Thank you USSR (A little about history)

[spanishfly]

WWII started not on 1.9.1939. It was started when Westernies treated Czechoslovakia and let Hitler occupy Austria. 1938

Says who? Do you recall any battle in Czechoslovakia od Austria? Or maybe you're talking about the political situation? Than maybe the II WW starded in 1919 after the I WW? Or maybe in 1795 when Russia, Prussia and Austria had divided Poland? Or maybe it starded in 1410 in Tannenberg?

Artillerist - once again you do not understand what you're saying. You cannot see the difference between military conflict and annexation. I suggest that you should read more or at least say smth which has any sense.

P.S. USSR was not the only who made a pact with Hitler. Baltic countries signed same pacts (defencive pacts, to-not-attack-each-other-pact) BEFORE USSR.

Once again - It's not even worth to explain you over and over again the same problem. If you do not see the difference between non aggression pacts and a plan of military conquest of another country...than I think that you really should read some books man...

Fighting for freedom and fighting for existance is very very different things.

You will never understand that, pnoozi.

Yea- because in his country people never had to fight for their freedom against those damn Soviets, ne?

[pnoozi]

Fighting for freedom and fighting for existance is very very different things.

You will never understand that, pnoozi.

Actually, that's almost exactly what I said.

[thebomb]

Lol? What was professional in Soviet Army? O_O I may agree that this was the biggest army...but professional...man...just no ;p


Just because Soviets were winning battles by numbers, it doesn't mean that the whole organisation was professional.

I don't know what to tell you, the results speak for themselves.

The Soviet army subscribed to the most advanced military doctrine and theory at the time.  The Soviets had a developed and focused body of knowledge and an analytical process that allowed them to quickly and effectively learn from their mistakes. For example, the failure of their attacks outside Moscow in 1941 were analyzed in detail. After they learned from their mistakes they conducted a successful operation outside Stalingrad encircling the 6th Army - one of the biggest defeats for the Germans in WWII.

The fact that the Soviet army adhered to these military principles and through trial by fire learned how to apply them enabled them to destroy the German armed forces. This shows just how much the Soviet army matured into a professional fighting force.

The fact that the Soviets had to deal with huge numbers of material and men showed how great their logistics forces were. The Soviets used all branches of their military successfully, a testament to combined arms tactics. Their tank forces were highly developed and allowed them to achieve unbelievable gains during Operation Bagration for example.

All of these results are indicative of a professional and modern fighting force. To be honest there was no other way the Soviets could have won.

Have you ever heard of Hitler's summer pause?  Basically, during Operation Barbarossa in 1941, Hitler and his generals had trouble agreeing.  This caused their summer advance to be delayed long enough for the warm months to pass.  This pause is widely considered to be a major reason the Germans (relatively ill-equipped for harsh winter warfare) were not able to take Moscow.  This served as a great moral victory for the Russians.

When the gloves are off and you're at war with someone - you do your best. Whether you made mistakes or had problems with your generals, no one cares about that. They are simply excuses. I'm sure the Soviets had plenty of problems with their generals too, or Stalin's meddling but no one uses those reasons as an excuse for their poor performance. The Germans were simply a better fighting force at that point in the war.

And your point about the summer pause...the reason there was a pause was because Hitler diverted Army Group Center to the south in order to encircle the Soviet forces at Kiev. He didn't just "pause" and sit on his thumbs - he made a decision that he thought would bring about a major loss for the Soviet army. The fact that it did not change the outcome of the war in his favor is his fault and in no way excuses the defeats that were brought about by the Soviets.

No more ignorant than saying the Soviets didn't need allies to win the war.  Without lend-lease and the Battle of Britain added on top of Hitler's incompetence, the Soviets lose Moscow, a defeat so demoralizing it would have been hard for the Soviets to recover.

No one said that the Soviets didn't need the Western powers. What you replied to was a statement that the Soviets did the majority of the fighting in the European theater...which is true. If ifs and ands were pots and pans, there'd be no work for tinkers' hands. I don't deal in "what-if" scenarios.

Actually, the fact that the Red Army was a disorganized mess suggests something entirely different.  It suggests that they must have had some "help" in defeating Germany.

They were a disorganized mess...in 1941. In 1945 they were the most powerful army in the world. This leap was achieved through four years of fighting the most powerful army at the time.

Because the OP stated that the western powers viewed Russia as an enemy... which was not the case until 1945 (the start of the Cold War) at the earliest.  And the western powers (other than Nazi Germany and Italy) wanted Russia bled to death?  Where are you getting that from?  Russia had been an ally of the western powers since WWI, and westerners didn't really start fearing socialism until the whole State Department fiasco and McCarthy.

You have a very naive view of the world. The Western powers were not a fan of the Soviet Union since it was simply another competitor. Not only that but the Soviet Union advertised a socio-economic system which empowered the worker. This was greatly feared by the ruling class in the Western world and they didn't want that propagated either in post war Europe or before then (see the First Red Scare).

So we waited until June 1941?  The Soviets initiated their invasion of Poland and the Baltic states in 1939.  If the United States was trying to stop the Soviets from advancing, why on Earth would they HELP them by opening up a second front with Germany?!

In 1941, the US did not know who was going to win the war. German victory was possible. In order to make sure that whoever wins will be at their weakest, they supported the losing side in order to bleed the other. That is why they provided help to the Soviets.

The important part of what I wrote is not the satellite buffer zone part - it's the oppressive regime part.  The OP said the Soviets were fighting for freedom.  Sorry, just not the case.  They were fighting for oppression, because it's better to be oppressed than dead.

The Soviets were fighting for freedom from German oppression. If Stalin twisted that after the war it does not change the fact that the Soviets were still fighting for freedom at the time. Yes, from a retrospective point of view a weak argument could be made that the Soviets were somehow fighting for "oppression" but again, no one thought like that at the time except maybe Stalin.

Exactly!  They weren't fighting for freedom... that's the only point I'm trying to make.  The Soviets weren't fighting for freedom at all.  In fact, they made a pact with Hitler agreeing not to fight just so they could get a little piece of Poland.  The OP is full of it.

The Soviets made a pact with Hitler after coming back from discussions with the Western powers and realizing that they were completely disinterested in actually stopping Hitler. Stalin wasn't going to dick around, his country's security was at stake and if that meant taking half of Poland to act as a buffer state...so be it.

So the US should have waited for German boots to hit American soil?  Then they would have been justified?

Uhh no..I was just explaining to you that it's much easier for a soldier to understand a concept such as fighting for your existence than it is for one to understand interventionism.

[pnoozi]

Have you ever heard of Hitler's summer pause?  Basically, during Operation Barbarossa in 1941, Hitler and his generals had trouble agreeing.  This caused their summer advance to be delayed long enough for the warm months to pass.  This pause is widely considered to be a major reason the Germans (relatively ill-equipped for harsh winter warfare) were not able to take Moscow.  This served as a great moral victory for the Russians.

When the gloves are off and you're at war with someone - you do your best. Whether you made mistakes or had problems with your generals, no one cares about that. They are simply excuses. I'm sure the Soviets had plenty of problems with their generals too, or Stalin's meddling but no one uses those reasons as an excuse for their poor performance. The Germans were simply a better fighting force at that point in the war.

And your point about the summer pause...the reason there was a pause was because Hitler diverted Army Group Center to the south in order to encircle the Soviet forces at Kiev. He didn't just "pause" and sit on his thumbs - he made a decision that he thought would bring about a major loss for the Soviet army. The fact that it did not change the outcome of the war in his favor is his fault and in no way excuses the defeats that were brought about by the Soviets.

Well, Hitler's decision didn't bring about a major loss for the Soviet army, and considering he went against the strong advice of his generals, I'd consider that his fault.  Hitler is notorious for his shortcomings as a military commander.  Not Stalin...

Actually, the fact that the Red Army was a disorganized mess suggests something entirely different.  It suggests that they must have had some "help" in defeating Germany.

They were a disorganized mess...in 1941. In 1945 they were the most powerful army in the world. This leap was achieved through four years of fighting the most powerful army at the time.

They were a disorganized mess in 1941 and the Battle of Stalingrad, the turning point of the war, was in 1942.  So they went from disorganized mess to elite fighting force in one year?

Because the OP stated that the western powers viewed Russia as an enemy... which was not the case until 1945 (the start of the Cold War) at the earliest.  And the western powers (other than Nazi Germany and Italy) wanted Russia bled to death?  Where are you getting that from?  Russia had been an ally of the western powers since WWI, and westerners didn't really start fearing socialism until the whole State Department fiasco and McCarthy.

You have a very naive view of the world. The Western powers were not a fan of the Soviet Union since it was simply another competitor. Not only that but the Soviet Union advertised a socio-economic system which empowered the worker. This was greatly feared by the ruling class in the Western world and they didn't want that propagated either in post war Europe or before then (see the First Red Scare).

The deep-seeded fear of communism in the United States didn't take hold until after World War II.  Americans wouldn't have elected Roosevelt (see the New Deal) otherwise.

http://www.ushistory.org/us/49e.asp

"The Great Depression created an environment where the federal government accepted responsibility for curing a wide array of society's ills previously left to individuals, states, and local governments. This amount of regulation and involvement requires a vast upgrading of the government bureaucracy. An armada of government bureaus and regulatory agencies was erected to service the programs of the New Deal."

So we waited until June 1941?  The Soviets initiated their invasion of Poland and the Baltic states in 1939.  If the United States was trying to stop the Soviets from advancing, why on Earth would they HELP them by opening up a second front with Germany?!

In 1941, the US did not know who was going to win the war. German victory was possible. In order to make sure that whoever wins will be at their weakest, they supported the losing side in order to bleed the other. That is why they provided help to the Soviets.

While this makes sense in theory, reality is that in 1941 the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor and the Germans declared war on the US shortly after.  At that point, the US could only join the war on one side.

The important part of what I wrote is not the satellite buffer zone part - it's the oppressive regime part.  The OP said the Soviets were fighting for freedom.  Sorry, just not the case.  They were fighting for oppression, because it's better to be oppressed than dead.

The Soviets were fighting for freedom from German oppression. If Stalin twisted that after the war it does not change the fact that the Soviets were still fighting for freedom at the time. Yes, from a retrospective point of view a weak argument could be made that the Soviets were somehow fighting for "oppression" but again, no one thought like that at the time except maybe Stalin.

Exactly!  They weren't fighting for freedom... that's the only point I'm trying to make.  The Soviets weren't fighting for freedom at all.  In fact, they made a pact with Hitler agreeing not to fight just so they could get a little piece of Poland.  The OP is full of it.

The Soviets made a pact with Hitler after coming back from discussions with the Western powers and realizing that they were completely disinterested in actually stopping Hitler. Stalin wasn't going to dick around, his country's security was at stake and if that meant taking half of Poland to act as a buffer state...so be it.

I don't deny that a buffer state was very useful for the USSR, but here's the thing - the OP is making the Soviets out to have fought valiantly for freedom.

"Today we are about to play a Game mod created by Germans, Americans, British and other people... thats freedom, and today there is freedom because million of Soviets died in the past fighting for this freedom ,they deserve respect."

The facts are that they didn't want to fight, and they didn't give a shit about freedom.

So the US should have waited for German boots to hit American soil?  Then they would have been justified?

Uhh no..I was just explaining to you that it's much easier for a soldier to understand a concept such as fighting for your existence than it is for one to understand interventionism.

Actually, here's what you said.

"In any event, whatever reason the Soviets had for fighting was way more justifiable than the reason Americans had for fighting."

What I'm saying is that eventually the US would have had to fight for its existence as well.  The British were the last major power standing between Nazi Germany and the United States, and London was in bad shape.

Every time the Allies would appease Hitler, he would take a little more, and a little more, and a little more... the US wasn't going to sit around and wait for Hitler to set his sights on North America.  He'd already crippled all the US's major western trading partners and U-boats were in the Atlantic.  That's more than enough justification.

The Soviet Union was "way more justified" than the US in the sense that Bill Gates is "way richer" than Warren Buffet.

[spanishfly]

I don't know what to tell you, the results speak for themselves.

Yep, the result - over 20 mil soviets dead - once again, Soviets won by numbers; Sorry, but I will never say anything good about soviet officers. For me they're just scum.

------------------------------------------------------------

The Soviets were fighting for freedom from German oppression.

Unfortunately, you brought "your" freedom to Poland as well.

[thebomb]

Well, Hitler's decision didn't bring about a major loss for the Soviet army, and considering he went against the strong advice of his generals, I'd consider that his fault.  Hitler is notorious for his shortcomings as a military commander.  Not Stalin...

I think we both agree that it was Hitler's fault. You however are implying that it was pretty much because of this fault that enabled the Soviets to win - which is obviously wrong.

My point still stands. If Hitler was such a bad tactician, maybe Germany shouldn't have attacked the Soviet Union. You can't half-ass an attack against the Soviets, fail, then say "But it was Hitler's fault that the Soviets won!". If Hitler wanted to play hard ball with Stalin then he should have been better prepared.

They were a disorganized mess in 1941 and the Battle of Stalingrad, the turning point of the war, was in 1942.  So they went from disorganized mess to elite fighting force in one year?

No, they matured into a professional army during the four years they fought the Germans. Winning one battle, even if it was the turning point, doesn't mean you have a professional army.

The deep-seeded fear of communism in the United States didn't take hold until after World War II.  Americans wouldn't have elected Roosevelt (see the New Deal) otherwise.

http://www.ushistory.org/us/49e.asp

"The Great Depression created an environment where the federal government accepted responsibility for curing a wide array of society's ills previously left to individuals, states, and local governments. This amount of regulation and involvement requires a vast upgrading of the government bureaucracy. An armada of government bureaus and regulatory agencies was erected to service the programs of the New Deal."

What Americans thought about the Soviet Union didn't mean anything. Whoever was in power called the shots, not the American people, and if those in power decide that the Soviets are a potential threat to their interests then they will do whatever it takes to weaken them.

This isn't some weird theory that I thought of..I'm surprised you're taken aback by this. This kind of political dancing has been going on throughout history - it's just the way the world works at the nation state level.

While this makes sense in theory, reality is that in 1941 the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor and the Germans declared war on the US shortly after.  At that point, the US could only join the war on one side.

That's right. However being on the side of the Allies doesn't mean you can't weaken the Soviets. I'm not saying the Americans, British or anyone else had a priority in making sure that the Soviet Union was destroyed - they just wanted to be the top dog standing after the war was over. This is normal, so don't be surprised if you find out that the Americans were secretly undermining Soviet efforts...the Soviets were doing the same, and so were the British - it's just the nature of the game.

I don't deny that a buffer state was very useful for the USSR, but here's the thing - the OP is making the Soviets out to have fought valiantly for freedom.

"Today we are about to play a Game mod created by Germans, Americans, British and other people... thats freedom, and today there is freedom because million of Soviets died in the past fighting for this freedom ,they deserve respect."

The facts are that they didn't want to fight, and they didn't give a shit about freedom.

Putting aside the fact that what you said is incredibly disrespectful and you are by no means an authority of any kind regarding what Soviet soldiers fought for - the OP's statement is true...Just like it is true that the Americans fought valiantly for freedom and anyone else fighting on the Allied side. Soviet soldiers fought for freedom from Nazi oppression. Let me reiterate - the fact that Stalin turned Eastern Europe into a series of oppressed states does not in any way diminish the valiant cause for which Soviet soldiers fought for. The United States fought in Korea and established a brutal dictatorship in the south - does that diminish the bravery and sacrifice of US soldiers that fought there? No. So you see how your argument falls flat on its face.

What I'm saying is that eventually the US would have had to fight for its existence as well.  The British were the last major power standing between Nazi Germany and the United States, and London was in bad shape.

Every time the Allies would appease Hitler, he would take a little more, and a little more, and a little more... the US wasn't going to sit around and wait for Hitler to set his sights on North America.  He'd already crippled all the US's major western trading partners and U-boats were in the Gulf of Mexico.  That's more than enough justification.

The Soviet Union was "way more justified" than the US in the sense that Bill Gates is "way richer" than Warren Buffet.

Fighting for your people's existence right now is a lot more tangible than fighting a perceived threat at some point in the future. Besides, Hitler wasn't going to starve Americans to death and submerge Washington D.C. under a lake - my point still stands.
Post Merge: February 16, 2010, 03:51:21 AM

I don't know what to tell you, the results speak for themselves.

Yep, the result - over 20 mil soviets dead - once again, Soviets won by numbers; Sorry, but I will never say anything good about soviet officers. For me they're just scum.

Fair enough - I'm not going to bend over backwards to convince you, I've already written enough responses to your one-liners. I have plenty of Polish friends who aren't as close-minded as you so whatever.

[spanishfly]

Fair enough - I'm not going to bend over backwards to convince you, I've already written enough responses to your one-liners. I have plenty of Polish friends who aren't as close-minded as you so whatever.

Man really? Sorry but you're opinion matters so much for me, that I cannot stand your rejection...

You know what? And I have many Russian friends who do not ask me to glorify their heroes. If for you it was a well-organised bunch of superheroes and so be it. Do I force you to pay your respect to the polish heroes who defeated Russian Army in 1920? No I don't.

So tell me, why am I close-minded? Because I disagree with you? You said that Soviet Army was a professional army. But still - sorry it wasn't. It was well organised - I must agree, victories did not come from nothing. But man - calling Soviet soldiers professionals, just because they knew how to kill is a mistake. For me the meaning of "professional army" is something more than just effectivness on the battlefield.

People - from now on, we can say only good things about the Soviet Army, because "thebomb" said so.

I'll start - thank you, Soviet Army, for bringing never-ending peace to my country. I'm glad that you saved me from the German oppression.

And now for serious - thanks to all Soviet soldiers who fought, believing that they are bringing freedom.

[pnoozi]

I don't deny that a buffer state was very useful for the USSR, but here's the thing - the OP is making the Soviets out to have fought valiantly for freedom.

"Today we are about to play a Game mod created by Germans, Americans, British and other people... thats freedom, and today there is freedom because million of Soviets died in the past fighting for this freedom ,they deserve respect."

The facts are that they didn't want to fight, and they didn't give a shit about freedom.

Putting aside the fact that what you said is incredibly disrespectful and you are by no means an authority of any kind regarding what Soviet soldiers fought for - the OP's statement is true...Just like it is true that the Americans fought valiantly for freedom and anyone else fighting on the Allied side. Soviet soldiers fought for freedom from Nazi oppression. Let me reiterate - the fact that Stalin turned Eastern Europe into a series of oppressed states does not in any way diminish the valiant cause for which Soviet soldiers fought for. The United States fought in Korea and established a brutal dictatorship in the south - does that diminish the bravery and sacrifice of US soldiers that fought there? No. So you see how your argument falls flat on its face.

I don't mean to disrespect the men who fought and died defending their country from the Nazis.  That's certainly respectable.

But if the commander for whom you're fighting doesn't believe in freedom, I'm sorry - you're just not fighting for freedom.

[thebomb]

But if the commander for whom you're fighting doesn't believe in freedom, I'm sorry - you're just not fighting for freedom.

That doesn't make any sense - what does one's commander have to do with anything?

[pnoozi]

But if the commander for whom you're fighting doesn't believe in freedom, I'm sorry - you're just not fighting for freedom.

That doesn't make any sense - what does one's commander have to do with anything?

Replace the word commander with the word entity.  That might make more sense.

If the entity for which you're fighting doesn't believe in freedom, I'm sorry - you're just not fighting for freedom.

[thebomb]

But if the commander for whom you're fighting doesn't believe in freedom, I'm sorry - you're just not fighting for freedom.

That doesn't make any sense - what does one's commander have to do with anything?

Replace the word commander with the word entity.  That might make more sense.

If the entity for which you're fighting doesn't believe in freedom, I'm sorry - you're just not fighting for freedom.

If what you say is true then the United States wasn't fighting for freedom either, nor the French nor Great Britain - right? The United States still held sovereignty over the Philippines, the British and French had various colonies all over Africa and the Middle East. You certainly don't believe in freedom if you're a colonial empire.

By your standard of what qualifies as "fighting for freedom", soldiers fighting for these "entities" wouldn't make the cut. If you do a thorough examination, you'll discover that no soldiers fighting for any state genuinely fought for freedom. Yet people would still say that US, British, and Soviet soldiers fought for a form of freedom because what matters isn't whether the state that they served believed in freedom but the actions of the soldiers as a whole.

Soldiers from the Western powers liberated Western Europe from Nazi oppression. Soldiers from the Soviet Union liberated Eastern Europe from Nazi oppression. The fact that each of those powers turned parts of the world into brutal and oppressive regimes after the war does not diminish the quest for freedom that each soldier sought after on the battlefield. That is why US, British, French and Soviet soldiers all fought for freedom.

[pnoozi]

But if the commander for whom you're fighting doesn't believe in freedom, I'm sorry - you're just not fighting for freedom.

That doesn't make any sense - what does one's commander have to do with anything?

Replace the word commander with the word entity.  That might make more sense.

If the entity for which you're fighting doesn't believe in freedom, I'm sorry - you're just not fighting for freedom.

If what you say is true then the United States wasn't fighting for freedom either, nor the French nor Great Britain - right? The United States still held sovereignty over the Philippines, the British and French had various colonies all over Africa and the Middle East. You certainly don't believe in freedom if you're a colonial empire.

By your standard of what qualifies as "fighting for freedom", soldiers fighting for these "entities" wouldn't make the cut. If you do a thorough examination, you'll discover that no soldiers fighting for any state genuinely fought for freedom. Yet people would still say that US, British, and Soviet soldiers fought for a form of freedom because what matters isn't whether the state that they served believed in freedom but the actions of the soldiers as a whole.

Soldiers from the Western powers liberated Western Europe from Nazi oppression. Soldiers from the Soviet Union liberated Eastern Europe from Nazi oppression. The fact that each of those powers turned parts of the world into brutal and oppressive regimes after the war does not diminish the quest for freedom that each soldier sought after on the battlefield. That is why US, British, French and Soviet soldiers all fought for freedom.

The Americans and British were absolutely fighting for freedom within the context of Europe, and the Soviets were definitely not fighting for any kind of freedom.  Whatever their personal feelings, the facts are that they were fighting off one horrific dictatorship in support of another, even if they didn't support Stalin.

And before you say "they had no means of standing up to Stalin" - fine, I agree.  But consider this.  I don't have the means to win a gold medal at the Olympics.  It's not my fault, but I don't go around claiming I deserve a gold medal.

I'm just saying, don't make stuff up because the truth hurts too much.  Accept it.  The Soviets fought for Stalin.  Whether they had a choice or not, reality is that they did.  If the Germans had collectively stood up to Hitler and the Russians had collectively stood up to Stalin, that would have been fighting for freedom.

If I ship off tomorrow to Afghanistan or Iraq, I can say I'm fighting for green energy or universal health care or purple teletubbies... the fact remains that I'm not fighting for any of those things.  I'm fighting for the REAL purpose of the mission.  My own feelings are inconsequential if they're not a part of the big picture.

[thebomb]

The Americans and British were absolutely fighting for freedom within the context of Europe, and the Soviets were definitely not fighting for any kind of freedom.  Whatever their personal feelings, the facts are that they were fighting off one horrific dictatorship in support of another, even if they didn't support Stalin.

What do you mean "in the context of Europe"? Either the Soviets, Americans and British all fought for freedom or they did not. You can't fight for freedom in Europe while oppressing the Filipino people in Asia. Either you fight for freedom everywhere or you aren't fighting for freedom. And you're right, Soviet soldiers did not support Stalin because they hated him.

And before you say "they had no means of standing up to Stalin" - fine, I agree.  But consider this.  I don't have the means to win a gold medal at the Olympics.  It's not my fault, but I don't go around claiming I deserve a gold medal.

What you say would be true if "standing up to Stalin" was the only measure that determined whether you fought for freedom or not. Soviet soldiers did more than enough to qualify for fighting for freedom in the same way (if not more) than American or British soldiers. It would be an extreme act of hypocrisy if the Americans and British qualified as freedom fighters while having colonies all over the world but not Soviet soldiers.

I'm just saying, don't make stuff up because the truth hurts too much.  Accept it.  The Soviets fought for Stalin.  Whether they had a choice or not, reality is that they did.  If the Germans had collectively stood up to Hitler and the Russians had collectively stood up to Stalin, that would have been fighting for freedom.

Soviet soldiers certainly did not fight for Stalin. Ask any WWII vet and they will tell you that Stalin wasn't even on the radar. On the contrary, Stalin didn't WANT Soviet soldiers to fight for him because he knew that most of them hated him. That's why he went with what his soldiers wanted to fight for which was patriotism and freedom from Nazi oppression.

If I ship off tomorrow to Afghanistan or Iraq, I can say I'm fighting for green energy or universal health care or purple teletubbies... the fact remains that I'm not fighting for any of those things.  I'm fighting for the REAL purpose of the mission.  My own feelings are inconsequential if they're not a part of the big picture.

I'd argue that a soldier's feelings and reasons for fighting are the only ones that matter. The "big picture" is set by people like Bush, Blair, Stalin and Hitler who have a vested interest in the war but aren't willing to fight it themselves or send their children to fight it. You've got to understand that all soldiers are human beings, whether they are American, British or Soviet - and under the right circumstances (like those of WII) they all can fight for the same kind of freedom.

[greyreth]

The moment Polish government would allow the Soviet Army to enter Poland - it would be the end of freedom in Poland.

This is it. But a question can be: was it good for Poland to have freedom? or was it health-giving for the entire Europe?
Buffer countries (no offense) sometimes play dubious roles.
this guy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Suvorov
has some genuine ideas regarding the beginning of the WWII. though those ideas cannot be either proved or disputed as we have NO trustworthy info on what was really going on back then. and not only the ex-iron curtain will declassify the least important doc's in 10-20 years only (if they ever will...) but the same applies to the Allies. so the number of assumption may go up to the clouds, easily.

As for me, I think that nobody should thank the USSR. But they made 80% of the deal in Europe. But that's not a matter of thanking or not thanking. Just poor buffer countries left in ruins...

P.S.
Today I saw a "demotivator" and even saved a copy. Stalin's portrait). "He took over a country with ploughs and left it having A-bombs. But he is mentioned in respect of mass repressions mainly."
Should "the 1/6 of dry land" thank him? that is the question. whether 'tis nobler. in the mind. to suffer.

[huggy]