywhere and taking an overiding view.

You will understand the conflict much better if you can try to view it from other countries' perspectives, particularly those in eastern Europe who are often ignored by many in the west. Gotthard has already pointed out that 80% of the Wehrmachts forces were on the eastern front which gives some indication of the titanic struggle that went on there. You only have to look at numbers of killed in that part of the world that dwarfs anything in the West. The battle of Kursk is probably the most important battle in WW2, Operation Bagration in 1944 saw Soviet advances reclaim territory bigger than France. Stalin's move into the Balkans reshapped the entire postwar world in that region. You can even point to the battle of Khalkin Gol in the summer of 1939 when the Soviets defeated the Japanese in a huge border skirmish as one of the most defining moments before the war had even started because it stopped the Japanese from expanding north into Siberia and concentrated their attention towards striking to the south. And once Stalin knew for sure there were striking south in 1941 he was able to bring these battle hardened troops back for the defence of Moscow.

Remember the British went to war because of Poland in 1939 and the Allied Coalition's relations broke down over Poland in 1946-7 which precipitated 40 years worth of Cold War in Europe. By relegating the east to a sideshow you will not be taken seriously by those who come from that part of Europe.

[spidge]

Originally Posted by Gotthard Heinrici

I would also like to say that Final Victory was achieved from an Allied effort. Germany could probably have prevailed if it faced only one front but a two frnot war condemned it to ultimate annihalation.

These have been posted previously however they are most relevant here.

This chronology of German troop movements supports what GH has said and similarly shows the big picture as to the sometimes underestimated tie up of troops covering western Europe.

Hitler never achieved the luxury of being able to move his troops to one front as did Stalin with Siberia.

Don't forget to double click each image!

Slide1.JPG
Slide2.JPG
Slide3.JPG

[Harry Ree]

Originally Posted by Harry Ree

Well of course Slovakia was a Nazi puppet state and it has to be said when it was granted "independence" from Czechoslovakia by Hitler it desired close political,economic and military ties with Germany.It was this dream of 'independence' which drove it aimlessly into the arms of Germany.It had maintained these views from May 1918 when it wished some measure of autonomy from the Czecks.

Czech and Slovak emigres in the US signed an agreement in May 1918 which provided for the Slovaks having their own government,parliament and government.However the agreement was not recognised by the Prague powers and come the German occupation of Czechoslovakia in March 1939, the Slovaks wish was to be fulfilled. Germany received a further base in the East for further expansion as the outcome and also welomed an subservient ally.

The Eastern front was a continual burden on Nazi military manpower resources and its economic ability to wage war. A war of attrition which finally led to the gradual and eventual collapse of resistance on the Eastern Front.

After Kurst, the battle front could only move westwards and overall, the Red Army's contribution to smashing the Nazi Regime was the destruction of at least German 250 Divisions.That has to be a major factor in bring down Hitler's Germany. Whilst not discounting the Russia contribution to victory,Russia's contribution did not extend to the effort to overwhelm the Japanese in the Pacific until a late declaration of war against the Japanese.

I have just seen a reference to the claims of the Red Army in the winning of the Great Patriotic War.They record that they were accountable for the following German losses.

507 Divisions
48.000 Tanks
77.000 Aircraft
100 Divisions from Romania, Hungary and Italy
450.000 Japanese soldiers which they claim was 32% of Japanese wartime military losses.

Where are the accurate statistics?