BF2S Forums English Historian says "Hitler was defeated by the Russians"

jonsimon wrote:

lowing wrote:

jonsimon wrote:

WWII is really two wars, the Pacific and the Eurpean halves. Russia invaded germany, and won that war.

The US bombed Japan, and won that war.

I think history sees it a little differently.........They call it, WORLD WAR 2..NOw, how did the Soviets contribute the MOST in winning ALL of WORLD WAR 2?

A lot of wars are grouped together that way. Take the 30 years war, most of Europe was involved, but they did not all fight each other, and they did so in seperate phases corresponding to geographic locations. Get real, Japan never fought anyone but the US.

Japan fought most if not all of the Pacific Islands West of Hawaii, they aren't Americans. Japan fought China, UK, Korea, Other misc SEA countries. Oh and the US after 1941.

sergeriver wrote:

lowing wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

Russia and Germany started the war in 1939 when both invaded Poland.  Germany took between 1939 and 1941 Poland, Netherlands, Yugoslavia, Norway and France (I'm sure forgetting someone).  In the same period Russia invaded several Baltic Republics, including Finland.  The Japs invaded China before all of these, and US didn't enter the war until Pearl Harbor.  In 1941, Germany invaded Russia and that is the moment where Hitler lost the war.  The Pacific Theatre has nothing to do with Russia.  So, saying that Hitler was mostly defeated by Russia isn't wrong IMO.  Give the Russians some credit.

I give them credit, I cite the date of summer '41 as when the Soviets became an ally.

My only point is and you just acknowledged it, was, the Soviets were not MAINLY responsible for winning the war. YOu can argue all ya want that they are responsible for defeating Germany. I will of course disagree, but at least you have valid points to that argument.

Even in the movies all you see about the WWII is how the D-Day marked the fall of Hitler, when at that time Hitler had already lost the war.  How many Hollywood movies about the Battle of Stalingrad are there?

Hollywood??? wtf since when does hollywood speak for the US or me? Hollywood lol sorry m8 not a good point as far as actual history is concerned.

sergeriver wrote:

The Pacific Theatre has nothing to do with Russia.

I'm no historian, but my understanding was that the US was trying to get the Russians to help fight Japan after the fall of Germany. I'm sure Japan would have considered Russia an ever present threat that required some of their troops to be deployed on the Russian side of things instead of in the Pacific. So could you, in a round about sort of way, say that Russia did help out in the Pacific theatre?

lowing wrote:

lowing wrote:

Vilham wrote:

Win. But don't try convincing Lowing, he doesn't agree with people that spent their whole lives studying the field of WWII military history. He magically knows more than all of them combined.

Lowing I suggest you actually read the book rather than some article some guy wrote about it that probably doesn't correctly convey what the book says.

The US had planned t odrop into Berlin but for the lack of a politically correct phrase, decided to let the Russians die for it, since it was already decided what was t ohappen to Germany after the war.

Showing me ONE flag over Berlin is not quite as impressive as showing the flags of GB and the US, flying over the cities of Africa, Italy, Holland, Phillipines, China,  ALL of the fucking Pacific Islands, Flags flying on the ships that controlled the Atlantic and Pacific, flags on the tails of the fucking airplanes that had air superiority over ALL OF THE WORLD.

I read the article not the book, it was the article that was posted...........For you to lecture me on reading the book you damned well had better have read the fuckin' thing yourself.


I thought you were done here junior??...........Anyway, your turn

don't forget to answer this one junior

I don't need to answer it. You are arguing against people who have spent their whole lives in the field and write hundreds of pages to show why such is the case, whereas you arent an expert and haven't written a book on it. I know who I would rather learn from...

OpsChief wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

lowing wrote:

I give them credit, I cite the date of summer '41 as when the Soviets became an ally.

My only point is and you just acknowledged it, was, the Soviets were not MAINLY responsible for winning the war. YOu can argue all ya want that they are responsible for defeating Germany. I will of course disagree, but at least you have valid points to that argument.

Even in the movies all you see about the WWII is how the D-Day marked the fall of Hitler, when at that time Hitler had already lost the war.  How many Hollywood movies about the Battle of Stalingrad are there?

Hollywood??? wtf since when does hollywood speak for the US or me? Hollywood lol sorry m8 not a good point as far as actual history is concerned.

The point was Hollywood, US, makes movies about WWII showing how the D-Day is the fall of Hitler, and I didn't see much about Russia.  And a lot of Americans think that way about WWII. 
A lot of people in this thread, including you, don't give the deserved credit to Russia.

Vilham wrote:

OpsChief wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

Even in the movies all you see about the WWII is how the D-Day marked the fall of Hitler, when at that time Hitler had already lost the war.  How many Hollywood movies about the Battle of Stalingrad are there?

Hollywood??? wtf since when does hollywood speak for the US or me? Hollywood lol sorry m8 not a good point as far as actual history is concerned.

Why did you mention US?? This has nothing to do with the US, you American guys seem to be taking this very personal. The whole world watches Hollywood films not just you.

The inference of this Hollywood in context to the thread being about how "UK/US think they won the war" is pretty clear though maybe unintentional. The rest of the world believing they won the war isn't the issue.  Hollywood makes movies to make profits - they have not made a movie about every battle ever fought, although I would love to see a Kursk epic, they have made movies focussed on their "best" audiences sales-wise.  Just how did you mean your hollywood comment if not to support a US-centric view of the war?

sergeriver wrote:

OpsChief wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

Even in the movies all you see about the WWII is how the D-Day marked the fall of Hitler, when at that time Hitler had already lost the war.  How many Hollywood movies about the Battle of Stalingrad are there?

Hollywood??? wtf since when does hollywood speak for the US or me? Hollywood lol sorry m8 not a good point as far as actual history is concerned.

The point was Hollywood, US, makes movies about WWII showing how the D-Day is the fall of Hitler, and I didn't see much about Russia.  And a lot of Americans think that way about WWII. 
A lot of people in this thread, including you, don't give the deserved credit to Russia.

Alot of people think that way in every country if you can call it "thinking" at all, they can comment only as far as their education takes them. How many people engage in studious debates like we have here? We can no more speak for our countries' people than Davies can. I can say that many many Americans, Brits, Germans, Ukrainians et al (friends of mine) have given significant credit to each other's contributions over my years of wargaming so this claim by Davies seems unreal to me, and the article didn't show how he concluded people "think" that way. It is a popular myth as far as I am concerned until proven otherwise.

I have every respect and admiration for my Russian brothers in arms then and now. It was wierd growing up learning about the great Allied Victory of WWII then standing on opposite sides of the "Iron Curtain" in uniform knowing we had kicked some major ass together in WWII and that I might have to lead a company of soldiers into the teeth of 40,000 T72s and 200 artillery tubes per mile someday. I gave the USSR (not Russia) equal credit for a shared victory in this thread.

Your last sentence is simply incorrect and unprovable. I have not attacked Russia's contribution to WWII one iota, in fact I supported it, but I have attacked the ARTICLE about DAVIES' book and ITS CLAIMS...and provided information and analysis to understand how WWII was fought, along with a few others.

Last edited by OpsChief (2006-12-11 05:49:29)

OpsChief wrote:

Vilham wrote:

lowing wrote:

don't forget to answer this one junior

I don't need to answer it. You are arguing against people who have spent their whole lives in the field and write hundreds of pages to show why such is the case, whereas you arent an expert and haven't written a book on it. I know who I would rather learn from...

are you saying you can't beat his logic therefore you need to attack his credibility? simple ad homenim man why bother? Have you been published?

I don't really care one way or the other I only put the "shoe on the other foot" here to see if it fits the same way. Did any of you go find Davies' bookand read it yet? I went to two book stores over the weekend and it isn't a stocked item so I have to order it. Probably not stocked because it flies int he face of diobolical US propaganda I imagine.

Back on topic, based on the article alone the author does not prove his comments nor support his claims well enough to move the credit of a WWII or Germany defeat from Allies to Russia. Presumably he does, or attempts to, in the book but I will wait and see.

I have shown him he is wrong multiple times and so have other people, he is too stuborn to accept he is wrong though. I could however start convincing you, seeing as lowing is  lost cause.

Its in Waterstones, Englands leading book retailer and is also the first result when you search his name on their website. I would be more than happy to buy it but atm im relying on my student loan to live and I rarely have time to read anymore, however I have multiple other books like Stalingrad that agree wtih the belief that the Russians put in the most towards defeating Hitler.

Note the book title "Europe at War 1939-1945" Lowing arguing about the Pacific is irrelivent. This book is about EUROPE. It talks about how HITLER was defeated by the Russian campaign and how this resulted in 50 years of totalitarian oppression.

Last edited by Vilham (2006-12-11 09:16:31)

Just to point out you don't know how old I am so calling me "junior" is only making you look stupid, if you read the last 17 pages you would note my contribution.

You are arguing against a point put forward by someone who has written an artical about a book that doesn't claim what the artical claims as you could find out yourself with a quick search on any book purchasing site. As I said before you ARE a fool. You are claiming a book that you haven't even obviously read up on claims something that it doesn't, any point you making is an arguement against nothing.

Vilham wrote:

Just to point out you don't know how old I am so calling me "junior" is only making you look stupid, if you read the last 17 pages you would note my contribution.

You are arguing against a point put forward by someone who has written an artical about a book that doesn't claim what the artical claims as you could find out yourself with a quick search on any book purchasing site. As I said before you ARE a fool. You are claiming a book that you haven't even obviously read up on claims something that it doesn't, any point you making is an arguement against nothing.

You are a young kid probably in college AT THE MOST.

I am not arguing with someone who wrote a book, I am addressing an article posted in this forum. YOur defense is nothing more than "the article might be wrong so read the book"...........SInce when do you have to be some sort of expert on anything to post an opinion? DID you read the book?? Nope ya didn't , so you and I are on an even playing field are we not?? I challenge you to show me anything in my post that is false. junior

Vilham wrote:

lowing wrote:

Vilham wrote:

Just to point out you don't know how old I am so calling me "junior" is only making you look stupid, if you read the last 17 pages you would note my contribution.

You are arguing against a point put forward by someone who has written an artical about a book that doesn't claim what the artical claims as you could find out yourself with a quick search on any book purchasing site. As I said before you ARE a fool. You are claiming a book that you haven't even obviously read up on claims something that it doesn't, any point you making is an arguement against nothing.

You are a young kid probably in college AT THE MOST.

I am not arguing with someone who wrote a book, I am addressing an article posted in this forum. YOur defense is nothing more than "the article might be wrong so read the book"...........SInce when do you have to be some sort of expert on anything to post an opinion? DID you read the book?? Nope ya didn't , so you and I are on an even playing field are we not?? I challenge you to show me anything in my post that is false. junior

Yeah we are on the same playing field, however im not argueing against something a military historian hasn't even written whereas you are. If you aren't arguing against his opinion WTF are you arguing about... someone who made a misinterpretation of a book? If so your a FOOL.

Just for your information im at uni. Whereas you are some "grown up" idiot who still debates on an internet forum.. Thought it was time for a personal attack there.

I knew you were a young kid, I could tell by your posts.
Nope not a personal attack, I like debating on this forum, helps my typing skills, makes me look up shit etc, makes me think etc......

If anyone is a fool here however, it is you, only a fool would make an argument defending something he knows nothing about, IE this book you insist on me reading, that YOU haven't. THerefore, no nothing of its contense. I told you I am not challenging a book ,I am challenging an article that was posted on this forum. I also challenged posts made by others in this thread. Your only defense is r3ead the book, I assume sinse you so little about the topic yourself. If I am wrong then stop hiding behind this book and challenge my posts with something more than you proping up a book you know nothing about..

Also, I did notice, you failed to show me where I have posted falsely in my facts

Last edited by lowing (2006-12-11 20:28:40)

Russia still considers their "Great Patriotic War" to be apart from the rest of WWII, simply because they lost 20 million citizens and destroyed the best fighting parts of Hitler's army (see Operation Bagration/Citadel, or the encirclement of the 6th army at Stalingrad).  The US helped by supplying lend-lease equipment in the early years.  Britain helped by letting the US land there.

The US had a large part in destroying the Luftwaffe in Western Europe.

When the US landed on D-Day they faced, for the most part, underage troops, raw recruits or "Ost"-battallions pressed into service from conquered eastern nations (Bulgaria, Romania etc.)

The US single-handedly defeated the Japanese.

End of story.

Vilham wrote:

Haha uni a kid, the only childish thing im going to say is suck my balls, I get a hell of a lot more sex than you in your single 30-40 life style. Clearly it DOESN'T make you think.

You might want to read about 5 posts above as to disproving you.

You are arguing about the book, this topic is about the book and the author Norman Davies. If you want to argue about the artical make your own topic. If you aren't arguing about the book WTF are you arguing about, because NO ONE but you is talking about the article.

I know a hell of a lot on the subject. Ive read multiple books on the topic and have covered it in detail as part of my A levels.

Now I know you are a kid, junior