<p>It's a very popular thought here in the US that if the Americans did not open second front in Europe in 1944, Germany wouldn't have lost, or at least the war would've dragged on for another number of years. As a person from USSR, i was lucky to know the eastern side of the war, and there is a whole new look. Just by studying the documents and hard facts rather than fiction and official info, one can find out that the Americans did not go to war in Europe to beat Hitler, they went there to stop the spread of communism. The USSR officials, particularly Stalin and Zhukov, were mad at Britain and the US for hesitating to open the second front, besides, one of their goals was to "liberate" Europe and install pro-Soviet rule in countries like Germany and France. USSR had more than enough firepower and resources to accomplish that, so American involvement was nothing more than grabbing their share of land, ideologically speaking.
What do you guys think?</p>
<p>So then why did the US ship thousands of airplanes, vehicles, and other war materiel resources to Russia in WWII? How do you think Russia would have held up if the Nazis didn't have to fight the other fronts? Conversely, the other fronts would have had a lot more difficulty as well if the Nazis didn't have to fight the eastern front against the Russians.</p>
<p>"Just by studying the documents and hard facts rather than fiction..."</p>
<p>So you're saying that what we've been taught is fiction.....oookkk buddy.</p>
<p>Erm...it's very hard for me not to get into this one...very...but I think I'll pass.</p>
<p>ucsd<em>ucla</em>dad, americans supported the lesser of two evils. Hitler was much more dangerous at the time than USSR. As i said, at the time the allies landed in France, the Red Army was already "liberating" Western Poland. The balance of forces on eastern front has been in USSR's favor since Stalingrad. They would've won the war anyway, the question was, how far west they would be able to go.
dvlfnfv5, during war times, commoners know only what they are allowed to know, that is, only good things. After the breakup of USSR, all the documents that used to be top secret stuff became accessible, including, for example, registers of prisoners in siberian labor camps.</p>
<p>Of course this kind thinking falls right in line with the latest "anti-American" wave sweeping the globe - "jump on in, the water's warm"... but for the love of all that's good, leave us the dignity of the Greatest Generation: America's true heroes.</p>
<p>This sounds like a particularly acute case of nationalism "gone wild" - however, such jingoistic notions of national identity shouldn't come as a complete surprise for the following reasons:</p>
<ul>
<li>WWII is now a distant memory for those who actually lived through it</li>
<li>For those who weren't even born yet, the time is ripe to "re-write" it in favor of one's own agenda</li>
<li>Rinse and repeat often enough and revisionism becomes fact</li>
<li>Plenty of historical instances of this: (holocaust deniers in Germany, war crime deniers in Japan, etc.)</li>
</ul>
<p>Here is an interesting snippet from the above link regarding Soviet revisionism:</p>
<p>Soviet and Russian history
During the rule of dictator Joseph Stalin in the Soviet Union, a variety of revisionist tactics were employed to ignore unpleasant events of the past. Soviet school books would constantly be revised to remove photographs and articles that dealt with politicians who had fallen out of favor with the regime. History was frequently re-written, with past events modified so they always portrayed Stalin's government favourably.</p>
<p>Russian textbooks on the 20th Century
The textbook History of Russia and the World in the 20th Century, written by Nikita Zagladin, in 2004 replaced Igor Dolutsky's National History: 20th Century. Zagladin's text was implemented under the guidance and encouragement of Vladimir Putin who wanted a textbook that was more "patriotic". Critics of the new book cite a lack of detail in addressing historical events such as the Siege of Leningrad, Gulag labor camps, Soviet attack on Finland and the First and Second Chechen Wars as serious factual innaccuracies. The Holocaust is not mentioned and the rule of Joseph Stalin is glorified.</p>
<p>The revisionist school of communist studies
According to John Earl Haynes and Harvey Klehr, writing in their book In Denial: Historians, Communism & Espionage, many academic studies in the field of Soviet and Communist studies, especially in the area of History of the Soviet Union and regarding the history of the Communist Party USA by the so-called "Revisionist School" have generally taken a benign view of the Party while minimizing Soviet atrocities and the totalitarian nature of the movement. Haynes and Klehr attribute the alleged biased stance of these historians, many of whom entered academia during the Vietnam War era, to anti-American and anti-capitalist sentiments.</p>
<p>the_prestige, let's not get paranoid and overly defensive of America.
War in Pacific is all yours. Now let's not deny USSR's heroes and accomplishments. Cold war has made it's imprint in American heads, anti-Soviet propaganda became facts.</p>
<p>with all due respect dima,</p>
<p>how do you respond to reference above regarding Putin and his implementation, support and guidance of revisionist text books which among other things skip the Holocaust, glorify Stalin, skim over Gulag labor camps, etc.?</p>
<p>Say what you want about the US, but you'll find plenty of books here about the My Lai Massacre, Japanese Internment Camps, etc.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The Holocaust is not mentioned and the rule of Joseph Stalin is glorified.
[/quote]
jeez, what a bs. author of these words should grow a brain and a pair of eyes before writing things like this.
PS For the record: i'm not from russia, and i've been there only twice. In my native country, the textbooks are anti-USSR and somewhat anti-Russian due to the rise of nationalism. In school, we've learned plenty about Holocaust (i've been to two camps), Stalin's policies, and all that interesting stuff.</p>
<p>Where are you from?</p>
<p>Kharkiv, Ukraine</p>
<p>Ukraine: Breadbasket of the Soviet Union... (that's what I remember from the 5th grade, anyway!)</p>
<p>Fertile soils are among our plentiful resouces :)</p>
<p>Dima, as a native Ukranian, former republic of the Soviet Union, what is your view of America's role in helping bring down the "Iron Curtain" and supporting "openness" and democracy in your region?</p>
<p>We prefer not to give all the credit to USA. Solidarnost movement started in Poland (Gdansk) in late 70s, the deterioration of the state as a whole was widespread and originated mostly inside. Yeltsin wanted power, so he picked the right moment to strike weak Gorbachev's government and rearrange it, putting his men to power as well.
The communist idea did not work, with the biggest problem being lack of free enterprise. Even perestroika did not fix that. As to personal freedoms, nobody gave a damn, except maybe some nationalist writers. People were so used to the way of life they had that it became normal. Besides, after Khrushchev it was a whole lot easier to live there.</p>
<p>
[quote]
We prefer not to give all the credit to USA.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Certainly, I'd hope not! I'm just wondering if there is ANY credit at all? How do people regard Ronald Reagan for instance?</p>
<p>There is credit given for influence on the freedom movements. As strong as the propaganda was, people were smart enough to realize that evil America lived ten times better. Reagan was neither a hero nor a villain. He was thought of being stubborn, but pursuing good ideas.</p>
<p>Hey, did you guys hear Paris Hilton says she won't have sex for a whole year?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Hey, did you guys hear Paris Hilton says she won't have sex for a whole year?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>If we assume that Paris can count to 10 (I know, big assumption), then we can assume that her celibacy vow may last a week and half.</p>
<p>D-Day wasn't meant to break Germany's back. It was clear they were gonna lose by late 1942 anyways. It was more to decide what areas would be under Western control and what areas would be under Soviet control. Had D-Day failed, the Soviets probably would have taken all of Germany and perhaps even France. Lets remember, the biggest battles during the war took place on the Eastern Front.</p>