I agree, although I like to think it was Hitler himself who lost the war, the daft knacker decided to invade the eastern front, the Russian winter kicked the Nazi's arses and they needed to redeploy weakening their hold on the western front. Had he just left Commies alone we'd be speaking German now.
Yes they do but not on the subjects you mentioned. You live in Darlo, I live in Stanley so I suspect we're both under Durham County Council?
The fact is that the war had been going on for over a year and a half and the German's were being propped up with Russian supplies. The Russian's were so embarrassed that they denied it for 50 years. Sitting back allowed the Germans to invade 1/2 of Poland and nearly the whole of Western Europe and build support from other Axis countries. The Russians basically sat back and waited to take the leftovers once Europe had decimated itself. You could well say that without the US we'd all be speaking German. The Russians had of supplied the Poles and gave Poland backing to fight the Germans on the Eastern front then the war probably wouldn't have lasted until 45.
So they Twentieth Century History (WJEC)? Covering The USA, A nation of contrasts, 1910-1929, The development of the USA, 1929-2000, Germany in transition, c.1929-1947 Can only be Twentieth Century History or Modern World History. There are no other GCSE History subjects. If they're given the choice to take History in their Options surely they had the choice of what they studied in History. If they don't I'd be having words with the school. It's not a free school off the curriculum is it? Darlington is under Darlington Borough Council mate.
Haven't a clue how they set the curriculum, I would guess it's either central or local government that does it. Only thing my lad knows about Northern Ireland is from what I've told him. He's at the comp now, the junior school was worse.
All valid fella, You can also add that fact that Hitler personally took the position operational command of the German armed forces with out the relevant training and tactical know how, attacking Stalingrad was a huge mistake when it was widly thought to be the wrong target. Massive losses to numbers and supplies put them on the back for the rest of the war. You can also add the poor choice of Allies by the germans contributed. But for me the definitive error for me is Hitlers choice to fight the war on multiple fronts, it stretched their man power and supplies to breaking point. Hitler himself and his decisions lost the war for me.
How old is he? he won't get his options till year 9 then he can pick history which he'd do from year 10 onwards, that's when he'll do this stuff in history, they tend to do it in chronological order so Northern Ireland would be the last thing covered before final exams.
I think had Hitler attacked the western front first we would'nt have been able to stop him. He had signed a nonaggression pact with the Russians in 1939 so he chose then to ignore the treaty an then attacked (this was his downfall). As for fighting the Russians and using the scorched earth policy once they came to a stand still they were doomed.
My Grandad was a para/signalman at Arnhem and got the Military Medal for his actions, he would never talk about it but there is a bit on the net about what he done. Basically he had to keep communications up, the wire was across a road, which kept getting damaged by gunfire and bombs, so he would have to go and fix it, but the Germans put a sniper on a roof top, my grandad spotted him, went and hunted him down without the sniper seeing him, and took him out.
some on here need t get a grip. The russians would have destroyed the gerrmans..they had better of ,they bite of more then can chew.. There was no hope, and then the japs stuck their beak in.. Fools what a **** up . that was/
thought this is cool click the images for the before and after scenes http://www.theguardian.com/artandde...y-landings-scenes-in-1944-and-now-interactive
A good insight into the Russian view of the war is the book "Ivan's War" by Catherine Merrivale, or better still "Russia's War - Blood on the Snow" which is on DVD. Blood on the Snow starts with the death of Lenin and the rise of Stalin through to his death - quite an eye opener.
Never heard of that DVD before, so I've just bought it off Amazon for £15. Thank you! Sounds fantastic and this is one of the reviews it got which had really intrigued me. shows us in details the war from Russia's perspective and is just great in doing so. It starts a few years before 1939 and ends after WW2. At the end of each episode Kissinger gives a short speech. Pardon me to use such words, but it is not "boring", it is "easy to watch" and "exciting": I know these words are not appropriate for this subject, but I thought a potential buyer would want to know... In the West, we were told at school that it is the Americans who came and save us. I live in England and sometimes I get the impression that it was a war opposing Germany and Britain, with a few other countries a little bit involved too. No, the real action was between Germany and the Soviet Union. 25 million people died in the Soviet Union. If you add all US and UK casualties, you get 600,000 (i.e. less than the Leningrad blockade alone - about 1 million). Why have we (in the West) been lied to? Because the day the war finished, the new enemy was the Soviet Union. And so their part in the war was minimised in the history books, and the part of the US/UK was exagerated.
