Of course most of it was about the Western Allies. You live in a western nation. You can relate. If you want one about russia, get one about russia. And if you are upset that they aren't teaching you about russia, get on the fucking internet and learn about it yourself. Actually, you probably already have, so what the hell are you complaining about? We are not obliged to teach their history in our schools (we do anyway), their problems are their problems. No one is stopping you from learning whatever you want on your own. And the reasons our education has bias are 1.) We aren't robots, and have opinions. Thus everybody, including teachers and textbook writers, has a bias. 2.) Our governments, which control the public education system, are run by politics. Because they are democratic. @Sparticus1244 New Jersey is around Philadelphia.
I live 20 minutes from Philadelphia. I do have family that live in Philadelphia and my mom grew up there though.
Yep! But regardless I feel sorry for you having to endure that, lol. I am an opposed to Communism and all, but Stalin and the USSR played the BIGGEST part in defeating the Axis. Stalin himself wasn't perfect, but he was what the USSR needed to beat the Nazis.
In our history class it's entirely focused on Canada unless you need know about something else for it to make sense. It also portrays America as a backwards aggressive nation. It also has a major focus on how Canada was very important in WWII.
That is debatable. I mean he had spies practically shouting at him that the Nazis were planning to invade, yet he dismissed their claims. He was caught completely off-guard. LOL!
How come the only war people ever debate is ww2? Why not cool shit like the Napoleonic Wars, The Seven Years' War, or the War of Spanish Succession? I guess people used to debate those wars.
My post was more of an joke than serious, but do you honestly think some wars are more interesting than WW2? And if you do, why won't you start debating about it? Here is a weird paradox for ya: You complain how no one debates about random wars, yet you don't debate them yourself, thus they are not being debated.
Well WWII was a bit more larger, more famous, and more epic than most of those ( except Napoleonic. )
I also like the romantic (as in literature) aspect of the "tale". How there is this surprise attack and you try to fight this seemingly unstoppable enemy that will kill and or enslave your entire nation. As as everyone pulls together at the most critical moment, when all hope is lost you win. Then ruthless battle continues, when the "good" (cheesy) wins and despite all shit bad guys have done, good one takes the high ground and does not destroy him.
My post was also a joke. And it isn't that I don't find WWII interesting, it's just that everybody(exaggeration), especially on this site and the internet in general, is a self-proclaimed WWII expert, and it is just so overdone with movies, videogames and all of that. And maybe it's just me, but your post seems defensive or even hostile. We're all friends here, bro. And I wasn't really complaining, again, more of a joke.
The numbers I have found for this actually put Russian kills at about 4 million, and overall kills at about 5.5 million. Also, the Russians lost nearly twice as many taking those 4 million lives.
Sorry, no insult intended. Nope If we're talking about KIA soviets lost 2 million more men. This is (in my analysis) because of the surprise attack of 41, bad command structure, poor tactics early on and lack of equipment in first two years. If you look at 45 Red Army pulled off just as grand and crushing victories that Germans did in 41. Also USSR took more prisoners than Germany did, but Germans were systematically killing then unlike USSR. Thus the great casualties. I look only at KIA & prisoners taken to estimate actual combat performance with what ever circumstances they were in.
