1. Join Now

    AVForums.com uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

VE Day celebrations in Russia

Discussion in 'General Chat' started by overkill, May 9, 2005.

  1. overkill

    overkill
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2003
    Messages:
    11,778
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    Murkeyside
    Ratings:
    +1,194
    A chance to unite or have old wounds spoiled the party? BBC

    It's interesting to note that nations who's records were pretty shocking regards the Holocaust, such as Estonia, Lithunania and Poland are the most vocal here. No-one enjoyed Soviet rule (including most Russians) so why only these making so much noise. An attempt to divert attention away from their own current activities (all three have poor, post Soviet, records regards ethnic minorities) as well as past crimes? I wonder.

    I also think Mr Bush was a little unwise in defending their stance with his speech the other day. Does no-one advise him of what countries are up to in private? It can only lead to tension with Russia when such things happen in public. He can say what he likes (with my blessing) to Putin when they're out of the spotlight.
     
  2. chard

    chard
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2002
    Messages:
    398
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +0
    Overkill, can't you allow these countries the right to reflect on their own and the right to refuse to see the start of Stalins occupation as a disaster equal to that of Hitlers ?

    I for one am slightly nauseated by the denial and sweeping under the carpet of the role played by Russia in helping to start the war in Europe. Their pact with Germany under which they agreed to invade Poland from the other side and attacks of Finland , mean that the final price they paid was frankly largley of their own doing. The countries you question , did not have the same right to choose.

    Russia should be paying reparations for the soviet empire, not trying to cover it up with overblown parades in Red Square. Well done to Bush for recognising the struggles against the soviet tyranny in his speeches this weekend.
     
  3. Mr.D

    Mr.D
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2000
    Messages:
    11,049
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    133
    Ratings:
    +1,126
    Don't forget the Italians
     
  4. mason

    mason
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2003
    Messages:
    2,049
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    66
    Location:
    Stirling
    Ratings:
    +131

    Thats the first 'well done Bush' I have heard for a while... you should forward this on to him I am sure he would be chuffed to peices to know that someone somewhere supports him (other than our PM of course!!)!! :rotfl:
     
  5. overkill

    overkill
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2003
    Messages:
    11,778
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    Murkeyside
    Ratings:
    +1,194
    No-one said anything about Stalins occupation not being bad news, in fact it was made clear to anyone without an agenda, that
    . Stalins occupation was bad news for everybody, but some have used it as an excuse to cover their own grim past. That, is the point. Which some cynicaly chose to ignore.

    I don't see anybody denying the Soviet role in starting WW2, in fact going back to Krushchev the USSR admitted Stalins guilt. Poland launched an unprovoked attack on Russia in 1918 and grabbed much of the territory Stalin was after. Did they "only have themselves to blame"?

    Without the Soviet success at Stalingrad we'd all be talking German. Thats the point of the parades. :rolleyes: Stalin or no Stalin they lost 27 million people in the war, it's the Russian peoples triumph, not a long gone and not lamented Soviet Unions. As to reparations, since Finland, Rumania, Hungary, all attacked the USSR in 1941 wouldn't that be a tad awkward? Meanwhile in the Baltic states and the Ukraine, many of those peoples took part in Hitlers holocaust. No-one has a shiny past.

    As for Mr Bush, perhaps reading bit of history might help. It might help a few others too........

    Back to the point. Should these countries be using a memorial for millions of dead to cover their own tracks?
     
  6. Mr.D

    Mr.D
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2000
    Messages:
    11,049
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    133
    Ratings:
    +1,126
    and the Norwegians


    and lets not forget Monica Bellucci ....hubba hubba.
     
  7. overkill

    overkill
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2003
    Messages:
    11,778
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    Murkeyside
    Ratings:
    +1,194
    Is she who I think she is........? :confused: If so you're a worrying guy MrD! :D
     
  8. Harj

    Harj
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2001
    Messages:
    1,164
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    London
    Ratings:
    +34
    I suggest everyone reads Antony Beevors 'Stalingrad', to give you the idea of the horrific experiance war can be, best history book ever written (andf i've read a few).

    Also I do recall recently , one of the three Baltic countries Bush was singing the praises for recently held a commerative march PRAISING SS volunteers in WWII!!! I'll try and find a link.
     
  9. Harj

    Harj
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2001
    Messages:
    1,164
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    London
    Ratings:
    +34
  10. Philly112

    Philly112
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2003
    Messages:
    4,183
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    Frodsham
    Ratings:
    +1,478
    I can second that - an amazing achievement; however, 'Berlin, The Final Downfall 1945' is also worthy of a similar accolade (also by Beevor).

    Phil
     
  11. overkill

    overkill
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2003
    Messages:
    11,778
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    Murkeyside
    Ratings:
    +1,194
    Correct. One of them has also raised a monument to those who fought in the SS. Funny, the Russians (and quite a few other nations) found it offensive. Still, why hide your former true leanings............

    Stalingrad is a good read, but Berlin the final etc, has been widely criticised, and I tend to echo much of that. Amongst other rebukes, the writing is poor (much repetition) and he makes too much of issues that he claims to be unique in writing about - he isn't. His book on the Spanish civil war however, is another good read.
     
  12. chard

    chard
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2002
    Messages:
    398
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +0
    very selective...years before that, without the victory of the Battle of Britain, Stalingrad would have ben renamed Hitlergrad. Hitler would have had all of the resources of the western divisions to throw into the fight with the soviets and only one front to fight on, with D-Day delayed indefinately.

    As for the Battle for Berlin, this was an unnecessary battle for the Soviets - the Allies , the Brits in particular were in a position to take Berlin in days, as the Berliners were hoping to surrender to the Allies. It was the blood thirsty nature of the Soviets which forced the German defenders to fight on - the terrible attrocities upon the civillian population after the fall of the city underlines this. It was Stalins insistence that that Russia take Berlin which made this battle necessary.

    British history is very interesting you should read some of it.

    Meanwhile the foul nature of the start of the Soviet Empire is nothing to celebrate in Red Square today.
     
  13. overkill

    overkill
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2003
    Messages:
    11,778
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    Murkeyside
    Ratings:
    +1,194
    I have extensively - and without prejudice. Something every single post you make is larded with.

    The Battle of Britain had absolutely no effect on the Soviet Union one way or the other. Hitler hadn't really wanted to attack Britain at all, and did so by his own admission, in sufferance. He was still writing in 1943 of hopes of a rapproachment. It's also generally accepted that the turning points of the war were Stalingrad, Midway, and EL alamien. In that order (unless you're American :rolleyes: :D )

    Hitlers plans to attack the USSR were ongoing from late 1940 and were inevitable, hence Stalins attempt to deal with him in 1939. It should be noted that Stalin tried to persuade the UK and France into alliance with him against Hitler, but they stalled, and Stalin grew weary of talk and no action, hence the Ribbentrop molotov pact. Hitler set out in Mein Kampf that the ultimate struggle would be in the East between his, and the Soviet ideology. He was so hampered by Britain, that he was able to prepare for Barbarossa, the greatest land invasion force ever seen at that time, and help Mussolini by sweeping through the Balkans and into Greece and Crete. Some hinderance.


    Why? The NAZIs had launched the most barbaric warfare on Russia by any country in modern history. The Soviets wanted revenge, and as one British POW famously said, "I hope they kill every last one of you murdering b*stards" after witnessing yet another massacre of Soviet troops, that's what they set out to get. The German defenders fought on because Hitler and Goebbels had tricked them into believing the war was still winnable. Not to mention they knew the Soviets had a few scores to settle. Yes, Stalins motives (as ever) were questionable but the average Russian knew why he (or she) was there.

    Do you ever get the point? That's not why the celebration is going on. It's to celebrate victory over the NAZI's, the most barbaric, evil, force in modern times.

    Those who dallied with them should be ignored not praised.
     
  14. chard

    chard
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2002
    Messages:
    398
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +0
    Overkill, if Hitler had taken out Britain (wether he actually wanted to or not is irrelevent, as by fighting him we made it neceesaaary for him to keep a western and southern front against us and the rest of the empire) - he would not have faced a D-Day and the need to defend against a future American invasion, as this could not have happened without 'Aircraft Carrier Britain'.

    Without Britain in the war the Commonwealth troops would not have been stacked against him, the North Africa Front wouldn't have happened. There would have been no support for the resistence movements in France, no 1000 bomber raids over the Ruhr and Berlin.

    No Arctic convoys to support the soviets with a vital lifeline and without the Brits fighting the Japs in the Far East, the Japs would have been free to start the second front against Russia.

    As AJP Taylor said the Russians gave lives, the Americans gave money , the British gave time...... that time was won during the Battle of Britain.
     
  15. suzywong

    suzywong
    Standard Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2003
    Messages:
    261
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    19
    Location:
    Southampton
    Ratings:
    +0
    Much preferred Stalingrad to Berlin. Currently reading the Steven Ambrose books.....starting with....yes you've guessed it, Band of Brothers....and I've got the DVDs as well!
     
  16. Harj

    Harj
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2001
    Messages:
    1,164
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    London
    Ratings:
    +34
    And Indian fighters (largest voulunteer army ever raised, over a million troops, fighting in europe, north africa and far east) and troops from Africa & WI, we often forget about this lot. I read recently that the oldest surving member of the Victoria Cross is Indian.
     
  17. chard

    chard
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2002
    Messages:
    398
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +0
    most definately Harj, I deliberatley didn't just name Canadian and Australians. The commonwealth produced fighters from Africa the far east and of course many many from India. It is sometimes forgotten how many volunteered from India in both world wars - the Indians gave and lost a lot of men in the trenches of the first world war as well.

    You are also spot on with the credit for the proportion of living VC recipients , the highest proportion come from India and Nepal.
     
  18. overkill

    overkill
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2003
    Messages:
    11,778
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    Murkeyside
    Ratings:
    +1,194
    This is compeltely irrelevant. In July 1941 there was no "D-day" even in wildest dreams of Churchill or anyone else. How does that effect Russias defence against the NAZI's, or Hitlers plans to invade them? I'm sure Hitler and Stalin were both considering a non existant US presence in the summer of 1941. :rolleyes:

    The North Africa front happened because Hitler needed to aid Mussolini. He never even wanted to get involved there. Again, that had squat to do with his plans in the USSR or the mode of warfare there. The strongest resistance and reversal of fortunes in North Africa came when the US got (reluctantly) involved there. The resistance in France? Until later in the war they had no impact of any significance. The thousand bomber raids came after the tide had turned, and Britains bombing raids had little effect until the US and RAF worked in tangent. How do we know? Because the Germans did not reach full military capacity until 1943, four years after the start of WW2. Had the RAF made any significant impact that potential would never have been reached. Again, this has nothing to do with the NAZI invasion of the USSR.

    The Japanese had no plans to invade Russia at any time, much to Hitlers annoyance. From the successful Japanese invasion of British imperial territory in 1941, through until 1944, the British hardly "tied them down". The US deserve full credit for that. We had to fight a war we hadn't the resources to cope with on three fronts. Just defending India and launching raids into Burma was the best we could manage.

    While I love AJP Taylors works, his analysis of WW2, as is his analysis of WW1 are deeply flawed. There is no evidence that Hitlers war machine was stopped by the British, any more than actually keeping him at bay. Our role was to serve as a beacon of light and hope until the US cash and manpower arrived to help push the Axis back. Which we did.

    At Stalingrad, for the first time, Hitlers forces suffered a major land defeat and were prevented from overunning the Soviets new industrial Heartlands and oilfields. Had the 3rd Reich succeded at Stalingrad and encircled the SOviet forces at best the USSR would have been able to sue for peace. Either way the Germans would have had all Russias huge resources and an untappable forced labour pool. The potential for his already awesome war machine was unlimited. That's why Stalingrad was so important. Hitler gambled all on army group Souths success, he lost the gamble.

    Mods please close this thread as attempt to discuss foreign policy regards Eastern Europe in the modern day has been hijacked. It is therefore pointless carrying on. Thanks.
     
  19. Mr.D

    Mr.D
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2000
    Messages:
    11,049
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    133
    Ratings:
    +1,126
    Whats wrong with Monica Bellucci then ?

    She's a fox .... a fox I tell you.
     
  20. chard

    chard
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2002
    Messages:
    398
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +0
    I see no reason to close this thread - unless someone wants the final word...again.

    Overkill - you really have missed the point.

    Each of the examples I gave underlined that without the British effort and that began wit the Battle of Britain, Hitler would have had a free run at Russia.

    This discussion is directly related to how many people view the current Russian celebrations. They are seen as overplaying the Russian effort and underplaying the role of the allies.

    By staying 'afloat', free Britain pinned down many German soldiers in the wetsern front, and in the desert. If we had lost the Battle of Britain than American and the allies could not have launced an invasion of the West, and once again Hitler would have been free to attack Russia with his full forces.

    The Bomber attacks on Hitler played a vital role in slowing Nazi military - and attacks launched by British and Norwegian commandoes acting out of Britain directly prevented Hitler having the nuclear bomb.

    In the Far East British troops stopped the Japs short of Burma and India and rolled them back on the sub continent. There is every reason to expect that the Japs would have been more free to attack Russia without British influence.

    It is likely America would have had to sue for peace as they could not have fought successfully against Germany wiithout the British bases. The Nazis were already developing weapons which could reach New York.

    I am dissapointed that some people have overplayed the Russian role in the war whilst forgetting that Stalin facilitated the early successes of Hitler by refusing to join the fight until directly attacked in 1941, a full year after Hitler had suffered their first great defeat during the Battle of Britain .

    The significance is the lack of acceptance of these facts by the Russians and a request for an official apology from them for thise countries they terrorised for 50 years afterwards. For much of Eastern Europe VE day did not mean liberation at all.
     
  21. overkill

    overkill
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2003
    Messages:
    11,778
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    Murkeyside
    Ratings:
    +1,194
    No, I asked for the thread to be closed because you have totally missed the point, and I'm tired of responding to irrelevant posts about WW2 that have no bearing on the title. They also show a basic lack of understanding, as other posters have commented, by you of international situations, foreign affairs or even basic historical facts.

    This being a classic case:-
    Hitler had no plans to attack Russia in the summer of 1940. We know this because the surviving documents say so. The BofB had NO bearing on what Hitler planned to do with the USSR. It was, as his own musings suggest, an unfortunate side issue. He had a free run at Russia, as there was no military presence on Mainland Europe to oppose him. That had nothing to do with us. End of.

    The rest of your comments on the war are not worth commenting on as they pure, ill informed, nonsense. Try reading around a bit, then come back. Until then waste someone elses time.

    Utter rubbish. A worthless, insulting comment, and based purely on bigotry.

    I doubt, with the way many of those nations peoples acted towards both Jews and Russians, and are still acting towards the ethnic Russians in their countries, Russia will be apologising anytime soon. As before, we don't hear Hungarians, Rumanians etc making comments about Russia the way the Baltic states are. Funny that.

    VE day is about celebrating victory over the NAZI's, not a cheap, point scoring exercise, to impress GB. Who, in fairness, seems to have seen the error of his ways and refused to endorse the Georgian regimes requests for US support against Russia and for crushing 'rebellious provinces'. Ie ethnic minoritys.

    Maybe he's not as daft as those who follow him blindly............
     
  22. Miyazaki

    Miyazaki
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2003
    Messages:
    14,304
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Ratings:
    +849
    I think that it is just, right and fair that Russia stage those celebrations. But I can't condemn the likes of Latvia highlighting the atrocities of communist rule either.
     
  23. chard

    chard
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2002
    Messages:
    398
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +0
    oh dear, you really understand this point do you ? I didn't say he DID want to invade Russia in 1940 did I ? what I did say is that the fact that we defeated him in the BOB meant that there WAS a Western front throughout the war with all the other implications I explained. Without this he would have overwhelmed Russia.

    thats just nasty (again)...happy to discuss, but please realise that what your history teachers told you is not the only theory mate.

    The topic of this thread cannot be seen without the wider implications of the Soviet actions before and after 1945, sorry if you envisaged this as a 'aren't Russians great' thread...I think it is more complex than that.

    There are many calls this day for the Russians to apologise, I for one think this is very relevent on this date, as to clearly many countries . I don't think this should be dismissed as lightly as others do.

    Happy to debate as ever, but please keep it on topic and hold back on the personal insults (please).
     
  24. overkill

    overkill
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2003
    Messages:
    11,778
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    Murkeyside
    Ratings:
    +1,194
    Again, I repeat, the documentary evidence shows that Hitler was in no way deflected by the UK. The only area of his armed forces he was willing to commit in force for dealing with us after the BoB was the Navy - which he didn't need for attacking the USSR anyway. His entire land forces, bar those needed for "policing" the conquered nations, were committed to attacking Russia. Get it? Please don't argue until you read the documents for yourself.

    Correct. That is why I went on just a little further from there. I have studied that period (1910-52) in depth. Beyond reading a few books, good though they may be, have you?

    Why is this needed? I have no sympathy for the Tsarist, Communist, or Putin regimes in Russia. All stink to high heaven. My point was, that supporting nations trying to hide their own crimes behind "righteous indignation" is hardly the basis of wise future foreign policy. That out of interest, includes both Russia and Communist China.

    So do I, but not to countries who've committed appallying crimes themselves - that is the point. Frankly I can't think of too many nations occupied by the Soviets (perhaps Finland & Hungary) who cannot be indicted for their actions during WW2 - and their actions since.

    :rolleyes: Good point, and one perhaps you should bear in mind when starting the "insults" ball rolling with comments like these:- (in context)
    I'm happy to keep the insults out, but if someone sticks one down on me.....................
     
  25. chard

    chard
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2002
    Messages:
    398
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +0
    so you don't think that the soviet navy which was engaged against the Atlantic convoys, the Luftwaffe forces employed solely against Britain, the German infantry divisions in France, Italy, North Africa, fighting against us, would have helped in the battle against Russia, of course they would. This leaves out the other benefits mentioned earlier, such as our involvement in the Manhattan project and preventing Hitlers own nuclear ambitions. Also our Arctic convoys brought vital supplies to Russia.

    I am baffled by suggestions that this was not a significant effort, never mind the whole D-Day to Berlin campaign which again prevented those troops and resources being thrown against Russian.

    Your analysis that most of the countries occupied by Stalin 'somehow deserved their treatment' is appaling imho. In fact it was only a tough stance from Churchill which drove the Russians out of Austria and avoided them taking Greece as well.

    You see I have read a great deal around this period as well - but rather than simply quoting others - I do think it is more important to develop ones own opinions and to be able to share them openly.

    Sticking to the thread, I believe that the Russian celebrations should have included some recognition of the troubles caused by soviet tyranny.
     
  26. mrtbag

    mrtbag
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2002
    Messages:
    3,509
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    106
    Location:
    Anywhere I want
    Ratings:
    +395
    I've just found some figures

    These are the numbers of divisions of the German army in each country per year. Now don't jump down my throat Overkill, I am in no way taking Chard or anybody else's side in this discussion, but your point about the Germans leaving enough men to 'Police' the occupied countries is wrong. Germany had about 350 divisions in 1944 with nearly 200 of these not on the Eastern front.

    Here I leave a link to the site where I got the stats. Stats
     

    Attached Files:

  27. overkill

    overkill
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2003
    Messages:
    11,778
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    Murkeyside
    Ratings:
    +1,194
    I won't mrtbag, because if you look at the figures for 1941-42 (which is the period to which I am referring) they confirm my point. Thanks! :D They also show that German forces were not tied up by the Western allies until the period 43-44. ;)

    Chard, I really don't care about later in the war, the grand alliance, or about other battles all of which were of course important. You, not I, took this thread off track with a rant about Soviet Russia. I merely pointed out the importance, regardless of later events, of Stalingrad. Cue another rant. Go read the documents. No more to be said.

    An interesting conclusion, based on what? The fact I feel we should not, because these countries are now "potential markets", ignore past abuses? Something you seem keen to redress with Russia. I said nothing about anyone "deserving their treatment". However, it's a term you use far too often. Pots and kettles?

    I thought were supposed to be stopping the childish digs? You just can't resist can you? To take your theme, so do I. However, I prefer them to be my ideas based on facts rather than being a "central office approved" version of history, and, be actually mine. ;)

    :boring: Why? If the Russians are to acknowledge past crimes, which, as above, I believe they should, doing so at a celebration of the ending of WW2, which is a rememberance of those who fell 1939-45 is inappropriate. The average Russian had nothing to do with the Soviets later activites so why ruin their rememberance?
     
  28. chard

    chard
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2002
    Messages:
    398
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +0
    interesting stats mrtbag, I have never seen these numbers before and of course they are significant. They clearly show the huge numbers of men which Germany had to position to fight the threat from Britain and the western allies , there is no way these huge numbers would not have made a difference if they had been able to have been moved to the Eastern Front.

    Overkill, you also continue to ignore the other impact of the Allies ie launching nightly bombing raids against Germany, supporting resistence movements (requiring policing actions), fighting the development of the German bomb.

    well somebody with Russian accents dominated Eastern Europe for 50 years...

    I have no idea what that means mate ? you do seem to echo Labour H.O. and the Guardian on a regular basis though... :rolleyes: ;)
     
  29. overkill

    overkill
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2003
    Messages:
    11,778
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    Murkeyside
    Ratings:
    +1,194
    I see you have the Tories view of stats. ;) Those figures clearly show in 1941-42 (the period in question) that the allies were not distracting Hitler in any way from his purpose. But anyone can figure that out - if they want to that is. :rolleyes:

    Interestingly those same stats show you to be incorrect. There is no point in carrying this on as you are just NOT interested in anything that does not fit into your viewpoint. As before we knowthe German war machine did not reach full capacity until 1943, after which allied bombing whittled it down to size. The allied bombing did NOT slow down that production in any way up until late 1943- 44. It's funny, but even despite being hammered away at night after night, day after day, the Germans still managed to fight on three fronts until 1944, and weren't defeated until 1945.

    All this is of course irrelevant, as Stalingrad was still, and is recognised by both left and right as such, the major turning point in the war for Hitler.

    Really? Well I never! :rolleyes: They were called soldiers, and unless the evidence is all incorrect the bulk of the Soviet people were living in pretty terrible conditions, and fear, the same as everybody else. That statement not only reveals bigotry, it also reveals a lack of understanding of what went on out there.

    The regimes in East Germany, Rumania, Bulgaria, all had repulsive, native dictators, who ruled despite, rather than because of Moscow, and were quite capable of being as brutal, if not more so than their Soviet overlords. In Hungary, Czechs and Poland a degree of autonomy came about in the 70's & 80's (as the Soviet economy and power creaked). Nothing is ever as simple as certain people would love to have us believe.

    I thought you didn't know what that meant? Oh you were being ironic? Yes? Echo Labour HQ? NO thanks! The Guardian? What urging people to vote Lib dem or Tory? Do I? Really! :D
     
  30. chard

    chard
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2002
    Messages:
    398
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +0
    overkill for goodness sake, stop and think about what you are saying here....do you deny that German forces in the West, Italy , Africa etc...and all armaments employed against the West would NOT have made any difference or have been welcomed by the German forces on the Eastern Front. 1941-1942 is irrelevent also as the war against the soviets lasted until 1945, during which ALL of those forces waging war against the Western allies would / could have been thrown against the Russians.

    I am sure that you are a logical person - so how can you say above that allied bombing DID NOT slow down production...you cannot say/prove that, indeed the undoubted damage caused by Allied bombing must have had some effect, even if it slowed things down rather than stopped or reversed production....

    again what is your point here...? are you saying without allied bombing the war would have taken the same or longer time ?

    hardly irrelevent as we are discussing how Stalingrad would/could have been a German victory but for Allied efforts and more importantly Stalingrad defeat could have been reversed by the Germans if the didn't have the Western allies to fight on the other front.

    "That statement not only reveals bigotry, it also reveals a lack of understanding of what went on out there."

    no it doesn't , it is a fact that RUSSIA tyrannised Eastern Europe for 50 years, it takes more than one man at the top to do that.

    those leaders were ALL Russian puppets, doing Russia's bidding, and those WERE Russian troops on the border.
     

Share This Page

Loading...