M40 square dip ,cant be?

[LAS VEGAS]

I still hope you see it and give an opinion.trying to resist giving my opinion but iv always saluted the russian people,and soldiers for breaking the back of the germans as it where,lv

[Isle of Wighter]

I think this is of the same publisher, but not the magazine LV says.

This one is WWII History, the one we are looking for is WWII Quarterly.

Jean

Thanks Jean, I just want to clarify my opinion to avoid a confrontation like we saw here a couple of weeks ago. I have absolutely nothing against Americans, without their input into the war it may have gone on for longer. They provided the Russian Army with equipment for years before they entered the war and Eisenhower was a master in his game. What I do object to is the subtle twisting of history that the American media seem rather partial to. I've begun to see huge historical inaccuracies appearing in Hollywood war movies etc.. I think that any magazine concerned with WW2 should provide impartial historical fact and not some sort of fictionalised ideology. My main interest with regards to WW2 is the Ostfront and having read Stalingrad, The Retreat and Hitlers War on Russia very recently I must say that in my opinion the Russians sacrificed so much more than any other nation involved in the war and without them we truly would have been screwed. I find it unbelievable that in 21st century histories of the war can still be so biased and misleading. I will look out for the magazine though.

[HARRY THE MOLE]

It is worth remembering that Britain declared war on Germany for invading Poland. Russia also invaded Poland. They only became allies to the west because Germany invaded Russia! The history of both world wars is distorted in favour of whichever country you happen to live in. It still happens with our current conflicts.

[Isle of Wighter]

It is worth remembering that Britain declared war on Germany for invading Poland. Russia also invaded Poland. They only became allies to the west because Germany invaded Russia! The history of both world wars is distorted in favour of whichever country you happen to live in. It still happens with our current conflicts.

True mate, true. Poland was the line in the sand though, Britain and France had been saying 'oh, go on then' to Hitler's little demands for years before the invasion of Poland and Russia were doing the same. Stalin was trying to stay on neutral ground with Hitler right up to the day Germany invaded Russia. If Russia had not had such a hard time up in Finland in 1939 Hitler might not have thought they were such a soft touch.... As for modern wars, who know's what is really going on out there, the media have learnt that televising the true horror of war is a bad idea, it gets people angry, they learnt that with Vietnam....

[noelh]

Definitely a bit of thread drift here and we still haven't seen picture of the helmet!

As for the phrasing on the website. It depends on how you look at it. Both lines are mutually exclusive. It did take six years to win...
And it did take 300,000 American lives. As the magazine is American that's emphasis is hardly surprising. It needs to cater to the typical reader who is going to be American.

As it happens I often buy the magazine and it does cover war from all sides. Indeed if you look at the latest edition, the lead headline on the cover is of a Soviet operation and they cover British subjects too.

One thing that surprises me is how few British magazines there are that cater for the subject. Surely there's a gap in the market?

[LAS VEGAS]

noelh make an interesting point in that an american magazine caters for america in affect.yes thats if you want people to remain illinformed about the world.all news papers shouldnt have narrow nationalist agenda ,and treat all humans around the world with equal respecct.narrow nationalism has created and sustains many wars ,seeing the other guys point of view diminshes them,lv