MovieChat Forums > Stalingrad (1993) Discussion > Who won the war?

Who won the war?

posted 19 years ago by Billionaire
325 replies | jump to latest

I recently used this film along w/ Geoffrey Robert's Victory at Stalingrad in an undergraduate course to illustrate the severity and enormity of the German-Soviet theater. The in-class discussions were interesting. Most students came into the class only vaguely realizing that there even WAS an Eastern front. I think that this is b/c in most American popular renditions of the war, the Russians only make a cameo in the last 2 mo.s or so to capture Berlin; What could loosely be described as the "Saving Private Ryan view" of WWII (please don't get huffy, I like that movie).

In light of this, who would you say was most responsible for the Allied victory? the East or the West? the U.S. or the U.S.S.R.? Eisenhower or Zhukov?

[–] rarema 19 years ago

The American war industry won the war for both fronts.

[–] kkk2002ar 19 years ago

Soviet Union had to fight against 70% of German army. American weapons were worse than Soviet (up until the end of Cold War). West people don't know, that USSR was always better than USA. Soviets had better tanks, rifles, planes, rockets, space programs, atomic bombs. It's not true that American industry won the whole war.

[–] rarema 19 years ago

The Allied (mainly US) equipment and FOOD saved the Red Army in 1941-42.

I don't know what atomic bombs and space programs have to do with this (apparently, you are a bit confused as well). But yes, Russians had better tanks.

Above all the Communists had enough cannon fodder (brave men were used as just that, cannon fodder).

[–] Member 19 years ago

It wasn't the US food that stopped the German war machine. If it hadn't been for the US food aid the war might have taken a bit longer. The war might have also been shorter had the the US opened up the other front earlier. They chose not to do so until late in the war, when the red army had already beaten the Germans.

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] jrv-3 19 years ago

The US didn't 'GIVE' supplies, they SOLD supplies

[–] a_minute_till_midnight 18 years ago

yes and the U.S DIDNT WIN THE WAR, they helped a little

[–] batistuta47 18 years ago

For all intents and purposes, the money and supplies were given to the Allies. The US was what turned the tide of war in favor of the Allies, and any other interpretation would be a misreading of the history. Just because a country loses the most soldiers in a fight does not mean they won. Keep in mind that while the Soviets were facing the majority of the German army, the US was also fighting the Japanese.

[–] flnielsen 18 years ago

Sorry to correct most of you, but if you really want to get a grip on how the outcome of WWII was decided, you need to understand that Hitler broke the backbone of his own warmachine by interfering with his generals warplans during the epic campaign on the east front, called Operation Barbarossa, initiated in the summer of 1941.

Please have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Barbarossa

Germany couldn't continue the running of it's military and the industrial warproduction without a secured oil supply. Also Hitler had already outlined in his book Mein Kampf, how he wanted "lebensraum" (= living space) for the german people, which mainly translated to territory and essential resources, and this was to be found east of Germany, in the Soviet territory. So from a military-strategic viewpoint the main objective of Operation Barbarossa was to secure the oil fields i the Caucasus area in southern Soviet territory, south of Stalingrad (today Volgograd). And the rich wheat fields of Ukraine, to feed the german army and population.

Hitler's army went for it, made good initial progress, but before securing the objective, Hitler intervened in his generals execution of the plans, split the force in two and ordered the diverted half of the force to make symbolic conquests of major Soviet cities in the north (mainly Leningrad, but also Moscow was targeted for conquest). As the german army progressed, the logistical supply lines became too long for proper resupply of the german army, the force was stretched too thin along a looooong frontline, the Red Army's recilience and fighting ability had been underestimated, progres slowed down, the russian winter came and the german force became sitting ducks for the soviet forces, who were much better equipped and had better experience with winter warfare. Plus the Red Army fought to regain the perimeter of their own cities and territories, which gave huge boosts to motivation and morale on the soviet side. (Same phenomenon as in the Vietnam War and in the Soviet-Afghanistan War.)

So the german forces were forced back, they had secured none of their main strategic objectives and had lost huge sections of manpower and material. And still they had no additional influx of the essential resources they needed to keep up their fighting ability in the long run. The rest ofthe war: Soviet Union applied pressure from the East, later the Allied applied pressure from the south and west. And finally Nazi-Germany was crushed after a long period of attrition and failed counter-initiatives from the german forces.

My father was a military logistical planner in the Danish Army, and I can assure you that Operation Barbarossa is the primary textbook example of losing an entire war by making fatal strategic decisions in a single decisive operation, that affects the overall fighting ability. Germany had plenty of iron and other metals in their own territory, but they needed oil and primary food resources to keep up their long-term fighting abilities. They got none, due to the failed outcome of Operation Barbarossa, so this operation became the main turning point of the war, after which Nazi-Germany was constantly on the defence until the war ended.

And to be fair, the credit for this must partly be given to the Soviet Red Army, and partly to Hitler's *beep* up ideological/political intervention in his generals careful planning and execution of the operation.

PS:
The same pattern of behaviour can be seen today in Iraq, where Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Bremer for ideological/political reasons have made key decisions - while largely ignoring the recommendation of Pentagon's strategic battleplanners - that have turned out to be disastrous for the entire effort in Iraq. In general, civilians and politicians shouldn't try to kid themselves, that they know more about strategic war planning or execution than the generals do. If they do, it usually turns out bad.

[–] infinite_regress 16 years ago

yep...good post...further logistical problems were compounded with the fact that german tanks ran on gasoline and not diesel, hence russian oil had to be exported back to germany for refinement and then shipped back to the eastern front...soviet tanks rank on diesel.

[–] infinite_regress 16 years ago

haha

[–] RandlePM 15 years ago

That's an excellant summing up of the most important factor of the second world war.I watched a documentary only last week explaining how the Germans fought in Russia on 3 fronts and made really good initial progress.Hitler did indeed intervene when his army attacking Moscow we're within 5o miles of the City.He diverted that army to the east of Russia to assist another of his armies that we're bogged down.

That was a fatal error from which they never recovered.Don't forget.Stalin had sent millions of troops toward Japan in anticipation of an attack from the Japs.spies within Japan reported back that no such attack was planned and those troops headed back to russia.leaving the Germans to face the might of a 16 million strong red army.

[–] nelson95 15 years ago

Excellent points and you're absolutely right about Operation Barbarossa. Everyone calls Stalingrad the turning point of that war on the eastern front but I think the failure of the 1941 campaign was the real turning point because it nearly succeeded and if it had there would have been no Stalingrad. The Germans had it won in 1941 if they'd have just followed through with their original plan and taken Moscow. That would have been it right there!

[–] aarone2884 14 years ago

I agree. There are a heap of things hitler should not have done that prehaps essentially won them the war.

Instead they lost a war...rather than anyone actually winning the war.

[–] wautdooghejan 15 years ago

U-boats were overrated

[–] rarema 19 years ago

The Western Allied made the invasion when they felt they could pull it off. Let's not forget they were far from being sure of the success in 1944, still.

But I still say the Western material help saved the USSR. The Red Army would have collapsed without it. :)

A Finnish scientist (I'm from Finland) calculated in 1942 (before Stalingrad) that Germany will lose. And that was exactly how he did it: by calculations. No ideological stuff, no bias, just mathematics.

The Germans survived much longer than expected because of their truly skilled and relentless fighting (the only major army to pull of successful offensive operations completely undergunned and notably outnumbered).

[–] Shaolin_Apu 19 years ago

That "scientist" was Colonel Aladàr Paasonen, the head of intelligence. He was in contact with his German colleague Wilhelm Canaris who also believed the same as Paasonen. Paasonen told his views to Mannerheim and was instructed to present these predictions to the Finnish House of Representatives. Paasonen got angry reception from majority of the representatives, but Mannerheim believed him.

Wilhelm Canaris presented this same prediction to the Reich's high command and was sentenced to death.

Play it again, Frank, I don't give a damn.

[–] rarema 19 years ago

He's the one!

But wasn't the intelligence basically formed of scientists rather than professional soldiers?

[–] Shaolin_Apu 19 years ago

Very true, but usually the intelligence unit is commanded by a military officer. There were all kinds of university staff working under him. Paasonen himself was one of the Jaegers, a Civil War vet, and a graduate of French military Academy, École Supérieure de Guerre.

Paasonen was probably one of the ablest Colonels in the Finland's army ever. He worked as a diplomat during the Winter War and his good relations with the French Prime Minister Daladier helped to shift Western Allies attention towards Finland and to vote for dismissing the Soviet Union from the League of the Nations.

Play it again, Frank, I don't give a damn.

[–] rarema 19 years ago

Cheers for the info!

Rauhallista joulua!

[–] rmixtaj 19 years ago

Canaris was executed for years of spying for allies and for the involvement in the attempted assassination of Hitler in July 44. He was put in concentration camp and very painfully executed in April 45, but certainly not for his scientific views.

[–] Shaolin_Apu 19 years ago

That's good to know.

Play it again, Frank, I don't give a damn.

[–] StrapWithAnAk47 19 years ago

yea the german lost because they didnt bring winter clothes for the of the winter of 1942, that doesn't take a rocket scientist to know.

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] prescon 18 years ago

Another person who knows nothing about weapons. The US worse than the Soviets? Are you nuts? Do you even know what you're talking about?

[–] lomnjac 13 years ago

Yes he does, and you don't, IL2 really was the supreme ground attack aircraft of the war, the Katjusha was the suppreme artillery "scorched ground" tool, the T34, and especially T34-85, were the best tanks of the WW2, period.

[–] hanoirose 18 years ago

Oh yeah, so how come the great red army never could occupy small country Finland? The were supposed to march into Helsinki in a couple of weeks. But instead of that they had to give up after about 5 years. And against them were poorly equipped finnish army (in the beginning, later better equipped though). But, it's not always the equipment, the spirit is often more important. Another question is that how come this great USSR broke up if it was so great?

[–] vistrel 18 years ago

Because soviets did not give a crap about finland..who wants that swamp when you can have central and eastern europe. Besides, there was no threat from finnish side. I mean, yeah, in 1940 they could defend their country good but they were crappy soldiers on the offensive.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] neptune-13 17 years ago

"It's not true that American industry won the whole war"

US GDP would be at least five times that of the Soviet Union. It can't even compare with America's economy. Doing well in a few areas, e.g. tanks, came in spite of a disastrously inefficient economy. Its seriously a joke to even compare the two.
No one singularly won the war. The subtraction of any major player could have changed the outcome dramatically. Any speculation concerns political factors, but if we just look at the economics of total war the US was far better suited than any other power for continuing a major conflict. No way could Stalin have carried on past Berlin to Paris.
The Soviets suffered greatly in the end, where as the US didn't put much on the line and could conceivably have even stayed out of the war (under different leadership). The Soviets did not completely deserve their status as a superpower on par with America. That judgment always reflected a political reality, not a military or economic reality.
Imagine if the US was directly invaded by a nation half its population size but of immense military power. They have occupied Boston and have Washington D.C in their sight? The Soviets ended up in such a position. To say they won isn't telling the whole story. I see the war as an event where almost everyone lost, the Soviets as much as the Germans. The spoils of war didn't turn out to be so great. As others said, in war one just lose less and US lost incomparably less than the Soviet Union.

I think its interesting that people universially see Hitler making decisions that proved fatal for Germany. He was too bold and his influence on military strategy prevented victory on numerous occasions. His political decision to declare war on the US? Wtf? or to take Stalingrad at all costs when on low supplies in the motherland of Russia? To engage in counterfactual historical thinking again, I'm willing to entertain the idea that Germany could have taken Russia. Everyone who reads and has a passion for the history of World War Two appreciates the skill and success of the Germans. They may have lost, but they were easily the most impressive war machine of that era. More prudent, less extreme nationalists may have achieved their horrible aims.

[–] hovaisa 15 years ago

""It's not true that American industry won the whole war"
US GDP would be at least five times that of the Soviet Union."

Sure it was, considering USSR paid gold for the help. This business was a great luck for US economy.

Moreover, how smart is the tactics!
I go to my neighbour and offer: "You go to death, and I will lease you bullets for your rifle."

Yet, USSR managed to evacuate and build a thousand of factories in 1941-42

[–] hovaisa 15 years ago

About USA help, from russian sources:

American fighters have proved themselves in aerial combat, especially in the first year of the war, when much of the domestic aircraft was immediately destroyed by the Germans directly on the ground.
48 out of 59 German planes, three times Hero of the Soviet Union Alexander Pokryshkin shot down while flying in the U.S. Aerocobra,
another ace, twice Hero of Arseniy Vorozheikin, fought almost the entire war on the Spitfire and downed 51 enemy aircraft,
and the sky over Leningrad in the first year of the blockade closed, in particular , fighter Kitty Hawk.

A total of Lend-Lease to the USSR received 14126 U.S. and 4174 British aircraft - 23% of the manufactured home during the war fighters and bombers. Almost 8 thousand aircraft American, British, Canadian and Soviet pilots overtaken from Alaska, and the rest were transported by sea from England to Murmansk...

http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&sl=ru&tl=en&u=http://www.battlefield.ru/ru/tank-development/56-lend-lease/297-lend-lease-military-aid.html&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.ca&twu=1&usg=ALkJrhjYWIYPXN52hZAEbZ-Xr3wgU8yQfg

http://www.battlefield.ru/ru/tank-development/56-lend-lease/297-lend-lease-military-aid.html

[–] hovaisa 15 years ago

With regard to the official Soviet propaganda, it is preferred in every way underestimate the importance of an American aid, or even to ignore it.

In March 1943, the American ambassador in Moscow, not concealing wrongs, permitted himself undiplomatic statement: "Russia's government appears to want to hide that they are receiving help from outside.
Obviously, they want to convince their people that the Red Army is fighting in this war alone. "And, during the Yalta Conference in 1945, Stalin was forced to admit that the Lend-Lease - a remarkable and most fruitful contribution to Roosevelt in the anti-Hitler coalition.

...the total amount of necessary supplies for the army of Western technology was as follows:
in the armored forces - 12-16 %,
in aviation - 10-15%,
in the Navy - 32,4%.

As for trucks, the proportion reached 70%, in other words, the Soviet army drove mostly on American cars. In any case, in the postwar years the population of the USSR more than tried in a "Studebaker", "jeep" and "Jeep" than in our brands.
In addition, some set of lend-lease weapons and military equipment (the device radio and sonar, multi-Mortar, influence sweeps, etc.) in our army and navy at that time were not there!
Finally, we should not discount the industrial equipment and technology that helped the rear, and works well after the war.
Thus, more than half the equipment of the Stalingrad Tractor Plant, all the siege of the city does not shut down, was delivered under the Lend-Lease.

[–] hovaisa 15 years ago

The slight flaws in translation remind me misunderstanding between Americans and Russians (:

[–] NFLFanatic 17 years ago

yeah, and few people realize that 8 out of 10 germans killed were by the russians

[–] jimel98 17 years ago

Exactly why I wish not one single airplane, weapon or stinking bullit had been sent there. Not a crumb of bread or drop of beef stock. They could have and SHOULD have done it all on their own WITHOUT a single bit of assistance from Britain or America.

Why did Stalin demand a second front? He could have waltzed into Berlin on his own in 1943!!!!

[–] jimel98 17 years ago

In reply to kkk2002ar, I fully agree. For that reason, I wish the US hadn't sent ONE single airplane, not one single weapon, not a stinking bullet to the USSR. Stalin could have waltzed into Berlin in 1943 with NO help from anyone, especially not Britain and the USA. Why he demanded a second front over and over again when it was totally unnecessary is beyond me. He had the best weapons, manpower AND food and should have fought the war entirely on his own.

All those items sent to him should have been kept. They also have much better grammer.

[–] AlPecCha 15 years ago

yeah but Rocky knocked out Ivan Drago, I think that pretty much sums up the Cold War, (and Rocky won over the Politburo). :)

[–] cheval_52-1 15 years ago

Soviets had better tanks, rifles, planes, rockets, space programs, atomic bombs ???

I beg to differ on your uneducated remark about the Soviet weapons being so much better, if so then why did you guys eventually lose the Cold War?

Your T-34 Tanks were definately better than the Sherman, but your Mossin Nagant Rifles could not match the best Rifle of the war, the infamous M1 Garand. When it came to Airplanes, did the Soviets have any Fighters that could match the performance of the P-51 Mustang? The fact is that the Soviets had adequate Bombers but it took some reverse engineering on their part to come up with a copy of the American B-29. The one thing that cannot be denied was a comparison of the size of the Soviet Armed Forces to that of the USA.

The question that begs to be asked is why Joseph Stalin waited until the US dropped the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to finally declare War on Japan? Perhaps they were awaiting for a last minute Land Grab.

Delving into Post War Europe and the beginnings of the Cold War, the Soviet Union did not even posess an Atomic Bomb until they achieved the plans through Espionage acts in America. The Soviet Space Program was definately in 1st Place with the launching of Sputnik in 1957, but all came to naught when they lost the race to the Moon in 1969. One of the reasons as to why the Soviets never made it the Moon was because their equivalent to America's Saturn 5 Rocket sadly blew up on the Launch Pad.

And finally, if the Soviet Space Program was so much better than that of the USA then why did they resort to Reverse Engineering the famed Space Shuttle and come up with one that was half the size of the original?

The one thing that the Soviet Union was able to achieve was to eventually lose their Empire and about a 4th of their once mighty Navy. With the loss of Czechoslovakia, Poland, Bulgaria, East Germany, Rumania,etc they also eventually loss their Identity.

The new Russian Government did finally come out on top when they built the two largest Military Aircraft in the World, but sadly they had to auction off a large chunk of their Space Program just to meet budget demands.

[–] hovaisa 15 years ago

Here is pure american point of view.
If you make connection between soviet weapon and cold war, then why to take you seriously at all.

[–] hovaisa 15 years ago

By the face expression of German prisoner one could say exactly how they're doing.
At the beginning of the war prisoners came across with impudent muzzles. There happened even arrogant and spiteful faces. In winter, the forty-first, when we, choking with blood, were driving off the Germans from Moscow, confusion and bewilderment appeared on their faces.
In the forty-second, in the summer, they gave us a kick out of the Belyy, and on fiziomuzzle appeared calm, confidence and firmness of spirit.
In the spring of forty-three, when we drove them from Rzhev, the faces of the soldiers Fuhrer imprinted shadow of doubt, deep thought, inner struggle and fear.
And now in August, forty-three, the Germans faces got pinched, stretched, distorted by fear. Captured, appeared ingratiating and sugary smile.
A pity not to take photographs of prisoners of the Germans over the years. Throughout the film was waste on our colonels and generals. To spread out to these photos for years, can be accurately set and present a picture of the bloody events

[–] hovaisa 15 years ago

one good movie
"They Fought for the Motherland - 10/15"

[–] MaltinsBeard 18 years ago

Plz man go kid someone else. 3/4 of the german army was in the eastern front. If russia hadnt sacrificed 20 million people we'd all be speaking german now.

There should be a law against people who read u.s. history books

[–] a_minute_till_midnight 18 years ago

"There should be a law against people who read u.s. history books " indeed.

[–] batistuta47 18 years ago

As opposed to the objective history purported by the Soviet Bloc for nearly half a century?

[–] MaltinsBeard 16 years ago

as opposed to anything that isn't mcarthyism, you won't understand though, your mind is fouled with empty patriotism. You know, patriotism, that mindset that started both world wars in the first place? AAaah, who am I kidding, you'll never understand these concepts, just like most yanks do not have any shame for their military excesses.

[–] BilligerVogel 16 years ago

It wasn't 'patriotism' that stared the wars. The chauvinistic type of nationalism had more to do with it.

Because the world is rushing toward entropy. What's your excuse?

[–] joni-pitka 15 years ago

That's just allied propaganda. Russians did almost all of the dirty work.

[–] omendata 8 years ago

Russia without a single doubt = just look at the casualty list - the mighty T-34 , KV-1 and the losses on both sides!

Russian casualties were horrific!
Americans did a good job but came into the war late and their tanks and equipment were poorly matched against the Germans and their campaigns were not exactly glorious!

Its uncle Frank Kirsty!
Its time to play!

[–] heretik_742617000027 19 years ago

Disgusting! You're saying it was only US and USSR versus Germany! Whitout the commonwealth you would speak german now.

[–] harpr5 19 years ago

what? the americans would be speaking german? how would that have been done?

the allies won the war. try to remember that in the next football match in europe, you happend to be on winning side in the two world wars and you were lucky in 66..

-r

[–] Blackhawk1989 19 years ago

I thinks its based on an idea about what would have happened if the commonwealth had been defeated if Hitler had invaded Britain. If h Operation Sealion had worked and Britain was invaded, Hitler wouldnt have needed to keep soldiers and planes inside Germany and France to protect the reich from commonwealth attacks. This would mean his invasion of Russia would have happened sooner ( with no conflict in Africa to slow him down) and the full brunt of the germany army would have hit the U.S.S.R leading to a qick, killing blow to Russia.
The idea goes on to say that had Russia lost, the U.S.A would either have faced an arms race with greater Germany insted of communist Russia, or faced a joint invasion from Japan in the east and Germany in the west.
this isnt strictly true, Russia may still have beaten the Germans in stalingrad, but the British commonwealth would have been annexed to the reich, leading to greater numbers and more fronts.
Im British, but im trying to keep this balanced. In a way hes wrong, americans may well not be speaking German. But he right in that the commonwealth were an important force, and the western front wasnt just fought by the americans and canadians.

[–] Shaolin_Apu 19 years ago

And if Italians had been as tough as Germans...

Play it again, Frank, I don't give a damn.

[–] Rangely8723 19 years ago

Though, an invasion of Britain never really was an option for Hitler since Germany hadn't a navy equal to the British RN. Naval power is essential if you want to invade an island like Britain, in this case Hitler made the same mistake as Napoleon, when he didn't took the importance of the navy serious enough. I agree with Churchill who said that the German submarines were the only serious threat for Britain. Though, a war against Britain never was planned, and from the beginning, Hitler wanted to attack and conquer the Soviet Union and he even thought that the British might become an ally.
But I agree, if Germany would have been successful in neutralizing Britain as the remaining threat in Western Europe (with more submarines, more successful airstrikes, or diplomacy maybe), it would have changed a lot.

The idea goes on to say that had Russia lost, the U.S.A would either have faced an arms race with greater Germany insted of communist Russia, or faced a joint invasion from Japan in the east and Germany in the west.

Author Robert Harris describes a similar fictional war scenario in his novel "Fatherland" (there was also a for TV-made film released of it: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0109779/combined )

Soylent Green is people!

[–] Jhr_Gustaaf 19 years ago

Not to get too off track, but German was almost the official laguage of the USA. English won by a now surprisingly narrow margin, as did the SAE measurment system over SI/metric.

As proud as I am of My Country's accomplishments as the only all-volunteer (zero-conscripts, unlike britain, germany, usa, ussr etc) army in the war, there is no denying two facts:
1.) while there was no way the Nazis had the capacity to successfully carry out operation sealion against Britains impressive defenses such as the RAF and the Homeguard, Britain was likewise incapable of counter-invading at that point against the full might of the Third Reich on the defensive. We learned that the Hard Hard way at the Dieppe raid (although, without the lessons learned at Dieppe, operation Overlord would have had no chance. Also noteable as the worst loss in the history of the Canadian Military, one of only a half dozen lost battles, Including 1812 when we burnt the White house). Even with the help of America's entry, (remember, the majority of American effort was going to Japan) it took more than 2 years to build up sufficient forces and equipment for risky-suicidal foray across the channel. AND that was...
2.)Facing only 30% of German forces on the western front. 70% of german forces were in the East, being pushed back by the Soviet army. BEING PUSHED BACK. They had been pushed back since the battle of Stalingrad. That is where the war was lost, if you want a turning point. By 1943, the western Allies just had to hold ground, and make sure that troops stayes in the flank coast defenses. The main goal of the second front was not the fall of Hitler, that was inevitable, it was the containment of Stalin. Events Like the battle of the bulge and the lengthy liberations of Holland, France, and others, delayed the West a little more than expected. Britain And USA both wanted to reach Berlin before or simultaneous to the Soviet Army. When Soviet and American troops met southwest of Berlin it was (a) a shock to allied command how far the Soviets had acvanced, and (b) very nearly the fulfilment of Hitler's dream of a third front opening up between the west and the commies.

[–] batistuta47 18 years ago

Where did you get the idea of an official USA language?

[–] gareth-webb 19 years ago

The Russians won the war. What the British and Commonwealth forces, later to be joined by the Americans, did in East and North Africa was to keep the Germans and their Allies occupied long enough to give the Russians the space to do it. Western Allied bombing disrupted and impeded the German war effort without paralysing it but nothing the Allies did in the West was ever going to be war winning. Only the Russians could do that by inflicting (and in return taking) the massive casualties necessary to grind down the German Army.

[–] Shaolin_Apu 19 years ago

Russians could never alone defeat Germany. Russians did not fight any strategic warfare, save the Partisan war. It was the Royal Navy and US Navy who hunted down the Germany's most dangerous weapon: the U-boats. Air warfare at west diverted some of the best German airplanes to the Western front to face more dangerous enemy than the Red Army Airforce. Had all of the Luftwaffe planes been available at the Eastern Front Germany could easily have controlled the skies over any Red armadas.

Still it doesn't mean that Germany could have defeated Russia, even if it had been left alone. With Hitler's leader capabilities any victory from the Soviets had somehow been rendered fruitless. The same is true about Stalin, Germany would have also successfully defended against the Soviet onslaught had not the Western Allies provided the second front.

And lastly, Russians did not much win the war as they couldn't get rid of their Communism. In this ironic sense the Germans were more lucky.

Play it again, Frank, I don't give a damn.

[–] rarema 19 years ago

"And lastly, Russians did not much win the war as they couldn't get rid of their Communism. In this ironic sense the Germans were more lucky."

Right. You can see this in some posters here, who hang on to the Stalin myth, refusing to see that the Russians were horribly exploited by the regime (just like Germans were) and got nothing in return. It is telling that Stalin started to appeal to patriotism rather than communism or the revolution. That was a great move, but then he wasn't a stupid man.

Hitler and Stalin were very much alike. Both drove millions to death to save their sorry asses, to survive as long as possible. And still some people see them as heroes. What did Lenin say about Western communists again? It was not polite...

[–] Member 19 years ago

So you guys think that a Czarist Russia alone could have stopped the Nazi war machine? Please do remember that ultimately Hitler's 'crusade' was not a war against socialism except only on the surface. His real motive was to rid the world of 'untermench' that he deemed the slavs, jews, handicapped, etc. to be.

I'm no fan of Stalin but when asking about him from russians who actually had to fight the war etc. they will say that he was a cruel dictator but that ultimately they won with him. To lose that war would have meant the end of everything so even a horrible leader like Stalin was a million times better than a weak leader who could have not stood up against the nazis.

I would like to see a film made about from the viewpoint of a russian soldier in the eastern front from the beginning of the war to the end of the war. There aren't many good films of russian soldiers.

[–] yoghurtt 19 years ago

Not Czarist, Communist. That's a BIG difference and any bolshevik would kill you instantly for calling post-revolutionary Russia Czarist :)

And remember, Stalin was hell of a tactic (with a help of his generals, even if he murdered 90% of them before the war) and he planned better strikes than Hitler, who sentenced to death or degradated every single general which tried to opose him, unlike uncle Joseph, who killed only those "politically unstable", but then it came to his mind- "Hey, I'll kill them later, now let them command and win some wars".

And asking many russians who lived through the war and remember dyadya (yup, russian for "uncle") Stalin, many will tell how great he was blah blah blah. Young russians don't have such feelings for him, but IIWW vets... Well, that's another story.

A good films about russian soldiers? "Enemy at the gates" isn't one of them. While well directed and with some good points (sniper duels were really good), it's still full of stupidity and nothing annoys me more than russians speaking good old oxford english. God, i hate it even more than stupid russian accent :)

Well, for good russian point of view, though not from WWII and US produciton is "The Beast" (also know as "The beast of war") about russian tank crew in afganistan.
Also look for "Kryptonim Zvezda" (don't know what title it had in english, maybe "Codename Zvezda" or "Codename Star"?). While still full of some not convincing and overrated heroism, typical for soviet WWII cinematography, it's still well shot, with good effects and acting is pretty good. And it's russian blockbuster from, as I can remember, 2002!
See also "War", about Chechenia. Russian movie with english co-production, without any propaganda or crap like that, showing how stupid and brutal that conflict is.
Well, let's think... I'll try to find something else in my vast DVD library and will let you know.

[–] rarema 19 years ago

"Hitler, who sentenced to death or degradated every single general which tried to opose him"

Huh? Could you name any examples, please?

"Stalin was hell of a tactic"

LOL!

[–] yoghurtt 19 years ago

Here you are Rarema:

First one who was killed because his power was raising: Chief of SA, Erich Romm- arrested and killed
Another unlucky one, who, even if his treason wasn't proven in any way, but he was to much arguing with hitler's decissions: of course Rommel (a choice to "honorably take the poison or to be judged" is in fact a death sentence)

Degradated:
Jodl, degradated some times and then regained his commanding possition because of failures and defeats of wehrmacht, as like as many wehrmacht CO's.
Von Manstein- the well known degradation becasue of his plan to attack around allied forces in france in Sedan. Hitler used his plan and got all the glory, Manstein was then several times degradated and regained his command, depending on Hitler's mood.
Guderian- great tank commander and tactic. Degradated after writing a report to hitler, complaining about some soldiers killing civilians and burning villages to the ground in Poland. dimissioned after a failure in Moscow. That was all Hitler's fault, and Guderian was lucky not to be sentenced to death, because he told that Hitler wasn't thinking when moving his troops and to add more, Guderian wasn't to fond of stopping his tanks several kms from his target- moscow to go here and there to make hitler happy and he didn't hesitate to say it loudly.
And some more, these are the best known.

About Stalin being a tactic- You won't argue he was better strategist than hitler, spend some time on thinking and most importantly- listened to his generals most of the time. I'm not saying he was a genius, but I can't say he was a dumb wannabe as a corporal with a mustache.

[–] rarema 19 years ago

Cheers.

Rommel was forced to kill himself because he didn't report the conspiracy to Hitler. That was the only reason.

Romm wasn't a soldier, but a SA man.

And as far as I know, none of those officers at he bottom of your post were degrated, meaning for example that a Marshall was degrated to a General. All of the men you mention were sacked, taken of the command. For example, Manstein was fired in 1944 because Hitler was tired of him demanding more mobile defense. But he remained a Marshall and was actually thanked by Hitler for past services and Hitler said he'll find Manstein another post. He never did, but that is irrelevant.

And I think that Syalin being better than Hitler does not make him 'a good tactic'.

[–] yoghurtt 19 years ago

1. Not the only reason. He was getting on hitler's nerves because of his... let's call it- independent toughts.

Romm- so what, he was one of his right-hand boys, even if not a general.

Guderian was literally degradated. Rest of them was not losing their ranks, but sending them "on a vacation" means in fact that they're not needed anymore (or until situation becomes too hard for Adolf) and it means degradation- being a skilled commander and not commanding anything when the war is on is an insult. And when they give your post to a guy who's an idiot, but is more devoted to the supreme commander is even more insluting.

About Stalin- better tactic than Hitler, when it comes to choose your targets. Even if he had very skilled commanders to give him advices, it's still clear that he wasn't obsesed with some imposible goals but wanted to achieve tactical victory. Not a genious, but 100 times better that the mustache man.

[–] rarema 19 years ago

Still about your opinion on Stalin: you can't call him a good tactic with a) just because he was better than Hitler, b) after studying his 'tactics' during the war. Okay, the last thing is questionable, if wasting far too more men than other parties is not considered a negative aspect (IMO, it is).

That Rommel was getting on Hitler's nerves did not affect his fate. In fact, out of respect his death was disguised as being from being wounded by an airstrike.

I've never heard of Guderian being degrated, when was that and what happened?

As for the sacked commnaders, many understood Hitler in a way: again, Manstein is the example: he was repleaced by Model in 1944, and since Hitler had chosen 'not a single step back' strategy (trying save his miserable ass), Manstein knew that Model was a great to boost up the morale (and was far from being 'an idiot') and so knew the troops would be in good hands.

Anyway, I'd say Hitler treated his commanders far better than Stalin, who had generals shot or degrated - hardly ever only sacked - by the dozen, starting in Winter War against Finland.

[–] yoghurtt 19 years ago

Wasting men in thousand as a main tactic was finished in 1942, when russians began to repel germans from their teritory. Yes, he was still using cannon fodder (polish new found army in Lenino, pni-battalions and so on) but had far more reason than Hitler in commanding. But let's agree, that he wasn't a genius, ok?

Stalin did a cleansing in his army from 1933-34 (and so did hitler in his ranks), first getting to most post-white officers who weren't already killed by bolsheviks, then he gone after those who were considered as threat. But later on, those who were in prison (mostly waiting for their death sentence) were freed as soon as Gemrans attacked in 1941. And then, surprisingly, Stalin started to listen to them. I'm not saying "always", but still- listened. Unlike hitler I must say.

About rommel and others- many unlucky commanders who were pushed to suicide or called traitors by the mustache guy (mostly the lower ranks, I'm not telling about generals, marshalls or fieldmarshalls, but about first-line COs, but it aplles for high-rankers too), were buried with all honors or were "honorably sent for some rest", if they were still alive (and had some powerful friends "above"). Yes, for some guys, germans were not even trying to find a body, but in most cases, german ordnung was in the first place.

As far as I know, he was degradeted in polish september campaign from panzer army commander to a lower rank (don't remember clearly, but in german ranking it was something like panzer corp commander)- minor difference, as he still kept his tank divisons beacuse of his skills (and regained his former rank in France after his quick race through the ardennes), but it was a warning from Hitler. Then he recieved Knight's cross with oak leaves for his impressive raid in the first days of Barbarossa, but... Guderian want to listen Hitler's warning, so he was taken of command after the famous order to stop (no petrol, no ammo for the tanks) against hitler's will to push forward to Moscow. He was sent "for short retirement" and got back to panzer corps, but not as a commander, but more like an advisor, after Stalingrad battle. And near the end of war, in march 1945 he was totally dismissed by Hitler who blamed him for saying that "counterattack is not possible, and even if it was it would be a total failure".

Manstein-Model: those were two really skilled guys I must say, but meaning "idiots" I've meant replacing such experienced commanders (as they wre snet "to recover") by puppets which licked hitler's boots. But when situation was getting worse, they were always called back for command.
Insulting Hitler wasn't such a hard thing to do, You just had to disagree or spot a flaw in his "wise tactical plans". As I said- he was a wannabe with minority complex, and you don't want to argue with such guy. And if you did that when the war was near Berlin, you just bought yourself a cianide or a nice headshot.

[–] volorkey 17 years ago

I disagree about your opinion of stalin not being good at tactics just better than Hitler. In a war it dosen't REALLY matter if you're the best just better then your opponent.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] kolbe-1 19 years ago

LMAO Stalin killed and urged most of his generals, he had no concepts of tactics. If it weren;t for men like Zhukov he would have been lost. He was a simpleton in military matters and it showed.

[–] vanpeters 19 years ago

I could tell you a lot of films but I dont think that you can find it.
And remember it's useless to make war against Russia czarist or coomunist or just Russia...
May be China could won...not cuz of population cuz of menatlity.

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] batistuta47 18 years ago

Yes, because by that time they were getting shipped tons of materiel from the US, and the Germans had to change their priorities. From the moment the US entered the war, the end result could never be in doubt.

[–] yoghurtt 19 years ago

Well, I could say that US student's lack of knowledge about the greatest (and most horrifing) conflict hits me like a hammer every time i hear that. No offence of course, my salutes to those who know some more about the war than "We saved private Ryan and we had errr... those squeaking eagles or sumfin. And germans or japanese sometimes speak english".
On topic- as a Pole myself, I had to learn about the War from my first grade to my last day of high school, and now at university this topic is still one of the majors. Also, i heard about it from my grandparents, who were kids or in their teens when the whole mess started. I've got hundreds of stories about my family escaping here, going there, finding each other after years of emigration, wow, i even can tell a story about my grand-grandma saving young german officer before the ruskies had him... And stories about one granddad fighting on allied side while my friend's gradpa was in Soviet People's Army... well, nuff said.
To continue, if you weren't under soviet occupation (yes, occupation) for a 50 years of comunism, you don't know a thing about consequences of soviets WINNING the war. It's not a matter of "who fought better, who had better arms, who had better CO's" and such crap, thats about political winning. And soviets, there's nothing to discuss, won the war politically, and that's why later on americans and western europe had to do with whole the cold war thingies.
Yup, thats right- Ruskies had a major trading card in constructing new europe after the war, and that was the biggest mistake allies made- they not only were feared of Stalin and his forces which could crush american GIs and commonwelth soldiers just by shear numbers (lets say about 5 to 1 for the reds), but they also gave him the power to spread the red ideas for half of the world, later including Asia (Korea, Vietnam anyone?).

There is no doubt, that without allied landing in europe war would last longer. No doubt, that without american lend-lease pact with Russia soviet boys would have some hard time fighting germans in their motherland. But eventually, Russia would win. I can remind you about Napoleon's 1812 Moscow March- there was no allies to help russia, no lend-leases or something like that. Only russia's will to fight and WINTER. Napoleon got to Moscow (unlike germans), but he found only burning rubble. Russia's will to fight is one of the things i like about that country- they even burned they capital to the ground, just to destroy shelters for enemy's army. They could probably do that when eastern front was overwhelmed by Blitzkrieg tactics, if germans could make to Moscow. Just wait for the winter and your enemy to stop because of that fearsome power of nature and then hit him- simple as it sounds.
Bah, all weapon factories were already somewhere in Syberia by the end of '42, so no bomber could reach there before germans built some airfields in rough steppes near Ural. Not mentioning that to reach Ural, german army would march and march for about half a year, connstantly attacked from behind by partisans. you must know one simple thing: Russia is big. And I mean- VERY BIG- it's just as conquering half of the world to conquer russia, and even if Japan had invaded from the other side (which could, but not happened not only beacause little yellows were occupied by americans on the pacific, but becasue of really small forces comparing to russians) those mad fighting skills and NUMBERS. what is 1 million german soldiers at the end of '41 against about 5 million soviets? In '44 german troops on eastern front consisted of about 70-80% of german forces that time (which was aprox. not higher than 1,7 milion), and soviets had about 6 million, including reserves, and about another 10 million to spare if needed, if you count "not apropriate to fight" (some political prisoners, ukrainians) underaged and old. Furthermore- even if you add german armored forces, american and allied armored forces, it would be nothing against hundred thousands of russian tanks (technologically advanced i must say) Hint- Russia's war machine is based on numbers, and these numbers won the whole war.

Just from the patriotic polish point of view roaming my head: the last army which could invade russia and hold the moscow for a long time was... the polish army in XVI century :)

[–] Shaolin_Apu 19 years ago

There was a lot of interesting points over there, Yogy. You believe that the Russkies could eventually have beaten the crap out of the Western allies too, if the Third World war had started right after the second. The main reason for the Soviet supremacy are sheer numbers and and all the antipathy against every form of fascism.

Politically the Soviet were at their heights in 1945. They were seen as the liberators, even if everyone knew that Stalin was well known to be a tyrant, but the yet discovered concentration camps made it impossible to think anything positively about Germans.

There are still something you don't mention at all. American industrial capacity, population, Allied air and naval supremacy, Commonwealth manpower resources, democratic patriotism and the A-Bomb. I don't think Stalin ever seriously considered a pic-nic by the banks of the Seine river.

Equipment comparison [always interesting]

M1 Garand vs. Tokarev m/40
Thompson SMG vs. Ppsh-41
M36 Jackson vs. SU 122
M26 Pershing vs. ISU-3
P-47D Thunder Bolt vs. Sturmovik
P-51D Mustang vs. La-5
P-80 Shooting Star vs. (?)
B-17 Flying Fortress vs. PE-8
B-29 Superfortress vs. (?)

Americans were definitely not fighting with considerably inferior equipment. Brits had good ones too.

The Apple Scruffs Corps Hon Mbr 05
Play it again Frank, I don't give a damn

[–] yoghurtt 19 years ago

thanks for the reply Puk.

Well, let's see...

1.Yes, I belive that the reds could give allies one hell of a fight if the third war erupted right after second, which is not such abstract thinking as many may presume. Yup, maybe Ike liked Zukhov, but many officers form both sides were drinking vodka and singing songs at Laba river just to be polite, not because they liked each other. Many CO's on allied side had trigger-happy fingers, just to blow off some commies' heads right after the fascism is out of the world, and the other side would be also happy to send capitalist pigs back to their america. IF there was world war three in the '40...

Well, still going for the ruskies. Yup as allies, we've got THE BOMB on our side, as well as some techs stolen with german scientists captured on german territory. We've got also some allies, Tommies on their Island and advanced industry in our hands, but hey- we don't have a thing that soviet army do. The spirit.

And i don't say about lack of courage or spirit to fight, no way that i'm saying that allies were cowards. That's not the spirit what I mean.
Just take a peak at modern russia's society and people living there. As I live border to border with russian federation and i know some russians, ukraininas or byelarussians myself (jeez, I've got relatives in this countries) i can say one thing- they are hell of a patriotic people. And i don't mean that americans aren't. It's another thing that is hard to tell without witnessing it. Americans love their country, their symbols and are proud of being americans. Russians are not too proud being russians, yet they are prod of their motherland, they hate loosing their son in Chechenia, yet they support this war ("Kill those terrorists!"), they don't like the goverment, but they love authorities that made them slaves- Stalin's portrait's hang in many homes even now for example. I'm not telling that every man in RF is like that, but it's an overall of the society.
Let now analyze some behaviors that might occured that time, if 3rd WW would come:
I really support the theory that americans would retreat from european front, just because "Not our continent, not our case". It's possible that they would fight communists' invasion, but hey- even if they strike from now occupied japan, what difference does it make?
Well, maybe throw some AB's on them? That would only enrage the ruskies, making them fight even harder. That's the spirit which I meant. Russians that time, we can't forget that, were brainwashed just as germans were, but with different ideology. Remeber unecessary genocide occuring in Berlin, when it was well known that the war is lost? German nationalists shot many people who tried to escape before russians get to the city- "Fight to the last round" Hitler said, so we will fight. Even when Hitler "escaped" from the russians (you can call it escape, can't you?), they still fought for ideals which were useless and dead by then. Same case would be if russians lost Moscow or any other city in a big mushroom cloud. Remember the Moscow's burning in 1812? Remember the soviet will to fight, no matter the circumstances? Now try to imagine the propaganda it would rise- "Capitalists destroyed our beloved city with a weapon that is inhuman! Our motherland is in danger! At arms!". I see even 6-years old and disabled men fighting after such "incident".
Another scenario- lets bomb one of their armies. Ugh, sorry, reds got about ten more armies to spare. Not a chance.

2.Political factors. Soviets were not seen as liberators, just as a very needed help in defeating the fascism. Some countries were "sold" to USSR at Jalta and Pochdam, just because having ruskies as allies was more beneficial than having some minor ones. Yup, that's enraged pole talking now, but I can't help it. I don't have anything against russians or any other country nowadays, and I see why Allied officials did this to many countries in central europe, including mine. That's obvious, that if i were Churchill or Roosvelt, I would choose to be pals with reds, even if I knew their leader was one mean son of a bitch, than have some devoted allies on my side, but without any real strenght to stop soviet invasion (ironically, Poland in 1920's stopped bolshevik raid for europe practically alone). That's because allies realized, that crossing swords with a madman (yup, madman, but intelligent at the same time) won't be very bright idea, so, that's what we can call "the lesser evil". If they knew that USSR will grow to such oposition to their countries, maybe they would hesitate more. But, well, they were not prophets and... would you try to discuss with a guy who has such military and economical power and risk to cause another war just after another? U-uh, don't think so.

3.Economicla factors. At that time, Russia was indeed crippeld by war, and america's industry was blossoming because of it. But I can't see america's population fighting the same way as soviet people could. Not taking america's people courage away, but as I said- different ideology, different philosophy. And hey, if they won't invade our continent, why enlist a woman, a child and everyone else to a fight? Russia's people "resources" where almost infinite, and I can't say that about america.
With other resources, they were comparable. Both sides got their iron, gold, oil and other goods on their ground. This would only make the war longer. Remember Hitler's lack of resources, because germany had to conquer oil fields at caucasus to push their army forward and depended on import or another conquering to get iron and other metals? At the end of the war even KingTigers had weak armor because of poor steel condition and couldn't be operated because of lack in petrol. That was one of many factors leading to Hitler's defeat. In america vs russia case that wouldn't be much of a problem.

Commonwealth men resources? Wait, you suggest colonies and allies around the gloobe? Yup, that would ve many, but let me rimind you Stalin's quote: "Death of one man is tragedy, death of a million- only a statistic" and his simple philosphy- "Death solves all problems- no man, no problem". In soviet union, man wasn't a human being, just another thing to spare for "A great patriotic victory". Their men were expendable, and allied had a VERY different way in treating their soldiers. They couldn't suffer such losses as soviets did in the II WW and still be fighting. Just simple calculation: about 8 million dead red armists and more than 14 milion dead civilians and yet, they are in good condition, still eager to fight, producing their tanks and threatning whole europe. 7-8 milion is a lot more than allied armies added together, and belive it or not, another 7-8 million casualties for soviets would be just a minor loss when they have 3 times more men willing to fight for their beloved motherland and their good uncle Joseph.
Another counting- imagine that 98 out of 100 russians born in early 1920's died as soldiers in great war. But wait- there is still russians born in 1940's and later, who are kids of those survivors of IIWW and there's more than 200 milion of them now. That just explains what human resources soviet union had at that time. I'll repeat- INFINITE. Now think about INFINITE waves of men fanatically devoted to their homeland. Nice picture, eh?

4. Military issues. Yup, Allied supremacy over air and sea is a fact, but still- soviets didn't depend on naval trade routes, they had everything in their hand (unlike britain), and Russia is as big as european continent- what do you need ships for if you have about 23 000 000 (milions!) kilometers square of land beneath your feet? And seas you have in your borders are mostly the closed ones (black sea for example) or are just unpassable (arctic sea) or are well defended (japanene sea, between japanese isles and russian soil was very well fortified after japanese-russian war in 1905). Allied naval power wouldn't do a thing to USSR.
Air forces are another thing. Russians heavy depended on allied equipment, it wasn't uncommon to see russian pilots behind the steers of P-40's, Spitfires or Hurricanes, and America with their newest equipment and knowledge of a jet engine would have superiority in that matter. But still- you have to defeat countless masses of ground forces to bulid airstrips for your planes, cause that's the same problem Hitler had- they wouldn't even scratch soviet industry, located far far away in asia. And that's what the B-29s and B-17s were mainly for- carpet bombing isn't effective against moving troops, even if they are large, it's for destroying cities and industrial complexes. And tactical fighter\bombers? Yes, for tactical strikes are great, but send a wing of them, pop some tank turrets and return to base, while enemy replace their losses. As Stalin's main tactical tank directive said: "Send thousand tanks. And if that wont help, send another thousand". And belive me, soviet industry could spit their armored forces out of the factories faster than you can say "Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin". And another hint- america's industry also could produce masses of their tanks, but some factors are against americans:
1-russian tanks were hard as hell and I can't imagine any allied tank able to scratch a paint of IS2 from 1km away. And IS2/IS3 could blow up masses of tiny shermans from 2kms, if crew was skilled, and belive me, many were. Not to mention late SU tank destroyers, which could send whole allied division of tanks with their 120mm cannons back to normandy from far away.
2-While US factories could produce masses of equipment, it must be shipped to europe to defend it- that's why battle of atlantic was so important. And while sea transport can take you weeks, Russians can make a hundred tanks, put it on a train wagon and in 24 to 48h it will be on the first line to crush the oponent.

I'll try to compare some of the equipment you mention:

Garand vs Tokarev- both comparable. Both maybe a little to heavy, but in mid-range combat- deadly. Both slightly old constructions, but reliable, just as Colt1911 and TT used even now. Garand, because of it's better manufacturing wasn't such crude as Tokarev and it was more accurate. But we have a tie.
Thompson vs Ppsh41- I would go for Ppsh. Both were a bit heavy (Ppsh because of it's huge clip), but a rain of bullets which could be fired from Pepesha (as we call it here:)) in close quarter combat without changing a magazine is a big advantage. Thomson had a little clip, with more punch in it's .45 ammo. But still- 71 bullets in one place is something i would choose. Well, maybe if US used the round clip for their thompson it would be something, but on a downside- withg such clip it's weight was neraly the same as BAR, which is goddamn heavy.
Jackson vs SU 122- well, goodbye to Jackson. Even if it's good 90mm gun could hurt badly most of russian tanks, it's armor wasn't matchable to one put on SU destroyers series. Let me rimend of a fact, that Jackson with it's 90mm was called medium tank destroyer type, while SU 122 with it's 122mm cannon was also "medium", and SU/ISU 152 was not the heaviest what russians could develop in tank destroyer type. That gives a glimpse look at soviet tank philosophy. Only thing heavy enough for the reds which comes to my mind after such "medium" guns is only a Mammoth tank :)
Pershing vs IS3- Well, another win for russians. Pershing was no doubt a well manufactured tank, but one thing goes against all allied equpiment vs russian equipment even today- russian simplicity. I've witnessed on my own eyes three T-34s still running and in very good shape, after some minor repairs. Jeeez, you can just run that beast on anything, even on cooking oil and cow poop, and it may be crude and primitive looking, without all those flashy thingies on it's hull but hey- it could still shoot if there weren't law regulations in Poland against having a fully operational tank in your garage.believe me, a guy wich lives about 3kms away from my town has a nice, operational GAZ truck from 1943. Yes, it's 50% made of wood, it got engine from a tractor and looks really ugly but hey- it can go anywhere, from muddy steppes of Ukrain through deserts of mongolia to finish at Vladiwostok in snowy syberia and will still be in excellent shape. Same goes for the rest of equipment, not to look to far- whole AK series. The only army which used such simple and yet great weapon is german wehrmacht and it's MG42s, which are, yes, that's a fact jack, in use till this day.

Airforces are nothing to discuss, US and Commonwelth was better in that matter (wow, what a rhyme), but I said about airforce somewhere above.
Yet, Sturmoviks kicked ass and could take almost as many shots as B-17! Yup, they were the tanks of the sky.

Gooood, it looks a bit long, but hell, I hope you would find a will to read it all :) And now for a ciggie or two, after such brain harrasing i have to :)

[–] BilligerVogel 19 years ago

"I really support the theory that americans would retreat from european front, just because "Not our continent, not our case"."

Exactly why the US really didn't become involved till after Pearl. In 1945 the average American did not view the Russians as an "enemy" in the sense as the Japanese or the Germans. I think it would have been damn near impossible to convince Mr and Mrs America otherwise, and to continue on, as they were tired of the war(s) as it was.

Good write-up. Orwell must've thought the same...

[–] Shaolin_Apu 19 years ago

Hey...!

Yogy made another brilliant post. That was so well spoken that I am alone proud of the fact that he was giving that right after my post.

The spirit of the Red Army was really high in 1945 and it was considerably higher than that of the Western Allies. It should be however remembered that the ensuing conflict had happened at Germany and it hadn't been anymore 'A Great Patriotic War'. It had all been between Patton and Zhukov.

Cheapbird was talking way too broadly about American mentality. Americans in 1941 were thinking differently than in 1945 when the cold war broke out immediately after the WW2. Germans and even the Japannese were more America's allies after 1945 than enemies! The first conflict was the West Berlin Air-Bridge in 1947 which showed that the Americans were not completely spineless. Americans did never anymore follow the 'Monroe Doctrine' after Pearl. Eisenhower could fight a heavy war at Korea and even if it was a marginal defeat, Americans needed their Vietnam experience to end their lust to fight a major war on distant continent. Soviets got the same from Afghanistan. During the Cold War period Americans were actually fighting more actively than the Soviets.

The Apple Scruffs Corps Hon Mbr 05
Play it again Frank, I don't give a damn

[–] yoghurtt 19 years ago

Again, thanks for the reply.

Yes, that's right, after nice tete-a-tete at Laba, with some happy "pabieda" (victory) songs, some good stolichnaja in every soldier's throat and huggy-bears between aliied and soviet officials, the atmosphere was so thick you could cut it with your knife, especially when you could look at patton. It was him, as i remember, who said: "Give my my precious tanks back and we won't have to divide berlin". Still, there was major difference between soviet and allied army discipline. American grunts, even knowing, that they can be punished, would discuss the efforts ad targets of WWIII among themselves and with their superiors, if WWIII was going to start. In soviet army, such doubts and discussions were not even possible to imagine. It would be just "Zhukov tells, soldats do". So, despite the high morale of both armies, soviet amry would have this diferent "spirit" I said before- another philosophy of fighting, another methods of treating the soldier.

Yes, saying that americnas weren't touched by Europe's fate is to brutal. The Marshall's Plan proves, that they were eager to help. From polsih point of view, that would be real life-saver for my country, which suffered greatly (from 35mln population in 1938, to 26mln population after 1945, because of both soviet gulags and german concentration camps, emigration, further russian restrictions), but well... because of Jalta, we didn't have enough luck to get under american or british jurisdiction, and soviets forbidden air-supplying of countries "which were good friends to great USSR" (yeah, right).
For small comaprison, just look at eastern and western Germany- even today, as those two countries are one, you can see differences between "marshalled" west and "soviet democration" in the east.
Americans were eager to fight with communism, maybe to eager. Dunno, maybe it was some kind of their salvation after selling half of the Europe to soviets? I really don't blame them though. But, If WWIII would begin just after WWII, I can't see americans fighting in Europe, just can't. Too soon, too much. Unlike soviets, america need some time to breath between their wars, russians can fight even for 1 century and still won't be needing to stop. As i said- different philosophy.

There is also a huge difference between korean and vietnam wars. Yes, in both americans had major role, but in Korea, newly found UN also had their chance to prove useful, just to show, that they're not another League of Nations, who couldn't stop Hitler's rising. People in US really didn't care too much about that conflict- yes, they were happy their brave boys repel yellow commies, but it was still the old type of war. you can say it was WWII in small scale- allies who founded UN agains North Korea, Chineese (with soviet arms help), with huge armies in their trenches, going from one point to another.
I'm now writing my mid-term essay (and I hope I'll pass :)), and it's main topic is a change of whole fighting rules and completely new type of war, which started in Vietnam. Not only from tactical "small-squad", "full scale guerilla warfare" things, which after Vietnam are well known, in Iraq for example. It's also about letting the whole country speak, without using media as propaganda (unlike today, I must say). "Power to the people", to be short. That's not soldiers or even politicians, who ended the war, it was every american who cared about the cause (or the lack of cause) of Vietnam War. And here's another thing about morale- If soviets attacked Europe someway in vietnam and post-vietnam era, let's say between year 1965 to 1985, belive me, the people wouldn't allow their sons to fight for something they probably can't even precisily show on a map (as it was with Nam and is now with Iraq). And soviet people? They would do what they always did... Imagine a man opressed firstly by medieval warlords and boyars, than, after unification of some regions by the Tzar, and right after that by communists. And now, I'm not afraid to say it, they are still opressed, by they don't care, they've become numb, and I can say it as an eye witness. And if you are numb, you just don't care, you do what they tell you to do- whole centuries of being a slave really make a difference when it comes to waging wars against people, who know their own rights.

[–] Shaolin_Apu 19 years ago

You indeed know much of the Russians. You bring this issue of the 'slave mentality'. I remember to have read that somebody once criticized the October Revolution saying "A true revolutionary should rebel against the slavelike spirit of the Russians". It is also told of the modern Russians working at foreign lands that they just obey any orders. You don't have to tell them why something must be done - they do it without asking. It seems to be the other side of the Czarist, Communist etc. oppression. Russia is, and has always been, a land of peasants and princes. And the human rights never exsisted.

The Apple Scruffs Corps Hon Mbr 05
Play it again Frank, I don't give a damn

[–] yoghurtt 19 years ago

Well, when you live near somone, you just know him, even if you don't speak with him. I have a lot of relatives in the east, and being a pole means also that you know a lot about russians. You just have to know, which things are true and which are typical lies about other nation- my country and Russia don't like each other probably from the years before medieval times, and with that never ending conflict we're just OUGHT to know about them and they about us. But it's up for the young russians and poles to know the difference between truth and lies made up because of hatred and such.

For more comparison- Poland was erased from the map of Europe for 123 years in 1795, because of Russia, Prussia and Austria divided our land between them. And then, after a short breath for new born democracy in 1918, came Hitler, then communist occupation and bam- another 50 years out of freedom. But countries opressed in those years were different than the russians, and it's really hard to say why exactly. While hungarians under the rule of Austrian Monarchs didn't ever stop to fight for their freedom and civil rights, when poles fought and died for their country which was already nonxistent in many urpisings through the whole time of their slavery, and even romanians didn't want to be slaves to somebody else, russian people stood still. Times after the war: When Solidarity in Poland was born, when Havel made his Velvet Revolution in Checoslovakia, only soviet republics that wanted freedom freedom were those which were annected by force, such us estonia, lithuania, lotva and ukrain (well, ukrainians and russians are another history of not so good relationship)- native russians (and byelarussians, but that's another story) didn't do a thing. I don't get it, but I don't blame russians either. Even if some europeans suffered greatly during whole history, they won't understand that mentality clearly, as I can't manage to understand it fully either.

And, returning to topic- such mentality would won the war, because if you have infinite masses of people who will obey any order- you've got yourself an ideal army.

[–] rampage_dy 19 years ago

Without the Eastern Front it would have been impossible for Operation Overlord to be a success. The fighthing on the Eastern Front diverted Germany's best and elite troops to that front. The elite of the Wehermarcht and the Waffen SS were fighting on the Eastern Front. Also the Germans suffred 70-80% of thier casualties on the Eastern Front. Basically without the Red Army bleeding the German Army, it would have been easier for them to divert troops and resources to repulse an Allied invasion of Europe.

[–] BilligerVogel 19 years ago

"...If WWIII would begin just after WWII, I can't see americans fighting in Europe, just can't. Too soon, too much. Unlike soviets, america need some time to breath between their wars, russians can fight even for 1 century and still won't be needing to stop. As i said- different philosophy."

"People in US really didn't care too much about that conflict- yes, they were happy their brave boys repel yellow commies..."

Exactly my points! Thanks!

Most people that I've talked to from that generation seem to have had the attitude of "We want to stop the spread of communism, because it threatens us, but not at the cost of open hostilities on a scale or larger than that of WWII."
Occupation to deter a threat is one thing, unbrideled engagement is another. America "standing-in-the-gap" in Europe was just as much for our own protection from the USSR as it was for the peoples of Europe. The lessons of the fight with Germany had not been lost on American strategists. They knew if the continent fell, Britain would be right behind it leaving no base of operations for America in Europe. It'd probably be a long stand-off.

Concerning Korea and Vietnam, most veterans, and professionals, that I've talked with were of the opinion "What are we doing here? This isn't our war." Korea wasn't popular at home with Mr Joe Average. The cold war was fine, but the open stuff, not so hot. Vietnam was really only popular with those who were actually afraid of communist threat, those who had bought into the "hype" partly due to the McCarthy era, and maybe those who stood to profit from it. It was confusing enough for the men who fought it, much more for those at home.

I'm not trying to say we were only concerned for ourselves, but that was, and still is, the priority. Should be for any nation who wants to stand on their own. America altruist? Not on your life. No man is. But we're not completely callous either...

Puu, I'm mainly refering to "the people" not so much administrations. Admin's are what got us into Korea and Vietnam. I'm not a big fan of Presidentialy led "wars". That office should only have the ability to do so short-term, for quelling and repelling attacks and maybe campaigns for up to two years, but anything longer should require Congressional approval. If that were the case in 1950, Korea and Vietnam would more than likely not have happened as they did. If anyone looks at post WWII America at home, it is not that of a lust-for-blood nation. We much prefer deterent to conflict. Our over-all philosophy is to we fight to live, not we live to fight. To see the differences in American versus Soviet disciplines, one only has to look toward the Nuclear Navies and their reactors.

As to general American attitudes concerning Japanese/Germans immediately post-war? "They're either at your feet or at your throat." "Sneeky li'l Nip bast-" well, you get the idea... Not everyone was like that, especially servicemen who toured, but at home for those who didn't experience...

The Berlin airlift, for practical puposes, was more to show the Council of Supreme Soviets and the Europeans that we were serious in our endeavor to stand and defend. We had to let them know that we would not back down. I shudder to think what would have happened if the Soviets had openly attacked those relief craft.
To Americans at the time, that would have been a heinous act which could have brought out cries for Russian blood. It's almost as if the Americans were trying to "bait" the Soviets. (Tonkin Gulf anyone?) I really think the Bear was just 'testing' our resolve.

[–] Shaolin_Apu 19 years ago

Americans are even today at Europe. Not that much of the Russians. It's not a matter what an Average Joe wants to say about American presence, because no one of the Russians never was allowed to say did he want to go into war or not. Many of the Soviet minor nationalities were drafted into the Red Army and forced to commit human wave attacks against 'fascists' while the politruks and the NKVD troops were standing behind. If the propaganda did not made it enough clear that the fascists were evil, the Ppsh-41's did.

Americans seem to have a terrible need to prove that they never wanted any of their wars. Fine, fine, allright allright, I'm not interested in that, I don't care whose but you kick as long as it's not mine. Many of the oppresed people definitely want to have an American occupation that Communist - it is the matter of administration up there in the occupied land too. Many Palestinians, for example, have absolutely nothing against the Israeli. It is their religiously overheated leaders who brainwash teenagers to make those suicide bomber strikes. No rational person ever does that.

The Apple Scruffs Corps Hon Mbr 05
Play it again Frank, I don't give a damn

[–] yoghurtt 19 years ago

Cheap:

You're right at point of "testing". Both russians and americans knew, that WWIII won't be something that you can later discuss on some meeting and end it all. Commies were thirst of capitalists blood and vice versa. Still, that's Russia who preferred a small help (if you can call "small" shipping tons of arms and tanks to your good friends in asia to repel americans) and USA was much more to open conflict. Sorry, saying USA I meant officials, cause as we all know from our discussion- mr Average Joe wasn't to keen on fighting somewhere outside his precious continent.
Let me rimind you about nice one point in history- Cuban Crisis. It was Kennedy who wanted to send some nukes to Moscow, as he called it "Simple prevention". And this time we all should thank russians for having much more brain than JFK and withdrawing from Cuba- they could easily retaliate and vaporize Washington, but they didn't do it.

Puk:

One thing which was really wise and came from good old goatee Lenin was about relligion- it is opium for masses. In that point, he was absolutely right, even if he was a real loco with his all revolutionary stupidities.

[–] BilligerVogel 19 years ago

"Sorry, saying USA I meant officials, cause as we all know from our discussion- mr Average Joe wasn't to keen on fighting somewhere outside his precious continent."

American forces at the time of Vietnam were largely draftees. Hardly representative of a nation bent on hostilites. Realize this does not apply to the administrations at the time...

General Giap- "We were the ones who won the war and the Americans were the ones who were defeated, but let's be precise about this. What constitutes victory? The Vietnamese people never wanted war; they wanted peace. Did the Americans want war? No, they wanted peace, too. So, the victory was a victory for those people in Vietnam and in the USA who wanted peace. Who, then, were the ones defeated? Those who were after aggression at any price. And that's why we're still friends with the people of France and why we've never felt any enmity for the people of America...." (Italics mine.)

Taken with a small grain of salt, but if he noticed that fact...

"And this time we all should thank russians for having much more brain than JFK and withdrawing from Cuba- they could easily retaliate and vaporize Washington, but they didn't do it."

Yeah, we should all thank the Russians, I mean if it weren't for them taking their missles to Castro in the first place...

Personally I think they wanted us to 'see what they had'...

[–] yoghurtt 19 years ago

<i>
Yeah, we should all thank the Russians, I mean if it weren't for them taking their missles to Castro in the first place... </i>

What were you saying about testing before? :)
That was just another game, just to see how far both sides can go in that whole nuclear madness.

Another thing:
Will i be wrong if I say, that it was the americans who supplied Castro's man when he detronized Batista?
Irony, that the same fact applies when you think from where Talibs in Afganistan got their aid when they were fighting previous goverment.
Not mentioning that before North Vietnam's aggresion on the south, USA was a big pal to uncle Ho, who was fighting Chineese and cambodians that time.
I could also say something about Iran, but we all know the drill with that country.
That's funny how history sometimes can make a big joke on those, who tried to make it better, isn't it?

[–] BilligerVogel 19 years ago

Nuclear madness... sometimes It seems that dropping them on Moscow and Washington might not have been such a bad deal... ;)

You're totally right about Castro. From some sources I've heard he was a CIA spook and was schooled in the US before his Cuba days. I've often wondered if he wasn't either an "actor" to get chummy with the Sovi's so we could get info on them, or maybe he was somebody's lap-dog that got away from them. I really think the Bay-of-Pigs was 'betrayed' from the inside, somewhere way up.
It was not supposed to succeed. It was a strange time in American politics, domestic and abroad. What a mess... still even today!

"That's funny how history sometimes can make a big joke on those, who tried to make it better, isn't it?"

Very much so! History seems to be full of that warning, but not many seem to heed it. It really is the great 'cosmic joke'!

I don't know if you're familiar with a Ouiji board, but there's a saying about jigsaws and tin snips that says they are based on the Ouiji board principle, the more you try to influence their course, the more miserable your future becomes.

Maybe politics is based on this too? :)

[–] yoghurtt 19 years ago

With new "Right" goverment in my country having a Ouiji board would send you to a burning stake :) But that's a great saying, I must remember it.

And I've always said, that politics are gamblers in vegas- they may succeed several times, but in the end House always wins :)

[–] BilligerVogel 19 years ago

Lol! Yeah, the House does always win!

I don't know if you're into cars or not, but the Ouiji board bit came from Peter Egans' 'Tools Defined'. Here's a link for ya! http://home.powertech.no/egilkv/t_light.html

[–] yoghurtt 19 years ago

I'm not much of a mechanic, but I can make my 13-year good old german Audi work with a bit of a duct tape, glue, silicon and a zippo, so I've found that article amusing :) Thanks man.

[–] BilligerVogel 19 years ago

American presence in Europe was/is (?) somewhat mutually beneficial. It's about deterrent and defence, not an offensive force. It is no secret that US forces there were a sacrificial force to slow a Soviet ground campaign. They had no hope of stopping the Soviet jauggernaut. If Germany would have been attacked essentially so would the US. It was a 'passive deterrent'. You know, a 'if you attack Germany, you attack us' sort of thing. That sort of thing is usually approved by most Americans.

But we weren't going to actively open hostilities with them. And as long as they didn't do the same, everything was fine. Tense, but fine...

Have you ever watched cats that are strangers to each other? It's similar...

Korea lately...

[–] batistuta47 18 years ago

I think your analysis of weaponary is way off. A Thompson is nowhere near as heavy as a BAR, and its stopping power is simply unmatched by the ppsh. Also, the AK series was developed after the war and based off of captured German technology. Concerning tanks, the US had an overwhelming advantage in the air as you admit, and that would render the tanks' advantage over the US moot. Most importantly though, is that without the US supplies, the mobility and production rate of the Soviets would have been severely hampered. Most importantly, however, is that the US had the Atom Bomb, and obviously was not afraid to use it. That would sap morale in a hurry in my opinion.

[–] nubbytubbybiatchesgalore 15 years ago

yogurt, you're a smart guy, but i take issue with your "spirit" point. england and the US lost a combined total of 500,000 troops. the soviets lost over 20,000,000. the soviets were tired of fighting. they had no one left to fight. americans had more fresh bodies, all of whom had not even seen war. and with bases in canada's north, the US could easily have bombed all major soviet cities with the A bomb. you don't just get up after one of those drops on you. i dont care how much "spirit" you have.

i think churchill was right - the allies should not have abandoned poland and should have continued the fight to moscow.

i mean, why go to war to save europe from the nazis only to have it controlled, at least in the east, by the equally harsh soviets.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] angemo 19 years ago

Japan and Russia signed a treaty of not attacking each other.

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] angemo 19 years ago

no, that is not BS

[–] bradstory 19 years ago

Neither side won as much as Germany lost. The reason for Allied victory is because Hitler stupidly declared war on too many world powers at the same time. One moderately sized nation cannot take on the rest of the globe and realistically hope to win. All of the major Allies contributed in their own way to win the war.

The USSR used their vast manpower and land resources that led the German Army to overstretch their supplies (witness the movie that this board is about). The Germans stretched themselves too thin across an enormous front and it left them exposed to a Soviet counterattack. Also the extreme weather conditions in the USSR was something German soldiers were not accustomed to.

The Western Allies (Commonwealth and U.S.) helped to tie up the Luftwaffe in defending Germany from bomber attacks, defeat Germany at sea, and tie up a number of good divisions in Africa, Italy, France, Norway, and the other occupied nations. Divisions that helped relieve the full weight of the Wehrmacht from the eastern front. The west also produced a wide array of materials for the war effort. Some of this went to the USSR, which freed workers to produce Soviet-made tanks, planes, guns, etc.

Bottom line is that both sides did it together, but I think the victory was an inevitable conclusion after Hitler declared war on every major power in the world by the end of 1941 except Japan!

[–] Cocainefarm 19 years ago

If the Brits had taken better use of their empire, they could have beaten Germany all by themselves.

[–] Jhr_Gustaaf 19 years ago

actually, no. They're most potent possessions wer tied up in asia. Australia and Indian troops were fully committed to self defense against and then destruction of Japan. Not to mention the sheer effort of holding onto India. The entry of the USA into the pacific theatre mostly meant that they didn't have to split Canadian resources as much between theaters. Unlike the WWI, where USA entered after the outcome was decided, and merely shortened the war, US involvement in WWII was more important to the Commonwealth.

[–] Shaolin_Apu 19 years ago

Enough to deal with such crap [Blasts a Panzerfaust]

The Apple Scruffs Corps Hon Mbr 05
Play it again Frank, I don't give a damn

[–] cilicia 19 years ago

While it is true that the Americans sent a lot of supply through the Caucasus to USSR, you have to admit that USSR beat Germany, not Britain adn US (US beat Japan, so they both win WWII :)). THe USSR undertook hige sacrificies, they also felt betrayed, since the American and British landing was supposed to take place earlier, (the Italian front was a stalemate). Some historians even say that the only reason for US to land in Normandy was to keep USSR from convertin whole of Europe to Communism, I think there was a fear that the Soviets would get into France after defeating Germany. Oh and I am Armenian-American so dont think I am kind of Russian fanatic when I say USSR beat Germany, lol...just saying what I have been taught at school :)

[–] rarema 19 years ago

I was taught in school that Soviet Union is a friendly, progressive state.

It wasn't.

The Red Army had not survived without the Allied material support. It would have lost its ability to fight.

[–] cilicia 19 years ago

It would have eventually won the war, but with many more casualties

[–] rarema 19 years ago

Nope. :)

[–] cilicia 19 years ago

ok this is silly...you can never know what would happen

[–] bigeyesforbeauty 19 years ago

the USSR had inflicted about 80 percent of total German casualties of the whole war. The Second front, Africa and etc provided for the rest. That tells something. The second fro nt was opened only in the summer 1944 when the Soviets were alread crossing the USSR border and starting to liberate the Europe. The lendleasefully kicked out only in the late 1942, so the soviets stoped NAzis at Moscow/Leningrad all by themselves, without any support from the allies.
In general, Stalin's phrase comes to my mind when seombdy is talkinga about who won the war and what was the bigest contribution.
He said something like:
"It's our ommon victory:
The UK contributed its time
the USA contributed its money
and the USSR contributed its blood."

And this enourmous blood sacrivice of the Soviet people is so underestimated in teh WEst nowadays.

[–] Shaolin_Apu 19 years ago

"It's our ommon victory:
The UK contributed its time
the USA contributed its money
and the USSR contributed its blood."

That shallow generalization is just what we should never take as granted.

Out of that 80% casualties happened much after 1941 and there was much western material present for Germans to be destroyed. For the operations in the West many best German formations had to be regularly drawn from the Eastern Front and many of their best units saw their last combat in west. Germans were still around Leningrad in 1944 and many formations in the Army Group North were never destroyed and they held out against the Soviets till the end of the war. And the worst myth of all "Soviets as Liberators" HA! Yes, the whole Pacific War was just cherry picking.

If we judge decisive battles only by number of deaths, we should rate indecisive butcheries of Somme, Verdun, Ypress and Arras as one of the most important battles in the history. Huge numbers don't make anyone's war greater than others. The true victim of the WW2 is the Russian people and only true sacrifice was carried out exclusively by him and not by his another oppressor, the USSR.

The Apple Scruffs Corps Hon Mbr 05
Play it again Frank, I don't give a damn

[–] koskiewicz 19 years ago

A very educational thread here. Thanks to Puuk and Yog, I found a wealth of insight into the Russian/Soviet mindset and other mitigating factors based on the US war machine of the WWII era. I am an American of Polish and Russian descent and served in the US military during the Vietnam conflict, and am keen on understanding the past, especially Polish, eastern European and Russian histories. I totally agree with the assessment of the Russian spirit as descrbed in Yog's threads. One only need view the Eisenstein film "Alexander Nevsky" to get a glimpse of this indomitable Russian spirit. A firsthand observation I can offer is that the Kalashnikov assault rifles used by the North Vietnamese regulars during the Vietnam conflict were superior to the M16-A1 rifles deployed by American troops. Cruder in design perhaps, but far more reliable in the jungle environment. I realize that this comparison of foot soldier weapons is common knowledge. It is merely a reminder that Soviet/Russian built weapons can be formidable implements of warfare.

[–] pimpedoutyoda14 19 years ago

the allies won the war you morons.

[–] vanpeters 19 years ago

I just want to thank you Yog!
You know a lot of things about the 2WW! And know I m glad to see that there are the Poles who treated us well enough (despite I'm not agree with some of your statements). Very often people of rest of Europe and USA treat Russians as sauvages, barbarians... allies won the War et c.
I have 1/4 Polish blood and it's pitty that our countries torture itselfs with mutul reproaches. We have so much in common in our cultures!
What you could say about that :
http://imdb.com/title/tt0418763/board/nest/33421533
I think it will be interesting for you.

PS Jeszcze Polska nie zginela!:)

[–] yoghurtt 19 years ago

Sorry for such late repy. Thanks for "Jeszcze polska", nice to know that you are familiarized with polish most beloved song :)

The thread you've posted was an intersting thing to read, I'll see more to that when I'll find more time.

And about treating russians- I love your culture, your tradition and last but not least- your history, tied with ours in an unique way. I must admit- we're probsvly the most opressed countries in the world, once empires, which have fallen many times :)