Maybe I missed an explanation, or don't remember it. Why doesn't the show explain the Soviet's place in all of this? In the world maps at the end of S2 there is basically just "grey" areas. One of the main reasons Germsny was defeated in WWII was because Hitler decided to fight on two fronts and couldn't handle the Russian cold. How does the show explain away the Soviet's involvement in the story?
shareIt would have been nice but the assumption is Hitler had no trouble conquering and they fell in line easily. As much as I'm not thrilled with Russia at the moment, *ahem* Putin, I've often felt they didn't get the recognition they deserved for their part in WW2. The cold war got in the way of that.
share[deleted]
Well, let's agree that russians were always dirtbags... but I think you are mistaking (US) movie propaganda with history lessons. Russians made their mark in history, because well... they actually did their part. Just because most US productions don't really talk about it, doesn't change the facts, does it? I think it's recognize widely enough that russians basically won the war in Europe, but I wouldn't be surprised if US schools taught the history slighty different too.
shareNo, I don't think so. Americans admired the Russians very much during WWII. The related to them more than they did to the British, actually. A large army from a large country, many from rural backgrounds, coming in waves and subsisting on raw vegetables and other foods foraged from the land and as they advanced? They were mythologized, in a way.
It all changed because of the Cold War that followed, and the Iron Curtain that fell so soon after the war. Had it not been for that American/Russian relations would have been much better. In many way the American rank-and-file preferred the Russians to the Brits.
very true. the US was always a very Anti British culture until the end of WW2.
shareI don't know about Anti-Brit. It was just that once they came in close contact during the war, there was a culture clash that they might not have expected. There was probably some pre-existing resentment on both sides, but a lot of it followed pretty naturally.
It existed at the top echelons as well as with the rank-and-file. The American military brass balked at referring to British leaders as "Lord General So-And-So" and such. Even Roosevelt had a problem with it. There was some ceremony where Churchill had Roosevelt presented with some ceremonial sword or something. Churchill really liked Roosevelt (the feeling was mutual I think) and meant it as an honor, but he was uncomfortable with the ceremony and his military leaders in attendance were too and made their feelings known. It was a conflict.
I grew up and went to school in the 60s, 70s college middle 70s and I actually read history. I have always recognized the soviet union's major contribution
to WWII victory particularly in the European Theater.
Well, of course - point proven... if you actually read about history then you know. I was reacting to the strange comment about russians not having enough deserved recognition, what a weird thing to say, because what does it even mean? Number of US productions should not be measure of recognition... that's all.
shareRussia was one of the Allies during WWII.
shareIt's most likely another neutral zone between the Empires. Russia was defeated during WW2 in this universe.
shareRussia was one of the Allies during WWII.
shareFrom Mein Kempf:
We stop the endless German movement to the south and west, and turn our gaze toward the land in the east. At long last we break of the colonial and commercial policy of the pre-War period and shift to the soil policy of the future.
If we speak of soil in Europe today, we can primarily have in mind only Russia and her vassal border states.
Maybe it's not mentioned is because after it was defeated, they used Russia for nuclear testing.
share