IGX

A nurse at work remarked that on Saturday "Putin was flexing muscles again", referring to the Army parade at the Red Square. Out of fun I asked him if he knows what happened on the 9th of May. "In Russia? - I don't know!" I pressed: "In the World history?" - The same reply and sheepish puzzlement (what does he want from me). Over the years of living overseas I am used to the idea that - depending to whom you talk - in the West people generally believe the World War Two was won either by Americans or British. Yet very few know what this date means. And it is never forgotten in Russia.

This year it's the 70th Anniversary, probably the last round number when when some veterans are still alive. Very close to every Russian, as pretty much every family had someone either fight or die at the time.

Between Stalin's purges and the wanton waste of soldiery, it's a wonder there are any real ethic Russians left

I dunno man. Maybe it's because I lived in DC for ten years, but VE Day was always a pretty big deal. If nothing else it was the day when you'd get to see a flyover by some sweet-ass vintage P-51s.

Smet wrote:This year it's the 70th Anniversary, probably the last round number when when some veterans are still alive. Very close to every Russian, as pretty much every family had someone either fight or die at the time.

Maybe it's different over there, but over here guys who 'know' that war is hell generally don't talk about it with those who don't. Not sure if this applies to Russians, but the pervasive sentiment from the WWII vets that 'we had it easy compared to the WWI guys' is humbling to say the least.

Smet wrote:Over the years of living overseas I am used to the idea that - depending to whom you talk - in the West people generally believe the World War Two was won either by Americans or British.

People in China are the only people who understand that they were the people who really won the war.

If you are ever in country, simply ask.

Turdacious wrote:

Smet wrote:This year it's the 70th Anniversary, probably the last round number when when some veterans are still alive. Very close to every Russian, as pretty much every family had someone either fight or die at the time.

Maybe it's different over there, but over here guys who 'know' that war is hell generally don't talk about it with those who don't. Not sure if this applies to Russians, but the pervasive sentiment from the WWII vets that 'we had it easy compared to the WWI guys' is humbling to say the least.

There is nothing soldiers like talking about more than the fact that they are/were soldiers. It's very very rare to find one who doesn't.

Beer Jew wrote:There is nothing soldiers like talking about more than the fact that they are/were soldiers. It's very very rare to find one who doesn't.

It's probably different everywhere. But as a child of Vietnam era Dads, I don't fully agree. When I was young I saw them drink on ANZAC DAY and they'd talk a bit. Otherwise, it remained a bit of a shadow across their face when the topic came up. Two of Dad's mates committed suicide on returning from Vietnam (the whole set-up was different for the Aussies).

terra wrote:

Beer Jew wrote:There is nothing soldiers like talking about more than the fact that they are/were soldiers. It's very very rare to find one who doesn't.

It's probably different everywhere. But as a child of Vietnam era Dads, I don't fully agree. When I was young I saw them drink on ANZAC DAY and they'd talk a bit. Otherwise, it remained a bit of a shadow across their face when the topic came up. Two of Dad's mates committed suicide on returning from Vietnam (the whole set-up was different for the Aussies).

I met an Aussie during August or September 1972 at Bien Hoa. I do not recall his reason for being there as there were zero Aussie troops on that base, but
there were Aussie troops somewhere in country at that time.

During the conversation the Aussie mentioned that Playboy magazine was not allowed in Australia. I asked him why and he stated that it wasn't the photography. It
was the political content of the magazine.

Beer Jew I knew several vets that did not care to discuss their service with the general public.

A family friend had been 14 and in the Hitlerjugend at war's end. Once over the dinner table, after many drinks he shared a story. As the war was grinding to a close the general staff was issuing rifles to every kid with a pulse and throwing them at the allies.

Fortunately for him and all the other kids in their unit their sergeant was a pragmatic veteran of the trenches of WWI, and saw the writing on the wall. "Alright kids," he told them, "we're going to practice woodland survival." He took them into the woods and got them lost for three months, camping and hiking until he found an American unit to surrender to.

Conversely, the grandfather of a girl I dated in college was captured at Stalingrad and spent seven years in a Soviet POW camp before he was repatriated. He never spoke to anyone about what happened during that time.

Beer Jew wrote:

Turdacious wrote:

Smet wrote:This year it's the 70th Anniversary, probably the last round number when when some veterans are still alive. Very close to every Russian, as pretty much every family had someone either fight or die at the time.

Maybe it's different over there, but over here guys who 'know' that war is hell generally don't talk about it with those who don't. Not sure if this applies to Russians, but the pervasive sentiment from the WWII vets that 'we had it easy compared to the WWI guys' is humbling to say the least.

There is nothing soldiers like talking about more than the fact that they are/were soldiers. It's very very rare to find one who doesn't.

I'm guessing that most of these folks are under 40?

Beer Jew wrote:

Turdacious wrote:

Smet wrote:This year it's the 70th Anniversary, probably the last round number when when some veterans are still alive. Very close to every Russian, as pretty much every family had someone either fight or die at the time.

Maybe it's different over there, but over here guys who 'know' that war is hell generally don't talk about it with those who don't. Not sure if this applies to Russians, but the pervasive sentiment from the WWII vets that 'we had it easy compared to the WWI guys' is humbling to say the least.

There is nothing soldiers like talking about more than the fact that they are/were soldiers. It's very very rare to find one who doesn't.

There's a difference between saying that you served, and discussing what you saw and what you did.

Even a cursory look at the Soviet casualty rates:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_ ... lties#USSR
makes it clear that their WWII experience was very different than the American one. I don't claim to understand their perspective.

Turdacious wrote:Even a cursory look at the Soviet casualty rates:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_ ... lties#USSR
makes it clear that their WWII experience was very different than the American one. I don't claim to understand their perspective.

That's because you come from a country with a successful military (in the 20th century, anyway).

Yeah I'm talking about people who are soldiers now, rather than those who served during an actual war.

To think of it, few veterans discussed the details of the War. I remember a few coming to my school and telling about their experiences. In retrospect they seem a bit phoney.

Most were not keen to talk though. As were civilians at the time. A friend of mine tried to talk up her grandmother, the survival of Leningrad blockade, about life during that time. She tried it for years, with no success. Lots of these guys were grim and drank like fish. Fucking horrible times.

Beer Jew wrote:Yeah I'm talking about people who are soldiers now, rather than those who served during an actual war.

Interesting. Most of the British Soldiers I've talked to have been impressive; many have seen quite a bit (most served relatively recently). I've got nothing but the highest respect for them and the tradition they're part of.

I`ve noticed that those on my fathers side who took part in real (horrible) actions/fighting in Burma etc never talked,but those that did not (cook in the RAF for example) always wanted to talk about the war.

When my wife's father passed away, her mother started dating a guy named Bernie. I knew Bernie for years but didn't find out until a few months before he passed away that he had a CIB and was severely wounded three days after invading Normandy. The subject never came up until he was visiting my house and saw the flag from my own father's funeral and a picture of me in uniform that my wife decided to put on display for Memorial day. First and only time we ever discussed our service.

Had a lot to say, wrote it out beautifully, then deleted it. The audience in America who have seen actual combat is miniscule

Its been my general experience that those the speak the most have the most limited experience with combat, and this is true across generations. The real BTDTs don't need the affirmation from folks who went "there" wherever that there may be.

Both my grandfathers flew in WWII. Both were awarded DFCs, one a Silver Star. One was a squadron CO at 23. Neither ever spoke about it, and would not speak about. My uncle was a Marine in Vietnam. He will not engage me at all about his time there.

There are always exceptions (i.e., the entire Naval Special Warfare Community and the angry PTSD crew, pick your service and conflict) but most legit folks will only open up with others who have seen the same things. IMO.

Smet, I don't think it has anything to with thinking who won the war. Think about how the war for the US was split between the Pacific and Europe, and how close VE day is to Memorial Day, which grew from remembrance customs that predate WWII by 70 years. It's inevitable that VE day would have less importance in the US than in former Soviet states.

Makes sense. I didn't know about the Memorial Day. Though it is hardly an excuse for Australians, South Africans and Brits. Though understandable, because continental European countries were much more involved in WW2.

Smet wrote:Though understandable, because continental European countries were much more involved in WW2.

Restrict that to "the European theater" and you're at least half right. The ANZACs saw a lot of combat in the Pacific (air sea and land) and did the bulk of the ground fighting in the South West Pacific. They also saw quite a bit of combat in Europe prior to the opening of the Pacific theater.

Though it's understandable that Russians wouldn't know that, since before Hitler invaded you were busy being his bff and molesting the Poles and the Finns, and you didn't do shit in the Pacific until the war was almost over. Za rodinu!

Maybe the Soviets wouldn't have suffered so many casualties in WWII if Stalin hadn't purged the Red Army in the late 1930s?

Pacific War and the participation of ANZAC was significantly lesser event compared to the scale of events in Europe, both in terms of numbers and significance. I am not saying ANZAC deaths are less tragic and don't want to take away from what they did, just keeping things in perspective.

In regards to USSR (not me, I wasn't born at the time) being allies with Hitler - I am the first to say that most participants of that war (like any war) were worth each other. That includes Britain and France who cut off the Sudettenland from Czechoslovakia and gave it to Hitler. Britain later refused to comply with the co-operation pact with Czechs when Hitler attacked them, on the grounds that the pact was made with Czechoslovakia, not Czech Republic, and by the time Hitler attacked Slovakia was already separated and therefore there was no country with which the pact was made in the first place.

There is more. There is a convincing and circumstantially supported by facts theory that USSR was planning to invade Europe, and Hitler attacked few weeks in advance in the desperate attempt to avoid defeat. Suvorov's book Ice Breaker lays it out in detail. Purges surely played a role in the number of casualties, though most significant of them happened in the 1920-s, not 1930-s, when White officers from centuries long lines were wiped out by the Reds.

Smet wrote: Purges surely played a role in the number of casualties, though most significant of them happened in the 1920-s, not 1930-s, when White officers from centuries long lines were wiped out by the Reds.

Are you a communist pig, Smet?

If so, how do you feel about some young Russians romanticizing the USSR. I saw Koklyaev sporting a USSR weight belt on Facebook the other day. Do young Russians want more purges, Pravda, and centralized control of their lives?