Russia saved our asses in WWII?

[Romano-Dacis]

Are you Rumanian ? Did'nt your forces fight alongside the axis forces in the Soviet Union. Why would Churchill, the Russians and the allies wish to consider your countries interests at the Yalta conference. You reap what you sow.

An interesting double-standard.
-Italy fought alongside the Axis powers; it could be said Italy started World War 2 by establishing the first major fascist government. Italy fought wars of aggression against Albania and North Africa. Contrast this with Romania, which was attacked and invaded by the Soviet Union, and was fighting a defensive war for the liberation of territories annexed by the Soviets (Bassarabia and Bucovina).

-Italy, like Romania, switched sides in 1944, though Italy mainly did it because they were occupied while Romania did it because it was no longer in its interest to fight a losing war. Italy was an occupied country when it switched sides. Russians however did not enter Romania when Romanians formally told the Germans "you have 15 days to get the out." Antonescu had set up a fortified defense of 2,000,000 troops ready to fight to the death against the Soviets when his government was overthrown.

-Interestingly, Italy was recognized as a cobelligerent by the Allies, and treated as such. Romania on the other hand, which contributed far more troops than Italy did to the Allied war effort (18 divisions) and lost the same amount of men fighting alongside the Russians as they did fighting against them, was not recognized as a cobelligerent. Romanian troops, acting independently of Russian troops, liberated over 1,000 villages on the Eastern Front, and fought all the way to the Tatra mountains.

So, why was Romania not recognized at Yalta? "How would you feel about 90% control of Romania and we get 90% control of Greece?" The famous words of the fat bastard man himself. The Allies basically took their "liberation" by the Russian effort (the Russians had paid a far greater price to win the war than any other Allied nation) and made their compensation via the labor and resources of all Eastern European countries (Poland included). You literally paid with what you did not have in the first place. Thanks for 50 years of hell; may we one day return the favor.

[Yorkshireman]

An interesting double-standard.
-Italy fought alongside the Axis powers; it could be said Italy started World War 2 by establishing the first major fascist government. Italy fought wars of aggression against Albania and North Africa. Contrast this with Romania, which was attacked and invaded by the Soviet Union, and was fighting a defensive war for the liberation of territories annexed by the Soviets (Bassarabia and Bucovina).

-Italy, like Romania, switched sides in 1944, though Italy mainly did it because they were occupied while Romania did it because it was no longer in its interest to fight a losing war. Italy was an occupied country when it switched sides. Russians however did not enter Romania when Romanians formally told the Germans "you have 15 days to get the out." Antonescu had set up a fortified defense of 2,000,000 troops ready to fight to the death against the Soviets when his government was overthrown.

-Interestingly, Italy was recognized as a cobelligerent by the Allies, and treated as such. Romania on the other hand, which contributed far more troops than Italy did to the Allied war effort (18 divisions) and lost the same amount of men fighting alongside the Russians as they did fighting against them, was not recognized as a cobelligerent. Romanian troops, acting independently of Russian troops, liberated over 1,000 villages on the Eastern Front, and fought all the way to the Tatra mountains.

So, why was Romania not recognized at Yalta? "How would you feel about 90% control of Romania and we get 90% control of Greece?" The famous words of the fat bastard himself. The Allies basically took their "liberation" by the Russian effort (the Russians had paid a far greater price to win the war than any other Allied nation) and made their compensation via the labor and resources of all Eastern European countries (Poland included). You literally paid with what you did not have in the first place. Thanks for 50 years of hell; may we one day return the favor.

Tough . You changed sides after you were getting beat and realised you'd lost the war. Why should Churchill give a crap about some backwards country that decided to join the nazi's in their war of extermination on Russia. Your country willingly took part in pogroms and deportation of Rumanian jews. The Russians should have burnt every town in your country to the ground. Instead you got 50 years of communism. You tried to be good little nazi partners until you were beat, then whine because no-one recognised your "heroic" efforts on behalf of the allies in the last months of the war.

You backed the wrong horse.

[Romano-Dacis]

Tough . You changed sides after you were getting beat and realised you'd lost the war. Why should Churchill give a crap about some backwards country that decided to join the nazi's in their war of extermination on Russia.

I see, so the solution to double-standards is profanities and "tough."

Your country willingly took part in pogroms and deportation of Rumanian jews.

Over 90% of Romania's Jews survived the war. Those over the Prut had it worse because they fought against Romanian troops as partisans, hence, they died. Romania was the only Axis nation to execute its own soldiers and officers implicated in violent acts directed towards the Jews. Colonel Eugen Dumitrescu was executed by firing squad for his actions against the Jews of Chisinau. Actions against Generals were lighter, but still showed punishment. Stavrescu and Tataranu, the Generals implicated in the Iasi pogrom, were dismissed for incompetence since it had resulted in civilian deaths.

It's quite surprising that a Jew, Wilhelm Filderman, was one of Antonescu's most adamant supporters, writing in Curierul Israelit (yes, Romania maintained Jewish newspapers during the war) on 25 March, 1945: "the result was that the Germans ordered the deportations - and as history repeats itself - Marshal Antonescu again refused to deport the Jews of Romania."

You're implying there was some plan in Romania for extermination. Anything substantial to back up this claim?

You tried to be good little nazi partners until you were beat, then whine because no-one recognised your "heroic" efforts on behalf of the allies in the last months of the war.

The Americans wrote in their own commissions that Romania's entry in the war on the allied side shortened the war by 6 months. Good nazi partners? Maybe because our French and British allies had left us high and dry, after which we suffered territorial annexations from the Russians and the Germans were the only ones offering alliance. Romania's position was the same as Finland's: we were dragged into this war.

You backed the wrong horse.

Indeed we had chosen alliance with France and England after World War I and paid dearly for it.

Just admit it: there was a double-standard. Don't dodge the question: why Italy and not Romania?

In any case for the "our asses" statement, a lot of Eastern Europeans need not apply. I assure you half the countries in Eastern Europe, if not more, lament the coming of the Soviets as much if not more than that of the Germans.

[Georgy Zhukov]

Over 90% of Romania's Jews survived the war. Those over the Prut had it worse because they fought against Romanian troops as partisans, hence, they died. Romania was the only Axis nation to execute its own soldiers and officers implicated in violent acts directed towards the Jews. Colonel Eugen Dumitrescu was executed by firing squad for his actions against the Jews of Chisinau. Actions against Generals were lighter, but still showed punishment. Stavrescu and Tataranu, the Generals implicated in the Iasi pogrom, were dismissed for incompetence since it had resulted in civilian deaths.
.

Tell that to my grandmothers 8 brothers and sisters and her uncles.

[Steel of Fury]

Each Allied country did it's part.

[FarKenal]

Each Allied country did it's part.

Usually I hate these my country did more than yours penis size contests, because as you said every country contributed and paid dearly for it. However to see 47 people vote that Russia did not save our asses, makes me believe that they only had the one and same ww2 history class in year 8 that I did.

In my history class (Australia), all our text books taught us was that Germany overran Poland and France with innovative new blitzkrieg tactics and was then about to take over the rest of the world when the British stopped them with the Battle of Britain and in North Africa, and that once America was involved they immediately turned the tide and the Normandy campaign was what crushingly defeated the Germans. Over 6-8 pages of learning was dedicated about the Brits & US, and then there was I think one paragraph that mentioned, On June 22 1941 Germany launched operation Barbossa against Russia, which ended when Germany surrendered to the Allies on May 7th 1945....

That was the standard of ww2 history education in a supposedly un-biased and developed country a mere 10 years ago. Though hopefully with sites and topics like this, people might be able to discern between biased information and learn/obtain a greater and true understanding of history.

[Steel of Fury]

That was the standard of ww2 history education in a supposedly un-biased and developed country a mere 10 years ago. Though hopefully with sites and topics like this, people might be able to discern between biased information and learn/obtain a greater and true understanding of history.

True.

[OTZ]

Usually I hate these my country did more than yours penis size contests, because as you said every country contributed and paid dearly for it. However to see 47 people vote that Russia did not save our asses, makes me believe that they only had the one and same ww2 history class in year 8 that I did.

I'll take exception to that sweeping generalization and presumed non-intentional insult.

[FarKenal]

I'll take exception to that sweeping generalization and presumed non-intentional insult.

Sorry no insult intending like that. Im just saying that my own history education from a well developed country was absolutely piss weak, and the reason for my post was to highlight that several years ago, I may have voted 'no' as a result of the education systems. Though hopefully this thread and others like it, can help make up for that for others keen on learning about history and give them a greater understanding.

[Carl von Döbeln]

Russia did it's part

[cegorach]

Tough . You changed sides after you were getting beat and realised you'd lost the war. Why should Churchill give a crap about some backwards country that decided to join the nazi's in their war of extermination on Russia. Your country willingly took part in pogroms and deportation of Rumanian jews. The Russians should have burnt every town in your country to the ground. Instead you got 50 years of communism. You tried to be good little nazi partners until you were beat, then whine because no-one recognised your "heroic" efforts on behalf of the allies in the last months of the war.

You backed the wrong horse.

Exemplary pompous isn't it ?


Whatever since the tough choices which some states had to make are too complicated
I will make the whole thing a lot of easier for you - no need to thank me.

Perhaps its mean of me to point that out, but NEITHER Poland nor Czechoslovakia were in the Axis and both still got their share of betrayal.

I know the word is a damning one, but all things considering British policy was on the verge of it - either it is criminal stupidity combined with a lot of malice, unnecessary insults and arrogance (like not informing about ANY developments for example from Tehran) or betrayal and appeasement (its objective changed of course from Hitler to Stalin).

To make it clear I belive we made the right decisions (except the day when we didn't invade Germany in 1934) and there was no other choice which could be made, but at least some decisions to fight in some battles on the side of the British proved to end in unnecessary waste of life with Arnhem as the most serious example - and I believe Polish government should refuse to lend our forces to such operations.

Certainly you are not going to challenge that, are you ?


I wouldn't call Churchill a fat bastard, but certainly he is not remembered with love here, FDR deserved all possible criticism much, much more, but I am not suprised others feel that way.

I mean every word of it.

[OTZ]

Sorry no insult intending like that. Im just saying that my own history education from a well developed country was absolutely piss weak, and the reason for my post was to highlight that several years ago, I may have voted 'no' as a result of the education systems. Though hopefully this thread and others like it, can help make up for that for others keen on learning about history and give them a greater understanding.

The problem with determining who contributed the most (ie who won the war) is twofold:

1) Is it measured purely by what was sacrificed? Sure Russia certainly paid the highest price, and did most of the fighting on land - but what exactly does this mean? You can't just look at numbers alone, because they mean absolutely zilch. This also goes for the Lend Lease debate - someone will inevitably post the tried and true, born on the internet, list of stats that says X% of this was was provided through LL. The counter will almost always be - LL didn't kick in until YEAR X and at that time only represented X% of Soviet [insert item here]. Meaningless statistics...

2) Would any one country have been able to defeat the Germans on their own - or, would the Allies have won without specific nations being involved? I can think of a few countries the Allies could have done without, and still won the war...

The reason I chose No in the poll was for a number of reasons, and in spite of the fact that I recognise that the Soviets did most of the fighting. I'm not pro-American, but I honestly believe the only country that really deserves the "saved our asses" title is the US. If you take everything (and I mean everything) into consideration, there wasn't a country that came close to adding what the US did to the Second World War.

[Atlassmurf]

Yes they did, as well as the USA. The rest is propaganda.

[The Friend]

Well said.

In my opinion,one very important point is that the threat of imminent American Participation in the war actually decided a lot of things in the favor of allies. Hitler probably knew that active Us participation will inevitably result in German defeat. This probably was a crucial factor in affecting many of his decisions.

[jackwei]

Still the destruction on the Eastern Front was total war at its height beyond any of the previous wars in history. The war was won with British Courage, Russian Blood, American Industries and Wealth.

We still don't realise how much life and destruction the Russians suffered at the almost the entire might of the third reich. Who knows what if the British and American suffered as many dead as the Russian did on the Eastern Front? Would the War go on contiously like that in the West??
Would Britain and USA be prepared to suffer as much dead as the Russians did?

[wilpuri]

Ok, we hear some Americans going on about how they saved us in World War II, but think about it, didn't Russia save us all? Because WWII their casualties outnumbered everyone else put together? And if it hadn't of been for Hitlers massive defeat in Russia, he would probably of held his other fronts?

Russia didn't join in, and it was Hitler fault attacking, but I mean Japan attacked America first.

Maybe this is a bad time to post this with the Georgia/Russia war...

Who is "we"?

[MADTAO]

That was one ,who understud it all,no surprise he died in car accident.

[removeduser_426582376423734]

Who did what?

Russia gave the troops
America gave the metal
Britain gave the ... Southern coast
Germany gave the victory

Russia was getting its ass kicked hard and if Hitler had left Stalingrad and gone for Moscow, Russia wouldn't have been able to do anything. Russia had men, that's about it.

[OTZ]

Still the destruction on the Eastern Front was total war at its height beyond any of the previous wars in history. The war was won with British Courage, Russian Blood, American Industries and Wealth.

We still don't realise how much life and destruction the Russians suffered at the almost the entire might of the third reich. Who knows what if the British and American suffered as many dead as the Russian did on the Eastern Front? Would the War go on contiously like that in the West??
Would Britain and USA be prepared to suffer as much dead as the Russians did?

Massive Russian casualties is not a reflection of how well they fought during the war, which is sadly being misinterpreted. The Soviets used their large population as a means to an ends, and rarely paid heed to their staggering numbers of dead until very late in the war.

The Western Allies were not willing to waste their men and toss them pell-mell into a meat grinder.

Asking the questions above is rather pointless if you actually take into consideration "how" the Soviets suffered such grievous losses.

[DAVIDE]

Although I understand what you are trying to say, having formulated in this way actually makes it a pretty blank statement. What do you mean by "lost"?
Wichever way you decide to define it, 85% is an inacurrate misconseption.
Here are some statistics: http://www.feldgrau.com/stats.html

When "lost" is defined as kia + mia + wia the Wehrmacht lost roughly 58% of personel in active service troughout the war. Roughly 57% of these losses occured in the campaign against the Soviets. Wich is 33% of personel in active service the Germans fielded troughout the war.
A sizeable amount, but no where near 85%.

are u sure, german army had more than 15 millions soldiers at the same time?? numbers that soviets post stalingrad never had..

German army lost more than 5.000.000 men just in russian campaign.. about the 80% of his entire army