ORIGINAL: pasternakski
ORIGINAL: Terminus
Oh no, not another "Was A better than B" thread...
Yah. Another one of these:
OMG that is an awesome image.
If I might interject here, the comparison itself is a fallacy. Mac was a theater commander while Patton was an army commander. They demands of the two jobs require a completely different skill set. A better question might be who was better: Mac or Eisenhower? or who was better: Patton or Eichelberger.
What amazes me is how quickly these threads always degenerate into something so far away from its original question. Just look at this thread which started as Mac vs Ole Blood and Guts and ended up Allies vs Russians. Why do you people keep doing this? It quite often is the same people involved with the issue.
As to the Western Allies vs USSR question, I will admit that at least in the US, the war in the East is hardly mentioned in most history texts. We have been a very Anglocentric society for some time. I know some non-Americans get annoyed with us about this but please understand that it is as much a product of our educational system as it is inborn arrogance. The first time I was even aware that there was a war in the East was when I was watching "Hogan's Heroes" and Col. Klink threatened to send SGT. Shultz to the Russian Front. I had no idea what that meant but I could tell it was a bad thing.
In terms of pure suffering and loss, no one comes close to what the Russians endured in WWII. It is very hard to wrap your brain around 25 million Russians who lost their lives. The only other combatant that could probably come close was the Chinese but the numbers pale in comparison.
As far as winning the war, I don't see how anyone can make a statement that this participant "won" the war. Each side contributed as it was able. Yes the Russians did the bulk of the ground fighting in Europe but you cannot discount the effect of the strategic bombing campaign at least in terms of draining resources away from the Eastern Front. I know the actual effectiveness of the bombing itself is debatable, but the aircraft alone committed by the Luftwaffe to oppose the 8th AF/Bomber Command campaign is staggering. Likewise the campaign in North Africa drained valuable resources away from the Russian Front.
As to the motivations of the involved parties being the shape of post-war Europe, that is a cynical and revisionist view. Yes, there was concern by all as to what Europe would look like as the War entered 1945, but I sincerely doubt it was anyone's supreme concern. The Germans had started their second war of aggression in 25 years. The Allies, especially the Russians were most interested in crushing the Germans not only for what the had done but to assure the wouldn't contemplate another war. It is so easy to sit back 60 years later and project our current world views onto the people fighting in WWII. That is an intellectual trap and IMHO arrogant. Basically saying "This is what they said but I know what they were really thinking".
"We have met the enemy and they are ours" - Commodore O.H. Perry
in his post...
