As for me, the most interesting fact about American view on USSR role in WWII was explained by William Rosenberg, professor of University Of Michigan: "Americans have never understood – and don’t understand now – the role of the Soviet Union in WWII. First of all for Americans the world begins with Pearl Harbor (December 7, 1941). But by that time Germans have already reached Moscow. And the second notable event in the War (July 6, 1944) Battle of Normandy. And almost no one remembers that by that time the USSR have already freed its own territory and rushed thru East Europe. Americans just don’t understand the importance of that". So is it true? I mean that for me the role of USSR is clear. But i khow a lot of people who think that the role of USSR was smaller then the role of US...
This one is intresting too... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sponsore...-Unions-role-in-World-War-Two-Russia-Now.html
The USSR tied down and ultimately destroyed the main fighting strength of the German Army. If Germany had not invaded Russia I can't see how the US/UK would have been able to defeat Germany.
Anti-Semitism or Marxism or anti-bourgeoisie or all of these primarily had brought Stalin-Hitlers' super special pack for the rest of the peaceful human race of the wolrd. Any way, I never ever mind to say that these two masters had been possessing affinity to each other (atleast 60% - 40% basis, Stalin got the higher since he supplied raw materials as well as by returning German communists, had sought asylum - after returning, finaly destined at the C camps). In reality, more or less we all possesses the same theories based upon some notable and unavoidable circumstances which caused the War more complex and much much more devastating! 1 .. Soviet-German negotiations however sent Stalin into a favorable corner for mental peace and a better strategic position at the western border. Meanwhile Hitler invaded Poland; Hitler-Stalin shared then the occupied territories meaningfuly. By late '39, the Baltic states like Estonia, Lithuania etc. allowed Stalin to enter Soviet forces (that we found lately been annexed to Soviets'). Next was the Finns (please dont forget the Katyn Forest incident). On the other side Hitler now got chance to launch Op B ! Prior to Op B, Stalin probably had been thinking that Hitler was against capitalism and close to marxism and This was true for which Hitler would never attack him. Stalin also thought that after Nepoleon, any European country could dare to invade the harsh climatic zone. 2 .. We must recall the case of Trotsky.. 3 .. Op B made Hitler's men rolled in upto St Petersburg after which Molotov must had been thinking for a repent and Hitler was thinking for BAKU (a mistake). Had Hitler learnt any lessons from Napoleon, he would never rejected the peace proposal from Lavrenti, againt a vast Soviet teritory (and Stalin hardly got any chance to discover Zhukov)! I think for the question of Fuel, either Hirohito or Hitler, both possessed the almost same theory. 4 .. What could happen if IJN NEVER attacked US at Pearl Harbour?? I just cant think of Op Torch, Op Husky, Op Overlord or even Avelanche, without the involvement of US.. Apart from all of these, Russia was enough to engulf Hitler's Germany, only matter to think how long it could have been doing so..
It is not without reason that the Russians do not even speak of World War Two. To them is was "The Great Patriotic War." They were the reason why the Third Reich fell. After all, they were the ones who paid the butcher's bill. They suffered as well grave material loss. Many cities were destroyed. They were the immovable object against which Adolf destroyed his own army.
Winston Churchill remarked in words to the effect that the history of the war would be "kind" that is western centric "because we will write it."In that regard and with post war tensions rising between the Russians and the western allies(notice the separation in "allies") it is perhaps unfair to lay lack of comprehension,of the scope of the "Great Patriotic War" solely on the American public. British and other western historians of the war,certainly found it in their best interests,politically and commercially,to paint the conflict as an western allied triumph,while glossing over,and even discrediting major soviet operations.In my readings,I take pains to try to discern a writers "agenda"(all writers have one) and his personal prejudices(some are subtle and most are not).Actually I have found American historians in many cases,to be more balanced and frank about facets of the war,that european writers would rather gloss over or minimize(the eastern front as a case in point) It is worth noting that command studies of western leaders and german leaders are in abundance,while those of soviet leaders are either scarce or badly skewed(naturally by western writers). Politics cannot be separated from so called "factual" and "authoritative" accounts of any conflict.As a side note Churchill delivered a scathing speech in parliament denouncing the Russians in the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact in 1939 and then in 1941 the same Churchill turned around and delivered a rather nauseating and hypocritical speech in the commons concerning the great struggle of the russian people against the nazi tyranny."The enemy of mine enemy,is my friend" is a highly changeable and opportunistic turn of phrase.So,Robert the "Historical Propaganda" that we have been fed by western historians is not particular to America,but has been nursed along by writers of many nationalities,including my own. Perhaps I will be seen as a "revisionist"(heresy means simply not towing the official line). Richard
