VE day 70th Anniversary - Again

Agree. Liberation Day here in Jersey today. Nazi commanders here didn't initially believe that Germany had surrendered hence 1 day later. Island is still scarred by remaining concrete bunkers which have been kept as memorial. Built by slave labour, many of whom died building them. Islanders remember well occupation under the Germans and deportation to Germany for many. Those who remained were starving once France had been liberated as no supplies were available until the arrival of a Red Cross ship. 

Maybe that is because the Russians supplied around half the total number of deaths in the war (approximately 13-14% of their total population), as opposed to the USA & UK combined did not total 1 million deaths.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties

Wiki isn't the greatest but for stuff like this it is usually more than adequate.

No, that is not what it shows at all.

Russia is the largest reason why Hitler was defeated in the time frame that he was.  I doubt a single Russian family was left untouched by death from that war.  I know the US likes to slap themselves on the back and take credit for everything, but without the sacrifice made in the East the Nazis would have had a lot more resources to use on the Western theater.  It's also fortunate that Hitler timed his operation so poorly with regard to winter.

And with the neocons running amok in foreign affairs, the likelihood of a world without wars is, sadly, slimmer than ever.

I felt for Jane Horrocks. She was clearly choked and I found it a poignant moment too breezily glossed over.

G

No apologies needed Wat.  I just think many do not realize the impart of "The Great Patriotic War" (as they refer to it) and I think it is difficult to grasp the impact on the Russian nation and psyche.  Imagine the effect of an event that today would take the lives of over 8 million in the UK or 41 million in the USA.

Interestingly, it was posters on this very forum that first exposed me to the idea that Russia was the key element in Hitler's defeat, and led me to do a lot more research and reading on the topic.

The brutal Russian winters 'did for' the Germans and the Russians alike. It is interesting to hear the first hand accounts of US 5 star generals 'criticizing' the British for their caution, whilst admitting their ability to expend materiel was so much greater (by which I mean GI Joe). Of course the leader with the most materiel was Stalin.

I don't think there needs to be a rocket trundled past the Kremlin for every dead WWII russian personally. Maybe it would be better to have 'The World At War' compulsory viewing for all 'involved' countries' citizens

It is often said that Hitler himself brought about Germany's demise in as much as he, being supreme commander of the armed forces, would not listen to those who militarily knew better, his Generals.

There is also our own fortitude, that of a geographical feature known as the English Channel, without which the retreat of the French army and the BEF would not have ended at Dunkirk and I doubt very much, at that time, that we could have halted 'the Blitzkrieg' onslaught. Had that been the case, would the Russians alone then have stopped the assault on Moscow that would have still followed, who knows?

Ken

Ken - your comment about the channel is similar to what I think many Americans fail to understand.  As powerful and advanced as the US military is, the most significant defensive bulwark the USA has are those 2 immense bodies of water on each coast.  Those are much more protective than any 'exceptionalism'  the US may claim.

Sadly, it also allows war to be an abstraction to many citizens here, something that just happens somewhere else, and "can't happen here."

Nazism had to be defeated. The Russians made a national sacrifice that should be forever remembered. It was in population, in numerical and proportional terms of casualties, the highest, in devastation of the homeland the highest ... In pressing back progress, the highest. But apart from the USA, Russia was the only power to gain from the War for all that. Russia gained an albeit unwilling Empire.

But let us also remember that Russia had decided that the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was a good idea - for carving up Poland - and that there will always be mistrust between the West and Russia. Russia, like Italy managed the trick of being on both sides before the War ended

What we need is statesmanship to try to bridge this mistrust for the good of all. The situation in Ukraine is Russia's current gambit to maintain mistrust, which Russia - misguidedly in my view - regards as a good thing. Perhaps I should say ... Putin regards as a good thing, and who knows if Putin really represents Russian people as a whole?

ATB from George

Indeed, George, Stalin and his regime were pretty evil too.  For evidence look what he did to many of his own people.  But he didn't make the sacrifice to fight the Nazis, the millions of Russian people did. And they are entitled to remember that sacrifice and how it shapes their thinking today.

Mike

Dear Mike,

You seem to share my view.

To me it is the Russian people, not their leaders, who appeal to me.

Not so different to any other people, really, and so capable of huge good and massive sacrifice ...

ATB from George

This is very true. That wise man Anthony Burgess once said of the War that "The Americans won it with money, the Russians with blood and the British with sheer bloody--minded obstinacy."

The sacrifice made by the Soviet Union, both materially and in terms of soldiers and civilians' lives (estimates range from 25 to 32 million), was immense and must never be underestimated.

It's interesting that the two countries to whom the War means the most are Great Britain and Russia/USSR. Most of us in Blighty still regard it as "our finest hour", whether we were alive during the conflict or not; and even a casual visitor to Russia would be struck by the huge numbers of memorials to what they call "The Great Patriotic War".

The fierce Russian Winter of 1942/43 certainly played a part in Hitler's defeat, as did the overstretching of supply lines, with Goering's Luftwaffe unable to fulfil its promises, particularly for the 6th Army holed up in Stalingrad.

But Hitler's biggest error was making Barbarossa a war of annihilation. The Soviets, along with Stalin and his commanders, realised this meant, for them, a stark choice: Death, or victory. Nothing else. People with nothing to lose are always the most fearsome of opponents, and are virtually impossible to beat.The Russians fought with a courage and fanaticism that doomed the Nazis, particularly after Stalingrad.

I find these events become ever more poignant with each passing year as the numbers of survivors dwindle and those that are left become more frail.

I think the Second World War (significantly, most of us here in the UK call it "the War") is certainly the most significant event in our history, and one that will always be commemorated, and our role in that conflict was, on balance, both significant and something to be proud of particularly in the dark days of 1940-41, when we held out largely alone.

The human and material cost will probably never be known. The casualty estimates have constantly been revised upwards, especially since the 1990s, when the old Soviet archives became available to historical researchers; and the scale of Chinese deaths has become known and factored in. Estimates now range from 61 to 82 million, a staggering figure. The material cost, adjusted for inflation and other factors, may have been as high as $106 trillion.

On another note, I do hope the authorities do the decent thing and celebrate VJ Day (15th August here, 2nd September in the US), as those who fought in the East are often - unjustly - forgotten, and suffered some of the worst privations.

+1, I totally agree

Ken

A lot of things were forgotten, especially the Far East part of "our" part of the war.

Other forgotten things like the Merchant Air Service, commercial flights were maintained during WWII, mainly British Airways (before BOAC) provided the aircraft and crews, although from 1936 second officers, were RAF types "learning" the airfields of Europe, especially German  ones.

My F-I-L was a radio operator on BA Boeing Clippers during WWII, mostly based in the US and doing Atlantic crossings.

"What we need is statesmanship to try to bridge this mistrust for the good of all. The situation in Ukraine is Russia's current gambit to maintain mistrust, which Russia - misguidedly in my view - regards as a good thing. Perhaps I should say ... Putin regards as a good thing, and who knows if Putin really represents Russian people as a whole?"

Wow George; there are so many inaccuracies in that statement it is hard to know where to begin.

Ukraine is the US' most recent gambit to create mistrust in Russia, not the other way around.  That whole disaster is the result of US meddling; and all but installing a puppet regime in Ukraine.  Ukraine has been on the US State Dept's radar for years now (per Nuland's '5 billion dollar investment' quote) and if you read the stuff from the CFR, Brookings Institute, etc, this is all going according to the plan.

Putin is immensely popular in Russia.  He took a complete mess of a country post USSR break up, and has begun to put it on its feet militarily and economically.  And the West (basically the USA) cannot tolerate that.  The USA was fine when Russia was weak, disorganized, and able to be pillaged at will. 

Promises made to Russia in 1991 have been broken, starting with Clinton, and progressing right though Bush and now Obama.  So let's place the creation of mistrust squarely where it belongs.

US foreign doctrine maintains that ONLY the USA can be a super power,and no other will be permitted.  And they have held true to this, and are more than willing to use violence and death to attain that goal.  The Hegemon will not be denied...and I for one wonder when those in Europe are going to stop being pushed around (or in some cases flat out occupied...see Germany) by the USA.

I could go on, but I am in the process of getting ready to leave for work.

North Korea also has an extremely popular leader!

German tanks on the ground in eastern Ukraine at the bidding of the US? Could we trust them to stop there? No, I think you will find that unrest on the ground in Ukraine is being fomented not by the US or Germany. In Germany the people could always kick out Merkel for being the glove-puppet of the US if they were determined enough, the Ukranian people sure as hell were determined to get rid of Yanukovych for having Putin's hand up his behind, and now they have the 'chocolate king' Poroshenko (sounds scary!) as President. If EU and US have provided monetary and diplomatic stability that can be interpreted as interference, then that's up for debate. The Ukranian people were looking west before Feb 2014 and were ready for a new experience of life, new politics, maybe some prosperity that the Poles were enjoying.

DrMark you may be totally 100% right in what you say. I do not have enough information to decide. So I keep an open mind.

Two things:

Who says Putin is immensely popular?

China must surely rank as more of a super power than Russia and I don't see the yanks messing there?

To answer Lionel:

1.) Many polls including independent ones.

2.) Don't worry...China is next.  Russia is just closer to the US military arm in Europe (NATO) and presents the first move in a strategy written about in foreign policy articles as "the Asian Pivot."

Hafler: not sure I follow your post about German tanks (?)

As for the unrest, certainly in the west of Ukraine that is the case, but look at the electoral map from the last Ukrainian election:

There is (or was, now that over 6,000 have been killed, hundreds of thousands dispossessed, and Crimea is gone) a sizable contingent that was more Russian leaning than EU leaning.  Yanukovych was as in your face a thief as there was running a country, but he was the elected leader of the country, in an election that was approved by international monitors. 

Yanukovych tried to play both ends against the middle in choosing between the EU deal and the Russian deal.  In the end, Russia's offer was demonstrably better.  It was the US who made it a "them or us" deal, for which there is no real rationalization other than creating a conflict situation.

And let us be intellectually honest here:  had Lavrov's top assistant, the head of the Russian intelligence agency, Dimitry Medvedev, and a top, senior Duma member gone over during an uprising, that would be iron clad "proof" of causing the revolt in the Western press.  NUland and McCain stand posing with known neoo-Nazis, smiling, and just a couple of years earlier the BBC and Reuters were running stories on some of these same Ukrainians as to how dangerous Nazis they were.  But without the Nazi component (which is only a part, but a not insignificant one) the new regime crumbles.

What compels the Donbass region to accept an illegal revolutionary government, besides the fact that the US favors it?  And as soon as they came to power they passed laws against the Russian language, etc (which I think was an "oops!" moment for the US State Dept and got them repealed immediately...lest the new regime be seen obviously for what it is.)

And with the US supporting the Saudi regime, any "humanitarian" argument really has no traction.  "Human rights" appear to be a pretty malleable concept depending on whether you support the US or not.  If you do, no worries.  If you don't, we will point them out and even invent a few more.

The US was behind the coup, it was illegal, and it is very much in the pattern of how the US operates internationally.  It's a well worn recipe.

The reference is a bit obscure, but the bit about "I wonder when those in Europe are going to stop being pushed around (or in some cases flat out occupied...see Germany) by the USA". If Germany is 'occupied' then the occupying force can move any military hardware 'by proxy' into more "provocative" areas! Of course it is not my intent to put any ideas into the heads of the American top brass!

No, and the metaphor may be a bit extreme, but the US has (according to Wikipedia) over 38,000 troops stationed in Germany with the following bases as of 2009.

That may not be occupied, but it's not something I would like in my country...nor would it seem that Germany could make moves not "approved" by the USA. 

It's also (along with well over another 100 countries) why we are insolvent.