Rodric Braithwaite, ambassador to Moscow in the 1960s and again during perestroika, argues that the battle of Moscow is one of the most overlooked moments in history. Fighting over a territory the size of France, more than 900,000 Soviet soldiers died, a figure that exceeds the combined deaths of the British and American forces in the Second World War. For every Briton or American who died, the Soviets lost 85 people.
Braithwaite concludes that 'had they not been fighting the Russians, they would have been in France, and there would have been no D-Day'.
What do you think? Do you feel that historians, especially those from the West have not underlined the fact that if Russia had collapsed in 1941/42, the Allies would never have been able to defeat Hitlerite Germany. That the Russians have not been given due recognition for defeating the once invincible German army during World War Two.
The result....
Total Votes Cast: 130
YES: 74%
NO: 26%
Russia bore the brunt and lost in one month what the americans or british lost during the whole war. Stalin caused this by not acknowledging the millions of tons of lend lease material from the US, Canada and UK. The resentment still carries.
ReplyDeleteI suspect that we would have won regardless but the price would have been tripled or quadrupled. Let's not forget the Russian winter. US and western technology would have won but when and at what cost? I do believe that Russia was left to take the brunt of the force, and that crossing the channel should have been accomplished in 1943. Many more variables but Russia did get the short stick.
ReplyDeleteWestern historians gave the Soviet Union plenty of credit. Or tried to: The secretive, dissembling nature of Soviet communism made it hard to get accurate facts. Plus, the Soviets kept repeating that Western historians were denying credit to the USSR, which was not the case. The Western historians were much more fair and accurate than the lapdog Soviet academics.
ReplyDeleteThank God for the poor roads that were so muddied during the winters in Russia, helping to bog down the Germans. Also the extreme cold for which the Germans were ill prepared. If the Russians had not been effective the end would still have come for Hitler cos after the dropping of the A-bombs in Japan, what was to stop Truman from levelling Berlin?
ReplyDeleteI think they get too much credit, to be honest. Hitler had more to do with the Germans defeat, than Russia. I dont know how anyone can say otherwise.
ReplyDeleteIt was the 1939 Non-Aggression Pact between The USSR and Nazi Germany, that allowed the war to start in the first place. By making that pack, it allowed the Nazis to eliminate the Soviet's potential allies in the West, and then the Nazis turned on them. If the Allies had treated the Russians as the Russians had treated them, they would have made a separate peace with the Nazis and left the Russians to fight them on their own.
ReplyDeleteThey got what they deserved,at the end the germans got of light they should of pay a heavier price for what they did.
ReplyDeleteThe germans followed hitler to hell they got what they deserved.
ReplyDeleteWithout Russia 1 million or so German soldiers would've flattened Britain, there would be no normandy and no further obstacle for Germany to solidify their victory in Europe and Britain. Effectively world would had to accept the fact and war would end here, or Germany could replendish their troops before moving on.
ReplyDelete