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

Egginacup · 09-05-2015 08:03PM #1

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?

Sand · 09-05-2015 08:07PM

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?

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?

darkpagandeath · 09-05-2015 08:08PM

:pac:

Just a little Samba · 09-05-2015 08:11PM

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?

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

The Backwards Man · 09-05-2015 08:12PM

You can't think of a single reason yourself Eggy? What do RT make of it?

darkpagandeath · 09-05-2015 08:13PM

Anyone name the only 2 democracy's in the world to ever declare war on each other ?

Sand · 09-05-2015 08:13PM

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?

CiDeRmAn · 09-05-2015 08:15PM

Yeah, the Soviets were in a fight for their lives against the Nazis but it was a bit like your two local scumbags fighting in the local supermarket carpark, yes scumbag no 1 won't be hassling you too much once he's been glassed in the neck, but don't imagine life under scumbag no2s shadow is going to be a picnic

Just a little Samba · 09-05-2015 08:16PM

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 saved themselves from Stalinism AND from British invasion, actually.

Nobody saved the baltic states, they became part of the Soviet Union.

Just a little Samba · 09-05-2015 08:17PM

CiDeRmAn wrote: »

Yeah, the Soviets were in a fight for their lives against the Nazis but it was a bit like your two local scumbags fighting in the local supermarket carpark, yes scumbag no 1 won't be hassling you too much once he's been glassed in the neck, but don't imagine life under scumbag no2s shadow is going to be a picnic

Without the Eastern Front, the Allies would never have won the war. The Germans would have held France indefinitely and had a much easier time of launching a full scale invasion of Britain.

SEPT 23 1989 · 09-05-2015 08:17PM

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

CiDeRmAn · 09-05-2015 08:19PM

Just a little Samba wrote: »

Without the Eastern Front, the Allies would never have won the war. The Germans would have held France indefinitely and had a much easier time of launching a full scale invasion of Britain.

I'm not disagreeing with you, but the Soviets were more interested in putting down the Nazi threat for good rather than saving western Europe from their influence.
Don't get me wrong, they had the best of reasons to do so, but saving us was a side effect at best, and it certainly didn't quell their ambition to turn Europe to their cause in the post war period.

The Backwards Man · 09-05-2015 08:20PM

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Anyone name the only 2 democracy's in the world to ever declare war on each other ?

There's been a few?

The one in central America about a football match was one, must look it up.

Just a little Samba · 09-05-2015 08:21PM

CiDeRmAn wrote: »

I'm not disagreeing with you, but the Soviets were more interested in putting down the Nazi threat for good rather than saving western Europe from their influence.
Don't get me wrong, they had the best of reasons to do so, but saving us was a side effect at best, and it certainly didn't quell their ambition to turn Europe to their cause in the post war period.

I never claimed they cared about us. Quite the opposite, it was just a case of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" for the duration of the war.

If Germany hadn't have broken the pact and the eastern front didn't open up Russia would have been happy to stay out of it indefinitely and continued to focus on expansion on their own eastern and southern borders.

CiDeRmAn · 09-05-2015 08:22PM

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

A bit, but they were certainly aided by the fact the Nazis found them self fighting over too many fronts.
If the allies hadn't of taken Italy, if the Nazis hadn't over extended into Russia, if the Nazi war machine hadn't failed in their atomic ambitions, we would all be speaking German right now.

Just a little Samba · 09-05-2015 08:22PM

The Backwards Man wrote: »

There's been a few?

The one in central America about a football match was one, must look it up.

There have been quite a few really, but the ones he's thinking of is Finland and the UK.

enfant terrible · 09-05-2015 08:24PM

CiDeRmAn wrote: »

A bit, but they were certainly aided by the fact the Nazis found them self fighting over too many fronts.
If the allies hadn't of taken Italy, if the Nazis hadn't over extended into Russia, if the Nazi war machine hadn't failed in their atomic ambitions, we would all be speaking German right now.

Lot of if's there.

The Backwards Man · 09-05-2015 08:25PM

Just a little Samba wrote: »

There have been quite a few really, but the ones he's thinking of is Finland and the UK.

I thought it might have been Russia and Georgia no? Seeing this thread is about the benevolent force of good in a chaotic and evil world that is the former Soviet Union?

Sand · 09-05-2015 08:25PM

Just a little Samba wrote: »

Without the Eastern Front, the Allies would never have won the war. The Germans would have held France indefinitely and had a much easier time of launching a full scale invasion of Britain.

Without the Soviet alliance, the Germans would never have started the war.

The importance of the eastern front is overstated by boorish Russian chauvinism which entirely dismisses the efforts and sacrifices of all other nations and veterans. Germany just prior to the war was spending 20% of its GDP to produce war material that the US could match with just 2% of its GDP, before it went on a war footing at all. That's not to say the US won the war single handed - but it highlights just how hopeless Germany's position was.

Just a little Samba · 09-05-2015 08:26PM

enfant terrible wrote: »

Lot of if's there.

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.

darkpagandeath · 09-05-2015 08:28PM

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.

The war was lost when Hitler took charge of the army.

Roger Hassenforder · 09-05-2015 08:28PM

CiDeRmAn wrote: »

A bit, but they were certainly aided by the fact the Nazis found them self fighting over too many fronts.

this.

And Lend-Lease.

Just a little Samba · 09-05-2015 08:39PM

Sand wrote: »

Without the Soviet alliance, the Germans would never have started the war.

There was no Soviet Alliance, no matter how many times you say there was.

Just a little Samba · 09-05-2015 08:41PM

darkpagandeath wrote: »

The war was lost when Hitler took charge of the army.

That too.
Good at getting people to blindly support his lunacy, not so good and organising a military. Was Idiocy for him to disregard he advice of his generals so brazenly. But sure crazy is as crazy dose and all that.

The_Valeyard · 09-05-2015 08:42PM

I think it's more of the point that the Soviets 'liberated' *cough cough* Eastern Europe, and then proceded to occupy it for the next near 50years.

Just a little Samba · 09-05-2015 08:48PM

The_Valeyard wrote: »

I think it's more of the point that the Soviets 'liberated' *cough cough* Eastern Europe, and then proceded to occupy it for the next near 50years.

The idea that the soviets liberated anything is obviously ridiculous.

They only entered the war in Europe because they were attacked. They were so sure they wouldn't be attacked they didn't even mobilise troops when they got intel that the Germans were massing in the east and basically allowed themselves to be caught with their pants down.

There was also zero military brilliance in their defence (and it was a defence) of Russia proper from Germany invasion. The basically reclaimed Stalingrad by marching people in front of the german lines in an effort over run them and this carried on all over the eastern front, hence 13 military and 12 civilian deaths!

But, the point still remains, if Hitler wasn't so stupid and didn't invade Russia and open up an Eastern front, the UK would have been much easier work for the reich.

Smiles35 · 09-05-2015 09:05PM

They were allways after Russia ultimatly. No amount of vedic sybols on flags could disguise that. And the roots and public discourse of these mad houses combined strech way back into the 1800's. I'm with the op in this. Our politicians should be above these events and give sympathy where possible.

DEFTLEFTHAND · 09-05-2015 09:15PM

How come these people never had to answer for the widescale acts of depravity carried out by their soldiers as the war drew to a close in Berlin?

Playboy · 09-05-2015 09:16PM

Sand wrote: »

Without the Soviet alliance, the Germans would never have started the war.

The importance of the eastern front is overstated by boorish Russian chauvinism which entirely dismisses the efforts and sacrifices of all other nations and veterans. Germany just prior to the war was spending 20% of its GDP to produce war material that the US could match with just 2% of its GDP, before it went on a war footing at all. That's not to say the US won the war single handed - but it highlights just how hopeless Germany's position was.

Revisionist nonsense. The Russians almost singlehandly beat the Nazi's. How long were they begging for Roosevelt and Churchill to open a western front to take some of the pressure off? Churchill was too interested in the farce that was the invasion of Italy and fighting battles in North Africa because his eyes were firmly on the world after the war and the continuity of the Empire. The Russians broke the back of the Germans and had they lost and not advanced into Eastern Europe then Europe would not have been recovered by the British and the US... it would have been too late. The Americans would never have committed to taking on the Germans without the Red Army and if you think they would have then you know very little of US politics at the time.

gandalf · 09-05-2015 09:16PM

Egginacup wrote: »

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

Because those forces who fought Nazism back then are acting like them today.

(also at the beginning of WW2 they were more than happy to align themselves with the those very same Nazi's. Always wondered would the body count of Russians had been so high if Stalin decided to stand up to a very obvious threat to the USSR then. A lot of the Pro-Russia cheerleaders seem to forget that sordid stain on Russias soul)

Just a little Samba · 09-05-2015 09:20PM

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

How come these people never had to answer for the widescale acts of depravity carried out by their soldiers as the war drew to a close in Berlin?

For the same reason the Allies didn't have to pay for the fire bombing of civilian Dresden.

To the victor, the spoils.

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

Comments