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

indioblack · 22-05-2015 06:23PM

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?

You might express it as the USSR saving the world from Nazism.
The way I see it, Hitler invaded Russia - and Russian armies pushed the Germans out of Russia and all the way back to Berlin.
I doubt if saving the world entered Stalin's head.

Snickers Man · 09-07-2015 04:39PM

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

The young men of RAF bomber command who sacrificed themselves during the bombing raids over Germany saved us from a future of Nazism

That is absolute horse ****.

They were beaten.

Until early 1945 when, with Germany's defences down they basically carried out the sort of massacre of the defeated country's civilians that has been the pattern of full scale war since ancient times.

Greeks did it in Troy
Romans did it in Carthage
Crusaders did it in Jerusalem
Holy Roman Empire did it in Magdeburg
Cromwell did it in Drogheda

The RAF just did it from further away.

BTW the fact that the German defences had beaten off Bomber Command by the spring of 1994 is not a controversial viewpoint. It has been made by many erudite British historians.

It was the Soviet Union that defeated the Nazis. Britain, and indeed America played relatively minor parts in the defeat of Germany.

And we, the Irish played none. Don't forget that. Nothing to be ashamed of.

Snickers Man · 09-07-2015 04:44PM

IrishCule wrote: »

Thought it was fairly accepted by everyone these days that the war was won by Russian men and American equipment. In fact it's fairly obvious with any sort of research into it.

What American equipment did the Russians use? And in what quantities?

I don't know the answer. I'm genuinely curious.

ohnonotgmail · 09-07-2015 04:51PM

Snickers Man wrote: »

What American equipment did the Russians use? And in what quantities?

I don't know the answer. I'm genuinely curious.

tons. about 16billion tons. Practically all of the trucks used by the russians (nearly 450,000) . thousands of tanks, aircraft and other vehicles. and a complete tyre factory.

wakka12 · 09-07-2015 04:55PM

CiDeRmAn wrote: »

Yeah, the Soviets were in a fight for their lives against the Nazis but it was a bit like your two local scumbags fighting in the local supermarket carpark, yes scumbag no 1 won't be hassling you too much once he's been glassed in the neck, but don't imagine life under scumbag no2s shadow is going to be a picnic

That is such a good analogy haha

09-07-2015 10:06PM

Morpheus wrote: »

in response to the OP's opening post.
because current russian leadership sees invasion of and annexation of another countries sovereign territory as proper foreign policy.
much like hitler did.

Thankfully, the British would never engage in invading and occupying other countries as [url=url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/9653497/British-have-invaded-nine-out-of-ten-countries-so-look-out-Luxembourg.html]their "proper foreign policy" for, eh, centuries[/url]. But, of course so the national fairytale goes: our British invaders are heroes; your Russian invaders are tyrants (unless they are invading for our side, when they are heroes of course).

In the real world, alas for the fairytale, militarily the Russians were by far the most critical force in defeating Nazi Germany in WW II. This is a fact. War on the Eastern Front was significantly more brutal than war on the Western Front, despite self-serving propaganda to the contrary in politically-motivated Anglophone media (usually around November each year). Some 30 million USSR citizens (plus 6 million Poles) died versus about 1 million US and UK citizens/subjects. Reading about war on the Eastern Front is reading about a war of total destruction, total war, and you can only question the entire meaning of existence and how little human life is valued outside the very Western cultural values we are almost brainwashed into believing; war on the Western Front is no such thing.

The Russians and USA benefited from victory in WW II; the US in particular because the war wasn't on their soil so the US did not have to rebuild a destroyed economy. Britain was on the winning side, but again despite the post-WW II spin Britain was a major loser of WW II. On this point, check out Destroyers for Bases Agreement (1940) and Lend-Lease (1941) which gave the US much of the British Empire's former sea power and Britain was ultimately bailed out by the United States (and Canada, to a lesser extent) for the same reason the US bailed out the rest of Western Europe: it needed strong economies to purchase US goods and if European markets were weak then the US economy would slump. British people celebrating "victory" in WW II is very much a political act of national self-deception, when anybody can see the US rose upon the defeat of Britain.

On the Russian side, Stalin was obviously a tyrant, up there with Mao Zedong (although Mao's crimes are less known entirely because the West deemed highlighting Stalin's crimes more politically beneficial during the Cold War). To deny Stalin made alliances with Hitler (or indeed that the US armed Stalin - see the same Lend-Lease agreements in 1941) as somebody on this forum is doing is just silly. The US was allied to the Soviet Union in WWII and it was natural that it gave it support.

On the British-US side, to deny the far greater importance of the USSR in defeating Nazi Germany is just as dishonest as denying the six years of UK state appeasement with Nazi Germany before September 1939, appeasement which was critical in encouraging Hitler (e.g. Anglo-German Naval Agreement 1935), and sacrificed Czechs, Austrians and others in the process. Of course, the real enemy to capitalist societies like Britain in 1930s Europe was communists/socialists, not fascists like Hitler - but that inconvenient historical reality of the 1930s is never acknowledged by the people who genuinely believe "We saved the world from Nazism". If it's any consolation to British people, the United States deemed the French résistance to be terrorists and the Nazi puppet government of Vichy France to be the legitimate government of France right up until December 1941 (Pearl Harbour). That, too, is written out of the fairytale we are told about what really went on between 1932 and 1942 in Europe.

TLDR: My crowd are great because they killed loads of bad guys ("bad guys" always being defined solely by not being on our side, of course). Your crowd may have killed far, far, far more of the aforesaid bad guys but your crowd today are our current political enemies so we refuse to acknowledge that reality and we are therefore going to take all the glory for killing aforesaid bad guys. As we are cultureless, benighted, types who are generally miserably disposed to being against everything and every idea that's slightly new or idealistic such as truth, social justice, a better world and the like - we have sfa interest in historical facts so please stfu with all that naive hippy facts stuff.

Wibbs · 09-07-2015 11:41PM

Snickers Man wrote: »

BTW the fact that the German defences had beaten off Bomber Command by the spring of 1994 is not a controversial viewpoint. It has been made by many erudite British historians.

I presume you mean 1944? Unless history has gone all parallel universe on us...

Even so, that's kinda at odds with contemporaneous German sources on the ground and air so to speak. Read Adolf Galland's "the first and the last" to expand on that and he was near the top of the command tree and best placed to know. In essence the Luftwaffe were fcuked at that stage. In real trouble, hampered by the Nazi command, especially the other twatty Adolf who was all about bombers, revenge and offence at a time when defence was the real and true practical need. Oh and unlike you I can quote chapter and verse on that.

It was the Soviet Union that defeated the Nazis. Britain, and indeed America played relatively minor parts in the defeat of Germany.

Utter and seemingly unashamed ignorant nonsense bollocks. Though popular enough among your "my pint/life is subsidised by the sweat of others" 22 year old Leftie. Sorry Ted communism failed. I hate to break that to you in your ever sensitive state, but there it is. The plain facts are that the US' productivity in war materiel made a decisive difference, one that the Soviets were all too happy to clamour for and without which they would have been in serious trouble. Plus if the dopey Nazi's hadn't been fighting a war on three, nay four fronts the Soviets would have been utterly fcuked. Ever wonder how by far the greatest "kills" the Germans racked up was on the Eastern front? Never mind that Germany was fielding far less combatants. Stalin was so confident that he had his personal "get the fcuk out of dodge" train running 24/7 in a Moscow station. And nearly ran away on two occasions.

And we, the Irish played none. Don't forget that. Nothing to be ashamed of.

Save for the near hundred thousand men and women who joined the war effort under other flags. My dad, his brother and five cousins among them. One, with the Yanks did the whole Band of Brothers vibe all the way to Berlin. Another was witness to two of those rendered in black and white these days camps, something nobody should ever have to see. So they and all the other Irish folks did nothing eh? Fcuk right off.

When you have this kind of nonsense where the soviets ground under Stalin's jackboot are lauded as somehow good, it really fcuking rankles. Stalin killed more of his own that that twat Hitler ever did and wasn't exactly friendly to Jews. Pogroms were a national sport in his neck of the woods long before the jumped up Austrian ever came along. Ever wonder why it was called "the final solution/endlsung""? It was building on other "solutions", solutions that had been tried out all over the place, especially in the East. Just in case you're ignorant of it(likely); Pogrom is a Russian word.

TL;DR? GTFOut of it and read some actual history boy. Then, if you peel back your shower curtain of leftie, Shinner self hating, the Engerlish are to blame for everything, bullshít you might actually get a glimpse of some sort of reality. Better yet, build a bridge over your issues and get over it. Then again for that thankful minority of eejits that would be a Bridge Too Far(pun intended) and I'm not so good at holding my breath.

Spear · 09-07-2015 11:46PM

Snickers Man wrote: »

What American equipment did the Russians use? And in what quantities?

I don't know the answer. I'm genuinely curious.

A wide variety was provided under the Lend Lease program:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease

Son Of A Vidic · 10-07-2015 12:52AM

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?

It would be quiet naive to think that the Soviet Union was ever a genuine ally of the Nazis. The Molotov–Ribbentrop pact was nothing more than an attempt to buy time for an ill prepared Red Army. An army that had still to recover from Stalin's brutal purges which decimated their ranks. For the Germans, it was an equal deception and an exercise in concealing their primary target - the vast reserves and endless lebensraum offered by the Soviet Union.

The battles and savagery inflicted by both sides on the Eastern Front, almost made the Western Front theatre of conflict seem like a holiday destination in comparison. And I'm certainly thankful for the massive sacrifice the Russian people endured, in their determined pursuit of victory over the Nazi's. The recent moves by the West, in making a political football out of Russia's WW2 sacrifice. Was both insulting and completely classless imo.

Samaris · 10-07-2015 01:12AM

What, do you expect eternal gratitude and worship forever? This isn't about history, its about condemning actions of today. Russia don't get a free pass on being dicks because of their actions in WWII, any more than any other country does.

And honestly, phrasing it like that is really missing ALL the point.

ben.schlomo · 10-07-2015 02:07AM

Wibbs wrote: »

I presume you mean 1944? Unless history has gone all parallel universe on us...

Even so, that's kinda at odds with contemporaneous German sources on the ground and air so to speak. Read Adolf Galland's "the first and the last" to expand on that and he was near the top of the command tree and best placed to know. In essence the Luftwaffe were fcuked at that stage. In real trouble, hampered by the Nazi command, especially the other twatty Adolf who was all about bombers, revenge and offence at a time when defence was the real and true practical need. Oh and unlike you I can quote chapter and verse on that.

Utter and seemingly unashamed ignorant nonsense bollocks. Though popular enough among your "my pint/life is subsidised by the sweat of others" 22 year old Leftie. Sorry Ted communism failed. I hate to break that to you in your ever sensitive state, but there it is. The plain facts are that the US' productivity in war materiel made a decisive difference, one that the Soviets were all too happy to clamour for and without which they would have been in serious trouble. Plus if the dopey Nazi's hadn't been fighting a war on three, nay four fronts the Soviets would have been utterly fcuked. Ever wonder how by far the greatest "kills" the Germans racked up was on the Eastern front? Never mind that Germany was fielding far less combatants. Stalin was so confident that he had his personal "get the fcuk out of dodge" train running 24/7 in a Moscow station. And nearly ran away on two occasions.

Save for the near hundred thousand men and women who joined the war effort under other flags. My dad, his brother and five cousins among them. One, with the Yanks did the whole Band of Brothers vibe all the way to Berlin. Another was witness to two of those rendered in black and white these days camps, something nobody should ever have to see. So they and all the other Irish folks did nothing eh? Fcuk right off.

When you have this kind of nonsense where the soviets ground under Stalin's jackboot are lauded as somehow good, it really fcuking rankles. Stalin killed more of his own that that twat Hitler ever did and wasn't exactly friendly to Jews. Pogroms were a national sport in his neck of the woods long before the jumped up Austrian ever came along. Ever wonder why it was called "the final solution/endlsung""? It was building on other "solutions", solutions that had been tried out all over the place, especially in the East. Just in case you're ignorant of it(likely); Pogrom is a Russian word.

TL;DR? GTFOut of it and read some actual history boy. Then, if you peel back your shower curtain of leftie, Shinner self hating, the Engerlish are to blame for everything, bullshít you might actually get a glimpse of some sort of reality. Better yet, build a bridge over your issues and get over it. Then again for that thankful minority of eejits that would be a Bridge Too Far(pun intended) and I'm not so good at holding my breath.

Post of the century, chapeau sir, chapeau.

BlaasForRafa · 10-07-2015 02:17AM

Wibbs wrote: »

I presume you mean 1944? Unless history has gone all parallel universe on us...

Even so, that's kinda at odds with contemporaneous German sources on the ground and air so to speak. Read Adolf Galland's "the first and the last" to expand on that and he was near the top of the command tree and best placed to know. In essence the Luftwaffe were fcuked at that stage. In real trouble, hampered by the Nazi command, especially the other twatty Adolf who was all about bombers, revenge and offence at a time when defence was the real and true practical need. Oh and unlike you I can quote chapter and verse on that.

Actually he's kind of right. The British night bombing campaign ended in at best a stalemate for the British. After the disaster of the Hamburg firebombing in 1943 the Germans built up and refined their defences and by March 1944 the Nachtjagdgeschwadern were in good shape with plenty of aces. The disastrous raid on Nuremberg was the finale to the major British campaign of area bombing in 1943/44 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Berlin_(RAF_campaign)

What actually devestated the jagdgeschwadern was the american day bombing campaign, with the introduction of large numbers of long-range P51 Mustang fighters in early 1944 being crucial, the mustang could escort 8th air force bombers all the way to the target where earlier fighters like the P47 and P38 couldn't. The Defence of the Reich fighters were from then outnumbered over their own territory and couldn't take a significant toll on the american bombers while being bled to death by mustang pilots.

The other crucial nail in the Jagdwaffe's coffin was the american day bomber campaign against the reich's oil refineries, lack of fuel meant that luftwaffe training programs had to be drastically cut back which meant that the replacement pilots sent to the jagdwaffe could barely fly and were for all intents and purposes, cannon fodder.

ps: I don't think it's been mentioned yet but the Russian representative on the UN security council vetoed a motion to declare the massacre at Srebernica by their Serbian buddies as a Genocide. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/11/opinion/russias-denial-of-srebrenica-genocide.html?_r=0

Iwasfrozen · 10-07-2015 04:15AM

Snickers Man wrote: »

That is absolute horse ****.

They were beaten.

Britain was beaten? How? In the air radar gave the British an edge over Germany and on sea it wasn't even a contest. Germany had the more powerful land army but an invasion of Britain would have been an impossible task.

Hardly beaten.

Edit: If you think the Soviet Union defeated Germany on their own, I advise you to read up on the lend lease project. The lend lease project was similar in scale to the entire Axis war production and the USSR got around 1/3 of that.

Snickers Man · 10-07-2015 08:48AM

Wibbs wrote: »

I presume you mean 1944? Unless history has gone all parallel universe on us...

Well of course I meant 1944. My finger trembled. It happens.

Wibbs wrote: »

Even so, that's kinda at odds with contemporaneous German sources on the ground and air so to speak. Read Adolf Galland's "the first and the last" to expand on that and he was near the top of the command tree and best placed to know. In essence the Luftwaffe were fcuked at that stage. In real trouble, hampered by the Nazi command, especially the other twatty Adolf who was all about bombers, revenge and offence at a time when defence was the real and true practical need. Oh and unlike you I can quote chapter and verse on that.

I have actually read Galland's book but many years ago. And I do remember his complaints about Hitler insisting that the Me 262 jet be used as an offensive weapon instead of being used as an interceptor against bombers. I think Galland also said that even at that late stage of the war he felt that, properly used, it could have had a decisive effect against the western bomber forces. Which kind of backs up MY point.

But if you still have your copy, have a look at the graph he published which shows how German industrial production kept increasing right into late 1944 despite the "round the clock" efforts of Allied bombing. Seems like they weren't having the sort of effect that was intended at all.

Indeed, it's one of the contributions to my current viewpoint which is that the Bomber Offensive failed in its stated objectives.

One of many, I might add.

Wibbs wrote: »

Utter and seemingly unashamed ignorant nonsense bollocks. Though popular enough among your "my pint/life is subsidised by the sweat of others" 22 year old Leftie. Sorry Ted communism failed. I hate to break that to you in your ever sensitive state, but there it is. The plain facts are that the US' productivity in war materiel made a decisive difference, one that the Soviets were all too happy to clamour for and without which they would have been in serious trouble. Plus if the dopey Nazi's hadn't been fighting a war on three, nay four fronts the Soviets would have been utterly fcuked.

Stating as a fact that the Soviets did the heaviest lifting in terms of engaging and defeating the German military is not an endorsement of their philosophy. Far from it. (And it's a long time since I was 22, sir/madam. In fact when I was 22, the Soviet Union still existed. I have even visited some Warsaw Pact countries while they were soviet satellites and know at first hand why they were such undesirable places in which to live. But that doesn't change the facts of history regarding the disposition of forces in WWII)

And I am no "Leftie".

Wibbs wrote: »

Ever wonder how by far the greatest "kills" the Germans racked up was on the Eastern front? Never mind that Germany was fielding far less combatants. Stalin was so confident that he had his personal "get the fcuk out of dodge" train running 24/7 in a Moscow station. And nearly ran away on two occasions.

Because their planes were so superior, in the early stages of the Eastern Front anyway, to the Soviet ones. But remember that the Soviets stopped the Germans at Moscow in late 1941 and started the massive counter attack which sent them scuttling backwards in early December of that year. Before the US joined the war. So without much benefit of US trucks (or tyres) at that stage.

Snickers Man wrote:

We weren't in the war

Wibbs wrote: »

Save for the near hundred thousand men and women who joined the war effort under other flags. My dad, his brother and five cousins among them. One, with the Yanks did the whole Band of Brothers vibe all the way to Berlin. Another was witness to two of those rendered in black and white these days camps, something nobody should ever have to see. So they and all the other Irish folks did nothing eh? Fcuk right off.

And another two were my grandfather and great uncle (his brother in law) both of whom died in 1940. And they were Irish Irish, not first or second generation Yanks eager to be the 1940s equivalents of "black police showing off for the white cop" as NWA memorably put it. (See. I can presume as well

)

But the fact remains that we as a country stayed out of the war. And we were perfectly right to do so. And today we should stand up and say so, not call in the hedged bet of our emigrants who joined the armies of their adopted countries to ingratiate ourselves with the accepted, and often false, wisdom of our European neighbours today. That's just being presumptuous.

Wibbs wrote: »

When you have this kind of nonsense where the soviets ground under Stalin's jackboot are lauded as somehow good, it really fcuking rankles.

Happy to clarify (again) that I never said that. The Soviets engaged, killed, defeated more German and collaborating troops than the Western Allies put together and for a longer time. That's a fact. It doesn't make Stalin a nice guy. Or even a good guy.

Stalin WAS a bastard. And what rankles with me is the notion that we should somehow be grateful to other countries for "defending" us from Hitler in WWII. By that token, the Poles should be "grateful" to the memory of Stalin for "liberating" them from the Germans.

Go into a Polish club and suggest drinking a toast to Stalin on a VE day anniversary. Dare ya!

Wibbs wrote: »

Stalin killed more of his own that that twat Hitler ever did and wasn't exactly friendly to Jews. Pogroms were a national sport in his neck of the woods long before the jumped up Austrian ever came along. Ever wonder why it was called "the final solution/endlsung""? It was building on other "solutions", solutions that had been tried out all over the place, especially in the East. Just in case you're ignorant of it(likely); Pogrom is a Russian word.

Yawn. Tell me something I don't know :rolleyes:

Wibbs wrote: »

TL;DR? GTFOut of it and read some actual history boy. Then, if you peel back your shower curtain of leftie, Shinner self hating, the Engerlish are to blame for everything, bullshít you might actually get a glimpse of some sort of reality. Better yet, build a bridge over your issues and get over it. Then again for that thankful minority of eejits that would be a Bridge Too Far(pun intended) and I'm not so good at holding my breath.

Don't you EVER call me a shinner. Or a leftie. Or allege that I think the British are to blame for everything, although many people do. And I'm not talking only about my disgruntled compatriots either.

Snickers Man · 10-07-2015 08:56AM

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Actually he's kind of right. The British night bombing campaign ended in at best a stalemate for the British. After the disaster of the Hamburg firebombing in 1943 the Germans built up and refined their defences and by March 1944 the Nachtjagdgeschwadern were in good shape with plenty of aces. The disastrous raid on Nuremberg was the finale to the major British campaign of area bombing in 1943/44 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Berlin_(RAF_campaign)

Martin Middlebrook's The Nuremberg Raid gives a marvellously detailed account of that raid and how it marked "the end of the bomber dream" that you could win a war by bombing alone.

He wrote another excellent book about the Hamburg firestorm raids of 1943 where, in contrast to Nuremberg, everything went right for the bombers and wrong for the defenders. But the Allies could not repeat such an attack again.

Or at least, not until the last weeks of the war when the Germans were defenceless.

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

The other crucial nail in the Jagdwaffe's coffin was the american day bomber campaign against the reich's oil refineries, lack of fuel meant that luftwaffe training programs had to be drastically cut back which meant that the replacement pilots sent to the jagdwaffe could barely fly and were for all intents and purposes, cannon fodder.

I think the Soviet's overrunning of Rumanian oil fields contributed handsomely to that too.

Snickers Man · 10-07-2015 08:58AM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Britain was beaten? How?

I meant Bomber Command, and its campaign to defeat Germany by bombing alone.

It didn't work.

Snickers Man · 10-07-2015 09:00AM

ben.schlomo wrote: »

Post of the century, chapeau sir, chapeau.

Chapeau? As in: you're talking through yours!

Fratton Fred · 10-07-2015 10:16AM

Snickers Man wrote: »

I meant Bomber Command, and its campaign to defeat Germany by bombing alone.

It didn't work.

It was never a way to defeat the Nazis alone though, it was a way of taking the fight to Germany in the only way it could at the time.

Considering the British effort was, as you put it, insignificant, the Germans dedicated a considerable amount of resources to take them out of the war. Germany lost over 30,000 sailors and 780 submarines in the battle of the Atlantic alone as well as nearly 2,000 aircraft in the battle of Britain.

Then there is the neutralization of Germany's capital ships, either sunk of rendered useless.

Ok, the Russian's lost most in terms of personnel, but that was always going to happen because a full blown invasion of Russia was always Hitler's plan, to claim the efforts of the rest of the allies was insignificant is rediculous.

If Britain had sued for peace after the fall of France, then at worst, Russia would have been overrun in a few months, at best the war would have continued for twice as long as it did with significantly higher loss of life.

And that's presuming the Norwegian resistance had been able to destroy the heavy water plants in their own.

Egginacup · 10-07-2015 11:12AM

Wibbs wrote: »

I presume you mean 1944? Unless history has gone all parallel universe on us...

Even so, that's kinda at odds with contemporaneous German sources on the ground and air so to speak. Read Adolf Galland's "the first and the last" to expand on that and he was near the top of the command tree and best placed to know. In essence the Luftwaffe were fcuked at that stage. In real trouble, hampered by the Nazi command, especially the other twatty Adolf who was all about bombers, revenge and offence at a time when defence was the real and true practical need. Oh and unlike you I can quote chapter and verse on that.

Utter and seemingly unashamed ignorant nonsense bollocks. Though popular enough among your "my pint/life is subsidised by the sweat of others" 22 year old Leftie. Sorry Ted communism failed. I hate to break that to you in your ever sensitive state, but there it is. The plain facts are that the US' productivity in war materiel made a decisive difference, one that the Soviets were all too happy to clamour for and without which they would have been in serious trouble. Plus if the dopey Nazi's hadn't been fighting a war on three, nay four fronts the Soviets would have been utterly fcuked. Ever wonder how by far the greatest "kills" the Germans racked up was on the Eastern front? Never mind that Germany was fielding far less combatants. Stalin was so confident that he had his personal "get the fcuk out of dodge" train running 24/7 in a Moscow station. And nearly ran away on two occasions.

Save for the near hundred thousand men and women who joined the war effort under other flags. My dad, his brother and five cousins among them. One, with the Yanks did the whole Band of Brothers vibe all the way to Berlin. Another was witness to two of those rendered in black and white these days camps, something nobody should ever have to see. So they and all the other Irish folks did nothing eh? Fcuk right off.

When you have this kind of nonsense where the soviets ground under Stalin's jackboot are lauded as somehow good, it really fcuking rankles. Stalin killed more of his own that that twat Hitler ever did and wasn't exactly friendly to Jews. Pogroms were a national sport in his neck of the woods long before the jumped up Austrian ever came along. Ever wonder why it was called "the final solution/endlsung""? It was building on other "solutions", solutions that had been tried out all over the place, especially in the East. Just in case you're ignorant of it(likely); Pogrom is a Russian word.

TL;DR? GTFOut of it and read some actual history boy. Then, if you peel back your shower curtain of leftie, Shinner self hating, the Engerlish are to blame for everything, bullshít you might actually get a glimpse of some sort of reality. Better yet, build a bridge over your issues and get over it. Then again for that thankful minority of eejits that would be a Bridge Too Far(pun intended) and I'm not so good at holding my breath.

Stopped reading after "twatty" Adolf.

Oh boy!

Snickers Man · 10-07-2015 11:38AM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

It was never a way to defeat the Nazis alone though, it was a way of taking the fight to Germany in the only way it could at the time.

A well accepted argument. And one that has been used before and since by the likes of the Provos, Hamas, Hezbollah, the FLN, etc etc etc

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Considering the British effort was, as you put it, insignificant, the Germans dedicated a considerable amount of resources to take them out of the war.

When did I ever say insignificant? Not in this thread. And if I ever inadvertently said it before I withdraw it. But I don't think I ever have.

The term I prefer for Britain's contribution to the war is "minor" which is a relative term and suggests that all-consuming as it might have been for Britain, in the grand scheme of things it amounts only to small share of the effort required to defeat Germany. The lion's share of which was taken up by the Soviet Union.

And this is not an endorsement of that nice Mr Stalin. It's just a dispassionate reading of the numbers.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

If Britain had sued for peace after the fall of France, then at worst, Russia would have been overrun in a few months, at best the war would have continued for twice as long as it did with significantly higher loss of life.

That is at least debatable.

Most historians now accept that Hitler's "invasion" plans for Britain were perfunctory at best and probably a bluff at worst. He probably expected the Luftwaffe to pound Britain into submission and thereby obviate the need for a military invasion, but fair play to the RAF, they upped the ante on that one to such an extent that it proved impossible. (Another failure of the Bomber Dream, perhaps?)

But it would have taken Germany almost as long to prepare for an invasion of Russia anyway. They had to make sure the new puppet/colonial governments in France and Poland were up and running, that all meaningful resistance had ceased and that the logistics necessary for the massive undertaking that Barbarossa was, were adequately in place. How much sooner, practically speaking, could Barbarossa have been launched even if Britain had capitulated?

Some people point to delaying actions and distractions caused by North Africa/Crete/Greece/Yugoslavia etc but these are scrapes into which Germany was dragged by their comical Italian allies. They would have had to intervene in the Balkans when the Italians screwed up there, regardless of whether Britain was involved or not.

And although Rommel was one of Hitler's favourite generals and losing him to North Africa might have been an extravagance, the other thing to remember is that the vast majority of the Axis forces in the desert, especially in the run up to Barbarossa, were Italian. The Afrika Korps was a reinforcement of a collaborating country's forces, not a major invasion force in its own right.

Maybe Barbarossa was delayed by a few weeks, or months, but that's all. And the bulk of that delay was caused by Greek and Yugoslav forces. Not British.

KomradeBishop · 10-07-2015 01:31PM

Here is what the French thought, from 1945 up to the present, about which nation was the most decisive in defeating Germany - at the end of WWII, the Soviets were quite resoundingly the most decisive:
http://www.les-crises.fr/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/sondage-nation-contribue-defaite-nazis-1.jpg
http://www.les-crises.fr/la-fabrique-du-cretin-defaite-nazis/?_escaped_fragment_=prettyPhoto#!prettyPhoto

It was 2 months short of 5 years since WWII started, before the Normandy landings - Russia had been begging for a proper second front (Italy barely counted) for 3 years by the time it actually happened - the Allies spent a lot of time dícking around in Africa and invading Italy (when they should have been invading across the channel sooner instead), while letting the Russians take on the brunt of the Nazi army.

I'm no fan of the Soviets (don't let the name fool you

that's just a pisstake on people who label anything/anyone they disagree with as 'Communist'), but they pretty much did the vast majority of the heavy lifting against the Nazi's in WWII, and the US came in extremely late to snap up the rewards - and at the end of WWII, the US had control over a vast amount of the Earth strategically/politically, as a result.

Iwasfrozen · 10-07-2015 02:18PM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Here is what the French thought, from 1945 up to the present, about which nation was the most decisive in defeating Germany - at the end of WWII, the Soviets were quite resoundingly the most decisive:
http://www.les-crises.fr/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/sondage-nation-contribue-defaite-nazis-1.jpg
http://www.les-crises.fr/la-fabrique-du-cretin-defaite-nazis/?_escaped_fragment_=prettyPhoto#!prettyPhoto

It was 2 months short of 5 years since WWII started, before the Normandy landings - Russia had been begging for a proper second front (Italy barely counted) for 3 years by the time it actually happened - the Allies spent a lot of time dícking around in Africa and invading Italy (when they should have been invading across the channel sooner instead), while letting the Russians take on the brunt of the Nazi army.

I'm no fan of the Soviets (don't let the name fool you that's just a pisstake on people who label anything/anyone they disagree with as 'Communist'), but they pretty much did the vast majority of the heavy lifting against the Nazi's in WWII, and the US came in extremely late to snap up the rewards - and at the end of WWII, the US had control over a vast amount of the Earth strategically/politically, as a result.

I can't speak for the average French citizen in 1945 but I can say Joseph Stalin stated in 1943 that without American production the United Nations could never have won the war.

No doubt the Russians lost the most out of all major players in the war but if it wasn't for American involvement Russian victory is debatable to say the least.

Elmer Blooker · 10-07-2015 05:07PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I can't speak for the average French citizen in 1945 but I can say Joseph Stalin stated in 1943 that without American production the United Nations could never have won the war.

No doubt the Russians lost the most out of all major players in the war but if it wasn't for American involvement Russian victory is debatable to say the least.

This is laughable. The T-34s, Katyusha rockets and whole divisions of artillery (never seen before in warfare) that had the German Army defeated as a fighting force even before the D-Day landings were home produced. The Red Army had 11 million men and women (yes women) in uniform by 1945. Its very unlikely that the US equipped 11 million as well as their own army!

Did Stalin really say that? I've read a lot of books on WW2 and I can tell you that being gracious was certainly NOT one of Stalin's traits!
The UN didn't exist in 1943?

Iwasfrozen · 10-07-2015 05:33PM

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

This is laughable. The T-34s, Katyusha rockets and whole divisions of artillery (never seen before in warfare) that had the German Army defeated as a fighting force even before the D-Day landings were home produced. The Red Army had 11 million men and women (yes women) in uniform by 1945. Its very unlikely that the US equipped 11 million as well as their own army!

Did Stalin really say that? I've read a lot of books on WW2 and I can tell you that being gracious was certainly NOT one of Stalin's traits!
The UN didn't exist in 1943?

Here's a quote from wikipedia:

Much of the aid can be better understood when considering the economic distortions caused by the war. Most belligerent powers cut back severely on production of non-essentials, concentrating on producing weapons. This inevitably produced shortages of related products needed by the military or as part of the military-industrial complex.

The USSR was highly dependent on rail transportation, but the war practically shut down rail equipment production: only about 92 locomotives were produced. 2,000 locomotives and 11,000 railcars were supplied under Lend-Lease. Likewise, the Soviet air force received 18,700 aircraft, which amounted to about 14% of Soviet aircraft production (19% for military aircraft).

Although most Red Army tank units were equipped with Soviet-built tanks, their logistical support was provided by hundreds of thousands of U.S.-made trucks. Indeed, by 1945 nearly a third of the truck strength of the Red Army was U.S.-built. Trucks such as the Dodge 3/4 ton and Studebaker 2½ ton were easily the best trucks available in their class on either side on the Eastern Front. American shipments of telephone cable, aluminum, canned rations, and clothing were also critical.

Also here's a quote from General Zhukov in 1963:

It is now said that the Allies never helped us. However, one cannot deny that the Americans gave us so much material, without which we could not have formed our reserves and could not have continued the war, we had no explosives and powder. There was none to equip rifle bullets. The Americans actually came to our assistance with powder and explosives. And how much sheet steel did they give us. We really could not have quickly put right our production of tanks if the Americans had not helped with steel. And today it seems as though we had all this ourselves in abundance.

Stalin sure did say it, in 1943 at the Theran conference. Here's the wikipedia link, the quote is citationed twice: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease#Quotations

Soviet production capabilities were similar to German production capabilities but America was another story the lend lease project itself was similar in scale to the entirety of Axis production. Perhaps the Soviet Union could have won the war without America opening up anther front in Italy and France and providing material support but perhaps they couldn't. I personally doubt it. The Soviets reached Berlin first but as the old saying goes “Soviet troops got into Berlin riding American trucks, walking in American boots and using American trains”

KomradeBishop · 10-07-2015 06:37PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I can't speak for the average French citizen in 1945 but I can say Joseph Stalin stated in 1943 that without American production the United Nations could never have won the war.

No doubt the Russians lost the most out of all major players in the war but if it wasn't for American involvement Russian victory is debatable to say the least.

Sure, the US helped Russia, but as Truman said:
"If we see that Germany is winning the war, we ought to help Russia; and if that Russia is winning, we ought to help Germany."

The US didn't give a toss either way, so long as they got to let Russia take the brunt of the fighting/damage, so that the US could go in at a late stage and claim 'victory', and claim as great a share of the spoils as they could, with the least amount of fighting/effort (letting the Soviets take on a greater share of the fighting/casualties instead).

Iwasfrozen · 10-07-2015 06:51PM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Sure, the US helped Russia, but as Truman said:
"If we see that Germany is winning the war, we ought to help Russia; and if that Russia is winning, we ought to help Germany."

The US didn't give a toss either way, so long as they got to let Russia take the brunt of the fighting/damage, so that the US could go in at a late stage and claim 'victory', and claim as great a share of the spoils as they could, with the least amount of fighting/effort (letting the Soviets take on a greater share of the fighting/casualties instead).

Germany declared war on the United States, and there was a large bloc in the American government who didn't want to get involved in what they saw as a European war. So it wasn't as if America pounced on a losing Germany to gain spoils of war after they were defeated. When Germany declared war on America in 1941 after the Pearl Harbour attacks Germany was at its zenith. At that stage they were winning.

Truman made that statement in 1941 before Germany's declaration of war and represented the attitude of many at the time.

Fratton Fred · 10-07-2015 06:57PM

I remember this from the time Russia commemorated the Arctic Convoys.

http://www.rusemb.org.uk/arcticalliedconvoys/

KomradeBishop · 10-07-2015 07:15PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Germany declared war on the United States, and there was a large bloc in the American government who didn't want to get involved in what they saw as a European war. So it wasn't as if America pounced on a losing Germany to gain spoils of war after they were defeated. When Germany declared war on America in 1941 after the Pearl Harbour attacks Germany was at its zenith. At that stage they were winning.

Truman made that statement in 1941 before Germany's declaration of war and represented the attitude of many at the time.

Doesn't change the fact that the US held back an extremely long time before bothering with a proper second front, in Normandy - long after Russia engaged in the decisive battles at Kursk/Stalingrad almost a year earlier, that turned the tide against the Nazi's.

The Nazi's were well on the run by the time the war started proper, for the US in mainland Europe - here were the Nazi's around their peak:

Elmer Blooker · 10-07-2015 07:36PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Here's a quote from wikipedia:

Also here's a quote from General Zhukov in 1963:

Stalin sure did say it, in 1943 at the Theran conference. Here's the wikipedia link, the quote is citationed twice: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease#Quotations

Soviet production capabilities were similar to German production capabilities but America was another story the lend lease project itself was similar in scale to the entirety of Axis production. Perhaps the Soviet Union could have won the war without America opening up anther front in Italy and France and providing material support but perhaps they couldn't. I personally doubt it. The Soviets reached Berlin first but as the old saying goes “Soviet troops got into Berlin riding American trucks, walking in American boots and using American trains”

No doubt many Soviet troops were in American trucks as they advanced on Berlin but its more than likely they were in Soviet produced ZIS-5 trucks of which one million were produced.
I don't know how they travelled to Berlin on American trains? According to Antony Beevor's brilliant book Berlin. The Downfall the retreating Germans totally destroyed the rail network, also Poland had a completely different gauge system to the Soviet Union making locomotives unusable.
I don't know anything about that Zhukov quote but I wonder how the Red Army inflicted their first defeat on the Germans at the Battle of Moscow, before the US even entered the war, with "no explosives or powder, there was none to equip rifle bullets"

Iwasfrozen · 10-07-2015 07:38PM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Doesn't change the fact that the US held back an extremely long time before bothering with a proper second front, in Normandy - long after Russia engaged in the decisive battles at Kursk/Stalingrad almost a year earlier, that turned the tide against the Nazi's.

The Nazi's were well on the run by the time the war started proper, for the US in mainland Europe - here were the Nazi's around their peak:

You weren't accusing them of procrastination in your last post, you were accused them of only joining the fight at the last minute so they could claim victory and a large share of the spoils.

But that wasn't the case, Germany declared war on the United States when Germany was at their zenith in 1941 after the Japanese attacked the American base at Pearl Harbour.

It's true America didn't commence the Normandy landings until 1944 when the Soviet Union was already winning the war. Now the Soviet Union may have already been winning the war in 1944 without American aid but given what I've read on the issue I don't believe that would be the case and I've provided statistics and quotations to support my position.

We could blame the Americans for procrastination or we could acknowledge that landing a million troops in another continent, surrounded by the enemy on all sides was a historically unprecedented and extremely difficult move and could not have been possible had Germany been more powerful.

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

Comments