The Russian Meeting Place: A place to meet people and talk about all things Russian...

International Discussions about Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Travel, Music, Russian News, Ukrainian culture, Belarusian Dating, Moscow, Saint Petersburg, Kiev and other intelligent topics about life in the former Soviet Union.

     


                                

              

Pages: 1

Russian and US efforts during the "Great Patriotic War / WWII"

(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)

Posted by: clever1

Quote:
Originally Posted by RBS
Hi Going,


2) Learn Russian history. Especially about the Great Patriotic War. Russians do not use the term WWII. To them the US and Brits contributed next to nothing to the defeat of Germans. And I have to concede they are right about this.



RBS, I consider this as a personal insult, seeing as my Father fought in this war, He lied about his age to get in the Navy, and when the war ended in Europe, he had to stay on till the Japs were defeated because he was attached to the US Navy. His Father fought in WW1, and my Grandfather on my Mothers side fought in WW1 also, in the German army, he refused to join the Nazi party, and was taken away more than once from home.

John


Posted by: AkMike

John is right. Russia and Europe would be speaking German now if the US hadn't finally gotten involved with the war. Roosevelt tried to keep out of it and IMO that was wrong but that was the public opinion at the time.

RBS need to read some history.


Posted by: Cheburashka

John, don't let this guy get under your skin. He says some of the most antagonistic things on this board, which I don't think he really believes himself. You know the old saying "hurting people hurt others". And some day he might get honest enough to let us know when and how his Russian bride marriage went astray. Why else would he continually rag on Russian ladies and the men who want to marry one.

Maybe a trip to Omaha beach is in order for him. I cried when I went there. One can still feel the energy in the air.


Posted by: AkMike

Cheburashka
You need to remember his french-Canadian family history.
That explains the slant to world history.
( Capital f omitted on purpose)


Posted by: GoingToRussia

How did my situation get so political?


Posted by: mistermopar

Quote:
Originally Posted by AkMike
Cheburashka
You need to remember his french-Canadian family history.
That explains the slant to world history.
( Capital f omitted on purpose)


LOL,sorry I had to laugh,capital f omitted on purpose,good one.

Randy


Posted by: OzGuyLooking

John I agree with you mate, RBS is yanking chains here and trying to get a bite well I am in the mood to oblige as well.

RBS go and read history. Check your facts and see what you have come out with is utter crap of the worst order, well nearly the worst order. The Empire was the force that kept Hitler at bay for most of the war and let me add the effort put in by the WW2 Aus & NZ troops cannot be underestimated either. America's part in the war was just what was requred when they come in. I wont comment on their timing just the fact they come in was a HUGE godsend.

Please stop doing what you are doing. Thank god I am not a moderator you would have been gone ages ago.


Posted by: clever1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheburashka
John, don't let this guy get under your skin. He says some of the most antagonistic things on this board, which I don't think he really believes himself. You know the old saying "hurting people hurt others". And some day he might get honest enough to let us know when and how his Russian bride marriage went astray. Why else would he continually rag on Russian ladies and the men who want to marry one.

Maybe a trip to Omaha beach is in order for him. I cried when I went there. One can still feel the energy in the air.



Not a cat in hells chance of that Cheb.

1 He ain't got the brains and

2 He don't get up early enough.

John


Posted by: clever1

Quote:
Originally Posted by AkMike
John is right. Russia and Europe would be speaking German now if the US hadn't finally gotten involved with the war. Roosevelt tried to keep out of it and IMO that was wrong but that was the public opinion at the time.

RBS need to read some history.



I do speak German.

John


Posted by: RobOhioGuy

Quote:
Originally Posted by RBS
Hi Going,

2) Learn Russian history. Especially about the Great Patriotic War. Russians do not use the term WWII. To them the US and Brits contributed next to nothing to the defeat of Germans. And I have to concede they are right about this.


I utterly dispise this revisionistic crap. Its GROSSLY inaccurate and to smear the value of the US and British lives sacraficed is morally reprehensable. As early as 1942 (December 11th, 1941 Germany and Italy declare war on the US.) The US was Shipping 50,000 troops per month. That number would soar to 250,000 per month by 1944.

While it is true that Europe was not the main theater of battle for the US, to catagorize the US and British contributions as next to nothing is UTTERLY false and only a fool would believe such stupidity. As a veteran of the US military I consider such a false accounting of the truth to be an insult to everyone who fought and died in WWII. Over 600,000 America troops were killed or wounded in WW2. Only Russia and China (allied at the time) Suffered greater losses.

You want to believe this falsehood be my guest. But it is historicly grossly inaccurate.


Posted by: jpierce55

I can gladly donate my college history book if needed, it is only 4yrs old so the history should be up to date .


Posted by: searcher

Alright, I think the discussion should get back on topic.

Enought politics for this thread.

Maybe we should start another thread in everyone wants to continue discussing history and politics????



BTW The Master and Margarita is a interesting and odd book, maybe long for some people.

Heart of a Dog is interesting too, yet short.

Now, GoingToRussia, you were saying (or asking)???


Posted by: AkMike

When you say"And I have to concede they are right about this." This I gives you away. Say what you mean and mean what you say. Or did you?

Back peddleing now won't fix it. frog


Posted by: OzGuyLooking

Quote:
Originally Posted by RBS
Laddy, I do not denigrate the US lives lost. I lost an uncle in the war and it is fruitless to say well we lost more than you did. Every life lost in that conflict is a f*cking tragedy. I was trying to put forth the view promulgated by Ericson among others that the Russian effort determined the outcome. Meaning, even if the US had not joined, Russia would have crushed Germany. No point in sparring and dissing any nation. I come from a country whose role is almost unknown. Canada lost 250000 in the war. And in both WWI and WWII Canada was in there from the start but they get scant recognition. Which I find a shame. Every goddam soldier who fell is a hero. As an anodyne sideline, did you know what was the problem with the doughboys? They were needed in 1914 but only rose in 1917. Get it? Hang in there man and know that we Canadians are your brothers, regardless of what freaks in the media have to say.

Gib


Your words and actions in the RMP denegrate everything. You need to learn your history and learn it well. Canada was part of the Empire forces in WW1 and you need to remember that, or are you just trying to stir crap because that is what you are good at.

Another thing about Canada and WW2, if you were so involved in the war effort why did America have to take over the administration of Greenland on behalf of Denmark when Germany took over Europe? Canada is the soveriegn state nearest to it yet a country who wanted no part on the war effort until they were in a direct threat of attack took over and used it for the war effort.

In WW1 did you know the Americans in Europe fought under the British command and fought well, this also occured in WW2 as not all Americans believed staying out of the war was a good thing. You need to think about your statements before you start typing as your retoric is offenisve to the extreme, and before you start on the Australian efforts in the wars you had better think about how you are going to put it because I know a few of us here have lost family members because of war.


Posted by: OzGuyLooking

Yes I am right royally peeved now.


Posted by: deccie

Quote:
Originally Posted by RBS
Laddy, I do not denigrate the US lives lost. I lost an uncle in the war and it is fruitless to say well we lost more than you did. Every life lost in that conflict is a f*cking tragedy. I was trying to put forth the view promulgated by Ericson among others that the Russian effort determined the outcome. Meaning, even if the US had not joined, Russia would have crushed Germany. No point in sparring and dissing any nation. I come from a country whose role is almost unknown. Canada lost 250000 in the war. And in both WWI and WWII Canada was in there from the start but they get scant recognition. Which I find a shame. Every goddam soldier who fell is a hero. As an anodyne sideline, did you know what was the problem with the doughboys? They were needed in 1914 but only rose in 1917. Get it? Hang in there man and know that we Canadians are your brothers, regardless of what freaks in the media have to say.

Gib


Who do you think kept Russia alive to enable it to crush the Germans later in the war? It was the Russian convoys that did this.

Russians using Valentine tanks, Matilda tanks, M3's and flying Airacobra's and many other types too.. everything coming in by convoy.

And for every tonne that arrived how many didn't make it?

I have a Czech book on the battle of Kursk - one of the most strategically important battles of the war - and what do I see in it's pages. Russian's manning M3 medium tanks. AMERICAN tanks.

Yes the Russians produced some excellent weapons in the war like the Stormovik strike aircraft and the T-34 and KV-1 tanks but they also produced some crap weapons especially early on like the T-32, T-35 and T-28.
Deathtraps all. Aircraft were also in the same league, especially heavy aircraft.

Finally, the Russian tactics used did not exactly do their utmost to preserve human life on either side. So many of the lives lost did not do anything to ensure victory.

As I mentioned once before in another thread, if you really want to evaluate the effectiveness of the Russian military early on in the war, just look at the Russo-Finnish conflict. A small country like Finland kicked major Soviet Butt.

By all means let us celebrate the defeat of Nazi Germany but please can we not forget the role played by all who fought and struggled. To do otherwise is to trivialise what they acheived.


Posted by: OzGuyLooking

AkMike, I think the frog comment was a bit over the top.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RBS
Ozzie,

As I recall, the Aussies killed 500 US servicemen at a trainstop somewhere in Australia over some trivial dispute in WWII. The bravery of Aussies is not disputed. But your extreme reaction probably is a sign to you that you should read up a bit on history. Canada joined WWI in 1914. The US in 1917. Canada joined WWII in 1939. The US late in 1941. Do you know the story about the doughboys? They were needed in 1914 but only rose in 1917.

And by the way Ozzie, lighten up a bit. I would be offended if I could take you seriously but your spelling is at the level of a 13 year old and if that is what you are then I say, have fun, but up your cultural level a bit.

Gib


Gib why do you see the need to tell me to lighten up, also why do you see the need to basically tell people they are loosers and are not worthy of anything, also why do you see the need to be argumentative about something you obviously have little knowledge about.

I will pay the pick on my spelling but until you know why I spell so badly then I think you should be careful how you go about it next time. Again Gib this is a knowledge thing and I am being kind here and telling you that you have NO knowledge of me and why I spell like I do. BTW I had a look at your 'questionnaire', you don't give people much lee-way with their answers, you are trying to get info from human beings not robots who would all give the exact same answer or range of answers every time.

Now try to ack up abit and give some references about the aussie murders of 500 american serviceman on some beach, sorry mate but I do not now everything about history but I do have a reasonably good grasp on the major points of both wars. e.g. Canada as part of the EMPIRE forces joined WW1 because the EMPIRE went to war. Sorry mate but your country and mine had no choice in the matter, on the other hand America did have a choice and chose to exercise it in both conflicts as a soveriegn state. You make the WW2 American decision out like it was the worst thing to happen and only the Russians could fix it. Maybe just maybe after the farce of the Russian Civil War the allies, and America were abit cautious of going in again with a military presence.

You need to check when Rusia joined the war effort, from my memory they only joined because they were under attack after signing a treaty with the Nazis that said neither party would attack the other. Hitler desperately wanted Russia as it could be a good base for him to gather resources, also he was extremely jealous of Britain being able to control India and he felt if the Brits could do that then getting Russia would be an easy feat for the MASTER RACE. Just like Napolean before him he buggered up and didn't take the severe Russian winter into account.

Oh and BTW Gib if it wasn't for Britain and a lot of Aussies and Kiwis, Europe would have stayed in German control for a lot longer than it did. Who liberated France, who turn Italy around so much so that it changed sides, it was a combined force of the Brits, Colonials and Americans. Now do us all a favour and get of your incredibally high horse and get back to reality.

Oh and if you are genuinely interested in my spelling PM me and I might fill you in on the situation, otherwise I would consider my words carefully.


Posted by: OzGuyLooking

Quote:
Originally Posted by RBS
Ozzie, if you are dyslexic or there is some in-built reason why cannot spell I will respect that and cease commenting on it. I am not a bitter twit wishing to get down on people for no reason other than to irritate them. Now I think this antagonism between you and I has gone far enough. Your reactions to my posts seem disconnected from what I am saying. I want a peace pact. I want you stop laying about that I am some dork wishing to get on peoples' t*ts for the sake of it. Cease to propagandize about me. I want to contribute to fruitful discussion on this site. I am handing out the olive branch a second time. Are you man enough to take it?

Gib

P.S. In 1867 Canada signed the British North America Act making it a dominion of the UK. No longer part of the empire. In the 1920's Canada formally ceased being a dominion.


Throw an olive branch and then in the next sentenced come back with a snide remark, go and bite me Gib. And no I'm not dyslexic but there are some medical issues that most people would have run from many years before, so stop being a jerk and get of the spelling, that is unless you think spending most of your childhood in a freaken hospital is a fun thing to do.

P.S. 1900 the British Parliament signed off on the Commonwealth of Australia Act after we had been discussing Federation for something like 30 odd years. Australia, like Canada was a Dominion and because of this both out glorious countries were required to fight in any war Britian went into. Thus the Empire Forces.

Our formal decleration of not being a dominion come in 1986 with Bob Hawke and the now legendary Australia Act.

Prior to this during WW2 when both America and Britain said 'don't worry to much about Australia, well get it back eventually' and our own government under the direction of Britain formulated the Brisbane Plan, incase the Japanese invaded and got a foothold. The Brisbane Plan was that we would surrender everything north of Brisbane to the Japanese in return for everything south of it, we basically peeeee'd the Brits of by telling them we were going to defend ourselves in our own area as well as help them. Do you know what they did, they wouldn't let the Aussie commanders let the Aussie troops in Europe and North Africa go home or to the Pacific to help defend their own country.

Now I may be very wrong, and I invite a constructive rebutal if I am, but I cannot remeber to much about Canada ever being under the direct threat of a invasion force. I am not saying your people weren't as brave as any others but I am saying history remembers those who are out there being seen doing things. Australia is the only country in the Western world that has taken part in every war apart from the Spanish-American conflict over the Phillipines in 1901 and the Russo-Japanese wars since the Boar War in South Africa. Heck mate we even gave logistic support for the Falklands conflict by inviting the Brits to come to our shore for refreshing.

If you are serious about the olive branch then please stop antagonising the people of this firum, I am not the only one you have upset, yet I am the only one you are biting for reacting to it.


Posted by: OzGuyLooking

Quote:
Originally Posted by RBS
Ozzie,

I suggested peace between us because I find that our exchanges here lower the tone of this website and because I care about the continued existence and quality of this site. If you do not have the cojones to let things be then that is your problem and I hope you can deal fruitfully with that with your therapist. I am saddened by your gross ignorance of history. Canada was never under any obligation to go to war. And Canada has participated in Brit wars since back to the Crimean in the 1850's. You have no gain here. Canada and Australia were pretty much equally involved in all these conflicts and I do not wish to get into a p*ssing match with a rabid nationlist on this issue. So, for the third, and last time, I am handing you an olive branch. Be a man, rise above your emotional muck and just be a decent fellow. No one here I thinks wants to read our sparrings and we are just taking up space here. I suggest this. Let us just ignore each other. Can you find it in you to do this? I hope you can mate. Hang in there and I really wish you well with the mental problems you alluded to.

Gib


Ha ha ha, you are a funny boy. Mental problems alluded to, what is this, are you reading between the lines only to make up stuff.

I am not a rabid nationalist but I am proud of my countries achievements as I would hope you are yours.

The next time you infer anything like emotional muck, that I am less of a man than yourself or that I am anything short of a decent fellow then you will find a very official complaint made about you to the moderators Lay of the superior atitude and the slack comments about peoples worth and I will treat tyou like everyone else here. Keep up your slack behaviour and I wil chip you for it.

I am also waiting for you to make coment about the others in this forum that have chipped you but you seem to have your sights on me. Notice I defended you when someone else did something I considered to be both unfair but also extremely ethncentric. I believe that the way for this planet to be a happy place is for respect to be shown by all to all without unneaded comments about the state of ones mental health or any other such slack act. See if you can manage it.


Posted by: OzGuyLooking

Quote:
Originally Posted by RBS
Hi Oz,

Listen old boy, it sounds like you are in a mentally labile condition and given this I will go easy with you. I have offered you three olive branches and you have spat on them. I will break my policy and continue to offer you peace of the following sort: ignore me and I will ignore you. I am sad to see you are not in fact a man and feel the need to run to "daddy" to tell on the bad boy who has harmed you. But I do appreciate you defense of me, though I do ask myself who annointed you defender of the downtrodden. I am a dark complected male, born in Haiti to parents who "cut cane." As such I do not need defenders. I have done enough of that on my own score, much to the regret of those who crossed me. But be at peace. I have no gripe with you, especially after you have told me about the mental problems that ail you. Let us get back to talking about Russians and on this note I ask you to share what has been your best experience with a Russian. I am trying, you see?


Gib


Again you make me laugh with your double standards, you went of the rocker at Inlove for deleting a post and threatened to tell Khashyar about it. As you continue with your drivel and tripe I shall fulfil my part of my statment and now make an official complaint about thy personage. You have offended many fine people on this site and Some of whome I have come to know and trust quite well.

I now ask you to leave me alone as you are not worth the energy or cerebral energy to worry about any more.

Moderators expect a PM soon.


Posted by: lester

Cease-firing, while the posts are read through.
This may take a while to discuss with other moderators, so have a little patience please.


Posted by: RBS

Quote:
Originally Posted by lester
Cease-firing, while the posts are read through.
This may take a while to discuss with other moderators, so have a little patience please.


Les,
No problemo really. Oz said don't talk to me anymore and that is a precise answer to a question I was asking him. So as long as he does not react to my posts I will not react to his. Peace all around.

Gib


Posted by: OzGuyLooking

Quote:
Originally Posted by RBS
Les, I agree things went too far. Pride was involved but I think Oz meant nothing bad. Put it down to Saturday night madness. We have agreed to ignore each other and so not clutter the site with these morose jabs. So verything is fine now.

Gib


I don't care if I get an oficial warning Gib, I will make this post because you seem to doubt my ability to function as a normal human being. Oh an BTW it is spelled everything not verything.

OK Gib so you know why I have difficulty spelling I will fill you in on some things about me. Apart from a slight lazy tendency when it comes to this type of thing and the fact that I type in the dark as well I have a genuine difficulty with spelling and some associated things, although I am damm good at pulling langauges apart and disecting them in everyway apart from spelling. But I digress. I shall start now, so please dont interupt me with this.

OK, in 1968 a little boy was born in a country hospital in a rural town in NSW's Hunter Valley. This little boy, namely me, was born with a few well I'll be truthful here a damm heap load of Muscular-skeletal problems. Basically many parts of me are not where they should be, dont worry about it it still works pretty good and more efficnetly because of the modifiactions to I must add. But let us get to my spelling. You see Gib, I was born with what is commonly called a 'cleft lip and palate' a 'lazy eye' and 'glue ears'. Yes I needed soe serious help just to stay alive past birth but hey my parents, lovely people, who had nothing apart from my sister a house they were paying off and a pathetic Blue VW Beetle got ahold, with the help of the hospital system, the best ENT surgeon money could buy. He was a funny old guy to, died 3 years ago and I never felt as though I thanked him enough for his help and assistance to make me the guy, along with all the other influences in my life, that I am today.

OK let me describe to you what I looked like when I was born. My face was pretty skewed sideways. From the bottom of my nose through to my lower lip was just a huge gaping hole big enough to put a cricket ball through. I had no palate at all and the doctor could seethe lower part of my brain through what should have been the roof of my mouth. Anyway I spent alot of the 1st 14 years of my life in and out of hospital getting reconstruction surgery and other surgery to put various bits and pieces where they should be. So you could imagine I missed alot of school. Not to mention I was deaf for an awful lot of that time and had many operations to fix my ears so I could hear properly, good thing I learned to lip read. Also when I was 10 years old the doctor decided it was time to fix my lazy eye and he took, in an operation, an inch out of my left eye lid so it could open properly and I could see more than I was. To this day my left eye ball is out of shape and I only have 49% vision in it, when it isn't going blind on me all of a sudden like last sunday.

The other part of the time I was off school was because I was simply ill. You see with the facial reconstruction they also had to build a left nostril. The only problem is my brain was in the way and you dont go moving a babies brain around. Anyway to give me a left nostril and a palate they gave me a sheet of surgical plastic for a palate and stuck a tube from my new left nostril into the roof of the new palate so my nose drained into my mouth. Not a good thing when you have the flu or a head cold. Oh a a bleeding nose is the absolute pits let me tell you. It all drains into your mouth and then if you are lucky you get to spit it out or if you are unlucky you swallow it and some people have drowned in this muck to you know.

Anyway between all the medical issues and the lack of time at school I had some trouble learning to spell, I really think because I taught myself to read, I taught myslef to be a motor mechanic, I did Uni by externall studies and didn't have the beneift of having a lecturer right there to discuss things with, that I have done pretty damm well in my life. The only thing I have to contend with now is people who have vetry little respect for others and think that whatever they are or do is the best. It is people like this that I pity the most becuase most of them have never had to work for what they are. Thes are the tyoe of people who would beat the crap out of me because I was different to them, yes something else to limit my time at school.

So you see Gib, I dont care what you think of my spelling anymore, you just go ahread and think you are better than me because you are who you are. You wanted to get a bite well I have gone better and told you my problem, it isn;t my brain, BTW I have a good IQ, it is lack of time at school learning during my formative years, now mate I am in catch up mode and somehow I think the things I am concentrating on are more improtant than what you think about my spelling.

Have a good life Gib.


Posted by: deccie

Quote:
Originally Posted by RBS
deccie,
Actually, Brit tanks were considered so inferior by the Russians that they relegated them to static defense. Gib


Interesting comment.

I'd rather be in a Matilda II than in a BT-7 any day.

The primary issue of the British tanks of the day was the 2 pounder main armament. The Matilda was quite well armoured for it's time - and with cast armor too. However those same attributes made it difficult to up gun.

The Valentine was not as heavily armoured but was able to be up gunned.
The last models I think had something like a 6 pounder main armament.

Certainly the British tanks would have been no match for a Panther or Late model PzKpfw IV or even a Tiger I but for the early part of the conflict they would be above Panzer II levels (and associated equipment like the Czech 38t) and if using good tactics could take on Panzer III's.

I am NOT saying the Russians won the war using this equipment. It filled a stop gap requirement until their own stuff got into large volume mass production.

I do have a problem with you citing raw numbers of deaths too.

If you can take a target with a thousand casualties and then you take it with ten thousand or a hundred thousand casualies that's just a huge waste of life for no gain - look at the trench warfare in the Great War for an example.

Sure, battles don't always run to plan but the Russian leadership didn't exactly care a great deal about their troops in the field.

It's interesting you mention the race to Berlin... There's a number of reasons I've heard the Americans and the Brits backed off. But if I were in the same shoes as the American/British general and some other guy was willing to let his troops die in a "race" I'd be more than happy to let him have a go.

Better his guys than mine.

I think you also have to look at the political climate at the time too. Both Patton and Churchill were already thinking in a direction that the west might have to go to war with Russia.


Posted by: Chrismc

Well Oz....... all I can say is well done for what you have achieved so far


Posted by: Texas Proud

RBS...

Well, you did open this can of worms... and I will admit very much that I am not a history buff but I see a few very big holes in your statements from what I know and what 'seems' right..

You say the Americans SAT for 7 months while they let the Russian destroy the Germans... from what I remember of my history, the generals wanted to 'finish the job', but because the Russians was WAY to slow to keep up they had to wait... it was decided that both armies should meet in Berlin... so, waiting was not because the Russians were so good that we just waited for them to mop up....

AND, you say that they would have won anyhow without the Americans... and how would this have happend? You must not know much about battles if you think this.... the Germans was fighting a two front war... if they had just left Britain alone and consolidated Europe, they would have been able to move all thier power to the Russians... now how many people would have been killed? They did not use their best weapons on the Russians and they were still getting thier butt kicked.. and if the Americans had not been sending weapons for them to defend themselves... many more...

You make a bad argument that the country that lost the most people FOUGHT the best...

And I am not saying that the Americans won the war on their own... there was contributions from lots of countries.. and in my opinion I think that the Germans would have lost even without American coming in, but it would have been many many more years and many more deaths...


Posted by: DocSpooky

Ohhh guys you are wonderful! I was really in a bad mood due to my recent affairs but this is simply wonderful! You made my day.
You are not really having a discussion here who defeated the Germans, have you? Heehehhee like some kids showing off their toys "My He-man is stronger than your Actionman", "Nooooo but my Transformer with plasma cannon flatens both of them like nothing..."
It does not f*cking matter! Yes, without the Allies I could talk here probably in my native language but this is not the case and THAT is good!
It's not a question of who was the hero who defaeted the 'evil'. It's a matter of how could it get so far and what can we do in order to make this never happen again? There is next to a few others one big benefit if you have grown up in a country that has lost 2 world wars and that is the fact that you learn to be careful with patriotic statements and the praisal of military issues. That's why I will never understand the UK as such. War and everything that goes with it is evil - whatever the reason for it might be. It's not a football game it's reality! My grand uncle was a highly decorated fighter pilot in WW2 and I'm ashamed of what he did. He got shot down and spent the rest of his life without legs. I have not a hint of a problem with the country that shot him down as I feel endlessly sorry for his bloody past. He was praised as a hero fom Mr. Mustache himself because he got up with his plane alone when everything was lost already, without permission and got shot down. Am I proud? No I'm sick about this. He was a brave but STUPID man who believed in the power of war!
Let's try not to be as stupid as he was.


Posted by: Mr.Humble

WWII is quite grey on 'why' and 'who did what'.....but (not digging into my books because it's really early and my mind is kinda cobwebby) no 'one' nation won the war....it was the efforts of all, and without that it would have been a bleak history indeed.

The early war Russian military was nearly void of dynamic leadership (thx to a rash of purges and the Big Brother mentality). Fear was the main driving factor for the Red Army at the time (thus when given a chance to surrender en-masse lots of them took it). Also it took a long time for Russia (Stalin in particular) to realize that they were actually being seriously invaded (they did sign a peace agreement before the war).

When the wheels kicked in for Russia they had a 'trade space for time policy' and withdrew in the face of the Fascist invasion until they could consolidate themselves (eg: move their industrial might east...which they did rather well). In this time the US "Lend/Lease" program came into effect and started supplying the Russians (of which the M3 came standard with an anti air .50 cal gun on it...apparently this gave the german Luftwaffe a bit of a surprise). But what did the most help were logistical tools like transport vehicles (trucks and trains).

The UK was solidly between a rock and a hard place and taking it in the chin all over the globe. But despite this non-capitulation they forced Germany to keep a solid eye on them. Without US aid this would have been near impossible, again for goods other than arms (food, raw material, lots of those other things that keep an armed force going-also part of the Lend/Lease program came into effect here).

The US was a bit of a confusing thing at that time but when it finally decided to get involved "over there" they did it in a cautous manner (they took the time to get their noses bloodied in Africa...to the tune of the British "I told you so"...they did get a mauling in their first encounter).

By this time the Russian army needed a serious overhaul, which it got. Dynamic leaders were put in place, Kommisars were less interferring, some real hardware was finally available....not to mention Stalin's famous "Not One Step Back" policy (and he really meant it). The Stalingrad battle was fed enough men and equipment to tie the german 6th army down, then when the Russians were ready they finally encircled them.

The Yalta Conference with the 'Big 3' (Roosevelt, Stalin, Churchill" dictated that the western allies would open up a second front and soon (Russia was big and much resources, but this would not last forever...despite huge sacrifice and amazing motivation....the US was really out producing Russia by something like 5:1 or something like that...have to look it up...but the US was not having bombs dropped on their heads).

So eventually a 2nd front was opened up (yes Omaha beach was bad but without the Pacific war experience it would have been much, much worse) Also, as mentioned before, the Red Army was not nearly so squeamish about troop casualties). And also of note...the best of the best the Germans could muster was placed in the Eastern Front. Armored units were ferried around extensively, but hard core fighting troops were not.

The Allied invasion of europe was hampered by logistics and the fact that it was a multi national army (even under the best conditions said nations had a hard time cooperating properly). The Russians built railroads as they advanced, they encountered horrible things (thus motivating them further) and they were, for the most part, on their home turf.

As for why the Allies seemed to 'let' the russians invade germany like they did. Well this was something else agreed on at the Yalta Conference. The politics get a little dicey here but the western allies were fighting under the Geneva Rules of Engagement...the Russians were not. The fact that many german units near the very end of the war were given (on a small unit scale) orders to fight the russians to the death...they were to surrender to the western allies if they came across them. This stems a bit from the Red Army's tactical loss of control (rape and pillage) on the civilian population once it crossed into Germany itself (two weeks after the fall of Berlin the order was given to straighten up or be shot...took lots of shots to get them to stop).

Anyways my opinion is that no single nation 'won the war'....it was a team effort. US raw industrial strength, UK stubborness, and Russia tieing up (barely) the Fascist armies that won the war.

It's still early and I'm still beat...but I had to put in my two cents worth.


Posted by: Khashyar

Quote:
Originally Posted by RBS
And by the way Ozzie, lighten up a bit. I would be offended if I could take you seriously but your spelling is at the level of a 13 year old and if that is what you are then I say, have fun, but up your cultural level a bit.

Gib


RBS... I fully agree with having spirited debate about World War 2, and certainly respectfully expressing disagreement, but the comment above goes against the forum rules and is clearly a personal attack. This contributes nothing positive to the forums.

Consider this a first warning to stay within the forum rules of no personal attacks.

You are welcome to participate in the forums, but please stick with the topic of the thread, and refrain from making personal attacks.

Thanks,

Khashyar


Posted by: Khashyar

Hi Oz,

Most of us make spelling mistakes in the forum (me included).

What matters is the thoughts and ideas that a person writes, and especially the quality of their heart.

I have appreciated your many posts and contributions to the RMP Forums.

Again, no personal attacks will be allowed in the RMP. They are not necessary, don't serve any positive purpose, and will not be tolerated in the RMP.

Thanks,

Khashyar


Posted by: skinsfan

Hi OZ..i got your back.......forums are not my life, and this is the only one i am somewhat involved with...i remember when i first found this site, it was a helpful place for all that had questions and concerns about relationships with FSU women.....it was rare to find bitter jerks post, but now, it seems that bottom feeders have arrived...if i am banned for calling these mental midgets such as RBS out, then so be it......i personally am sick of it..........OZ, you NEVER need to explain your spelling, etc to anyone !! you are far more the man than this self professed genius from Canada......i already have a mental picture of this loser......so moderators, if you need to ban someone...let it be me !!


Posted by: Khashyar

Hi Skin,

I know that you are upset.

I am not going to let personal attacks stand in the forum.

The forum guidelines are clear. The mods and I are issuing clear warnings for personal attacks or other breaking of forum rules.

If a person has not learned with 2 warnings about not leveling personal attacks, then they will be banned on the 3rd offense.

But, let's calm this thread down, stay with the issues, and let me and the moderators deal with anyone who levels a personal attack.

Let's focus on learning and sharing information about Russia, and helping one another through this forum.

Khashyar


Posted by: Mr.Humble

Something to think about....
The USSR built 106,000 tanks (of all types) and received 9,000 from the US/UK Lend/Lease program during the war...
....they lost 96,000 in battle.

Also...just before the battle for Moscow...the Soviet spy network learned that the Japanese did not intend to attack in the East. This freed up 22 veteran Siberian Divisions to be brought to the capitol.


Posted by: clever1

Quote:
Originally Posted by RBS
I respect your father's contribution. That is not the issue though. My uncle died in the war as tail gunner in a Lancaster. OK,so we both have a sob story. Big deal. Point is, that nothing we experienced here can approach the conflict the Russians experienced. Without the US the war would have dragged on maybe another six months. But it is Russian which won it. Read Ericson to get some basic understand of what happened there. You are a victim of US war propaganda and as such are not to be blamed. If you want to expand your horizons do some reading.

Gib



RBS, may I inform you that i am English, I do not know about the war from an American point of view, but from a British, and may I add from a German one too, Didn't the German soldiers on the Russian frontline experience exactly the same as the Russians ? more so maybe in the fact they didn't have the houses to shelter in, mainly under canvas, so don't come all high and mighty with me, don't read books, ask people about their personal experiences, you might learn something, as an example it was stated somewhere that the bombing of Essen took place on a certain day, I was told it was on a different day, by someone who was there while it happened, MY Mother, I know who I believe.


John


Posted by: clever1

Quote:
Originally Posted by RBS
Ozzie,

As usual you have understood little to nothing. I do not denigrate (note the spelling and learn please) anyone who put himself in the way of a bullet. Why do people on this board react instead of thinking? I have no rhetoric (not "retoric" as you write) as I do not seek to convince anyone of what should be obvious. US, Aussie, Brit, Canadian etc... efforts to win the war were nugatory. The combined losses of these forces during the war was one tenth of the Russian effort. Why not be man enough to admit this instead of mewling the same dull note others here have bruited about how I am an offensive sum***** who just seeks to provoke? If you could just look at the facts and react to them as would a man with some sense of grandeur I would be glad to call you my friend. One day perhaps you will receive this benefit but I fear I will have to spend some time at the keyboard training you so as to bring your wayward mind to heel.

Gib


What you are saying RBS is that whoever loses the most human life will win the battle and therefore the war, smells of BS to me.
A military commanders main aim should be to win with the least amount of casulties, this was found out after Gettysburg, and later on the Somme, you need to do some more studying, into Military strategy.

John


Posted by: Mr.Humble

Looks like I seem to be wasting time posting on this thread....dang...


Posted by: Khashyar

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.Humble
Looks like I seem to be wasting time posting on this thread....dang...


Hi Mr. Humble,

Your and other's knowledge about Russian politics and history that was posted in this thread are interesting and useful to others who come along looking for information and discussions about Russia and WW2.

Thank you (and the others) for your contributions.

Khashyar


Posted by: Cheburashka

Quote:
Originally Posted by RBS
So verything is fine now.
Gib


Gib,

I have to give you a piece of advice from one man to another. The spirit of this forum is about building a family or a team. It is about sharing information in order to make others better, not to feel worse about themselves. It is about bonding and growing. And it is definitely not a pissing contest or a chest thumping of the alpha males. You are dead set in your ways to see yourself get banned forever, and I won't stop you. But it will be a shame. Because I think you have much to offer if you can get your self esteem and anger issues in check. We'd love to hear about you and your Russian wife, and how things got so bad.

Something to think about before "Taps" starts to play and you find yourself out there with the Japanese punks on the cyber graveyard.

Cheb

PS: I quoted you verbatim up top in a thread where you ragged on others about their spelling. It sucks throwing stones in glass houses, doesn't it?


Posted by: Ruski_Cossack

i agree with RBS. They Russians would of Won. We russian lost most deaths because we sign treaty. They lied. We still did most of the work anyway. The United states took care of Japan, but russia had a treaty 2 with them.


Posted by: turdeet

I live in Russia, and I beleive that the U.S. did little and too late. Even though I think that Gib is a big wanker, I do agree with him.


Posted by: Khashyar

Turdeet,

Welcome to the Russian Meeting Place. I look forward to your contributions to the discussions here.

Help us keep the threads on topic, and help us to maintain the positive atmosphere that we all appreciate here.

Thanks,

Khashyar


Posted by: Khashyar

Gib,

Yes, we all have experienced difficult things. Some people lash out at the world because of it, and some people have learned to be more compassion to others as a result. I know people in my life who do both.

However, we still have to be kind and respectful to others (at least on this forum).

I would like you to contribute to helping to create a positive atmosphere in this forum, and to be conscientious to respect others.

Anyone who cannot help create something positive and useful and beneficial for this community, should accept that this forum probably is not the best place for them.

We have to be aware of how we impact others, and in a forum, how our words impact others.

For example, I don't think that your sarcasm to OZ or Cherub, under the circumstances of easing conflict, was a wise move and contributes to creating a hospitable atmosphere for others.

I would appreciate if you would be conscientious.

Thanks,

Khashyar



Quote:
Originally Posted by RBS
Oz,
Your tale of woe brings a tear to my eye. I know a woman who is afflicted with the ailments you claim and she would never bruit them as you have. But let us say you are being up front, which on a forum is a big if. Then recognize that others have their tales of woe. I started cutting cane on a Haitian plantation at the age of six and do you know what? They still whip workers there. As a teenager I was caught "slacking" (I was reading Laplace's 1826 4th edition of A Treatise on Probability---his Celestial Mechanics was still beyond me at that point---and the head man had me whipped. My back is criss-crossed with scars to this day. It was only by grace of a Russian emigre to Canada that my family was sponsored to go there and to this day I worship the ground he walked on. Point is, we all have our sob stories and I have not told you the worst of it. If you are seeking my sympathy, then you are not getting it. It would be the height of disrespect to you to say nice words because of your physical condition. I respect our cut and thrusts and I think you are a worthy fellow. But one who takes much to heart. Hell, we all have our weaknesses. Now, because Kash has asked us to keep on topic I would like to draw you back to the subject of this forum, which is Russians and their relation to us. I must admit I feel some kinship towards you and so I would like to know a little bit more about what has drawn you to this site. Give me your Russian experiences. And I do sincerely wish you all the best mate.

Gib



Posted by: Khashyar

I appreciate that you are taking some time to reflect on the conflicts that seem to have arisen around you.

I think that everyone can make positive contributions to the forum. If we are not doing that, then we need to think about why, and make some changes in how we are approaching others.

Khashyar


Posted by: deccie

Quote:
Originally Posted by RBS
Yo Clev,

Yep. That is the long and the short of it. Research shows that the biggest armies win. Gib


RBS, I'll get back to your other post in a sec but his is just so incorrect I don't know where to start...

READ SOME HISTORY.

The biggest armies do not always win. Just one example of the top of my head - Battle of Long Tan in Vietnam.
A _company_ of Australian infantry with support (later) from artillery ran into a Vietnamese regular army _REGIMENT_.

Sea Power - the same. e.g. Drake vs the Spanish Armada.

It is tactics, strategy, reactivity, equipment and training that win battles not numbers.

Another one that just popped into mind is the Chinese skirmishes with the Brits in the korean war - again an attack of sheer numbers and they sufferred massive casualties for very little gain.

Yet another, the Russo-Finnish war - a little country like Finland beat the crap out of Russia or another the Russian naval battle off Port Arthur in the Japanese-Russian conflict.

Numerical superiority means little in many cases..


Posted by: OzGuyLooking

Deccie, the battle of Dien Bien Phu between the French with much superior fire power and the Viet Min with whatever they could muster is another case on point that supeior numbers and fire power do not win battles. The Viet Min kicked French butt in this theatre even with the French receiving the support of others.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RBS
Oz,
Your tale of woe brings a tear to my eye. I know a woman who is afflicted with the ailments you claim and she would never bruit them as you have. But let us say you are being up front, which on a forum is a big if. Then recognize that others have their tales of woe. I started cutting cane on a Haitian plantation at the age of six and do you know what? They still whip workers there. As a teenager I was caught "slacking" (I was reading Laplace's 1826 4th edition of A Treatise on Probability---his Celestial Mechanics was still beyond me at that point---and the head man had me whipped. My back is criss-crossed with scars to this day. It was only by grace of a Russian emigre to Canada that my family was sponsored to go there and to this day I worship the ground he walked on. Point is, we all have our sob stories and I have not told you the worst of it. If you are seeking my sympathy, then you are not getting it. It would be the height of disrespect to you to say nice words because of your physical condition. I respect our cut and thrusts and I think you are a worthy fellow. But one who takes much to heart. Hell, we all have our weaknesses. Now, because Kash has asked us to keep on topic I would like to draw you back to the subject of this forum, which is Russians and their relation to us. I must admit I feel some kinship towards you and so I would like to know a little bit more about what has drawn you to this site. Give me your Russian experiences. And I do sincerely wish you all the best mate.

Gib



I don't claim to have any ailments and I certainly don't have a sob story, I bet your friend would cringe at the thought that her life is a sob story because she has the same issues that I was born with. I also don't ask for or want your sympathy, as sympathy that is recived through pity is not sympathy but a feeling of superiority of one against the other. Sorry to tell you Gib the only person that is superior to me is GOD himself, everyone else is my equal and I treat people in this way and expect, nay dear fello, demand to be treated this way in return.

Getting back to the sob story quip. ha ha ha oh ho little you know of the Human spirit. My story is a story of triumph not of sob, I do not throw it around like some piece of shakesperean tragedy to gain the pityful acceptance of people who because of their supposed training, qualifications and in general the fact that they to are human beings, should know better how to treat people.

Again I bid the a good life, now me leave out of it and do not repsond with thy poison tongue and spitfully baited words to me again dear fellow.


Posted by: OzGuyLooking

I neglected to thank those of you who made a public/private show of support for me, it warms the cockles of this old farts heart to know that such fine people still exist in this blue ball we all call Earth and more importantly home.

Again my friends thanks.


Posted by: RobOhioGuy

Quote:
Originally Posted by RBS
Rob,

Let's look at some stats. The US lost 250,000 men during the war. Russia lost 10,000,000 plus 20,0000,000 civilians (US lost 0 civilians). Canada, a country 1/10 the size of the US lost 100,000. GI's were deemed so unfit for combat that most US fighting had to be done by elite forces such as the 101st Airborne and the Rangers. Chronology: By August 1944 France is liberated. The US sits for 7 months west of the Rhine doing nothing to invade Germany until Russia has dealt the deathblow to Germany. Now this is not to denigrate US servicemen who died. I just want to put some perspective on the matter and to elucidate why the Russians feel they were the cause of victory. The main contribution of the US to the war effort was to send Russia 10,000 locomotives, and especially the superbe GM truck (500,000). Russians got about 40,000 Shermans from the US but deemed them not battleworthy and so mainly used them in static defense roles. This is not to diminish the lives lost by US men during the war, but Rob, the US fighting contribution was really nugatory. Read Ericson's The Road to Stalingrad and also his Road to Berlin to get some idea of what really happened during the war. I hope this helps you correct the mental deformation so many Americans receive in school when being taught about WWII.

Gib



Wrong, the US lost 600,000 killed another 600,000 were injured. You do not know what you are talking about. But then, that seems to be a fairly common trend with you.


Posted by: Mr.Humble

Googling the different pages on "world war 2 casualties" (there are many) there are no pages that suggest a 600,000 US death count. Highest I found was 500,000 and lowest 250,000....the average number being around 295,000.

http://www.archives.gov/publication...2/appendix.html

The National Archives is probably the best place to find information on US related topics (and even these figures are subject to arguement given the immensity of the job at hand).


Posted by: Ruski_Cossack

no...still RBS is correct RUSSIA put our flag on top of berlin not UNITED STATES.
Russians captured germany first. NOT THE UNITED STATES. THE US did nothing much exept taking out the japs and some ITLALIAN forces.
chech this website http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/wwtwo/berlin_06.shtml talks about nothing about United States in berlin. Exept at the End. After we won.


Posted by: Cheburashka

Quote:
Originally Posted by RBS
Well, try to find it on your family loving heart to accept the views of someone a bit different. Nuff said.

Gib


I apologize Gib. I didn't understand that you were the "hero" here, and not the guy who is racking up many complaints behind the scenes. It is interesting that all this emulation we are enduring is for our own good...like taking castor oil. Hmmmmm. I wonder if Messiah.com is available for all those who don't know what is good for them. I'll help you get another site up and running.

It will be curious how this all plays itself out. "Can the leopard change his spots?" The Bible

Cheb

PS: Remember I tried to help you.


Posted by: OzGuyLooking

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruski_Cossack
no...still RBS is correct RUSSIA put our flag on top of berlin not UNITED STATES.
Russians captured germany first. NOT THE UNITED STATES. THE US did nothing much exept taking out the japs and some ITLALIAN forces.
chech this website http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/wwtwo/berlin_06.shtml talks about nothing about United States in berlin. Exept at the End. After we won.


Wrong, Berlin is in Eastern Germany and the Russians took it, the rest of the Allies marched across the entire Western side of Germany while Russia entered the east. History is not subjective anymore it is objective, so please stop trying to make out the war was won by one goup only, it was a joint effort by all the allies.


Posted by: AkMike

" stop trying to make out the war was won by one goup only, it was a joint effort by all the allies"

Unless you're trying to re-write the books to suit your own warped views and hope others will follow you.


Posted by: bobjf

Quote:
Originally Posted by AkMike
" stop trying to make out the war was won by one goup only, it was a joint effort by all the allies"

Unless you're trying to re-write the books to suit your own warped views and hope others will follow you.


mate you got the warped bit right


Posted by: Ruski_Cossack

Quote:
Originally Posted by OzGuyLooking
Wrong, Berlin is in Eastern Germany and the Russians took it, the rest of the Allies marched across the entire Western side of Germany while Russia entered the east. History is not subjective anymore it is objective, so please stop trying to make out the war was won by one goup only, it was a joint effort by all the allies.


now you right russians got berlin first. that what i said srry my grammer sucks. what do you need to capture first to take over a country...the capital.
me not rewriting history, its the states. i read the history books. and its all lies.


Posted by: AkMike

" i read the history books. and its all lies."

So? Everyone else is wrong and you are the only one that is right?
Is the whole world wrong? Are you the only voice of sanity in an insane world?


Posted by: Cheburashka

I wonder if RC is related to Gib?


Posted by: OzGuyLooking

Actually you dont need to take the capital to take a country, read the example I gave concerning the Brisbane line. What yu do need is to instill fear into the people you are against.

The example of the French against the Viet Min in 1954 is a classic example of a fight to win a country but it had nothing to do with the capital at all. You are simply wrong and you need to get of your .

I think RC is related to more than RBS, there are a few who have a similar MO if not identical MO's, posting rates and grammar. The only thing we are missing is the barrage of pictures. I suppose it takes all kinds .


Posted by: deccie

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruski_Cossack
nwhat do you need to capture first to take over a country...the capital.


Taking the capital of a country has a psychological effect on both the victor and the vanquished but it need not determine the outcome. I wonder, if Moscow had fallen would the Russian people as a whole given up? I doubt it. Indeed one thing the Russians were VERY good at was relocating industry and other essential infrastructure out of harms way.

Wars can turn on Battles with both large and small outcomes. Good example being the Battle of the Coral Sea off our Australian coast. The US lost one large carrier (Lexington - my favourite ship ever as it happens) with damage to a second (Yorktown - my second favourite ship ever) with the additional loss of a destroyer and oiler (Neosho and Sims if I recall). The Japanese lost one small carrier (Soho) with damage to a second. Despite the material damage to the American fleet exceeding that given to the Japanese it was a strategic victory to the Allies and when the US was able to repair the Yorktown in record time directly led to the decisive Victory at Midway.

This leads me to a second point. It should not be underestimated the significance of both air power and sea power played in the conflict in Europe.

If Britian and the US were not bombing the heck out of the Germans there would have been many more bombs, planes, tanks etc to send against the Russian forces. Sea power also allowed the Allies to destroy many of the supply convoys Hitler was sending to various theatres of war - particularly in Africa. Indeed Sea Power probably made the difference in the African theatre.

Those who say Russia would have been able to do it all seem to be seizing on the fact that Russia did do most of the work towards the end of the war when they had large, organised armies with good equipment. It is most certain that towards the end of 1945 russia had some of the best military weapons of the period. With the T34/85 in service in large numbers and the superlative JS-III coming on line. (I don't think the JS-III actually saw service during the war though)
The Stormovik was one of the best strike aircraft produced in the war.

BUT (and here's the key) ,in the beginning, Russia did not have these weapons and did not have the tactics or organisation in place to make the best of what they did have. The early Russian vehicles were complete death traps for their crews and were outmanouvered by the more mobile Germans with ease.

This survival period enabled what came later.

It is this period where Germany was divided by having multiple fronts and with the other Allies providing material to the Russian forces and civilians that enabled the Russian military to reach their full potential.

So sure, if Russia is given the time to wind up it's military and give them good equipment and training they would whip the ass off the Germans but they had to be given that time or it may never have happened.


Posted by: OzGuyLooking

I may be wrong, and please correct me if I am, but not one of you has mentioned the fact that Stalin himself was having a Mental breakdown at the begining of Russia's actual combatative involvement in the war, and that Russia's efforts nearly come to a complete standstill because of him and his inability to make a decision of what to do early enough. If he had a generally better mental health state when Hitler went against his word, which wasn't worth all the much anyway, maybe Russia could have done better at the begining of the war and mobilised its factories and other essential services to support the war effort much earlier than it did.

You also have to remember that because of a few miserable war efforts in the last years of the Romanov era, especially against Japan, where both Russian fleets were beaten soundly, and then WW1, that Russians were not really going to be happy with another war. Actually this is a big point considering Russians fought Russians in Revolutions of 1905 and 1917 then the civil war of 1922 (I think this is the correct date). To put it bluntly the Russian peoples, maybe not the leadership, were tired of war and death. The fact is the Russian government was working more for internal stability through the five year plans than it was looking for a fight with anyone, even the drive to push Russian style Communism throughout the world had slowed down by then.

You simply cannot show the world that your revolution/experiment is a stable system and that your people are better off than they were if you are preparing for war. This and Stalin's little tizzy is what slowed the USSR down. The other Allies had to support Russia for a while till Russia was able to get the military machine up to full capability by this time London and other major civilian centres in Britain had been nearly flattened countless times and Dresden was flattened.

Sorry to tell you pro-Russian effort guys but by the time the war was nearly over and Russia had got Germany out of Russia and then the other parts of the USSR, Germany was putting teenage boys into its planes with minimal flight training and Britain was getting tired but had released the French forces and the Italians changed sides as well, North Africa was over and done with allowing the rest of the Allies who BTW were dead tired from fighting in at least 3 different theatres of war, to concentrate on the western, northern and southern sides of Germany, while Russia with many more people at its disposal because of sheer population numbers come in on the Eastern front.

One last thing, let us not forget that all the other Allies were also involved in the Pacific effort and fought it until the end. Russia was involved in one theatre the rest had 2 or more.


Posted by: deccie

Quote:
Originally Posted by OzGuyLooking
One last thing, let us not forget that all the other Allies were also involved in the Pacific effort and fought it until the end. Russia was involved in one theatre the rest had 2 or more.


Excellent point Oz.


Posted by: OzGuyLooking

I know.


Posted by: Jutman

Okay, I enter this tread rather late, but will comment it anyway.

There was a statement, saying that Europe would have spoken german if it was'nt for USA. Well, lets look back to a rainy day in Virginia back in the 18th century where a senator was stock in the mud, he WOULD have voted for that the official language in the new nation, should be german. IF he had reach, and USA today would have spoken german. The would be a lot of IF's. Like would America have been allied of England during the two WW. Likely not.

USA did enter the war WHEN they were attacked. Until then the majority of americans would give a crap of Europe. So the IF the the japs did'nt make the stupid attack of P.H, USA would never have entered the war, disregarding the outcome in Europe. So THANK YOU Japan.

Because of the wars, (both WW1 and II) were the base of the industrial output boom in USA, which after the war contributed significantly to the wealth of USA. So what about a T.Y to Europe for making america rich.

The help to Russia, was in outposts and in the begiining of the war. Making the russians or the sovjet army capable of having a minimum of airforce and transport, which of course are crucial. The other part of the aid, was upgrading the weapons, and that was rather big succes. But making the plants, place them behind the urals, (and during the germans moving east, the moved some of the machinery to the urals) was all a Sovjet strategy, who a great result.

I wrote this, because I find it rather annoying that more than 60 years after, generations of americans what us to say thank you. You did'nt figth the war. Maybe you father or grand did and thanks to them. Thanks to England/Britain for struggling, give base, be a save ground for royals and freedom figthers, providing resitance groups with weapon. And thanks to Russia/Sovjet for the Eastern front and thanks to all the europeans, in so many country there was under facist rule, who stood up and fougth back, sometimes with the live as a price.
We live in a new era, not that we should forget the veterans, but let us keep it to that.

peace 2 all


Posted by: PrincetonLion

Quote:
Originally Posted by RBS
So, practical advice: don't talk about this subject with a Russian woman or if you do read your history and understand Russia's suffering.


And with a Russian man, too...


Posted by: deccie

Since Jutman mentioned it, how is WWI perceived in Russia especially with it's links to the revolution?

I don't think there would be many debate that the Russian Army performed poorly in THAT conflict?

It is interesting that despite being a small nation the first World War seems to have created ties for Australia to both France and Turkey for very different reasons. For Turkey we were the agressor and for France we were the defender.


Posted by: OzGuyLooking

I noticed in Jutman's post that there was not one iota of thanks to the colonial forces of Australia or New Zealand. Thanks to you Jutman, and yes I am sort of kidding so as not to offend anyone, but hey us Southerners stuck it through the wars with the Brits and many died in Europe because the Brits wouldn't let us return to defend our own shores. BTW I hold no malice as this is all in the past, but I do gently remind people that if we are going to remember some things because they gave us what we have today then maybe we should recognise all apsects of these things.

Now to the American aspect, EUROPE would not have survived if the Americans didn't get involved. Sorry to tell you but and this is especially for the Danes among us, America atually helped to safe gaurd other nations soveriegn possesions while these said nations were under hostile occupation. I really think to many people have this whole thing way outa proportion and are treating it as an Us (or should this be USA) versus THEM. I will repeat, again and again if necessary, the war was won through a joint effort by all the allies. and my other fav saying is History is not subjective it is objective, this simply means the objective is to get to the truth not bolster some reputations which would make it subjective to the stronger groups ideals.

Continental Europe needs to get over itself and realise that if it wasn't for Britain, the New World (this is the America's and more specifically the US) and the nations of South East Asia and Oceania, and lets not forget Africa, you lot wouldn't be what you are today. All countries have had an impact on the good fortunes of your little continent and to many of us have felt the negativity of the impact Europe has made. The war is over and we need to remember not to start another one, but I fear it will only be a matter of time.


Posted by: Jutman

Sorry, thats my insentivity. yes, there was a large group of heroic people from that part as well.

When we are at it. Other country as well contributed to the end. Like the Gurkhas and I can't remember all of them, but know there fine soldiers from Africa as well.

---
Another issue, in this context is people who suffered, because they choose wrong allied. I have posted it once before, where the independent Georgia in Causasus were punish by Stalin, because they supported nazi-germany.


Posted by: OzGuyLooking

Jutman dont be hard on yourself. We are all insensitive sometimes and I dont think you were insenstive anyway just amking your POV known.

The Gurkhas are an amazing fighting force, so much so that the Brits use them in everything they do. There was a report from the Falkland conflict that the Gurkhas went in and just did the job they were required to do and didn't complain or anything while the other groups involved all had issues of some osrt or another. The Gurkhas are an amazing group there is no doubt about that.

As for the Africans, and my knowledge of this area is sadly lacking so please help out here, I am only really aware of indigenous resistance groups and malitias trained by the then colonial powers as 'trusted' fighters. I may e worng but I was under the impression that the colonial powers were worried about the indigenous groups supporting the invasions of the Germans and Italians into their African possesions so they did not train many of the people in armed defence of their lands. I know that many of the European powers were of the opinion that they should train the indigenpous peoples in the ideals of the western world but not the weapons.


Posted by: Keith In Kodiak

As long as we're at it, let's not forget the South Africans, the Free French forces, the Free Polish forces, etc. There was also smaller groups of Dutch and Czechs fighting with the allies under their own colors. I'm not aware of any Danish forces per se, but undoubtedly there were many individual Danes in the British army. Come to think of it, the Irish were nominally neutral but made up a large portion of the British army.

As for a European debt to the US... yes, there is one. There is not only the debt for the lives expended in two world wars (as there is to all the allies), there is also the debt of the Marshall Plan where we went in and rebuilt the European infrastructure and economy. Then there is the debt of the forces we kept there for fifty years to balance Soviet ambitions. All of this came out of the pockets of American taxpayers. And all of those young men came from the homes of America. And frankly, there wasn't any whining about it - we did it because we thought it was the right thing to do.

The French came in and helped us at the end of our own revolution - the battle of Yorktown would never have been won without the French fleet. And even today, no American diplomat or politician would think of going to France without visiting Lafayette's tomb or toasting him at some function. We don't whine about the French coming in "late" or complain that they did it for reasons of their own (which in some ways they undoubtedly did), we are just grateful that we have a nation and grateful to France for helping us attain it.

I suppose the same can be said for the US and the Brits (and the commonwealth in general). Both sides acknowledge the friendship(s) and the many debts and bonds between our nations. It doesn't diminish us to recognize these debts.

So continental Europe - get over yourself! My own father came back with five purple hearts (wound medals) from Europe. He was a volunteer. He didn't go over to make a buck and he died when I was a child, of complications of those injuries he had received so many years before. So, the war did (and still does) affect my life.
And it affects the lives of everyone in Europe. It would not be the prosperous place it is today without the Marshall plan. And you might well be speaking Russian if the US didn't commit fifty years of treasure to keep the Soviets out.


Posted by: Jutman

yes, there was danes who fougth individually in the british army. However the largest part, was sailors to left and helped saling products to England. It was a rather larger part, there was sailed on Danish and Norwegian ships.

Instead people who got out of Denmark, build the Danish brigade in Sweden (so 100% neutral, they weren't), so at when Monty freed Denmark, in hours after, there was danish soldiers/freedom figthers who took over. The Brigade neded at 6000.

----------

The Marshall plan. Its a fact, that the clever man, did had a alternativ plan with the Marshall aid. To create a market for americans products, He and the leadership of America could give a crap of Europe otherwise.
Today we know Europe would have been better off, especially several countries in Europe, like the UK. If we could go back in time with our knowledge today, the message would have been. Thanks, but no thanks.


Posted by: Keith In Kodiak

And perhaps a market for European products? What would Europe have created, and who would they have sold it to without the Marshall plan? There's nothing wrong with free trade. And there was nothing wrong with the Marshall plan. It was the lack of such a plan to rebuild Germany after the first world war that birthed Nazism and led to the second.

You could have said "no thanks" and huddled in poverty for an extra 30 or 40 years. Hmmm, look at Eastern Europe...


Posted by: Jutman

Keith

For many years or or so it was european believe too, and Europe was gratefull. However in 80ies or 90ies modern economist look into the plan and it turns out, it was selectiv aid. Germany benefit at lot, from it, but actually german industry was only destroyed with about 10%.

In other countries, the aid was more symbolic. Like my country was at that time depended on athe agricultural sector, so we got some tractors and combines, more or less same in other countries.

I know when the Marshall aid peaked, it was 2 % of the american GDP, but the question is (which I not remember) for how long time. A comparison is how much does american put into Iraq, a country with only 17 million or so citizen. So the Marshall plan did help, but did not make the european wealth and instead paid/pay a costly price of american companies share of europe. American has 12% of european stocks compared to 7% for europeans in america, and again taken into consideration that Europe is larger than America.

its history and it can't be undone, so let it be. But don't think it was a grand gift.


Posted by: AkMike

I wonder if the outlook would be the same if we had just left Europe alone and followed Roosevelt's plan of isolationism. It sounds as if Denmark didn't appreciate the tractors and combines. It was more than what you had then. I'd be thankful for any aid to help me get back on my feet.

Has Denmark repaid the debt for those tractors and combines or was the debt forgiven like most of it??


Posted by: Jutman

You are not a particular good reader. Yes, It was gift and it was nice. I am just saying, it did'nt had a major impact at our economy.

Debt ??????? My country actually is debt free. Economically & morally.

Denmark choose to be allied with USA and has been ever since. Like in Iraq, Denmark was one 4 countries who was in from the very beginning, and still is.

A lot of american companies use Denmark as a spearhead into Europe or as investment place. Its minimum 20% of our stocks and bonds there is under american ownership. But okay, danes has business in america as well.


Posted by: AkMike

Quote:
Originally Posted by RBS
OK Khash,

I respect your comment. I will withdraw from the forum until Friday to let things cool off and get some perspective.
All the best,

Gib



Just like the history books he can't read properly.

He also can't keep his word on this forum.


Posted by: AkMike

If Montreal is on eastern standard time then I was mistaken. But I am under the impression it's on central standard.


Posted by: Kathy

I don't think one can debate whether one nation "saved the world". Realistically, no one nation can be credited with defeating the Germans. It was a joint effort. However, the original post on this thread did not state that Soviets believed they defeated German single handedly. It was that there was, and to some degree, still is, a different view of the war, because of the human suffering the Soviets faced.

I am not particularly interested in a "debate", but rather, to set the record straight, at least factually. Everything I will post is factually accurate, as told and retold by countless military historians and, in some cases, political scientists.

First, the point that Soviets did not know of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. It was presented as a fulfillment of Lenin's "promise" by the Bolsheviks to bring peace to Russia - common in many of his polemics at the time. Second, regarding the comment on Imperial Russia's soldiers failing to "stop" the Revolution (I assume the reference is to the October Revolution). This is inaccurate. Anyone who has read about Russia's role in WWI knows that it was a disaster for Russia. Casualty rates were horrendous. Soldiers were ill equipped. They did not want to fight. Shapashnikov walked from Poland to Moscow with his horse at war's end, and neither the Reds nor the Whites stopped him. Adam Ulam wrote that "power was in the streets" and the Bolsheviks seized it. That is as good a description as one will ever read. There was no overwhelming support for the Bolsheviks, nor fierce opposition. There was no battle to stop the Bolsheviks. That came later, and initially, the fight was undertaken by the Dobrovolchaskaya Armiya - the Volunteer Army.

A comment was made about Canada not taking Greenland in WWII and protecting its sovereignty. For all intents and purposes, Canada, at the time, was not a completely sovereign nation. The final court of appeal was the Privy Council in Great Britain. Canada entered the war when Great Britain declared war on Germany - almost 2 years before the US entered WWII. From the fall of France in 1940 to the Operation Barbarossa, Canada was the second largest Allied power, in terms of troops. Canadian troops were among the first, with the Brits, to fight the Japanese in Hong Kong. The first major Western assault against the Germans, at Dieppe (a colossal failure planned by Mountbatten) was fought primarily by Canadian soldiers (85%). Canada operated a lend lease program before the US did, known as "Mutual Aid", which supplied over $4 billion in supplies to allied forces, and gave over $1 billion to Britain.

Now on to the USSR. Stalin never had a mental collapse. After the night of the Long Knives, Stalin viewed Hitler in terms similar to his own personality - as a dictator attempting to consolidate his personal power. Molotov, who had far more dealings with the Germans, told Stalin repeatedly that he could not trust the Nazis, that they were different from the Bolsheviks because the former were buttressed by large (corporate) capitalist interests. Stalin refused to accept Molotov's assessment. Stalin also was given the plan for Operation Barbarossa by a Soviet spy, Richard Sorge. He chose to believe the information was inaccurate, even turning over Sorge's identity to the Germans.

The reasons for the initial swift German advance are many. One was the lack of military officers in the Red Army. But even more than this was the fact that the Soviet people initially viewed the Germans as liberators. They were greeted with bread and salt in Ukraine. I knew many Red Army soldiers and my husband, who grew up in the USSR, knew dozens, including his Grandfather, God rest his soul. From their stories, it is easy to ascertain that the Red Army was not willing to fight for Stalinism. They allowed themselves to be captured, believing the Germans would be less brutal than the communists who, shortly before WWII, had unleased the NKVD in Western Ukraine (the Germans discovered 10,000 corpses under NKVD headquarters in Lviv), and less than a decade before, had starved to death 10 million Ukrainian peasants, and deported millions more during the Holodomor. [It should be noted that a similar artificial famine was also unleashed in Southern Russia, a mix of Russian and Ukrainian peasants, with similar numbers of dead.]

However, it was not long before German intentions became well observed by the Soviet population. The initial Red Army POW's were treated brutally. Most starved to death in barbed wire concentration camps within spitting distance of Kyiv. Those that survived were put on marches, where many died of hunger and cold, or were shot to death. Over 3 million POW's died as a result of these actions, and those that didn't ended up in concentration camps. Tens of thousands of Red Army POW's died in concentration camps throughout German occupied territories, including Auschwitz.

Indiscriminate bombing and burning of villages, the slaughter of entire villages where a Jew was hidden (this punishment occurred only in Poland and Ukraine), the execution of 10 innocent Soviets for every German soldier killed in Ukraine (their bodies would hang in the public square), the removal of Soviets between ages 15 to 60 from occupied Soviet territory to Germany, where they were slave labourers, and the destruction of churches turned the occupied population against the Germans quite quickly. All these actions were used by Moscow, appearing in newspapers, to let the population know what was in store for them as the Germans advanced. In addition, Stalin turned to the great military minds of Imperial Russia - Zhukov and Shapashnikov to lead the war effort. Zhukov, in his memoirs stated that Stalin promised him free reign, and promised that there would be major changes in the USSR if they defeated the Nazis. His soldiers were very loyal to him, and Zhukov was bitter about Stalin's lies. Shapashnikov, always under watch, remained in Moscow planning Soviet war strategy. Nevertheless, it was their entrance on the Soviet stage which changed the course of the war on the Eastern front. (I do not intend to discuss other aspects, such as Paton's factory innovations, which allowed the Soviets to produce tanks and planes very quickly - about 600 T-34's a day, for example, from behind the safety of the Urals.)

The promise of the second front did not take place at Yalta (which occurred after the German surrender), but was first discussed by British representatives sent to meet with Stalin in Moscow, and was also discussed at the Tehran Conference. However, that second front was not opened until June, 1944. By that time, the definitive Soviet battles had occurred - Stalingrad, Kursk, the siege of Leningrad, even the retaking of Kyiv, and the Red Army was advancing both west and north. Moreover, when the Battle of the Bulge occurred (the first major battle for US ground troops against the Germans in Europe - Americans had previously been involved in operations in Italy), the Americans and Brits complained to Stalin of the heavy losses, and bombarded Moscow with telegraphs , requesting Stalin "do something". Stalin called Zhukov, telling him their the Allies needed help. So, the Red Army commenced a counter operation, resulting in Germans pulling troops from the Western front to the East.

The Red Army, and not the Americans, took Berlin. Some historians have argued the Allies wanted the Soviets to achieve this symbolic victory but others note the remaining Allies advanced quickly, afraid that the Red Army, now very strong, would march all the way to the Atlantic, sweeping Europe for the Bolsheviks.

What also has been overlooked in this "debate" is that most of the Wehrmacht forces were on the Eastern front. The most hardened German divisions - 270 of them - fought in the East. Compare that to what the Brits and Americans faced in North Africa (9 to 20 German divisions), and Italy (7 to 26 divisions - largely not German), or even Western Europe (9 divisions when landing in France in 1944, and between 56 and 75 divisions in the remainder of Western Europe.

The Soviet-German front covered over 6,200 km, compared to 350 km in North Africa, 300 km in Italy, and a maximum of 800 km on the Western front. The Red Army annihilated 607 Axis divisions, the remaining Allied Forces, 176 enemy divisions. 73.5 per cent of Germany's total war casualties died on the Eastern Front.

Not a single Soviet family was unaffected by WWII. In Ukraine alone, over ten million civilians (including Ukraine's Jews) died, and over 3 million ostarbeiter (slave labourers) were forcibly taken to Germany. Most of them died in Allied bombing raids on German factories. One in four Belarussians died.

Before the release of Soviet archives, the best estimate of total Soviet casualties was 23 million. Recently, that has been increased, but, in reality, nobody knows the total number.

No country sufferened similar numbers of civilian casualties, or, for that matter, military casualties. This is why the Great Patriotic War has a different dimension in Russia, Belarus and Ukraine than in the West.


Posted by: OzGuyLooking

Kathy welcome along to this discussion.

Can I make one point initially, this thread actually started in another and has since been seperated from it yet the initial point i this thread was a reaction made to a statment made by none other than RBS. Thats statement has not appeared in this thread unfortunately.

Now you seem to have gone and made statements claimed as fact without any reference to wherer you have recieved you info, or indeeed who you are quoting from this forum. I see however, that you have picked out some of my post so I will answer them.

Stalin did have a nervy and there is no denying this, I will find a refernce to this for you to check. Ity is quite late here in Oz and at this time I am not going to go and turn all the lights on in the house to locate the video and books that have them.

The comment about Canada was not about it taking Greenland as taking is invading without permission. The comment was about Canada being the nearest neighbour not taking over the administration of Greenland while its ruling country, i.e. Denmark, was under hostile occupation.

The involvement of the Russian military was the one thing that allowed the October 1917 Revolution to take hold and go to its logical conclusion. Each time something like this occured in Russia it failed, why because the Army still supported the ruler of the time. The 1905 Revolution could/should have been the end of Tsar Nicholas II's reign but the military still support the monarchy even with reservations and so did not lend much support to the revolution.

If you wish to discuss how long a fron was that each individual allied nation fought on then count the Empire, ie the Brits etc. and America as having the largest fronts to deal with. You see we fough also in the Pacific and the Atlantic not only in Africa and Europe but also in Asia and South-East Asia. Russia declined to avail the rest of the allies with any assistance whatsoever in the Pacific war, why? well because they still remebered the humilating defeat of their 2 navy fleets by the Japanese in the Russo-Japanese war before WW1.

Again Kathy welcome.


Posted by: deccie

A very interesting post Kathy.

I thank you for it.


Posted by: deccie

There seem to be two different threads here that have mingled.

Firstly we have the facts that Russia suffered greater losses and inflicted greater losses than any other single nation in the war with Germany.

The Second thread is whether Russia could have won the conflict on it's own.

The First thread is proveable by historical fact but the second is purely subjective and opinion. It may well be educated opinion but it will always be so.


Posted by: Kathy

Quote:
Originally Posted by OzGuyLooking
Now you seem to have gone and made statements claimed as fact without any reference to wherer you have recieved you info, or indeeed who you are quoting from this forum. I see however, that you have picked out some of my post so I will answer them..


Anyone with access to a good university library and the time can read these things about the USSR. As for the WWII information, it is readily available in a number of works, and is fairly common knowledge for those with an interest in military history. You may want to start with Antony Beevor's works on Stalingrad and Berlin.

Quote:
Originally Posted by OzGuyLooking
Stalin did have a nervy and there is no denying this, I will find a refernce to this for you to check. Ity is quite late here in Oz and at this time I am not going to go and turn all the lights on in the house to locate the video and books that have them...


That assertion was made in Khrushchev's "Secret Speech". But the Secret Speech was an attempt to differentiate Stalin's USSR from the CPSU. It was crafted to ensure the continued hegemony of the CPSU and to consolidate Khrushchev's power. However, Western Sovietologists (a term which still makes my husband laugh), who for never really understood the USSR or the CPSU (How could they? It was a closed society), accepted everything in the Secret Speech as gospel.

Many assertions made in the Secret Speech have now been proven wrong. Molotov, for example, negated this assertion. So did Mikayan. Zhukov also discussed this, indirectly, in his memoirs.

The Bolsheviks had consolidated power primarily against unarmed peasants. So Stalin was shocked at the rapid German advance. In June, he was already preparing to abandon Moscow and move behind the Urals. It was the balance of the Politburo who said they had to stay in Moscow, and Stalin conceded. There were many bitter arguments about the war, both in those early stages and after. In essence, what one gets from the memoirs, is that Stalin had a cold splash of water in his face - reality hit him. That was not a nervous breakdown.

Quote:
Originally Posted by OzGuyLooking
The comment about Canada was not about it taking Greenland as taking is invading without permission. The comment was about Canada being the nearest neighbour not taking over the administration of Greenland while its ruling country, i.e. Denmark, was under hostile occupation.


Go back and read my comments on Canadian sovereignty. Moreover, Canada at that time did not have the manpower to administer another country which was, by and large, a desolate rock.

Quote:
Originally Posted by OzGuyLooking
The involvement of the Russian military was the one thing that allowed the October 1917 Revolution to take hold and go to its logical conclusion.


The October Revolution never "took hold". It never had massive public support, despite CPSU propaganda to the contrary. And it was not a "logical conclusion" in Russian history. The Bolsheviks basically took the Winter Palace undefended, since most of the army was still on the front. They were met by 40 guards and Junkers, who fought to the death. However, the real revolution occurred following the end of WWI, into the 1920's, when there was no Tsar.


Posted by: OzGuyLooking

The fact it took Stalin SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO long to do anything indicates that he had something serious happening in his head. This is not just conjecture he had psychological signs of a bout of "non compus mentas" in which he was unable to function properly as a leader.

The October Revolution did take hold, the world suffered, and more importantly the people of the FSU suffered Communist rule, for nigh on 70 years because of this absolute fact. If it did not take hold then I am pretty sure considering human nature is what it is the people of the FSU would have been able to ditch a 'handfull' of Bolshevicks if they only had a 'handfull' of supporters. The fact is it become a civil war and even with outside help the apparent majority could not dislodge the Bolshevicks from the power base. Ask yourself why this happened, it is because the by enalrge the military supported the Bolshevick takeover of the Russian Empire.

Let us make one thing clear, Canada was a soveriegn state, even if it was a dominion of the British Empire it could still make a decision to help others without British approval. On the other hand they were required to go to war as soon as Britain declared it.

P.S. thanks for the book ref, I appreciate that. BTW I have access to the biggest Uni libraries in the Southern Hemisphere and all the books are also available online. Gee I love technology that is used in a positive way.


Posted by: Kathy

Quote:
Originally Posted by OzGuyLooking
The fact it took Stalin SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO long to do anything indicates that he had something serious happening in his head. This is not just conjecture he had psychological signs of a bout of "non compus mentas" in which he was unable to function properly as a leader..



The Soviets were not sitting around doing nothing. Within a month of the invasion, the Soviets concentrated on moving all their heavy industry to the Urals. Much of that industry was in Eastern Ukraine. The main tank factory, designed by Koshkin, was in Kharkhiv. Moving and reassembling it quickly was critical to the Soviet war effort. Within three months, the Soviets had successfully repelled German efforts to push to Moscow. That does not indicate a mental breakdown. Also, I think the descriptions of Politburo members who were there, planning a counter offensive is more authoritative than Khrushchev's descriptions, which were motivated by self interest.


Quote:
Originally Posted by OzGuyLooking
The October Revolution did take hold, the world suffered, and more importantly the people of the FSU suffered Communist rule, for nigh on 70 years because of this absolute fact. If it did not take hold then I am pretty sure considering human nature is what it is the people of the FSU would have been able to ditch a 'handfull' of Bolshevicks if they only had a 'handfull' of supporters. The fact is it become a civil war and even with outside help the apparent majority could not dislodge the Bolshevicks from the power base. Ask yourself why this happened, it is because the by enalrge the military supported the Bolshevick takeover of the Russian Empire...


The Bolsheviks seized power. They never had massive popular support. Never. That has been well researched and documented by numerous historians. The civil war was also limited in scope, in terms of who participated. As for the military, you forget that Tsar Nicholas abdicated the throne in March. By the time the Bolsheviks seized power, a Provisional Government was in place. There was no "military" to repel their charge of the Winter Palace, as I posted previously.

Quote:
Originally Posted by OzGuyLooking
Let us make one thing clear, Canada was a soveriegn state, even if it was a dominion of the British Empire it could still make a decision to help others without British approval. On the other hand they were required to go to war as soon as Britain declared it.


And who was going to take over Greenland? Canada did not have the population, or the resources, to do this. Most of its men were fighting abroad, or, together with women, working in manufacturing. Manufacturing output grew over 50% in less than 3 years.

As for sovereignty, a sovereign state is not created by an act of a foreign Parliament, nor use that legislation for constitutional purposes. Nor does a sovereign state allow a foreign court to be the final arbiter of its legal disputes, including those dealing with parliamentary powers. The BNA Act continued as Canada's constitutional document until 1982. And the JCPC continued to hear legal cases until the 1950's.

Canada had taken steps toward sovereignty (appointing its own Governor General, taking over defence and foreign relations), but most of this was less than a decade before WWII.

Quote:
Originally Posted by OzGuyLooking
P.S. thanks for the book ref, I appreciate that. BTW I have access to the biggest Uni libraries in the Southern Hemisphere and all the books are also available online. Gee I love technology that is used in a positive way


I have a graduate degree in what was then called "Soviet studies" - mostly history and political science. Most of the books I'd recommend are not available online. In North America, access to online resources can be very expensive - $12,000 a year or more. If you can get access for less, that is great.


Posted by: OzGuyLooking

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kathy
The Soviets were not sitting around doing nothing. Within a month of the invasion, the Soviets concentrated on moving all their heavy industry to the Urals. Much of that industry was in Eastern Ukraine. The main tank factory, designed by Koshkin, was in Kharkhiv. Moving and reassembling it quickly was critical to the Soviet war effort. Within three months, the Soviets had successfully repelled German efforts to push to Moscow. That does not indicate a mental breakdown. Also, I think the descriptions of Politburo members who were there, planning a counter offensive is more authoritative than Khrushchev's descriptions, which were motivated by self interest.


The Soviets moved Stalin didn't. If they had waited for Stalin it would have been more than a month before anything happened. Britian and France where working before the war even started. The war started and Britain was in there with the Empire forces, but and no one has pointed this out yet, for the first 8 months of the war not much happened apart from propaganda. Infact many called it the Phoney War and believed it would be over within 12 months.

This entire discussion as far as Russia goes is not even WW2 related by the very reason of its title. The Russians didn't fight in a world war, they fought in a Patriotic War. A war against a foriegn aggresor, a war in which they wanted to boot the Nazis out of their territory. The rest of the Allies however fought outside of their homelands even on foriegn continents. Russia didn't, nay wouldn