Military Review

The role of the West and Russia in the Second World War

23
The role of the West and Russia in the Second World WarFor foreigners who have grown up on stereotypes about the Cold War, all this may seem the result of the prolonged influence of the Soviet dictatorship with all its military manifestations on the psyche. And if to proceed from this, then the ninth of May is just a thirst of people with a pomp to celebrate the power of Russian weapons. Perhaps a foreigner such a spectacle will seem too brutal, but this is only a bias towards the image of the Second World War.


Recalling the war in Great Britain, one involuntarily thinks about the qualities for which the nation is considered great, such as courage and determination before, it seemed, insurmountable difficulties. The battles for Britain or Dunkirk, clearly demonstrate how the British in a situation of inevitable looming failure miraculously managed to gather their courage and turn the scales in their favor. No doubt, in the United States, during the war, they composed quite a few stories about American commitment to freedom and democracy. Many Hollywood films touched on this topic and diligently contributed to the promotion of these stories to the masses.

In the endless recalculation of the virtues of war, almost no attention was paid to the Russian front, where a large number of fierce battles were fought that became decisive in consequence. The narcissistic tendency of many nations to pay attention only to the exploits of their people has already become a matter of course, which is not surprising, however, in Russia this phenomenon carries much more connections with reality than in Britain or the United States. One has only to look at the figures in order to understand how titanic the efforts of the Soviet Union were, thanks to which the fate of Hitler’s plans to seize the world was decided precisely in the eastern part of Europe. All efforts were aimed at resisting the fascist invaders, resulting in the death of the order of 20-27 of millions of Soviet citizens. While Britain lost 450 thousands of people, and the US - 420.

For three years, from 1941 to 1944, when Anglo-American forces advanced through northern Africa to Italy, the Soviet Union was the only force opposing the Third Reich (more than half of all troops were concentrated in battles with the Russians, even after landing in Normandy). The battle of Stalingrad fully showed the scale of the battle and struggle in the territory of the Union. In the battle of El Alamein in 1942, when Churchill kept saying “the beginning of the end,” the British suffered a loss of fifty thousand. For comparison, the whole sixth army of Paulus fell in the battle of Stalingrad (330 thousands of dead and 144 thousands taken prisoner).

This understatement explains why, asking about the victory of foreigners, from the Russian side sounds a kind of reproach. For this reason, many delusions have appeared on the account of the Soviet Union regarding its role in the war. For example, it is often assumed that Western countries did not pursue political goals, trying to defeat Hitler as quickly as possible, while Stalin wanted to replace the totalitarian fascist regime with his own at the first opportunity. However, this fact is contrary to the real course of events: the leadership of the United States and Britain made a choice in favor of operations in the Mediterranean, postponing the invasion of France by June 1944.

The reasons why the United States entered the war three years later the USSR can be explained. Landing from the sea and a direct strike against a fortified Europe, right in the heart of Germany, could give the military both a relative advantage and the likelihood of being in a stalemate. This strategy was to allow Britain to further strengthen its position in North Africa and the Middle East, and along the way to regain control in the Mediterranean. The military leadership of Britain constantly insisted that the position of Germany would certainly weaken before the operation. At this time, the Soviet troops were the only force that was able to force the Germans to retreat.

In April, 1942 of the year Churchill agreed to the landing in France proposed by the Americans, which was to be held next year, but he still doubted this, because believed that the correct conduct of the defense of India and the Middle East.

But the situation soon cleared up when he convinced Roosevelt to land allied forces in North Africa in 1942 (Operation Torch). Thus, plans to open a second front in the north of Europe were postponed, and the main reason for this was the lack of resources. Military operations in Italy and Sicily in 1943 were carried out by order of Churchill. However, they diverted troops from the assistance of the USSR. But a couple of months later, in 1943, under pressure from the leadership of the United States, the Prime Minister of Great Britain was forced to agree to a landing in France in May, 1944. However, Churchill still hesitated with the transfer of troops from Italy, in order to strengthen its position in the Mediterranean. The irony is that all these efforts were in vain, because as a result, geopolitical influence passed to the United States, as a tribute for cooperation.

Such a slow approach to the opening of the second front was not to the liking of the other members of the Big Three, although they tried not to express this at international meetings. In telegrams to his allies, Stalin strongly condemned them for their indifference towards the USSR. In addition, during personal meetings with leaders of other countries, he focused on the fact that the delay from the west is nothing other than an intention to speed up the defeat of the Red Army, which by that time would weaken from bloody battles. And so only allies will reap the rewards of victory. Moreover, Stalin assumed that Britain could secretly conclude a peace treaty with Germany, returning to the “established policy of appeasement,” since this was the only explanation why she was so calm about the heavy defeats of the USSR.

And although Stalin's hypotheses were not applied in practice, he had every reason to doubt the plans of the allies regarding "victory at any cost." At the requests of the USSR to open a second front were received only unclear answers. During Molotov's visit to London in June 1942, it was decided to land a small reconnaissance group in Normandy before the main operation in 1943. However, the agreement had many ambiguities, and it was far from what the leadership of the Soviet Union wanted. But, ultimately, the contract was formally concluded, obliging the Allied forces to "quickly open a second front in 1942 year." Although by this they meant their own operation "Torch".

After statements that the West did not intend to open a second front, the irritation among the leadership of the USSR intensified even more, having beaten off any desire to cooperate in the near future. Later, in 1942, Churchill arrived on a visit to Moscow in order to personally assure Stalin that, despite the inability to make a landing in France during the year, she has every chance of being held at 1943.

Not only the USSR blamed the West for inaction. Calls for the opening of the second front were made by citizens, both the United States and Britain, whose leaders could not clearly explain their indecision, because the defeat of the Soviet Union would mean a fiasco of all further attempts in the struggle against Germany. In addition, a sense of moral duty, after all, obliged. The heroic battles of the USSR allowed the postponement of the attack on Britain and enabled the US to prepare for the upcoming campaigns, so the people considered it right to strike at the first opportunity by striking the north of France. In a series of articles in the British newspaper Tribuna, she criticized state policy. “Wherever the people gather, he is only concerned with one question: when will we send reinforcements to the Soviet Union?” In the US, where 48% of the population was for the immediate opening of the front, many publications of public unions, in addition to well-known writers sent letters to the senators asking for help from the USSR.

These calls came to nothing lead: Churchill and Roosevelt were determined to carry out a military campaign in the Mediterranean, and only then open a second front. Unfortunately, the truth is that they did not take seriously the opinion of the population or advisers, not fully aware of the consequences of the defeat of the USSR. For the most part, this was the fault of Britain. At the end of 1941, when the Wehrmacht army almost captured Moscow, Stafford Krips, the British ambassador to the USSR, lamented that London didn’t take this fear seriously. With a sharp statement, he turned to his leadership and expressed the need for joint support for the Red Army until Germany destroyed it. In September of the same year, he wrote: “Unfortunately, we thought that we were not responsible for what was happening ... I am afraid that now it may be late, if only we don’t throw all the available forces to save the front.” During the first year of the war, very meager assistance followed; in addition, the USSR requested the transfer of 25-30 divisions if the allies could not create another front in France. By the time Lend-Lease began to arrive on a large scale, the Red Army won a key victory at Stalingrad in 1943, and the German army had to retreat.

The pride of Russians for Soviet weapons during the Second World War is not as veiled as the obsession with the West for its role in it. This is evidenced by Hollywood films, as well as in popular historical and documentaries. The historian Norman Davis writes the following: “... the contribution of the Soviet Union was so great that most historians have no choice but to recognize the role of Britain and the USA as secondary. The aspect ratio is far from 50 to 50, as many people like to say, speaking of a decisive blow to fascist Germany. Sooner or later, people will have to realize that the role of the USSR was key, and that the West was only insignificant. ”

It is hard to be objective when the question of valor and victory of the people is on the agenda. Nationalist views quickly become part of the worldview and therefore it is difficult to get rid of them. Among the Russians, it was believed that by its inaction, Britain wanted to direct Hitler towards Eastern Europe to expand its empire, thus creating conditions for conflict with the Soviet Union. Most of the British thought that the British government indulged Hitler, fearing a repetition of the mistakes that had plunged Europe into the slaughter of the First World War, not to mention the clash of communism and Nazism. In any case, the spark due to which World War II broke out appeared closer to the border of the USSR. But why did Britain stand up for Poland if its intention was to allow Hitler to stroll through Eastern Europe? Then, perhaps, the fact of inappropriate inactivity of Britain in the 30-s is as absurd as any traces of conspiracy theory.

The attitude of the British government to Hitler was obviously schizophrenic. Being interested in restricting German expansion, but at the same time, experiencing a greater ideological hostility towards communism than towards Nazism, Britain refused to conclude a pact with the USSR that could prevent Hitler’s further aggression and war. The Soviet Union was not invited to Munich to discuss the fate of Czechoslovakia. In addition, his proposal, which followed the end of the conference, to provide security to the countries of Eastern Europe, was immediately rejected. In the 1939 year, when Hitler’s intentions toward Poland became apparent, Britain and France entered into negotiations, but it was too late. Nevertheless, even then the hope of concluding an alliance was completely rejected by the West’s reluctance to conclude a bilateral agreement. Initially, Lord Halifax suggested adding assistance to France or Britain as one of the points in case of a conflict, but only unilaterally. During the negotiations, when the Anglo-French delegation stalled on discussing the military details of the treaty, Stalin became convinced that the West was not serious about cooperating, instead being ready to give up its words at first danger, leaving the Soviet troops to clean up the heat themselves. Many historians agree that the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was concluded precisely because of the impasse with Britain and France, that is, with the goal of winning more time.

And if the thirst of the West to show its importance has led to such errors, then how great is this desire among Russians, where pride in the wealth of the nation is in the order of things. The enormity of the efforts made to win, unfortunately, left in the shadow of things that had to be sacrificed during the defense. The invasion of Poland, as well as the shooting of Polish officers, the joining of the Baltic countries, the arrest of dissidents, the links of national minorities and the establishment of control in Eastern Europe — this sounds less attractive, and yet deserves more attention.

The problems that the Russian people had to meet after the sudden collapse of the Soviet Union definitely played the same role at the time when it was necessary to rally to confront the common threat. In his speech, Vladimir Putin recalled this, referring to the duration of the war with the words: “The main strength of such a holy kinship is love for Russia, for his home, for his loved ones and family. These values ​​unite us today. All our people fought for them. ”

But why should the people look for their greatness in the events of the war? After all, it is nothing but a massacre on an industrial scale. Human ingenuity is aimed at finding more effective methods of killing more people. Scientists create such weapon, economists strive to maximize its production, and the media are trying to cause as much aggression among the population to the enemy. The soldier motivates himself that the slaughter is being done for the sake of a just cause, and the actions that had previously averted him were now something gallant. A US Army officer during the Second World War, and subsequently a renowned literature professor, Paul Fassel, remembered the feeling when you came across a clearing strewn with the corpses of German soldiers - “it completely deprives teenage illusions; and you realize that you will never see the world in the same color. ” Commenting with irony on the hellish conditions that his platoon had to meet during the advance, he noted: “Anyway, our main task was to survive. Yes, we knew about the Jews. But our skins were more precious to us. ” Bloodshed is also an example of heroism, but it testifies more to the strength of the spirit than to the desire to commit violence. Overwhelmingly, the war reveals the worst traits in people, but some are able to overcome them. However, this fact should not hide the fact that citizens are participants in the massacre, which greatly affects the psyche. And the truth is, especially in Britain, the love of the values ​​Putin mentioned: family and home, forces veterans to avoid talking about the things they have been through, until their children or grandchildren want to save these memories for future generations. .

Of course, veterans did not hide their involvement in the killings. The post-war years in each of the victorious powers were marked by a surge of hope and expectation of a better future. In Britain, the conservative party was replaced by the labor party, which soon began to implement extensive social reforms. In the USA, Henry Wallace promoted the idea of ​​an “ordinary man era” during the 1948 presidential election campaign, focusing on establishing good relations with the Soviet Union and solving social problems in his country. In the USSR, people hoped for an end to authoritarian rule, repression, and arbitrary arrest, which killed many lives in the 30's. By and large, these hopes did not materialize when the shaky devotion of political leaders to the people quickly gave way to a thirst for rearmament. First of all, the war left a long imprint on international relations. The leadership of the countries distorted its consequences for personal purposes to create the basis for further conflicts committed under the pretext of the spread of democracy. The naive desire to view war as the pinnacle of the history of our people is only a miserable attempt to justify the vanity of those who fought in it.

The former gunner, the representative of the “great generation”, and the historian Howard Zinn responded to the glorification of the Second World War and its participants in the following lines: “I refuse to honor them as representatives of the“ great generation ”because so we honor courage and self-sacrifice in the name of war. And we do not correctly interpret to the younger generation that military heroism is the best form of its manifestation, while in the hands of cunning politicians it is just an auxiliary tool, driven by power and profit. Of course, the current fascination with the Second World War prepares us, some deliberately, others - no, for more wars, adventures, more and more often to follow the example of heroes from the past.

The victory parade in 2008, in which Russia showed the full power of the armed forces, was the most expensive since the collapse of the Soviet Union. In the same year, they didn’t regret money for anything: they even made sure that the clouds were sufficiently scattered so that last year’s incident did not happen again. Being forgotten in the nineties, Victory Day was revived, at least to the scale of the times of the USSR.

The work of Russian cinema echoes the renewed interest of the state in the Second World War. An interesting fact is that some of the best Soviet films did not praise the resilience of a simple Soviet citizen, but paid great attention to the harsh reality of the conflict itself. Unlike Western films, such as Saving Private Ryan, where vivid battle scenes are used to describe the leitmotive about the sacrificial nature of war, the best Soviet films were so full of idealism that after watching them you are very doubtful about the virtuous qualities of war. In the film Ivan's Childhood, which was filmed in 1962, a twelve-year-old boy has to carry out the officer’s orders when going on dangerous missions. . These films show how much pressure a war has on a person.

Delicacy is definitely not the word that would characterize modern Russian films, if we compare them with the worst Hollywood creations, given the superficial approach to the description of the Second World War. In one of the latest films "Match", based on real events, we are talking about a group of Soviet prisoners of war who beat the Nazis in a symbolic football match. As one would expect, the picture is replete with patriotic appeals. The filmmakers defined its genre as a “historical-patriotic drama”. He was shown in cinemas in time for the Victory Day.

There is no reason to believe that the temporary distance from the Second World War will force the future generation to pay less attention to it than now, when our direct connection with it is already insignificant. The interest of the state in preserving the memory of the war as national pride is too strong to disappear. In each former union country, people will continue to admire former glory, and the state will continue to pay attention to such virtues as unity in difficult times and faith in the righteousness of the armed forces. The active participation of the country's leaders in maintaining the memory of the Second World War is especially alarming, because without the emergence of a state with its bureaucracy and total control over citizens, wars would not have such devastating consequences. It is as involved in war as Tanks or machine guns. Indeed, the feigned attitude towards the victims of conflicts of the past and attempts to create an appropriate atmosphere among the population hide the fact that this massacre was carried out by cold and prudent actions of a faceless power. Millions of people are called to the front, torn from their relatives and forced to fight.

Somehow George Orwell wrote an article criticizing his British colleagues, who condemned the royal air force bombing of the German civilian population. They are mistaken, as he argued, that the war must be humane. “Wars take the healthiest and bravest men. Every time when a German submarine sinks, along with it the whole of its crew goes under the water. However, people who criticize the bombing of the civilian population declare with satisfaction the victory in the battles for the Atlantic. ”

This statement contains more than the truth. Indignation towards specific atrocities hides the fact that war itself is such. As a result, the victorious countries, trying to festively commemorate the memory of the Second World War, forget that it really is.
Originator:
http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/05/17/russia-the-west-and-world-war-ii/
23 comments
Ad

The editorial board of Voenniy Obozreniye urgently needs a proofreader. Requirements: impeccable knowledge of the Russian language, diligence, discipline. Contact: [email protected]

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. ars_pro
    ars_pro 14 June 2013 15: 25 New
    +1
    What other role? except that the aggressors rallied against the "Bear", but about what they say right now they are rassing, then even in ancient times it was said let it be either yes or no, everything else is from the evil one !!!
    1. cartridge
      cartridge 14 June 2013 17: 54 New
      10
      Insight into some politicians comes too late!
      1. pensioner
        pensioner 14 June 2013 18: 04 New
        +2
        I look Cartridge you do not end today ... Where do we get? Share it!
        1. Very old
          Very old 14 June 2013 18: 51 New
          +1
          Go to wikipedia
          1. pensioner
            pensioner 14 June 2013 18: 56 New
            0
            I will try. Thank.
  2. Strashila
    Strashila 14 June 2013 15: 27 New
    12
    Hitler = Al Qaeda, both were grown up by the West against the USSR. Both of them, after having achieved no one's growth, lost control. If Hitler was still able to set the USSR on, then Russia still has to work with Al Qaeda to accelerate.
    1. Very old
      Very old 14 June 2013 17: 47 New
      +4
      Since the time of Alexei Mikhailovich the Quietest - Gr.Br. was a foe. And today
  3. seller trucks
    seller trucks 14 June 2013 15: 41 New
    +3
    “... The contribution of the Soviet Union was so great that most historians have no choice but to recognize the role of Britain and the USA as secondary. The aspect ratio is far from 50 at 50, as many people like to say, speaking of a decisive blow to fascist Germany. Sooner or later, people will have to realize that the role of the USSR was key, and that the West was only insignificant. ”


    Well, one can argue with this, not in terms of defeating fascism, of course, but in the role of the West, inciting and financing the aforementioned, here they (the USA and the World Bank) are undeniable, Germany and the USSR, but to heaps and half of Europe are in ruins, and THESE in chocolode
    1. Very old
      Very old 14 June 2013 17: 50 New
      0
      And what did you want to say, but did not say?
  4. Yozhas
    Yozhas 14 June 2013 15: 41 New
    16
    Our grandfathers, even without cowardly allies, would defeat fascism and take Berlin - this is only a matter of time, but also, unfortunately, people's lives.
    1. Very old
      Very old 14 June 2013 17: 53 New
      +3
      Hedgehog, thanks. That's just from our surname I am left alone. And very very old
  5. The comment was deleted.
  6. Standard Oil
    Standard Oil 14 June 2013 15: 42 New
    +7
    “For a long time it was already possible to predict that this furious hatred, which for thirty years, every year more and more, was inflamed in the West against Russia, would one day break loose. This moment has come. Russia was simply offered suicide, a renunciation of the very foundation of their existence, a solemn recognition that it is nothing else in the world, a wild and ugly phenomenon, an evil requiring correction ”
    Russian poet, diplomat F. Tyutchev
    Actually as 200,100 years ago and now.
  7. Alex65
    Alex65 14 June 2013 15: 43 New
    11
    ,,, Dunkirk, clearly demonstrate how the British, in a situation of imminent impending failure, miraculously managed to gather courage and turn the scales in their favor ,,, they just gave them time to leave
  8. AntonR7
    AntonR7 14 June 2013 15: 52 New
    +4
    Time will put everything in its place and then Western people will understand the true role of everyone in the war, our task is to keep our history and protect it from sedition.
  9. deman73
    deman73 14 June 2013 15: 54 New
    +2
    And not only Dunkern’s German offensive in Normandy in winter 44 clearly showed that the Allies as warriors are bad and in Africa, the Boschs banged them well too
    1. zennon
      zennon 14 June 2013 19: 17 New
      0
      Quote: deman73
      And not only Dunkern's German offensive in Normandy in winter 44 clearly showed that the Allies as warriors are bad ...

      And this despite the fact that the Germans did not have a serious grouping there. Subsequently, the former chief of the general staff of the Wehrmacht ground forces, General Halder, wrote: "The forces used for the offensive in the Ardennes were the last pennies of an impoverished man ... In any case, it was unacceptable to put the task of breaking through from the Ardennes to Antwerp to several divisions that did not have sufficient fuel supplies, had a limited amount of ammunition and did not receive air support. "Tank units had fuel for 120 km of the way. However, the same 12th Panzer Division" Hitlerjugend ", having in the majority boys 16-18 years old so from ..... la Canadians, destroying 28 tanks from them, that they began to have cases of desertion. The Highlanders of Nova Scotia infantry regiment just fled from them! And these are our allies who were ready to fight for 3 years!
  10. knn54
    knn54 14 June 2013 16: 02 New
    +2
    Churchill, in a personal letter to JV Stalin on September 27, 1944, wrote that “it was the Russian army that released the guts from the German military machine”
    “This monument will embody the strongest sense of gratitude that we feel for the Russian people who bravely fought with the Nazis and played a DECISIVE ROLE in the victory of the Allied countries in World War II and in the liberation of Jews from concentration camps,” Netanyahu said in preparation for the opening in Israel's monument in honor of the victory of the Red Army over Nazi Germany.
    The West needs the Russians to forget what it is like to fight for their homeland. And to win.
    PS "When the ideological influence of the bourgeoisie on the workers falls, is undermined, weakens, the bourgeoisie has always and everywhere resorted and will resort to the most desperate lies and slander." V.I. Lenin
    1. zennon
      zennon 14 June 2013 19: 23 New
      0
      Quote: knn54
      Churchill, in a personal letter to JV Stalin on September 27, 1944, wrote that “it was the Russian army that released the guts from the German military machine”

      He wrote a lot. For example to Stalin: "Our descendants, just like us, UNDoubtlessly recognize the decisive role of the Red Army ..."
      Well, where do we see it?
  11. The comment was deleted.
  12. agbykov
    agbykov 14 June 2013 16: 22 New
    +2
    Sly article: along with the obvious truths, an attempt is still visible to "whitewash" the unsightly moments of the West's participation in World War II. In my opinion, this article is a classic example of mind manipulation.
  13. krez-74
    krez-74 14 June 2013 16: 39 New
    +4
    In general, it is ridiculous that the German people went to that slaughter in that war, and after that it also pays forever to someone, restoring and bowing forever. This is how a strong rival was removed from the road.
    Nobody remembers about the fact that the Germans wanted to wipe the Russian people off the face of the earth!
    Here it is, the duplicity and hypocrisy of the West !!! As soon as the boobies in power in Germany and in Russia understand that by drawing closer they will crush the whole world under themselves, then peace and order will come in the world - but they will not let this happen and I think they will never.
    1. lived in union
      lived in union 14 June 2013 16: 54 New
      +3
      from time immemorial, western ideology has some kind of hatred towards us
      1. Very old
        Very old 14 June 2013 18: 00 New
        +1
        So this is normal
    2. seller trucks
      seller trucks 14 June 2013 17: 04 New
      +5
      Quote: krez-74
      As soon as the boobies in power in Germany and in Russia understand that by drawing closer they will crush the whole world under themselves, then peace and order will come in the world - but they will not let this happen and I think they will never.


      golden words, always promoted this idea, the union of Germany-Russia is a goddamn thing, just a little correct, they "did not go", but they were thrown by the Anglo-Saxon bankers. In Germany, after the end of WWII, all cities with a population of over 100 people were completely destroyed, there is also an interesting fact that the Allied aviation did not bomb industrial enterprises, but exclusively civilian quarters, and you very correctly noted that the state of Israel was built on reparations from Germany. There is one more thing, there was an idea of ​​total sterilization of the male population of Germany

      In Germany, according to various estimates, from 300 thousand to 1,5 million civilians died from bombing.
      “The strategic bombings were aimed primarily at destroying women, children and the elderly,” emphasizes Major General Hans Rumpfa. Of the total number of 955 044 thousand bombs dropped by the British on Germany, 430 747 tons fell on the city.
      http://www.vokrugsveta.ru/vs/article/406/
    3. Very old
      Very old 14 June 2013 17: 58 New
      0
      Krez-74, x - m you can not beat the oak, we need other methods
  14. soldier's grandson
    soldier's grandson 14 June 2013 16: 52 New
    +6
    it’s my grandfathers who broke the backbone of the Nazis and the Japanese and no Western films and documents will convince me of this and my children will also
    1. Very old
      Very old 14 June 2013 19: 03 New
      0
      And mine. And I will always be with you. No Washington, Hollywood will convince us - we will not allow our children to be zombified, We are the richest, most democratic, the most, THE RICHEST, yes. Strong yes. But the scum - yes
    2. zennon
      zennon 14 June 2013 19: 29 New
      0
      Quote: soldier's grandson
      it’s my grandfathers who broke the backbone of the Nazis and the Japanese and no Western films and documents will convince me of this and my children will also

      Nothing, nothing! They always have enough money for Spielberg’s Saving Private Ryan. The film is also shown with success ...
  15. knn54
    knn54 14 June 2013 16: 56 New
    +4
    -super grandson: ... my children will also count.
    Then the grandchildren will think so.
    After all, there is a law, it is not proposed,
    Its original meaning is as follows:
    There are no good youth
    Where there are no good old people.
  16. The comment was deleted.
  17. Algor73
    Algor73 14 June 2013 17: 21 New
    +3
    The war was won by ordinary Soviet people. Recently, for some reason, the role of other union republics in the Second World War has been used, and it seems that Russia alone won the war. Yes, her role in the Victory is enormous, but to discount other republics is disrespectful even to the memory of those who fought, who worked in the rear. Thanks to the rear, the Union was able to withstand. Even though the war did not catch Asia, thanks to Baku oil, there was fuel; evacuated backwaters from the Ukraine, Belarus, set up the production of weapons in the deep rear; and the selfless labor of women, children of the entire Union ?! It was in the rear that the Second Front was. Of course, Lend-Lease helped us healthy, as did the opening of the "Other" front, saved hundreds of thousands of lives, but alas, they did not play a decisive role.
    1. Very old
      Very old 14 June 2013 19: 11 New
      0
      Algor, you’re right, we’re just talking about our common. And here everything is RUSSIA. And the Uzbek, and the Tatar and ... All to list? More than 120
    2. Setrac
      Setrac 16 June 2013 16: 49 New
      +1
      Quote: Algor73
      The simple Soviet people won the war. Recently, for some reason, the role of other union republics in the Great Patriotic War has been used, and it seems that Russia alone won the war.

      Claims are not addressed, please contact your own governments, why they are denying this victory.
  18. StrateG
    StrateG 14 June 2013 17: 24 New
    +4
    The role of the West and Russia in the Second World War


    The role of Russia in World War II, discussion IS NOT SUBJECT TO
  19. Micex
    Micex 14 June 2013 17: 26 New
    +5
    The Great Patriotic War is one of the few events whose memory is able to unite our country and our such different citizens. And the fact that more and more attention is being paid to this - I see only positive aspects in this.
  20. mogus
    mogus 14 June 2013 17: 46 New
    +2
    so "brave" allies were that after the Second World War they decided to create "Gladio" http://greatoperation.narod.ru/5/gladio.htm.
  21. Goldmitro
    Goldmitro 14 June 2013 17: 58 New
    +1
    <<< The narcissistic tendency of many nations to pay attention only to the exploits of their people has already become in the order of things, which is not surprising, nevertheless, in Russia this phenomenon carries much more connections with reality than in Britain or the United States. One has only to look at the numbers to understand how titanic were the efforts of the Soviet Union, thanks to which the fate of Hitler's plans to conquer the world was decided in the eastern part of Europe. >>>
    No matter how tendentious, the Western media, with the support of various "experts", biased "historians" and Hollywood, which claims to be the main (if not the only) world factory for the production of historically accurate and truthful films, did not try to EXTRACT the role of the United States and Britain in the defeat of fascism, to push back The USSR (for the West, this is all one Russia) to the background, turning it almost into a victim of fascism they saved, they will never be able to prove the main argument - to make a film about the TAKING OF Berlin by the Allied troops and hoisting the SIGN of VICTORY over the Reichstag! Because the hornet's nest of fascism - Berlin was taken by the Soviet Army and the BANNER OF VICTORY over the Reichstag was hoisted by the RUSSIAN Soldier! And these facts, convincingly confirming the decisive role of the USSR (Russia) in the defeat of fascism, will remain in history FOREVER !!!
    1. Very old
      Very old 14 June 2013 19: 16 New
      0
      As punishment did the Wehrmacht soldiers (officers) be sent to the Western Front?
      1. Rattenfanger
        Rattenfanger 14 June 2013 23: 42 New
        0
        Quote: Very old
        As punishment did the Wehrmacht soldiers (officers) be sent to the Western Front?

        Quite the opposite: units and formations were withdrawn to the West, marked "for rest and re-formation."
        Even in January 45, the bloodshed and disheveled Wehrmacht scared the "allies" in the Ardennes to hiccups. Those in all seriousness considered the issue of evacuation in the event that the Russians did not start the offensive ahead of time, and thus did not stop the Germans.
        1945 year. 850 thousand pi_n_dosov and 320 thousand Germans. Western front.
  22. individual
    individual 14 June 2013 17: 58 New
    +4
    For some reason, the author does not write that only the Soviet authoritarianism he was able to break the ridge of German fascism before kneeling European democracy. He does not write that all European states fell from a week to two months to Germany. Where is their courage and courage in the background Great Victory of the Soviet Soldier.
  23. Goldmitro
    Goldmitro 14 June 2013 18: 00 New
    +3
    <<< The narcissistic tendency of many nations to pay attention only to the exploits of their people has already become in the order of things, which is not surprising, nevertheless, in Russia this phenomenon carries much more connections with reality than in Britain or the United States. One has only to look at the numbers to understand how titanic were the efforts of the Soviet Union, thanks to which the fate of Hitler's plans to conquer the world was decided in the eastern part of Europe. >>>
    No matter how tendentious, the Western media, with the support of various "experts", biased "historians" and Hollywood, which claims to be the main (if not the only) world factory for the production of historically accurate and truthful films, did not try to EXTRACT the role of the United States and Britain in the defeat of fascism, to push back The USSR (for the West, this is all one Russia) to the background, turning it almost into a victim of fascism they saved, they will never be able to prove the main argument - to make a film about the TAKING OF Berlin by the Allied troops and hoisting the SIGN of VICTORY over the Reichstag! Because the hornet's nest of fascism - Berlin was taken by the Soviet Army and the BANNER OF VICTORY over the Reichstag was hoisted by the RUSSIAN Soldier! And these facts, convincingly confirming the decisive role of the USSR (Russia) in the defeat of fascism, will remain in history FOREVER !!!
    1. sergeschern
      sergeschern 14 June 2013 18: 41 New
      0
      That's right, brother!
  24. MIKHAN
    MIKHAN 14 June 2013 18: 32 New
    +1
    The West, lulled by its economic and military might, has forgotten a lot in the last 20 years .. it's time to remind them of how the word "Russians are coming !!" they climbed under the tables ... and scattered in panic ... and also from history the statement of Otto von Bismarck:
    - The preventive war against Russia - suicide due to fear of death. "
    "Never believe the Russians, for the Russians don't even trust themselves."
    - Russia is dangerous by the meagerness of its needs.
    - It is impossible to defeat the Russians, we have seen this for hundreds of years. But you can instill false values, and then they will defeat themselves!
    “The Russians harness for a long time, but drive fast.”
    - Never fight with the Russians. They will respond to each of your military tricks with unpredictable stupidity.

    Hitler did not believe Bismarck .. the result is known to everyone !!!
    The West wants to check it again, well, well ..
  25. MIKHAN
    MIKHAN 14 June 2013 18: 32 New
    +1
    The West, lulled by its economic and military might, has forgotten a lot in the last 20 years .. it's time to remind them of how the word "Russians are coming !!" they climbed under the tables ... and scattered in panic ... and also from history the statement of Otto von Bismarck:
    - The preventive war against Russia - suicide due to fear of death. "
    "Never believe the Russians, for the Russians don't even trust themselves."
    - Russia is dangerous by the meagerness of its needs.
    - It is impossible to defeat the Russians, we have seen this for hundreds of years. But you can instill false values, and then they will defeat themselves!
    “The Russians harness for a long time, but drive fast.”
    - Never fight with the Russians. They will respond to each of your military tricks with unpredictable stupidity.

    Hitler did not believe Bismarck .. the result is known to everyone !!!
    The West wants to check it again, well, well ..
  26. Alikovo
    Alikovo 14 June 2013 18: 47 New
    +3
    in the west, schools teach that the decisive battles were not on the eastern front, but on the Pacific frontier — Midway Atoll, and North Africa – El Alamein.
  27. MIKHAN
    MIKHAN 14 June 2013 19: 19 New
    0
    We have a rich culture, history, especially military .. and to someone something to prove verbally I think it makes no sense If we have to prove by actions who we are and what we can !!! For this we are afraid of all sorts .. that we can severely punish for all the lies, robberies and killings of the planet’s population ..
  28. MIKHAN
    MIKHAN 14 June 2013 19: 20 New
    0
    We have a rich culture, history, especially military .. and to someone something to prove verbally I think it makes no sense If we have to prove by actions who we are and what we can !!! For this we are afraid of all sorts .. that we can severely punish for all the lies, robberies and killings of the planet’s population ..
  29. soldier's grandson
    soldier's grandson 14 June 2013 21: 47 New
    +2
    I remember the words of my grandfather when he was alive: the real warriors were We and the Germans and the allies never showed heroism if you watch Hollywood films and remember what he told, these warriors differed as white and black
  30. Rattenfanger
    Rattenfanger 14 June 2013 22: 59 New
    +2
    The battles for Britain or Dunkirk demonstrate how the British, in a situation of imminent impending failure, miraculously managed to gather courage and turn the scales in their favor.

    That is not worth singing about Dunkirk in the context "the naglich people gathered at a difficult moment, and how they gave the Fritz a thrush!" Let me remind you that on May 20, 1940, Ewald Kleist with his tank group named after himself, his beloved, went in the Abbeville area to the strait, thereby cutting off the Allied troops. The Belgians, on the orders of Leopold (the king, not the cat), quickly made "hands up the hill". The British and French were trapped on a site of 1000 sq. Km. Day and night, 28 divisions peered into the horizon, trying to see the fluffy tail of a well-fed polar fox. But no, it did. From what they were, I think, in a slight stupor. Having abandoned all heavy equipment and weapons, with only small arms, the Gauls and Naglo-Saxons quickly jumped into the scows and sailed to the chalk cliffs of Dover.
    BUT! An even greater fatigue was experienced from this fact in OKV and OKH. On May 24, at 20:20 p.m. Berlin time, an order was issued in units and formations with a ban on conducting offensive operations against those around. I gave the order to Comrade Hitler Rundstedt, von Levinsky, Kleist, Halder ... everything is upset.
    So in the operation "Dynamo" (evacuation plan from near Dunkirk), the merit is not of the English, but of the Fuhrer of the German nation. Why did he do it, I think it is not worth explaining.
  31. soldier's grandson
    soldier's grandson 15 June 2013 10: 15 New
    0
    USA won in economic terms, receiving 2 tons of gold for landlis increased production there were new jobs the USSR was a huge market for them
  32. askkasko
    askkasko 15 June 2013 17: 25 New
    0
    I want to share with you my recent discovery, this is a service for finding any information about a person! As I saw, I looked and thought that it was all a divorce, but after a minute I was horrified to see all the information about myself, about my friends, about my boyfriend! There is literally everything there and it's all in the public domain! http://ovpoisk.gu.ma