part 2639 of "it's not my fault i'm an ignorant american"
once again today i found my self thinking about WWII (as I often do on
ocassion) after seeing a german movie about the last days of Hilt0r and his
cronnies (dont recal the name of the flick but im sure most of you do as it
was a major germ,an film from 2-4 years ago.)
I came to the conclusion (not directley related to the subject of the
movie) that I had been educated improperly on WWII. Dont rag on me about
improper teachings in this country, I know I was tought alot of
horseshit.
Anywho, the bullshit of part 2639 centers around who won WWII, by that I
mean; who was responsible for the allies getting the win. You ask any
jackoff in this country and they will say we did. That the US swept in and
saved Europe from certain death. HORSESHIT
Ask any ubiased and/or educated person in Europe or any other part of the
world with a below average bullshit factor and they will answer the
question differntly:
Russia, or to be more accurate; THE SOVIET UNION
I'm not going into why the USSR saved the world right now, but Im sure
most of you know. I'f you are American, or any other person now seing
the light through the web of lies we've been entrapped in, google and
wikipedia is great for shit like this.
ok so enough with this kogneto like entry, here are my open/closed
questions.
1. Are we taught in the US that we won becasue A: we are aggorant pricks,
B: becasue we don't want to make communism look successful (whole lot
of depth to this one), or C: combination of the two (my personal
pick)....?
2. Would Russia have been able to defeat Nazi Germany if they were not the
unionized collection of slavic states? (could they have won if they were
Russia and not USSR?)
prolly more on this to come
<DISCUSS>
</DISCUSS>
posted by surgeonbob on Monday 10th July 2006, 00:03:06
The Soviet Union certainly helped the Allies win the war since they opened
another front against the Axis troops, but to say that the USSR won the war
is also falsehood. Don't be fooled, the USSR was for looting and
plundering, not for liberating Europe. (ie. the following 40 years of Cold
War.) The USSR was for whichever side was going to win.
good point, don't they teach in u.s. that soviets were allies
with nazi germany until '41? their aim was to make all Europe
under the communist reign, so when Surgeon says: "I'm not
going into why the USSR saved the world right now" he's
wrong - as the USSR didn't saved the world (what from would it?).
USSR's communism seemed slighty the same as the NS in III Reich.
The (simplified) difference was that commies were killing/persecuting
people for their possession of wealth, and nazis for their ascending.
Heh, the Germans wanted to surrender to the Western powers
instead of the Soviets because they knew that the Soviet would
deport them all to Siberia. Certainly, the Soviets had no
problem looting, plundering and raping the cities they overtook
as they felt "justified" in doing so.
Yes, of course, but it's still very problematic
when considering that they would be occupying and
taking part in the rebuilding of Europe. The
rebuilding and reconciliation of the conquered nations
after wars is equally, if not more, important than the
wars themselves.
hm...news to me. i was taught in america as well as in canada that america
won WWII. and there is an italian film that portays the americans winning
the war and rescueing those fellows from concentration camps...but i'm
quite rusty on the subject. didn't the russian winter defeat hitler?
i understand your point and there may be some truth to it, but i'm
sick of people glorifying communism. it wasn't 'successful'
at all and the biggest evil to happen to humanity in our times.
but i agree, you get taught a lot of bullshit in german schools too when it
comes to WWII (said commie-glorifying).
Soviets did "save" Europe from Nazis , and yes US probably twist
the facts so that Ussr didnt look so succesful. Im damn proud as a Finn
cause we were the only ppl who werent ran over/occupied by the soviets ,
even we were allied with the axis.
Oh yeah, after a little reading, it appears that Finland was one of
the first countries defeated by the Soviets (Winter War, 1940).
Sure, not "overrun", but the first to give up territory to
the Soviets in that time period.
I think whatever movies you watched or books you read from were just
concentrating on what most people (here) would find interesting with
regards to the United States' role in the war. The books we studied
never played down the fact that Germany was defeated because of
Hitler's poor decision making, or that the Soviets were the ones who
captured Berlin first, or that it wasn't *just* Americans fighting in
the Battle of Normandy.
What was emphasized was that the Allies were fighting a losing
battle until the United States became involved. That fact is not an
exaggeration, but the emphasis tends to be on our "fighting men"
in Europe, and not on our most important contribution: war supplies to the
Allied powers. World War II was a modern war, and like all modern wars,
tactics may win the battle, but resources win the war. America's
supply contribution, via the Lend-Lease act, and later direct aid, was the
backbone of the Allied war effort, including that of the USSR's.
As for what is normally shown when America is depicted as "saving
Europe": the invasion of Normandy was probably not vital for
Germany's defeat, as the Soviets could've defeated the Germany on
their own at that point in time. However, the occupation did have one very
important secondary effect: the occupation of Western Europe by western
forces, not eastern forces. There would have been a very high probablility
that many of Western Europe's nations would have fallen under the
"iron curtain" much like East Germany had. Certainly, Stalin had
ambitions to occupy many states when he and Hitler carved up Eastern Europe
before the war. In that respect, Western Europe was liberated from the
Nazis as much as the Soviets.
And his mistaken belief that he was a military genius, which he
wasn't. Stalin was like that too, but later came to trust
his advisors and let them do the real warmaking.
i'd also like to thank the soviets for their selfless and successful
efforts to keep eastern europe from overpopulating and trying to abolish
our useless religious & cultural heritage and morals. Go USSR!
Could have been Der Untergang/The Downfall, interesting movie indeed. Are
you americans really teached that poorly about it? Man, you guys have to
learn 5000 years less of history and donīt even do that properly... thank
the internet for sharing its knowledge
"Which battle was the turning point in the eastern front?"
The answer is: look it up if you care.
While I generally find it interesting stuff, and note that
turning on the TV to the "History Channel" at a party ruins
the party, I definitely can understand the general disinterest the
public here has with it. It's like converting to metric: it
isn't that important to us because it has no real bearing on our
day-to-day lives.
So what is taught here? General concept ideas, not details. Even the
quote: "Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat
it" does not emphasize on the fact-learning so much as the
lessons to be learned from the facts--and those lessons are
often unapplicable nowadays, or do not require the student to learn
all of history.
So if you enjoy memorizing facts, you're welcome to it, but we
have more applicable things to learn.
fuck you should try going to school in australia. we got taught
two things down here. we get taught to memorize facts, and then
we got taught how to think so we can continue our school so we
can memorize more facts. every year of school is just preparing
you for the next, preparing you for highschool,middle school,
vce, and then university. and then when you goto uni they theach
you nothing leaving you qualified to do fuck all.
part 2639 of "it's not my fault i'm an ignorant american"
