>''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.
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.
Meanwhile The 'Western' allies were also fighting across the East Asian and Pacific theatres, and had opened the Italian front in Europe the year before.
It's absolutely true Russian participation in the European war was decisive, but Europe wasn't even the only war going on. There's a good argument there was another war active on the other side of the world simultaneously in which Russian participation was minimal.
Anyway the whole premise of the criticism is facile and self-serving. Russian war achievements are entirely worthy of their own celebration and remembrance in their own right. They should not more overshadow the achievements in Normandy than those commemorations should cast a shadow over the African campaign, or the invasion of Italy and the contribution of soldiers who fought on those fronts.
As much as I dislike the actions of USSR at the time of WWII (I'm Polish), they should take much more credit for defeating Nazis.
This doesn't change the fact, that they should also take much more blame for having started the war right next to the Nazis, in the first place, as well for what they did after the war.
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...