Wow, what a discussion i had yesterday!

[Guest]

Alright there!

As some of you know i've been here in Moscow for a couple of years now. I had this rather rich debate yesterday with some friends about the war. Everyone has their own personal yet patriotic views on the thing whether British, Russian or American.

I became very fascinated with old Soviet propagnda in so far as they had never heard of D-Day (many do now of course), the war in Africa etc but were only ever taught about the Soviet struggle against the Nazis. The Russians even today maintain that they won the war for the world and their yearly Victory Day is as great a celebration as our Christmas or England winning the World Cup. During the discussion, i did admit that the Soviets did face most of the onslaught from the Nazis but the discussion became rather heated when i mentioned the Lend-Lease programme, mulitple fronts, Stalin begging for a second front in Europe etc.

It would be interesting to know if any of you have ever come across such occassions where people maintain that Britain, or America won the war for the world. How do you feel about that when you hear it? Even when i said to my Russian friends that it was a combined effort, the reply was "OhhhWe could have one it alone anyway moi angliski tavarish! (my english comrade)"

Interesting

Paul

Sorry if this is boring, just wanted to share this with people here who know what they're talking about.

[Gern]

Hi Paul,

Every allied country involved in WWII contributed something towards victory. As long as there are different nationalities in a discussion, there'll be a difference of opinion on the value of their own country's contribution! It's hard to disagree with the idea that the Russian contribution was massive. Whether it was decisive is a whole other kettle of fish though.

It's an extension of the arguments between groups of football fans supporting different teams - I don't mean the pitched battles you read about. I think people involved in these only use football as a reason for a fight - everyone will have an argument to either support their own team, or one to put down the opposition team.

The arguments extend throughout society and are subject to a whole range of different influences. You mentioned Russian propaganda. Don't forget that other countries used similar messages. There's a whole generation of Americans who believe the war was won by a small handful of characters like Audie Murphy, John Wayne, Richard Widmark etc. I don't mean the actors! I mean the individual rugged hero types that they played. Their actions were decisive - the thousands of other people involved were just the supporting cast!

I have to say it's interesting to hear what the other guys think and try to work out why they think that way. I don't think it's advisable to search too hard or too long for definitive answers though. That way madness lies!

Just my 2p worth.

Gern

[Guest]

That sounds an interesting conversation Paul & what Gern says is very true! I think that we often forget how much information we can get our hands on these days & conversely, how little information was available to the public during wartime. Most people got their news through highly controlled & censored media such as the 'wireless' (radio to you under 40's!) or the cinema newsreels. Hence the importance of films that were really propaganda devices under the guise of 'entertainment' (though most are still damn good films!)

I would say (as I've read far too many books on the subject) that the Russians would have beaten the Germans in the end, maybe not as soon as '45 but eventually, especially when you consider that in 1942-43, average Russian tank production was 2500 a month-that's nearly as many as the Germans made a year! Our contribution helped them hugely though-Stalin recognised this when he praised the efforts of the Royal & Merchant navies after the war.

My belief of why the Russians did so well (especially considering their awful start) was that they were 100% behind the war effort. If it needed doing, then it was done. Even by 1944, Hitler still wouldn't let German women work in factories & whereas he made terrible strategic decisions based on his political ideals, Stalin was the ultimate pragmatist who wasn't afraid to make complete U-turns. Compare his pre-war objection to 'tank armies' to his support for the same formations by 1943 as an example!

Well I've hogged this thread far too much & now I'm off to get a life!

Patrick

[stona]

I came accross a simlar attitude years ago when working (briefly) in the then Soviet Union. We visited a museum in St Petersburg (then still Leningrad) to be shown how the Soviet system won the war. They had a huge clear perspex type map of Europe with the various fronts in late 1944 illustrated. It looked a bit like the war room from Dr Strangelove,("Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room.")

In Normandy was a blue line representing the western front,maybe 300 miles long. On the other side was a red line extending accross what we then called eastern Europe for thousands of miles. I had to concede they had a point! It didn't seem like a good time to mention the Mediterranean,let alone the Pacific war.

I do remember reading that 90% of German losses in men and materiel were on the eastern front. I do not wish in any way to diminish the contribution of the western allies in Europe but I think it is entirely possible that the Soviets would have prevailed eventually. It would surely have taken much longer. We would all be speaking Russian,not German today. One thing is for sure, the Soviet Union never had the option,open to western states, to come to some kind of understanding with nazi Germany. The war in the East was understood by both sides to be a battle of annihilation and was fought with the brutality that that understanding entailed. Someone had to win.

What ifs are great fun,but of course we'll never know.

Steve

[Guest]

Wow! Some interesting posts here. I also agree that it would have been a question of time before the Sovietd would have won but at a much higher cost.

You're absoutely right Patrick, a lot of Russian women were behind the war effort. Many were fighting and belonged to groups of resistance. As i mentioned on another post with my tank museum pics, i even met an old lady who commanded a T-34 tank in Berlin.

And Gern, yes, you're spot on i think. Opinions vary from country to country and literature can sometimes seem biased depending on the origins of the author. Steven Ambrose's undertone in his books seem to play down the British effort somewhat and praises the American's.

if i come across more stuff, i'll post it here if anyone is interested

Paul

[Guest]

Alright Paul

This is an interesting argument! You are a brave man I think 'discussing' these issues with the Russians in the heart of their motherland! But I guess you have been there a while, speak the lingo so you know what you can safely get away with!

You can always remind them (very politely,of course) that Britain (and France) were the only countries who stood up to Hitler on principle. The USSR waited until it had to fight, as did the USA.

I don't think I would be brave enough to also mention the Molotov-Ribbentrop thing...

Well I envy you in Moscow, it's one city I would love to see and of course visit the famous Monino aviation museem to see the Bounder, the Charger and all the rest!

Cheers, saul

[Gern]

Hi folks,

I'd like to put another 2p worth into this pot.

I think much of this kind of argument/debate/discussion is based on loyalty. We're all loyal to our immediate family. If there are arguments between siblings, it's OK for mom/dad to step in to try and sort it out 'cos they're family. If an outsider tries to help though, more often than not the siblings declare a truce and join together to drive away the outsider! And if necessary, mom & dad will join in to help.

This idea of loyalty begins with the family, but it doesn't end there. It moves on up through our social groupings: pub quiz team/local model club/local football team; city/county teams; national teams; church/religion or political party and ends up with the defence of the nation itself. As the groups get bigger, we move away from the idea of defence/support of individuals to that of defence/support for ideas.

And, just like the siblings in my first example, we can live with minor disputes within our particular group, but we gang up to defend the group from outsiders.

Now look what you made me do! I'm getting all serious an' stuff - that's a whole 4p worth of comment in just this one thread! I'm off to do some modelling!

Gern

PS I've just had a thought. If ever we meet the Bug Eyed Monsters so loved by Sci-fi fans, what's the betting that we'd forget all our interracial/international disputes and gang together against them if they dared criticise our world?! That's definitely it! I'm off.

[Guest]

A serious subject needs serious ideas Gern! And on that point, a strange thing about the war is that in many ways, the main protagonists were almost reversed in terms of their attitudes towards the conflict. The western powers actually found some backbone when they declared war on Germany to defend Poland (a source of puzzlement to Hitler until his death) even when they really didn't need to as they hadn't been directly threatened, but Russia never truely believed Germany would break the terms of the Breast-Litovsk pact even though what was written in 'Mein Kampf' made war with Russia almost inevitable. And as for uniting against a common extraterrestrial foe, you should read the 'In the Balance' books by Harry Turtledove' which is about aliens attacking Earth just after the outbreak of WW2-a very interesting & entertaining 'what if?' story! Patrick

[stona]

PS I've just had a thought. If ever we meet the Bug Eyed Monsters so loved by Sci-fi fans, what's the betting that we'd forget all our interracial/international disputes and gang together against them if they dared criticise our world?! That's definitely it! I'm off.

I think if the bug eyed monsters have the the technology to get here we'd better hope that their friendly!

Steve

[Guest]

I have no doubt that the russians could have won the war on their own in time but the cost would have been a very high and a very terrible one hell they lost one hundred thousand men in the taking of berlin alone, however if it were not for the allied forces splitting the german forces in north africa italy greece etc and if the allies hadnt been continually bombing germany and german industry then the russian would have had a much tougher fight than they did, thats not to say that they had it at all easy they didnt, but because the allies destroyed the german armies in italy and north africa france belgum and holland as well as the pacific theatres the war ended in 1945 instead of being extended 5 maybe even 10 more years. I think it is niave and a little bit insulting for any country to say that they were the sole architects in winning the war being an ex soldier that is insulting to the men who fought and died on all sides.

scott

[stona]

I think you are quite right Scott. I can only speak from my brief personal experience of the Soviet Union. The views expressed by the Russians I met did not intentionally diminish the sacrifices made by the Western allies. I was there in the mid eighties and these people had been educated under the old soviet regime. They genuinely had no idea what had happened on any other fronts or in any theatres besides their own. They even seemed unaware of external help such as the Atlantic convoys to Murmansk. This was probably due to the cold war politics of the time which were, at that time, only beginning to thaw. I have to add that there should be no excuse for such selective education today,though I think it happens to a greater or lesser extent everywhere.

Steve

[Guest]

I think you are quite right Scott. I can only speak from my brief personal experience of the Soviet Union. The views expressed by the Russians I met did not intentionally diminish the sacrifices made by the Western allies. I was there in the mid eighties and these people had been educated under the old soviet regime. They genuinely had no idea what had happened on any other fronts or in any theatres besides their own. They even seemed unaware of external help such as the Atlantic convoys to Murmansk. This was probably due to the cold war politics of the time which were, at that time, only beginning to thaw. I have to add that there should be no excuse for such selective education today,though I think it happens to a greater or lesser extent everywhere.Steve

Here is a what if for you What if the germans left all the countries they invaded alone and only turned there eye toward russia since hitler wanted to take russia for a long time anyway, and he convinced the japanese to leave asia the pacific and pearl harbour alone and assist the germans in trying to take russia how do you think the conflict would have played out then?

scott:smile11:

[stona]

But they couldn't do that. Britain,France and Russia had alliances guaranteed by treaty. You are correct in saying that German expansion always looked to the East but Hitler had to either defeat, or come to terms with, Britain and France in order to achieve it. It is hardly surprising that he was literally skipping with joy, having defeated mainland Europe's pre-eminent military power (France) in less than two months. He fully expected Britain to come to terms allowing him to do precisely what you suggest.

Surely the Japanese had an entirely different agenda,building their niftily titled "Greater East Asia Co-prosperity Sphere". Her natural expansion was into China and South East Asia where the raw materials she lacked were so abundant. The axis powers cooperated to the extent that they had common enemies but none was likely to be diverted from what they perceived as their national interest.

Churchill famously slept "the sleep of the saved" when Germany declared war on the United States, helpfully preventing Roosevelt having to declare war on her.

Here is a what if. What if the United States hadn't become involved in the European war? Roosevelt said that nazism was the real threat to freedom, and was probably right, but I'm sure most Americans saw the Japanese Empire as a more serious threat. Many Americans did not want to get involved in Europe. It took a long and concerted propaganda campaign to sway public opinion there.

How long would we have lasted without their help?

[Guest]

That's the situation in the Robert Harris book 'Fatherland' where Western Europe was defeated, the USA stayed neutral & the war in the East had largely settled into a guerilla war after Germany conquered the major cities & territories. There's no mention of the Japanese but as Steve said, they would always have followed their own plan to secure the raw materials they desperately needed. Patrick