Anyone else think this whole thing is kinda bizzare?

makes one ashamed to wear, or to have worn the uniform and Flag of the Republic.

of course, this was the obamanation's whole point-humilate those in uniform. i'd like to hear what the dogfaces themselves have to say about, without the msm and superior officers present.

There were two main factors as to why Germany lost the war. One, had Hitler not invaded the Soviet Union he would surely have taken all of Europe. Had the Japanese not attacked Pearl Harbor they would have controlled all of southeast Asia. The United States can take credit for liberating the European continent with heads held high, Great Britain was losing and Churchill knew it. Once Hitler invaded the Soviet Union it was all over for him fighting a war on two fronts was impossible for Germany. England, Canada and to some extent France looked to the United States for leadership and supplies especailly England, Russia took down the third Reich and 20 million of them died in the attempt. We must remember that, both the United States and Russia should be enormous allies in this time of danger if they are so afraid of NATO then rename it and ask Russia to join in. Two world wars and in both we were allies, simply because of our political systems we were considered enemies which really is moot these days. It truly is amazing what these people did in WWII especially the U.S. and Russia.

There are many factors on why Germany lost the war. I would point to the failed Greece invasion by Italy as the reason why the offensive stalled in the east.

But all you chest thumping USA rules folks better learn history a little more. The Soviets won that war with their blood. Our sacrifices in that war are a pale fragment of the suffering endeared by the Soviet people. Their sacrifice probably saved my grandfather’s lives during that war.

While I am at it, you should give credit to the Chinese as well as most of the Japanese army was fighting them in China.

Hey wildweasel66, The Beev, jasperark-1270934, FactFinder-1793004, Have a question for all of you. Who was president in 2005?

Now look at this link were the US Army had already attend & performed during the Victory Day parade in Red Square.

http://articles.latimes.com/2005/may/09/world/fg-bands9

Opps, Wasn't that under President Bush? Yes sir it was!

BTW - Here's another article about from a Russian website:

http://rbth.ru/articles/2010/04/29/allies_united_for_victory_day_parade_on_red_square.html

Please pay attention to the details of the article where they acknowledge the other allies help

Japan was fighting China
Japan and Germany had a truce with each other
Russian and USA planning decided Russia would attack the Japs in china, and as well many US soldiers were there to help

The amount of carpet bombing for days and days (20+?) by US and Eng greatly weakened Germany

US and Eng caused germany to split their resources which stressed germ to a point it could not fully attack russia as it could have otherwise

No doubt the russians put their blood on the soil, no one denies that, but to make other countries influence on weaking germany insignificant is far off the mark.

Fredrick

I dont know if Russia could have or couldnt have defeated Germany 1 on 1,but im pretty sure the US wouldnt have faired much better either against Germany 1 on 1. I dont care what history books in the US say,they are obviously skewed toward it was the US who defeated Germany to liberate Europe. However if you ask Europeans or Asians these people will tell you the truth that it was Russia that liberated Europe.

You talk all this nonsense that the US could march into Russia and just take over,if that was the case the US would have already done so. I think you over rate the US militarys ability to do things,while underestimating what other nations like Russia,China and a few others are capable of doing to the US. Remember fighting was developed in Asia not the US like you happen to think. US has one clear advantage against most countries except for Russia and China and that is the airforce. Without the airforce the US military would get wiped out agains every other country in the world.

Only under Obama could this happen. Why do you think this has never happened before? I really feel sorry for our military personnel who got stuck with this job. Sure goes against everything we've been fighting for. What next, sending our soldiers to march at Tiananmen square?

MR M's

Germany had thier A team along with tier fighter jets in Russia. The US and England carpet bombed Germanys C team. US and England would have benn defeated alot easier if they had to fight Germanies A -Team.

Only under Obama could this happen. Why do you think this has never happened before?

Hey witchrunner, did you even click on the link I supplied above (post 1.5)? The US Army performed at the Victory Day parade (same event as the unit that is going to march in Sunday) back in May 2005. So I don't know why you posted that it "has never happened before ." Who was President back in 2005? Enough said!

Why does there have to be so much Demo & repub crap propaganda? Can't we just celebrate that all the [major] Allies are celebrating together? Sheeeees!!!!!

OK Julie, mea culpa: but, this does go back to what I've said a number of times. Bush did more for the dems, but you'd never know it from the way they've treated him. I had forgotten about the Bush deal, and was delayed in posting. I wasn't a fan of Bush doing it either. But, as with a lot of what goes on in politics, one's motives is often taken into play in determining whether something is good or bad. That is as it should be. After all, statements made by Karl Marx and those made by Adam Smith, although they may be similar in some regards, it doesn't take a genius to know that they mean different things.

As for celebrating with the Communists, sorry, but they aren't our allies and haven't been since the end of WWII. They really weren't our allies then either, but it was an accommodation that the sides decided to live with.

This is a good move by Medvedev. It is amusing to see that Russia still has it's own nitwit tea-party wack-jobs, just like the USA does, and encouraging that they can speak out without being thrown in jail.

Having spent a lot of time in Russia and the former USSR, this is long overdue. Americans know very little of the history of the war for the most part. The Allies of the USA and Britain would not have been able to win if Russia had not won at Stalingrad. Because it was starving Hitler of oil that did the Nazi forces in. The USA had an easy time in Europe because of that.

Now, I know some people will think I am insane for thinking the USA had an easy time, but we did. The Russians lost around 10 million in WWII. They fought and died in the trenches, in bombed out rubble, and prevailed under conditions so much worse than anything the USA has ever faced in any war that it is not comparable. Yes, they had a harder time because of Stalin's destruction of the army's officer corps before WWII. But conquer they did.

Imagine what it would be here if the USA had stopped the Nazis at Chicago, and Chicago was reduced to smoldering rubble in the process. Imagine what it would be like here if Memphis had held out and 3/4 of the people there had starved to death. Imagine what it would be like here if 5 million men and women of our armed forces had died in the rubble of Chicago over 18 months of battle. Because that is what it was for Russia.

Another aspect of WWII that is not discussed in the USA is that in a rather awful turn of history, it was Stalin's slave labor death camps in Siberia that won that war. He had built steel mills there and so Russia had this unending supply of (rather lousy, but useable) hardware to throw at the Nazi army. And that industry was out of reach of the Nazi Air Force, and the Japanese. The USA supplied some tanks and trucks, and those made a difference. But the USA equipment didn't hold up well in the extreme cold of the Russian winter, while the Russians stuff did.

So take your hat of to the Russians people. Without their fight, we would have faced a Nazi nation from the Atlantic to the Pacific. It was Russians fighting and dying at Stalingrad that turned the war and made it possible for the USA to defeat the Nazis in Europe.

Fredrick Christensen:

You are absolutely right.

Even before a single American troop landed in Europe, America was supplying aircrafts, munition, and equipment to Russia. Having lost major manufacturing capacity in Stalingrag, Minsk, Kiev, Rostov, and etc to the advancing Nazi Army, the Russian Army was desperate in need of American military aid. With France defeated and Great Britain under daily air bombardment, America became the sole supplier of military assistance to the Russian as well as the Chinese Army fighting the Japanese. Years before the modern YAK was available, the Russian Air Force used American AirCobra with its 30mm nose mounted cannon as anti-tank weapon or as anti-Blizt Krieg in the air war. On the ground, American supplied artillery provided anti-tank protection until the advent of the T-36 which employed an American designed suspension system. Not to mention, America even supplied the Jeeps.

As for the history revisionist who claims Russia would have been victorious even without Ally Forces, especially the American Army, the fact is that the Nazi Army had to transfer substantial armor divisions and resources from the Eastern front to deal with the Ally advancing from the western front. But for this fact, the Battle of Kursk, the turning point in the Eastern front, would have ended very differently as the Nazi Panzer Divisions would have been more numerous, powerful, and invincible.

Witchrunner wrote:

As for celebrating with the Communists, sorry, but they aren't our allies and haven't been since the end of WWII. They really weren't our allies then either, but it was an accommodation that the sides decided to live with.

That is incorrect. After Hitler's invasion of Russia in Fall Barbarossa, the USSR was welcomed as a full partner in the alliance called at the time the United Nations (in short, the Allies). Russia was placed very high on the priority list for supplies, some available military forces (American and British units soon were serving in small numbers in the USSR), and Russian demands for Allied actions to attack Hitler significantly affected strategic planning.

While Churchill always mistrusted "Uncle Joe" Stalin, Roosevelt hoped continually that rapprochement during wartime could position the U.S. to influence the Soviet Union in the post-war era. In this, of course, Roosevelt was deluding himself, and Stalin did all he could to encourage FDR's feelings while making plans for taking advantage of a naive American approach.

But throughout WWII, once the USSR was in, the Soviets were significant, influential, full partners in the Alliance.

And at this time, the Us and European units joining the Victory Day parade are NOT "celebrating with the Communists." The Communist Party was turned out, and the Soviet Union disbanded, in 1991. The current government is NOT a false-fased pastiche for communist rule of Russia today.

Please try to get some facts before spouting off.

We should have been allies at the end of the war. We had a common mission. When I met Russian sailors during the cold war, in other countries, they were always polite and offered to by you a beer. This is a government thing. The Russian and American people have not animosities.

witchrunner, +1 on your 1.11 comment. I agree with your first paragraph in 1.11 but not with the second. I believe John has stated my view pretty well:

And at this time, the Us and European units joining the Victory Day parade are NOT "celebrating with the Communists." The Communist Party was turned out, and the Soviet Union disbanded, in 1991. The current government is NOT a false-fased pastiche for communist rule of Russia today.

I can remember when the wall came down (I was still in the Army). I can remember when I met the Russian (CIS) Chief of Staff at Ft. Irwin when he came to review the traning (battles) of the OPFOR against the US units. Since the wall came down there's been numerous interactions with the Russian military, even combine exercises.

Now this is really getting interesting. Long ago, I was one of the local newspaper editors covering Ft. Irwin, and remember it well. My first experience there was with a unit of the Canadian Armed Forces training for UN Peacekeeping deployment in the Sinai.

After the collapse of the USSR, I enjoyed the opportunity to participate in advising some top law and business school professors to whom Boris Yeltsin turned for advice on organizing the new government. Mostly I just had the chance to see how that government was created and on which principles, for which purposes. If more Americans paid attention to events in Russia now and in the relatively recent past, a lot of the more inane conversation here would not take place.

We have no reason now to fear the Russians. We have every reason to regard them as sometimes rivals in the world forum of influence and interest, and at times to confront them in entire opposition to policy or other matters (aka South Ossetia and Georgia, interests of the Ukraine, etc.). We need to be engaged with Russia out of self-interest. This appearance at the parade is one example of a positive step toward sustained good relations with Russia.

julie,

thanks for the russian article. i was not aware that W had done this as well. i think he was completely wrong also.

Hey wildweasel66-358178, I wish I could say I already knew about the troops in 2005. After doing some research and finding out that Bush sent troops there in 2005, took me by surprise also. However I do think that Bush was appropriate in sending the troops.

John A and Julie: You guys have a lot more faith in the Russian leadership than I do. Whatever they call themselves now, one thing is for sure, they generally take the opposite side of us in foreign affairs. They still support the Iranians and look at the world as it was during the cold world. In other words, they still think they are one of the two superpowers and that the countries surrounding them should be under their influence. I realize that the countries "get along" in certain areas. Obviously their is sharing of the space station, we are going to be relying on them to get our guys up there (at a heavily inflated price) now that we've ceded to them in this area. As we saw with Georgia, they have not lost their imperialistic tendencies. In a word, I still wouldn't trust them as far as I could throw them. But, since Gorbachev, they've learned that they have to play certain games to get what they want. They are still a highly centralized, single party system and they still view us as the enemy. There is a reason that they, and the rest of the world is cheering Obama as he dismantles the US. I suppose I'll look at them differently when they start supporting freedom and peace rather than terrorist nations like Iran. Certainly, they are not as dangerous to us as they used to be, but... time will tell...

Bh: You really think it would have been appropriate to have been friends with Joseph Stalin? Sorry, but after the way they've treated their own people, Patton was clearly correct in not wanting to toast with them. At least he got it half correct, "from one bastard to another". The Soviet Union stood for everything we found repugnant. No freedom, dictatorship, killing those who disagree with you, government control of everything to the detriment of all, except the leaders who stole what little the populace had. They put up a wall to keep people in. We tried to tear down the wall to let people out. Even now, we want to put up a wall because we can't handle all the people who want what we have. Nobody is clamoring to get into Russia, except maybe the radical Muslims who are doing their part to get into everywhere so they can take over the world.

During that time in USA:

Descrimination of women, black people and other minorities +KKK. Was that a "freedom"?

John A:

As to priority in receiving military aid from USA, Great Britain had received the lion share of US military hardwares. For example, Britain received modern aircrafts, ships, munition and ground vehicles whereas USSR did not. While the fall of communism has transformed Russia, there is still the old Russian Bear that is hibernating quietly in the back ground. As a friendly rival to the USA? to Europe? Try telling that to Poland, Czech, Hungry, Ukrain, and the Baltic states. Several of these nations joined NATO for military protection against the Russia, not because they need friends for a picnic. Russian TU long-range bombers still test US airspace in Alaska and sometimes even the eastern sea board. US F-15s with armed AAM are scrambled to intercept them, not to deliver gifts. Someone is wishful thinking like the Chamberlain of 1939. "Peace in our times" ....with the new Russia. "Peace with honor' .... with the new Russia. Those who live in a glass house should not claim other bloggers are "spout off."

As to Rosevelt's naivette or deluding himself regarding Stalin, it is a matter of speculation as to his state of mind since the US president died before the end of WWII.

Maybe they are just happy we have a socialist President so we can collapse like the old soviet Union did?

Actually I think it is hillarious that they are reporting 8% are adamently opposed to this. If you took a poll in the united states you could find 8% of people are opposed to just about anything. These are just that segment of the population that is out of touch.

Wow the Taliban (or the Bosnian Muslims) could strike quite blow attacking that parade. I hope the Russian security is prepared.

Actually, for both Dean and Fred, as much as you may dislike the version of history portrayed in this article (and it is flawed in its own way), there are many worthy points to it.

The view of the course of WWII taught in American schools only emphasizes US contributions to the war, and the role of the US in stopping the spread of authoritarianism, yet it's not nearly so simple as that. The US basically extorted the last shreds of the British Empire from the UK (by means of loans and other guarantees of repayment) before we ever agreed to help in any way. As far as spreading democracy, we returned India to British rule (as a token gesture of friendship), and Vietnam to French at the war's end, rather than promoting the native democracies in either region. And as far as dividing Soviet forces, the US never faced more than six German divisions at any one time during three years of engagement, while the Soviets faced up to twenty-five for six years. America lost about half a million men, while the Soviet casualties are almost impossible to calculate (20 million is often quoted). They have a right to say they bore the brunt of the war effort, but I'll concede that we all need to pay more attention to facts and less to jingoistic drivel.

There are TWO Europes, the one where the United States SAVED your ass and the one where the United States KICKED your ass. It's as simple as THAT. So everybody can stop beating on their chest now.

Seems you're the one doing the chest beating.

Naw, my Dad and Father in Law did that back in the 40's.

What a total boob.

Hey David, My Dad a Torpedoman who made 5 war patrols on submarines in the Pacific and my Father in Law who was a Gunnersmate on a Heavy Cruiser and helped defeat the Japanese fleet at Leyte Gulf during the Big one where they did, indeed, help to save the world, would politely tell you to blow it out your a$$, they both have died and as more and more WW-II Vets die, so does their legacy, but in this case I pass on FOR them.....Blow it out your a$$. Mike RICE Vietnam 66-69. Go to http://thewarriorsong.com and pay particular attention to the part after..."for God and Country..."
Hey Taylor how about suspending this clown for breaking the code of Honor?????

A Veteran

Whos ass did they kick? US would have been wiped out if it wasnt for Russia. Beat your Chest all you want Americas military is a paper tiger.

The US basically extorted the last shreds of the British Empire from the UK (by means of loans and other guarantees of repayment) before we ever agreed to help in any way.

The UK was in such financial ruin at that time, and our economy wasnt the greates, we had to have these guarentees for Congress et al to agree to enter the war. Entering the war was very devisive for this country

And as far as dividing Soviet forces, the US never faced more than six German divisions at any one time during three years of engagement, while the Soviets faced up to twenty-five for six years.

The reason for not facing as many divisions as you state was due to US and allies confusing the heck out of German intell for where we were going to land, where we were after landing, and our forward movements. This caused Germany to spread its troops very thin along a huge area. Many of the german infantry was made usless because they could not partake in battles in time that were just too far away from them.

Us and allies did an incredible job of bombing leaving germany with little raw material and resouces/fuel

while the Soviets faced up to twenty-five for six years.

The soviets of course did because they were concentrated in an area, which is understandable.

. They have a right to say they bore the brunt of the war effort,

agreed & so did the other countries that could not fight back that were totally demolished

Yeah! Yeah! Yeah!, Why don't you guys go there and help THEM then. Don't need ya, nope not at all. Hey Joe, Tell me where you want to meet for coffee so we can discuss this face to face, it IS ok to come out of your mother's basement once in a while you know.

A Vet

I would help them if things break out between the US and Russia.

A Vet

look up my info and lets get it on.

Okay tough guy....who is THEM in your statement? If it's the Russians I hope you're among the first ones I would meet. If it's the USA I will die defending you. And that let's get it one crap is pretty cool, ya been watchin' movies?

dont forget about the french distracting the Germans with their prostitutes and fancy lights so the Russians and the rest of the world could sneak up and defeat them.

and we all would be living in caves and hunting buffalo with 5 legs.

there's a difference?

one's a lapdog for the junta in DC, and the junta in DC is a lapdog for moscow.

wow.

ha ha ha. At least in the USA the reporters from Fox aren't assassinated every time they expose Obama and the lefties.

I just dont get you people. It is not like Obama going to be president forever. So why on earth would he want to become a tyrant for only 4 years (hopefully, 8)?

We, the people can vote any incumbent out.

Please, be reasonable.

I guess the thought is, once a govement machine gets rolling, it is almost impossible, MAYBE impossible to stop.

Maybe if a gov manchine gets you going down a certain road, you cant turn it around. maybe slow it down, but it is still going.

Beev:

Soon, the socialist army will march and sing in commradeship with the American socialist politicians in Congress. In matter of years, The hammer and sickle will be place at the apex of the Washington Monument; Lennin will replace Linclon Memorial; Stalin will replace Jefferson Memorial; the Kremlin will replace the White House. Bernanke and Geithner will reign as the head of states of The United Socialist State of America (USSA). Socialist America is mostly achieved surrepticiously: Socialized housing via Fannie/Freddie/FHA; social medicine via National Health Plan; retirement plan via Social Security; socialist monetary system via Federal Reserve and FDIC; socialist education via Federal Student Loan; socialist taxation system via Federal income tax that confiscate private weath; etc, etc. Welcome to the New World Order, where everyone is entitled to liberty but some have taken more liberty than others.

When will the human race ever grow up? All this whaaa whaaa whaaa get over it. The United States did some rather nasty stuff as well, we're not exactly squeaky clean you know. So what if Russia and China work with Cuba who cares? Get over it.

Dear 12generationUSA, please try not to trip over your own self.

Read more than 1 history book, watch more than 1 tv show.

Do i love this country? Damn right. Am I naive? not really.

World power is like corporate ladder. You dont just get on top by been nice.

Snappa,and Van

Amen. Two of the most reasonable people ive heard on the newsvine. Thank God none of the

hillbillies who commented before were ever able to run a country. Those arm chair soldiers

only read history books written by Americans in which they skew the truth alot. Its just like

they believe that the US military is that powerful,when in reality its just all show.

Don't READ American History, MAKE IT, Join the Navy! Ooh-RAH!!!!!

You can do so much more living in moms basement and complaining about evil corporate america.

I'm with you on this one Dave. It's fantastically amazing how far our nations have come.

(I do remember "duck and cover" along with the air-raid alarm test every Saturday at noon)

The air raid sirens would go off, the teacher would yell "Stop, Drop and Cover." Yes, I remember it well back in the 50's, use to happen around the same time each month. We lived in Redondo Beach, CA., right by the aircraft plants in Torrance and El Segundo, prime targets for the Bear Bombers.

I never went to either the old USSR or to the "new" Russia. However, in college I acquired the Russian language as one of seven eventually available for use in what then I hoped was a career in the diplomatic corps (that never happened). In 1966, I took a year of independent study at college and went to work in a West Berlin machinery factory as a "guest worker" during the "wirtschaftswunder" of rebuilding war-wrecked Germany.

About twice a month, I crossed the Wall to pursue research in the history of modern German theater - mainly, study of Bertolt Brecht by talking to people and checking records at the Brecht Theater (Theater am Schiffbauerdamm). Of course, the East German security police (and their Russian bosses) thought I was probably a spy - they didn't ever see a 20-something American college student wandering around the East Zone, speaking German like a native (and my full name is REALLY German) - who wasn't CIA or something. They kept pretty close watch on me.

Knowing Russian then became quite useful. I eavesdropped on the conversations among the border crossing guards and some Russians who constantly wondered out loud just who and what I really was. They spoke thinking that as usual, Americans were too parochial to ever know someone else's language (which is generally true, sadly). Knowing they tailed me in the East, and sometimes sent a watcher to check out what I did in the West Zone helped make sure that a naive, unworldy young man such as I did nothing to ever raise suspicions any higher.

I, too, grew up in Southern California during the height of Cold War fear. "Duck and cover" drills at Orange County grade schools helped instil a deep anxiety about nuclear war. That's one reason I am very, very impressed with President Obama's initiative in company with Russia to eliminate as far as possible the stockpiles of nuclear weapons. Some of those here ask what Obama's done to justify the article's comments about his improved ties with Russia - well, folk, there's one mighty darned big one right there.

From my experiences of long ago, I learned enough to realize that complete isolation from an opponent state such as the old USSR is a ready recipe for disaster through misunderstanding or uncaring and ignorant hatred. John Tolmosoff's post above really does make the point well in anecdotal form. And our improving relations with Russia today are essentail to progress in world affairs.

Pardon me, but what do the Mexicans have to do with the issue at hand? I thought the point of your previous post was that we need to increase understanding between cultures. Conratulations on being of Russian ancestry and speaking the language to boot. Having been born is quite an accomplishment anyone can be proud of. I happen to speak English and Spanish, and yes, I do pay taxes. As far as the issue at hand, wouldn't it be fair to say that all of the allies contibuted to the allied victory?

what he is saying is that there was never special exceptions made for the russians like forms in russian.

He was not trying to be mean. He was trying to say that he is now fully integrated in our system since he had to integrate.

it is a valid point.

canemah,

You could stand to study your history a bit better before you try to take someone else to task.

The US was well aware of the actions of the Japanese army in China, even as far back as 1938, and did nothing, not even lodging an official protest at the time, as it was viewed as bad for business. It's postulated by many eminent scholars (and I'll cede that this is conjecture, but is well-considered nonetheless) that many of Roosevelt's decisions prior to December, 1941, were calculated to draw the Japanese into a war with us - the miscalculation came in regards to how good an account they gave of themselves.

Lastly, while it's true that Stalin was jockeying for position in order to grab as much territory at war's end as he could (and why not? the Russians had paid in blood up to that point), much of the US decision to drop the A bomb on Japan came about because Truman wanted to make a demonstration of US power to scare off the Soviets.

We as a nation have far too much blood on our hands to point fingers at anyone else. Give it a rest, already.

Mr. Wellman - You are correct in that the Roosevelt conspiracy is conjecture and you are correct that it is plausible. It is our jobs to attempt to keep our politicians honest; no matter how improbable it may seem.

Your information on Stalin and the decisions made, may in fact be plausible as well. However, no amount conjecture on your part can equate to the actions of Stalin.

Any fool who thinks we do not have blood on our hands is indeed a fool. However, this is the price you pay to be human. The best you can hope for is to be on the side that knows when to use it and when not too. Even then you have episodes of going to far in either direction. Be that as it may, I say you happen to be on the good side of evil (so to speak) and that you should count your lucky stars.

The best take away from this article is to recognize the propaganda from the Russians and NYT and be happy that our troops are marching on Red Square in a civilized manner to promote common good vice the opposite.

Well, this is an interesting thread. I can't for the life of me understand what in this article is seen as "propaganda from the Russians and NYT." If you really DO read the story, the main points are:

1. Troops from the WWII Western Allied nations (and only three at that - there were many more nations in the alliance) are leading the annual Victory Day parade in the Kremlin for the first time, marking the 65th anniversary of Nazi Germany's surrender.

2. Since the old Soviet Union claimed that it was the sacrifice of Soviets that "really" destroyed Germany, to acknowledge now the role of the rest of the United Nations (as the Allies during WWII called their compact) is proof that things indeed have changed in Russia.

3. The decision is somewhat controversial in Russia because people were conditioned by the education system of the USSR to distrust the West and to believe that the West was cynical and miserly when fighting the Germans, deliberately (according to the old interpretation of history) bleeding the USSR.

4. Conversely, many Americans and other Westerners also were not well-schooled in the facts - including the immense cost of lives, land and treasure to the USSR in its massive struggle with the Nazis.

Now, none of that is propaganda of any kind. It is factual and there's not a drop of "spin" in this article.

Many of those posting here express great indignation at the perspective related by some Russians in the article. I agree with a lot of it - my father sailed in the Murmansk convoys, he was stranded in Russia when his ship was beached on the Kola Peninsula after being torpedoed, and he sailed merchant throughout the war, experiencing every possible kind of attack. I am well aware that without Lend Lease, the Soviets might have been reduced to throwing rocks at German Panzers - and that by reverse engineering one of our wartime gifts, the Bell Airacobra P-39, the Russians developed one of the great ground attack fighter bombers of the war.

I am also aware of the truth told in this article about the shallow, self-centered version of history taught in American schools. The U.S. indeed was portrayed as the savior of the world and the country that did the most to win WWII. When I was a grade school kid in the 1950's, we were told how the Russians claimed to have won World War II - along with other equally-absurd claims of inventions and prowess throughout history - and we all laughed ourselves helpless over it. Only now, after a superb advance education in history and a careeer in the research and writing of history, do I understand that the American people were much shortchanged by jackass anti-Communist fanatics who intentionally distorted EVERY "truth," from history to the number of functional Soviet missiles.

This article is a reasonable and surprising complete capsule treatment of the topic.

I sure will be watching if the parade is broadcast. Z'drasvitye, gospodini, from America! And for you survivors of the Nazi SS or Wehrmacht also watching, zum Verflucht!

ask those journalists that have been 'mysteriously' assassinated or disappeared, or businessmen who refuse to deal with the government on other than free market terms who've died or disappeared, or those who try to practice religious freedom, how much things have changed.

remember - putin's claim to fame is kgb, especially in the directorate that controlled the domestic populace.

anyone who believes otherwise also believes the ussr abided by the terms of all the arms agreements it signed with the US. even putin acknowledges they cheated out the a.z.z.

wildweasel

Businessman want a fascist state,they want complete power over the govt to push there crqap on others so Russia did what all good countries should do rid the world of these scum bag businees men.

joe,

quit listening to olberman. the vast majority of business people i know, both in corporate America and owners of small & mid-size businesses, support the Constitutional Republic we live in.

corporate officers and directors, where their employers are incorporated in delaware, have a very different set of rules they must operate under. check it out-delaware secretary of state's website used to list their fiduciary responsibilities.

Scum bag businessmen build the world. made in America means made by a corporation. There are definitely bad apples but the majority of Corporations are just business entities that produce damn near everything and have created the efficiencies which allow Americans to live the luxury filled lives we all live compared to some other countries. And if you think we have it bad I invite you to go anywhere else.

Actually, what we need is an education camp. For you.

Actually I think you should sign up for it Rick, cause jasperark is correct

Jeez, another basher who thinks Obama is - at the very extreme - Communist, and at minimum Socialist.

The Right Wing Jerk Movement is incapable of defining socialism, much less communism - and therefore can't understand why Obama is neither.

And for cyring out loud, why in the world does that connect to THIS story? You ding-dongs can't even seem to understand what this is about versus your own drooling bile and hatered. Go away.

FactFinder, you should change you name, because most of the time you are missing most of your facts. Instead you post you beliefs and not facts. They are different you know.

Repost from my posting above. I should've posted it here so jasperark-1270934 &FactFinder-1793004 could read it.

Hey wildweasel66, The Beev, jasperark-1270934, FactFinder-1793004, Have a question for all of you. Who was president in 2005?

Now look at this link were the US Army had already attend & performed during the Victory Day parade in Red Square.

http://articles.latimes.com/2005/may/09/world/fg-bands9

Opps, Wasn't that under President Bush? Yes sir it was!

BTW - Here's another article about from a Russian website:

http://rbth.ru/articles/2010/04/29/allies_united_for_victory_day_parade_on_red_square.html

Please pay attention to the details of the article where they acknowledge the other allies help

The Russians opposing the march are old line commies. So you are equating the communist party with the Tea Party? Confused, aren't you? World Wide Idiots Unite !!! (the cry of Andy Stern and the new American union bosses).

Nope. They are aiming their guns at us to force a right wing victory in Nov. Nope same guys.

Interesting comment. One teensy addition and a tad of correction - the Soviets did not have much experience (or need of it) in amphibious operations, true. BUT their equivalent was crossing major rivers, in force, under fierce and at times effective defensive fire. Not every Soviet river attempt succeeded.

And really, the Allies (in particular, the U.S.) did not do very well with amphibious landings, either, until late in the war, and at the very high cost in blood of learning what to do. There are a number of recent and well-written histories of the battle in N. Africa and Europe that relate in heart-rending detail the stupidity, arrogance, and stubbornness of senior command in the U.S.-U.K. forces that bungled one amphibious op after another. The same thing happened in the Pacific, too - for example, the U.S. Navy, responsible for the assault on Iwo Jima, was criminally negligent about pre-invasion bombardment. Iwo, by the way, involved a landing force about 7 times larger than those at Normandy.

So it is somewhat invidious to comment on the apparent difference between Allied and Soviet competence, simply on the basis of amphibious capabilities. Allied forces were almost, but not quite the equal of the Soviets, at forcing opposed major river crossings. And Allied competence at amphibious invasions grew in spite of, rather than as a complete learning from, earlier incompetence and bungling of those operations.

Wellman's pieces do in fact address a lot of truth. He isn't bashing the U.S. or Western Allies' contributions to the war, nor does he want to say that those misdeeds done in the names of America or Britain somehow make the Western states shameful villains and brutes. What I read in his posts is an effort to project temperate perspectives into what is often a jingoistic, uninformed, and generally stupid approach to discussing the article.

What strikes me most about many of the posts here is that the people spitting out various indignant comments obviously did not really READ AND COMPREHEND the article. And I think that's your error in reading Wellman's posts.

John A - The very same could be said about you. What you are neglecting to recognize is that any article is used in some way for benefit. The Russians are getting good US press. Do they really care about us or forming unity? Who knows! But they are getting good press. So is the Obama administration. The NYT writer says more than once (paraphrased), "since Obama was elected." Does Obama deserve it? Who knows! Not up to me to decide. Nor you and that is where you fall short in your subjective look at the article and subsequent comments. Please refrain from innuendo inferences in the future.

USMC1 - Thanks for your service.

Bos - I guess you didn't read several of my posts, either.

It is certainl IS factual, and has been covered extensively, that since Obama's election he has repaired US relationships not just with Russia but most of the world. He has recorded significant achievements internationally.

I was intrigued by one of your comments. You wrote, "What you are neglecting to recognize is that any article is used in some way for benefit." You then added that Russia's getting "good press," although this article is simply an interesting report on the uprecedented presence of Western representation in the Victory Day parades. Especially during the 1950's and 1960's, ANY article that said anything positive about some event in the Soviet Union or its salellite nations was often attacked as "giving aid and comfort to the enemy" - a sort of paranoid state of thinking. Certainly I cannot see any such connection now in this article. And I repeat - this piece is far from propaganda.

I'm a retired Army vet that spent my last 4 years in the OPFOR (goggle it if you don't know what it is) and a pass instructor at the OPFOR academy teaching Soviet military tactics. Mr. Wellman's comments are indeed factual (BTW - USMC1, even taught marines (enlisted & offices) at the academy).

Could the USSR have won against Germany on her own? No. Could the USA have won on her own? No. Could Britain have won on her own? No. It took a team effort to beat the Axis powers Did the Soviets benefit from are lend lease to them? Yes Was it the single contributing factor to them winning on the Eastern front? No USSR's T-34 tank employed the first slope armour in production and kicked the crap out of German Panzers. Due to the production and it technological advances, the T-34 is still rated as the best tank from WWII (though some late German panzers were technologically superior, they just didn't produce enough to make a difference. Just like their ME-262).

Russia took the brunt of the German forces during WWII (or as Russians call it, The Great Patriotic War). The Russians turn the tide against Germany during 1942 (Battle of Kursk) while the Brits and US were just invading North Africa (Brits, Aussies, & some colonial forces from Egypt, USA from Morocco).

Now back to the Article. Can't we all just agree that it's a great day when all [of the major] allies from WWII can celebrate the surrender of Germany together? That's what the article is about.

USMC1 Semper Fi and thanks for your service.

SFC, MI (ret) 1978-1996

Julie 40152 - thanks for your comments. Always refreshing when someone gives a substantive and accurate treatment. Oooo-rahh!

Jack, the unit is the 170th Infantry Brigade Combat Team. Here's the orignal link (NY Times):

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/07/world/europe/07redsquare.html

BTW - +1 on your comment too.

Quite a honor for a unit just coming out of decommission since WWI. Reflaging by September 2010. My grandfather was Wehrmacht or regular German Army. Most German soldiers were not Nazi's and fought for the country. They did what the government told them to do and only knew what the government wanted them to know. My father fought with Patton beginning in North Africa and was actually captured by the Germans until he escaped with some Brits. There was a long history of hate between the Russians and Germans and they fought each other brutally. But the average German soldier was a survivor and brave. Not the same as the Nazi's, Gestapo and SS troops.

Jack, I agree. My grandfather & dad were both in WWII (US Army). While my dad (French ancestry) fought with the 84th Inf Div (Battle of the Bulge), my grandfather had to fight in the pacific (tank destroyer, yes they had them in the Pacific) due to his ancestry (born to German immigrant parents here in the US). German WWII tactics are studied to this day in the military. It was Rommel that said (paraphrasing here) that the best thing he could give his troops, was training. Blitzkrieg warfare is the basis of modern warfare.

good point. i completely forgot about that. some adult or 'widow' probably has a dad or husband languishing in a camp somewhere in the tundra.

there were also American POW's in camps liberated by the soviets during WWII that 'disappeared' while in their custody. wonder how many wound up in siberia.

.

Beev... I think we can afford to be a little generous...

Beev - Of the roughly 350,000 troops evacuated at Dunkirk, a goodly number were French. A number of French troops, sailors and airmen made their way to England or Allied territory after the collapse of May 1940 to form a Free French military in exile. They were greatly augmented with the surrender of Vichy French forces in North Africa and on the Caribbean French islands, especially Martinique. They drove tanks, marched in columns, sprinted forward in fire-and-maneuver assaults, sank inside their own submarines, and flamed out of the skies in their own aircraft, all long after the fall of their homeland to the Panzers under Guderian and the SS under Himmler.

There were enough Free French to die in droves on the slopes of Mt. Cassino and in the hedgerows of Normandy. There were enough Free French to conduct the battle for Strasbourg against well-entrenched German forces. There were enough Free French to march at the head of the parade through Paris and continue straight out of town as the spearhead of an Allied column driving relentlessly against the retreating Nazis.

The collapse of France in 1940 was the shocking failure of a high French command (supported by equally-hidebound British Expeditionary Force leaders) to fight WWII rather than WWI all over again, and of the broken spirits of the French political leadership that saw only the blood and horror of the trenches of WWI rather than a fit, competent and well-equipped military that could have fought far better against the Nazis if only it had been well-led.

It is a base canard to describe the French as incompetent militarily or the Free French as worthless. France earned with blood the right to parade in Red Square.

You sound like you have a lot of pent up anger toward others who are also free to express their opinion, some with relevant supporting fact. Maybe you need to sit down, have a cup of tea, and examine your conscience. Perhaps "your god" will point you in the right direction.

I don't think we're completely at peace with Russia, when you consider Iran, Venezuela and other issues where they are in fact working against us.

However, I do think this is a good step - the more people from each country that meet those from the other country, the easier it is to progress toward more favorable relations.

JR: What they are doing with Venezuela and Iran are to their best interests as they see it, and we would be doing the same thing if it was in our best interests.

you forgive, but you don't forget the victims of the soviet regime. many current russian rulers are ex-kgb, putin is exhibit A, but continue the soviet policies albeit on a much lesser scale.

as post 17 said...what about the GI's taken from korea or 'nam that wound up in moscow's famed kgb prison, or in siberia? do we forget them because we forgive?

do we forget stalin's 20-30 million victims?

Bush and the neo-cons were loathed worldwide because they appeared to believe that they could do what they wished and that there was nothing the rest of us could do about it. They ripped up international law and dared the UN to give them permission to invade another sovereign nation or be deemed irrelevant.

Since President Barack Obama entered office, the world’s view of the United States has ‘improved sharply,’ according to a poll carried out by the BBC World Service.

Nearly 30,000 people in 28 countries were asked to rate countries on their positive impact upon the world. This year 46% of the respondents rated the US’s influence as positive – the first time since 2005 that the survey returned more positive votes than negative for America.

“After a year, it appears the ‘Obama effect’ is real” said Steven Kull director Program on International Policy Attitudes (Pipa) at the University of Maryland, who helped conduct the poll.

President Obama is clearly trying to do what is right. And the very fact that he is trying to do that is appreciated.

World opinion based on poll results and the idea that Obama is trying have assisted in the development of this historic moment? That's an interesting thought. Aside from being apologetic, again what has Obama accomplished to facilitate this event.

If you didn't understand my post I can't help you.

...hit the reset button...

(interesting how he shook hands with Medvedev and cold-shouldered Putin... I think the quote was somethng like, when asked about meeting Vlad the Putin, Pres. Obama replied, "I'm here to talk to the President of Russia"...my other secretaries will be in contact with the rest of the government...)

Pennywise, I understand your post, but it doesn't amount to an Obama accomplishment that would help lead to an event such as this. Sorry, but that dog don't hunt.

The US during the Obama Administration has renegotiated and renewed the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty. The US has additionally reached an agreement aimed first at limiting the potential of rogue personnel and terrorist factions obtaining Russian nuclear weapons and materials, and ultimately at a major elimination of the inventory of such weapons in both nations.

The US has concluded several significant agreements that resolved major points of conflict with Russia - and at the same time has managed to extend significant alliances with the Czech Republic, Poland, Ukrainia and Georgia despite Russian opposition.

Under Obama, the US has finally obtained Russian cooperation (to a far greater degree than before) in addressing the potential threat of a nuclear Iran.

The Obama Administration has likewise managed to shore up the Mevedev Administration to the point where it is far more independent of Valdimir Putin's influence than when it began.

The Obama Administration is now influential enough in Russia to exert some positive influence about repression of journalists, a rising Russian neo-fascist movement, and other issues involving human rights.

There are scores of other, less important points. The main matter is that the Obama Administration, in Russia and elsewhere about the world, has expanded American influence and engagement in contrast to the go-it-alone coyboy style of the incompetent Bush Regime.

Oh man can I have some of that stuff you're smoking!!!!!!!

BKER1492,

After reading your comments, I am really curious about what YOU are smoking. Not a single hint of research in your comments, just some incoherent mumbo-jumbo and childish outbursts.