Έτσι γαμάει ο Βλαδίμηρος

[hades]

και κάτι ακόμα dna.Οι Ρώσοι ιστορικοί πόσο εχουν ασχοληθεί με την συνεισφορά των δυτικών; Πχ στην δυτική βιβλιογραφία υπάρχουν πάρα πολλά βιβλία για τα γεγονότα στην Ρωσία στον ΒΒΠ. Από Ρώσους στα ρώσικα τι υπάρχει γιατί αν ισχύουν αυτά που έχω διαβάσει είναι ότι στα ιστορικά βιβλία της Ρωσίας δεν αναφέρεται καν ότι πολέμησαν και οι δυτικοί τον Άξονα

[Northern Spirit]

Τιποτε δεν εχουνε στην Ρωσια..Καμια πολυφωνια...Οχι οτι δεν υπαρχει αλλα απαγορευεται να πεις οτιδηποτε που να αντικειται στην επισημη γραμμη...Τα ιδια και στην Κινα..

Γι'αυτο προσωπικα ειμαι υπερηφανος που ανηκω στη δυση.

[dna replication]

Χαίρομαι που καταρχήν το καταλάβατε και το δεχτήκατε οτι στη δυτική ιστοριογραφία και στα ΜΜΕ ο αγώνας στο ανατολικό μέτωπο αποσιωπάται και υποβαθμίζεται. Εστω με την τρίπλα οτι αφού επιτρέπεται να το λέμε εμείς, τοτε μεγάλη η χάρη της δυσης.
Το whataboutism θα απαντηθεί στη συνέχεια. προς το παρόν πάρτε και ένα επιστημονικό άρθρο

INTRODUCTION
In June 1994, at the fiftieth commemoration of the Allied landings in
Normandy, TIME Magazine put Dwight D. Eisenhower, the commander of
the Allied armies, on its front cover and labeled him ‘The Man Who Beat
Hitler’.2 When it comes to the fighting in Western Europe, it was surely justified
to describe the future US President in those words. Looking to the
Second World War as a whole, however, this statement could not have been
wider of the mark. It was the Red Army and the Russian people who bore
the lion’s share of fighting Nazi Germany between 1941 and 1945.3 In an
outstanding recent synthesis on the war between the Third Reich and the
Soviet Union, Stephen G. Fritz has pointed out that roughly eight of every
10 German soldiers who died were killed in the East; it was the Red Army
that broke the back of the Wehrmacht, at the cost of appalling losses: ‘Total
German and Soviet deaths (military and civilians) numbered around 35 million,
compared to less then 1 million for Great Britain and the United States.
At times, indeed, the Ostkrieg often seemed more murder than war’.4
For a long time, however, especially during the Cold War, Western historians
have to a large extent ignored the war on the Eastern Front, described
by Ian Kershaw as ‘the epicenter of World War II’.5 In Great Britain and
the United States the dominant thought was that they had defeated Hitler’s
Third Reich. Consequently, there little attention was paid to the fighting in
the East.6 According to Norman Davies, ‘Western experts’ only had a vague
idea of what had happened in Eastern Europe.7 From a Western point of
view, the Allied landings in Normandy on 6 June 1944 were, together with
the battle of Stalingrad, seen as the turning point of the Second World War.8
In reality, the Third Reich lost the Second World War in the barbaric
conflict with the Red Army. The overwhelming majority of the German army
fought on the Eastern Front. Most of its approximately 5.3 million dead are
buried here.9 Between 22 June 1941, the day the Wehrmacht attacked the
Soviet Union, and January 1945, at least 55 percent of the German forces
battled the Red Army, with peaks of 70 and 77 percent in 1941 and 1942.10
Moreover, historians have argued that the Soviet Union had long since won
the war by 1944, whether or not the Western Allies would have opened a
second front.11

[Northern Spirit]

Δεν λεει τιποτε ο εν λογω ΔΝΑ...Το μονο που λεει ειναι οτι η καθε χωρα σιχυριζεται οτι αυτη συνεβαλε περισσοτερο στην τελικη νικη...Οι δυτικοι τα δικα τους, οι Ρωσοι τα δικα τους.



Eυτυχως επεσα πανω σε ενα παλαιοτερο αρθρο των Moscow Times που ο αρθρογραφος ειχε το θαρρος να μιλησει για την συνεισφορα των δυτικων που δεν αναγνωριζεται στην Ρωσια για για την καταπτυστη συμφωνια Ριμπεντροπ-Μολοτοβ με την οποια οι Σοβιετικοι και Ναζι παρεουλα επετεθησαν σε χωριες της Ανατολικη΅Ευρωπης ενω ο πατερουλης τροφοδοτουσε με κρισιμες πρωτες υλες τον στρατο των Ναζι οταν οι τελευταια επιτεθηκαν στην γαλλια και βομβαρδιζαν την βρετανια...

https://themoscowtimes.com/articles/who ... ar-ii-7848

Ο Ρωσος αρθρογραφος, ελπιζω να ειναι ζωντανος ακομη, ειχε το θαρρος να μιλησει και για την ειδικη σημασια της Βρετανιας για τους Σοβιετικους στον πολεμο..

It is a remarkably ungenerous attitude. On the 70th anniversary of the Soviet Union’s entry into the war, Russians should acknowledge the contribution of its allies. Britain in particular can — and rightly does — claim a very special role in standing up to Germany.

Let’s rewind the clock to June 21, 1941, and see how the situation looked from London. By then, Britain had been at war for nearly two years. Its two allies, Poland and France, had been defeated and dismembered. All of Europe was either under German occupation or hostile to Britain. British cities had been severely bombed by the Luftwaffe, and a land invasion was still a strong possibility.

While Britain faced Germany in the west, Hitler and Josef Stalin concluded an unholy alliance in the east that lasted for nearly two years, attacking and occupying several nations. The Soviet Union had put its vast natural resources at Hitler’s disposal, helping Germany wage its war and rendering useless Britain’s sole weapon, its naval superiority.

Many Russian historians still claim that the Molotov-Ribbentrop nonaggression pact, signed Aug. 23, 1939, was an alliance of convenience. Stalin had been given a cold shoulder by Britain and France when he proposed an antifascist alliance. Moreover, since the Soviet Union was not prepared to fight Hitler, he had no choice, we are told, but to delay the war by feigning friendship with Germany.

But compare this with what Britain and France did in 1939. They were also unprepared to fight, but they ended the policy of appeasement that surrendered Czechoslovakia in 1938 and came to the defense of Poland.

και ειχε και το θαρρος να πει τα αυτονοητα: οτι η Σοβιετικη προπαγανδα οτι η ΣΕ συνεβαλε περισσοτερο στην νικη εναντιον των ναζι επειδη οι σοβιετικοι ειχανε τα περισσοτερα θυματα δεν ειναι σοβαρο επιχειρημα επειδη οι υψηλοτατες σοβιετικες απωλειες οφειλονταν στην καταστροφικη (για την ΣΕ) στρατιωτικη προετοιμασια του πατερουλη..

Russians inflicted more casualties on Germans than other allies and suffered more casualties than all other countries combined. But that was, in a large measure, the result of Stalin’s disastrous preparations. Britain suffered far fewer losses and less destruction, but you can’t blame it for maintaining a strong navy and mobilizing for the defense of the home islands, thus discouraging Hitler from ordering a land invasion.

λεει επισης ο Ρωσος οτι η δυτικη στηριξη στον πατερουλη ξεκινησε απο το 1941 με τροφοδοσια των Σοβιετικων μεση της Ανατολικης Σιβηριας. Αυτα και οχι οι μουφες που μας λεει ο συντροφος οτι η βοηθεια ξεκινησε αφου η σοβιετικη Ενωση ειχε...γυρισει (ΛΟΛ) τον πολεμο.

When the Soviet Union entered the war 70 years ago, it never had to stand alone. It was supported by Britain — despite Stalin’s previous alliance with Hitler — and the United States promptly established a program to supply Moscow with war materiel, food and clothing. In reality, with the United States entering the war in December 1941, even the loss of Moscow would not have meant a Soviet defeat. While German supply lines were dangerously stretched, Soviet troops could have regrouped east of the capital thanks to a U.S. commitment to supply the Red Army through Northeastern Siberia.

Και καταληξει ο Ρωσος στο σωστο συμπερασμα οτι τον πολεμο κερδισε η συμμαχια:

Russians have every right to mourn their losses and be proud of the heroism of their people. But Russia should also acknowledge that all the allies of the anti-Hitler coalition made vital contributions and huge sacrifices to achieve victory. The war was fought, and won, by the entire alliance.

[Northern Spirit]

και αυτο απο αρθρο του BBC που αναφερεται σε δηλωση του Σταλιν οτι χωρις την δυτικη βοηθεια δεν θα τα ειχανε καταφερει:

The Soviet Union did not turn the tide on the Eastern Front on its own. Though for decades Soviet historians played down the role of American and British Lend-Lease aid, its real significance has now been acknowledged. From 1942 a flow of food and raw materials and engineering equipment sustained the Soviet war effort.

There was enough food in the end to ensure a square meal for every Soviet soldier; most of the Soviet rail network was supplied with locomotives, wagons and rails made in the USA; one million miles of telephone wire, 14 million pairs of boots, 363, 000 trucks, all helped to keep the Red Army fighting with growing efficiency. Without Allied aid, Stalin later admitted, 'we would not have been able to cope'.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/ ... .shtml#two

[Northern Spirit]

Και ενα τελευταιο τρομπονι επικο στα ορφανα του πατερουλη ερχεται απο τους ιδους τους Γερμανους ηγετες τον Ριμπεντροπ αλλα και τον ιδιο το Χιτλερ που ανεφεραν τους λογους που χασανε τον πολεμο. Ο Ριμπεντροπ ανεφερε τρεις λογους: ο ενας ητανε η μη αναμενομενη αντισταση των σοβιετικων, η τεραστια τροφοδοσια με οπλα απο τους Αμερικανους στους συμμαχους και η επιτυχια των συμμαχικης αεροποριας (κυριως Βρετανων και αμερικανων) σε βαρος της Γερμανικης..Για τον δε χιτλερ η αιτια ητανε η αποτυχια της Γερμανικης αεροποριας η πρωταρχικη αιτια.

Αυτος ητανε και ο λογος που Βρετανοι και ΗΠΑ δεν ειχανε πολλους νεκρους: οτι το δογμα και των δυο χωρων βασιζοτανε σε αεροπορικη υπεροχη και χρησιμοποιησαν πρωταρχικα την αεροπορια..

In his prison cell at Nuremberg, Hitler's foreign minister, Joachim von Ribbentrop, wrote a brief memoir in the course of which he explored the reasons for Germany's defeat. He picked out three factors that he thought were critical: the unexpected 'power of resistance' of the Red Army; the vast supply of American armaments; and the success of Allied air power.

This last was Hitler's explanation too. When Ribbentrop spoke with him a week before the suicide in the bunker, Hitler told him that, 'the real military cause of defeat' was the failure of the German Air Force.

εξαιρετικη αναλυση στο αρθρο του BBC οχι προπαγανδιστικες αναλυσεις Ρωσων κομμουνιων..

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/ ... .shtml#two

[dna replication]

μήπως να ακούγαμε τον ίδιο τον Χίτλερ?
αντι για το CNN της Μοσχας (Moscow times) ή το BBC?

και ακόμη ήταν 1942

[Northern Spirit]

εδω λεμε ποιος κερδισε τον πολεμο το 1945 εσυ μου λες τι ελεγε ο χιτλερ το 1942 σε μια συνεντευξη για το Ανατολικο μετωπο...

[Ραν ταν πλαν]

Το ποιος κέρδισε τον πόλεμο έχει κλείσει σε ό,τι αφορά την επιστήμη της ιστορίας. Οι Ρώσοι.

[Northern Spirit]

Το αλλο με τον Τοτο το ξερεις;