Pravda<,
Pages: 1 2
Who put an end to World War Two and who defeated
Hitler? These questions seem extremely strange, to say the least, to all
Russians. Fascism was obviously defeated by the troops of the
anti-Hitler coalition, in which the Red Army and the USSR played the
most important role.
The USSR caused much bigger damage to Nazi troops.
The losses, which the Soviet Union suffered in the war, were
incomparable to those of Western allies. Nevertheless, the West seems to
stick to another opinion. Western historians and ideologists make many
people in the West believe that it is the USA and England that liberated
the world from fascism. This point of view can be found in many text
books, newspapers, magazines, research works and films.
Historical facts are often taken to absurdity. The
Battle of El-Alamein, on the border between Libya and Egypt, which is
evidently very far from the European scene of operations, was an event,
in which tens of thousands of people fought on every side. However,
western historians compare this battle to the Battle of Stalingrad,
which was a clash between millions. The landing of allied troops in
Normandy in 1994 is compared to all operations of the Red Army in the
Eastern Front.
2 comments:
Nasir Khan ---More importantly, the USSR lost 27 million people in the war – 14 percent of the entire population, whereas England and the United States lost 400,000 and 300,000 people – 0.6 and 0.3 percent of the population respectively....
Luis Lazaro Tijerina: Nasir Khan, a lecturer at the University of Vermont and who is also a friend of mine is dying of leukemia, and I visited him in the hospital recently. As I sat in a char facing my friend attempted to push himself up from where his head lay on on a pillow in his bed; with a tragic emaciated look on his face, he said to me "Luis, did you know what Stalin said about the Second World War?" I sat there stunned looking at Charles, thinking to myself, why does he want to talk about the Second World War in his present state? Charles, then looking at me straight in the eyes said, "Luis, Stalin said the British gave us time, the Americans gave us money, and the Russians gave us their blood." I looked at my dying friend, not knowing what to say in such a moment... thinking here is my friend wanting to talk about history instead of literature which is his expertise... but as a historian it dawn upon me that some of us when we are dying look back to the more profound meaning of death and history... The actual loss of the Soviet peoples was closer to 29 million dead and that is even considered somewhat low because of the thousands of undocumented deaths not reported for many reasons. Your Friend And Comrade, Luis Lazaro
·
Nasir Khan: Luis Lazaro Tijerina, among the three big leaders during the Second World War, Stalin, Roosevelt and Churchill, the Soviets found the most unreliable and hesitant ally that stood in the way of opening the Western front was Winston Churchill! But Roosevelt was trustworthy and he stood by what he said or promised.
Luis Lazaro Tijerina, I know that Roosevelt stood by his promises and that was his greatness , but Stalin was making a statement about the overall tragic consequences of human tragedy within the contextual generalization of the history of the Second World War known to the Soviet Peoples as The Great Patriotic War. But what I wanted to add your statical view of the war was the human face of understand as was stated by my dying friend... for you see, Nasir, sometimes in life, we suddenly at the most awkward time, suddenly understand ordinary peoples' sufferings, something that facts, statistics and the unemotional writings of cyberspace language cannot ultimately convey. Stalin conveyed the poignancy of loss with a few short, but intense words. Luis Lazaro
Nasir Khan: Luis Lazaro Tijerina, I agree with your views. What your lecturer friend says about Stalin is factual. The suffering of a human being is always individual, whether due to being a direct victim or by empathy with the victims. But when the suffering of individuals and their death becomes the sufferings and deaths of millions then only we realize the enormity of the tragedy. I knew an old English lady who was our neighbour some 50 years ago. She had seen the German bombing of London, the agony of the people and the destruction all around. Whenever she mentioned the war, she used to burst into tears. That I can't forget. But she was a lucky one who had survived. In a similar way when we see the losses of the allies then we know what the Soviet people went through to fight the Nazi imperialists and how many lives they offered to purge the world of this scourge. It remains the task of a historian to bring the historic facts before the people and don't let the falsifiers of history to prevail.
Luis Lazaro Tijerina: I AGREE WITH YOU Nasir Khan on the comment of the historian to bring the historical facts to the peoples of the world. What I think is very important if not interesting is how your friend, the old, English lady, who actually witnessed the bombings and suffering in
London during the Second War and my friend who as he lay in a hospital dying want to talk about the suffering of the Russian people, What makes it more interesting is that my friend is not a Marxist in terms of his politics, but he is a man of the people, an an American working class Irishman who worked very hard to become a university lecturer. So for us to show as examples of living awareness of history is to write about people like the old English lady and my friend who in his dying is now thinking about the profoundness of millions of other peoples' deaths during a time of war. These two peoples' individual awareness is tied to the larger awareness of the significant and profound historical issues concerning the deeper aspects of the human condition.
Post a Comment