Changing history....

Former Member

During the recent D-day celebrations i have nticed something rather odd...

D-day is repeatedly asserted as the 'turning of the tide' or the 'beginning of the liberation of Europe form the Nazis' etc etc

This is manifestly untrue however, the tide turned at Stalingrad and the beginning of the liberation of Europe form the Nazis began with the subsequent Soviet offensive....

Yet the USSR role in WW2 seems hardly to have been mentioned in the recent remembering of WW2....

Is this a new form of victors justice in the aftermath of the fall of the Soviet Union and the current 'spread of democracy' by the US?

Former Member

Maybe it is because up until the beginging of the 1990's the Soviet Union was 'The enemy' so its effort were not remembered in favour of putting more emphisis on the western allies.

Former Member

That is what I was thinking, do people believe that because the Soviet tropps were serving another dictator that thrie efforts in ridding us of Hitler are less important?

I saw one thing that was grossly over suggestive of Allied efforts. The guy was talking about how a little over a year after D-day Hitler was dead and Berlin fallen, yeah by Soviets!

Former Member

there was no turning points so to speak but stalingrad and d-day could be cinsidered the turning point for both fronts, and we did help fund the russians through it, well im wquite sure we did

Former Member

Russia shouldn't be forgotton since they lost millions in the war, but they have been overshadowed by the cold war.
Tho their president was invited to the D-Day event so that must mean something.

Former Member

seeing channel 5 news have a poll on "should the german chancellor be allowed to D-Day celebrations" and them getting a 80% no vote sums up the channel 5 viewership and the fact they asked it shows what channel 5 thinks of 'foreigners'

bloody idiots - theyre the people who shouldnt be allowed to things like D-Day celebrations

Former Member

If anyone is curious -

from http://www.cdi.org/russia/johnson/7232-1.cfm

According to Professor Leonid Rybakovsky, ... the Soviet Union lost about 27 million people in the Great Patriotic War.

The losses of the Soviet Union, 14 per cent of the population, are incomparable with the losses of other countries, Rybakovsky noted. Austria lost 5 per cent of the population during the war, Italy - less than 1 per cent, Great Britain - 0.8 per cent and the US less than 0.2 per cent at all fronts.

Former Member

We have to remember that Stalingrad and D-Day could've gone either way very easily. Stalingrad was probably the turning point but D-Day was the most significant victory and the true "beginning of the end".

Former Member

Another thing that always gets me is the fact that the Commonwealth contribution during WW2 is hardly recognised or remembered.

Former Member

what about all the German soldiers that died, not all of them were hell bent nazis, most were just ordinary people forced to go to war by their dictator, they never get a mention.

Former Member

True. Every side has a story to tell.

Former Member

I really think that when you look at the quantities of Nazi resources and where they were going you can tell that the Soviets were the main threat, that was the great ideological war etc

80% of Nazi casualties were on the Eastern front.......

Former Member

and 80% of the Nazis army was on the eastern front. In the battle of Kursk the Russians mullerised twice the number of divisions Hitler had in the whole of western Europe!

D-day was all about saving Europe from the Soviets, not the Germans. The Germans were already finished.

Former Member

Well that's news to me.

Former Member

You dont believe me?

Former Member

The toehold that the allies established at Normandy was vital for the Western Allies (the British Commonwealth and the US) to bring the war to Germany's front door. It has been pointed out that Soviets alone had the capacity to crush Germany by this time, and that this battle was unnecessary for the purpose of defeating the German Reich. By the time of D-Day, the Red Army was steadily advancing towards Germany and four fifths of the German forces were in the East. In France, the Allies faced only about 20% of the German army.

Yet given the Soviets' claim over Eastern Europe, one could ask if the result would have been a complete occupation of Europe by communist forces. American and British presence helped define the extent that communism would spread, and ensure that democracy would be safe in Western Europe. Thus the battle of Normandy needs to be understood both within the context of WWII and in that of the Cold War that would follow.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Overlord#Strategic_Appraisal

(edit: bloody quote wont do more than one pargraph :mad: )

Former Member

That's one point of view and I very much doubt others will share it. I have certainly never, ever, heard such theory before.

Are you saying that the whole world and the Allied soldiers who fought and gave their lives in the invasion were conned into believing they were liberating Europe from Nazis whereas in fact they were sent to stop the Soviets?

Hitler's army was still formidable and without the distraction of an Allied invasion Germany would have had no problem whatsoever in repelling any Soviet invasion. So why did the Allies need bothering then?

Former Member

Originally posted by Aladdin
That's one point of view and I very much doubt others will share it. I have certainly never, ever, heard such theory before.

Are you saying that the whole world and the Allied soldiers who fought and gave their lives in the invasion were conned into believing they were liberating Europe from Nazis whereas in fact they were sent to stop the Soviets?

Hitler's army was still formidable and without the distraction of an Allied invasion Germany would have had no problem whatsoever in repelling any Soviet invasion. So why did the Allies need bothering then?

Umm, the Germans were getting obliterated by the Russians on the eastern front, by D-day they had lost over 3 million troops killed. They lost most of thier armour strength after Kursk, the Russian air force had began to wipe out the luftwaffe. The Germans were screwed and they knew it which is why they wanted to surrender to the Allies rather than the vengeful Russians.

Former Member

Had the Allies not invaded the Germans would have had many more men and armoury at its disposal. Not forgetting the A-bomb, which the Germans were a year at the most from developing when the war ended and which would have promptly obliterated Moscow and London and changed the course of history.

If D-Day had not happened the Soviets would have never marched (or even attempted to) into Germany and all the way to Berlin. The Allies attacked not because of Soviets conquering Europe but to rid the world of Hitler and his armies.

Former Member

I completely disagree. Pouring another 40 divisions into crumbling defences at the hands of an enemy many times its size in planes, tanks and troops would have made little difference. The Russians won the war and its annoying how this is overlooked every time theres a D-day celebration.

Former Member

Originally posted by minimi38

D-day was all about saving Europe from the Soviets, not the Germans. The Germans were already finished.

Yes, I agree.
On the other hand I’m not sure that Soviets have won without American aid.

Former Member

The British and Americans gave the Soviets a stupendous amount of supplies, most important of all was food. The soviets would have been hard pressed to supply half thier armies with food, trucks, equipment etc without this aid.

Former Member

I think the real history of WWII is not written yet. We know an official version made up by victors. But there are lots of facts that contradict this version. There are strong reasons to believe that Stalin planned to invade Germany and Hitler just had to strike first; that Roosevelt provoked Japan purposely and knew about Pearl Harbour before it happened; that France was Germany’s ally rather than a victim; that main Churchill’s efforts were to split American-Russian alliance so on. We know a lot about war crimes committed by Germans and Japanese but almost nothing about crimes committed by Russians, Americans, Brits. A kind of Hollywood movie: good boys against arseholes…

Former Member

that Roosevelt provoked Japan purposely and knew about Pearl Harbour before it happened

There is loads of evidence backing this up. Roosevelt had to amend the failure of the new deal somehow and what better way than joining the second world war.

Former Member

Originally posted by minimi38
The British and Americans gave the Soviets a stupendous amount of supplies, most important of all was food. The soviets would have been hard pressed to supply half thier armies with food, trucks, equipment etc without this aid.

Which surely provides the proof that you belief on the D-Day invasion is crap.

Had the Allies really wanted to stop the Russians, then not feeding them would have been a good start...

Former Member

Re: Changing history....

Originally posted by Toadborg
During the recent D-day celebrations i have nticed something rather odd...

D-day is repeatedly asserted as the 'turning of the tide' or the 'beginning of the liberation of Europe form the Nazis' etc etc

I've been thinking about this thread last night and I think that you may have missed the point of the D-Day commemorations and of those comments.

From our perspective (in the west) the tide was indeed turned as a result of this day. It also gave greater impetous to the Russian advance by creating a second front for the GErmans. Had it not been so important then Stalin would not have been calling for the invasion for so long.

Yet the USSR role in WW2 seems hardly to have been mentioned in the recent remembering of WW2....

Because they didn't take part in D-Day. Simple as.

The last few days haven't been about the whole war - otherwise the fight for Africa, Italy, Burma etc would have been included.

It has all been about one of the greatest battles in history, the biggest single invasion force ever assembled.

To include any other aspect of the war would have been to denegrate the very real sacrifices made by our armed forces on this single day. That would have been wrong.

Former Member

Originally posted by wheresmyplacebo
seeing channel 5 news have a poll on "should the german chancellor be allowed to D-Day celebrations" and them getting a 80% no vote sums up the channel 5 viewership and the fact they asked it shows what channel 5 thinks of 'foreigners'

bloody idiots - theyre the people who shouldnt be allowed to things like D-Day celebrations

Er...the German's shouldn't have been invited to the D-Day celebrations, and to be honest seeing as it's a celebration of victory over them, I wouldn't have wanted to go.

Yes, yes, of course it's a symbol that the Nazi's didnt/don't represent Germany...although there are STILL a lot of fascists in their governmental higherarchy.

Former Member

Could it be that the Germans are as grateful as anybody else that the Allies got rid of the Nazis?

Former Member

Re: Re: Changing history....

Originally posted by Man Of Kent
I've been thinking about this thread last night and I think that you may have missed the point of the D-Day commemorations and of those comments.


To include any other aspect of the war would have been to denegrate the very real sacrifices made by our armed forces on this single day. That would have been wrong.

Fiar enough, I see that this is true but I do get a very real sense form the way that WW2 is talked about in the West and the way the war as a whole is pictures that we have a very strong idea that it us that beat the Nazis with the help of the Americans.

I have seen people talking about us being on our own until the Americans joined in when this is blatantly untrue!

As for meddling in historical counterfactuals we really will never know and it is somewhat pointless and as MK says we do not want to denegrate the sacrifices of 'our boys' at D-day....

For what it is worth I think it is pretty certain that the Soviets could have beat the Nazis without D-day ever happening.......

Former Member

Re: Re: Re: Changing history....

Originally posted by Toadborg
Fiar enough, I see that this is true but I do get a very real sense form the way that WW2 is talked about in the West and the way the war as a whole is pictures that we have a very strong idea that it us that beat the Nazis with the help of the Americans.

Certainly, if you look at WW2 as a whole, it is very much what the Brits and the US did. We forget the commonwealth nations as well as the Russians. Of course if you listen to the Americans they also forget us!

I have seen people talking about us being on our own until the Americans joined in when this is blatantly untrue!

When did Russia get involved - I can't remember when Barbarossa started?

But as a nation state defending itself, that analogy of being "only us" isn't far from the truth. If "us" included the commonwealth (or Empire as it was then) Most of our allies had already been invaded and overrun...

Former Member

Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing history....

Originally posted by Man Of Kent


When did Russia get involved - I can't remember when Barbarossa started?

June 1941

http://history.acusd.edu/gen/WW2Timeline/BARBAROS.HTML