| Author |
Message |
renwan
Talk Show Host
Joined: 29 Oct 2004
Posts: 204
|
 Posted: Tue May 10, 2005 5:25 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
shame on you, you have turned a post to honour my people into a "which country sucks the most, OMFG USA suxxor!!111"
piss off...
All I have to say is: POBEDA,SLAVA CCCP!
and to the Baltics: "We are truly, deeply sorry we liberated you from the Nazis. If we knew you'd turn up to be such f*cking ungrateful bastards, we would have just bypassed your tiny insignificant countries on our way to Berlin and let you suffer under Nazi tyranny."
To the first that says that Afghanistan was a failure: I'm sure you know that Afghanistan at the time was ruled by an unpopular, but nevertheless existent communist government, which asked for Soviet military aid due to a declining situation in the country. Maybe you genuinely don't know, as most television shows and history books always call the intervention an invasion. By the early 1980s, the Soviets were actively winning the war against the rebels.
Soviets were INVITED to help to support government of DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF AFGHANISTAN. Soviets fought side-by-side with Afghanis against Islamic terrorists from Pakistan, funded by CIA.
In 1988 year, Soviets lost only 759 men, mostly to diseases.
Soviets were NOT "badly beaten", and this war was NEVER referred as "Russian Vietnam" or anything like that, because it had DOZENS of times less casualities than Vietnam.
Now honour our soldiers and our 27 million deaths from Nazi assholes or shut the fuck up
Thanx, SLAVA CCCP!
if you dont believe my words,check BBC how Afghans welc0omed soviets, if you dont believe my numbers then lets start another thread to discuss it there: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4090557.stm#Omar |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
thenuge
Frequent Guest
Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Posts: 31
Location: Midwest, USA
|
| Posted: Sun May 15, 2005 12:09 am Post subject: The 60th |
|
|
I just returned from Moscow and St Pete's and I was very impressed with the celebrations. Regardless of whether you agree, disagree or are ignorant of the political and social events of the war years, one must honor the millions of Russians who died.
Russia saved the West's butt by their resilence and determination in the face of overwhelming odds. I have serious doubts as to whether the allies would have conquered German without the Red Army.
But Russia is certainly not alone in remembering its war dead. About 10 years ago I wandered WWI's Western Front and was surprised at the ceremony and rememberance which has endured for ninety years. English, Australian, and other Commonwealth citizens continue to make annual visits to the graves of their grandfathers and great grandfathers.
Thanks Russia. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mister_wizzz
VIP
Joined: 27 May 2004
Posts: 582
|
| Posted: Sun May 15, 2005 12:27 am Post subject: Re: The 60th |
|
|
| thenuge wrote: | Russia saved the West's butt by their resilence and determination in the face of overwhelming odds. I have serious doubts as to whether the allies would have conquered German without the Red Army.
But Russia is certainly not alone in remembering its war dead. About 10 years ago I wandered WWI's Western Front and was surprised at the ceremony and rememberance which has endured for ninety years. English, Australian, and other Commonwealth citizens continue to make annual visits to the graves of their grandfathers and great grandfathers.
|
Disagree, Allies saved west butt, allies did 50% of the job and Soviet Union 50% (I am talking about USSR because not only Russians fought, Uzbeks, Kirkighz, Kazakh, Belarussian, Ukrainian and so on did also).
About your doubts, well nobody can rewrite history but you were talking about WWI ... Russia gave up the fight and allies succeed in winning the war.
Thanks all veterans. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thenuge
Frequent Guest
Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Posts: 31
Location: Midwest, USA
|
| Posted: Sun May 15, 2005 5:00 pm Post subject: USSR contributions |
|
|
You know if the USSR hadn't put up such a stubborn defense (Stalingrad,m Leningrad, Moscow) Germany would have a one front war. I doubt that we would have been able to gain a foothold on the continent.
The US, Great Britain and France didn't defeat the German army in WWI. After the Armistice they went home. The belief that the politicians had sold out Germany remained a strong and effective propaganda tool of Hitler.
I stand corrected on the use of Russia when USSR was what I meant. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mister_wizzz
VIP
Joined: 27 May 2004
Posts: 582
|
| Posted: Sun May 15, 2005 6:13 pm Post subject: Re: USSR contributions |
|
|
| thenuge wrote: | You know if the USSR hadn't put up such a stubborn defense (Stalingrad,m Leningrad, Moscow) Germany would have a one front war. I doubt that we would have been able to gain a foothold on the continent.
The US, Great Britain and France didn't defeat the German army in WWI. After the Armistice they went home. The belief that the politicians had sold out Germany remained a strong and effective propaganda tool of Hitler.
I stand corrected on the use of Russia when USSR was what I meant. |
Like I have already said, nobody can rewrite history.
Of course Allies defeated German army in WWI, otherwise Germany would have continued the fight, General Ludendorff lauched his last forces in 1918 and he failed, the conter offensive leaded by Foch broke through the front everywhere, German headquarters knew Germany was lost.
Yes the majority of destructions took place in France and Belgium and Germany hasn't been occupied because Germany accepted every conditions.
Of course Nazi propaganda got benefit of this (no destruction and no occupation) to accuse politicians for the loss of the war. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
e
VIP
Joined: 23 Apr 2005
Posts: 654
|
| Posted: Mon May 16, 2005 7:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Interesting article on the BBC that adds to the debate:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4508901.stm
| Quote: |
Who won World War II?
By Konstantin Rozhnov
BBCRussian.com
The Nazi regime collapsed in May 1945, squeezed ever more tightly between two fronts - the Soviet Union on one side and the Western Allies on the other.
But which of these fronts was the most important?
Soviet troops and equipment at Seelower Hoehen
Allied aid to the Soviet Union, from food to lorries, played a vital role
Throughout the Cold War, and ever since, each side has tended to see its own contribution as decisive.
"In the West, for some time... public opinion has taken the view that the Soviet Union played a secondary role," says the Russian historian Valentin Falin.
On the other hand, opinion polls show that two-thirds of Russians think the Soviet Union could have defeated Hitler without the Allies' help, and half think the West underestimates the Soviet contribution.
Ribbentrop's view
Richard Overy, professor of contemporary history at King's College London, notes that after the war, Hitler's foreign minister Joachim von Ribbentrop listed three main reasons for Germany's defeat:
* Unexpectedly stubborn resistance from the Soviet Union
* The large-scale supply of arms and equipment from the US to the Soviet Union, under the lend-lease agreement
* The success of the Western Allies in the struggle for air supremacy.
Because Britain and the US had to invade Europe by sea they have a sense of 'liberating' a German-conquered Europe
Professor Richard Overy,
King's College London
Mr Overy says that for decades Soviet historians underplayed the significance of US and UK lend-lease in the Soviet Union's success, but that Russia has recently shown just appreciation.
Mr Falin, however, says Russians never forgot the help they received from their allies.
"You ask any Soviet person, whether he remembers what a Dodge or a Willis is!" he says.
"The Americans supplied us with 450,000 lorries. Of course, in the final stages of the war this significantly increased our armed forces' mobility, decreased our losses and brought us, perhaps, greater success than if we had not such help."
Bombers
Mr Overy accepts that the Western powers played a smaller role on the battlefield itself than the Soviet forces but says their bombing campaigns made a huge contribution.
German POWs at Stalingrad
POWs at Stalingrad: Most German losses were on the eastern front
"Bombing diverted a lot of manpower and military equipment from the front in Russia, while it restricted the expansion of the German war economy," he says.
He also agrees that the West still only has a weak understanding of the Soviet Union's role.
"Because Britain and the US had to invade Europe by sea [Italy in 1943, and France in 1944] they have more of a sense of 'liberating' a German-conquered Europe," he says.
Second front
Mr Falin, meanwhile, argues that the war could have been brought to an end more quickly if the second front, in France, had been opened before 1944.
"How many millions of people would have remained alive?" he asks.
"Many death camps reached full power precisely in the second half of 1943 and in 1944."
Mr Overy says that the West has a view of the war as a global conflict, because of its fight against Japan, for example, whereas the Soviet view is of a "national crusade to repel the invader".
Mr Falin cites figures suggesting that German forces suffered 93% of their casualties on the Soviet front and argues that this shows the Soviet contribution was decisive.
But he adds that every single US, UK, Canadian or other Allied soldier who died "made a big, important and necessary contribution to the victory, which was a shared victory". |
[/quote] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
