>>> jkschw at hotmail.com 11/01/00 10:24AM >>>
ALthough the Eastern Front is my front in WWII, I will say that downgrading
the importance of the Second Front is not a view that was shared by the
Soviets at the time! Until D-Day, all Stalin and Molotov could talk about
with Churchill and Roosvelt was Second Front, when? And whatever moron said
that the Western Allies faced children and old men at Normandy and the
Battle of Bulge should talk to some veterans of those conflicts. I think
that person confused the battle for the West with the final gasp in
March-May 1945, when the Nazis did mobilize the home reserves. The Italian
front was very tough too--Anzio was no piece of cake. And it _mattered to
the Russians, oh yes it did. And indeed, to us all. --jks
(((((((((((((((((
CB: I agree with Justin. During the war itself , it was not certain that the Nazis would be defeated. So, the Soviets were all out for the popular and united front against fascism, "we'll even take liberal bourgeoisie if they will fight against fascism." Hindsight's more accurate vision can cloud our understanding of "thensight" or the standpoint of historical actuality.
This also applies to the non-aggression pact that the Soviets signed with Germany before the war. It is only with hindsight, that we know the extent of the Nazi horrors. In the late 30's, though Germany was highly militarized and undemocratic, the full meaning of Nazi fascism as equivalent to world historic war crimes and crimes against humanity was not established until the war itself. German fascism was not necessarily worse than Francoism from the standpoint of the 1930's. The distinction between Germany and the other capitalist countries was not as sharp as it was after the war, and which we can see with hindsight.