4 ms·

As with everything in life, there can be many perspectives on things. The sacrifices made should be remembered. But lessons should be learned too. In this cas

As with everything in life, there can be many perspectives on things. The sacrifices made should be remembered. But lessons should be learned too. In this case, the focus on material losses tries to show lessons to be learned for this aspect of the war. They do not argue that all else should be forgotten.

the_af 4y ago
Yes, of course. My opinion is that this article's take is trying to downplay the major contribution of the USSR in defeating Nazi Germany. It's not another take; they seem to imply it's the main take besides which all other contributions pale. And that's not true. Yes, economy and industrial output was a major deal and I don't think anybody [1] ignores this. But all of that would have been for naught if there hadn't been actual bodies on the ground, bleeding and defending or capturing ground. So it's true that Germany's war was doomed because its economy and industry couldn't compete (even with their vast use of slave labor) but still, had the Soviets not resisted them, they probably would have ended the war without catastrophic defeat but with a treaty, and possibly Hitler and some of the leadership would have survived. You know what seems petty? With the Cold War finally past us [and Putin's latest adventures notwithstanding] it's finally becoming understood [again, see 1] that the USSR was the major factor in Germany's defeat. It wasn't the Americans saving the day in Normandy or whatnot, pop culture notwithstanding. And so of course, some think tank will strive to prove that if America wasn't the decisive factor in battle, then battle wasn't all that important after all. I call this way of thinking "sour grapes". ---- [1] anybody outside mainstream pop culture, that is, which still claims America "won" WW2 and that the major battles were in North Africa and Normandy. And which is puzzled when the Soviet Union is mentioned at all, except they "know" thanks to fiction like Enemy at the Gates, that the Soviets major "contribution" to the war was commissars busily gunning down their own troops, and maybe a sniper or two.
- _carbyau_ 4y ago
  I didn't read it as them dismissing "battles" per se. But more or less saying that even if a particular battle was lost, another battle would have occurred because of the industry backing. IE In reality, XYZ battles occurred. In an alternate reality if some of them lost, then we'd have new HIJ battles that won instead - because industry. What would have happened if USSR lost "the enemy at the gates"? Did they have the industry to "do it again and win this time"? I honestly don't know, I am not much better than pop culture. But I do heartily agree that pop culture lacks perspective on the USSR involvement. Partly because Hollywood contents travels world wide and partly because no one sees Stalin as someone they want to attribute "success" to, in particular because of the way it was done. I mean, Hitler probably had some good traits(maybe he was nice to dogs?), but no one wants to be the one saying that... A lack of dynamic range in judgement as it were.

the_af 4y ago

Yes, of course. My opinion is that this article's take is trying to downplay the major contribution of the USSR in defeating Nazi Germany. It's not another take; they seem to imply it's the main take besides which all other contributions pale. And that's not true. Yes, economy and industrial output was a major deal and I don't think anybody [1] ignores this. But all of that would have been for naught if there hadn't been actual bodies on the ground, bleeding and defending or capturing ground. So it's true that Germany's war was doomed because its economy and industry couldn't compete (even with their vast use of slave labor) but still, had the Soviets not resisted them, they probably would have ended the war without catastrophic defeat but with a treaty, and possibly Hitler and some of the leadership would have survived. You know what seems petty? With the Cold War finally past us [and Putin's latest adventures notwithstanding] it's finally becoming understood [again, see 1] that the USSR was the major factor in Germany's defeat. It wasn't the Americans saving the day in Normandy or whatnot, pop culture notwithstanding. And so of course, some think tank will strive to prove that if America wasn't the decisive factor in battle, then battle wasn't all that important after all. I call this way of thinking "sour grapes". ---- [1] anybody outside mainstream pop culture, that is, which still claims America "won" WW2 and that the major battles were in North Africa and Normandy. And which is puzzled when the Soviet Union is mentioned at all, except they "know" thanks to fiction like Enemy at the Gates, that the Soviets major "contribution" to the war was commissars busily gunning down their own troops, and maybe a sniper or two.

_carbyau_ 4y ago
I didn't read it as them dismissing "battles" per se. But more or less saying that even if a particular battle was lost, another battle would have occurred because of the industry backing. IE In reality, XYZ battles occurred. In an alternate reality if some of them lost, then we'd have new HIJ battles that won instead - because industry. What would have happened if USSR lost "the enemy at the gates"? Did they have the industry to "do it again and win this time"? I honestly don't know, I am not much better than pop culture. But I do heartily agree that pop culture lacks perspective on the USSR involvement. Partly because Hollywood contents travels world wide and partly because no one sees Stalin as someone they want to attribute "success" to, in particular because of the way it was done. I mean, Hitler probably had some good traits(maybe he was nice to dogs?), but no one wants to be the one saying that... A lack of dynamic range in judgement as it were.