Why has the West boycotted the parade by those who saved the world from Nazism.

Skylinehead

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

suffering the most deaths isn't the same as contributing the most to the victory.

Not on it's own no, but when you consider that they were fighting the Germans since 1941 non-stop (there was no Western Front until 1944), had to fight and defeat the bulk of the Wehrmacht, and struck the blows that ended the war, who else did?

Fratton Fred

Skylinehead wrote: »

Not on it's own no, but when you consider that they were fighting the Germans since 1941 non-stop (there was no Western Front until 1944), had to fight and defeat the bulk of the Wehrmacht, and struck the blows that ended the war, who else did?

North Africa, France and the low countries, invasion of Greece, battle of Britain etc didn't happen until 1944?

MRnotlob606

Sand wrote: »

Maybe they remembered that the Soviets were allied with the Nazis during the invasions of Poland, Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Belgium, France and the Battle of Britain and the Battle of the Atlantic?

"Allies" Is very big stretch of the word. Russia and Germany were diametrically opposed to each other.

Sand

Skylinehead wrote: »

Not on it's own no, but when you consider that they were fighting the Germans since 1941 non-stop (there was no Western Front until 1944), had to fight and defeat the bulk of the Wehrmacht, and struck the blows that ended the war, who else did?

The British were fighting the Axis across multiple fronts since 1939 non-stop.

No Western Front?

Invasion of Norway, Low Countries and France?
Battle of Britain?
Battle of the Atlantic?
The British and US bombing campaign 1942-1945?
North Africa 1940-1943?
The Pacific theatre 1941 - 1945?

The Soviets only fought between 1941 and 1945, against only one enemy and on only one front with large amounts of assistance they did not offer to any other front or ally. It took them until 1945 to open the western front against Japan.

I find it bizarre that Russian chauvinists get hot and bothered by the idea that Russian didn't single-handedly win the war, yet the sacrifices and efforts of Allied servicemen who served on and protected the convoys supporting them throughout the war are dismissed as irrelevant.

Skylinehead

Fratton Fred wrote: »

North Africa, France and the low countries, invasion of Greece, battle of Britain etc didn't happen until 1944?

Of course they did - I was referring to large-scale land battles along the Western Front between the fall of France and Overlord. I did overlook Africa to be fair, there was some amount of resources poured into there - but it still pales in comparison to the Eastern Front. The Germans lost their best units there when the Western Allies didn't even have a foothold in Europe.

MRnotlob606

Sand wrote: »

Oh, the Poles were carved up by a non-aggression pact, right.

If the Soviets saved the world from Nazism, who saved the Finns, the Poles, the Lithuanians, the Latvians and the Estonians from Stalinism?

The Finns Allied themselves with the Nazis. Latvia contributed 87,550 soldiers to the Waffen SS, and a further 23,000 served as Auxillaries to the Wehrmacht.

noway12345

This is crazy stuff. It's a denial of a cold, hard, fact if you say anyone but the Soviets defeated the Nazis. Without them the Nazis would have destroyed the allies.
Then people are saying that how they behaved after the war is the reason no other leaders attended the celebration!!!!!!! Are people for real? We're talking about the leaders of America and Britain not attending. America and Britain! What the ****? Do people know about some of the murderous rampages these two have been doing round the world? This is crazy.

Sand

MRnotlob606 wrote: »

The Finns Allied themselves with the Nazis. Latvia contributed 87,550 soldiers to the Waffen SS, and a further 23,000 served as Auxillaries to the Wehrmacht.

120,000-130,000 Russians served in the Wehrmacht in the RLA. Anything up to 600,000 Russians served in the Wehrmacht as auxiliaries.

gravehold

noway12345 wrote: »

This is crazy stuff. It's a denial of a cold, hard, fact if you say anyone but the Soviets defeated the Nazis. Without them the Nazis would have destroyed the allies.
Then people are saying that how they behaved after the war is the reason no other leaders attended the celebration!!!!!!! Are people for real? We're talking about the leaders of America and Britain not attending. America and Britain! What the ****? Do people know about some of the murderous rampages these two have been doing round the world? This is crazy.

Stalin was worse then hitler and the current political situation in russia are probably the main reason people didn't want to go support russia role in ww2

noway12345

gravehold wrote: »

Stalin was worse then hitler and the current political situation in russia are probably the main reason people didn't want to go support russia role in ww2

And somehow Britain and America are better? Have people read about the history of these places?

gravehold

noway12345 wrote: »

And somehow Britain and America are better? Have people read about the history of these places?

In ww2 yes no one committed more atrocities then the Soviet union not even Germany

noway12345

gravehold wrote: »

In ww2 yes no one committed more atrocities then the Soviet union not even Germany

WW2 is over. This is 2015.

gravehold

noway12345 wrote: »

WW2 is over. This is 2015.

Yes but people didn't want to go to Russia to celebrate the atrocities they committed during ww2, that is what the thread is about.

noway12345

gravehold wrote: »

Yes but people didn't want to go to Russia to celebrate the atrocities they committed during ww2, that is what the thread is about.

Do these same people go to Germany I wonder?

gravehold

noway12345 wrote: »

Do these same people go to Germany I wonder?

Germany don't have a celebration for winning in ww2 so would say no.

noway12345

gravehold wrote: »

Germany don't have a celebration for winning in ww2 so would say no.

They go for remembrance services though. Kinda deafeating your point right there.

gravehold

noway12345 wrote: »

They go for remembrance services though. Kinda deafeating your point right there.

Remembering who though the jewish not celebrating hillter and the nazi's

MRnotlob606

Sand wrote: »

120,000-130,000 Russians served in the Wehrmacht in the RLA. Anything up to 600,000 Russians served in the Wehrmacht as auxiliaries.

Yes but considering Latvia is a small country 100,000 troops is very considerable.

Autonomous Cowherd

Did Eggy do a runner?

Sand

MRnotlob606 wrote: »

Yes but considering Latvia is a small country 100,000 troops is very considerable.

The Nazis applied military conscription to all Latvian males. The Russians were entirely volunteers.

Of course, after the "Year of Terror" during which the Soviets murdered, deported and imprisoned tens of thousands of Latvians I wouldn't blame the Latvians for being eager to prevent the Soviets "liberating" them, again.

noway12345

gravehold wrote: »

Remembering who though the jewish not celebrating hillter and the nazi's

In Russia they're remembering the millions that died, the Jewish are more important?

gravehold

noway12345 wrote: »

In Russia they're remembering the millions that died, the Jewish are more important?

No but remembering the dead is not the same as celebrating a country and leader that committed the worst atrocities in ww2. The parade was for celebrating the ussr tropes that committed those atrocities.

No one should celebrate anything that came from ww2 era ussr.

noway12345

gravehold wrote: »

No but remembering the dead is not the same as celebrating a country and leader that committed the worst atrocities in ww2. The parade was for celebrating the ussr tropes that committed those atrocities.

No one should celebrate anything that came from ww2 era ussr.

They were celebrating the defeat of Nazi Germany and remembering the 27 million Soviet citizens who died. Bush attended 10 years ago, Clinton did before.

endacl

darkpagandeath wrote: »

The war was lost when Hitler took charge of the army.

The war was lost when it started. Like every other war.

indioblack

endacl wrote: »

The war was lost when it started. Like every other war.

"The only thing worse than fighting with allies is fighting without them".

Capt'n Midnight

Sand wrote: »

120,000-130,000 Russians served in the Wehrmacht in the RLA. Anything up to 600,000 Russians served in the Wehrmacht as auxiliaries.

Many of those were from countries that are no longer in Russia. And remember the revolution was only a generation previously. Had they treated Eastern Europeans better they could have had a lot more man power.

BTW the way they recruited up to a million Hiwi's by lining up Russian POW's and asking them to volunteer. What usually happened was the first guy would say "no" they'd shoot him then and there and move on to the second guy. Pretty much everyone said "yes" then. The figures for casualties in Stalingrad rarely reflect them but a few hundred thousand were encircled with the Germans and Italians and other Eastern Europeans. Few if any survived to the surrender. And consider that less than 6,000 of the 90,000 Germans who surrendered survived to return to Germany after the war.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiwi_%28volunteer%29

CiDeRmAn

enfant terrible wrote: »

Lot of if's there.

Sure the whole 20th century is marked out with surprise events, improbable turns and so on.
But you're right, alternate history speculation works better with as few "ifs" as possible.

How about if the Nazis had held off turning on the Soviets until after a western front victory?
Would Stalin have waited until German forces were busy elsewhere and break the non aggression pact himself?
A war between Nazi Germany and the Soviet union was inevitable, no?

Hitchens

'Uncle Joe' didn't mess around with redacted reports!

karma_

Sand wrote: »

I find it bizarre that Russian chauvinists get hot and bothered by the idea that Russian didn't single-handedly win the war, yet the sacrifices and efforts of Allied servicemen who served on and protected the convoys supporting them throughout the war are dismissed as irrelevant.

Only? It's not about chauvinism or anything else, you are arguing against the mathematics of the whole thing, and let me tell you now, it does not add up in your favour.

Balmed Out

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

less than 6,000 of the 90,000 Germans who surrendered survived to return to Germany after the war.

Something Im always meaning to read up on more. Scary statistic and the length of time they were imprisoned too.