Russia: Champion of WWII
 

As we mark the 70th anniversary of the start of the Second World War, the British obsession with the war runs on and on. There is the endless recycling of the same themes - Dunkirk, the D-day landings and Churchillian greatness - that starts to devalue the heroism of those times as much as to celebrate it. There is the nostalgia, pride and self-congratulation that now do more to block than to illuminate any real appreciation of how the war changed the world and Britain's place in it.

Britain's finest hour? To be sure, it was good that London finally took a stand against fascism. But going to war with Germany in 1939 did not prevent Poland's disappearance. Nor could the combined forces of Britain and France prevent most of Western Europe being overrun the following year. Many had expected a German attack on France to produce a replay of the First World War's Western Front stalemate. Everyone was shocked by the terrifying rapidity of the German advance and the awesome might of the Wehrmacht. Avoiding total defeat - as at Dunkirk - and invasion - thanks to the Battle of Britain - were the closest Britain could come to victory on its own. British strategists were left fearful of the German army and convinced that any attempt in the short term on the Nazi empire would simply lead to another humiliation.

As a result, the British fought off American and Soviet demands to launch a second front as long as they could. Churchill was all too aware of the inadequate military forces at his disposal, their inadequacy masked only by the extraordinary good fortune that came to the British when the Germans invaded the Soviet Union and the Japanese declared war on the US. Had neither of these events occurred - and it is revealing that both left Churchill jubilant - it is hard to see how Britain could ever have dislodged the Nazis from Europe.

The British supplied arms to guerrillas and partisans hoping they would rise up and drive the Germans out of their homelands; but militarily most of them had no real impact on the war. Hit and run was the most they could hope for, along with the murderous German attacks on innocent villagers that they brought in their train. Regular armies were the decisive factor throughout, and for much of the war in Europe the Wehrmacht had the edge.

When the tide turned, it turned in the east. D-day, when it finally came, was scarcely the overwhelmingly decisive event one would imagine from the last few years' barrage of publications. How many people have even heard of Operation Bagration, the simultaneous Soviet offensive through Belorussia, that engaged almost 10 times the number of German divisions, and destroyed three Wehrmacht armies? Very few, I suspect - it failed to garner any attention during the D-day celebrations. Yet Bagration, the biggest and most successful surprise attack in history, dwarfed what was happening in Normandy. As the Soviets stormed west of their prewar boundaries for the first time, this was confirmation that it was the Red Army that really won the war against Nazism, and the moment Stalin began to think seriously about how to rule Eastern Europe.


In hindsight, perhaps what is most revealing is how much Britain depended throughout the war on its colonies. If the Russians came to the rescue in Europe, the empire was indispensable for shoring up British power outside it. Dominion units played a critical role in the Mediterranean, despite fears of the Japanese back home. As for the two-million-strong Indian army, its units operated almost everywhere as well as in defence of India itself. Meanwhile, nationalist dissent was bubbling away inside the Subcontinent. Gandhi himself said there was little to choose between British and German rule; as Nehru put it, inside their empire, the British behaved like fascists.

Thus, viewed from outside Europe, the British war against Nazism looks less like a moral crusade and more like defence of the global status quo. A war for liberty and self-determination? Not in the colonies, if Churchill had any say in the matter. Nor even in the Middle East, where Churchill did make a critical and often overlooked strategic contribution. Had the Germans got sympathetic regimes to stay in place there to secure their oil supply, the war might have gone differently. British intervention in Syria, Egypt and Iraq prevented that and did much more - it laid the foundations for a new, short-lived empire of client states stretching from Libya to Iran. After the war, once India and Pakistan became independent, and the Australians and New Zealanders looked increasingly to Washington for protection from Asia, it was the Middle East where the British made their last imperial stand.

The global perspective is not one we should ignore. Viewed from India or Japan, the war was a matter of rival imperialisms, the culmination of more than a century of Europeans fighting over how to carve up the world. The irony is both Britain and Germany were too weak to defeat the other unaided. If Britain had stronger allies than Germany, this was as much the fault of the Nazis - stabbing Stalin in the back, contemptuous of the Spanish and French, the Hungarians and Italians - as it was a reflection of Whitehall's superior charms. The Germans lost their empire in Europe, the British lost theirs outside it.

The real lessons for both - but learned more readily since 1945 by the Germans - emerge starkly. Europe's internal rivalries cost it the global domination that it had won over the previous century and a half, and its war produced a new world, one Europe is still struggling to find a place in. The courage of those who played their part in Nazism's defeat should not be forgotten. But harping on about Britain's superior statecraft, or German perfidy, does nothing to acknowledge these changed realities. Is it too much to hope that a new perspective, simultaneously more sober and less parochial, may emerge from this latest round of commemorations?


Mark Mazower teaches history at Columbia University. His most recent book, Hitler's Empire: Nazi Rule in Occupied Europe won the LA Times Book Prize for History.

________________________________

Russia rules. American history is bogus.

Thread direction should be towards the idea of Russia playing a larger role in the defeat of Germany than the biased American history will teach you.

Germany atacked near winter, a drastic mistake that also doomed Napolean. They also made tactical errors in rounding up "White Russians" from Georgia an Ukrain and sending them to camps. Millions of potential soldiers would have gladly joined the Germans in fighting the Soviets, but no, Hitler was a moron. Even with the mistakes by Hitler and the natural help from Serbian winter, it took millions of dead Russians and plenty of American equipment to drive the Nazi's out.

D Day gets more attention than the Russian operation because it liberated France, all the Russian operation did for the countries involved was swap out one dictator for another. Loose Hitler, who killed millions, get Stalin, who killed tens of millions. Churchill made the moves he did, because he knew Stalin was the real enemy. Sacrificeing the old British Empire to contain the Red Tide through the cold war, was the price he was willing to pay.

What does American History have to do with it? the artical was about Britain.

Hehehe... that's not true. I see it's deeper than I thought.

Yeah, but this is a thread about America and Russia.

The article just had an interesting point; American history never tells much about Russia. I think it's because Americans are anti communist, and have the view you expressed above, so all Russian victories somehow seem invalid.

Why should the US celebrate the victories of one tyrant over another tyrant? They aren't going to, so why raise a stink about it? It's not like Pearl Harbor is given high praise in Moscow. Yes I'm anti communist, and I'm not ashamed of being so either.

while russia did "win" many battles it was due to their sheer size they had so many people they could just keep sending them until their enemy was wiped out. The main loss by germany was through operation barbossa when they wanted to enter russia in august when it was more mild weathered but mussolini screwed up so germany had to go help them then they didn't make it back to russia until december.
Russia used a scorched earth policy so they just burnt everything down so the invading armies would run out of food they even went so far as to burn down their capital. So they really only beat tired raggedy soliders. Russia did play a big part in the war but it was not all on them.

Maybe people don't care so much about their contributions to the war effort because of the whole iron curtain thing.

Also what was that about poland still being torn apart? Russia took part in the partitioning of poland and that was nearly 150 years prior to the war.

i'm sorry but thats just a silly title.

you might as well go even further back and say:

Hitler, the champion of WWII for being an ass to russia, cos if they had been all buddy buddy things would be very different.

I don't really want to get into a huge "mind-changing" debate about it. I'm just interested in what people already think.

But you're not looking at this from the right angle; a lot of people consider America to be a power mongering dictator bent on controlling others. Try looking at it from that perspective. I don't dislike Stalin, and the fact he killed to get his point accross, well, so does America... so...

Anyway, I think it sucks that the Soviet empire collapsed. It was a force that really bought balance to the world.

Also, the reason I dislike the American view of history is not just because they leave Russia out of it, but it is also very opinionated. The American version has seriously changed the world, even to the point where, I know Nazi controlled Earth would be a disaster, but a Nazi controlled Europe seems to sound better than what there is today; something that is today due a lot to US propaganda.

Out of curiosity what do they teach kids in America these days about that part of history and the Soviet role in it?

I dount teachers are actually allowed to mention the "S" word or the "C" word anymore, so I'm guessing very little.

The Soviet wars in Call of Duty 2 are much better than British or American. Russia FTW.

'Vasili, kill that damn machinegunner' <-- favorite quote

Yeah...

Wasn't Vasili that same guy they made a movie about "Enemy at the Gates" where he's a sniper who never misses.

Russia did have a few heros.

Yes. From Wikipedia 'He killed 225 soldiers and officers of the Wehrmacht and other Axis armies, including 11 enemy snipers.'

You obviously read the American history. It is ridiculous - the American help and the weapon. The victory of Soviet Union is a victory of the Soviet people: their heroism, millions killed. America has opened the second front only having convinced, that Soviet Union wins war. Artful and thought over tactics. On the shoulders simple Soviet people have taken out all weight of this war. Forget about that variant of history which is formulated everywhere by America.

Both dictators have left a bloody track in history. I do not like Stalin, but the world where Hitler-was could win is awful

And who, excuse, then has started to beat Hitler? Perhaps, America?:ywave:

I do not see a point in your question other than to make it appear as if Russia played the most important role in the war. how about the lend lease act? or the daylight bomber campaign? the u.s. destroyed many german war factories and how about G.B.'s discovery of radar? was that not usefull?

Both sides played pivotal roles, in various engagements, at certain times, that prooved crucial to the over all victory. Trying to figure who's role was more important is silly since none of us really know what took place at Malta and the backroom deals that took place there.

Besides, the US was also fighting Japan at the same time, Russia wasn't. As to American history, our schools teach the next generation how evil their own country is and that they should hate their own country. In fact, I doubt any other nation teaches their own history as critically as the US does. It's almost like self mutaltion.

I wish they did get back to teaching like they did in the 40's and 50's, sure it was mostly propagandist bunk, but at least the people grew up loveing thier country.


.

I have to agree my last history teacher was not afraid to tell us about mistakes on part of the u.s. He was very critical of the government to the point that he seemed biased. I don't know if i would rather have had an education where the u.s. is perfect. I like being able to create my own ideas but in this day and age it is hard to learn all of the facts. It would make it easier if people understood that you should not be anti whatever your country is because you disagree with some things it does. It makes it hard to function when everyone is worrying about political parties and elections. It is childish to make your whole view of somthing on small parts of the whole thing.

Well, I didn't want to give it a huge direction. I just wanted to throw Russia into a conversation and see where it goes...

I'm not saying Russia did everything, I'm just saying most of us are exposed only to American versions of history that often hate Russia almost as much as the Germans.

I just wanted to know what people thought about the idea of Russia playing a bigger role than most might have originally thought.

I don't ever recall my high school history classes undermining Russia's role in World War II. I see shows about the Eastern Front on American TV stations. I won't disagree though that the American/British role in WW2 is celebrated more than Russia's, but what do you expect? It is only natural to see America and Britain's role in World War II placed first and foremost in English-speaking countries - likewise, Russia is put first in Russia and former USSR states - that's how the world works. Consider also the Cold War - most western nations weren't particularly eager to celebrate Russia's military history. America and Britain and the USSR all played very important roles in World War II, I think most people know that. It's a bit silly to argue about such a thing 70 years later.

All true.

I'm not arguing about it. Just talking.

But I do think we're getting a very biased views of history taught in the west (but, no doubt it's just as biased in Russia LOL), and that is important to us today, 70 years on; if we're to learn from the past, it's important to understand it correctly.

Ha, I think history keeps repeating itself. Not because we never learn from our past but rather because the bad guys keep trying to win.

US have entered war with Germany, only having convinced, that Germany loses. Lying to beat - the merit is not great.

I like how you assume that we aren't taught history in an American History class :rolleyes:

US will always represent history so that they looked from the best side. They very much try for this purpose and for them it turns out (in territory of US). It is Enough to look their films to be convinced - they rescued, rescue and will always rescue the world. We have reason, inquisitiveness and (if necessary) possibility to parse historic facts and events not to give in to their diligence.

P.S. One my long-distance acquaintance in the beginning of lecture on history at university have risen and has told, that its grandfather was at war at the front and she knows, who and what role has played in war. After that the lecturerhas read lecture not how it did it before other students. He spoke the facts instead of as it SHOULD be from the point of view of America.

Here so)))

To be fair, I've seen more Canadians who know very much about American history than Canadians. But ironic that Canadians don't know much about their own history.

Champion of WW2?

This deserves a

Yes. The only heros in your wars are the Care Bears, Ronin.

America saved the world pretty much in WW2, yup. Now hey, that doesn't detract from anyone elses efforts, wich were vast. Nor anyone elses sacrifice, wich were huge. However, at the end of the day, if the US had not gotten involved at all, the world woulda lost.

If the US didn't bother anyone, nor tried to get involved in the Asian war via supplies and enbargo's. Japan likely wouldn't have attacked Pearl Harbor, but would have gone after Russia, and it would have been Russia with the two front war.

Japan ended up being suckered by FDR, who really wanted to go after Germany, but needed the backing of the American people, who weren't that convinced at the time. Everythig done before Pearl harbor was designed to ensure Pearl harbor happened, so the US could declare war on Japan's ally..Germany. Winning in chess is about being willing to sacrifice certain pieces and godeing the opponant into makeing mistakes.

Bullshit. USA was the main contributor in the defeat of Japan but Russia played a larger role in defeating Germany.

The Allies were starting to win before USA joined, unlike popular belief.

Russia, which was nearly exhausted just by Germany, could have survived a two front war with both Japan and Germany? not likely, and we both know it. Not to mention the fact the US was the primary source of weapons and equipment for several other nations fighting in that war before the US "offcially" joined. Includeing both Russia and China.

In fact, the only thing Chinese about it's airforce was the little emblems painted on the tails of the American fighters, flown by American pilots, fireing American bullets.

The allies winning before the US even joined? Hmmmm, seemed to me all of Europe except for Britain was occupied by Germany, half of Russia was occupied as well. If not for the US drawing the attention of Japan, it would have been pretty much all of Russia being split between Germany and Japan. You can paint the house any color you like, but the US still built it.

So you're saying because USA prevented Japan from attacking the USSR, it means they won the war. Quite your nonsense. USA alone against the axis wouldn't have won either so your point is invalid. Germany underestimated USSR and they came back and won. 60% of German's army was wiped off by USSR. Where's your USA?

And the British were winning against Rommel and after his defeat everything started to go downhill for Germany (retreating).

USA came in and fought with weakened countries, so please consider that. Would have been very different if USA was since the start.

Judging from a military standpoint, USA was the least probable country to get attacked. Germany had too much going on in Europe to mess with them. Only Japan attacked them but they were defeated. And believe me if USSR went alone since the start against Japan they would've won.

"your wars"? Are you on drugs?

For me the most "heroic" unit in WW2 were the Tuskeegee airmen.

An African American fighter squadron. These guys were sent into Europe to escort bombers in and out of Europe.

They were essentially looked down upon by most of the US army and the majority of their country simply because they were black.... yet they were the most successful fighter squadron in Europe.

They were the only fighter squadron to NEVER lose a bomber to the Luftwaffe.

The US has nearly a third of the world's natural resources and a large population, plus 2 oceans between it and everyone else. Two oceans that they were able to transport 15 million troops across in 4 years, that's a major thing in and of itself.

We also fight with a type of scorched earth policy like Russia does, only instead of burning ourselves out of house and home, we burn our enemies out of thiers. So yes, the US had the ability and the will at that time, to defeat both Germany and Japan alone. It would have taken longer and cost more American lives, but it was doable.

I won't deny the Russians were both brave and tenacious, those are true. They also tied up several German divisions, that's also true. However, we have to remember that Germany wasn't run by it's generals, it was run by one guy. Russia was strongly aided by the fact Hitler wouldn't listen to his generals, if he had, it would have been far different. Russia was both technologically behind Germany and had fewer resources to play with. ( Siberia, while resource rich, was difficult to get to then)

Case in point, Custer would have won Little Bighorn if he just waited for the 3,000 infantry that were a day away. He didn't and the rest is history.

As to Britain, it was on it's last legs, on the verge of defeat, Churchill managed to tweek Hitler into stopping his military attacks and intiate the "Bomb London" fiasco during the Battle of Britain. That turned the tide in air power and Germany was never able to recover. Again, this was due to Hitler being a idiot.

The US historically, has a tendency to loose interest in things over seas, it's why our wars are generally stupid things like Vietnam. Kinda like Godzilla, not sure if it wants to do what it's doing or not, so we end up doing things haphazzardly. Even then, there isn't a country that we have sent troops to who weren't deeply effected by it. Look at Somlia, most Americans don't even remember haveing troops there, better believe the Somlalis do. Again like Gozillia, smash the place up a little, loose interest or forget why we there, and leave. Almost like a force of nature.

However, if the US is really focused and really angery enough, they can completely destroy countries. I don't mean little ones like Afganistan either, I mean major players like a Russia or Germany. Japan's generals, those who had been to the US. Didn't want to attack the US, knowing what it was capable of if motivated enough. Guess what Pearl Harbor did?

Are you serious? If US attacks Russia it will be the end for both. Russia has an immense nuclear power.

Anyway, as for back then, Germany's technology was superior to all the allies, not just Russia. Their tanks alone were the best at the time.

As for taking out Germany and Japan alone, I doubt... unless they used some nuclear power, which would've caused damage to other countries in Europe as well. Too risky.

Yes, I'm serious about Russia, thier missles would never get here. My brothers AF intel, the US has stuff weapon wise that we haven't even deployed yet, we could we just don't. Those "Future Weapons" shows you can watch on History Channle? Those are old weapons already, you wouldn't have top secret weapons that were currently being developed, shown on a public tv show. It's just like the 117 Stealth, that thing is nearly 30 years old allready, we have much better stuff than that we are working on.

Our radar systems for our anti missles systems can detect the rotation of a basketball thrown into the air in Miami, from New York. Many people suspect that we are upset about North Korea's missle launches, not because they pose a threat, but because it could force us to reveal just how capable our anti missle system really is.

It is true that Germany had better stuff, but they were slow in building it. The Germans managed to build 1100 tigers, the US built over 40,000 Shermans..and that was just the Shermans. This has nothing to do with who was braver or had better generals, all the sides had both brave troops and good generals. It boils down to numbers, the US had them to such a dagree that Germany and Japan couldn't keep up.

Consider this, your a chess master with a regular set of chess pieces. Your opponant is also a chess master, but he has 5 times the number of pieces. Not only that, for every one piece you manage to replace, he can replace 5. Plus, as the match wears on, he is able to increase the number of replacements by 6, then 7, then 8..while you loose the ability to even replace the one. Who do you think will win?

The same thing happened to the South during it's war with the North. Lee's 85,000 would meet the Union's 100,000. Lee was a better general, so he could out battle the slightly larger army. However, he couldn't replace his losses and the North could. By the end he had 40,000 tired, beraggled troops and the North had 100,000, just in that army faceing him..they had several other armies roaming around as well by that time...includeing one that went through Georgia.

Ryzorian

Your estimations of US military technological superiority is exaggerated at best.

Furthermore such advanced tech is not really an accurate measure of power in a post cold-war climate.

PS- I think US concern over North Korean missiles has more to do with the balance of power situation in East Asia rather than anything to do with forcing the US to reveal it's capabilities....

Trust me they could. They had much worse time in their history. And look at them now.

Lovely thread.

Nobody could give any real evidence that OP`s point was wrong.

Well done, kids. Keep it up!

Considering the OP's article makes little reference to Russia and actually focuses more on the effort on the part of the British colonies when it came to Britain's wartime involvement... I don't know how you can even think that Tenchu's point is backed up by anything other than his opinion.

I might have misunderstood the direction of the thread.

My estimation of Us military tech isn't exargerated at all. I'm ex army and have actually seen some of this stuff in action on manovers. So take that as you will, but I have actual hands on experiance and that was from stuff back during the 1991 war, most of wich is outdated today.

Russia has a tough and hard people no doubt, but their biggest claim to fame is a large land area and cold winter combineing to defeat stupid foes. It's like the case of the bear attack, I don't actually have to out run the bear to live, I just have to out run you. Russians knew how to survive in that enviroment, the Germans didn't, case closed.

Russia "defeated" Napolean the same way, burn everything and run away and let mother winter do the job. All your troops have to do is pick off stragglers. It's a good tactic, and works well in an area that's large and cold. It wont work however, in large land masses that aren't that cold, there you actually have to meet army to army. Russia's track record in that area are suspect at best, Peter the Great being one of the few Russia generals to actually defeat a major power OUTSIDE Russia.

Another point to how capable the US was. A German Uboat captain was ordered to shell New York harbor, he actually made it to said destination, surfaced and watched as the New York nightlife took full effect. At wich point he sank bank into the waters and quitely made his way out, never fireing a shot.

His conclusions written in his log at the time were simple. How can you fight a power, who's own people don't even realize a World War is going on? If a nation fights you as strongly as it does and it's civilans still live as if nothing is going on, what would they do if you actually harmed thier civilans? He didn't even want to think of the carnage that could be unleashed if such a nation truely became angery.