Stop the America-bashing!

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Serb


You are absolutely correct!!!
It's too sad that we lost so many talanted generals likeTukachevsky during Stalins purges.

It would have been interesting to see what would have happened to the 'Drang nach Osten' and Operation Barbarossa if Tukachevsky and I.V. Kalinovsky had survived- by the early 1930s, the Soviet Army had over 10 000 armoured combat vehicles. Unfortunately, Pavlov, who succeeded them, based his theories on Soviet experience in the Spanish Civil War, and deemed massed tank attacks wasteful and unnecessary- leading to the breaking down of the specialized tank units and their dispersal in small packets to infantry formations- and we all know what happened next....

Don't worry about your command or usage of English- it's infinitely better than most English speakers' command of Russian.
I never could get the hang of a language with two ablative cases.

[Serb]

Originally posted by molly bloom


It would have been interesting to see what would have happened to the 'Drang nach Osten' and Operation Barbarossa if Tukachevsky and I.V. Kalinovsky had survived- by the early 1930s, the Soviet Army had over 10 000 armoured combat vehicles.

I think at this case there is a possibility that Hitler don’t attack SU at all.

[Encomium]

Wasn't Hitler convinced to attack the Soviets after their fiasco in Finland??

[Serb]

Originally posted by Encomium
Wasn't Hitler convinced to attack the Soviets after their fiasco in Finland??

I think you should ask some of our Finish freinds about that "fiasco". The Manergeim's line was belived to be unbreakeable fortification, but Red Army break it and forced Finland to surrender, and don't forget that it was in winter time and temperature was -40C. Red Army did almost impossible thing.Finland was surrendered and lose part of it's territory. If you call this- "fiasco", than I don't know what you call "victory" in that case.

[Ironikinit]

Originally posted by Serb
Iwas angry because many of our American frends like to shout- "we saved your asses". This is absolutely unacceptable for me. I don't like when someone trying to rewrite the World's history.

I'm not sure where this idea comes from. I know it is a common one among Americans, but I wasn't taught it in school. Anyone who has read the history of WWII knows that the Soviets broke the Nazi war machine, while the US broke Imperial Japan. That's an oversimplification, but close to the truth IMO. It was, of course, all an allied effort and none of it should be overlooked. But those two were the giants.

Heh, I took a look back at some earlier posts.

Somebody posted this link: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WW.htm
While it has sections listed on British, German, Japanese, and French military leaders, none are listed for Russian or American.

Yin can be safely ignored, BTW. Well, people pretty much seem to ignore or patronize him anyway, but I actually clicked on his profile and ignored him. You can still read his posts just by clicking on where they would be in the thread if you wonder what he said.

Actually, according to accounts I've read, the Soviet performance against Finland encouraged the Nazis to attack the USSR.

And American made games based on WWII do actually show that the Russians were fully involved in the war. Two popular games that the Soviets have a big role in are Panzer General and Axis and Allies. It's hard to imagine a grand strategy game based on WWII that doesn't feature the USSR.

BTW, many Americans, esp. during the cold war, considered the USSR's declaration of war against Japan in '45 to be simple opportunism.

[Dry]

Originally posted by Serb
I think you should ask some of our Finish freinds about that "fiasco". The Manergeim's line was belived to be unbreakeable fortification, but Red Army break it and forced Finland to surrender, and don't forget that it was in winter time and temperature was -40C. Red Army did almost impossible thing.Finland was surrendered and lose part of it's territory. If you call this- "fiasco", than I don't know what you call "victory" in that case.

When you don't achieve your objective, it is not what I should call a 'victory'.
When you lose 400,000 men (some say even 600,000...) against an army of 160,000, I think indeed that Pyrrhus would have called that a 'victory'.
Finland on her side, saved her ass. They had to make peace, but - and I am not an english native, so forgive if I'm wrong - I wouldn't call that 'to surrender'. SU didn't occupy Finland, it just took a few square miles.

A quick google search and you may have some Finn view of it:

http://virtual.finland.fi/finfo/english/war1.html

[jasev]

Originally posted by Ironikinit
BTW, many Americans, esp. during the cold war, considered the USSR's declaration of war against Japan in '45 to be simple opportunism.

Not only americans. Many other people, including me, think it was. Declaring war to an already defeated enemy is, at least, opportunist. Italy did the same declaring war to France when german Panzerdivisionen were at the gates of Paris.

[Dry]

Originally posted by Ironikinit
BTW, many Americans, esp. during the cold war, considered the USSR's declaration of war against Japan in '45 to be simple opportunism.

Opportunist?
Stalin?
Noooooooo.

Remind me that name of that Island... Sala, Sara,..Sakha-something ... Saccharine or so.

Kaaaalin...Kakalin...Sakhalin...(russian folk song).

[siredgar]

Originally posted by Serb
Yang!!! Yang were are you? Help!!!

LOL.

[Serb]

Originally posted by Dry


When you don't achieve your objective, it is not what I should call a 'victory'.
When you lose 400,000 men (some say even 600,000...) against an army of 160,000, I think indeed that Pyrrhus would have called that a 'victory'.
Finland on her side, saved her ass. They had to make peace, but - and I am not an english native, so forgive if I'm wrong - I wouldn't call that 'to surrender'. SU didn't occupy Finland, it just took a few square miles.

A quick google search and you may have some Finn view of it:

http://virtual.finland.fi/finfo/english/war1.html

Disagreed.
Actually we achieved our objective. And I’ll try to explain my point of view.
First of all, I wish to say about reasons of this war. The major and the only reason of this conflict was Russian-Finland’s frontier. The frontier between our countries was too close to Russian’s “Northern capital”- Leningrad; it was so close that Finns long-range artillery was able to reach Leningrad. Stalin seriously thought that Hitler might use Finland as bridgehead for attack on Soviet Union, and future events shows that Stalin was absolutely right. That’s why so close border between SU and Finland was real danger for Soviets. Why border was so close? It’s simple, because this border didn’t exist until 1918. Finland was part of Russia until Bolsheviks revolution in 1917. (Btw, many of Finns generals who fought against soviets in this war, has Russian military education, for example their president- Mannergeim was Russian general until 1917).
Before Stalin makes decision to make military operation, he offers to trade this “strategic” Finns territory for larger soviet’s territory. Finns rejected the offer. They were absolutely sure that no one could break through Mannergeim’s Line. They were not far away from truth. Mannergeim’s Line was really superior fortification complex. I am sorry, but my English is not sufficient for description of all technical aspects of this fortification. You have to believe me that it was very tough defense, actually it was the best fortification in the world for that time, it can be compared only to Mazheno’s Line in France, but Mannergeim’s Line was ten times stronger.
So, Finns were absolutely sure that they are in safe, but Stalin gives the order and unbreakable Mannergeim’s Line was broken within 100 days. Finns fought heroically but their bravery didn’t save them. Line was broken, peace was signed and goal was achieved. Yes, Soviet forces did not occupy Finland, but Stalin actually never wanted to occupy it. He even don’t use word- “war”, he prefer to call this events- “a frontier conflict between Soviet Union and Finland”. He supposed that full-scale war against Finland might have very bad consequences, and I think he was right. Who knows may be England or France declared war on Soviet Union if soviets occupied Finland, but I also think that after the penetration of Mannergeim’s Line, occupation of Finland was a really easy task, but all what Stalin wanted- is to secure our back before major war- war vs Germany begin. I am absolutely sure that this ”few square miles”- how you’d called them, saved Leningrad when Hitler’s forces moves on our “Northern capital” from Finland territory in 1941. That’s why I think that we achieved our objective.
Yes, during 100 days of war with Finland Soviet Union received huge casualties. But I am absolutely sure that any other army of the world didn’t make it better then we did. Most of the work was done by infantry, because the rough terrain and very cold whether –40C and sometimes even –50C exclude the use of tanks. Red Army did almost impossible thing, and I think that “fiasco”- is not proper word to describe it.

P.S. Yes, I suppose that Pyrrhus would have called that a 'victory', but Pyrrhus never fought against Finns, who a very, very strong warriors, and of course Pyrrhus never saw fortifications like Mannergeim’s Line.

[Serb]

Originally posted by jasev


Not only americans. Many other people, including me, think it was. Declaring war to an already defeated enemy is, at least, opportunist. Italy did the same declaring war to France when german Panzerdivisionen were at the gates of Paris.

Looks like we have different versions of history again.
It was the part of the deal, between Allies. America and England opens second front against Germany, and after victory Soviet Union declares war on Japan, actually president Roosevelt asked Stalin about that.
I wish I could know why you think that Japan was “an already defeated enemy”.
If you think so because you are sure that Japan surrender after American nukes drops on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Well, in this case I’m gone surprise you; Soviet Union declares war on Japan before the bombs were dropped. As you might know bombs were dropped at August 6 and August 9. Never ask yourself why in this case Japan surrender in September than? I can answer this question for you. Japanese are born warriors and they fought for last man. Red army took big part in defeat of Japan; many of our soldiers were killed. Now you call it opportunism. Thank you very much for your gratitude than.

EDIT: Oops, almost forget- de juro we are still in war with Japan, we don't signed a peace treaty in 1945. You see for us war is not over yet, we are still at war with Imperial Japan, and I don't understand why you call them "an already defeated enemy" we fight against them during last 50 years. Is it opportunism?
Just kidding

To Dry:

Remind me that name of that Island... Sala, Sara,..Sakha-something ... Saccharine or so.
Kaaaalin...Kakalin...Sakhalin...(russian folk song).

Ha-ha-ha. It was very funny; this song is about raspberries not about Sakhalin Island.

[siredgar]

The Japanese have always had a history of being "warlike" (see about the origins of the kimono) and they were very determined fighters as you say, but most historians will view Russian participation in the Pacific theater as "opportunistic".

It helped give a boost to the spread of communism in China and also aided in the installation of the regime in North Korea. The Russians took back Sakhalin as well as a northern islands and I believe some territory in Manchuria and Mongolia, too.

Anyhow, the Chinese did most of the fighting, but they would have lost without the Americans.

[Serb]

Originally posted by siredgar
The Japanese have always had a history of being "warlike" (see about the origins of the kimono) and they were very determined fighters as you say, but most historians will view Russian participation in the Pacific theater as "opportunistic".

It helped give a boost to the spread of communism in China and also aided in the installation of the regime in North Korea. The Russians took back Sakhalin as well as a northern islands and I believe some territory in Manchuria and Mongolia, too.

Anyhow, the Chinese did most of the fighting, but they would have lost without the Americans.

I wish I could know how these historians describe America’s participation in Europe theater. Don’t you see anything familiar? If SU was "opportunistic" in Pacific theater, then I think the same could be said about America on Europe theater.

EDIT:
BTW Soviet Union started to support China in war against Japan since 1939. In battle of Khalkin-Gol, (river in Manchuria) Red Army commanded by Zhukov one- of our legendary generals defeat Japan forces. In fact we were in war with Japan since that time, but it was undeclared war.

[Serb]

Originally posted by Ironikinit


I'm not sure where this idea comes from. I know it is a common one among Americans, but I wasn't taught it in school. Anyone who has read the history of WWII knows that the Soviets broke the Nazi war machine, while the US broke Imperial Japan. That's an oversimplification, but close to the truth IMO. It was, of course, all an allied effort and none of it should be overlooked. But those two were the giants.

I suppose idea comes from Hollywood.

[jasev]

NOTE: I'll talk about the allies (USA, UK) and about the russians sepparatly, trying to be clearer.

Originally posted by Serb
Looks like we have different versions of history again.
It was the part of the deal, between Allies. America and England opens second front against Germany, and after victory Soviet Union declares war on Japan, actually president Roosevelt asked Stalin about that.

I see. So... Germany surrenders 7th may. This means that "After victory" means 4 means after... curious. I know that Russia is big to cross, but...

I wish I could know why you think that Japan was “an already defeated enemy”.

No oil. Destroyed industrial capacity. No more ships. Almost no planes. And that was BEFORE the A-bombs. Japanese might have fought for the last man, but they were defeated and everybody knew it.

If you think so because you are sure that Japan surrender after American nukes drops on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Well, in this case I’m gone surprise you; Soviet Union declares war on Japan before the bombs were dropped. As you might know bombs were dropped at August 6 and August 9. Never ask yourself why in this case Japan surrender in September than?

Ejem... let me explain something. Japan surrendered on 14th August. The terms of the peace were signed on 2nd September, but the combats stopped a week after Nagasaki. According to W.S. Churchill, the japanese government contacted the allies (UK, USA, France ) on 10th August (the day after Nagasaki, when they realized the US had more bombs) to ask for the surrender terms. The allied answered with an ultimatum that was accepted on 14th August. The combats, at least those between the allies and japanese stopped inmediatly. If the CCCP continued fighting to achieve territorial conquests, it was not because of the japanese courage but Stalin's refusal to stop the fight. Maybe he wanted to have his flag over the Imperial Palace just like in Berlin.

I can answer this question for you. Japanese are born warriors and they fought for last man. Red army took big part in defeat of Japan; many of our soldiers were killed. Now you call it opportunism. Thank you very much for your gratitude than.

Well, I don't know why should I be grateful, my country was not at war. The war in Spain stopped on 1939.

BTW, during the cold war I rode a story in the Reader's Digest (I don't know if it was true or just american propaganda) talking about japanese efforts to achieve peace before knowing about the A-bomb; they contacted with Stalin (still neutral) to ask the allies for the peace terms. But when Stalin knew about the american intentions to throw the bomb, the contacts stopped; and soon after the bombs were dropped, he declared the war to Japan. I'll look for the book, it was really interesting.