a matter of false perspective? - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 03-15-2003, 03:13 AM   #1
Purgatory
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 1,445
Local Time: 10:29 PM
a matter of false perspective?

world war 2...

it would appear in most of the books that ive read that the united states of america won world war 2. or, rather they will say the allies won.

ofcourse, theres no denying that.

what i have a problem with, is after reading as much as i have on the topic, it would appear as though it was the ussr who truly "won" the war.

they had begged for a second front to open up since 42, and though the allies to their credit tried (see dieppe), they didn't appear on the scene until the war had already been decided.

in fact some have said the only reason the states and britain started a second front so late in the war was to stop the spread of communism in western europe. i dont agree with that, but its a theory nonetheless.

please, this is DEFINATELY not a thread diminishing the fine efforts of america, canada, the uk and many others. there were thousands who committed their lives to get rid of the worst evil mankind has probably ever seen.

but i must say i find it odd how so much of the literature i read is so quick to point out how the americans and british were so victorious...only to find out about the soviet involvement later on.

20 million soviets were killed in the war. they were invaded, they fought back fiercely and changed the tide.

i honestly believe it was because of the soviets that the war was won, because had the germans successfully invaded russia and utilized all her resources and people (for slaves), the rest of the world would have been in serious, very very serious trouble.

again, this topic refers to the general literature ive read on the matter.

thoughts?
__________________

Gickies Gageeze is offline  
Old 03-15-2003, 03:16 AM   #2
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Lilly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: back and to the left
Posts: 8,523
Local Time: 10:29 PM
i'm going to put this in regular FYM
__________________

Lilly is offline  
Old 03-15-2003, 03:21 AM   #3
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Lilly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: back and to the left
Posts: 8,523
Local Time: 10:29 PM
oh...and i'm not sure i get your point....the ussr won wwii by *asking* for another front?

or am i missing something with it?


could you elaborate a little more please?
Lilly is offline  
Old 03-15-2003, 03:27 AM   #4
Purgatory
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 1,445
Local Time: 10:29 PM
i dont know why i started this thread so late at night...im dead tired.

alright, im saying the combination of the fact that the ussr bore the brunt of the german army and came out victorious and, in my opinion anyway, would have defeated the germans alone by 1944.

i mentioned a second front because, well, i needed to give some sort of reference as to what the other allies were doing in europe.

now ofcourse, the americans gave tons of supplies and equipment to the russians, i believe that deserves to be mentioned too.

im not saying the reason WHY the russians won, im simply saying that i believe the russians did the majority (by far the majority) of the work in europe and deserve credit for doing so.

again, this whole thing should be deleted so that i can re-write this at a normal hour.
Gickies Gageeze is offline  
Old 03-15-2003, 03:35 AM   #5
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Lilly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: back and to the left
Posts: 8,523
Local Time: 10:29 PM
didn't the russians lose the most soldiers?

i know what you're talking about, or so i'd like to believe.

the russians did bear the brunt of eastern front warfare. all the allies really did was give them the supplies so the allies wouldn't have to worry about fighting a two front war (or in US case, three front). the strategy was to have russia fight by itself with mainly material - not manpower - aid.
Lilly is offline  
Old 03-15-2003, 03:41 AM   #6
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Lilly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: back and to the left
Posts: 8,523
Local Time: 10:29 PM
here is some random data i found (http://bss.sfsu.edu/tygiel/Hist427/t...iicasualty.htm)

Country ............... Military......................Civilian.........Total
Soviet Union*...... 8,668,000.............16,900,000 ......25,568,000
China ...............1,324,000.................10,000,000........11,324,000
Germany........... 3,250,000................3,810,000 ..........7,060,000
Poland ..............850,000 ................ 6,000,000.........6,850,000
Yugoslavia............300,000 ............. 1,400,000...........1,700,000
Rumania*........... 520,000...............465,000..............985,000
France*..............340,000.................470,000 ...........810,000
Hungary*.......... 750,000
Austria...............380,000 ................145,000..............525,000
Great Britain ...... 326,000.............. 62,000 ..............388,000
USA ...................295,000...........................................295,000
Holland ...............14,000................ 236,000 ............ 250,000
Canada..............42,000 .............................................42,000
Australia............ 29,000............................................ 29,000




edit to make it readable
Lilly is offline  
Old 03-15-2003, 05:32 AM   #7
The Fly
 
Zedbetty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: here
Posts: 145
Local Time: 04:29 AM
My perspective is somewhat limited, but it seemed to me that Russia had a certain geographical advantage... didn't Napoleon's armies face a similar defeat when they tried to take on the Russian winter a century or more earlier?

But I digress.
Zedbetty is offline  
Old 03-15-2003, 06:23 AM   #8
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Rono's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: the Netherlands
Posts: 6,163
Local Time: 05:29 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Zedbetty
My perspective is somewhat limited, but it seemed to me that Russia had a certain geographical advantage... didn't Napoleon's armies face a similar defeat when they tried to take on the Russian winter a century or more earlier?

But I digress.
Well, it seems to me that this advantage is a disadvantage also. If there was a big ocean surrounding Russia, the Germans would not have attacked them.
Rono is offline  
Old 03-15-2003, 11:13 AM   #9
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Lilly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: back and to the left
Posts: 8,523
Local Time: 10:29 PM
zedbetty has it right. a theme of western civilization is "don't attack russia in the winter." it's just not a bright idea.
Lilly is offline  
Old 03-15-2003, 12:03 PM   #10
Purgatory
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 1,445
Local Time: 10:29 PM
i believe the germans since the 1200's have attacked russia 6-8 times and have failed in each attempt.

thanks for those stats, they prove my point.
Gickies Gageeze is offline  
Old 03-15-2003, 01:05 PM   #11
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 04:29 AM
Some Russians feel that WW2 was the worst thing to ever happen to their country. Some famous Russian lost alot of family members in the siege of Leningrad (now St. Petersburg again). As Lilly pointed out the Soviet Union had more casualties than any other country. My sister visited Kiev, the capital of Ukraine, in September. She thinks it still looks bombed out from WW2. It's sad. War is hell.
verte76 is offline  
Old 03-15-2003, 01:21 PM   #12
Blue Crack Addict
 
meegannie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Norwich, England
Posts: 15,798
Local Time: 04:29 AM
I agree, bear. Soviet involvement was a key factor in the Allies winning WWII, and a lot of books and professors fail to mention this.
meegannie is offline  
Old 03-15-2003, 01:31 PM   #13
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 04:29 AM
Sort of related to this argument, I read a journal article a few weeks back which argued that had the Russian Revolution not happened, the Allies could have lost WWII. The logic was that during WWI (ie prior to the Revolution) Russia wasn't able to fight successfully against Germany, but after the industrialisation which occured between WWI and WWII, the USSR was strong enough to defeat Germany.

I'm not sure that I necessarily agree with it, as I wouldn't describe the five year plans etc which occured under Stalin as a natural progression of the Russian Revolution. It's an interesting point of view though.
FizzingWhizzbees is offline  
Old 03-15-2003, 02:00 PM   #14
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Giant Lemon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: out in the slipstream
Posts: 3,265
Local Time: 04:29 AM

I took a class on 20th Century American wars last semester, and one of things we discussed was the myth that the US essentially won WWII. The consensus generally seems to be that if it hadn't been for Russia the allies would've lost the war in Europe. Russia was primarily responsible for defeating the Germans, and I think the statistic was that about 85% of Germany's casualties were inflicted by Russia.

Quote:
Originally posted by Gickies Gageeze
in fact some have said the only reason the states and britain started a second front so late in the war was to stop the spread of communism in western europe. i dont agree with that, but its a theory nonetheless.
Yeah, I've heard that some people claim that the US and Britain waited so long because they wanted the majority of the casualties to be communists and not Americans and Brits. Not that I'm saying that's true or anything- just thought I'd throw it out there.
Giant Lemon is offline  
Old 03-15-2003, 03:02 PM   #15
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 04:29 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Lilly
zedbetty has it right. a theme of western civilization is "don't attack russia in the winter." it's just not a bright idea.
You've got that right. It's got one of the coldest climates on the planet.
*shiver*
verte76 is offline  
Old 03-15-2003, 11:19 PM   #16
Offishul Kitteh Doctor
Forum Moderator
 
bonosloveslave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Taking care of kitties
Posts: 9,655
Local Time: 12:29 AM
Generic World Wars question while I'm thinking of it: does anyone know, when WWI and WWII were going on, were they called "World War I" or "World War II" or something else? I know one was also called the Great War........just a curious thought I had the other day
__________________
bonosloveslave [at] interference.com
bonosloveslave is offline  
Old 03-16-2003, 12:03 AM   #17
Acrobat
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 343
Local Time: 04:29 AM
While the Russians were indeed very important to the Allied victory of World War II--and it's true that they don't get enough credit in the west--it can also be said that if not for our lend lease program through which we provided them with equipment and supplies they would have been in dire straights early on.

The Soviet army also got much better as the war progressed. This was an army that was beat back by Finland(!) in 1939 afterall. They spilled more blood than any, and certainly without the Russians it would have been a different fight. Ultimately it was both nations that turned the war, a true team effort.

I believe it was Stalin who noted that the war was won in two cities: Stalingrad and Detroit. In sum, that's a pretty accurate statement.
MSU2mike is offline  
Old 03-16-2003, 01:04 AM   #18
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,593
Local Time: 08:29 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by bonosloveslave
Generic World Wars question while I'm thinking of it: does anyone know, when WWI and WWII were going on, were they called "World War I" or "World War II" or something else? I know one was also called the Great War........just a curious thought I had the other day
I believe when they were going on they were called "The War"

after WWI it was referred to as "The Great War" (the war to end all wars) because of the number of countries iinvolved.

Well, when the second war came the WWI and WWII designations.


On a side note, I had a friend who would tell guys she really liked, that she thought they would make an excallent first husband.
deep is offline  
Old 03-16-2003, 01:51 AM   #19
Purgatory
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 1,445
Local Time: 10:29 PM
moscow is only a little further north than where i live.

ya, its cold.
Gickies Gageeze is offline  
Old 03-16-2003, 02:32 AM   #20
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Saracene's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Melbourne, Australia, some time after tea
Posts: 6,325
Local Time: 04:29 AM
If the Russians don't generally get enough credit as far as their involvement in WWII went, as much as it is unfair I can't say that it surprises me. You'll always get a different view on the war depending on the country you live in. I don't know what they teach about World War II in Russia nowadays, but when I studied it back before we moved to Australia you could get an impression that nobody was involved in the war except USSR and Germany. There was little to none mention of the Allies, D-Day, Pearl Harbour; hell, I first learned about the Holocaust when they screened Schindler's List on TV one day! For most Russians the Great Patriotic War (which started 22 June 1941 when Hitler invaded USSR and finished 9 May 1945 in Berlin) well and truly overshadows anything else that might have happened on the other fronts of WWII.
__________________

Saracene is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:29 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×