Western troops join Russia's Victory Day parade

Source: CNN

Moscow, Russia (CNN) -- Troops from the United States, Britain and France marched in the annual Victory Day parade through Red Square for the first time Sunday, a step Russia's president called a nod toward their "common victory" in World War II.

The annual parade celebrates the defeat of Nazi Germany by the former Soviet Union and its Western allies and serves as a demonstration of Russian military might. More than 120 aircraft flew overhead and more than 10,500 troops paraded through the capital this year.

"The victory won in 1945 was our common victory, a victory of good over evil, of justice over lawlessness," Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said at a reception honoring veterans after the parade.

Including military representatives from other countries in Sunday's parade, Medvedev said, "is indicative of our solidarity, and of the understanding that universal humanistic values are becoming increasingly important for the development of the modern world."

Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/05/09/russia.parade/index.html

The UK, Russia and the US all needed each other to win WWII. France? Well, they're being kind.

That's teabagger stuff.

Read these:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_French_Forces
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Forces_of_the_Interior
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maquis_(WWII)


They weren't just being kind. The French Resistance was one of the most effective patriotic insurgencies against an occupying power in history. The Allies who landed in Normandy in June, 1944, (including many highly motivated, well-trained, and vengeful Free French soldiers) owe much of their success to the anti-Nazi actions of The Resistance in the years, months, and weeks leading up to D-Day.

It's not like I don't sympathize; it's an easy bandwagon to jump onto. But it is not worthy of you. Or of anyone with a brain and a comprehensive knowledge of history as it was, not history as right-wing radio talk show hosts would like you to think it was.

The Free French and resistance were very effective but they weren't vital to the war effort. Especially Russia's effort. (Stalin was enraged that they got control of a slice of Germany and Berlin after the war.)

"The French Resistance was one of the most effective patriotic insurgencies against an occupying power in history."

Counter-acted by the French who collaborated with the Nazi/Vichy regime.

It's just a fact. There many brave actions by the French during WWII but as nation they lost and when US/UK/Russia won the war, they were along for the ride.

collaborate with them. But that shouldn't discount the efforts of all of us who love this country and would fight against the occupying power.

France went up against Germany in 1940, when Germany had the most powerful army and air force in the world, and lost.

We went up against Germany in 1944, when the Luftwaffe was negligible, and the Wehrmacht was being pounded into dust by the Soviets on the Eastern Front. It seems a little disingenuous to strut around crowing about our "victory", which was assured by millions of people who didn't wear an American uniform. Sure, we contributed; but by a very similar measure, so did France.

Frankly, I'm surprised Russian saw fit to invite anybody else to their victory celebration.

We engaged in the North African campaign followed by Sicily and Mainland Italy.

Germany was fighting at the end of very long, uncertain supply lines, with unreliable allies, in terrain for which they had not been properly trained. And they still kicked our asses right out of the gate.

People who sport those "These Colors Don't Run!" bumperstickers obviously never heard of Kasserine Pass.

1944 was the real test of military mettle between the two countries, and we could not have had the success we did without the help of the French.

On edit: Proteus, I re-read one of the things you wrote, that French actions were not vital to the Soviet war effort. I have to disagree. The efforts of the Resistance were of very high importance to the Soviets; as important in their own way as our Lend/Lease supplies were to the Russians. As long as the French Underground kept fighting, they kept trained troops and masses of weapons and equipment pinned down in the West, giving the Russians some breathing space to allow them to regroup and rearm after their initial failures against the Germans.

And I have no doubt whatsoever that if we had not supplied vehicles, weapons, equipment, etc., to the Russians, they would have found some other way to persevere against the Germans. Kind of the way the French did. The only reason the Soviet Union didn't collapse as a political entity like France is because The Soviet Union was over 33 times the size of France. Little tougher to just roll over in the space of three weeks...

"And I have no doubt whatsoever that if we had not supplied vehicles, weapons, equipment, etc., to the Russians, they would have found some other way to persevere against the Germans."

They were very dire straits in 1941-43. Because of German successes and Stalin's failures. And after they regained the advantage, they were losing divison-sized amounts of men and equipment in each offensive. Without the support of the other allies, they wouldn't have been keep it up. And vice-versa.

"As long as the French Underground kept fighting, they kept trained troops and masses of weapons and equipment pinned down in the West, giving the Russians some breathing space to allow them to regroup and rearm after their initial failures against the Germans."

Those troops weren't there because of the French resistance. They were there because of threat from the UK/US.

You want a resistance that really tied down Nazi troops? Read about the Yugoslavian restistance and Tito.

I don't know why you're eager to piss on the American part in the war. What are you going to claim next? That the French resistance were vital in defeating the Japanese on Iwo Jima?

the French contribution.

"France went up against Germany in 1940, when Germany had the most powerful army and air force in the world, and lost."

Not exactly. The French had better and more tanks, planes and more men at the time. The invasion of France and the Low Countries was a huge gamble by the Nazis. What the French lacked were tactics and the will to fight. WWI had left a huge scar in the French psyche. They lost over a million dead in the trenches. And their war planning reflected that. They relied on out-dated defense plans and forts and simply could not deal with the new tactics of the Germans. They were utterly demoralized.

"We went up against Germany in 1944, when the Luftwaffe was negligible, and the Wehrmacht was being pounded into dust by the Soviets on the Eastern Front. It seems a little disingenuous to strut around crowing about our "victory", which was assured by millions of people who didn't wear an American uniform. Sure, we contributed; but by a very similar measure, so did France."

Also, not the case. The Lufftwaffe inflicted horrible causalities on the Bomber groups over Germany but they couldn't support their ground forces in France. Several hundred thousand Americans died in Europe, it seems callous to discount their sacrifice. Don't forget we were also fighting in Africa, Italy and the Pacific at the same time. Plus you know what kept the Russians in the fight? American supplies. Millions of tons of supplies. The Red army marched into Europe in Ford trucks and eating spam. Uk is the same, we kept them in the fight. There was a reason we were called the "Arsenal of Democracy".

Why?

"they were along for the ride..."

With the exception of the Free French Army which had grown to over 1000,000 soldiers by the end of thew war and played notable roles in the Vosges campaign.

What one person may see a free ride, others may just as validly see as a component of victory-- I imagine it simply rests on which aspects we want to minimize and which aspect we look at with objectivity.

pushing colonial African (Senegalese) troops out of the final advance into Paris, 17,000 of whom died saving their French butts and constituted over 50% of their fighters. Read about the disgusting behavior of the French here (from the BBC):

BBC

Anyone who has the SMALLEST most RUDIMENTARY grasp of history knows just what the French people went through during WW2.

:fistbump:

I'm not French-bashing.

It's merely the truth of the matter.

Not only that, but they use the METRIC SYSTEM! And play SOCCER! The horror!

I would have liked to have seen that.

as well as millions of troops in that war. If Hitler had not been dumb enough to attack them, the war might have had a very different outcome.


Note - many of their battle casualties come from their tactics of using overwhelming human numbers in the attack, similar to the British and French tactics in WWI.


mark

Only people who have lost less than the other parties.

was annexed by the Nazis under a dictator,fought with the Germans against the Russians. Then Romania was overrun and taken by the Russians, and their forces fought with Russia against the Germans. Romania lost more troops in WWII than the US, became a Soviet state after WWII.
There were certainly no winners in Europe in that war.

mark

Possibly in the European theater, but not WWII .

In reference to combatant casualities -

Romania 350,000 KIA.
United States (all theatres) 291,577 KIA.

http://www.world-war-2.info/casualties/

It's not clear whether the Romanian KIA's include troops who fought with Stalin or only those who fought on the Axis side (I suspect the latter) so their count may be much more than 60,000 edge they have on the US.

It should be remembered the Romanians had the misfortuhne of being on the receiving end of Red Army offensives at Stalingrad and during Bagration.

troops fighting on the German side.
I have owned several Romainian Mauser 98's from WWII - they all showed great wear-most of the blue totally gone above the wood - and looked like they had been lubed with dirty engine oil, which they probably did.
They were made by CZ, and despite the wear were still very good shooters...They had been made for the Royalist Romanians and the King's crest was ground off.

mark

I'm certain a large number of the Romanian deaths were not battle-related, even though the entire country was "in-theater."

Total U.S. military deaths during WWII = more than 400,000. Source: Department of Defense.

If you really want to see historic victims of geography, see Russia and Poland.

The 400,000 number you quote includes people who died years after the cessation of hostilities. The Romania numbers I posted do not. I suspect Romanian post-war war-related deaths of combatants were much higher than the US because Romanian healthcare was somewhat less advanced the America's.

If you'd bother to read the list you would see that the Romanian deaths DO NOT include civilian casualities. These are listed seperately.

I've never understood why so many Americans have trouble accepting certain salient, easily provable facts about WW2. :shrug: