75 Years Since Hitler's Death



Heh, I had no idea so many Brits thought the UK contributed the most. That's a bit shocking, really.

It should be possible to be very proud of the British effort and sacrifice in WW2 without thinking that their contribution had more of an impact than the Soviet or American contributions. I can sort of understand why Americans (and other consumers of American media) think that the US did the most, since American WW2 media has naturally focused so heavily on the pacific war and the invasion of France, and I would initially expect the Brits to follow that as well.
 
It's the British Empire that contributed a lot for sure. At first it was the Empire alone. It was never the UK alone. But with the attack on USSR it changed it. In the overall concept it was the USSR who did most of the heavy lifting.
 
Heh, I had no idea so many Brits thought the UK contributed the most. That's a bit shocking, really.

It should be possible to be very proud of the British effort and sacrifice in WW2 without thinking that their contribution had more of an impact than the Soviet or American contributions. I can sort of understand why Americans (and other consumers of American media) think that the US did the most, since American WW2 media has naturally focused so heavily on the pacific war and the invasion of France, and I would initially expect the Brits to follow that as well.

Slightly surprised that Germany's perception is so heavily weighted towards the US as opposed to the Soviet Union. Suspect that would have been quite different at the time, though perhaps I'm wrong.
 
Slightly surprised that Germany's perception is so heavily weighted towards the US as opposed to the Soviet Union. Suspect that would have been quite different at the time, though perhaps I'm wrong.
It matches with my impression that in Germany there's way more difficulty acknowledging the importance of the Soviet Union's war efforts than the US's. Several political, historical, and psychological factors in this, imo.
 
It's down to cultural imperialism. Just ask yourself how many American movies you've seen on the topic and how many from the east. I guess you usually have to search for a while until you find someone, who's actually ever really seen art about WWII from the Soviet perspective.
And there was of course the dictatorship that followed in Eastern Germany. It's hard to celebrate a liberator who immediately oppresses you.

While we're at it, everybody should watch "come and see". Best movie I've seen on WWII.
 
It's down to cultural imperialism. Just ask yourself how many American movies you've seen on the topic and how many from the east. I guess you usually have to search for a while until you find someone, who's actually ever really seen art about WWII from the Soviet perspective.
I wouldn't portray it as cultural imperialism, that concept has its own bad history when it comes to German nationalism. But - focusing on Germany itself here - you are absolutely right, there is next to nothing to be found on WWII from the perspective of Russian soldiers or civilians in mainstream culture. Whatever the GDR may have produced is forgotten by now.

And even the Anglo-American movies and TV productions still take a backseat to the overwhelming tendency of perceiving Nazi Germany and WWII through the lens of a German-centric perspective. Cultural memory - especially the affective, subconscious parts of it - has been shaped along these lines to a large extent.
 
Heh, I had no idea so many Brits thought the UK contributed the most. That's a bit shocking, really.

It should be possible to be very proud of the British effort and sacrifice in WW2 without thinking that their contribution had more of an impact than the Soviet or American contributions. I can sort of understand why Americans (and other consumers of American media) think that the US did the most, since American WW2 media has naturally focused so heavily on the pacific war and the invasion of France, and I would initially expect the Brits to follow that as well.

Bear in mind that the UK were in the war almost from the start right to the end, unlike both the US and the Soviets (unless you count the Soviets making their deal with the Nazis to carve up Poland and the Baltics). I think that has always fed into the British sense of pride. Obviously there’s a thousand things historically that temper that achievement, but that’s usually the way of things.
 
It's down to cultural imperialism. Just ask yourself how many American movies you've seen on the topic and how many from the east. I guess you usually have to search for a while until you find someone, who's actually ever really seen art about WWII from the Soviet perspective.
And there was of course the dictatorship that followed in Eastern Germany. It's hard to celebrate a liberator who immediately oppresses you.

While we're at it, everybody should watch "come and see". Best movie I've seen on WWII.

Best film I've seen about any war.
 


Another thread, another Irish post trying to belittle the UK and turn things into a competition. Never change Red Cafe!

Bear in mind that the UK were in the war almost from the start right to the end, unlike both the US and the Soviets (unless you count the Soviets making their deal with the Nazis to carve up Poland and the Baltics). I think that has always fed into the British sense of pride. Obviously there’s a thousand things historically that temper that achievement, but that’s usually the way of things.

Yeah there's a number of factors to take into consideration as rightly pointed out. Not only the above but the combined efforts of the British Empire and the huge relevance of the size of the UK v the USSR v the US.

I mean really though, are we actually arguing about who contributed most and trying to quantify it? Playground stuff.
 
Another thread, another Irish post trying to belittle the UK and turn things into a competition. Never change Red Cafe!

:lol:

The chart is from a UK newspaper article titled "Who Won The War?", comparing the way different countries view the contribution different countries made. The UK's media made the comparison, nothing to do with the Irish.
 
Heh, I had no idea so many Brits thought the UK contributed the most. That's a bit shocking, really.

It should be possible to be very proud of the British effort and sacrifice in WW2 without thinking that their contribution had more of an impact than the Soviet or American contributions. I can sort of understand why Americans (and other consumers of American media) think that the US did the most, since American WW2 media has naturally focused so heavily on the pacific war and the invasion of France, and I would initially expect the Brits to follow that as well.

It comes down to how things are taught. Hardly anyone in the UK knows about Churchill and his disgusting views on race but that is because it's not taught. You learn about his 'heroic' actions in drumming up patriotism. Aside from the US I'd argue that British people are also very very patriotic, especially when it comes to the wars.
 
Bear in mind that the UK were in the war almost from the start right to the end, unlike both the US and the Soviets (unless you count the Soviets making their deal with the Nazis to carve up Poland and the Baltics). I think that has always fed into the British sense of pride. Obviously there’s a thousand things historically that temper that achievement, but that’s usually the way of things.

Well said.
 
:lol:

The chart is from a UK newspaper article titled "Who Won The War?", comparing the way different countries view the contribution different countries made. The UK's media made the comparison, nothing to do with the Irish.

The fella tweeting it with the snide little comment is connected to the Irish media no?
 
The fella tweeting it with the snide little comment is connected to the Irish media no?

Sure. Just like all the English people responding to it with snide remarks aren't. I just happen to follow that Irish journalist, so I came across his tweet first. I can happily replace it with a different one making the exact same point if you only want UK criticism from UK people. Seems a bit weird though.
 
Sure. Just like all the English people responding to it with snide remarks aren't. I just happen to follow that Irish journalist, so I came across his tweet first. I can happily replace it with a different one making the exact same point if you only want UK criticism from UK people. Seems a bit weird though.

It's just like Groundhog Day in the CE forum isn't it though. Like the COVID thread it becomes a competition as to which country has dealt with it the best and a slag the UK fest . Definitely seems to be a complex on the Irish part which despite the history I find a bit silly given how close we are in terms of being neighbours. I'm sure even if you won't agree openly you'll know where I'm coming from.

Anyway not going to derail the thread any further than it already has been. Hitler and the Nazis were defeated by the combined Allied forces and the USSR. Not sure why we are point scoring who did what 75 years on when every nation made massive sacrifices I'm sure they wish they hadn't needed to.
 
Another thread, another Irish post trying to belittle the UK and turn things into a competition. Never change Red Cafe!



Yeah there's a number of factors to take into consideration as rightly pointed out. Not only the above but the combined efforts of the British Empire and the huge relevance of the size of the UK v the USSR v the US.

I mean really though, are we actually arguing about who contributed most and trying to quantify it? Playground stuff.

You realise this is a discussion forum, yes? It's a perfectly valid thing to discuss, since it goes into the broader point of how the understanding of history varies and changes.

No one is forcing you to participate. If your patriotic ego is so fragile you can't handle your country not being the best at all things, then you shouldn't.
 
You realise this is a discussion forum, yes? It's a perfectly valid thing to discuss, since it goes into the broader point of how the understanding of history varies and changes.

No one is forcing you to participate. If your patriotic ego is so fragile you can't handle your country not being the best at all things, then you shouldn't.

What on earth are you rambling on about. Have a moment.
 
Funny, I was going to say the same thing to you. I'm not the one who accused "the Irish" of trying to start a discussion just to put down the UK.

That's not what I said though is it. If you're going to shoot your mouth off try having a little insight before hand. It goes beyond this thread (which you're now de-railing) as me and that poster have discussed it before.
 
It's just like Groundhog Day in the CE forum isn't it though. Like the COVID thread it becomes a competition as to which country has dealt with it the best and a slag the UK fest . Definitely seems to be a complex on the Irish part which despite the history I find a bit silly given how close we are in terms of being neighbours. I'm sure even if you won't agree openly you'll know where I'm coming from.

Anyway not going to derail the thread any further than it already has been. Hitler and the Nazis were defeated by the combined Allied forces and the USSR. Not sure why we are point scoring who did what 75 years on when every nation made massive sacrifices I'm sure they wish they hadn't needed to.

Yes, I do tbf. Mostly because I am aware of my own bad habit of making UK/Ireland comparisons in the COVID thread more often than I should. So that's fair enough.

This just wasn't a particularly good example of it as it was The Times' article itself that created the point scoring exercise by asking who won the war and pointing out how at odds the UK's view was with that of other countries, prompting derisive replies from people in the UK. So in this case ye were belittling yourselves first. Plus as the tweet pointed out, the responses of the other countries were just as interesting. And this thread was already talking about which country contributed more before I had posted the comparison.

Perhaps I should have posted one of the tweets from a UK commentator instead though given the heightened mood.
 
Yes, I do tbf. Mostly because I am aware of my own bad habit of making UK/Ireland comparisons in the COVID thread more often than I should. So that's fair enough.

This just wasn't a particularly good example of it as it was The Times' article itself that created the point scoring exercise by asking who won the war and pointing out how at odds the UK's view was with that of other countries, prompting derisive replies from people in the UK. So in this case ye were belittling yourselves first. Plus as the tweet pointed out, the responses of the other countries were just as interesting.

Perhaps I should have posted one of the tweets from a UK commentator instead though given the heightened mood.

That's fair enough on your part so thanks.

Maybe I jumped in too quickly on it here. I think what the guy posted (not the table) bothered me more as it seemed a sly and unnecessary dig.
 
You realise this is a discussion forum, yes? It's a perfectly valid thing to discuss, since it goes into the broader point of how the understanding of history varies and changes.

No one is forcing you to participate. If your patriotic ego is so fragile you can't handle your country not being the best at all things, then you shouldn't.
He did say it was a combined effort with every nation paying a terrible human cost. Wind your neck in!
 
He did say it was a combined effort with every nation paying a terrible human cost. Wind your neck in!

What's your point? My point is that there's a genuine discussion to be had on the changing perception of WW2. That includes perceptions on "who won the war", even if that might seem unnecessary to some people. Changing historiography is very much a phenomenon.
 
I mean really though, are we actually arguing about who contributed most and trying to quantify it? Playground stuff.

Nah, it’s not arguing about who contributed that’s particularly interesting, but rather seeing how those different victory beliefs feed into the national culture that forms as a result.
 
What's your point? My point is that there's a genuine discussion to be had on the changing perception of WW2. That includes perceptions on "who won the war", even if that might seem unnecessary to some people. Changing historiography is very much a phenomenon.
It was the unnecessary comment at the end, you know exactly what I mean.
 
"Work to the Fuhrer"

A methodology of his tenure which allowed for unbridled autonomy to each one of his appointed leaders in their respective roles, which in turn gave way to the worst kind of indulgence to create systematic methods of persecution.

It's often remembered how bad Hitler was, but it's seldom realised that the conception, development and application of the worst kinds of human rights violations were the brain child of Göring, Himmler, Goebbels, Ribbentropp and co. Hitler assented to them, absolutely, knew what was going on, but was always careful to distance himself form them publicly for the sake of propaganda value. We look at Hitler as an anomaly, when in fact, idiosyncrasies permitting, the development of his ideas were shared by a number of his peers and later developments themselves from Georg von Schönerer and Karl Lueger in the 19th Century.

The environment that Hitler inherited was increasingly becoming steeped in the influences of the above. That's partly what made it so easy for the NSDAP to mobilise the nation to his side. That and the Versailles Treaty issues post-WW1.

But alas, Hitler was a bastard amongst bastards. Possibly not even the worst of them, if that can be believed.
 
Nah, it’s not arguing about who contributed that’s particularly interesting, but rather seeing how those different victory beliefs feed into the national culture that forms as a result.

I understand that and if people want to make another thread to discuss that crack on no?
 
Nah, it’s not arguing about who contributed that’s particularly interesting, but rather seeing how those different victory beliefs feed into the national culture that forms as a result.
That’s also very much about how it’s taught too. As an example the film U571 suggests that it was the heroic action of the US Navy that captured the Enigma machine when the truth is that it was an allied effort and there were over a dozen machines and code books.
Not digressing but if the US film industry has continually sold their viewing public the revised history lesson with the occasional footnote acknowledging the allied effort
 
That’s also very much about how it’s taught too. As an example the film U571 suggests that it was the heroic action of the US Navy that captured the Enigma machine when the truth is that it was an allied effort and there were over a dozen machines and code books.
Not digressing but if the US film industry has continually sold their viewing public the revised history lesson with the occasional footnote acknowledging the allied effort

U571 is one of the worst examples, that's for sure. I can understand movies about the Pacific War having an American focus, since they dominated that front, and I can understand movies about the Invasion of France having an American focus, even though a significant part of D-Day itself was an effort of Brits, Canadians and other Commonwealth and Allied nations (Poland, Norway, etc). Even though it means a lot of Americans probably think D-Day was a purely American operation, I get it.

But U571 is just a total rewrite of history, because they couldn't make a WW2 movie without the Americans being the heroes.
 
I am still waiting for the Hollywood movie on how some Americans somehow led the assault on the Reichstag.
 
Thank you very much esmufc. It's very disappointing to hear Hitler speak so rationally and with knowledge. I prefer to hear him as portrayed as in the movies, ranting and raving.

Now another question. Should Stalin have invaded Romania and occupied the oil fields? According to Hitler if the Soviets had invaded and occupied the oil fields the war would have ended in 1941.