By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics - WWII Thread (How come the West never gives the Soviets the credit they deserve)

FattyDingDong said:
Kasz216 said:
 


By German lands... you mean the lands the Germans stole along with the Russians and Austro hungry during the Partition of Poland before World War 1?

 

This picture is easy to make. i can go and make a similar one.

The picture isn't so much important as the facts behind it.

What germany "lost" at the end of WW2 was only part of what it had stolen during the partition of Poland.

Your arguement boils down to that Hitler invaded to get back land germany had stolen... from the people germany stole it from.

I mean, lets compare.

 

VS

 

Looks to me Poland just got back SOME of the land that went "To austria" in the first partition plan, but not even all of it.  Well, and the lands that Germany took from it in the other partition plans.

 

Really Poland has an unfortunite history of being divied up among powerful neighbors.



Around the Network

From everyone I know, they do get credit. Russians are some tough SOBs. Are we talking college age and beyond that don't give respect? Or high schoolers who wouldn't have been taught the entire history of WWII (which would take up more than a year)? Everyone knows Russia sustained the largest losses, but then again, they didn't give a rat's ass about their own troops, as proven by sending them out to the front lines with NO GUNS in many cases. They would shoot their own men for retreating when a tactical retreat was necessary. Not the most humane of countries. Also, The countries the USSR took from Germany turned into a craphole and the ones the West took over, or rather, gave back to the people, ended up thriving. So that has something to do with it. Plus, people learn more about their own country's history first. So we learn about D-day and Pearl Harbor. Also, keep in mind it was basically the USA vs Japan in the other part of the war, so when telling history, we have two fronts to cover. Just like the Japanese probably learn more about the Chinese side of WWII since the USA and China were their main foes.



BOOM!  FACE KICK!

Kasz216 said:
FattyDingDong said:
Kasz216 said:
 


By German lands... you mean the lands the Germans stole along with the Russians and Austro hungry during the Partition of Poland before World War 1?

 

This picture is easy to make. i can go and make a similar one.

The picture isn't so much important as the facts behind it.

What germany "lost" at the end of WW2 was only part of what it had stolen during the partition of Poland.

Your arguement boils down to that Hitler invaded to get back land germany had stolen... from the people germany stole it from.

I mean, lets compare.

 

VS

 

Looks to me Poland just got back SOME of the land that went "To austria" in the first partition plan, but not even all of it.  Well, and the lands that Germany took from it in the other partition plans.

 

Really Poland has an unfortunite history of being divied up among powerful neighbors.


This is not true Polish territories were German hundereds of years ago, then slavic people emigrated towards the west so Germans began moving west. 



I trust no one, not even myself.

Zlejedi said:
ElChe said:
Zlejedi said:

Stalin and Hitler were good buddies till they decided to backstab one another:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact

 


Last time I checked England and France haven't invanted Poland and split it beetween themselves and Germany in 1939. Soviet Union did.

 

Czechoslovakia says hi.

As for poor Poland, it blocked all attempts and proposals of Russia to defend Czechs (and France later). Not to dismiss role of UK/USA in puppeting Polish elites ofc, but Poland was more than willing to took a piece from CZ and so they did after Munich. They really were far from being innocent victim, more like fate brought them proper punishment for their own actions. It's only pity that it was our brothers Polish common folks who suffered most while lots of Šlėkta were drinking beer in safety of Albion.

And yet poor splitted Poland managed to finish WW2 with more territories than it had before war and which they happily kept so far. Oh, irony.



mrstickball said:
The order actually issued by Stalin was rather different from what you'd imputed him so light-heartedly and brain-washingly. And the measures ordered were temporary.

I never made mention if this was wrong or right. I only was saying that the troops were fighting for Stalin - his wishes that they would die one way or another. 

What you're saying just shows your bias and lack of knowledge. In your books it must be written that Stalin ate 100 million of children alive, we've already heard such stories here.

 

mrstickball said:

1. Thing is, Stalin nearly lost to Hitler. If Hitler was intelligent, and had taken the advice of his leadership, Stalin would have lost during Barbarossa, as Hitler would have made it to the A-A line. Hitler sent a million troops into a tactically unsound city (Stalingrad). Likewise, Stalingrad became a meat grinder which helped turn the tide not due to Stalin's brilliance, but Soviet deserters looking to survive. Hitler made blunder after blunder that no other military leader would have allowed. The only advantage Stalin had was that he began to differ to his generals once he understood that his military strategies were piss-poor.

2. Additionally, there is a difference between offering them death upon retreat, and proper military police. Or do you not know that? Its not like every other army in WW2 had similar problems. The difference was that instead of shooting them, they were jailed. That would have likely been as effective without being as egregious.

3. Again, reality is that almost any Russian leader could have defeated Hitler more easily if they didn't take on the stupid decisions Stalin did. Germany faced an atrocious, unprepared, poorly-armed army. There is a reason the Soviets lost 7 million troops in the war, while every other Western army fared far better - because Stalin and his preparedness was nothing short of inept. Go read up, and I mean really read up on Barbarossa. There is a reason that the Axis powers defeated the Soviets 10:1 in that phase of the war: because Stalin was absolutely stupid. Compare those figures when Gregory Zhukov was given the theater and the ratio plummets to 2:1 or 1:1 even, as during the Battle of Berlin, because Stalin gave power to his generals (quite possibly the only positive thing Stalin did in the war).

1. If Grandma had a balls, it would have been called Grandpa. Nice to know that we should be thankful for Hitler as it was only his stupidity which protected us all back in that time. I see your books also make Battle of Stalingrad an unique case in military history where deserters had achieved victory against enemy regular army. By suprise, this victory came also in the largest battle in history. And of course Stalingrad was unimportant, everyone knew it back then. The books are amazing.

2. Its not like every other army in WW2 had to defend their home country against United Europe and racism for so long. And I already called your words that "any soldier retreating would be shot and killed" a lie, still you repeating it? Repeating lies turns uninformed person into a liar, you know?

3. This would be funny, if you weren't serious. I wish too that getting modern weapons and strong army would take you only a few months, no more. I don't know why you called our army atrocious (because that was Red Army which hurt your eyes just by its name?) but surely civilized, modern, fully ready armies of other European countries had shown stupid Stalin with his atrocious ruskies how to do job properly, right? Oh wait.

And of course there were mistakes, Stalin and everybody else from Stavka were knowing and fully admitting it. But to call them stupid, while almost everything you said is bias/propaganda mix and lack of self-critizism to what you're reading... is stupid, OK? The fact is that USSR were getting ready to defend themselves against United Europe, even infamous Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was to buy some time because it was clear already that "Allies" were more than happy to drive German aggression toward "dirty commies'. Heck, the whole strategic target behind Winter War was to move front away from Leningrad and to secure Karelia before the war is started. The most of legendary designs of soviet tech came from late 30s, T-34 and T-50 included. Evacuation of whole industries from European part of Russia to Ural and deeper into Siberia was put in place according to plans, and resistance in occupied territories were well-organized. And still, some cool boy on some cool board call for stupidity. We may argue that some signs were misinterpreted, big mistakes were made, some things were not done fast enough (though it's unclear how people demand immediate results and blame totalitarian regime at the same time)... but it seems we shouldn't expect anything like this coming from you, as I see it.



Around the Network
lordmandeep said:
General Zhukov should be credited with the Soviet successes rather than Stalin

It's Soviet people who should be credited first and foremost. Both Zhukov and Stalin were saying it, in their time.



ElChe said:
mrstickball said:
The order actually issued by Stalin was rather different from what you'd imputed him so light-heartedly and brain-washingly. And the measures ordered were temporary.

I never made mention if this was wrong or right. I only was saying that the troops were fighting for Stalin - his wishes that they would die one way or another. 

What you're saying just shows your bias and lack of knowledge. In your books it must be written that Stalin ate 100 million of children alive, we've already heard such stories here.

 

mrstickball said:

1. Thing is, Stalin nearly lost to Hitler. If Hitler was intelligent, and had taken the advice of his leadership, Stalin would have lost during Barbarossa, as Hitler would have made it to the A-A line. Hitler sent a million troops into a tactically unsound city (Stalingrad). Likewise, Stalingrad became a meat grinder which helped turn the tide not due to Stalin's brilliance, but Soviet deserters looking to survive. Hitler made blunder after blunder that no other military leader would have allowed. The only advantage Stalin had was that he began to differ to his generals once he understood that his military strategies were piss-poor.

2. Additionally, there is a difference between offering them death upon retreat, and proper military police. Or do you not know that? Its not like every other army in WW2 had similar problems. The difference was that instead of shooting them, they were jailed. That would have likely been as effective without being as egregious.

3. Again, reality is that almost any Russian leader could have defeated Hitler more easily if they didn't take on the stupid decisions Stalin did. Germany faced an atrocious, unprepared, poorly-armed army. There is a reason the Soviets lost 7 million troops in the war, while every other Western army fared far better - because Stalin and his preparedness was nothing short of inept. Go read up, and I mean really read up on Barbarossa. There is a reason that the Axis powers defeated the Soviets 10:1 in that phase of the war: because Stalin was absolutely stupid. Compare those figures when Gregory Zhukov was given the theater and the ratio plummets to 2:1 or 1:1 even, as during the Battle of Berlin, because Stalin gave power to his generals (quite possibly the only positive thing Stalin did in the war).

1. If Grandma had a balls, it would have been called Grandpa. Nice to know that we should be thankful for Hitler as it was only his stupidity which protected us all back in that time. I see your books also make Battle of Stalingrad an unique case in military history where deserters had achieved victory against enemy regular army. By suprise, this victory came also in the largest battle in history. And of course Stalingrad was unimportant, everyone knew it back then. The books are amazing.

2. Its not like every other army in WW2 had to defend their home country against United Europe and racism for so long. And I already called your words that "any soldier retreating would be shot and killed" a lie, still you repeating it? Repeating lies turns uninformed person into a liar, you know?

3. This would be funny, if you weren't serious. I wish too that getting modern weapons and strong army would take you only a few months, no more. I don't know why you called our army atrocious (because that was Red Army which hurt your eyes just by its name?) but surely civilized, modern, fully ready armies of other European countries had shown stupid Stalin with his atrocious ruskies how to do job properly, right? Oh wait.

And of course there were mistakes, Stalin and everybody else from Stavka were knowing and fully admitting it. But to call them stupid, while almost everything you said is bias/propaganda mix and lack of self-critizism to what you're reading... is stupid, OK? The fact is that USSR were getting ready to defend themselves against United Europe, even infamous Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was to buy some time because it was clear already that "Allies" were more than happy to drive German aggression toward "dirty commies'. Heck, the whole strategic target behind Winter War was to move front away from Leningrad and to secure Karelia before the war is started. The most of legendary designs of soviet tech came from late 30s, T-34 and T-50 included. Evacuation of whole industries from European part of Russia to Ural and deeper into Siberia was put in place according to plans, and resistance in occupied territories were well-organized. And still, some cool boy on some cool board call for stupidity. We may argue that some signs were misinterpreted, big mistakes were made, some things were not done fast enough (though it's unclear how people demand immediate results and blame totalitarian regime at the same time)... but it seems we shouldn't expect anything like this coming from you, as I see it.


1. Who said Stalingrad was unimportant? It was Hitler's main goal for Army Group South - which was their downfall. He wanted to take the namesake town of Stalin for some sort of political victory, ignoring the oilfields east in the Caucus region. Go read up on any historical account of the battle. Hitler paid dearly for throwing nearly a million men at a city with little strategic importance.

2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_No._270

Did you not know this order was given, or are you making something else up? If you want to refute Order 270, please give me some sort of information that states that Stalin did not make this order. It states very clearly what was to be done with deserters. Additionally, Order 227 backs up Stalin's line of logic against deserters or those AWOL with harsh penalties including sending them to their deaths as fodder at the most dangerous front lines. Again, how are these lies? Stalin ordered these directives!

3. During operation Barbarossa, the Red Army lost 7 million soldiers. 7 million in six months! How can you not believe that was due to a total failure of leadership and lack of preparation? You can say whatever you want, but history speaks for itself: your country was unprepared for the German offensive, and lost more soldiers in six months than Germany lost in the entire war! Do not get me wrong, the Soviets did some amazing, resourceful things during the war which should be lauded. However, just because some things should be lauded does not excuse very poor decisions which cost millions of people their lives. Soviet designs were very resourceful, and their industrial might was amazing during the war. I love Soviet-designed weapons dearly, I do. But again, that does not take away from the realities of Soviet failures, either.



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.

FattyDingDong said:
Kasz216 said:
FattyDingDong said:
Kasz216 said:
 


By German lands... you mean the lands the Germans stole along with the Russians and Austro hungry during the Partition of Poland before World War 1?

 

This picture is easy to make. i can go and make a similar one.

The picture isn't so much important as the facts behind it.

What germany "lost" at the end of WW2 was only part of what it had stolen during the partition of Poland.

Your arguement boils down to that Hitler invaded to get back land germany had stolen... from the people germany stole it from.

I mean, lets compare.

 

VS

 

Looks to me Poland just got back SOME of the land that went "To austria" in the first partition plan, but not even all of it.  Well, and the lands that Germany took from it in the other partition plans.

 

Really Poland has an unfortunite history of being divied up among powerful neighbors.


This is not true Polish territories were German hundereds of years ago, then slavic people emigrated towards the west so Germans began moving west.

Er, there was no Germany hundreds of years before then.

Aside from which,the people who lived there before the polish were the Old Prussians.

Who weren't german.

Modern Prussia came into existsence by the Tuetonics invading the Old Prussians and Polish and stealing the name Prussian.



ElChe said:
Zlejedi said:
ElChe said:
Zlejedi said:

Stalin and Hitler were good buddies till they decided to backstab one another:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact

 


Last time I checked England and France haven't invanted Poland and split it beetween themselves and Germany in 1939. Soviet Union did.

 

Czechoslovakia says hi.

As for poor Poland, it blocked all attempts and proposals of Russia to defend Czechs (and France later). Not to dismiss role of UK/USA in puppeting Polish elites ofc, but Poland was more than willing to took a piece from CZ and so they did after Munich. They really were far from being innocent victim, more like fate brought them proper punishment for their own actions. It's only pity that it was our brothers Polish common folks who suffered most while lots of Šlėkta were drinking beer in safety of Albion.

And yet poor splitted Poland managed to finish WW2 with more territories than it had before war and which they happily kept so far. Oh, irony.

Guess who gave orders to attack Czechoslovakia? Yes you guessed right those orders came from Moscow.

And noone would be stupid enough to accept "help" from Soviet Union and risk that those "helpfull" "friendly" forces never leave their borders.

 

Only thing which separates Soviet Union from Nazi Germany is that Nazis murdered people because of their race and Soviets murdered people because they don't wanted communism and slightly diffrent method of performing genocide by sending people to their Siberia work camps where everyone died in few years due to inhuman conditions instead of concetration camps. Oh and Nazis commited less crimes against their own German people than Soviets against their own common folk.



PROUD MEMBER OF THE PSP RPG FAN CLUB

Kasz216 said:
FattyDingDong said:
Kasz216 said:
FattyDingDong said:
Kasz216 said:
 


By German lands... you mean the lands the Germans stole along with the Russians and Austro hungry during the Partition of Poland before World War 1?

 

This picture is easy to make. i can go and make a similar one.

The picture isn't so much important as the facts behind it.

What germany "lost" at the end of WW2 was only part of what it had stolen during the partition of Poland.

Your arguement boils down to that Hitler invaded to get back land germany had stolen... from the people germany stole it from.

I mean, lets compare.

 

VS

 

Looks to me Poland just got back SOME of the land that went "To austria" in the first partition plan, but not even all of it.  Well, and the lands that Germany took from it in the other partition plans.

 

Really Poland has an unfortunite history of being divied up among powerful neighbors.


This is not true Polish territories were German hundereds of years ago, then slavic people emigrated towards the west so Germans began moving west.

Er, there was no Germany hundreds of years before then.

Aside from which,the people who lived there before the polish were the Old Prussians.

Who weren't german.

Modern Prussia came into existsence by the Tuetonics invading the Old Prussians and Polish and stealing the name Prussian.


Prussians and Germans have same blood.



I trust no one, not even myself.