The war that we did not win,. . . and Russian
Запись от Тютчев размещена 17.09.2009 в 04:31
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
Всего комментариев 6
