A tale of two Wehrmachts: The stark difference between Russian and English wikipedia entries on the Wehrmacht

submitted by casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter from self.debatealtright

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]TheJamesRocket 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

I have also come to enjoy the Russian language Wikipedia. I mostly use it to read about the Second World War, and some other political/military topics.

Their articles about the Eastern front are, of course, exceptionally long and detailed. Russian Wikipedia is an invaluable resource for this kind of research. These things would normally be off limits to me due to the language barrier, but Google translate makes it coherent.

And in addition, there is some usual bravado about Russian prowess and picking quotes from German generals about the ferocity and courage of the Russian soldier.

Russian historiography still has a bad habit of turning into hagiography, especially with regards to their involvement in the war. They tend to overstate their successes alot of times, but other times they can be brutally honest about their failures. But if anyone deserves to boast about their wartime achievements, it is the Russians.

Its ironic how the Russians who lost tens of millions to German action have more respect and admiration for the Germans than the English and Americans who lost so much less.

British and American opinions about the Second World War are largely formed by Jewish academics. They redefined the entire war so that it was all about the Jews. But in a way, they kindof are right: The Jews were responsible for fomenting the war in the first place, and they opportunistically used it to pave the way for the creation of Israel.

[–]casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

But if anyone deserves to boast about their wartime achievements, it is the Russians.

One feature is that they emphasize the Eastern front above all else. This is not unjustified however considering that the Eastern Front was the main front of ww2 and other fronts were essentially supplementary to it. 80% of all German losses were against the Soviets and the German armies were destroyed by the Soviets in great battles like Moscow, Stalingrad, Kursk, Dnieper, Dnieper-Carpathian offensive, and Bagration.

By the time the allies landed in Normandy, the German army was a half-dead skeleton depleted from years of war with the Soviets.

One can only imagine how much bravado Americans could've shown if say the Soviets had suddenly made peace with Germany the day after Normandy and the Reich was able to transfer 80 divisions west. or if the Americans had merely fought original German divisions at full strength with a full complement of equipment.

I might be wrong here but I think the allied pocket in Normandy would've been contained or crushed against the sea had the Soviets not launched operation Bagration in June and destroyed 43 German divisions and diverted vast numbers of reinforcements to Poland.