USSR, USA and UK saved everyone in WW2 - Page 3 - Historum

betgo · February 11th, 2012, 06:09 PM

Yeh, each country tends to maximize its own importance. This was aggravated by the cold war, propaganda in the closed Communist system, and the influence of Hollywood movies that rarely showed action on the eastern front.

Rakkasan · February 11th, 2012, 08:44 PM

Quote:

and the influence of Hollywood movies that rarely showed action on the eastern front.

Hmmm..why would Hollywood movies show the eastern front...no americans fought there.

**Bish** · February 11th, 2012, 10:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rakkasan

Hmmm..why would Hollywood movies show the eastern front...no americans fought there.

And thats an excellent point. Well many of us outside the USA might be sick of seeing how the US won the war, thats our fault not theres. I think its a shame that Britain can help make Band of Brothers and SPR, but we can't make any decent programes/movies of the same type on our own contribution. The only movies about the British side of the war are either the 1950's dambusters type movies, or the later big US/UK movies like A Bridge to Far.

The same goes for Germany, but i can hardly see them makeing something like BoB showing German troops.

cincinnatus · February 12th, 2012, 04:25 AM

Its difficult to imagine US and the UK defeating Nazi Germany on its own . Not without Nuclear Weapons turning Germany into into a Nuclear Wasteland for years to come.

I do think that in the West there has been a consistent under appreciation of the extent of the role the Soviet Union played in Germany's eventual defeat. That I think has both a lot to do with the fact that the war with Nazi Germany was replaced by the Cold War.

Also the Soviet Union was not open to a lot of researchers and historians wanting to write about that period. I think that is one thing that many people don't appreciate is that the Soviet Union did not do a good job of telling its story. And it did it that way because to do so would have shown its tremendous mistakes its leadership made . Its tremendous waste of life and resources

**Bish** · February 12th, 2012, 04:32 AM

I think it would have near to impossable for the UK and USA to defeat Germany with the SU. But then as the SU was what the war in Europe was all aboiut anyway, it wouldn't have been much of a war without them.

I think the SU did tell its story, but it jusyt put its own spin on things. And we have done likewise. IMHO we have over played our role in the conflict.

**irishcrusader95** · February 12th, 2012, 05:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bish

The same goes for Germany, but i can hardly see them makeing something like BoB showing German troops.

oh i would so watch that

perhaps its a bit understandable why the soviet involvement in the war was underrated for so long. the cold war made any real study of it difficult for western audiences so there only sources for years on it was the memoirs of german commanders there which only showed one side of it. David Glantz the foremost historian on the SU in WW2 wrote this interesting blog on why it was so underrated for so long and why getting a full picture of events was so difficult.
Pre-1990 Bias in Eastern Front Historiography

Thessalonian · February 12th, 2012, 05:05 AM

It was mainly the USSR who did the hard work. The USA & the UK only helped a little.
The overwhelming majority of Hitler's armed forces were destroyed by the Soviets...

Fantasus · February 12th, 2012, 05:16 AM

What about the others: The participants from many european countries, large numbers from the British and partly French Empires, non-russian Soviets, millions of Chinese and other asians?

**Sargon of Akkad** · February 12th, 2012, 07:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apicius

IMHO, such a discussion is at odds with understanding. Great contributions were made by all parties. And great reverses can be attributed to all.

Every action was taken based on (perceived) necessity. It would be a mistake to view the war and its players as two teams on a football pitch and arguing about the selection of most valuable player.

This was a grim game of many games - culminating in the Cold War. But no alliance that was made, was made without necessity. If Russia, or Amerca, or Britain could've prevailed in any event, no such alliances would be needed.

But the alliances were, in fact, needed.

Nobody's arguing against this. We're saying that if the total effort to defeat Germany is 100%, then there seems to be the opinion that American did 70% of the work while Britain and Russia did 30%, whereas it was really the Russians that did 70% and Britain and America doing 30%.

kablooblab · February 12th, 2012, 07:20 AM

This forum makes me feel dumber by the day. I thought England was fighting Germany and were losing, America stepped in and really saved the day. Then Russia went in and cleaned up the scraps on the east.