Mr Propaganda
It is true that the Soviet people paid a truly appalling price during World War 2. However, your revisionist view of the contributions of the other major Allied powers is precisely that: revisionist.
So: point by point:
quote:
Originally posted by mrpropaganda:
Maybe if you told the truth for a change and set the record straight it would not be necessary yo continue perpretrating the lie that America/Britan were in any way relivent in the outcome of WW2.
What on Earth are you talking about? That's such a baseless, off-the-wall statement that I don't really know how further to repond on that point. But I'll give it a go... You must be barking. Apart from flying in the face of actual documented facts about WW2, it's insulting to the millions of service personnel and civilians who died from not Britain and America, but every other Allied country too.
quote:
Originally posted by mrpropaganda:
Its the old adage "If you tell a big enough lie and tell it often enough people will begin to believe it". Britan and America were irrelivent to the outcome of WW2. The Russians were the prime movers and shakers, and the paid a dear price with 30 million casualties.Britan and America did not break the 1 million mark...
The point here is one of visibility of contribution, which - if TV is the yardstick by which history is acquired nowadays - I will grant that the Eastern / Russian Front and the Russian contributions to the capitulation of Nazi Germany is normally quite under-represented. That said, your assertion of a dominant Russian contribution to the defeat of the Nazis is ill-founded if - as it seems - it is based upon the horrific casualty figures and that alone.
War on the Eastern Front was savage, barbaric and genocidal
on both sides: civilians were executed en masse; surrendering soldiers were executed under 'take no prisoners policies'.
That said and as you are specifically talking figures you are off in your estimations: Soviet Military casualties have been reported in excess of 10 million; civilian numbers closer to 12.5 million.That makes a total of 23 million.
Equally, the extremely high military casulaties the Russian Armed Forces endured may, from a military standpoint, partly be the result of the tactics they pursued against the Nazi invasion, particularly in the early years: throwing men against tanks; charging heavily fortified, well-trained and prepared Nazi forces. The indescribable courage of those Russian men and women is difficult to appreciate fully. However, it cannot be ignored that the application of out-moded battle tactics caused many, many deaths that better equipment and tactics may have avoided.
But the important thing - for us - is that it worked. The Nazis were eventually defeated.
The thing I find galling about your statments and assertions is their premise. World war 2 was not some kind of global video game where the highest number of deaths wins.
Likewise, neither should any country be raised up, or ignored for it's contribution to the eventual Allied successes against all of the Axis forces. In excess of 40 countries were involved around the world in the overall conflict. Is the contribution of a Philipino guerilla less that that of Russian 4-star general or conscript?
Originally posted by mrpropaganda:
... yet all we hear about is El Alemein, the Battle of the Bulge, and other iurrelivent skirmishes. Why not tell about Stalingrad or Kursk....pivotal battles in the whole affair.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]
Again you seem to be equating figures to importance.
Yes: Stalingrad and Kursk were pivotal. Again your casulaty-o-meter must be in the red there.
El Alamein and The Battle of The Bulge were, whether you like it or not, equally so: the former is generally accepted as turning the tide of the war in Africa; the latter was a bitter engagement that, had the European and American troops not persevered through, may have meant a new military chance for Nazi Germany.
quote:
Originally posted by mrpropaganda:
And by the way the reason America used the A-bomb was because it was desperate to stop the Russians taking all of Japan..........they had already liberated Europe and China and had invaded Japan. Rosvelt was terrified that they would lose the whole empire to the Russians so he sent joe a little message in the way of Hirishima and Nagasaki with a message for them to back off.
And your proof for this would be?....
Again, and throughout, I've found your arguments ill-founded and quite horrifiyingly lacking in any feeling for the subject matters you seem so keen to spout about. It's almost as if you find the whole thing an abstract with which to play.
I'm in my early '40s: this means I have some knowledge of the war. My close family paid a heavy price in injuries, loss and deaths in World War 2.
We were just one family.
