Are the Russians finally getting the credit due them for winning WW2 ?

[Hannibal]

IF only read Steven Ambrose you would think there was no eastern front . But many of the new books that are coming out give the russian credit for bearing the burnt of fight on the allied side in WW2 .WE on this board know the russian contributions to winning the war but will the general public every know .

[David Aitken]

The simple answer is don't read Steven Ambrose. I would recommend British historians, not just because I'm British, but because we've been recording and analysing history for rather a long time now, we have a long-established place in the world so we don't feel the need to exaggerate our part in events, and we speak English (which precludes me from recommending historians from the European continent to Americans).

[The Commissar]

If you're reffering to the general American public, then no, probably not for a while. Cold War's been over for just a decade or so, can't go around giving the big bad Reds credit for anything just yet.

[Michael Emrys]

An awareness of the scale of the fighting on the Eastern Front has been an integral part of the consciousness of the wargaming community at least since the advent of the AH game Stalingrad in the early '60s. And there has been widespread interest in that theater among wargamers since the early '70s. For a while, it seemed that the majority of WW II games were located in that theater, to the point that there were many of us who felt that the rest of the war was being under represented.

As far as the rest of the population goes, yes there isn't much more than a vague awareness that the USSR was in the war. There have been some excellent tv series, however, that offered the public an opportunity to better inform itself, including one devoted entirely to that subject. I can't recall its name, but it was hosted by Burt Lancaster. I watched it in syndicated reruns in the very early '80s, so it was probably produced some time in the '70s.

Michael

[ 09-16-2001: Message edited by: Michael emrys ]

[dalem]

Please, people, casual dips into the historical pool will always give you a national perspective, but the real students know the whole picture, always do. Ambrose is fine for an introduction and when balanced against more rigorous material. most folks (at least here in America) can't even tell you when WWII happened, let alone who the players were - get people interested and aware first and let them figure out the real details as they go.

The Sovs didn't do it by themselves any more than the Americans did or the British did. Team effort.

-dale

[Lordfluffers]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dalem:

The Sovs didn't do it by themselves any more than the Americans did or the British did. Team effort.

-dale<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

They did it a lot more by themselves though and they probably would have done it all by themselves albeit a lot slower and at a greater cost. The Americans and the Brits would not have been, and were completely unable to make such a huge contribution!! (in my humble opinion anyway!! ) A team effort with 85% of the effort going to the Soviets. Britain and America 7.5% each.

[Dirtweasle]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dalem:

...most folks (at least here in America) can't even tell you when WWII happened... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What is most? 80%? I think you are mostly off. If Band of Brothers, SPR, and the Pearl Harbor Movie are inidcative of anything, it is a broad awareness in American culture of WWII. You just don't narrowcast multi-million dollar films for a very small percentage of the ticket buying public.

If the Soviet Union would have been able to defeat Germany without the Western Front being won by the Allies is an intereting point, and indeed it goes both ways.

What it has to do with CM though is kind of fuzzy to me...

[Lawyer]

My thanks to Joe Stalin and the soviets for winning WW2 for us. And I always thought they had a hand in starting it too. Maybe they should have lost the war and be living in style now like the Germans and Japanese.

And Aitken is right. The Brits have not only starred in a lot of bad history for 1000 years, they have a cadre of talking heads who've been lecturing the rest of us about it for the last 50 years.

It is indeed shameful that Ambrose, among others, may hint that Britain's wartime strategy was based upon maintaining its colonial empire. And just look what the after effects of Britain's colonialism have brought the world.

All thinking people know for a fact that Sgt. Rock won WWII.

[David Aitken]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Lordfluffers wrote:

A team effort with 85% of the effort going to the Soviets. Britain and America 7.5% each.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

A more accurate statement would replace "effort" with "suffering". Stalin didn't do much to end the war by hamstringing his army and causing them to lose millions of men to the Germans. The latter half of the Eastern Front was a success story, but it's a shame the former half had to happen.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If Band of Brothers, SPR, and the Pearl Harbor Movie are inidcative of anything, it is a broad awareness in American culture of WWII. You just don't narrowcast multi-million dollar films for a very small percentage of the ticket buying public.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think they are more indicative that if you create a big-budget, flashy, flag-waving film about a proud event in America's history, Americans will lap it up. You are doubtlessly correct about the "broad awareness in American culture of WWII", in that most people know it happened. Unfortunately much of the audience relies on the film to educate them, whereas the film makers only intend to base their films on history, not produce a documentary. Therefore the inevitable inaccuracies (not to mention outright fallacies) in the films result in wide misinformation about history.

The perfect example is Pearl Harbor, a romance tastelessly set against a military disaster, and using that backdrop as little more than an excuse to show lots of stuff blowing up. Cute actors, big explosions, and a historical tie-in – not exactly an exemplar of America's historical awareness.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Lawyer wrote:

All thinking people know for a fact that Sgt. Rock won WWII.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I hate to break it to you, but the real Sgt Rock was actually Sgt-Maj Rochdale, an upperclass British aristocrat who held dual membership of the LRDG and SAS and spent the war behind enemy lines machinegunning Jerries, drinking champagne, flirting with French and Italian girls, and delivering crushing line after line of vicious put-downs about the enemy in his cut-glass English accent before throwing on his scarf, donning his racing goggles and dashing off in his Bren Carrier to teach the dastardly Hun a thing or two.

[Mark IV]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hannibal:

IF only read Steven Ambrose you would think there was no eastern front <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And you would be a moron, for thinking that you gain a perspective on a world-wide conflict by reading a single historian, particularly one who set out to portray the experiences of the US fighting man, as opposed to ALL fighting men, or Soviet fighting men. I assume you also purchased the King James Bible for insight into Hindu teachings, and the Chilton’s on the Toyota Camry to fix your Chevy truck.

Trashing Ambrose is a favorite pastime here, but he did not set out to document the whole of WWII, and did not claim to. He is admittedly a "pop" historian and does not claim to write comprehensive histories.

He does make some factual errors, possibly many, not just regarding the famous 88-equipped Panther, but regarding the proper operation of a flintlock rifle as well (you were aware he has written books on other subjects, right?}.

What he DID do was to write battle history from the point of view of the "average" GI, based on the famous 1300 interviews. If you are hoping to learn how to field strip a breech block, or to grasp the evolution of Soviet offensive doctrine, or you are interested in markings of Yugoslav aircraft, then you are a moron for having purchased the wrong book.

If you are interested in the impressions of American GIs about their role in WWII after the fact, and observations such as: "One of my favorite lines in that regard is from an Army ranger who told me, You know, people think that veterans are always going to be better than rookies, in war as in sports, but a veteran infantryman is a terrified infantryman. Experienced soldiers will take a lot fewer casualties, but for an assault over an open beach, guys who hadn't seen before what a bullet does to the human body were better than guys who had", then you may not be a moron, and may have purchased the right book.

Now, the "general public" will never be as smart as you. The most important things in their lives all devolve from WWII minutiae, not the fact that the US won and fascism lost, about 6 wars ago, and the fools don't even know it. Just as we can share a wink and a grin when the unwashed discuss wireless communications, without so much as a nod to Edwin Howard Armstrong, as though their lives didn't hinge on heterodyning. Which of us illuminati doesn't chuckle at the public misperception that all Albigensians were mystics? Or the notion that the Macedonian phalanx was the antidote to Persian combined arms practices, and the relevance of the soft iron pilum head?

If you had read Weinberg's "A World At Arms" like many, many people did (well, at least they bought it), then you would get a comprehensive overview of, surprise, a WORLD at arms. If you buy a book called "Eisenhower's Boys..." or "Americans at War" or one which is misleadingly subtitled "The U.S. Army from the Normandy Beaches to Bulge to the Surrender of Germany, June 7, 1944-May 7, 1945" in hopes of a balanced summary of all of WWII, then you will no doubt find the Brazilian contribution slighted, and very little on the evolution of the excellent Italian SMGs.

And you would be a moron.

[dalem]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Lordfluffers:

They did it a lot more by themselves though and they probably would have done it all by themselves albeit a lot slower and at a greater cost. The Americans and the Brits would not have been, and were completely unable to make such a huge contribution!! (in my humble opinion anyway!! ) A team effort with 85% of the effort going to the Soviets. Britain and America 7.5% each.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

-Snore-

Believe what you will, sir.

-dale

[Scott B]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hannibal:

IF only read Steven Ambrose you would think there was no eastern front . But many of the new books that are coming out give the russian credit for bearing the burnt of fight on the allied side in WW2 .WE on this board know the russian contributions to winning the war but will the general public every know .<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Many books for a long time have been giving the Soviets credit for bearing the bulk of the land effort. Most of the general public doesn't particularly care about the global history of the war, but they may care about what their fathers and grandfathers experienced at war.

I don't know what you'd expect to read about the Soviets in Ambrose - his area is the US military. It has less to do with what country the author is from than with what area they've concentrated their studies in.

Scott

[gunnergoz]

The East (USSR) and the West (the Allies less USSR, mainly US and UK) each contributed n a complementary fashion to the victory in WW2. The Russians donated blood, lives and land (wasted cities) in exchange for which the Allies donated (1) an aerial campaign that strangled the German economy; (2) a strategic second front to batter the Germans from the rear; (3) material support without which the Russians could not have maintained the offensive very well without prohibitive loss of life (there were after all a finite number of Russians).

I can't place a percentage on the efforts but I'm glad to my heart for what each contributed, at the individual and the national level.

The West's particularly outstanding contribution was simultaneously snuffing out the Japanese war machine while helping the Russians as they bled the Whermacht dry.

[Slapdragon]

First off, each side of the conflict had an equal number oif troops involved in the fighting, just in different capacities. The US and Commonwealth put around 7 million men onto the continent in both fronts, plus several million in the Pacific to which the Soviet Union was not materially involved.

The comparison figures between Soviet and Western Allied involvement usually take the entire Soviet military structure, and pit it against the ground forces of the Western Allies. Instead, it would be more useful to add Naval and Airforce troops to the Western Allied total since without them no Soviet ground offensives of other then limited duration would have been possible, and the Western Allies never would have drained NAZI forces to the Southern and Western fronts.

The casualty disparity between the fronts was entirely a representation of technique, and not how commited the forces where to the war. Saying that the Western Allies were a bunch of pikers because the Soviets lost a lot of people, or that the war was only 7.5% carried by them is completely ignorant of the realities of the entire war, ground - air, and sea. In fact, we can contemplate a situation where the Germans take the Mediterrainian and all of the Middle East's wealth and are able to expand their economy past the 1941 level.

As for Ambrose, blaming the man because he specializes in the US Army is unfair. He, like all historians, specializes in some area. History is to large to work with otherwise. I am not saying he is the end all of historians, but he is no slouch either.

Comparing traditional British historical method with the American school is also not an important issue here. It has long been recognized that the British method and the American method of recounting history are different, but enough scholars on both sides of the Atlantic straddle the fence now days that it is getting hard to really keep the two schools apart by nationality. The traditional Birtish school placed a great deal of weight on the accounts of leaders in battle, while the American method placed the emphasis on the men in the ditches. Read Ambrose and Hastings for an idea of who they spoke with and saw as important.

That said, they are both valid, and both are used -- there is not better way of looking at history.

[Hannibal]

Well I did start reading Weinberg's "A World At Armsan I have to admit I did not finish it and I do get your point about History buff's feeling superior about knowing obscure facts that no normal person cares about .I saw this once described as Geek elitism .

P.S I think moron was a little harsh lol

[Insu]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hannibal:

...new books that are coming out give the russian...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Is this some sort of pride that has been opressed since tha war?

I too think the Russians should have the credit they deserve. I am not in any way opposed or hostile to Russia BUT the credit that I miss the most has not been dealt with properly I think.

Russians of today should not only look at what they achieved against the evil Nazis but also what they did not achieve against their own regime.

A reason for me not to over pour glory on the russians is simply because of what their regime did to millions of people of their own and others before, during and after the war. Beeing one of the victors and of course having nuclear weapons has contributed to tha fact that Russia has by no means dealt with the history that they want to forget.

Fairness is what´s missing in this world and being able to admit and deal with the past is a big credit that Russia unfortunately do not deserve, yet. I do however acknowledge the fact that Russia contributed the most in manpower, one reason because their homecountry was invaded and they had no choice. Had Germany not attacked Russia and instead concentrated on the UK and its evil concentration camps, I doubt that Russia would have intervened.

But that is of course purely speculations...

[Hannibal]

I agree that the russian leadership was in many was evil .But the comman russian fighting man was deserving of all the praise in the world .

[Insu]

Sorry, this could be misinterpreted:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Insu:

concentrated on the UK and its evil concentration camps<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Clarification: meaning the German concentration camps.

Just to add, please do not see this as me beeing anti-russian cause I am not.

[Insu]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hannibal:

I agree that the russian leadership was in many was evil .But the comman russian fighting man was deserving of all the praise in the world .<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree as much credit as any other soldier in the war. We should never forget the sacrifice that the common people of Russia had to make, against the Nazis and their own.

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hannibal:

Well I did start reading Weinberg's "A World At Armsan I have to admit I did not finish it and I do get your point about History buff's feeling superior about knowing obscure facts that no normal person cares about .I saw this once described as Geek elitism .

P.S I think moron was a little harsh lol<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Geek facts are useful to a historian only in so far as they increase an understanding of the events at issue, within the view of a study. That is why mixing up an M3 and M1 SMG is no big deal for someone who writes on the macro level of Ambrose.

On the other hand, in historical simulation, geek facts are very important. Different issue. That is why the yaw rate of a diving F4U4-8 with wing tanks means nothing in discussions of the island hopping campaign, but everything in a game simulating island hopping campaign fighter combat on a micro level.

[Mark IV]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hannibal:

I think moron was a little harsh lol<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Indeed it would have been.

There should have been enough hedging "ifs" and "woulds", predicated upon your hypothetical "If...", to give the benefit of doubt, however. Let's just lol it off, like the Albigensians of old, those crazy nuts.

Soon the Finns and Aussies will be waking up and then you'll really be sorry you brought up winning the war single-handedly.

[lucero1148]

If I remember correctly the average Russian is quite ignorant about the Allied contribution to winning the Great Patriotic War.

All best

Patrick

[The Commissar]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lucero1148:

If I remember correctly the average Russian is quite ignorant about the Allied contribution to winning the Great Patriotic War.

All best

Patrick<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I tried to keep put of this, but I have to respond that this is not so.

I have had the benefit of seeing school textbooks from both Russia and the USA. While Russian textbooks do give credit to the US where it is due, including the lend lease, D-Day, and the pre D-Day campaigns. US textbooks devote about a page and a half talking about Russia, and mainly how Hitler invaded it, not the Soviet retaliation in the later years.

Of course, Soviet education was always superior to the majority of the Western standards at the public school level, so this was not surprising to me.

[Michael Emrys]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mark IV:

Soon the Finns and Aussies will be waking up...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Aren't the Finns settling in for their winter-long hibernation just about now?

The Aussies of course never sleep.

Michael

[ 09-16-2001: Message edited by: Michael emrys ]

[The Commissar]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael emrys:

Aren't the Finns settling in for their winter-long hibernation just about now?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Come on Michael, you of all people should know the Finns hibernate during the summer! They spend all winter skiing around and hunting down happless Russian hordes.