|
Kalinin,
I suppose that what you described as "filtering" might actually be taking place, I can't say. I am 52 years old and we learned a lot of history in high school in the 1960's ... no doubt colored by the A,erican point of view, as I'm sure the Russian history texts of the time were colored from the Soviet point of view.
Schools ALWAYS teach the history that is avilable to them in their own language. If our histories don't give a lot of detail about Russian campaigns, it is simply due to the fact that the details of Russian campaigns are mostly known to Russians ... not too many of the Germans survived to write textbooks. In the 1960's, not too many Russian were overly concerned about letting the West know history from the Soviet perspective. So, given the turbulent times in the 1950's and 1960's, I believe it is no wonder that American schools had little, if any, access to the war from the Russian point of view.
I notice in this forum that most of the respondents feel that Russia did the bulk of the fighting and won the bulk of WWII. Naturally, YOUR schools probably give you the details from the Russian point of view, and that is not a condemnation, just a probable fact, especially given the distrust with which the Soviet Union viewed the West, including the British, French, and the U.S.A.
So ... what IS the real truth?
British, Belgian, Dutch, Spanish, and German cities were bombed heavily, many people died on D-Day. There has never been a gathering of military ships and aircraft to compare with D-Day in the history of the world. I cannot comment on the percentage of German troops concentrated on the Russian campaign since I have not checked on it to verify the numbers, but I daresay that the fighting on the British-French front was just as bad as the fighting on the Russian front. We didn't have as many casualties, but that could be an indication of the relative preparedness of the two fronts or of th weapons available. We did not attack the germans with cavalry. I have not read of 1,000-bomber raids on Germany by the Soviet Air Force.
Each front has its own story. Of the two fronts, the Russian front has, by far, the most tragic consequences. The British and Americans would have been there to help if we could have broken through in time. The common goal was to defeat Hitler's military machine.
Keep in mind that the fighting in Western Europe happened in cities and fields where there were hedgerows, hills, and all manner of cover from which to fight. The open steppes and plains of Russia probably offered very little in the way of cover on the battlefield.
My point is that the two fronts were completely different in nature. I am NOT trying to say one was more heroic or more important than the other.
It would be nice, indeed, to compare an English-language version of a Russian history text with an American text. Would the teenagers read it? I don't know. Undoubtedly, SOME would. Certainly, I would.
There were political reasons at the time for letting the Russian military capture Berlin. It was NOT the fact that we couldn't get there in time. Perhaps the 20 million Russian casulaties had something to do with it, huh? As I recall, Stalin insisted on the Soviet Union having the first crack at Berlin, and we agreed.
Now that the war has been over for almost 60 years, and the cold war has been "warmed up" a bit, I'd like to be friends and swap information. I don't want an "America is best!" or a "Russia is best" argument, I want to exchange information in a friendly manner.
So ... can you recommend some English language history books written from the Russian perspective? Can you also tell me where I might buy them? Perhaps over the internet?
|