Notices
Results 1 to 25 of 25

Thread: Russian Victory

  1. #1 Russian Victory 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    6
    Why wont people accept, especially the Americans, that the Russians won WWII?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    New York State
    Posts
    857
    They didn't do by themselves, although they made the largest contribution to defeating Germany. Japan's defeat was almost entirely by American forces.

    As for the lesser German allies, US and UK were primarily responsible for defeating Italy, while USSR took care of the central European countries.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    6
    You've obviously never heard of Slim of Burma. During WWII he led the 14th Army, the so-called "forgotten army", and broke the back of the Japanese.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    New York State
    Posts
    857
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Al
    You've obviously never heard of Slim of Burma. During WWII he led the 14th Army, the so-called "forgotten army", and broke the back of the Japanese.
    For better or worse, the Burmese campaign was a side show in the war against Japan. The Japanese war was primarily the Pacific theater.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    6
    The key battles that turned the tide and won the war were El Alamein (British) and Stalingrad (Russian). Dropping two atomic bombs isn't exactly military brilliance.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    We Americans love to embellish our own war history. The movie U-571, released in 2000, upset a lot of people in Britain because it was a loose re-telling of genuine event that took place in WWII, ... except it was U-110, and the sailors who captured it were British.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_...opular_culture

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_...110_%281940%29


    I think every country does this, though. The fact America exports more of its media with more success than a lot of other countries probably gives us an unfair advantage in claiming victories.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Al
    The key battles that turned the tide and won the war were El Alamein (British) and Stalingrad (Russian). Dropping two atomic bombs isn't exactly military brilliance.
    no, but decimating several scores of warships, countless assault planes, and nearly every pacific colony sure was important. And those feats were of primarily US domination. Granted, the land battles and a few sea battles were British and Russian victories, but the majority of the sea/air victories were US.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    New York State
    Posts
    857
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Al
    The key battles that turned the tide and won the war were El Alamein (British) and Stalingrad (Russian). Dropping two atomic bombs isn't exactly military brilliance.
    Your description of the war in Europe is a little too brief. There was a lot more than two battles. North Africa, Italy, and Normandy (all of which were combined British-American operations) come to mind.

    As far as the Japan was is concerned, before the bombs were dropped the Japanese had been defeated militarily, but they refused to give up. Okinawa showed their state of mind. None of the soldiers surrendered willingly and large numbers of civilians chose suicide. The military was willing to fight till the death and only the atomic bombs convinced the Emperor that surrender wasn't such a bad idea.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    6
    The Nazi regime collapsed in May 1945, squeezed ever more tightly between two fronts - the Soviet Union on one side and the Western Allies on the other.

    But which of these fronts was the most important?

    Throughout the Cold War, and ever since, each side has tended to see its own contribution as decisive.

    "In the West, for some time... public opinion has taken the view that the Soviet Union played a secondary role," says the Russian historian Valentin Falin.

    On the other hand, opinion polls show that two-thirds of Russians think the Soviet Union could have defeated Hitler without the Allies' help, and half think the West underestimates the Soviet contribution.

    Richard Overy, professor of contemporary history at King's College London, notes that after the war, Hitler's foreign minister Joachim von Ribbentrop listed three main reasons for Germany's defeat:

    •Unexpectedly stubborn resistance from the Soviet Union
    •The large-scale supply of arms and equipment from the US to the Soviet Union, under the lend-lease agreement
    •The success of the Western Allies in the struggle for air supremacy.

    Mr Overy says that for decades Soviet historians underplayed the significance of US and UK lend-lease in the Soviet Union's success, but that Russia has recently shown just appreciation.
    Mr Falin, however, says Russians never forgot the help they received from their allies.

    "You ask any Soviet person, whether he remembers what a Dodge or a Willis is!" he says.

    "The Americans supplied us with 450,000 lorries. Of course, in the final stages of the war this significantly increased our armed forces' mobility, decreased our losses and brought us, perhaps, greater success than if we had not such help."

    Mr Overy accepts that the Western powers played a smaller role on the battlefield itself than the Soviet forces but says their bombing campaigns made a huge contribution.

    "Bombing diverted a lot of manpower and military equipment from the front in Russia, while it restricted the expansion of the German war economy," he says.
    He also agrees that the West still only has a weak understanding of the Soviet Union's role.

    "Because Britain and the US had to invade Europe by sea [Italy in 1943, and France in 1944] they have more of a sense of 'liberating' a German-conquered Europe," he says.

    Mr Falin, meanwhile, argues that the war could have been brought to an end more quickly if the second front, in France, had been opened before 1944.

    "How many millions of people would have remained alive?" he asks.

    "Many death camps reached full power precisely in the second half of 1943 and in 1944."

    Mr Overy says that the West has a view of the war as a global conflict, because of its fight against Japan, for example, whereas the Soviet view is of a "national crusade to repel the invader".

    Mr Falin cites figures suggesting that German forces suffered 93% of their casualties on the Soviet front and argues that this shows the Soviet contribution was decisive.

    But he adds that every single US, UK, Canadian or other Allied soldier who died "made a big, important and necessary contribution to the victory, which was a shared victory".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Professor jrmonroe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,444
    I found this on the web with a few modifications:

    World War II in a nutshell

    Germany invades Czechoslovakia. Britain and France tell them to knock it off.
    Germany invades Poland. In accordance with its Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact with Germany, Russia invades Poland from the other side and also Finland. (Everyone has forgotten this.)
    Britain and France declare war. This is the “official kick-off.”
    Italy, Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania and Yugoslavia join the German side. (Everyone remembers Italy but has forgotten the others.)
    The Axis forces go through Europe like jalapeños through a goose.
    Nazis exterminate Jews, homosexuals, gypsies and the mentally and physically handicapped. (Everyone remembers the Jews but has forgotten the others.)
    The UK holds out. Russia and the USA don’t do anything.
    Entire divisions of Danish, Belgian, Dutch, Norwegian, French and Serbian volunteers join the Axis armies and SS. (Everybody has forgotten this, and these nations now claim they were in the resistance, which must have been MASSIVE.)
    The Axis forces invade Russia. Suddenly the Russians don’t think it’s funny any more.
    Japan joins the Axis and bombs Pearl Harbor. Suddenly the USA doesn’t think it’s funny any more.
    The USA tools up the world because it’s got more factories than everyone else put together, and they’re out of bomber range.
    The Axis runs out of steam in Russia because Russia is enormous and absolutely freezing.
    The Allies invade on D-Day. Five landings — 2 British, 2 American, 1 Canadian. (Everyone remembers the British and the Americans, but forgets the Canadians.)
    Hitler ends up smoldering in a ditch. Russians find the body and confirm he had only one ball. Really.
    The US decides invading stuff is a royal pain, invents the atom bomb instead, and drops two buckets of sunshine on Japan.
    The Russians steal half of Europe.
    The UK has spent almost every penny it had.
    The US starts telling everybody how it was all about them, and 65 years later, is still doing so.
    Grief is the price we pay for love. (CM Parkes) Our postillion has been struck by lightning. (Unknown) War is always the choice of the chosen who will not have to fight. (Bono) The years tell much what the days never knew. (RW Emerson) Reality is not always probable, or likely. (JL Borges)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Senior Kukhri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    392
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Al
    The Nazi regime collapsed in May 1945, squeezed ever more tightly between two fronts - the Soviet Union on one side and the Western Allies on the other.

    But which of these fronts was the most important?

    Throughout the Cold War, and ever since, each side has tended to see its own contribution as decisive.

    "In the West, for some time... public opinion has taken the view that the Soviet Union played a secondary role," says the Russian historian Valentin Falin.

    On the other hand, opinion polls show that two-thirds of Russians think the Soviet Union could have defeated Hitler without the Allies' help, and half think the West underestimates the Soviet contribution.

    Richard Overy, professor of contemporary history at King's College London, notes that after the war, Hitler's foreign minister Joachim von Ribbentrop listed three main reasons for Germany's defeat:

    •Unexpectedly stubborn resistance from the Soviet Union
    •The large-scale supply of arms and equipment from the US to the Soviet Union, under the lend-lease agreement
    •The success of the Western Allies in the struggle for air supremacy.

    Mr Overy says that for decades Soviet historians underplayed the significance of US and UK lend-lease in the Soviet Union's success, but that Russia has recently shown just appreciation.
    Mr Falin, however, says Russians never forgot the help they received from their allies.

    "You ask any Soviet person, whether he remembers what a Dodge or a Willis is!" he says.

    "The Americans supplied us with 450,000 lorries. Of course, in the final stages of the war this significantly increased our armed forces' mobility, decreased our losses and brought us, perhaps, greater success than if we had not such help."

    Mr Overy accepts that the Western powers played a smaller role on the battlefield itself than the Soviet forces but says their bombing campaigns made a huge contribution.

    "Bombing diverted a lot of manpower and military equipment from the front in Russia, while it restricted the expansion of the German war economy," he says.
    He also agrees that the West still only has a weak understanding of the Soviet Union's role.

    "Because Britain and the US had to invade Europe by sea [Italy in 1943, and France in 1944] they have more of a sense of 'liberating' a German-conquered Europe," he says.

    Mr Falin, meanwhile, argues that the war could have been brought to an end more quickly if the second front, in France, had been opened before 1944.

    "How many millions of people would have remained alive?" he asks.

    "Many death camps reached full power precisely in the second half of 1943 and in 1944."

    Mr Overy says that the West has a view of the war as a global conflict, because of its fight against Japan, for example, whereas the Soviet view is of a "national crusade to repel the invader".

    Mr Falin cites figures suggesting that German forces suffered 93% of their casualties on the Soviet front and argues that this shows the Soviet contribution was decisive.

    But he adds that every single US, UK, Canadian or other Allied soldier who died "made a big, important and necessary contribution to the victory, which was a shared victory".
    All plagiarized from this page, under the "Who won World War II?" section:

    http://www.theexpress.com/express%20.../features2.htm
    Co-producer of Red Oasis
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    Quote Originally Posted by jrmonroe
    Nazis exterminate Jews, homosexuals, gypsies and the mentally and physically handicapped. (Everyone remembers the Jews but has forgotten the others.)
    The West also likes to forget that many of the countries, like the USA, had policies of sterilization of homosexuals and the disabled that weren't far off from the Nazis. In fact, the homosexuals "liberated" from concentration camps were then placed in jail because the allies felt the nazi policies against homosexuals were legal. (Also, in the case of the mathematician Alan Turing who was central to the intelligence decryption efforts, was subsequently chemically castrated for homosexuality ten years after the war.) Despite the fact that homosexuality was legal in Weimar Germany and only made illegal by Hitler.

    But you know, the Nazis did it worse so we don't have to remember the complacency of the West in much of the atrocities.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Ted
    Ted is offline
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    11
    Actually, I think you'll find Kukhri that Big Al lifted what he said from:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4508901.stm

    Anyway, it's a point well made and the Russians deserve more credit. Americans should keep their big mouths shut more often, especially Hollywood, who are continuously taking other countries' history and twisting it in films for their benefit. Perhaps that's why Amaricans keep bringing up the Second World War - it's the only significant history they have.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    899
    Quote Originally Posted by Ted
    Anyway, it's a point well made and the Russians deserve more credit. .
    Amongst other events they should have taken more credit for is the Katyn Forest Massacre for which they denied any responsibility, and blamed on the Germans, for years.
    Their presence at the Nuremberg War Trials where they were represented by individuals such as the Stalinist judge, Nikitchenko, could well be seen as a slur on that whole process. These people operated within a legal framework that derived from a totalitarian political system which, in many ways, was more "efficient" than the corresponding system in Nazi Germany.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Ted
    Ted is offline
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    11
    The Second World War broke out in 1939 with the German invasion of Poland. British assurances to the Polish led the British Empire to declare war on Germany. Again an Expeditionary Force was sent to France, only to be hastily evacuated as the German forces swept through the Low Countries and across France in 1940. Only the Dunkirk evacuation saved the entire Expeditionary Force from capture. Later, however, the British would have spectacular success defeating the Italians and Germans at the Battle of El Alamein in North Africa, and in the D-Day invasion of Normandy with the help of American, Canadian, Australian and New Zealand forces. Contrary to popular (Hollywood influenced) belief, over half of the Allied soldiers on D-day were British. In the Far East, the British army battled the Japanese in Burma. The Second World War saw the British army develop its Commando units, the Parachute Regiment and the Special Air Service (SAS). During the war the British army was one of the major fighting forces on the allied side.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy
    Quote Originally Posted by jrmonroe
    Nazis exterminate Jews, homosexuals, gypsies and the mentally and physically handicapped. (Everyone remembers the Jews but has forgotten the others.)
    The West also likes to forget that many of the countries, like the USA, had policies of sterilization of homosexuals and the disabled that weren't far off from the Nazis. In fact, the homosexuals "liberated" from concentration camps were then placed in jail because the allies felt the nazi policies against homosexuals were legal. (Also, in the case of the mathematician Alan Turing who was central to the intelligence decryption efforts, was subsequently chemically castrated for homosexuality ten years after the war.) Despite the fact that homosexuality was legal in Weimar Germany and only made illegal by Hitler.

    But you know, the Nazis did it worse so we don't have to remember the complacency of the West in much of the atrocities.
    It really makes you shake your head. Why sterilize a homosexual? What does that change?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Ted
    Ted is offline
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    11
    It's worth mentioning that Omar Bradley sunk 80% of his allotted tanks at Omaha Beach by putting them into the water far too soon. The Royal Navy saved the US from complete failure, by coming close to shore and taking out the bunkers which were destroying the US soldiers.

    The three key beaches on D-Day were all taken by the British, with Canadian assistance. These were Sword, Gold and Juno which were closest to the enemy.

    At Sword not only did the British soldiers land 80% of their tanks on the beach, take the beach with few casualties, but they also laid down a defensive line above the beach and prepared for the Panzer Division.

    When the Panzers arrived, the British opened fire and destroyed 50% of the Division and forced them to retreat. The Panzers did not attack Normandy again after the British Parachute regiments took the key bridges and thus D-Day was a success.

    The terrible failure of Bradley at Omaha was not going to stop the British from liberating Europe.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Professor jrmonroe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,444
    This is just a wild guess here ( :wink: ), but maybe ALL the allies won the war together, and that a win would have been impossible or very difficult without any one ally.

    For example, take Poland. Even though it was sliced up at the very beginning, Poland led the way to decrypting Germany's Enigma machine. Poland also gave the Allies some of the most courageous fighter pilots in Europe.

    Or take the Jews! Had Nazi Germany not wasted significant resources trying to exterminate the Jews, they may have won the war. This we cannot deny.
    Grief is the price we pay for love. (CM Parkes) Our postillion has been struck by lightning. (Unknown) War is always the choice of the chosen who will not have to fight. (Bono) The years tell much what the days never knew. (RW Emerson) Reality is not always probable, or likely. (JL Borges)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by jrmonroe
    Or take the Jews! Had Nazi Germany not wasted significant resources trying to exterminate the Jews, they may have won the war. This we cannot deny.
    They also got a lot of free labor out of it. Those concentration camps served a dual purpose, because they were work camps as well as extermination camps. Then there's the gold and other wealth they looted from wealthy Jewish families. They might not have gotten anywhere without those things.

    What it certainly did cost them was the scientists. They lost a lot of good science, both from Jewish scientists fleeing, and from the disdain that was created among their non-Jewish peers.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Freshman Spaceman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    67
    Germany surrendered to America, but England, America and the former Soviet Union freed Jews from the concentrationcamps that were important to the Nazis. The Nazis had nothing left and was forced to surrender to America, but Britain and the Soviet Union also made a small part of the Nazis would surrender.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Senior questor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    385
    From the Defense Intelligence Agency files:

    HOW THE ALLIES WON WORLD WAR II

    Warner Heisenberg, the head of
    The German Nuclear Weapons Effort,
    Was full of the uncertainty
    That he had discovered in physics.

    Heisenberg was entangled with his old mentor,
    The Danish physicist Neils Bohr,
    They being old friends, like father and son.

    They were also supposed to be enemies,
    For Germany occupied Denmark.

    Together they had created a physics
    Of deep truth and beauty,
    For beauty was the expression of truth.

    They also made possible the physics
    To destroy large cities, even the entire world.

    In 1941, Heisenberg went to see Bohr,
    The ‘father of quantum mechanics’,
    In Copenhagen, Denmark;
    But we don’t know what they discussed;
    Yet, Germany failed to complete its work
    To build an atomic bomb.

    Did Heisenberg deliberately withhold
    Information from the Nazis?
    Did this consummate mathematician
    Neglect to perform an obvious calculation?

    Did he, with Bohr,
    Form a complimentery pair,
    Joining their views
    Of the political position versus its velocity
    To form a complete picture of reality?

    Did a man’s heart turn the tide of War?


    The Drawing

    On September 9th, 1943, Neils Bohr
    Walked to a meeting place near the water
    And crawled in complete darkness to a beach,
    For the gestapo in Copenhagen
    Were about to arrest him.

    He secretly crossed the Oresund to Sweden
    And remained there until October 6th,
    Wherefrom the British flew him to Scotland.

    That evening, Sir John Anderson gave Bohr
    A briefing on just how far
    The Anglo-American atomic bomb
    Program had progressed.

    Fermi’s reactor had begun operating
    On December 2, 1942.

    Bohr was shocked, for he knew
    That only the very rare isotope uranium 235
    Had fissioned in the
    German Hahn-Strassman experiments.

    This was fully two years after Bohr
    Had met with Heisenberg in occupied Denmark.

    What had the Germans done during this time?

    No wonder Bohr was alarmed.

    And, yet, Bohr, somehow, had a drawing
    Of the German nuclear reactor,
    Which at first he thought
    Might be the weapon itself.

    All knew that plutonium,
    Which does not exist naturally,
    Could be chemically separated
    From its uranium matrix
    After bombarding a reactor’s
    Uranium fuel rods with neutrons.

    The critical mass was not in tons
    But in pounds, prompting the Allied effort,
    Not so much Einstein’s letter to Roosevelt.

    Bohr went to work at Los Alamos
    Where Oppenheimer was orchestrating
    The impossible from 1943-1945.

    On New Year’s eve of 1943,
    Scientists looked at Bohr’s drawing
    Of Heisenberg’s nuclear reactor
    In Oppenheimer’s office.

    Within two days, General Groves,
    The military commander of the project,
    Received a document beginning with

    “The proposed pile [reactor]
    Consists of uranium sheets
    Immersed into heavy water.”

    And ended with

    “The arrangement [the drawing]
    Suggested to you by Bohr
    Would be a quite useless military weapon.”

    By late 1943, nearly everyone in
    The German nuclear program,
    With the exception of Heisenberg,
    Had become convinced that
    Uranium plates were inferior
    To a design using rods or cubes,
    For the most efficient design
    Involves separated lumps of uranium
    Embedded in a lattice within the “moderator”;
    But the worst possible solution
    Is placing uranium in sheets or layers.

    The role of the “moderator”
    Is to slow down the fissioned neutrons,
    With only heavy water or carbon
    Seemingly being feasible.

    The Germans had chosen heavy water,
    Its separation from ordinary water
    An expensive and difficult process,
    Since carbon graphite is
    Rendered useless by an impurity
    Of as little as one part boron in 500,000.

    At Los Alamos, Leo Szilard
    Was a fanatic about
    The purity of the graphite,
    And, since it was readily available
    They decided to use it for carbon.

    The Dragon’s breath was unleashed.

    None of the German reactors
    Ever even operated.

    Where did Bohr’s drawing come from,
    For it had “Made in Germany”
    Written all over it?

    It could have only come from Heisenberg.



    THE FURTHER WHIMS OF FATE

    In 1935, Fermi had almost discovered fission
    Three years earlier than Hahn-Strassman;
    But, in order to shield the detectors
    From unwanted radiation
    From the slow-neutron process
    He had covered the uranium target
    With aluminum foil.

    This prevented Him
    From seeing the very energetic pulses
    From the uranium fission that was taking place.

    Thus, the race to build an atomic bomb
    Might well have started in 1935 rather than 1939.

    If so, World War II
    Could have been nuclear
    From the beginning
    Or even have become a Cold War—
    All of this not happening
    Because of some aluminum foil!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Spaceman
    Germany surrendered to America, but England, America and the former Soviet Union freed Jews from concentrationcamp that were important to the Nazis. The Nazis had nothing left and was forced to surrender to America, but Britain and the Soviet Union also made a small part of the Nazis would surrender.
    Come to think of it, they probably chose to surrender to us because they knew we were the least angry at them. The Russians wanted to massacre them after the various massacres they'd committed on the Eastern front, and the British were none too happy about the bombing raids. On the other hand, America's losses had been purely military. Even Pearl Harbor was still a military target.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,324
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Come to think of it, they probably chose to surrender to us because they knew we were the least angry at them.
    They didn't make that choice to surrender to one over the other. They surrendered to the USSR, Great Britain, France and the United States.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Come to think of it, they probably chose to surrender to us because they knew we were the least angry at them.
    They didn't make that choice to surrender to one over the other. They surrendered to the USSR, Great Britain, France and the United States.
    Oh. That makes more sense. I don't know what I was thinking. I guess we wouldn't have let the Russians take Berlin if we were the only ones getting surrendered to.

    I wonder how France managed to get in on that?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,324
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Come to think of it, they probably chose to surrender to us because they knew we were the least angry at them.
    They didn't make that choice to surrender to one over the other. They surrendered to the USSR, Great Britain, France and the United States.
    Oh. That makes more sense. I don't know what I was thinking. I guess we wouldn't have let the Russians take Berlin if we were the only ones getting surrendered to.
    They simply beat us to it and we were badly outnumbered by the Russians anyhow so there's nothing we could have practically done to prevent it.


    I wonder how France managed to get in on that?
    Good question. What I do know is they were still considered a major world power up to that point. I'll have to do some reading.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •