Just the official version of events. Im not going to add much here because this is not a forum for such discussion. Just saying all is not as it seems regarding the propaganda, fabrications and lies thats been indoctrinated as facts and truth of events surrounding world war 2
I think I know where you're going with this, and damn right this isn't the forum or the place for it.
Would these be the same ex-Soviet Russians who tend to forget that the war started because Hitler and Stalin...ideological enemies - came to an agreement over the invasion of Poland and the divvy'ing up of the Baltic States???
Er...we betrayed YOU???
The Western Allies did EVERYTHING asked of them - including withdrawing from Czechoslovakia, and back across the Oder.
Would these be the same warwinning Soviets who within three weeks of VE Day were kidnapping Allied servicemen and women across the Occupied Sector boundaries into Eastern Berlin???
Leaving aside Lend Lease...don't forget it was BRITISH aid that kept the Soviet Union in the war through the end of 1941; over 25% of the tanks in Zhukov's counterattack around Moscow that halted the German advance were British...something Soviet Era Russian war historians tended to IGNORE COMPLETELY!
Have you ever looked at a list of what the Allies provided the Soviets with during WWII? It wasn't just weapons, you know...
It was BOOTS - five million pairs of them! It was SPAM...thousands of tons of the stuff; today, as I'm sure you're aware, Ruissian baboushkas still remember the wonderful stuf! It was TELEPHONES - thousands of them, and tousands of radios....and tens of thousands of TRUCKS....hundreds, thousands of tons of various vital minerals and explosives...hundreds of TRANSPORT aircraft in among the seven thousand oircraft the Allies provided....MACHINE TOOLS, even today you'll still find American manufacturing plant in former Soviet Era factories ....
And how many locomotives did the Soviets actually build during WWII??? 26....the AMERICANS provided the hundreds of locos of all sorts and sizes that the Soviets depended on whuile their OWN loco plants turned out tanks....and all the rolling stock that the Soviets destroyed themselves in 1941??? Replaced by American-manufactured rolling stock...
The British kept the USSR in the war in 1941; the U.S. kept the Soviet economy running for the rest of the war by filling in ALL the manufacturing the gaps the Soviets couldn't manage for themselves.....
^^^^^^^^^
LevaniX, I hope you show this to your mates on the Russian forum, and translate if necessary !!!
I think I know what levaniX is on about:that people idolise the war generation to the point that criticism is percieved as unpatriotic, no matter how legitimate that criticism might be.
But, on the other hand, it did unify the nation in a way we think is lacking today.
First of all, there was no friendship between Stalin and Hitler from beginning. This is Western myth. It was temporary alliance of 1939-1941 (just as British-Soviet alliance of 1941-1945). They even never met personally.
SO? It still happened...
From 1933, USSR was largest opponent of Nazi policy (see Civil War in Spain).
...and UNTIL 1933, the German Communist Party, under instructions from Moscow, were the NSDAP's greatest political ally in Germany! On two occasions they helped Goering collapse governments in the Reichstag in 1932...
Secondly, the military plan for Nazi invasion into Poland was ready in the spring of 1939, when USSR tried to form military alliance with Brits and Frenchmen. According to this plan, the invasion should be started in late-August. As result, it was rescheduled just on few days. At that time, there was no any Soviet military plan for attack on Poland or any other country. It proves that USSR never was initiator of WW2.
Did the Soviets sign the Ribbentrop-Molotov Agreement or not? Were those plans re-jigged for a Soviet invasion of Eastern Poland or not?
Thirdly, Soviet invasion into Poland was started when it became clear that Nazi victory is obvious.
They actually invaded a week early IIRC!
Don't need to forget that Poland ... was opponent of Soviet policy in 1920s-1930s. That's why USSR didn't feel responsibility to care about Polish destiny.
Would this be the SAME Poland that TWICE during the 1920s and 1930s entered mutual defence pacts with Moscow??? Some "opponent"...
Just the official version of events. Im not going to add much here because this is not a forum for such discussion. Just saying all is not as it seems regarding the propaganda, fabrications and lies thats been indoctrinated as facts and truth of events surrounding world war 2
What that the Germans tried to form an EU in 1940 well before the current one (with the Germans still in charge).
SO?...and UNTIL 1933, the German Communist Party, under instructions from Moscow, were the NSDAP's greatest political ally in Germany! On two occasions they helped Goering collapse governments in the Reichstag in 1932...
I'm also very sorry about those people thinking exactly like this
I would hope that these are only mad nationalists on Youtube and forums.
But unfortunately, people here really forget about the contribution of the west.
If not, just saying how little was it, and land-lease didn't matter.
Thinking like friendship was temporary and techinal.
As well as temporary friendship with Hitler.
I hope older Russians who went through the war don't and never did think that way.
I do think that the USSR and USA, especially the latter, ultimately gained the most from WW2, becoming the two principal superpowers, and that Britain got pretty much nothing from it.
My knowledge of USSR and Stalin, was that Stalin betrayed the West by preventing free elections in Poland (Eastern Europe)- even though he promised that he would allow them.
Those Russian military hats are ridiculously large.
The Soviets would have swept straight on to the English Channel if the Americans weren't around.
It was only because of the bombs dropped on Japan that they started negotiating civilly on what to do with Germany. Up to then they wee playing hard ball and virtually rattling their sabre. They knew everyone had had enough and were prepared to take advantage of that.
The view in Russia today about WWII is still mostly based on Soviet propaganda and revisionist nationalism. The view that without the Soviet Union the Nazis would have succeeded is as ridiculous as the view that they contributed the most. One only has to look at things like the ridiculously huge amount of aid they received from America. The only thing they contributed the most of was casualties, which said a lot about the lack of fighting skills and tactics of the Soviets.
Has anyone mentioned the thousands of Polish, Lithuanian and Latvian military officers and politicians who were shipped out to Siberia and executed in 1939?
Or the 110,000 Germans who surrendered at Stalingrad and were all but 6000 starved to death in Russian prison camps?
Then it's really quite hurtful, because every older person who went through the war that I have talked to, always spoke of the Russians in the highest terms, and with glowing praise of their bravery and sacrifice.
I'm really sorry if they think this little of us.
The smartest thing that the allies should have done is allied itself with the surrendering German army, as they suggested, and conquered the Soviet Union when it had the chance. I'm sure Patton would have agreed.
The smartest thing that the allies should have done is allied itself with the surrendering German army, as they suggested, and conquered the Soviet Union when it had the chance. I'm sure Patton would have agreed.
Which just goes to show that Russians have good reason to feel threatened.
Millions dead, a continent trashed and you think it would have been :eek: smart :eek: to fight a superpower that defended like it did in Stalingrad?
The smartest thing that the allies should have done is allied itself with the surrendering German army, as they suggested, and conquered the Soviet Union when it had the chance. I'm sure Patton would have agreed.
In fact it would have been the dumbest thing the allies could have done. We were exhausted after the war, and urgently needed to rebuild. The very last thing any of the allies or their people would have wanted was another war, this time with the Russians, which would have been protracted and bloody, with no prospect of winning.
....and don't forget, in May 1945, we hadn't yet beaten the Japanese....
Millions dead, a continent trashed and you think it would have been :eek: smart :eek: to fight a superpower that defended like it did in Stalingrad?
Any significant victories against the Nazis were do to missteps by the Nazis, not Soviet fighting capabilities and tactics. The ridiculously huge military casualty rates of the Soviets make that perfectly clear.
America alone could have easily taken on the Soviet Union, and especially since it had just used two nukes against Japan. Doing so would have prevented 50 years of Cold War and the elimination of living under tyranny for millions.
In fact it would have been the dumbest thing the allies could have done. We were exhausted after the war, and urgently needed to rebuild. The very last thing any of the allies or their people would have wanted was another war, this time with the Russians, which would have been protracted and bloody, with no prospect of winning.
....and don't forget, in May 1945, we hadn't yet beaten the Japanese....
That's ridiculous. For one thing, America was producing more arms than the world is ever likely to see again. It was a manufacturing powerhouse that no country could ever match. Second, and most important, America also had nukes at the end of the war, something the Soviets did not.
That's ridiculous. For one thing, America was producing more arms than the world is ever likely to see again. It was a manufacturing powerhouse that no country could ever match. Second, and most important, America also had nukes at the end of the war, something the Soviets did not.
Do you imagine all this wasn't thought of and dismissed as impractical, not to say stupid, at the time.
That's ridiculous. For one thing, America was producing more arms than the world is ever likely to see again. It was a manufacturing powerhouse that no country could ever match. Second, and most important, America also had nukes at the end of the war, something the Soviets did not.
You need soldiers to wield the arms and they wanted to go home - the US forces had been seriously depleted already, and the pressure was on to move them to the Pacific. Of course it was considered, but the US public (and the UK etc) wanted it over. Europe was in ruins, millions had already died.
Of course they realised that the Soviets were a huge threat, but they simply did not have the ability to deal with them. Nuclear weapons were months away from being ready at the end of the European conflict.
The only perspective I need is the fact that at the end of WWII America was the only superpower and the only country with nukes and a willingness to use them. I'm simply saying what should have been done. Obviously Patton agreed. I'm sure he wasn't the only one. Just the threat of the use of nukes would probably have been enough to dismantle communism in the Soviet Union. In hindsight it was a mistake not to topple the Soviet Union.
You need soldiers to wield the arms and they wanted to go home - the US forces had been seriously depleted already, and the pressure was on to move them to the Pacific. Of course it was considered, but the US public (and the UK etc) wanted it over. Europe was in ruins, millions had already died.
US forces were not in any way "seriously depleted" at the end of the war. It had amassed a fighting force that is likely to never be matched again in the future and its manufacturing capacity was equally unmatched.
Europe was in ruins, not America. Just the opposite.
Of course they realised that the Soviets were a huge threat, but they simply did not have the ability to deal with them. Nuclear weapons were months away from being ready at the end of the European conflict.
Even if your "months away" comment is true the Soviets didn't have a nuke until 1947. There was plenty of time to easily topple the Soviet Union with nukes.
Comments
I think I know where you're going with this, and damn right this isn't the forum or the place for it.
^^^^^^^^^
LevaniX, I hope you show this to your mates on the Russian forum, and translate if necessary !!!
Unfortunately, many people in Russia, even ordinary ones think so
Maybe, because of Cold War and communist propaganda, patterns of totalitarian "sovok" mid etc.
But, on the other hand, it did unify the nation in a way we think is lacking today.
If I'm right, then that isn't unique to Russia.
SO? It still happened...
...and UNTIL 1933, the German Communist Party, under instructions from Moscow, were the NSDAP's greatest political ally in Germany! On two occasions they helped Goering collapse governments in the Reichstag in 1932...
Secondly, the military plan for Nazi invasion into Poland was ready in the spring of 1939, when USSR tried to form military alliance with Brits and Frenchmen. According to this plan, the invasion should be started in late-August. As result, it was rescheduled just on few days. At that time, there was no any Soviet military plan for attack on Poland or any other country. It proves that USSR never was initiator of WW2.
Did the Soviets sign the Ribbentrop-Molotov Agreement or not? Were those plans re-jigged for a Soviet invasion of Eastern Poland or not?
They actually invaded a week early IIRC!
Would this be the SAME Poland that TWICE during the 1920s and 1930s entered mutual defence pacts with Moscow??? Some "opponent"...
What that the Germans tried to form an EU in 1940 well before the current one (with the Germans still in charge).
Well said.
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/17732567-the-struggle-against-fascism-in-germany
Eye opener of a book.
I hope older Russians who went through the war don't and never did think that way.
I do think that the USSR and USA, especially the latter, ultimately gained the most from WW2, becoming the two principal superpowers, and that Britain got pretty much nothing from it.
Those Russian military hats are ridiculously large.
It was only because of the bombs dropped on Japan that they started negotiating civilly on what to do with Germany. Up to then they wee playing hard ball and virtually rattling their sabre. They knew everyone had had enough and were prepared to take advantage of that.
Or the 110,000 Germans who surrendered at Stalingrad and were all but 6000 starved to death in Russian prison camps?
It was hell for everyone.
The smartest thing that the allies should have done is allied itself with the surrendering German army, as they suggested, and conquered the Soviet Union when it had the chance. I'm sure Patton would have agreed.
Which just goes to show that Russians have good reason to feel threatened.
Millions dead, a continent trashed and you think it would have been :eek: smart :eek: to fight a superpower that defended like it did in Stalingrad?
Indeed, I can imagine how the people of Europe and America would have loved another ten years of war. What a great idea..
Oh go on, do enlighten us.
In fact it would have been the dumbest thing the allies could have done. We were exhausted after the war, and urgently needed to rebuild. The very last thing any of the allies or their people would have wanted was another war, this time with the Russians, which would have been protracted and bloody, with no prospect of winning.
....and don't forget, in May 1945, we hadn't yet beaten the Japanese....
I'm sure criminals also feel threatened by the police.
Any significant victories against the Nazis were do to missteps by the Nazis, not Soviet fighting capabilities and tactics. The ridiculously huge military casualty rates of the Soviets make that perfectly clear.
America alone could have easily taken on the Soviet Union, and especially since it had just used two nukes against Japan. Doing so would have prevented 50 years of Cold War and the elimination of living under tyranny for millions.
That's ridiculous. For one thing, America was producing more arms than the world is ever likely to see again. It was a manufacturing powerhouse that no country could ever match. Second, and most important, America also had nukes at the end of the war, something the Soviets did not.
Do you imagine all this wasn't thought of and dismissed as impractical, not to say stupid, at the time.
Have a little read of Operation Unthinkable and gain some perspective on the issue.
You need soldiers to wield the arms and they wanted to go home - the US forces had been seriously depleted already, and the pressure was on to move them to the Pacific. Of course it was considered, but the US public (and the UK etc) wanted it over. Europe was in ruins, millions had already died.
Of course they realised that the Soviets were a huge threat, but they simply did not have the ability to deal with them. Nuclear weapons were months away from being ready at the end of the European conflict.
Chernobyl was bad enough. Crude fission bombs?
The only perspective I need is the fact that at the end of WWII America was the only superpower and the only country with nukes and a willingness to use them. I'm simply saying what should have been done. Obviously Patton agreed. I'm sure he wasn't the only one. Just the threat of the use of nukes would probably have been enough to dismantle communism in the Soviet Union. In hindsight it was a mistake not to topple the Soviet Union.
Why not? They had just been used in two Japanese cities.
US forces were not in any way "seriously depleted" at the end of the war. It had amassed a fighting force that is likely to never be matched again in the future and its manufacturing capacity was equally unmatched.
Europe was in ruins, not America. Just the opposite.
Even if your "months away" comment is true the Soviets didn't have a nuke until 1947. There was plenty of time to easily topple the Soviet Union with nukes.