Why has the West boycotted the parade by those who saved the world from Nazism.

Sobko

gandalf wrote: »

Have to disagree with you totally here. This parade had everything to do with the Russian Regime. The most talk was about the size of the parade, the fact it had some new Russian military tech on display for the first time. The actual supposed true meaning of the parade was warped and distorted by the military willy waving by the Putin junta.

Even the Ukraine had a far more appropriate and sombre event to mark the day.

So attend the St. Petersburg event. Lay a reath at the monuments scattered throughout Russian cities.

gandalf

Sobko wrote: »

So attend the St. Petersburg event. Lay a reath at the monuments scattered throughout Russian cities.

I would be definitely like to do that. I just finished reading a book about the siege of Leningrad.

I'll just wait until the Novofuhrers regime is no longer in charge.

SaveOurLyric

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

The young men of RAF bomber command who sacrificed themselves during the bombing raids over Germany saved us from a future of Nazism

I thought the jury was still out on whether the bombing campaign had an effect at all on the outcome of the war. And was mainly just PR for the homefront that we were still socking it to Hitler while he held the whole of Europe.

gandalf

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

I thought the jury was still out on whether the bombing campaign had an effect at all on the outcome of the war. And was mainly just PR for the homefront that we were still socking it to Hitler while he held the whole of Europe.

I don't think one nation or one arm of their forces can claim to be the individual reason for the allied victory in WW2. It was a combined effort.

jimgoose

Because God-damn Russkies. Capiche??

SaveOurLyric

gandalf wrote: »

I don't think one nation or one arm of their forces can claim to be the individual reason for the allied victory in WW2. It was a combined effort.

I'm no expert on it. But it is questionable whether the bombing campaign was one of those contributing efforts at all. It was even under question at the highest level at the time. I guess the imprecise answer is minimal if any.

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v01/v01p247_Lutton.html

Playboy

Sand wrote: »

Why were they begging for help if they won the war singlehandly? The truth is the Allies landed in June 1944 and drove east into Germany to win the war in 11 months, which really showed up what a saga the Soviets made out of fighting the Wehrmacht for 4 years.

How many battalions of German troops did the Russians beat vs the Allies? The march of the Russians from the East was far bloodier and met the far more difficult resistance. I'm not sure what reason you have for downplaying the Russian contribution. Whatever kind of an evil tyrant Stalin was it should not detract from the amazing sacrifice the Russian people made which was far in excess of any other nation.

As for what happened after the war ended I think you will find that the blame for the onset of the cold war lies squarely at the feet of the US. Truman and Eisenhower were war mongering fools who set the US on a very different path to one Roosevelt had spent his life laying the groundwork for.

Playboy

Balmed Out wrote: »

While the Soviets were primarily responsible for the defeat of the NAZI's you cant dismiss the importance of the western allies and especially of lend lease.
Soviet soldiers were transported in US trucks and often fought with US tanks, planes etc

I dont mean to downplay the importance of the West but far too many people are of the view that the Russians were an interesting sideshow to the all conquering US. Ask the average american who won the war vs the Nazi's and the will just have a look of confusion as they dont think there are even any contenders to the US for the title.

gandalf

Playboy wrote: »

I dont mean to downplay the importance of the West but far too many people are of the view that the Russians were an interesting sideshow to the all conquering US. Ask the average american who won the war vs the Nazi's and the will just have a look of confusion as they dont think there are even any contenders to the US for the title.

TBH if you ask the average American who won the Vietnam War half would probably answer that they did.

The Russians contributed to the allied victory but again to what degree is a matter of opinion and hard to quantify tbh.

enfant terrible

Playboy wrote: »

I dont mean to downplay the importance of the West but far too many people are of the view that the Russians were an interesting sideshow to the all conquering US. Ask the average american who won the war vs the Nazi's and the will just have a look of confusion as they dont think there are even any contenders to the US for the title.

I find the opposite from Americans and Europeans, who see its obvious the Russians played the biggest part in defeating the Nazis.

Hard not too with school and the History channel proving it.

Sobko

gandalf wrote: »

TBH if you ask the average American who won the Vietnam War half would probably answer that they did.

The Russians contributed to the allied victory but again to what degree is a matter of opinion and hard to quantify tbh.

I think it can be quantified by the number of deaths they suffered in comparison to the other allies. The Chinese also seem to be a forgotten member in all of this.

Junkyard Tom

Another factor that is often overlooked is that a large majority of the forces who participated in the D-Day invasion were not from the US.

Balmed Out

Playboy wrote: »

I dont mean to downplay the importance of the West but far too many people are of the view that the Russians were an interesting sideshow to the all conquering US. Ask the average american who won the war vs the Nazi's and the will just have a look of confusion as they dont think there are even any contenders to the US for the title.

I think most people who are in any way educated about ww2 would realize the importance of the Soviets.
Who do seem written out of it are the Chinese, presumably because the communist victors of their civil war wouldn't have had any reason so seek recognition of any achievements by the nationalist faction. If it weren't for their efforts I don't see a pearl harbor and I imagine the soviets would have had to fight an extra front.

Nodin

Egginacup wrote: »

The 70 anniversary of the destruction of the Third Reich was celebrated by the people who lost 25 million souls in bringing about such an eventuality this week. The Wehrmacht invaded the USSR in 1941 with 3 million crack troops and laid waste to millions of square miles and lives.
The celebrations in Moscow of the people who bore the brunt of the death and destruction of the most massive military invasion in history, and ultimately defeated it in four appalling years, was boycotted by the leaders of the countries whose freedom was assured by the defeat of the Third Reich.

Why would this happen?

....because that state is acting a wee bit nazi-ish.

Balmed Out

Junkyard Cat wrote: »

Another factor that is often overlooked is that a large majority of the forces who participated in the D-Day invasion were not from the US.

large majority? No idea of figures but would have thought US were the bones of half the forces?

Capt'n Midnight

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

The young men of RAF bomber command who sacrificed themselves during the bombing raids over Germany saved us from a future of Nazism

IIRC German industrial production peaked in 1944. And the limiting factor was lack of raw materials. North Korea moved factories underground during the Korean war. And kept up production.

The bombing raids were murder. They were based on the premise that since the Blitz hadn't affected British morale or production significantly then doing the same to the Germans would somehow have different results , for reasons unknown

Having said that the ball bearing raids might have worked. But only because the Germans had looted the factories in occupied countries so the couldn't just shift production. The raid on the oil refineries was a complete waste because it took just a few days to get the refineries running. Destroying a third of a refinery means nothing if it's only running at 60% capacity.

The main effect of the bombing campaign was a war of attrition on the Luftwaffe. Such that there was one only staffing run on D-Day. And even then the lack of fuel and metals needed to make reliable jet engines probably had a bigger effect.

Complete waste of bomber crew. The Mosquito had roughly half the bomb load as the heavies (depending on the distance) but only used half the engines and was largely made of wood so lots less resources. It was also twice as fast as a Stirling so could complete two bombing missions on the same night. The Stirling had a crew of 7. The Mosquito just two. Even the Lancaster could have gone nearly 100mph faster if they'd removed all the gunners and guns. he Americans did this with the B29s over Japan. Even if hadn't affected the loss rate it would still have meant less casualties. T


Similar story with Japan. B29's dropping mines at sea which reduced shipping and imports had a much greater effect than firebombing the cities and at far less risk to the crews.

Junkyard Tom

Balmed Out wrote: »

large majority? No idea of figures but would have thought US were the bones of half the forces?

Of the forces that landed on the beaches yes..

On D-Day, the Allies landed around 156,000 troops in Normandy. The American forces landed numbered 73,000: 23,250 on Utah Beach, 34,250 on Omaha Beach, and 15,500 airborne troops. In the British and Canadian sector, 83,115 troops were landed (61,715 of them British): 24,970 on Gold Beach, 21,400 on Juno Beach, 28,845 on Sword Beach, and 7900 airborne troops.

ddaymuseum.co.uk

... but a large majority of those who participated in the operation (planning & execution) were primarily British or Commonwealth people.

BoJack Horseman

Nodin wrote: »

....because that state is acting a wee bit nazi-ish.

Indeed, the whole thing is tragic, there must be a word in Russian for irony.

70 years ago, a people under the tyranny of communism, expelling & eventually defeating fascism with monumental self-sacrifice.

70 years later commemorated by a 'whose who' of pseudo-despot leaders, in the capital of Europe's new proto-fascism.

Truely tragic.

BlaasForRafa

gandalf wrote: »

On the flip side it could also be said that it's quite sad that the Russian regime has used the parade to politicise these events with what in effect was military porn for the masses.

The russian parade was reminiscent of scenes from Triumph of the Will, especially the endless parades of goose-stepping troops past the smiling grimace of a fascistic leader.

Fleawuss

Because Putin.

ianobrien

OP, the reason the leaders stayed away is because of the actions of Russia remind them of the actions of another country almost 77 years ago.

One country decides to invade another to seize parts of its territory that the aggressor has decided that should belong to them. The aggressor then tries to destabilise the rest of the country, trying to get more territory. Now, this could be Germany in 1938 and the Sudentenlands in Czechoslovakia or Russia in 2014 and the Crimea in Ukraine.

As for the rest of the thread, if your Aunt had balls she would be your Uncle.

seligehgit

Egginacup wrote: »

The 70 anniversary of the destruction of the Third Reich was celebrated by the people who lost 25 million souls in bringing about such an eventuality this week. The Wehrmacht invaded the USSR in 1941 with 3 million crack troops and laid waste to millions of square miles and lives.
The celebrations in Moscow of the people who bore the brunt of the death and destruction of the most massive military invasion in history, and ultimately defeated it in four appalling years, was boycotted by the leaders of the countries whose freedom was assured by the defeat of the Third Reich.

Why would this happen?

The West does not want to legitimise in any way the aggressive foreign policy of an authoritarian dictator like Putin as has been so amply demonstrated in Georgia in the past,the Crimea and east Ukraine.

Having said that the former USSR contributed greatly to defeating the great evil that was nazism during the great patriotic war... Around 20 million lives lost I believe.

Streetwalker

ianobrien wrote: »

OP, the reason the leaders stayed away is because of the actions of Russia remind them of the actions of another country almost 77 years ago.

One country decides to invade another to seize parts of its territory that the aggressor has decided that should belong to them. The aggressor then tries to destabilise the rest of the country, trying to get more territory. Now, this could be Germany in 1938 and the Sudentenlands in Czechoslovakia or Russia in 2014 and the Crimea in Ukraine.

As for the rest of the thread, if your Aunt had balls she would be your Uncle.

So a bit like what the united states has done countless times so.

Stojkovic

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

Everyone mentions Finland and the UK but you're correct that there have been many more.

The Football War was between El Salvador and Honduras, although it was mainly about land rather than football.

Israel v Lebanon and Ecuador v Peru are two continual democracy v democracy match-ups.

USA and Britain 1812.
USA and Spain 1898.

Roger Hassenforder

Sobko wrote: »

I think it can be quantified by the number of deaths they suffered in comparison to the other allies. The Chinese also seem to be a forgotten member in all of this.

suffering the most deaths isn't the same as contributing the most to the victory.

Infini

Just a little Samba wrote: »

Remove the eastern front and the Allies wouldn't have be able to take Italy or Greece.

Russia being dragged into the war is what lost the war for Germany. No matter how many Tom Clancy books and movies try to tell you otherwise.

The war was lost in the east, not the beaches of Normandy.

Reasons nazis lost in Russia was also because they started in the summer with their initial invasion. If they had launched their assault a few months earlier they probably wouldve made it as far as the urals. It was the russian winter that done em in because at that point their momentum was lost from the cold and poor conditions and it bought the russians enough time to organise a counter attack.

Not sure how the war wouldve played out after that.

Into The Blue

Just a little Samba wrote: »

A non-aggression pact is not an alliance. Not even close, it's a "you leave me alone, I leave you alone".

Much like the brits and the nazis after the annex of czechoslovakia in the 30s

gravehold

Egginacup wrote: »

The 70 anniversary of the destruction of the Third Reich was celebrated by the people who lost 25 million souls in bringing about such an eventuality this week. The Wehrmacht invaded the USSR in 1941 with 3 million crack troops and laid waste to millions of square miles and lives.
The celebrations in Moscow of the people who bore the brunt of the death and destruction of the most massive military invasion in history, and ultimately defeated it in four appalling years, was boycotted by the leaders of the countries whose freedom was assured by the defeat of the Third Reich.

Why would this happen?

Stalin was worse than hitler why celibate him

Shenshen

How did that happen?

Because they are celebrating 70 year-old history, in a country which last year has annexed part of an independent country, heavily supported the outbreak of a civil war, possibly killed a number of innocent civilians who had nothing to do with the conflict in the first place, and apart from that has a rather artrocious approach to human rights in general.

It didn't happen because of what went on 70 years ago, but because of the countries most recent actions.

Egginacup

Egginacup wrote: »

The 70 anniversary of the destruction of the Third Reich was celebrated by the people who lost 25 million souls in bringing about such an eventuality this week.

Russian policy, throw people at it, cheaper than bullets.

Of course many died on all sides. Just not sure any country saw its people as...expendable...as cheap...as the Russians. Not much to celebrate in that victory.

renegademaster

Remind me which banking family funded hitler

Hidalgo

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

suffering the most deaths isn't the same as contributing the most to the victory.

Through losing the number Russia lost, that by itself made a huge contribution.

If Germany lost one million troops and Russia lost the same, then that puts the Allied war effort in a better position.
More mince meat for the grinder and all that.

Nodin

Streetwalker wrote: »

So a bit like what the united states has done countless times so.

....which, though it makes them hypocrites, doesn't mean they're wrong.

karma_

Sand wrote: »

Why were they begging for help if they won the war singlehandly? The truth is the Allies landed in June 1944 and drove east into Germany to win the war in 11 months, which really showed up what a saga the Soviets made out of fighting the Wehrmacht for 4 years.

I never thought I could see so much ignorance of history compressed into two sentences.

Wibbs

Sand wrote: »

Why were they begging for help if they won the war singlehandly? The truth is the Allies landed in June 1944 and drove east into Germany to win the war in 11 months, which really showed up what a saga the Soviets made out of fighting the Wehrmacht for 4 years.

To be fair Sand, the Allies would have been very lucky to have made it past a beachhead against a German war machine not fighting on the eastern front. As it was those 11 months were stretched out due to screwups by the allies even against weakened German forces. And the Allies had huge advantage in men, materiel and fuel and near total air superiority with it. Look what the Germans did in the Ardennes when outnumbered and outgunned 3 to 1.

BlaasForRafa

Infini2 wrote: »

Reasons nazis lost in Russia was also because they started in the summer with their initial invasion. If they had launched their assault a few months earlier they probably wouldve made it as far as the urals.

The spring in the USSR that year was very rainy which made the roads in the Western part of the USSR unusable. Late May was the earliest they could have attacked but they had to clean up Italy's mess in the Aegean.

Deleted User wrote: »

Russian policy, throw people at it, cheaper than bullets.

Of course many died on all sides. Just not sure any country saw its people as...expendable...as cheap...as the Russians. Not much to celebrate in that victory.

Well indeed, they literally did that with their human wave infantry attacks which wasted incredible amounts of troops. And using "punishment battalions" in front of regular troops, forcing them to walk across minefields to set off the mines because it was easier and cheaper to do that then use specialist troops like every other army.

Streetwalker

Nodin wrote: »

....which, though it makes them hypocrites, doesn't mean they're wrong.

Tell that to the next poor fuc ker knelt in the sand with some lunatic from ISIS standing behind him and a video camera in front of him.

Roger Hassenforder

Hidalgo wrote: »

Through losing the number Russia lost, that by itself made a huge contribution.

If Germany lost one million troops and Russia lost the same, then that puts the Allied war effort in a better position.
More mince meat for the grinder and all that.

true. no one disputes the huge contribution they made, but the notion they themselves brought about the end of the 3rd Reich is nonsense as the OP seems to be trying to spin.

blatantrereg

The USSR was comparable to Nazi Germany. They were invading other countries and the gulags were comparable to Nazi concentration camps. Therefore you could equally ask why Hitler isn't celebrated for his attempts to beat them back.

The USSR did not save the world from Nazism. The USA developed atomic weapons and used them three months after German surrender. Combine that with the unsinkable aircraft carrier that is Britain and it's inconceivable that Germany could have continued the war at that point, even if they had subjugated the whole of mainland europe by then.

Sand

Playboy wrote: »

How many battalions of German troops did the Russians beat vs the Allies?

What difference does that make? Millions of German soldiers remained under arms by May 1945. The Nazis weren't defeated because the appropriate scoreline was reached.

One of the basic principles of (successful) warfare is to go around enemy strong-points, not through them.

The march of the Russians from the East was far bloodier and met the far more difficult resistance.

Yes, far slower and less effective, despite the Allies only having a fraction of the troops in France that the Red Army had for their advance. The Allied advance was so successful that they had to pause and wait for the Soviets, to allow them to take Berlin for political reasons.

I'm not sure what reason you have for downplaying the Russian contribution. Whatever kind of an evil tyrant Stalin was it should not detract from the amazing sacrifice the Russian people made which was far in excess of any other nation.

I'm not downplaying the Soviet contribution of which the Russian contribution was a part, I'm setting it in its proper context as part of a global struggle against aggressive totalitarian dictatorships. The majority of the Soviet Union captured, exploited and starved by the Nazis was Polish, Latvian, Lithuanian, Estonian, Ukrainian, not Russian. The suffering of the Chinese under Japanese occupation cannot be dismissed. The suffering of the Jewish was vastly greater than that of the Russians.

You're following an old line of Stalinist propaganda - Stalin was determined to buy influence in the post war negotiations with blood. No one, not even the Jews, were to be acknowledged as having sacrificed more than the Russians. Ironically, most of the Soviet and Russian suffering was down to the incompetence and poor leadership of Stalin and his regime.

And after the Soviet Union recaptured its territory, it was often the non-Russian locals who were again terrorised, deported and imprisoned by the Soviets. I'd be interested to know if their suffering is counted as being the suffering of the Russian people.

Sobko wrote: »

I think it can be quantified by the number of deaths they suffered in comparison to the other allies. The Chinese also seem to be a forgotten member in all of this.

That's equivalent to identifying the best criminal masterminds by who served the most time in prison.

Skylinehead

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

suffering the most deaths isn't the same as contributing the most to the victory.

Not on it's own no, but when you consider that they were fighting the Germans since 1941 non-stop (there was no Western Front until 1944), had to fight and defeat the bulk of the Wehrmacht, and struck the blows that ended the war, who else did?

Fratton Fred

Skylinehead wrote: »

Not on it's own no, but when you consider that they were fighting the Germans since 1941 non-stop (there was no Western Front until 1944), had to fight and defeat the bulk of the Wehrmacht, and struck the blows that ended the war, who else did?

North Africa, France and the low countries, invasion of Greece, battle of Britain etc didn't happen until 1944?

MRnotlob606

Sand wrote: »

Maybe they remembered that the Soviets were allied with the Nazis during the invasions of Poland, Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Belgium, France and the Battle of Britain and the Battle of the Atlantic?

"Allies" Is very big stretch of the word. Russia and Germany were diametrically opposed to each other.

Sand

Skylinehead wrote: »

Not on it's own no, but when you consider that they were fighting the Germans since 1941 non-stop (there was no Western Front until 1944), had to fight and defeat the bulk of the Wehrmacht, and struck the blows that ended the war, who else did?

The British were fighting the Axis across multiple fronts since 1939 non-stop.

No Western Front?

Invasion of Norway, Low Countries and France?
Battle of Britain?
Battle of the Atlantic?
The British and US bombing campaign 1942-1945?
North Africa 1940-1943?
The Pacific theatre 1941 - 1945?

The Soviets only fought between 1941 and 1945, against only one enemy and on only one front with large amounts of assistance they did not offer to any other front or ally. It took them until 1945 to open the western front against Japan.

I find it bizarre that Russian chauvinists get hot and bothered by the idea that Russian didn't single-handedly win the war, yet the sacrifices and efforts of Allied servicemen who served on and protected the convoys supporting them throughout the war are dismissed as irrelevant.

Skylinehead

Fratton Fred wrote: »

North Africa, France and the low countries, invasion of Greece, battle of Britain etc didn't happen until 1944?

Of course they did - I was referring to large-scale land battles along the Western Front between the fall of France and Overlord. I did overlook Africa to be fair, there was some amount of resources poured into there - but it still pales in comparison to the Eastern Front. The Germans lost their best units there when the Western Allies didn't even have a foothold in Europe.

MRnotlob606

Sand wrote: »

Oh, the Poles were carved up by a non-aggression pact, right.

If the Soviets saved the world from Nazism, who saved the Finns, the Poles, the Lithuanians, the Latvians and the Estonians from Stalinism?

The Finns Allied themselves with the Nazis. Latvia contributed 87,550 soldiers to the Waffen SS, and a further 23,000 served as Auxillaries to the Wehrmacht.

noway12345

This is crazy stuff. It's a denial of a cold, hard, fact if you say anyone but the Soviets defeated the Nazis. Without them the Nazis would have destroyed the allies.
Then people are saying that how they behaved after the war is the reason no other leaders attended the celebration!!!!!!! Are people for real? We're talking about the leaders of America and Britain not attending. America and Britain! What the ****? Do people know about some of the murderous rampages these two have been doing round the world? This is crazy.

Sand

MRnotlob606 wrote: »

The Finns Allied themselves with the Nazis. Latvia contributed 87,550 soldiers to the Waffen SS, and a further 23,000 served as Auxillaries to the Wehrmacht.

120,000-130,000 Russians served in the Wehrmacht in the RLA. Anything up to 600,000 Russians served in the Wehrmacht as auxiliaries.

gravehold

noway12345 wrote: »

This is crazy stuff. It's a denial of a cold, hard, fact if you say anyone but the Soviets defeated the Nazis. Without them the Nazis would have destroyed the allies.
Then people are saying that how they behaved after the war is the reason no other leaders attended the celebration!!!!!!! Are people for real? We're talking about the leaders of America and Britain not attending. America and Britain! What the ****? Do people know about some of the murderous rampages these two have been doing round the world? This is crazy.

Stalin was worse then hitler and the current political situation in russia are probably the main reason people didn't want to go support russia role in ww2

noway12345

gravehold wrote: »

Stalin was worse then hitler and the current political situation in russia are probably the main reason people didn't want to go support russia role in ww2

And somehow Britain and America are better? Have people read about the history of these places?