USSR in World War II: how West belittles its role

[MostFamous]

Falsification of the history of events and the results of World War II has always been an essential feature of modern Western military historiography and propaganda. After the war ended, its events were repeatedly subjected to these falsifications by both political leaders of the West and many historians. Supporters of the idea of the Cold War diligently appealed to the leading role of the United States during the war. The period from 1939 to 1945 was particularly intensively falsified after the collapse of the USSR when Western culture and values penetrated the territory of the former socialist camp. The main problem to this day has been that the role of the United States in World War II has been actively implanted in the minds of young people and in the light in which the USSR is exposed today as one of the actors of this large-scale war in the history of mankind. Recent events have demonstrated how the West is once again trying to downplay the role of the USSR. On July 23, 2019 Poland did not invite Russia to celebrate the 80th anniversary of the outbreak of World War II, but at the same time called Germany. Probably, the fact that it was Germany that attacked Poland on September 1, 1939 did not bother the country's governance.
Another important factor is how the essence of the Second World War is presented to students in American schools, where it is argued that the victory in Europe was won by the States, and the Second World War began on December 7, 1941 after the Japanese attacked the American naval base Pearl-Harbor, after which there was a slight confrontation in Italy and North Africa, and then the war actually began on June 6, 1944 after landing in Normandy. As a result of bloody battles, American troops landed on the west coast of France, reached Berlin and declared their victory in the Second World War. Moreover, the role of the USSR is hardly mentioned in American historical literature. According to a survey conducted by the British agency ICM Research in April 2015 among European citizens, 52% of respondents said that it was the United States that played a key role in the victory over fascism in Europe and only 17% said that it was the Soviet Union. It is noteworthy that the study conducted by the IFOP agency immediately after the end of the Second World War reflected a completely different situation. 57% of the inhabitants of France stated that the Soviet Union played the main role in defeating Hitler, 20% said it was the USA and 12% - Great Britain. All this speaks of how the West purposefully makes not only its citizens, but also the citizens of Western Europe consider the USSR as an almost mediocre actor during the war, which played a secondary role in deciding the fate of Europe.
Naturally, the role of the allies during the Second World War should not be ruled out. Thanks to Lend-Lease, the Soviet Union was equipped with additional equipment, which slightly, but eased the economic situation of the state. Western authoritative historians consider Lend-Lease as "saving" for the Soviet Union. However, the same historians are silent about the fact that the amount of aid under the Lend-Lease of the USSR was quite small - only about 4% of the funds spent by the country on the war, and the tanks and aircraft supplied to the USSR were mainly outdated models. In addition, the bulk of this assistance came at a time when the USSR had already launched a counterattack. It is safe to say that Lend-Lease didn't play a decisive role during the war, and neither the governance of Western states, nor Western non-governmental organizations will ever recognize this fact. Without Lend-Lease, the Soviet Union would have ended the war not by May 1945, but, for example, by 1946.
Lately, there appear declassified documents related to the Second World War. It is necessary in order to preserve historical authenticity. On September 9, 2019, the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation declassified documents that reveal previously unknown details of world military policy on the eve of the war. Among the published materials there is a description of the combat operations of the 2nd German Army Corps during the offensive on Poland in 1939. The testimony of the German general demonstrates the fierce resistance of the Poles, the intense course of the battles for Warsaw and the Modlin fortress is also described. The documents of the Ministry of Defense also talk about how the inhabitants of Western Ukraine with flowers in their hands and with tears in their eyes met the Soviet troops, who liberated them during the Polish campaign from oppression by the Poles and invaders.
Thus, whatever the political motives of the governance of Western countries to denigrate and belittle the role and importance of the USSR in World War II were, European citizens themselves must realize what kind of burden their relatives had to carry, whose lands were occupied by German Nazis. A knowledge of the methods of falsifiers, as well as a demonstration of their anti-science should be an important condition for a reasoned fight against distortion and juggling the history of the Second World War. And only by opening the archives and making available to researchers and the common man the whole set of documents of that period (this applies not only to Russia, but also to other countries), it is possible to objectively and impartially display the true causes of the war, its course and results.

[Elessar]

More one-post propaganda.

The materials provided in Lend-Lease were hardly 'outdated' as described above. They were
up-to-date aircraft and tanks of the time. They were eventually replaced by newer platforms.

[Kathianne]

More one-post propaganda.

The materials provided in Lend-Lease were hardly 'outdated' as described above. They were
up-to-date aircraft and tanks of the time. They were eventually replaced by newer platforms.

I'm sure everyone here is aware of the USSR having the heaviest casualties. What those like this new wittle poster forget is that the reason they had was because Stalin wanted to grab Poland and as much of Eastern Europe as possible. He made a 'deal' with Hitler. It cost his people.

Then there were the purges of the upper echelon of the Soviet military, because if one is Stalin, you have to take out anyone who might turn against you. Again, there was a huge cost.

[Drummond]

I'm sure everyone here is aware of the USSR having the heaviest casualties. What those like this new wittle poster forget is that the reason they had was because Stalin wanted to grab Poland and as much of Eastern Europe as possible. He made a 'deal' with Hitler. It cost his people.

Then there were the purges of the upper echelon of the Soviet military, because if one is Stalin, you have to take out anyone who might turn against you. Again, there was a huge cost.

'Remarkable', isn't it, that the 'little' detail of Stalin's preference to count Hitler as his conquest ally / buddy, is so 'easily forgotten'. Indeed, I understand it was Hitler who broke that pact with Stalin, not Stalin himself.

Do the massive numbers of war-dead suffered by Russia, at Hitler's hands, merit sympathy ? 'Yes', to be sure ... but let's not forget that the PREFERRED allegiance of Stalin's, was with Hitler. Had Hitler not proven treacherous ... would those who died have instead served (even if indirectly) the cause of the Nazi Third Reich ?

[Elessar]

I'm sure everyone here is aware of the USSR having the heaviest casualties. What those like this new wittle poster forget is that the reason they had was because Stalin wanted to grab Poland and as much of Eastern Europe as possible. He made a 'deal' with Hitler. It cost his people.

Then there were the purges of the upper echelon of the Soviet military, because if one is Stalin, you have to take out anyone who might turn against you. Again, there was a huge cost.

Stalin removed or murdered 2/3rds of his field commanders early in the war, leaving
mostly inexperienced officers to take over.

Yes, he was allied with Hitler early on, but Hitler turned on him.

[Kathianne]

'Remarkable', isn't it, that the 'little' detail of Stalin's preference to count Hitler as his conquest ally / buddy, is so 'easily forgotten'. Indeed, I understand it was Hitler who broke that pact with Stalin, not Stalin himself.

Do the massive numbers of war-dead suffered by Russia, at Hitler's hands, merit sympathy ? 'Yes', to be sure ... but let's not forget that the PREFERRED allegiance of Stalin's, was with Hitler. Had Hitler not proven treacherous ... would those who died have instead served (even if indirectly) the cause of the Nazi Third Reich ?

This was one of the times, there were others, when FDR should have listened to Churchill.

[STTAB]

Stalin removed or murdered 2/3rds of his field commanders early in the war, leaving
mostly inexperienced officers to take over.

Yes, he was allied with Hitler early on, but Hitler turned on him.

Stalin was never allied with Hitler. The two nations had a non aggression pact , that Hitler obviously never intended to honor; but the two were never allies.

[Kathianne]

Stalin was never allied with Hitler. The two nations had a non aggression pact , that Hitler obviously never intended to honor; but the two were never allies.

It has been argued that if Stalin never agreed to said pact, WWII may well have not been a World War. There are good arguments of that. Truth is, we never should have allied with Stalin. Churchill was right.

[STTAB]

It has been argued that if Stalin never agreed to said pact, WWII may well have not been a World War. There are good arguments of that. Truth is, we never should have allied with Stalin. Churchill was right.
If we hadn't allied with Stalin in Europe, we would have most likely had to have dropped an A bomb on Germany to end the war. An A bomb that frankly we didn't have to spare. It probably would have by most accounts taken another year to build a third bomb.

Allying with the Soviet Union wasn't the mistake, giving them control of part of Europe after the war was the mistake.

[NightTrain]

While most of the OP was amusing with the half-truths and distortions, this little gem got an outright LOL from me :


The documents of the Ministry of Defense also talk about how the inhabitants of Western Ukraine with flowers in their hands and with tears in their eyes met the Soviet troops, who liberated them during the Polish campaign from oppression by the Poles and invaders.

Yes, those bloodthirsty Poles were pretty much responsible for all the shenanigans flying around Europe & Asia. I'd forgotten all about that. Didn't Poland make it almost to Siberia before they were repelled by the heroic Soviets?

I think Poland should apologize for their role in the war. Probably should pay reparations, too.

[Kathianne]

If we hadn't allied with Stalin in Europe, we would have most likely had to have dropped an A bomb on Germany to end the war. An A bomb that frankly we didn't have to spare. It probably would have by most accounts taken another year to build a third bomb.

Allying with the Soviet Union wasn't the mistake, giving them control of part of Europe after the war was the mistake.

Perhaps. Then again, Poland and other eastern holdings might have been able to have helped.

I don't have time for 'what if,' but have always wondered if so much would have been different.

[FakeNewsSux]

Allying with the Soviet Union wasn't the mistake, giving them control of part of Europe after the war was the mistake.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxAIE9TbGyk

[STTAB]

While most of the OP was amusing with the half-truths and distortions, this little gem got an outright LOL from me :



Yes, those bloodthirsty Poles were pretty much responsible for all the shenanigans flying around Europe & Asia. I'd forgotten all about that. Didn't Poland make it almost to Siberia before they were repelled by the heroic Soviets?

I think Poland should apologize for their role in the war. Probably should pay reparations, too.[/COLOR]


Just as a matter of historical record Germany invaded Poland first and when the Soviets followed suit there WERE Poles who were happy to see the Soviets show up. They stupidly believed the Soviets were there to deliver them from the Germans, not to annex them for themselves.

[NightTrain]

I'm aware.

Ivan believes that the Soviets rescued Ukrainians from occupying Pollocks. Somehow.

If any country is blameless in the run up and ensuing shenanigans, it would be Poland. They got a pretty raw deal from both sides.

[Kathianne]

I'm aware.

Ivan believes that the Soviets rescued Ukrainians from occupying Pollocks. Somehow.

If any country is blameless in the run up and ensuing shenanigans, it would be Poland. They got a pretty raw deal from both sides.

and the Czechs.

[icansayit]

Pure, unadulterated, Propaganda at it's worst.

No wonder our children, and their parents (in many cases), are so confused, and literally Illiterate????

WIKIPEDIA in most respects today is; another method where ANYONE can write their versions of History...the way they thought it should have been, or how they wished it had been.

As of 2017....Here are the facts....https://worldtop20.org/2017-world-best-education-systems-1st-quarter-report
Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Wikipedia can be edited by anyone at any time. This means that any information it contains at any particular time could be vandalism, a work in progress, or just plain wrong. Biographies of living persons, subjects that happen to be in the news, and politically or culturally contentious topics are especially vulnerable to these issues. Edits on Wikipedia that are in error may eventually be fixed. However, because Wikipedia is a volunteer run project, it cannot monitor every contribution all of the time. There are many errors that remain unnoticed for days, weeks, months, or even years. Therefore, Wikipedia should not be considered a definitive source in and of itself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_reliable_source

[Drummond]

I'm aware.

Ivan believes that the Soviets rescued Ukrainians from occupying Pollocks. Somehow.

If any country is blameless in the run up and ensuing shenanigans, it would be Poland. They got a pretty raw deal from both sides.

Requoting what our one-post poster had to say (or is that, more accurately, 'regurgitate' .. ?) concerning Ukraine:


The documents of the Ministry of Defense also talk about how the inhabitants of Western Ukraine with flowers in their hands and with tears in their eyes met the Soviet troops, who liberated them during the Polish campaign from oppression by the Poles and invaders.

.... yeahhh ... !! ...... :rolleyes:

So, I'm wondering: how much 'more oppressive' were these alleged 'Poles and invaders', then ... than, THIS ....

https://www.history.com/news/ukrainian-famine-stalin


At the height of the 1932-33 Ukrainian famine under Joseph Stalin, starving people roamed the countryside, desperate for something, anything to eat. In the village of Stavyshche, a young peasant boy watched as the wanderers dug into empty gardens with their bare hands. Many were so emaciated, he recalled, that their bodies began to swell and stink from the extreme lack of nutrients.

"You could see them walking about, just walking and walking, and one would drop, and then another, and so on it went," he said many years later, in a case history collected in the late 1980s by a Congressional commission. In the cemetery outside the village hospital, overwhelmed doctors carried the bodies on stretchers and tossed them into an enormous pit.

The Ukrainian famine—known as the Holodomor, a combination of the Ukrainian words for “starvation” and “to inflict death”—by one estimate claimed the lives of 3.9 million people, about 13 percent of the population. And, unlike other famines in history caused by blight or drought, this was caused when a dictator wanted both to replace Ukraine’s small farms with state-run collectives and punish independence-minded Ukrainians who posed a threat to his totalitarian authority.

"The Ukrainian famine was a clear case of a man-made famine,” explains Alex de Waal, executive director of the World Peace Foundation at Tufts University and author of the 2018 book, Mass Starvation: The History and Future of Famine. He describes it as “a hybrid…of a famine caused by calamitous social-economic policies and one aimed at a particular population for repression or punishment.”

So, Ukrainians had good cause to see Russians as 'liberators', there to 'save' them from 'invaders' ??

This 'MostFamous' joker really needs to be de-programmed very badly, I'm thinking. Unless, of course, s/he thinks of mass starvation as something which the victims of it should remember 'fondly' ... ?

[Gunny]

Interesting. :)

[Gunny]

I'll start with something that might be interesting: Was watching the little one earlier so I peeked at this on my phone. I read the entire OP thinking kathianne had posted it. The WTF? meter was off the chart, to say the least :laugh:

BUT ... it completely threw my perception therefore perspective off enough to actually read the OP seriously .... I didn't catch that it was some fly-by until I logged in on my PC.

We DO overplay our role in the History of the World since 1776. We overplay our role even in THAT. The Cold War just exacerbated the situation. That being said, while Ivan the Terrible up there was fighting NAZI Germany, the US was supplying Europe, the ME, fighting Germany, AND had a war "on the side" with Japan.

All I can say to THAT is "Russia WHO?" A country incapable of technology due to purges of anything intelligent, that can base all its technology on who they stole it from. Had a lot of bodies though. Probably saved us the trouble of killing more Germans.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I'll start with something that might be interesting: Was watching the little one earlier so I peeked at this on my phone. I read the entire OP thinking kathianne had posted it. The WTF? meter was off the chart, to say the least :laugh:

BUT ... it completely threw my perception therefore perspective off enough to actually read the OP seriously .... I didn't catch that it was some fly-by until I logged in on my PC.

We DO overplay our role in the History of the World since 1776. We overplay our role even in THAT. The Cold War just exacerbated the situation. That being said, while Ivan the Terrible up there was fighting NAZI Germany, the US was supplying Europe, the ME, fighting Germany, AND had a war "on the side" with Japan.

All I can say to THAT is "Russia WHO?" A country incapable of technology due to purges of anything intelligent, that can base all its technology on who they stole it from. Had a lot of bodies though. Probably saved us the trouble of killing more Germans.

Russia suffered terrible losses, both its soldiers and its civilians-- Leningrad and Stalingrad both prove that point- yet one must remember at the war's start they were allied in a pact with Hitler. And while we were fighting both Germany and Japan-- they only fought Germany and did so on their home turf.
While we had to ship everything overseas, they had it there at hand and we gave them supplies as well.
We even launched an attack(to draw away German forces) primarily to give their much beleaguered and grievously battered forces some much needed respite!
However, I will not trivialize their immense contributions, nor their fighting strength once they got better organized and equipped.
After all, they did destroy three German armies on their soil and invaded Germany with us and our allies to end Hitler's murderous reign.
The post that attempts to state they overshadow our effort is badly, sadly and magnificently misinformed- IMHO.
I have studied a great many empires , wars , generals, battles - and WW2 comes in second in my studies only to our own Civil war and barely above my study of Caesar's campaigns, Alexander the Great and his conquering most of the ancient world,
And Hannibal's brutal 15 year long savaging of the great Roman Empire -even during its mightiest period.