Russian Article Downplays Allies WW2 Contribution

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Zemlyak, May 12, 2010.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Russia's and ex Soviet states' 9 May celebrations contrasts sharply with what seems to have happened in Britain and they take great pride in their victory over Nazi Germany. And so they should with all the endeavours they made and suffering they endured. On one RT programme I saw recently a hisorian's estimate of their war dead was about 26 - 31 million (I hope I remembered that correctly) which is up from the 22 million figure that was always the one I trotted out with.

    A few articles have appeared in the Russian press some of which touch on the western allies contribtuion.

    This one seems to downplay the western allies contribution:

    http://english.pravda.ru/russia/history/113332-0/

    I wondered if anyone knew how widespread this view was and if maybe KGB Resident could give us any comments.

    This one here is give the allies more credit but as it's written by a Canadian I don't think it counts as a Russian view:

    http://www.themoscowtimes.com/opinion/article/feting-an-alliance-of-spam-and-powdered-eggs/405539.html

    Whilst we're at it, there may be resistance by the generals in reducing the number of skeleton formations and officer numbers.

    http://www.themoscowtimes.com/opinion/article/preparing-for-world-war-iii/405767.html
     
  2. Pravda, now that's what I call a trustworthy source of information!
     
  3. No one can deny the sacrifice made by the USSR, however the Molotov–Ribbentrop secret shenanigans would make one think that the USSR had its own agenda regardless of the West's actions.
     
  4. Seems on the face of it a reasonable viewpoint....we, the western allies, would have had a bigger army to fight...but hey! There was only one nuclear power in the latter days. Would it have made a difference? Who knows? Would the Spams have used it in Europe? The pity of this argument is that the allies defeated the Nazis together and we should all recognise that fact, "let's not bicker about who killed who."

    ...and an old sailor friend of mine in the Merchant wouldn't have been sunk TWICE delivering material to Murmansk ....just when the Soviets needed it. Ok Seaman L**** T*** you did your bit, time to launch the Carley floats again.

    Oh! And let's not forget the Russian collapse of 1917 when the whole of the German Army moved west and was defeated by...........the Western Allies.
     
  5. What do you expect from a state that denies the existance of WW2 for almost 2 years?

    According to the Russians, the war only started in June 1941 when their allies the Nazis turned against them. Until then, they were enjoying the spoils of invasion and occupation.

    The Russian people paid a heavy price in blood for the decisions of their leadership.
     
  6. Did anyone else pick up on this?
     
  7. What can I say? The author - Sergey Balmasov, a writer. I hear about him for the first time.

    During Soviet times Pravda was a very influental newspaper but now it is a private owned tabloid. Something like the Sun or News of the World.

    This photo is to the left from the text and likely illustrates the main theme of the newspaper.

    [​IMG]

    As for the article itself then I haven't found factual mistakes. And some points made by the author are reasonable.

    I believe that the mojority of the Russians (including me and the author) believe that

    As for the apparent fact that a contribution of the Soviet Union was the biggest, that the loses were huge then the Russians and all sane people agree with it.
     
  8. ...Or "British press plays down Russian contribution", or "US press plays down everybody else's contribution and fails to explain why they turned up three years late", "French press makes excuses and blames the UK"...

    All stories are ultimately local so the press write to match their readership. KGB Resident puts it well: Pravda is the local red top and, when the USSR did join in, I'm glad it was on our side
     
  9. Only a country coming into the war against Nazi Germany AFTER the Soviet Union could come up with that one. I'm not sure anybody living in western or eastern Europe would think similarly while the Soviet Union and Nazi German were frollicking hand in hand for almost 2 years.
     
  10. One of the great What If's? of History: who would have won if it had been a straight fight between the Ivans and the Nazis, with no other country involved?
     
  11. If the Soviets hadn't been on the their side in 1939, Herr Hitler may not have marched into the Low Countries in the first place!
     
  12. Ord_Sgt

    Ord_Sgt RIP

    Who cares, history is history, the boxheads lost, end of story.
     
  13. Wehrmacht losses on the Eastern front are reputedly claimed to be 75-80%, the Red banner was also the first allied flag to fly in Berlin so one can hardly blame Ivan for emphasising his role in the Great Patriotic War, theirs was fought on a vast scale. Kursk et al makes our efforts look quite superfluous.

    Our greatest contribution to their victory was trucks & boots.

    ~D.C.
     
  14. Hate to piss..not really..:D..on your fire..but as your G/Father/Father..??..(nothing personal) did my Paternal G/Father at Katyn I find your 'bullshit' boring..fact..you entered WW2 on the Nazi side...(I'll keep it simple...for the simple 'minds')...and were happy to go along with the division of Poland/Europe..but Hitler made his move(his mistake) you changed it to the war against 'Facisim' you did Poland(amongst others) no favours after '45'...no suprise that I feel little sympathy for the 'Russian sacrifice'..you might fool the 'idiots' on ARRSE but there are still enough 1st. generation Eastern Europeans alive to challenge your 'Soviet' lies..have a nice day, you Russian cnut..!!
     
  15. From Chris Donnelly, in 1979, I learned that in the last 6 weeks of WW2, the Red Army lost more dead than did the combined armed forces of Britain and America in the entire 6 (or 4?) years of the war.

    I'd say they've got a point.