different points of view

can I ask? - Topic Powered by eve community

Here is the discussion iniciated by Russians on American forum.
As you see, some difference in informational boards.
As for me, i can say that
I was educated in Russia’s military high-school.

And, for example, we were said there that USA and Great Britain could open the Second front line in Europe against Germany already in 1942. Because the Athlantic Border of Nazis was a mythe. And both the USA and Great Britain were ready anough to catch Germany in twistle while Soviet Army was finishing with them near the Stalingrad. But Mr.Churchill and Rusvelt preferred to have some new colonies in Africa. And the British Prime-Minister even sacrificed two thousand soldgiers while attacking Djepp – the most fortificated point on the European sea-bank – in order to show that there is no perspective.
The popular Soviet definition: Western leaders were looking for further weakening both Soviet Union and Nazi Germany.

 

Really and you have sources to back this up? What were those "Colonies" and where are they now?

 

Well, you can't really have it both ways - if the Atlantic border was a myth, I cannot understand why 2000 soldiers would have been sacrificed against it. Dieppe was certainly not the strongest point, as anyone who has visited the Pas-de-Calais will attest.

The RAF at Dieppe were torn apart by the Luftwaffe which delivered the salutary lesson that no invasion could succeed without superiority in the air ; something the Allies didn't have in 1942.

Forgive me for saying this, but I do get the impression that the Russian view of WWII in some quarters is driven by an element of paranoia - or to put it another way, a chip-on-the-shoulder.....

 

No surprise here really. It is also believed that D-Day was launched in order to prevent Stalin from taking the rest of Europe. A theory which can make sense.

 

Wasn't following WWII that decolonization of Africa began, and by 1980 almost the whole of the continent had gained their independence?
Wasn't it the Russians who then took most of eastern Europe to bolster it's own empire (a sort of Buffer zone), And by 1980 was still invading other sovereign nations like Afghanistan.

 

Ha! I just love the way this is phrased.... "Invading sovereign nations..." you mean just one right? The very same one and with the same enemies which the U.S. is in right now and fighting with?

Oh and last time I checked, Korea, Vietnam and Iraq ( just to name a few and all post WW2) were sovereign nations too, I wonder what happend there.....

Psh!

 

Just want to point out there though. Off topic but the US did NOT invade either Korea or Vietnam.

 

Not wishing to split hairs, but the Russian Military High School may wish to note that the German 6th Army at Stalingrad wasn't 'finished' until 1943.....

 

First of all, welcome to this forum.

Back to topic, no, the Western Allies simply were not prepared to open an European Continent 2nd front in 1942. Dieppe was a test, and it failed. Quite simply military expertise in landing operations did not exist.

May I remind of the trouble that was being taken in defeating the German and Italian troops in North Africa, which shows that even against such a limited enemy the W.A. were not up to a greater task yet.

The first successful landing operation in large scale was in Sicily in 1943 Allied invasion of Sicily - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia at the time of the Kursk Battle, soon followed by invasion of italy.

It still took almost another year to finish a large enough troop and supplies build up to perform the Normandy landing (Op. Overlord), including time for the weather to allow it, which only occurred in June 1944.

The African colonial argument is not valid, the entire Africa was already colonised.

 

Well with the utmost respect towards you, I will begin with Korea. On 25 June 1950 400.000 troops of Kim Il-Sung’s N. Korean Army crossed the 38th parallel in an invasion with the goal of unifying both Koreas. On the same day, UNSC Resolution 82 condemned the attack, and called for the immediate withdrawal of N. Korean troops back to the 38th Parallel. This did not happen so with UN backing the US and many other countries came to the aid of S. Korea.

Vietnam: While I admit controversy over the second attack, it still remain that N. Vietnamese torpedo boats fired on US destroyers causing the passing of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution authorizing the president to use military force in Vietnam.

Iraq: I consider this an illegal invasion and will not comment on it(but I do still hold the utmost respect for it's veterans).

Afghanistan: Soviet forces moved into this country after repeated requests from the communist government to assist in quelling an anti-communist insurgency. The US moved into the country after 9/11 in a manor as provided by Chapter VII Article 51 of the UN Charter

I consider the mass murder of 3000 civilians an armed attack against my country, and home.

Now, I have no quarrels with Russia or its citizens. The few I do know who now live in the States, I am very close with and consider them some of my closest of friends. So, Slon, I apologize if my previous post offended you.

 

This four-letter-word of a thread is the reflex of how some nationalist ideology looks at their former allies' performance. I for myself have no problem in discussing this with this gentleman in order to widen his views if possible.

 

I have indeed. It's early to say, but it will be disappointing if the thread originator turns out to be yet another 'troll'. The original point had a certain amount of validity and I think some fair arguments have been raised in counterpoint......

 

Yes, we have seen a spate of people who open a thread with a more or less well put question, and then they vanish. That's rather common, I'd say.

 

I have a question. Who can explain to me: why so-called "freedome fighters" flew their plains in the middle of New-York and not Mosow?
How come they are more angry with their allies then with an enemy they fought for 10 years?

 

I think his anger towards the US began when Iraq invaded Kuwait. He offered his "Army" to help Saudi Arabia, but was rejected. The Saudi's then asked for American assistance. Athough America helped supply his army while fighting the Soviet's he was angered that the Suadi's prefered American assistance over his own. At least, this is how I understand his hatred for America.

 

" You helping my friends makes you my enemy" theory sounds a bit far fetched to me... I think there must be simplier explanation.

 

No apologies needed... No country is perfect and the discussion was civilized.

Oh and I too disagreed with the Soviet Union going into Afghanistan.



All the best mate.

 

Hello, it's me, who started the theme. I have not the time now but i'll be back
Now I can say that there were meant french colonies in North Africa (?) and that that person who told us the board had written the book - the battle for North Africa, looking from Russia. He wrote smth about divisions etc if i find i,ll bring them here.
As for me i'd prefer all the nations be honest in cooperation but the life as i know it don't seem to me so optimistic. And I was a boy when heard firstly that USA and UK prolongued to open the Second Front without really objective obstacles - from the film ofe one American Commy, named "The Unknown War"? 20 series.
Hoping to be back, grateful for your answers