
Soviets say Allied version of D-Day is a 'distortion' of history (1984) - barking
https://www.csmonitor.com/1984/0605/060519.html
======
coldtea
> _' 'The outcome of the war had already been decided'' before the June 6,
> 1944, invasion, according to a retired Soviet general interviewed by Tass,
> the official government news agency. Those who see history in a different
> way are, according to Soviet writers, ''falsifiers'' or representatives of
> ''bourgeois'' mass-information media who blend ''deliberate distortions of
> history together with ill-intentioned lies.''_

Well, they had a point...

In the 40s and 50s most Europeans who actually lived WWII considered the USSR
as definitive in determining the war.

It took decades of new generations who didn't witness the facts, and tons of
mythologizing from Hollywood movies to turn this around.

[https://www.vox.com/2014/6/16/5814270/the-
successful-70-year...](https://www.vox.com/2014/6/16/5814270/the-
successful-70-year-campaign-to-convince-people-the-usa-and-not)

~~~
Iv
IT is true that Americans have made their own propaganda version of WWII. The
D-Day is seen as a decisive heroic operation while the retreat of Dunkirk is
seen as almost comical because it only involved a similar amount of French
casualties, who were losing anyway (in order to help the allies retreat to UK
to continue the fight but nevermind that).

HOWEVER, while it is true that people who lived during WWII knew USSR was
winning and would prevail, even without USA's help, there was also a
widespread, majority in almost every European countries, to hope US forces
would come before USSR's. Germans who deserted or surrendered, when they had a
choice, overwhelmingly did so to the western allies.

We knew that USSR would come to occupy while US was not interested in
territorial gains. Yes, US occupation was not without propaganda and political
compromises, but compare the date of the first free elections in France or in
Ukraine, you will see that these opinions were founded.

One could argue that the D-Day was a decisive operation for the Cold War, less
so for WWII. Without US involvement, USSR would have "freed" all of Europe by
1947, but the rest of the century would have been far more different.

------
azeotropic
Sad to see the Soviet complaints about the allies not opening a second front
in Europe until 1944 uncritically reported. The allies invaded Italy in 1943.

~~~
NeedMoreTea
Nor any mention of the clear delays to D Day _as a direct result of_ the sheer
quantity of war materiel sent to Russia via the Arctic convoys and through
Iran.

Hundreds of thousands of trucks and jeeps, tens of thousands of tanks and
aircraft. Not second rate or surplus but Spitfires, Hurricanes, Sherman tanks
and so on, and enough to restrict the allies.

It was deemed more important to try and help keep Russia in the war.

Reporting the claim uncritically is the distortion to my mind. The role Russia
played in allied victory, but clearly not D Day, is rarely forgotten.

~~~
cik2e
> _Nor any mention of the clear delays to D Day as a direct result of the
> sheer quantity of war materiel sent to Russia via the Arctic convoys and
> through Iran._

This idea sounds patently false and I can't find a single source to support
it.

According to Wikipedia, the total US expenditure on Lend-Lease was 48 billion,
with 31 of those going to Britain and 11 to the USSR [1]. But saying that
D-Day was delayed as a result of the sheer quantity of aid sent to _Britain_
would still be incorrect. Nearly the entirety of Soviet economic aid during
the war can be attributed to the U.S. It provided the bulk of the actual raw
materiel and effectively paid for the rest through the funding British
production. Now combine this with the fact that Roosevelt and his advisors
were pushing to open up the Western European front in 1942, a year after Lend-
Lease had gone into effect, with Churchill winning out in opposition to the
idea. It simply doesn't make sense that the cost of aid to the Soviet union
was even part of the equation.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-
Lease#Multilateral_Allied...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-
Lease#Multilateral_Allied_support)

~~~
NeedMoreTea
31bn did NOT go to Britain. That was the gross figure to Britain and Empire
including the dominions with independent governments. As they break it down no
further I'd have to find a source with the true British figure.

Nor does it take off the roughly 8 or 10bn of British lend-lease to the US, or
the end of war lend-lease loans. Or take into account the British lend-lease
supplied to Russia, which was far from insignificant - your Wikipedia link
mentions in the otherwise unpriced list £1.15bn of aero engines - that alone
would be about $4.5bn US - as wartime exchange was pegged at $4 to £1.

Neither the US - nor anyone else - achieved a fully mobilised war economy
overnight - supply was a _constant_ issue for much of the war going on most of
the histories I've read, and it was only by late 43/early 44 that the US was
manufacturing her way out of trouble. Even that fairly poorly organised
Wikipedia page includes the throwaway quote of "Even after the United States
forces in Europe and the Pacific began to attain full strength during
1943–1944, Lend-Lease continued".

Russia got about 12% of all the jeeps produced, 50% of the P39s, etc.

It doesn't make sense that it wasn't part of the equation in several
campaigns. Not the cost, but the logistics and production - number of tanks or
whatever actually available in theatre. By 44 not so much.

Sledgehammer in 42 would have certainly failed, and failed badly. Much has
been written about it. To summarise from Wikipedia - who write surprisingly
little about it:

 _" However, the elements required for such an operation were lacking, i.e.
air superiority, amphibious warfare equipment, sufficient forces and adequate
supply. Despite all this, the Joint Chiefs of Staff considered Sledgehammer
feasible.

If Sledgehammer had been carried out, the British could have landed only six
divisions at most, whereas the Germans had 25-30 divisions in Western Europe"_

It could very possibly have been the war losing campaign.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Sledgehammer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Sledgehammer)

------
tomohawk
The Soviet armies bled the German armies white, but that does not take away
from the accomplishments of D-Day.

In the closing days of WW II, many Germans fled to the US/UK side to escape
the terror inflicted by the Soviet armies.

In 1984, the Soviet propaganda machine was in full swing, and the Soviets
still occupied a big chunk of Europe. They were making threats with short
range nuclear missiles and a 20 to 1 tank advantage. It looked like WW III was
about to break out, but the Soviets would be out of power within 10 years.

~~~
NotPaidToPost
The D-Day celebrations also usually forget to mention Operation Bagration, a
massive soviet offensive in June-August 1944, which is perhaps the biggest
German army defeat in history and is very important to keep in mind in the
context of the Allies advance in France.

The fact is that keeping the Russians out of D-Day celebrations and of the
D-Day narrative is a political decision.

~~~
Mvandenbergh
They also don't commemorate the liberation of Rome (just before) and the
departure of Japanese forces from Burma (just after).

~~~
thrower123
Mark Clark basically gave away the chance to encircle and destroy the better
part of the Wehrmacht in Italy so he could roll into Rome before D-Day and get
the publicity, so that really shouldn't be celebrated.

------
Mikhail_K
90 % of the German casualities were inflicted by the Red Army. The decision to
hold the D-day celebrations without inviting Russia is a rude insult to the
memory of the Russian soldiers, without whom there would have been no Normandy
landings.

~~~
NeedMoreTea
VE day commemorations, or Battle of Berlin commemorations would seem
appropriate, but they did not take part in the Normandy landings.

Would you expect the US to invite the British and Russians to commemorations
of the liberation of the Philippines on the same grounds?

~~~
A2017U1
Were we not allies spilling blood in the same war lending each other equipment
and assistance?

What is the exact harm in it? I'm always highly impressed when foreigners come
to Australian war ceremonies of their own accord.

~~~
NeedMoreTea
No harm at all, but it would get complex quickly if it's extended for every
major campaign in every theatre in a five year war. Official invite and
attendance or not - where not attending will be painted by one media as a
snub, and not inviting painted by the other country's media as a snub...

Yet no one would think it odd or unusual if a Russian veteran or someone with
a relative involved chose to go personally for whatever reason. I'm sure
they'd be most welcome and hopefully treated with as much respect as any
campaign vet or other attendee. I would think it odd if our PM was invited to
say commemoration of the Battle of Kursk, despite that being of huge
significance. I'd expect a good few Russian veterans or relatives might think
it odd too.

Commemorations are for the veterans and relatives of those that took part, and
to honour the participants. Which tends to make it expected to have official
presence for the nationalities that took part in each campaign, the former
commanders, and the descendants of those who took part, or who lost a parent
or grandparent. For many attending it's a deeply personal act. I'm
uncomfortable, to say the least, with commemoration as national or political
PR.

------
barking
It's a story from a different world, one that is almost as distant in time
from us as D-Day was then. It mentions four world leaders present at the
ceremony then, three are now dead but the fourth was there again yesterday and
in the same role.

 _On June 6, President Reagan will join French President Francois Mitterrand,
Queen Elizabeth, and Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau at ceremonies in
Caen, France, to mark the occasion._

~~~
hardlianotion
That's a little Trudeau joke for the reader, yes?

~~~
barking
No, Pierre was Justin's father.

~~~
hardlianotion
I know that. Pierre is dead and was not there in any capacity, as parent
claimed. His son was.

~~~
barking
The quote is from a 1984 news story, Pierre was Canadian PM then and Justin
would have been 12 years old at the time.

~~~
hardlianotion
I know that too (I know when Reagan was prz for a start), but Trudeau was not
there in the same capacity as before - ie Prime Minister.

------
Isinlor
As a Pole, I see the Soviet Union as badly as Germany.

Sometimes when reading discussions, I think that some westerners forget that
the Soviet Union assaulted Poland 17 days after Germans attacked us.

So to remind everyone, Soviets started the whole bloody Second World War!

Not to mention, that after they crashed Poland they killed 22 000 Polish
captives by shutting them in the back of their head in an effort to eradicate
Polish culture.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katyn_massacre](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katyn_massacre)

Russians did not fully admit this crime until freaking 2010. These liars were
either denying it or blaming this crime on Germans while they had documents
clearly stating orders.

They assaulted Poland in 1939, and they were assaulting us in 1944. They were
waiting for Warsaw Uprising to fall, they were preventing western forces to
help the uprising. Then they proceeded to effectively occupy Poland till 1989.

Even today if we discuss historical events some Russians will tend to get
upset that we are not grateful for the sacrifices of the Red Army. But they
were not liberating us. They were raping, pillaging and brutally crashing
anyone who dared to think.

Putting any moral equality between western participation in World War II and
Soviets is just wrong!

~~~
cameldrv
Not to mention the fact that the Soviet Union kept the half of Poland that
they took, and it's now part of Belarus and Ukraine.

~~~
mikolaselo
Stop calling these territories Polish ones. They belonged to Belarus and
Ukraine before. Poland took these territories after 1918-1921 Soviet Polish
war. These territories were Part of Big Belarusian- Lithevian country. This
country was in Union with Poland.

~~~
Isinlor
Where did you take the "Big Belarusian-Lithevian country" from? As far as I
know, this name is used neither in Polish, Lithuanian, nor English. The proper
name is "the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Ruthenia and Samogitia" (Wielkie
Księstwo Litewskie, Rusi i Żmudzi), that was part of the "Crown of the Kingdom
of Poland" and the "Grand Duchy of Lithuania". After the Constitution of May 3
and Reciprocal Guarantee of Two Nations
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocal_Guarantee_of_Two_Na...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocal_Guarantee_of_Two_Nations)),
this state became the "Commonwealth of Poland" ("Rzeczpospolita Obojga
Narodów" or as referred to in the current Polish constitution "Pierwsza
Rzeczpospolita").

And... What belonged to who is quite close to meaningless. When do you want to
set the date of the original ownership? Some 35 000 years ago when these lands
were probably first settled or at some arbitrary point later on? How do you
treat the right to self-determination and regions of mixed ethnicity with no
absolute majority?

Lands of current Belarus and Ukraine belonged to Polish–Lithuanian
Commonwealth before partitions, then they belonged mostly to Russia. After the
first World War, we ended up in a very complex situation with vast regions
with populations of mixed ethnicity and conflicting claims that resulted in
wars. Poland claimed these lands as did Lithuania, Belarus, and Ukraine based
on the wave of the modern ideas of a nation state. Poland managed to overpower
them and focused on Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth as the original ownership.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Krai](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Krai)

The idea of state ownership of land has really no absolute truth to it. There
are no rules that will allow fairly dividing Africa after what was done to
that continent during colonialism, Middle East including Palestine or central
and eastern Europe. Well, even dealing with Brexit is quite an impossible
task.

------
duxup
I'm not sure any given event has to be a symposium on the war in it's
entirety.

The Soviets sacrificed a great deal, as did many nation's and individuals.
They also received a lot of support. I'm not sure an accounting of all that is
required for remembering those who fought a specific battle.

Let alone something like "well the outcome was already decided....." when we
talk about the sacrifices people made.

~~~
c0nfused
The Soviets lost between 20 and 27 million people in the war. It's a sort of
understandable position for a country that lost 40 people per us casualty.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties_of_the...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties_of_the_Soviet_Union)

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties)

~~~
duxup
I don't think ''The outcome of the war had already been decided'' is an
understandable position if you're talking about an event for a given battle.

------
flohofwoe
Obligatory link to "The Fallen of WW2" (watch the video, the interactive
version is broken for me in Chrome on macOS 10.15 beta):

[http://www.fallen.io/ww2/](http://www.fallen.io/ww2/)

I think the focus of US and British WW2 movies on their own accomplishments
played a big role in this "distortion of history" (OTH if you've grown up on
the other side of the Iron Curtain" there was no shortage of Soviet propaganda
movies about WW2 either).

Personally I've come to the conclusion that the US/British invasion didn't
turn the war around (it may have shortened it by a few weeks). But it most
likely saved most of Western Europe from Soviet post-war-occupation.

(edit: AFAIK, what _was_ an incredibly important contribution of (mainly) the
US was the Lend-Lease-Act though to provide the Soviet Union with weapons and
resources)

~~~
chopin
I've read once that Stalin insisted on a landing in Normandy fearing that the
progress in Italy would cut him off Eastern Europe.

See also:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tehran_Conference](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tehran_Conference)

------
jrs72s
Nearly everything about WWII is a "distortion of history" because the Winners
write the "history".

~~~
mensetmanusman
Nearly everything about reality is a “distortion” because your brain writes
the “perception.”

------
whack
For most of my life, I believed that British resistance, D-Day, and the
Western front were the primary reasons for German defeat. That's certainly how
it appeared to a lay person. It was only recently that I realised the vital
role the Eastern front played in Nazi defeat.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_casualties_in_World_W...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_casualties_in_World_War_II)

The Nazis lost over two million soldiers in the Eastern front, whereas all the
other fronts combined produced a loss of ~800k soldiers. The turning point of
the war came in Stalingrad, an entire year before D-Day even started.

The Soviet Union has been a brutal regime and I'm glad they lost the cold war.
But the Russian people deserve more credit than they are being given for
turning back the Nazi tide.

~~~
6d6b73
They were on Nazi side at the beginning of the war, so really they were trying
to stop the Nazi tide that they helped to create.

~~~
flohofwoe
Everybody downvoting this should read up on the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pac...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact),
especially the secret protocol to divide Poland between Germany and the Soviet
Union.

~~~
futureastronaut
Isn't this common historical knowledge? Sad if not.

------
6d6b73
Let's not forget that by attacking Poland, Finland, and by taking over Baltic
countries, Russians help Hitler conquer most of Europe. They really should be
considered the aggressor in WW2, not savior.

On the other front, if France and England helped Poland, as they promised in
the treaty the later broke, Hitler would be stopped much earlier and World War
2 .

~~~
hardlianotion
A little churlish, I think, about UK and France. They both went to war, as
promised. France was defeated and UK deployed all its resources to engage and
try to win the War. When precisely do you think that these two nations could
have halted Hitler?

~~~
6d6b73
Right when, they were supposed to - when Hitler attacked Poland. If Hitler had
to fight on two fronts in September 1939 there would be no Blitzkrieg. And
possibly Russian would not attack Poland, Finland and other countries at that
time.

------
michalu
It was all decided in Teheran conference in November 1943. WW2 was considered
a done deal so Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin met to discuss the future of
Europe.

At the time of the conference, Red Army was about to enter Poland.

While Churchill was happy to let Soviets do all the dying, Roosevelt cared
about getting them involved in pacific. He wasn't much concerned with the war
in Europe.

As soon as it became clear from Stalin that, when it comes to talking about
the future of Europe he holds all the leverage, Churchill decided it's
necessary to jump on the bandwagon.

And so the outcome of the Teheran conference was the "Operation overlord" (aka
D-day)

To clear any doubts about the significance of Soviet contribution all that
needs to be done is go wikipedia and look at the size of the battles in East
Europe and compare the to the D-day.

Normandy landings don't even make it to top 10 in terms of the size. Germany
was operating with 1 million+ soldiers in multiple battles compared to 50,000
including untrained and underquipped teenagers and seniors allies faced in
Normandy.

Moscow, Stalingrad, Kursk, Rzhev, Kharkow, Leningrad, etc. were mostly 10x
larger in size and personnel. 90% of German army was killed in the East front.

The fact that most western people don't even know what was the major turning
point in the WW2 and think it's the D-day, would leave most of those
generations speechless.

Soviets and East Europeans (Yugoslavia liberated itself, Polish army took the
Monte Cassino, the largest battle of Allies) won the war. Allies helped, then
made a lot of movies about it.

~~~
cameldrv
> 90% of German army was killed in the East front.

This is an overstatement.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_casualties_in_World_War...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_casualties_in_World_War_II#German_sources_for_military_casualties)

If you go by KIA, MIA, and POW, Eastern Front is about 2 million,
France/Belgium + North Africa + Italy + Navy is about 900k.

~~~
michalu
If you go by Overmans

Eastern Front until 12/31/44 2,742,909 Western Front until 12/31/44 339,957

makes eastern front 91%. If you look at the size of the battles in Western
front it's hard to see how would the figure exceed 339k.

For comparison, Stalingrad alone claims 500k Germans and 900k axis total.
Battle of Moscow estimates 500k killed, missing, wounded or captured.

Now we can play with semantics. Are we looking at killed only, or captured and
wounded or otherwise incapacitated? Is it Germans only of axis.

I think did overstate. To put it better, I would say 90% of Nazi power was
defeated in Eastern front.

------
rmind
If anything, the 'distortion' of history is that only one brutal totalitarian
regime was defeated and condemned, but not the other. It is often forgotten
that the World War II was started by __both __the Nazi Germany and Soviet
Russia [1][2].

This does not undermine the tremendous human sacrifice by the ordinary people
on the Soviet/East side: it must be remembered and respected. However, the
fact that the Soviet Union was on the winning side undermined the terror,
repressions and immense suffering inflicted on millions of people, including
their own people and the people of the countries they invaded [3][4][5][6].
The Soviet regime, as a political subject, should not be glorified; and they
certainly should have had very little to complain about. Let alone the D-Day.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Poland](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Poland)
[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War)
[3]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalinism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalinism)
[4] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulag](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulag)
[5]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_repression_in_the_So...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_repression_in_the_Soviet_Union)
[6]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_occupations_by_the_So...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_occupations_by_the_Soviet_Union)

------
onetimemanytime
Well, everyone will praise their own contribution more (given that both sides
here are winners).

But Hitler must have been shocked at what Russians threw at him. Brutal war,
take no prisoners and millions upon millions of soldiers.

~~~
userulluipeste
_" millions upon millions of soldiers"_

That shouldn't have been a shock to Hitler, not even an unknown information.
In the Russian Civil War¹ that preceded WW2, the Red Army amassed well over
five million soldiers, and the soviet's control over the country and
subsequently over the army enlistments could only improve since then.

¹[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Civil_War](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Civil_War)

------
hevi_jos
Well, what is says is true. Of course they wanted to do as much damage to the
Soviet Union as possible.

Most allied generals believed URSS was going to be the next enemy after
Hitler.

The nuclear bombs against isolated Japan were more a warning to Stalin than
anything to do with Japan as disclassified documents have shown.

------
dasKrokodil
Many items of the discussion here remind me of two books I casually browsed
through without actually reading them, "Conjuring Hitler" and "None dare call
it conspiracy".

------
Synaesthesia
People like to think of WW2 as a noble war, and I'm not for a moment
suggesting that Adolf Hitler shouldn't have been stopped. But the fact is that
none of the sides entered the war for benevolent reasons.

An interesting historical essay is Noam Chomsky's "Background to the Pacific
war" (1967) in which he explains an often missed cause of that war - the
economic one. Japan being shut out of the international trade by tariffs
imposed by the British and US in 1937. This crippled Japanese industry, as
expected.

[https://chomsky.info/196709__/](https://chomsky.info/196709__/)

~~~
kryptiskt
But the war in Asia had already started, Japan was sanctioned because of their
aggression in China.

~~~
Synaesthesia
The western powers also colonised China, by force. One could say the war in
China was over which colonial powers would have rights to trade in China.

