Duncan Edwards wrote:I don't see how they could forget it but do people still pay attention there to such dates in history? Have such memories begun to fade with the passing of that generation?
Of course, memory fades with time. 40 years ago there was a great historical project - "These days 30 years ago". Then virtually every family was listening the first channel of the All-Union radio. And several times a day they had broadcast brief summary of what was happening 30 years before - during the War. I was a schoolboy, and the war seemed so distant to us, it was 30 years ago! Now, after next 40 years, I understand that then it wasn't so distant at all. Of course, we, and those who was before us, and those who were after us, learned a lot about the war in school. We often had meetings with veterans, but actually, in every family there were people who took part in the war. There was a funny situation in a summer camp - we had a meeting with a veteran who lived in that village, and he told us about the war, and the events and places seemed very familiar to me. So I asked him, and I hadn't mistaken - he was a direct subordinate of my grandfather
Our school teachers so wished to organize a meeting of the two veterans - but to say the truth those two old people actually had no desire to see each other...
Today... Well, today the war seems really so distant. We still can see some veterans around, but they must be about 90 years old. Since then we had Chernobyl in 1986, disintegration of the USSR in 1991, radical change in ideology and political system afterwards, a sort of a little revolution in 2004, and by the way the young people who took part in that revolution of 2004 knew nothing about almost the same 'revolution' - students protests of 1990.
But if you come here and visit any town, any settlement, any little village, you'll see a memorial cemetery there with names of those who was killed on the war. Two, three, six members of each family. Everywhere, in each little village.
Fred588 wrote:Thank you for sharing this. I think most of us tend to think in rather self-centric terms about the events of such world-wide conflicts and forget that battles and tragedies of monumental proportions occurred all around the world
I believe it's important that the people must know it.
You are right about the self-centric way of thinking. In the Soviet Union there was a tendency to believe that only the Soviet people were fighting against Germany, while western countries were just waiting for the Nazi Germany and the Communist Soviet Union to exhaust each other.
bbjohn wrote:You can say whatever you want about Stalin and Communism. However, there can be no denying the bravery and sacrifices of the Soviet peoples, and the horrors and hardships they endured. They deserve our respect, and the people of the West should remember them always.
- Big Bad John
Thank you!
By the way, it is you call it Communism. In the Soviet Union nobody and never thought that it was Communism. The Communism was a word for bright and happy future when all people in the world would live in peace, they would work for pleasure, appreciating the results of own work and the work of the others. The system in the Soviet Union was called Socialism, it was considered as a temporary and compulsory stage on the way to the Communism. The Soviet people believed that the working people all around the globe would be happy to build the Communism together, but there is a little group of rich people - the Capitalists - who are afraid to lose their money, and only that small but powerful group oppose the Soviet Union and its allies in their struggle to build the Communism. Those Capitalists are ready for everything, including nuclear war, just to preserve their money and their domination over other people.
Maybe it sounds naive, but most of the people believed in this. Now, looking around and looking back, I must say that we were happy people then...
PM2K wrote:I'm presuming based on the dates that this happened after the battle of the Kursk sailent - July 1943? So, would Kursk be a prelude to the battles of Kiev and Dnieper?
Yes, the Battle of Kursk resulted in strategic offensive of the Red Army, which was developed into further offensive towards the Dnieper. The Dnieper, however, is a great natural fortification - the river is wide and its western bank is high - up to 100 meters (and even higher) above the water level. The eastern bank mostly is a low and wide plain (it is also high from Kremenchuk to Zaporizhia - but there are only few places suitable to cross the river there).
MadMax359 wrote:yeah, Kursk was the last major German offensive in the east, after that the initiative was in the hands of the Soviets... i had not realized how big this battle was, but it makes sense, Kiev is such a major city
The battle for Kiev wasn't that big, but it was very important. The battle of the Dnieper was stretching on a 1400 km front and resulted in liberation of several large cities along the Dnieper, as Dniepropetrovsk, Dnieprodzerzhinsk, Zaporizhia, Kremenchuk.
I would say that despite Kursk was the last major German offensive, the Germans were able to organize large counterattacks afterwards. It is really amazing how strong Germany was.
kham wrote:It is interesting to note the large numbers of Airborne Troops employed initially by the Red Army; it appears to be not commonly associated with them, despite the fact that they had rather large numbers of them. It may be a western conceit. The common thread however, is the confusion of the drops, and the heavy casualties incurred by them.
The numbers were large, yes. Even during the Battle of Kursk the Red army had more aircrafts than the Germans. But the effectiveness wasn't sufficient. Even later, during the Battle of the Korsun–Cherkassy Pocket in January-February 1944 the Germans were able to successfully deliver supplies and evacuate wounded, effectively counteracting the efforts of Soviet fighters.
