Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roachboy
4.
world war 2: this one really irks me.
first off, the american history of ww2 routinely erases the role of the soviet army in defeating germany. the story usually goes like this:
which is typical in that it skips the entire period after stalingrad, eliminates the various feints undertaken by the us to damage the soviets (following on truman's famous "let them bleed each other white" remark in congress) that prompted the americans to respond to stalin's pleas for a second front by invading first north africa, then italy...it is a hero-narrative that deconstextualizes d-day in an attempt to make the ending of ww2 the exclusive function of american actions--which it was not--the story is simply bullshit. it might make people feel--i dont know--something--but it is bullshit.
|
Please, excuse my berevity. It was late, I was tired, and I didn't want to go into a long drawn out history of WW2. I will say that the Soviets were many times more responsible for defeating Nazi Germany than the United States. If somehow the Russians and the Germans honored their non-aggression pact, it is doubtful that America would have been able to defeat the Nazis. At the least, casualties would have been exponentially higher. I am of the belief that Russia would have beaten Germany by itself if it had to. Quiet simply, it had so much more men and material that it would have been inevitable. Please note that my timeline wasn't "Stalingrad, D-day, etc." I did mention Kursk, which was also important. Towards the end, there were too many catastrophes for the German army to mention. The Courland pocket was a massive disaster, etc. However, as I said before, I wanted to be brief on the subject because the entire events of WW2 don't necessarily have to be discussed concerning this subject.