The silence concerning the role of the USSR in the WW2: ethical issues

[DavidB.]

Hmm, at least in the Netherlands I feel there is quite some attention for the role of the Russians during WWII, although the Canadians and the Polish, who liberated us, get the most attention.

However, one of the reasons that Russia's contribution to "winning" the war might be downplayed is actually legitimate: while the US, Canada etc. fought for freedom, the USSR would have imposed just another kind of totalitarianism upon Western Europe (and it actually managed to do so in Eastern Europe). I'm not even sure most of the Dutch would be better off under Soviet-style communism than under a nazi regime (myself and my community being the obvious exception, because, you know, I kinda like being alive). That doesn't have much to do with "rewriting history".

[DavidB.]

The problem is the media which in every year with a 4 in the end publish articles related to the X0 years of the normandy landing as the "most important event of the WWII". It is OK to show big articles about the normandy landing. It is OK to put more emphasis in the normandy landing than in the battles in the Eastern front because of the nationality of the newspaper/magazine. But it is not OK to say that it was "the most important event of the WWII" because it was not.

So could you show us some of these articles that state what you describe? Also, I assume you're talking about the issue as an American. It might well be possible that newspapers imply that something has been an important issue for the Americans in WWII, which could perfectly make sense.