The cultural heritage of the country includes all traces of human activity in the physical environment. They are an irreplaceable source of information about the life and activities of people and the historical development of crafts, technology and art. Due to the fact that the monuments, excavations, and cultural environments are non-renewable resources, their ownership must be based on the long term. Cultural monuments and attractions serve as sources of emotional and aesthetic experiences for many people, and modern society can benefit by protecting and actively using their cultural heritage.
So ... GO!
So ... GO!
The war that we did not win,. . . and Russian
Posted 17-09-2009 at 04:31 by Тютчев
The war that we did not win,. . . and Russian ( "The Sunday Times", United Kingdom)
Norman Davis (Norman Davies), 07 ноября 2006
Britain and America are still insisting that they defeated the Nazis, even though all evidence indicates that their contribution was minor, according to Norman Davies
'History will be kind to me, - foretold Winston Churchill - in fact, I myself will write it'. He was right. Churchill's 'The Second World War' (The Second World War) - her first volume appeared in 1948 - largely set the tone for all future publications on the history of the war, especially in Western countries: a central role in the conflict belongs to Britain, its stubborn resistance opens the way to victory.
In the interpretation of Churchill's only enemies of Britain - Powers 'Axis' - commit acts of aggression, crimes and general 'evil'. The turning point of war is the battle of El Alamein [battle of the African theater of operations, during which British forces defeated the hull Rommel - approx. Trans.]. Britain's main ally - the U.S. and the USSR, which Churchill brought together in the coalition, the alliance provide additional military 'muscle', which allows him to drive back the fascist beast in a den. In Europe, the Allies from the West and East collaborate, overcome differences and eventually overwhelm the enemy. In importance of the Normandy landings in no way inferior to the victories of "Russian" on the Eastern Front. Third Reich destroyed. Freedom and democracy have triumphed, "Europe is liberated".
Unfortunately, the reality is not so simple. Russian, for example, do not doubt that it was the Red Army played a major role in the victory over Germany and the Anglo-Americans were secondary or even tertiary importance. Moreover, like the Americans, they insist that the 'real war' unfolded in 1941, and the events 1939-41 gg. consider only the prelude. Americans, in turn, are more likely to recall the need to allocate resources between the two main theaters - Europe and the Pacific. They also emphasize the role of the United States as "the arsenal of democracy '.
Any revision to the established view is faced with resistance, although I must confess, I was surprised at how fierce criticism was leveled at my attempts to challenge the version of Churchill. Other historians - such as Richard Overy (Richard Overy), Robert Conquest (Robert Conquest) and Anne Applebaum (Anne Applebaum) - over the past forty years have done much to refute the myths about the war, but too many still are not ready to assess developments in accordance with the facts, for fear of accusations of being a "forces of evil.
Another seems incredible the idea that our patriotic presentation of events 1939-45. not reflect the truth in its entirety. American and British public has long been taught that it was 'we won the war', and the landing in Normandy is presented as its defining moment. In America, in memory of the war created even a special museum 'D-Day' and Steven Spielberg (Steven Spielberg), brought the 'Saving Private Ryan' (Saving Private Ryan) and served as koprodyusera new film 'Flags of Our Fathers' (Flags of Our Fathers), - it will soon be on screens - seems to be made to perpetuate Churchill's myth to life.
Recently, when I performed at Cambridge with the report on the role of the Eastern Front and the significance of the victory of the Red Army against me sharply criticized by a young British historian. 'Do not you realize that only in France, we pinned down 56 German divisions, - he said. - If not for that, the Red Army suffered a heavy defeat. " But far less well known is that: if the Red Army was destroyed 150 German divisions, the Allied landing would never have happened.
The attack on Germany was carried out by common effort, but this does not mean that all contributed to it the same contribution. Credit for defeating it belongs exclusively to the armies of Stalin, but it would be illusory to believe that he fought for democracy and justice.
Separate the facts from the myths and propaganda is always difficult. One of the most intricate problems associated with the creation of reliable history of the war, creating the mistaken impression that the largest of the participating countries - the Soviet Union - to germanskogo attack in June 1941 is neutral. In the Soviet historical writings of the attention has always focused on the so-called Great Patriotic War, their authors were careful to avoid specific analysis of Stalin's military and political machinations in the preceding period. Western scholars generally followed the same line, not wanting to emphasize the "embarrassing situation ', when in the role of a democratic ally of the West was a former partner of Hitler.
In fact, for the first 22 months of military action attack and occupation of the Wehrmacht were 8 countries, and the Red Army did the same with five. These blatant acts of aggression do not leave a stone unturned in any claim of neutrality or forced defensive Moscow's actions in response to provocations from other states. Example, in November 1939 as a result of Stalin's unprovoked attack on Finland war broke out, which lasted longer than any of the campaigns of Hitler in 1939-40.
Similarly, the Soviet Union's annexation of the Baltic States in 1940 can not be simply 'measures to strengthen the defense' or 'rearrangement of boundaries'. It was a real act of international piracy, which resulted in three sovereign states have lost not only independence, but a quarter of the population. All this contributed to the Nazi-Soviet pact which gave Stalin and Hitler to the right to banditry in their own 'spheres of influence'.
With regard to subsequent events, it is crucial scale. Since 75%-80%loss Germany suffered on the Eastern Front, the Allies, respectively, out of action for only 20%-25%of the soldiers of the Wehrmacht. Moreover, since Britain fielded a total of 28 divisions (the Americans - 99), its specific contribution to the victory in this sense is about 5%-6%. So the Brits, believe that this 'we won the war' should be carefully ponder this.
Separate analysis of the merits and the relatively modest size of the American military contingent. As the U.S. population more than twice Germany and slightly inferior to the Soviet Union. As of 1939 the military capabilities of America - based on the GDP and industrial production - accounting for 40%of the world. However, these advantages were not realized in the form of the superiority over the enemy on the battlefield. If General George Marshall (George C Marshall) and his staff set the task mobilize 100 divisions, Germany fielded in 2,5 times, and the Soviet Union - in 3-4 times more.
Of course, the bare figures just can not explain. In some areas - for example, at sea and in the air - the Western powers were stronger, in others - is weaker. During the war, American industry has worked with the incredible scope: the fruits of that enjoyed by all allies, including the Soviet Union.
Nevertheless, the Third Reich could not have been brought to our knees by bombing and naval blockade. Germany army and the civilian population showed tremendous resilience. Fortress, in which Hitler transformed the European continent, it was necessary to take abroad abroad - and this task could be fulfilled only by ground troops. And here the Red Army was not equal.
Perhaps Western analysts, who can add two and two, reluctantly have to admit this fact.
It is more difficult to reconcile with another fact: all these victories on the battlefield won its criminal regime. Decisive role in defeating the Third Reich played no forces of liberal democracy, and the other the tyranny of the perpetrators of the massacres. People who liberated Auschwitz, obeyed the regime that has created its own - and far more ambitious - a system of concentration camps.
In the late 1940's. When Churchill wrote his memoirs, he, of course, knew perfectly well that Stalin - not an angel. However, the true scope and range of crimes of the Stalinist regime then was not known.
Last issued in 1960. the total number of Soviet losses during the war - 27 million - was hiding the fact that many of the victims were Russian [sic. Perhaps the author is referring to the inhabitants of the Baltic states, Western Ukraine and Belarus, as well as Bessarabia - approx. Trans.], and moreover, many of them victims of Stalin, not Hitler. It took more than 60 years and the collapse of the Soviet Union to establish this clearly.
One can argue about the similarities and differences between the Holocaust and the realities of Stalin's gulag - to put an equal sign between them would be an obvious mistake. But the same mistake would be to pretend that the decisive role of Stalin in the victory over Nazism justify his crimes.
Thus, Churchill's version clearly needs revision. Britain can no longer play a central role. The list of offenders, along with the countries 'axis' must be noticed and the USSR, but he also played and the primary role in the victory over the enemy. As the Western allies, their contribution was modest, but they did everything they could, and deservedly found themselves in the ranks of the winners. The Americans entered the war too late and too small forces to play a decisive role in it.
The forces of democracy contributed to the victory over fascism, but ultimately under their control was less than half of Europe. On the rest of the continent, a tyrannical totalitarian regime was replaced by another. Thus, a rhetorical expression of the triumph of democracy and 'liberation' corresponds to reality is not everything.
in the near future in a new book published by Norman Davies 'Europe at War 1939-1945.: Ambiguous victory' (Europe at War 1939-1945: No Simple Victory)
http://www.inosmi.ru/stories/05/04/14/3445/230922.html
Norman Davis (Norman Davies), 07 ноября 2006
Britain and America are still insisting that they defeated the Nazis, even though all evidence indicates that their contribution was minor, according to Norman Davies
'History will be kind to me, - foretold Winston Churchill - in fact, I myself will write it'. He was right. Churchill's 'The Second World War' (The Second World War) - her first volume appeared in 1948 - largely set the tone for all future publications on the history of the war, especially in Western countries: a central role in the conflict belongs to Britain, its stubborn resistance opens the way to victory.
In the interpretation of Churchill's only enemies of Britain - Powers 'Axis' - commit acts of aggression, crimes and general 'evil'. The turning point of war is the battle of El Alamein [battle of the African theater of operations, during which British forces defeated the hull Rommel - approx. Trans.]. Britain's main ally - the U.S. and the USSR, which Churchill brought together in the coalition, the alliance provide additional military 'muscle', which allows him to drive back the fascist beast in a den. In Europe, the Allies from the West and East collaborate, overcome differences and eventually overwhelm the enemy. In importance of the Normandy landings in no way inferior to the victories of "Russian" on the Eastern Front. Third Reich destroyed. Freedom and democracy have triumphed, "Europe is liberated".
Unfortunately, the reality is not so simple. Russian, for example, do not doubt that it was the Red Army played a major role in the victory over Germany and the Anglo-Americans were secondary or even tertiary importance. Moreover, like the Americans, they insist that the 'real war' unfolded in 1941, and the events 1939-41 gg. consider only the prelude. Americans, in turn, are more likely to recall the need to allocate resources between the two main theaters - Europe and the Pacific. They also emphasize the role of the United States as "the arsenal of democracy '.
Any revision to the established view is faced with resistance, although I must confess, I was surprised at how fierce criticism was leveled at my attempts to challenge the version of Churchill. Other historians - such as Richard Overy (Richard Overy), Robert Conquest (Robert Conquest) and Anne Applebaum (Anne Applebaum) - over the past forty years have done much to refute the myths about the war, but too many still are not ready to assess developments in accordance with the facts, for fear of accusations of being a "forces of evil.
Another seems incredible the idea that our patriotic presentation of events 1939-45. not reflect the truth in its entirety. American and British public has long been taught that it was 'we won the war', and the landing in Normandy is presented as its defining moment. In America, in memory of the war created even a special museum 'D-Day' and Steven Spielberg (Steven Spielberg), brought the 'Saving Private Ryan' (Saving Private Ryan) and served as koprodyusera new film 'Flags of Our Fathers' (Flags of Our Fathers), - it will soon be on screens - seems to be made to perpetuate Churchill's myth to life.
Recently, when I performed at Cambridge with the report on the role of the Eastern Front and the significance of the victory of the Red Army against me sharply criticized by a young British historian. 'Do not you realize that only in France, we pinned down 56 German divisions, - he said. - If not for that, the Red Army suffered a heavy defeat. " But far less well known is that: if the Red Army was destroyed 150 German divisions, the Allied landing would never have happened.
The attack on Germany was carried out by common effort, but this does not mean that all contributed to it the same contribution. Credit for defeating it belongs exclusively to the armies of Stalin, but it would be illusory to believe that he fought for democracy and justice.
Separate the facts from the myths and propaganda is always difficult. One of the most intricate problems associated with the creation of reliable history of the war, creating the mistaken impression that the largest of the participating countries - the Soviet Union - to germanskogo attack in June 1941 is neutral. In the Soviet historical writings of the attention has always focused on the so-called Great Patriotic War, their authors were careful to avoid specific analysis of Stalin's military and political machinations in the preceding period. Western scholars generally followed the same line, not wanting to emphasize the "embarrassing situation ', when in the role of a democratic ally of the West was a former partner of Hitler.
In fact, for the first 22 months of military action attack and occupation of the Wehrmacht were 8 countries, and the Red Army did the same with five. These blatant acts of aggression do not leave a stone unturned in any claim of neutrality or forced defensive Moscow's actions in response to provocations from other states. Example, in November 1939 as a result of Stalin's unprovoked attack on Finland war broke out, which lasted longer than any of the campaigns of Hitler in 1939-40.
Similarly, the Soviet Union's annexation of the Baltic States in 1940 can not be simply 'measures to strengthen the defense' or 'rearrangement of boundaries'. It was a real act of international piracy, which resulted in three sovereign states have lost not only independence, but a quarter of the population. All this contributed to the Nazi-Soviet pact which gave Stalin and Hitler to the right to banditry in their own 'spheres of influence'.
With regard to subsequent events, it is crucial scale. Since 75%-80%loss Germany suffered on the Eastern Front, the Allies, respectively, out of action for only 20%-25%of the soldiers of the Wehrmacht. Moreover, since Britain fielded a total of 28 divisions (the Americans - 99), its specific contribution to the victory in this sense is about 5%-6%. So the Brits, believe that this 'we won the war' should be carefully ponder this.
Separate analysis of the merits and the relatively modest size of the American military contingent. As the U.S. population more than twice Germany and slightly inferior to the Soviet Union. As of 1939 the military capabilities of America - based on the GDP and industrial production - accounting for 40%of the world. However, these advantages were not realized in the form of the superiority over the enemy on the battlefield. If General George Marshall (George C Marshall) and his staff set the task mobilize 100 divisions, Germany fielded in 2,5 times, and the Soviet Union - in 3-4 times more.
Of course, the bare figures just can not explain. In some areas - for example, at sea and in the air - the Western powers were stronger, in others - is weaker. During the war, American industry has worked with the incredible scope: the fruits of that enjoyed by all allies, including the Soviet Union.
Nevertheless, the Third Reich could not have been brought to our knees by bombing and naval blockade. Germany army and the civilian population showed tremendous resilience. Fortress, in which Hitler transformed the European continent, it was necessary to take abroad abroad - and this task could be fulfilled only by ground troops. And here the Red Army was not equal.
Perhaps Western analysts, who can add two and two, reluctantly have to admit this fact.
It is more difficult to reconcile with another fact: all these victories on the battlefield won its criminal regime. Decisive role in defeating the Third Reich played no forces of liberal democracy, and the other the tyranny of the perpetrators of the massacres. People who liberated Auschwitz, obeyed the regime that has created its own - and far more ambitious - a system of concentration camps.
In the late 1940's. When Churchill wrote his memoirs, he, of course, knew perfectly well that Stalin - not an angel. However, the true scope and range of crimes of the Stalinist regime then was not known.
Last issued in 1960. the total number of Soviet losses during the war - 27 million - was hiding the fact that many of the victims were Russian [sic. Perhaps the author is referring to the inhabitants of the Baltic states, Western Ukraine and Belarus, as well as Bessarabia - approx. Trans.], and moreover, many of them victims of Stalin, not Hitler. It took more than 60 years and the collapse of the Soviet Union to establish this clearly.
One can argue about the similarities and differences between the Holocaust and the realities of Stalin's gulag - to put an equal sign between them would be an obvious mistake. But the same mistake would be to pretend that the decisive role of Stalin in the victory over Nazism justify his crimes.
Thus, Churchill's version clearly needs revision. Britain can no longer play a central role. The list of offenders, along with the countries 'axis' must be noticed and the USSR, but he also played and the primary role in the victory over the enemy. As the Western allies, their contribution was modest, but they did everything they could, and deservedly found themselves in the ranks of the winners. The Americans entered the war too late and too small forces to play a decisive role in it.
The forces of democracy contributed to the victory over fascism, but ultimately under their control was less than half of Europe. On the rest of the continent, a tyrannical totalitarian regime was replaced by another. Thus, a rhetorical expression of the triumph of democracy and 'liberation' corresponds to reality is not everything.
in the near future in a new book published by Norman Davies 'Europe at War 1939-1945.: Ambiguous victory' (Europe at War 1939-1945: No Simple Victory)
http://www.inosmi.ru/stories/05/04/14/3445/230922.html
Total Comments 6
Comments
-
"... The rest of the continent, a tyrannical totalitarian regime was replaced by another ..."
All right.
-------------------------------------Posted 17-09-2009 at 06:58 by Евгений 
-
Quote:Originally Posted by Eugene
"... On the rest of the continent, one tyrannical totalitarian regime was replaced by another ... "
All right.
-------------------------------------
Eugene, please read another article published in my diary (I think it very accurately and fully to a question that you raise):
http://forum.artinvestment.ru/blog.php?b=2055
«Was Stalinism ideology like fascism? Nes whether he ideas of national racism?
Stalinism - a false notion. Stalinism is not comparable with fascism, but with "napoleonizmom" or "kromvelionizmom. Stalinism - is not the ideology of racial, national, or even social superiority. Stalinism - a statement of the role of personality in the post-revolutionary form of government of the USSR, and Nazism - the ideology of racial and national genocide. And this is a fundamental difference. If Stalin was an advocate of world revolution, he would make use of the second world war for a decisive step in this direction. But he did just the opposite - to dissolve the world revolutionary organization - the Third International.
Stalinism - is not so much a child of ideology as a child of the revolution. And the same child, as the results of all the revolutions of earlier ages.
Soon the feast of the French Revolution. But Jacobinism and mass terror of the French Revolution terrible Stalinism. This event, incidentally, could also be an occasion for the resolution of the OSCE, if they are so fond of the story ...
Condemns "civilized" humanity collectivization? Ok! Apparently, humanity can not do otherwise. And what about the first experience of "collectivization", which, however, came not from the goals of industrialization and the ideas of world revolution, but of the greed of personal gain - fencing of land in England? Let us put this together. And then it becomes clear that the collectivization of Stalinism still a pale shadow of anti-humanism "enclosures" in the "civilized" England.
Stalinism can be condemned as a violent practice of implementation of social ideas and the implementation of qualitative social change. But this is possible only in one case. If the same manner be condemned practices such as social revolutions of the transition to industrial society - English, French and others. And not just in the past ... We can recall in this series all the "velvet" revolution, "the war for freedom" in Afghanistan, Iraq, and not only them ... "
«A little truth about the words
What is this phenomenon - totalitarianism?
Totalitarianism characterizes the form of political organization of society and also its form of social organization. This feature provides a variety of industrial societies, as a rule, at the stage of their formation, but also extends to their development stage. While totalitarian societies in reality did not exist and not exist. This word born in the international political confrontation of the Cold War and, by and large, meaningless. His main point - the psychological attachment called these words the assessment relationship to society as a "bad".
OSCE has, "aware that the transition from Communist dictatorship to democracy can not be achieved overnight and that it should also take into account historical experience and cultural heritage of the countries" [7].
The resolution, which appeals to the truth, as something very easy to make synonyms more controversial ideas: Stalinism - totalitarianism - a communist dictatorship. And as the truth has already given an assessment of all societies of the socialist camp in the 70-80-ies as a "Communist dictatorship". Although these societies may have been much further from the spiritual and political dictatorships than modern Europe. Dictatorships also have different social forms and can be even legal state and even by popular vote.
The same is meaningless in this resolution and the notion of democracy. They differ only estimate "bad - good". Although the question of what is good and what is bad - this is not an issue on which the OSCE could, or ever will be able to answer.
And, perhaps, the OSCE will say where and what the terrible and horrible Osama Bin Laden? As a long time ago it does not, and no one even remembers that he was and is. But it should according to the scenario to continue to spin a web of its terrorism and it must occur here and there ... He has to much more interested in the OSCE than the issue of past history. We are talking about human rights today. But the ghost appeared when needed and just melted in the air like a mirage when the need for it disappeared. Now the place occupied by Osama swine flu crisis and other fears, created in recent years .... "New threats," as the OSCE resolution calls them ... "Posted 18-09-2009 at 17:45 by Тютчев
-
The war that we did not win, and Russian
Damir Muzafarov
War, which won not we. . . and Russian "- so opens his story to a prominent Western historian Norman Davies (Norman Davies) in" The Sunday Times ", United Kingdom, November 7, 2006.
In 1945, none of the Soviet troops who took Berlin would not have believed that it will be not so many years, as the False Dmitry write fairy stories about how the US-British troops swoop defeated Hitler, and that more than half a century, Western historians are daring to convince his countrymen in the truth about the Soviet soldier - the liberator of the world from the yoke of fascism.
Myth
First, who submitted false information about the Great Patriotic War (WWII) was ... Joseph Stalin. November 6, 1941, he stated that for 4 months WW II the Soviet Union lost 350 thousand dead and missing 378 thousand people, wounding 1 миллион 20 thousand people. During the same period the Germans had lost in killed, wounded and captured more than four and a half million people. No matter what the loss of Hitler's close to the number of Fascists, had crossed the border of the USSR. Important thing. In an attempt to mobilize the country and raise the military and civic spirit, Stalin went to lie. Experts believe, with the objective that Stalin had overestimated the loss of the fascists in 6-7 times, and their own reduced by 6-8 times. White lie? At that crucial moment in history it was justified.
In another historic moment, the formation of a new world order, the first volume of Churchill's history of the Second World War »(The Second World War, 1948). It states that "the driving axle" in the war belongs to neither more nor less, and the UK. And only "self-sacrificing resistance" Albion, slave Churchill, opened the way to the victory over fascism. As part of the Anti-Hitler coalition, Churchill joined the major allies of England, - the U.S. and the USSR. This allowed the British to drive the fascist Herod in his own lair and destroy. Moreover, the Allied landing in Normandy, according to the version of Winston Churchill, is equivalent to the value of the victories of the "Russian" on the Eastern Front.
Winston Churchill once said that "history will be kind to me - because I myself will write it" - points out in his article, J. Norman. As you can see, he has succeeded. Here are just a lie "saving" anything but.
Add this only on the conscience of Winston Churchill not for one small reason that it is the first volume, as noted by D. Norman, and became a platform for all of Western publications on the history of the Second World War. Born is the falsehood, which in the opinion of many Americans in harmony with the phrase: "without the U.S. the whole world would speak German." And to perpetuate the myth of Churchill, in the United States was even a special museum "D-Day", a sight for feature films about the Second World War.
Certainly. In the rout of fascism must pay tribute to all the allies, especially the United States and Britain. Yet the statements of American citizens seem, at least, is absurd, so greatly underestimate the role of chief blacksmith victory - the Soviet people.
Dispelling the myth. Opinion foreign authors.
Norman Davies, a British historian
Throughout the postwar years, the West received information about the war in Eastern Europe gradually, not in full, and sometimes inaccurate. In the end, popular in the West, the fact that if the United States and Great Britain would not be pinned down 56 German divisions in France, the Soviet Union would suffer defeat. Much less known fact that another - if the 150 German divisions would not be destroyed by the Red Army, the Allied landing would never have happened. On the Eastern Front, Nazi Germany lost 75%-80%of the soldiers. Consequently, the Allies destroyed no more than 20%of the soldiers of the Wehrmacht. Since Britain fielded a total of 28 divisions, Americans - 100, "physical" contribution Albion to victory in this sense is about 5%-6%of Americans is 15%. That such a "simple" arithmetic.
Advocates of "decisive contribution" of the West in the victory over fascism suggests that it is impossible to lose sight of other aspects of warfare - from industrial production to exploration. Impossible, they say, conceal large amounts of material and technical assistance to the USSR, especially the fact that the Allied bombing of cities in Germany and the Anglo-American navy had been of great support to the Red Army.
Nobody is going to deny it and, moreover, say nothing. But forgotten that the main way of warfare all the same ground fighting. Victory on the ground - that's what makes a win-win. And here the Red Army far exceeded the armed forces of allies. During the defeat of the troops of Marshal Rokossovskogo only one Nazi Army Group Center "in 1944 in Belarus were destroyed as many divisions of the Wehrmacht, as included in all the German group on the Western Front. And only the Allied landing in Normandy is worthy of inclusion in the list of 10 major battles of the Second World War.
Laurent Geoffrin (Laurent Joffrin) - Chief Editor of «Le Nouvel Observateur»
Soviet soldiers, and none other, tore the flag with a swastika from the dome of the Nazi Reichstag. Must be remembered that the June 6, 1944 in western Europe, of which 50 are fascist divisions. At the same time, more than 200 divisions fought on the east against the Red Army. While preparing to open a second front, five million Wehrmacht soldiers were sent to the eastern front. The Soviet people were going to die near Moscow. They stood in the blockade of Leningrad, defeated the Nazis at Stalingrad, came to Berlin and Prague.
The number killed during WWII speaks for itself. Soviet Union lost an estimated 27 million men, women and children (or 14%of the pre-war population). U.S. 300 000 (0.3%). United Kingdom 400 000 (0.6%).
Only the incredible heroism of the Soviet people did not allow Hitler to defeat the Soviet Union and build an impregnable "fortress Europe". It would have happened and the peoples of Europe would have to bow to "God knows who." Fascism was defeated in Russia and by Russia. And it is time the West to acknowledge it.
Richard Overy, a British historian
Of course, the allies had an overwhelming material superiority over the enemy in 1945. However, the critical point in the war have, nevertheless, in the years 1942-1943. When the USSR was on the verge of defeat, the U.S. Army has yet been formed. Rommel came to Egypt, and the outcome of the "Battle of the Atlantic" was not clear. Allied victory was by no means guaranteed. The scales in their favor tempted fierce resistance to the Soviet people on the Eastern Front.
Soviet Union defeated Hitler's army is not the number and fanaticism, and inventive tactics and weapons. Otherwise, the fascist army would continue to be victorious, and economic resources of the Eurasian empire of Germany would put the Western allies in a terrible position.
Lend-Lease - that, according to R. Overy, distinguishes the contribution of allies. In relative terms, the armament was a small fraction of all shipments, although in absolute terms of delivery were impressive: almost 15,000 aircraft (to May 1945 remained in service 9000 aircraft), and more than 7000 tanks. However, Soviet soldiers did not consider these weapons quality. And according to many local historians, it would not play a special role in the victory over Nazi Germany.
Was important raw materials, food and vehicles. It was delivered 427000 тысяч trucks and passenger cars. This allowed Soviet industry to focus on the production of armaments. Moreover, it is the American Studebaker in 1942, established the legendary "Katyusha".
Speaking about his leading role in the victory over Japan, Western historians have noted, the U.S. and Britain somehow "forget" about the impressive contribution of Asian countries in the defeat of militarist Japan. First and foremost, isolate China, which gave 20 million lives. The absolute magnitude of the tragedy comparable to the Soviet Union. Moreover, in technical terms (especially tanks and aircraft) and military training of Japan noticeably inferior to Hitler's army.
Sources:
On materials of domestic and foreign media through the prism of the author's opinion.
http://www.proza.ru/2009/07/08/29Posted 19-09-2009 at 00:57 by Тютчев
-
Stalinism is fascism pure water ... But as a fascist, assassin, J. Stalin, and other butchers of the Russian people are in Red Square, there is no clear assessment of the Bolsheviks, the Communists for the destruction of Russia .. all these discussions are meaningless.
Only the criminal prohibition of fascist-communist ideology ..
----------------------------------------
Fedor interesting exhibition held in Moscow:
---------------------------------------
The Last Days of the Romanovs
Photos by Pierre Gilliard
In the Historical Museum opened on September 8 exhibition of photographs of the family of Nicholas II, made by Swiss educator and long-term mentor children of the Romanovs Pierre Gilliard. He managed to remove the photo archives from Russia to his homeland in 1920. Thanks Gilliard zapechtalennymi were many moments of domestic life of the last Romanovs. http://lenta.ru/photo/2009/09/09/gilliard/
PS Happy holiday, good luck.Posted 19-09-2009 at 07:13 by Евгений
-
Quote:Originally Posted by Eugene
Stalinism is fascism pure water ... But as a fascist, assassin, J. Stalin, and other butchers of the Russian people are in Red Square, there is no clear assessment of the Bolsheviks, the Communists for the destruction of Russia .. all these discussion meaningless.
Only the criminal prohibition of fascist-communist ideology ..
Eugene, why you do not want to calmly understand the essence of the problem? You say the slogans, disturbing and confusing different concepts. Phenomena similar to our Stalinism, took place in the history of many countries. But no one calls, for example, Bonapartism or kromvelializm fascism. The concept of "fascism" has an absolutely clear definition, without a reasonable understanding of this dialogue is impossible. The substitution of one concept by another will only lead to confusion, in every way that I would like to avoid. We can not change events. We can not deny the evidence of historical events. A phenomenon, in turn, form a specific historical context. Each phenomenon has characteristics that distinguish them from each other. And there were some features in common does not make these phenomena identical. The first and defining characteristics of fascism tells us that it is - «ideology of militant racism, anti-Semitism and chauvinism ...» (explanatory Dictionary Ozhegova). You can not attribute this feature to Stalinism under any circumstances. This is the main thing that was condemned and called a criminal by the international community in fascist ideology, and therefore, at least, the lack of this feature shows that these concepts are not identical.
There are other arguments against your version. Then again, I shall quote, which sets out very clear differences between fascism of Stalinism:
"Stalinism - a false notion. Stalinism is not comparable with fascism, but with "napoleonizmom" or "kromvelionizmom. Stalinism - is not the ideology of racial, national, or even social superiority. Stalinism - a statement of the role of personality in the post-revolutionary form of government of the USSR, and Nazism - the ideology of racial and national genocide. This is a fundamental difference. If Stalin was an advocate of world revolution, he would make use of the second world war for a decisive step in this direction. But he did just the opposite - to dissolve the world revolutionary organization - the Third International.
Stalinism - is not so much a child of ideology as a child of the revolution. And the same child, as the results of all the revolutions of previous epochs.
Soon the feast of the French Revolution. But Jacobinism and mass terror of the French Revolution terrible Stalinism. This event, incidentally, could also be an occasion for the resolution of the OSCE, if they are so fond of history ... "
http://forum.artinvestment.ru/blog.php?b=2055Posted 19-09-2009 at 23:41 by Тютчев
-
Eugene, thanks for the information. Interesting. Be sure to take advantage of it.Quote:Originally Posted by Eugene
----------------------------------------
Fedor interesting exhibition held in Moscow:
---------------------------------------
The Last Days of the Romanovs
Photos by Pierre Gilliard
In the Historical Museum opened on September 8 exhibition of photographs of the family of Nicholas II, made by Swiss educator and long-term mentor children of the Romanovs Pierre Gilliard. He managed to remove the photo archives from Russia to his homeland in 1920. Thanks Gilliard zapechtalennymi were many moments of domestic life of the last Romanovs. http://lenta.ru/photo/2009/09/09/gilliard/
PS Happy holiday, good luck.
P.S. And you good luck in all endeavors.Posted 19-09-2009 at 23:46 by Тютчев
