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

Junkyard Tom

seligehgit wrote: »

The West does not want to legitimise in any way the aggressive foreign policy of

Do as we say not as we do.

Wibbs wrote: »

To be fair Sand, the Allies would have been very lucky to have made it past a beachhead against a German war machine not fighting on the eastern front.

We were all rather lucky the Germans didn't follow the retreating Dunkirk troops across the channel and deprive the US and British commonwealth of a bridgehead to launch an invasion from.

Skylinehead

Junkyard Cat wrote: »

We were all rather lucky the Germans didn't follow the retreating Dunkirk troops across the channel and deprive the US and British commonwealth of a bridgehead to launch an invasion from.

I'm not sure that was feasible back then - the Battle of Britain hadn't occurred, so Britain still had a lot of air strength around the channel - plus the Royal Navy was still incredibly strong. Any German attempt to cross the channel would have been disastrous in my eyes.

On the other hand, Hitlers orders to effectively stop the land attack and let the British Army evacuate Dunkirk was pretty disastrous too - if they had destroyed the bulk of the BEF, things might have been very different from a British perspective - they were even considering suing for peace at the time, before Churchill decided not to.

Junkyard Tom

Skylinehead wrote: »

I'm not sure that was feasible back then.

It probably wasn't because it wasn't part of the plan - If it had been then we might have had a very different war.

BlaasForRafa

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.

The Germans and the Finns were co-belligerents and not allies.

The Soviet Union invaded Finland in 1939 and in the settlement in 1940 took a significant chunk of finnish territory. Finland participated in the war against the Soviet Union only to reclaim territory that the Soviet Union took from it in 1940, the Finns did not enter Soviet territory, something which pissed off their German co-belligerents.

You also seem to have forgotten the fact that Latvia was invaded by the Soviets in 1940. Along with Estonia and Lithuania.

The Soviet Union was not some poor innocent bystander that happened to be attacked by Germany, it was up to shenanigans before 1941.

blatantrereg

Junkyard Cat wrote: »

It probably wasn't because it wasn't part of the plan - If it had been then we might have had a very different war.

No; the British navy was far more powerful than the German one.

indioblack

Junkyard Cat wrote: »

It probably wasn't because it wasn't part of the plan - If it had been then we might have had a very different war.

Actually, that would have been quite a big "if".
I'd say quite a bit of planning - assuming the war carried on in the way it actually did. A lot of work from German industry - it took the Allies quite a while to re-enter Europe- in fairness some of this would be down to British hesitation.

Skylinehead

Junkyard Cat wrote: »

It probably wasn't because it wasn't part of the plan - If it had been then we might have had a very different war.

I'd say the Wehrmacht themselves were surprised at their successes in France, so that'd explain why they hadn't planned an invasion of Britain in the same move.

Even so, I still don't think it would work. As the Battle of Britain showed, they would have needed months to break down the RAF (by a lot of accounts, they nearly did it before Hitler decided to switch from airfield to city bombing. So a quick attack following the BEF across the channel wouldn't have worked.

And that still discounts the Royal Navy. There was no way for the Germans to easily beat that, unless they had total air supremacy over the Channel, which they never achieved.

Wibbs

It was never really feasible anyway. The Germans hadn't the type of craft to make beach landings for a start. Canal barges mostly. Soon after they had effectively closed the English channel and ports like Southampton to shipping as anything larger than a rowboat was going to bring on a stuka attack(even hit shipping in the Thames estuary. So they effectively won the Batlle of the Channel. Still an invasion didn't happen.

And the German high command were right not to do much beyond some half arsed planning for one. The Battle of Britain was pretty much a sure thing for the UK to win and why they let that fat rouge wearing oaf Goering prosecute the attack is still beyond me. His own high ups knew it was a likely farce. The British had the home advantage in the days of fighters with limited range, they had the same number of fighters and were building more than the Germans were by the end of that battle and they had an incredible system of early warnings and comms that got those fighters where they were required. Even if the Germans had somehow commanded air superiority in the extreme south of England, the British could have just moved their air bases northwards(in the days when a couple of fields will do)) and continue to harry any invasion.

The other problem for the Germans was their airforce was an extension of their army. It was a tactical weapon in support of their army, not a strategic one. Airborne artillery in essence. As a force on its own without the army riding in behind it wasn't nearly so effective and with the moat of the English channel in the way it was over before it started. EG before the Battle of Britain German single engined aircraft were forbidden from even flying more than 8 miles over open water. It simply wasn't built into their plans.

Starving them out like a good old fashioned castle siege would have been where thy should have aimed more resources. More U boats. Churchill himself said the U Boats scared him.
If the channel hadn't been there the British army would have been routed within a fortnight. As they and the French and every other army the Germans went up against on land at that point. Contrary to popular, in France the British and French had more tanks and troops than the Germans and they still got their arses handed to them on a plate. Even at the end when men and materiel were in very short supply the German soldier put up huge resistance. Their "kill ratio" was the highest of any combatant in WW2.

TheQuietFella

Egginacup wrote: »

The 70 anniversary of the destruction of the Third Reich was celebrated by the people who lost 25 million souls in bringing about such an eventuality this week. The Wehrmacht invaded the USSR in 1941 with 3 million crack troops and laid waste to millions of square miles and lives.
The celebrations in Moscow of the people who bore the brunt of the death and destruction of the most massive military invasion in history, and ultimately defeated it in four appalling years, was boycotted by the leaders of the countries whose freedom was assured by the defeat of the Third Reich.

Why would this happen?

Maybe you don't read a newspaper or watch the news but the Russian annexation of Crimea & parts of Georgia & the on going situation in
the Ukraine might give a little hint!

gandalf

Autonomous Cowherd wrote: »

Did Eggy do a runner?

Given the big event the high command probably gave him the weekend off

SaveOurLyric

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

The Soviet Union was not some poor innocent bystander that happened to be attacked by Germany, it was up to shenanigans before 1941.

Same as the United Kingdom. They had been nicking other people's countries all over the globe for the previous 200 years. But I suppose it doesnt really count when the people that lived there had different colour skin.

Wibbs

Erin Rommel wrote: »

An insightful post,

Praise indeed considering your username :pac:

out of curiosity, if you were Hitler what would you have done differently to win the war?

Some might say not start it, but they had to as they fast going broke.

Basic ones would be IMH, Utterly flatten the BEF at Dunkirk(though they had a fair oul go, but again let Goering's Luftwaffe handle it). Don't bother with the Battle of Britain at all. Keep them contained, put more resources into U boats and cut their food and fuel supplies to a trickle. Selective bombing of their coms systems with hits on industry.

Don't invade the Soviet Union. not until you have Europe tied down. And when you ultimately do invade make it more a "freeing you from Stalin" propaganda thing. Enlist the many many thousands of Russians who hated Stalin to help you. This was a huge mistake, but part and parcel of the core of the regimes take on "race". Going after Jewish Germans and others was even dafter. But again part and parcel of their basic flaw. Amazing that they didn't cop it either. I mean they were gung ho for the might of Rome, yet missed that Rome won as much by inclusion of others into the Roman fold. Even a brief look at the ancestry and origins of their senators and emperors will show this. Romans tended to see Rome as the Master society, not Romans as masters along racial and ethnic lines.


Leave North Africa alone. If Mussolini fcuks up, let him. Don't join in with the Japanese who were doomed from the very second they bombed Pearl Harbor(even if they had sunk the entire US fleet). Keep the US as isolationist as possible, for as long as possible. Make more friendly noises towards the Americans. German Americans make up the largest ethnic group in the place and quite the number of Americans admired fascism and the Germans.

Other screwups? Push the jet fighter, not the jet bomber that adolf was obsessed about. ME 262's a year earlier and in greater numbers would have shít the pants of the allies. Aerial slaughter time. Don't force the manufacturers to try to make nearly every damn bomber type into a dive bomber. Weapons like the first assault rifle the StG 44 were constantly held up by adolf. If they had shown up in serious numbers by 1942 it would have likely been a game changer. Build a strategic bomber, sooner or later you're gonna need one.

indioblack

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

Same as the United Kingdom. They had been nicking other people's countries all over the globe for the previous 200 years. But I suppose it doesnt really count when the people that lived there had different colour skin.

Yep, the same as other nations did. But they don't really count because they weren't British.

BlaasForRafa

Wibbs wrote: »

Basic ones would be IMH, Utterly flatten the BEF at Dunkirk(though they had a fair oul go, but again let Goering's Luftwaffe handle it).

The Luftwaffe didn't realise at the time that the bombs they were dropping on the beaches were less effective than they thought because the sand negated much of the concussive effects of the bombs. By 1941 the germans had developed the Butterfly bomb https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_Bomb which they used to devastating effect in Operation Barbarossa. If these anti-personnel bombs had been available just a little earlier for Dunkirk then there would have been utter carnage amongst the troops queuing up for the boats on the beaches and on the mole in Dunkirk harbour. The british got lucky that the Germans didn't yet have the right weapon at the right time.

SeanW

Egginacup wrote: »

The 70 anniversary of the destruction of the Third Reich was celebrated by the people who lost 25 million souls in bringing about such an eventuality this week. The Wehrmacht invaded the USSR in 1941 with 3 million crack troops and laid waste to millions of square miles and lives.
The celebrations in Moscow of the people who bore the brunt of the death and destruction of the most massive military invasion in history, and ultimately defeated it in four appalling years, was boycotted by the leaders of the countries whose freedom was assured by the defeat of the Third Reich.

Why would this happen?

Maybe it has somehting to do with the fact that Hitler was only the 3rd worst mass killer in history (Stalin and Mao showed the Nazis how it should have been done). That and the current leader of Russia seems hell bent on emulating Hitler and Stalin, attacking, invading and menacing all its neighbors.

Massimo Cassagrande

SeanW wrote: »

Maybe it has somehting to do with the fact that Hitler was only the 3rd worst mass killer in history (Stalin and Mao showed the Nazis how it should have been done). That and the current leader of Russia seems hell bent on emulating Hitler and Stalin, attacking, invading and menacing all its neighbors.

And possibly presiding over the largest, most bare-faced, current cleptocracy?

Reiver

Evil against evil.

And guerilla war continued for years behind the Iron Curtain. In the Baltic States, Poland, Ukraine, Romania, Bulgaria, they all had resistance movements continuing to struggle, convinced aid would come. Hungary 1956.

Look at what Russia has done in Chechnya, Dagestan, Georgia and of course Ukraine.

"Saved us" sure.

Manic Moran

Shenshen wrote: »

How did that happen?

Because they are celebrating 70 year-old history, in a country which last year has annexed part of an independent country, heavily supported the outbreak of a civil war, possibly killed a number of innocent civilians who had nothing to do with the conflict in the first place, and apart from that has a rather artrocious approach to human rights in general.

It didn't happen because of what went on 70 years ago, but because of the countries most recent actions.

This.

It is worth noting that US, British, French and Polish troops all marched in the Red Square parade a couple of years ago, before the current round of Russian actions in Ukraine.

http://www.russia-direct.org/sites/default/files/field/image/h_02149523-american-soldiers-during-victory-day-military-parade-625.jpg

wes

Egginacup wrote: »

Why would this happen?

I don't know, but you know when a country is expanding outside there borders, it maybe, just maybe reminds them of another crowd of idiots doing the same thing..............

noway12345

wes wrote: »

I don't know, but you know when a country is expanding outside there borders, it maybe, just maybe reminds them of another crowd of idiots doing the same thing..............

The British?

Egginacup

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?

Then why did they attend in the past?

Reiver

Egginacup wrote: »

Then why did they attend in the past?

Because Russia wasn't in Ukraine.

Egginacup

The Backwards Man wrote: »

You can't think of a single reason yourself Eggy? What do RT make of it?

Well, backwards man, considering the ceremonies were attended in the past, don't you think it's a bit of an insult to the people of Russia who took the biggest loss from German aggression?

silverfeather

Egginacup wrote: »

Well, backwards man, considering the ceremonies were attended in the past, don't you think it's a bit of an insult to the people of Russia who took the biggest loss from German aggression?

This generation of russian politics has not honored them by invading other countries. It might be an insult to the older generation for the allies to actually attend.

Reiver

Egginacup wrote: »

Well, backwards man, considering the ceremonies were attended in the past, don't you think it's a bit of an insult to the people of Russia who took the biggest loss from German aggression?

I feel worse for the Poles to be honest. Caught between a rock and a hard place. And then betrayed by the Allies at the end of the war.

And plenty of Russians fought for the Axis as well. Practically a second civil war.

silverfeather

Reiver wrote: »

I feel worse for the Poles to be honest. Caught between a rock and a hard place. And then betrayed by the Allies at the end of the war.

And plenty of Russians fought for the Axis as well. Practically a second civil war.

And the poles did much much more to oppose the Nazis than the French did. The Generalgouvernement für die besetzten polnischen Gebiete was opposed by the underground polish state. And the Poles set up a govt in exile in Britain they contributed forces and intelligence. It had one of the three largest partisan forces and their underground govt model was not seen in other occupied countries.

Egginacup

Reiver wrote: »

Because Russia wasn't in Ukraine.

But someone said that the celebrations were boycotted because the Soviets were allied with the Nazis. I asked, then, why these celebrations were attended in the past.....to celebrate the destruction of Nazism and now you say it's because Russia is in Ukraine. Which is it and why exactly would one besmirch the legacy of so many millions 70 years ago when you have an excuse today?

silverfeather

Egginacup wrote: »

But someone said that the celebrations were boycotted because the Soviets were allied with the Nazis. I asked, then, why these celebrations were attended in the past.....to celebrate the destruction of Nazism and now you say it's because Russia is in Ukraine. Which is it and why exactly would one besmirch the legacy of so many millions 70 years ago when you have an excuse today?

Russia is espousing it's own form of Nazism. Look at it's laws against LGBT people what it has done to the non Caucasian peoples of the caucus.

Reiver

Egginacup wrote: »

But someone said that the celebrations were boycotted because the Soviets were allied with the Nazis. I asked, then, why these celebrations were attended in the past.....to celebrate the destruction of Nazism and now you say it's because Russia is in Ukraine. Which is it and why exactly would one besmirch the legacy of so many millions 70 years ago when you have an excuse today?

The Soviets were never allied with the Nazis. The period of military cooperation was with the Weimar government and the Nazis had a non-aggression pact.

Since neither myself nor the other posters (forgive me for being presumptuous) are high-ranking governmental figures, we can't give you the answer as to which is it.

Cats fur sale

Egginacup wrote: »

The 70 anniversary of the destruction of the Third Reich was celebrated by the people who lost 25 million souls in bringing about such an eventuality this week. The Wehrmacht invaded the USSR in 1941 with 3 million crack troops and laid waste to millions of square miles and lives.
The celebrations in Moscow of the people who bore the brunt of the death and destruction of the most massive military invasion in history, and ultimately defeated it in four appalling years, was boycotted by the leaders of the countries whose freedom was assured by the defeat of the Third Reich.

Why would this happen?

As time goes by and with the aid of the internet people in the so called western world are waking up to the fact that Hitler and his National Socialism was in fact a good guy who had a clear vision. It is a pity the allies won WW2.