Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
June 05, 2019

D-Day And The Myth That The U.S. Defeated The Nazis

Each D-Day anniversary the same question comes up. Who defeated Germany and its allies? The answer is, without any doubt, the Soviet Union.

But after decades of western propaganda the claims that the U.S. defeated the Reich has taken over many minds. Polls show that such propaganda works. More than half of the French people now believe that the U.S. contributed the most to the defeat of Germany.


The U.S. lost 411.000 people due to World war II, Great Britain lost 450,000, Germany some 7 million and the Soviet Union more than 20 million.

Many people think that the Soviet Union, now "the Russians", were always the bad guys and that Germany was a loyal ally during that war. That is at least what the verified account of the British Royal Family seems to believe.

The Royal Family @RoyalFamily - 10:30 utc - 5 Jun 2019

The Queen was introduced to leaders by the Prime Minister @10DowningStreet - each representing the allied nations that took part in D-Day. #DDay75

(The tweet was since deleted but can still be seen at

The Russian President Vladimir Putin was not invited to the royal reception commemorating the 75th anniversary of D-Day. Instead the Queen shook hands with German Chancellor Merkel. Merkel should have rejected to be there unless Putin would also be invited. The leaders from other Soviet countries, Vladimir Zelensky of the Ukraine and Alexander Lukashenko from Belarus, should also be there.

There is of course some truthiness in saying that a few German divisions took part in D-Day. And a few dozens sub-par German division later joined the fight at the Western front. But at the same time some 200 division of German led forces were engaged in the east.

Two weeks after D-Day the Red Army launched Operation Bagration and attacked the German Army Group Centre lines in the east on a thousand miles long front. Within eight weeks the German led forces were pushed back some 200 miles. Most of the 30 some divisions under Army Group Centre's command were destroyed. It was that attack that broke the back of the German Wehrmacht. Cynically said - the U.S. led invasion in the west was a mere diversion for the much larger attack in the east.

Ten years ago Anatoly Karlin wrote in The Poisonous Myths of the Eastern Front:

MYTH I: Heroic Americans with their British sidekicks won World War Two, while the Russian campaign was a sideshow.

REALITY: Although Western Lend-Lease and strategic bombing was highly useful, the reality is that the vast majority of German soldiers and airmen fought and died on the Eastern Front throughout the war.

Rüdiger Overmans in Deutsche militärische Verluste im Zweiten Weltkrieg estimates that from the Polish campaign to the end of 1944, 75-80% of all German armed forces personnel died or went missing in action on the Eastern Front up to the end of 1944. According to Krivosheev’s research, throughout the war, the vast majority of German divisions were concentrated against the Soviet Union – in 1942, for instance, there were 240 fighting in the East and 15 in North Africa, in 1943 there were 257 in the East and up to 26 in Italy and even in 1944 there were more than 200 in the East compared to just 50 understrength and sub-par divisions in the West. From June 1941 to June 1944, 507 German (and 607 German and Allied) divisions and 77,000 fighters were destroyed in the East, compared to 176 divisions and 23,000 fighters in the West. The two pivotal battles, Stalingrad and El Alamein, differed in scale by a factor of about ten.

This is not to disparage the Western Allied soldiers who fought and died to free the world from Nazism. In particular, the seamen who enabled Lend-Lease, at high risk of lethal submarine attack, to transport indispensables like canned food, trucks and aviation fuel to Russia, possibly played a crucial role in preventing its collapse in 1941-42. And the bomber crews massively disrupted Germany’s war potential at the cost of horrid fatality ratios, significantly shortening the war.

Another myth is that it were U.S. forces who led the D-Day invasion:

Andrew Neil @afneil - 11:05 utc - 2 Jun 2019

On 75th anniversary of D-Day, time to debunk Hollywood myth it was largely a US invasion force.
Of 1,213 warships involved, 892 were British/Canadian; only 200 US. Royal Navy in charge of Operation Neptune. Of 4,126 landing craft involved, 805 American, 3,261 British. 1/2
Two-thirds of the 12,000 aircraft involved in D-Day were RAF/RCAF. Two-thirds of the troops landed on the beaches were British/Canadian. Eisenhower was supreme commander but all his most senior officers in charge of land, sea and air were British 2/2

When Germany attacked the Soviet Union in June 1941 the U.S. was ambivalent about what to do. Both countries were seen as enemies. The well know Senator Harry Truman expressed the U.S. position quite succinctly:

“If we see that Germany is winning, we ought to help Russia and if Russia is winning we ought to help Germany, and that way let them kill as many as possible."


Since they were attacked by the Germans in 1941 the Soviets had pressed their allies to open a western front against Germany. In 1943, after the defeat of the Germans in Stalingrad and the failure of their counter attack in the Battle of Kursk, it became obvious that the Soviets would defeat the Nazi forces. At the Tehran conference in November 1943 Stalin pressed Roosevelt and Churchill again to finally open a western front. Knowing that the Soviets would win over Germany they agreed to launch their invasion in May 1944.

The U.S. dominated western Europe ever since and quite successfully indoctrinated it with its false version of history.

This is a Moon of Alabama fundraising week. Please consider to support our work.

Posted by b on June 5, 2019 at 17:15 UTC | Permalink

next page »

why does this revisionist history persist? it must serve the empires needs.. i can't figure it out otherwise..

merkel at this meet and greet? that is embarrassing.. the monarchy concept is really deranged.. this is more proof of it..

thanks for the truman quote... was truman respected by anyone??

Posted by: james | Jun 5 2019 17:24 utc | 1

Since they were attacked by the Germans in 1941 the Soviets had pressed their allies to open a western front against Germany.

b, are you silly?
Before attacked, Soviet-Union was ready to massive attack Europe.

Posted by: Den Haag | Jun 5 2019 17:42 utc | 2

I keep going back to the Enlightenment period that the West never made it through in the sense that logic and reason never were allowed precedence over faith. And not just any faith but monotheistic faith that pushes the better than others meme, including taking it to the extreme of forcing other to believe or perish.

These folks have been manipulating minds since the dark ages and have built quite an ongoing following on top of myth/faith. Rewriting history to favor the Chosen Ones is expected and admired.

How many MoA barflies place faith above reason/logic?.....from my reading, quite a few. Until and unless humanity can move beyond being controlled by emotional manipulation through faith, the species will perish of consumption of itself.

Posted by: psychohistorian | Jun 5 2019 17:48 utc | 3

Taking the place of Merkel should have been a short film of "The Motherland Calls" statue in Volgograd.

Posted by: Bart Hansen | Jun 5 2019 17:52 utc | 4

TWhen Germany attacked the Soviet Union in June 1941 the U.S. was ambivalent about what to do.

Oh, really?
Ever heard of Roosevelt, or of Lend-Lease and Harry Hopkins?
You're an idiot or a child.

Posted by: Den Haag | Jun 5 2019 17:53 utc | 5

Thank you MoA for your unbiased posts.

Posted by: Russian | Jun 5 2019 17:54 utc | 6

@james: you are in the wrong, my friend.

As was seen in the Soviet Union - Finnish war of 1940, the Russians were in no condition to "massively attack Europe".

Anyway, most historians believe Stalin would never initiate foreign wars, as it would oppose his platform of consolidation of communist rule inside the Soviet Union. The Soviets viewed the French revolution as a blueprint for their own, and recognized that the attempt by Napoleon to export his revolution led to its demise. This was the main reason leading to the split between Stalin and Trostsky, since the later strongly argued in favor of exporting the communist ideology to the rest of the world.

Posted by: joaopft | Jun 5 2019 18:01 utc | 7

I read, not to long ago, that the West faced not more than 10 divisions from Germany, and the Russians in the East faced, at least, 200 divisions.

If those stats are close, it's pretty clear, which nation bore the brunt of the challenge
defeating the Nazis..

Not even close to the stories told to us, here in the U$A..

Posted by: ben | Jun 5 2019 18:01 utc | 8

Who defeated Germany and its allies? The answer is, without any doubt, the Soviet Union.

Thank you for the information, or sorry, for your massive false fake news.
Stalin manipulated Hitler in the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, ever heard of?

Posted by: Den Haag | Jun 5 2019 18:02 utc | 9

From 1965-1971, 168 episodes of Hogan's Heroes were aired in the Outlaw US Empire, where the threat to be sent to the Russian Front was widely used and displayed as something to be feared. Many aspects of that show weren't true to actual history--escaping from German POW camps was punished by death is but one important aspect perhaps not raised since Germany was now an allied NATO member. But the show did make it rather clear that being sent to the Russian Front was a literal death sentence. So, efforts to turn history on its head had to wait until most of the people who actually fought in the war or lived stateside had passed away and thus unable to protest such deliberate falsification. That the falsification has escalated since the USSR's demise ought to tell us all something about the aims of the Current Oligarchy and how they intend to attain them.

Posted by: karlof1 | Jun 5 2019 18:07 utc | 11

Except the Americans ran a huge supple effort for the Soviet Union, via air from Alaska, via train through Iran, and via sea from the east coast of the US, there were also huge shipments from west coast of the US to the east coast of the Soviet Union.

There's no doubt though that the Red Army is ultimately responsible for defeating the Nazis in the east.

Posted by: Jay | Jun 5 2019 18:08 utc | 12

D Day was the decisive battle of WWII. The “quality” Spanish press said so:

Last year was worse, apparently, as the Franco regime seems to have been upgraded to be treated as one of the Allies.

Posted by: Cortes | Jun 5 2019 18:09 utc | 13

Patton famously boasted that his Third Army could lick the Red Army in a couple weeks. But the U.S. and Britain never launched Operation Unthinkable for the simple reason that they would have got their clocked clean:

The hypothetical date for the start of the Allied invasion of Soviet-held Europe was scheduled for 1 July 1945, four days before the UK general election. The plan assumed a surprise attack by up to 47 British and American divisions in the area of Dresden, in the middle of Soviet lines. This represented almost half of the roughly 100 divisions available to the British, American and Canadian headquarters at that time.
The Soviets had a 2.5 to 1 superiority in land forces to the U.S., Brits and Canadians.

Posted by: Mike Maloney | Jun 5 2019 18:26 utc | 14

Cortes @13
El País is a rag owned by a US investment fund, it presents itself as the spanish NYTimes, and certainly it is up to par, the deep state voice camouflaged as a centrist institution. Today they have a couple of articles, in one of them they hint about the many french victims caused by allied bombardments during D-day, more so than the victims caused by german flights over GBritain. But that type of articles for balance sake are always posted on secondary positions.

Posted by: Paco | Jun 5 2019 18:27 utc | 15

Den Haag @5's, "Ever heard of Roosevelt, or of Lend-Lease and Harry Hopkins," correct. But his character assassination of b is unwarranted and exposes the fact that Haag has an agenda.

The USA was involved in an undeclared war against Germany beginning about June 1940 that escalated more every month thanks to the Lend-Lease program and the inclusion of US merchant vessels in convoys to UK all of which is well documented in numerous books on the subject. it should be recalled that prior to Lend-Lease the policy was known as Cash and Carry. For those wanting to know more about the aims and politics behind those policies, I highly suggest the 12th Chapter of Kolko's Politics of War, "Planning for Peace, II: Great Britain in Theory and Practice."

Posted by: karlof1 | Jun 5 2019 18:28 utc | 16

To invoke the usual familiar terms, US government rhetoric is imbued with exceptionalism, triumphalism, and overweening hubris.

During Cold War I (1945-1991), Amerikan popular culture made much of a cliché-- or arguably created the cliché-- of Soviet exceptionalism. When Russians (especially Russian officials) were featured in mass-media entertainment, particularly in TV variety shows featuring star comedians and situation comedies, they pompously and fatuously took credit for every major invention or advancement in human history.

So, for instance, a Soviet character would proudly or indignantly claim that it was actually Russians who invented light bulbs or telephone technology.

The unstated premise behind this projection was that "free" Westerners had the integrity, common sense, and innate sense of fair play to give credit where credit was due. Only the thralls of a (godless) authoritarian, totalitarian Communist government and culture would blithely and mendaciously insist on taking unmerited credit in the face of objective reality.

It's irrelevant whether there was truth to the "meme" that Soviets notoriously inflated the merits and accomplishments in their way of life; what matters is that the US disclaimed any suggestion that the US government did the same. Not in touting the light bulb or telephone as purely Amerikan inventions, but in asserting that the US has a sterling track record as the world's policeman.

So even today, the myth that the US defeated the Nazis, albeit with "help" from European and Russian allies, persists. And True Believers still resist and resent the "revisionist" truth that the popular Western self-congratulation is predicated on a falsified history.

I wasn't aware that Putin was not invited to this commemoration, although I knew that the Western nations shamefully declined invitations to participate in Russia's Victory Day celebration.

It is truly Orwellian "rewriting history", with its attendant doublethink and newspeak, that the Queen of England-- a percipient witness of the events being reverently remembered-- would approve of ceremonies that embrace the representative from Berlin, but shun representation from Moscow.

Posted by: Ort | Jun 5 2019 18:40 utc | 17

Love me some posts about ww2. Thanks for the read b.

Re: Harry Truman's quote about which side to take. Smart on your part to not judge this famous comment or condemn it as immoral. Indeed, it was not. What better way to stem the tide of either totalitarianism from metastasizing into European domination and therefore worldly domination. It was the smart play and this is why the role of the U.S. In ww2 should be celebrated.

But let us not forget that it wasn't heroism or merit which granted the U.S. That great opportunity for glory on the world stage but rather blind luck of having a stupendous geographical positioning.

Posted by: Nemesiscalling | Jun 5 2019 18:42 utc | 18

In fact German losses in western front have been much smaller than claims of Overmans. When Overmans claimed 420,000 German soldiers deceased in Jan-May 1945 Niclas Zetterling and Christer Bergström estimated those losses (deaths) been hardly more than 100,000. Actually Eisenhower's study estimated quite similar about 100,000 German deaths. Then similar overestimated figures of Overmans could be found in Italian campaign (Overmans claimed over 150,000, more reliable studies suggesting about 80,000-90,000).

It seems to be that hardly more than 15% of German military casualties came from west and southern front while Eastern Front + Balkans got 85% share.

Posted by: Matias | Jun 5 2019 19:05 utc | 19

Make up your own mind as to who ultimately wins World war II in the absence of the Russian front. Hitler threw away the strong possibility of dominating Europe and the Mediterranean at the very least in pursuit of his obsession with lebensraum in the east.

Posted by: John | Jun 5 2019 19:09 utc | 20

Matias @19--Yes, those casualty figures starkly express the truth of who defeated Germany.

Posted by: worldblee | Jun 5 2019 19:10 utc | 21

Nemesiscalling @18

Except it did metastasize into European domination and is currently working on world domination.

Has anyone worked up a list of the countries that the Empire has not hit with austerity and/or sanctions yet? I am guessing it would be a rather small list.

Posted by: William Gruff | Jun 5 2019 19:17 utc | 22

Your argument depends heavily on only counting German war effort that went into the army. In terms of expenditure and shares of industrial production the airforce and navy used up more monetary and industrial resources than the army. This is brought out clearly by the work of one of colleagues in the Glasgow History Department, Dr O'Brien in his book 'How the War Was Won: Air-Sea Power and Allied Victory in World War II'. He carries out a detailed analysis of the shares of industrial production going to aircraft production, ships, guided and ballistic missiles, versus tanks and artillery. Production for the army accounted for only about 30% of German military output. The German V1 and V2 campaigns and the allied 'Crossbow' campaign against them used up far more economic resources on both sides than did great land battles like Stalingrad. The German state spent more on the V2 programme than on its entire armoured fighting vehicle production from 1939 to 1945.

The missile war and the air war was overwhelmingly directed against Britain. More than half of German war production went to the Luftwaffe, if we add in the production of anti aircraft weapons we find that the air war used up 60% of output.

There is no doubt that more German soldiers were killed on the Western front, but that was, in economic terms a relatively primitive and cheap form of warfare. The expensive and high tech effort of the UK, USA, Japan and Germany went overwhelmingly into air or naval production. The USSR was the odd one out in devoting the majority of its effort to the army. There is no doubt that this made good sense for the USSR, but the concentration on air and naval power made good sense to the other belligerants.

The war against Japan showed how naval interdiction combined with saturation bombing of industrial targets was able to reduce a country to defeat without land invasion of the homeland. Had the land war on the Eastern front progressed more slowly, it would have been the cities of Germany that were subjected to intensive atomic attacks in the latter part of 1945, leading equally certainly to eventual defeat.

The defeat of the Axis powers was the joint result of all the allies, each contributing in a different way.

Posted by: Paul Cockshott | Jun 5 2019 19:19 utc | 23

It is truly Orwellian "rewriting history", with its attendant doublethink and newspeak, that the Queen of England-- a percipient witness of the events being reverently remembered-- would approve of ceremonies that embrace the representative from Berlin, but shun representation from Moscow.
Posted by: Ort | Jun 5, 2019 2:40:24 PM | 17

On the contrary, the British royal family - of German descent - were in important respects on the side of the Germans rather than the British. When the Soviet spy Anthony Blunt was uncovered, he was not prosecuted in court precisely for this reason - as an official of the royal court he knew too many secrets about the closeness of the royal family to the Germany during the war, and was therefore quietly handed over to the Russians.

So in this sense it seems quite appropriate - from the elite point of view - that they should welcome Merkel (who in many ways is a fitting successor to Adolf Hitler - corporatist policies, immorality, ruthlessness, arrogance, elitism etc).

Also appropriate from the elite point of view to exclude President Putin, in the sense that Churchil is said to have claimed the Allies had it the wrong way round, that they should have fought instead with the Germans against the Russians.

From the point of view of the people is another matter - but what significance have the people to the superhuman class, namely the queen, the British prime minister, and their ilk?

Posted by: BM | Jun 5 2019 19:20 utc | 24

escaping from German POW camps was punished by death
Posted by: karlof1 | Jun 5, 2019 2:07:55 PM | 11

I'd never heard of that. Why the exception for British and Americans, and what happened to them? Is anything known about the motivation behind this decree?

The wiki entry says it is unknown how many prisoners were executed under this decree, yet the decree itself states explicitly that the exact numbers must be recorded and sent to headquarters. Presumably the statistics were covered up by the Allies, for some reason.

Posted by: BM | Jun 5 2019 19:28 utc | 25

@ Posted by: Den Haag | Jun 5, 2019 1:42:12 PM | 2

Do you live in the same universe as us? The (bloody) struggle between Stalin and Trotsky during the end of the 1920s and 1936 was almostly all about the internationalist or nationalist character of the Revolution. It had profound implications on the path it would follow in the long term, because that would shape the USSR's foreign policy and military doctrine forever. Stalin won the debate -- and, with the benefit of hindsight, we know there weren't material conditions for Trotsky to have won.

During the Cold War, the USSR's military doctrine was beyond doubt purely defensive -- to the point it begun to stifle communist revolutions (successfully or not) around the world in order to protect its own national interests. That's why the world Left still doesn't "forgive" Stalinism -- to the point some ideologies, such as Trotskyism, put it above capitalism itself as the main enemy of socialism. This undialectic vision of the world results in hilarious analyses from the far-left: see the resolutions of the 4th International about 1989, republished in the WSWS website yesterday so you can see with your own eyes what I mean about it.

Posted by: vk | Jun 5 2019 19:30 utc | 26

@ 22

That's silly. Every stinking country in the e.u. Has the ability to rise up against their overlords, vote to leave the e.u. And stop doing business with the U.S. Until they give up their play at hegemony. At that point, the u.s. Will be better off.

Lay that up against the resentment that many poles and uks have for Russia, still! and you will began to realise that the U.S. Playing the waiting game, winning the war, and adopting leadership, treating the rest of the world as their "white man's burden" was probably the best possible outcome. Do I endorse it? Hell no. The difference is is I have read Thucydides and so have a clear lens.

Posted by: Nemesiscalling | Jun 5 2019 19:30 utc | 27

@7 joaopft.. hi joaopft.. i said a few things.. what part did you think i was wrong about? thanks..

Posted by: james | Jun 5 2019 19:35 utc | 28

Another intersting detail comes from Christer Bergström ("Ardennes - Hitler's Winter Offensive, 1944-45). Unlike mainstream historians are suggesting American ground forces had serious issues to push back dogged fighting highly outnumbered German forces in early January ib Ardennes.

In 5 Jan 45 Allied commanders had meeting. Churchill called next day (6 Jan) to Stalin pleading Generalisimus Stalin to make earlier Soviet winter offensive. Stalin promised to do it. 8 Jan he ordered Konev to open Oder-Vistula offensive (+ that in East Prussia) immediately. 12 Jan 45 Soviet offensive smashed and destroyed whole German front in southern Poland. As Bergström wrote: " in 12 Jan German Ardennes offensive was all over".

This case is very revealing because it underlined how dependent US&British forces were on Stalin's Red Army. American military history hardly ever mention Oder-Vistula when describing Ardennes.

It's true that Allied air and sea power played important role helping decimate German mobility. But as Market Garden and Ardennes proved you just couldn't beat enemy only with that air-sea power. You gotta send grunts on frontline and that's mean price of victory paid by blood.

Lesson: USA was not land warfare superpower. Today even less.

Posted by: Matias | Jun 5 2019 19:37 utc | 29

for the record... the usa is presently at war with iran, venezuala, syria and probably a bunch more countries i am failing to mention... when they write the history books, they wouldn't say this if the usa gets away with this shit, but the reality is what it is...

Posted by: james | Jun 5 2019 19:38 utc | 30

Paul Cockshott @23--

Money can always be printed. The humans required to fight a war cannot. Fast forward to current US military doctrine where despite the gross corruption that lesson was learned.

William Gruff @22--

You raise a very important point as it's clear from the planning documents and discussions that the USA and UK were to combine in an effort to control the post-war world, that the paramount holders and extollers of Private Property could not in any way allow any anti-private property system to arise and challenge, and that drive and its supporting propaganda can easily be seen operating today. The struggle's Titanic. Peter Lee in his preface to his primary evidence documentation of the events surrounding Tian An Men cites the following quotation at its top:

"'It cost us 20 million lives to win the rivers and mountains of China. Do the students believe they can take them from us without payment?'

"Remark attributed to Wang Zhen after declaration of martial law in May 1989."

The same is now being said by China to the West utilizing differing words. IMO, either the Private Property Oligarchy compromises, or they'll eventually lose all.

Posted by: karlof1 | Jun 5 2019 19:43 utc | 31

You might enjoy these D Day thoughts.

Included is an important comparison between D Day and the Russian Front.

The war's toll for Russia versus the US.

Future of NATO alliance.

Posted by: JOHN CHUCKMAN | Jun 5 2019 19:43 utc | 32

@ Posted by: John | Jun 5, 2019 3:09:37 PM | 20

You can't imagine WWII without an East Front. There's no possible scenario in which it doesn't happen.

First, we have to keep in mind that, first and foremost, WWII was a war waged for oil. At the time, the UK had embargoed Germany from oil from the Middle East and the USA had embargoed Japan from its own oil. The lines were already drawn: the only way for Hitler to build an empire (his goal) was going East: to the oil fields of the southern Caucasus (Maikop, Baku and region). Yes, the USSR still exported some oil to Germany in exchange of some machinery -- but that was because the USSR was also embargoed from the main imperialist superpowers of the time. Even this oil wasn't enough for both countries: it was a matter of time before that source dried up too.

Second, we must treat the Western Front of the WWII as the continuation of WWI. France still considered Germany as a buffer State between it and the Russians (now Soviets); England still considered Germany its main potential rival in the imperialist race. That's why the British blocked Germany from the Middle Eastern oil in the first place. The British fought for the survival of the Empire until the end.

Third, the world was a very different place than it was pre-Cold War: socialism/communism was still very popular in the USA (East Coast), France, Italy and the Netherlands, and it was still more popular than Nazism in the UK. Statesmen must take the morale of the populace into heavy consideration before declaring a war of anihilation: Churchill, under ideal circumstances, would definitely choose to side with the Germans against the USSR for ideological reasons -- but would the British people do the same? Same case for FDR: he had just "saved capitalism from itself"; would the American people of the time (a time when Dobbs received significant votes for the Presidency in the 1930s) agree to cross the Atlantic to fight for the Nazis against the socialists?

We can see the effect the morale of the people has in a war of anihilation (total war) in the case of Italy: the Fascist Party won the civil war against the Communist Party, but did not achieve a total victory. The Italian population remained at least 50% pro-Communist Party, and the Italian Armed Forces never fought effectively, regardless of the fact that they indeed (contrary to the myth) had good equipment. Mussolini ended up toppled in 1943 and executed in a kabuki ambush en route to the prison in 1945.

Posted by: vk | Jun 5 2019 19:49 utc | 33

Patton got several times bloody nose during the war(North Africa, Sicily, Metz, Ardennes). His military record, his tank losses and lack of strategic thinking was far from superb. In fact Germans never saw him as any kind of military genius at all. Patton himself was great German admirer which made things funny. He was media person and model of future American "magic rommels" of war.

Americans are not openminded when it's question of their military blunders. Careful new studies of Market Garden has revieled it was General Gavin of U.S 82nd Airborne Division who made most critical mistake which sealed that Allied fiasco.

Nor are they admitting it was British& Canadian forces in Normandy facing almost 85% of German armored and most powerful units (near Caen). Still it took 7 long weeks to breakthrough those almost totally bulk infantry and many times garrison level troops in their sector.

It's nonsense to claim German troops in Normandy were 2nd class units because British and Canadians had to face some of the best German armored divisions. But when we think about German units against American forces i really have wonder why Americans couldn't do better.

Posted by: Frankie | Jun 5 2019 19:58 utc | 34

As a teenager I lived in Germany in the sixties and thereafter visited on business very regularly. I love Germany and speak the language well. The Germans - in general - were always reluctant to talk about the war - until the Wall came down - but when they did, the war to them was ALWAYS the eastern front. Some were barely aware that the Brits had participated at all.

I find it so depressing that the Russians were excluded from the D Day celebrations.

Den Haag @ 2 and other places, presumably hasn’t read Maisky’s diaries.

Posted by: Montreal | Jun 5 2019 20:00 utc | 35

BM @25--

I came upon that entry due to researching this event. The actual situation with POWs held by Germany during WW2 I never dug into, although Russian POWs were often mentioned in accounts of liberated Concentration Camps. Solzhenitsyn in volume one of Gulag Archipelago mentions the fate of Soviet soldiers saying the Soviet Gulag although brutal was more humane. Many will know of the film The Great Escape, but few know of the actual aftermath as the escape occurred just after adoption of the termination policy.

Posted by: karlof1 | Jun 5 2019 20:02 utc | 36

Why is it always so hard for our governments to face the truth ? Don’t they realise they lose credabilty with this deception!

The Soviet Union lost 28,000,000 life’s ! And we won’t invite them to pay tribute.
This is all mind conditioning for world war three , which were half way through, trouble is this time we’re on the wrong side.

Posted by: Mark2 | Jun 5 2019 20:15 utc | 37

It could be argued that the near destruction of the Luftwaffe in 1944 was mostly done by more advanced, more trained and more numerous US fighters. Only this made the Allied invasion in the end a feasible idea.

Just to not entirely forget this decisive US campaign which also involved enormous sacrifices to get so far.

Posted by: John Dowser | Jun 5 2019 20:16 utc | 38

Karlofi @31, of course, money can be printed, but that is not the issue. Industrial output cannot be printed. If you want to compare two different types of industrial output - fighter planes against tanks, for example, you can not do it in terms of tonnage. You have to do it in terms of the money cost of the planes versus the money cost of the tanks since this money cost will be a good proxy for the total resources in labour and equipment that the two products require.
When O'Brien computes that 60% of the German war economy in 1944 was devoted to the air and missile war, that is in terms of the money valuation.

Humans required to fight a war as you say cannot be printed. But the humans required to fight a war do so either by directly taking up arms or by producing and supplying arms. Although Germany could not print humans, it could capture them from the conquered territory and put them to work making weapons as slave labourers.

Posted by: Paul Cockshott | Jun 5 2019 20:17 utc | 39

vk @33--

It would be excellent to finally read all the documents and related material UK ordered sealed during and after WW2, but will they be revealed when 100 years elapses. IMO, the numerous government archives still hold many untold stories and clues to others, with Robert Stinnett's book Day of Deceit: The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor being one outstanding example of what can be gleaned by combing archives while having an idea of what to look for.

Posted by: karlof1 | Jun 5 2019 20:25 utc | 40

It's ok. The US and their paymasters the Zionists are adept at fabricating stories. Hollywood and Israel as exhibit A and B

Posted by: Jezabeel | Jun 5 2019 20:33 utc | 41

Paul Cockshott @38--

I understand your point. Many have argued about the misallocation of resources, the blame for which is laid at Hitler's feet. Indeed, decades ago, I decided Hitler was the Allies best Ally given his vast number of mistakes. The same might be said now of the Outlaw US Empire's Military Industrial Complex. The blindness and stupidity induced by hubris generated exceptionalism create situations very difficult to overcome. All too often history's lessons are ignored to the detriment of the ignorant and those being led by them. There are many things money can buy, but wisdom must be learned.

Posted by: karlof1 | Jun 5 2019 20:42 utc | 42

I wonder what the russians would have done without the 400 000 lorries the US gave them. Ever tried to haul a shell on your neck? It is heavy. When it comes to the landing, all figures of 85% UK are absolutely true but the intention of the initial poster is a bit short on the truth. It was meant from the start that the british will shine first with their more seasoned soldiers but in non renewal quantity, that they will drag upon them all Panzer div (10 of them) in Caen, prevent their access to Cotentin, while the US will grow in the Umbrella, size the port of Cherbourg in 30 days, then unleashed a powerfull blow to breakthrough. But nobody forecast the rapid collapse of German in French, the encirclement of 200 000 Germans in Mortain and the death and capture of most of them.
As of ratio of soldiers, by the end of June the US head count was 500K, by Jully 1 million by the end of the year 2.6 millions, by the end of April 4 millions GI while 4 more millions were training in US. In the same time the UK army in west front dwindled from a maximum of 1.2M to 800K.

Posted by: Murgen23 | Jun 5 2019 20:55 utc | 43

The bloody noses in Africa happened before Patton was in command. Sicily speaks for itself. As far as the Ardennes Patton was nowhere near there and swung his army around in what was considered impossibly short time to enter the fray. Seems someone read a book by a Patton hater. When Patton was a regional governor after the war he treated his captives and locals as a defeated foe and with respect, and got called on the carpet for it especially by the US press, while the great Eisenhower put them into open fields with squat for shelter and low rations claiming food was scarce. All German military had to surrender and be put into custody and not allowed to go home. Huge numbers died and when it was brought to light Eisenhower, to buff up his image, hired people to rewrite history. These people did make a point of "where are the bodies" but near these death camps is a huge area that it has been illegal to dig since that time.

Patton may have admired the Germans but so what. Around the world today the US is still admired in many places but the government and it's actions are thoroughly hated by those same people. Iran a case in point. Yet one seems to forget that until Hitler declared war on the US many Americans sided with the Germans and wanted no part of the war. Yet after the war with the US homeland untouched Americans on the whole wanted their pound of flesh and then some on the defeated powers. Lots of Americans had the attitude that all the Germans should be wiped off the face of the earth. It's been played up about the benevolent Americans and their Marshall Plan rescued Europe. Skip the benevolent part. The Marshall Plan came into being, and had a tough time being passed with so much German hatred going around, because Germany and many other countries were on the verge of going over to the commies as they felt their plight would be better under Stalin.

In recent years we've had an ongoing effort to make Hitler out to be a really good misunderstood guy and he only attacked the Soviet Union in self defense. Stalin was indeed building up his forces but the quality of the troops was garbage, early the war hundreds of thousands surrendered at a time, the industrial base to support a war was just as bad or worse, thus all the lend lease, and Stalin's best generals dead or in prison through the purges. Some of his most successful generals were released from prison when things were looking bleak. Hitler did make peace overtures to the British, Hitler had great respect for the Brits, and French during the "sitzkreig or phony war" so he could concentrate on his real goal the Soviet Union and it's "living room" and resources but they were weren't interested. Thus the eventual attack on the west. Imagine how things would have worked out if the Brits and French hadn't declared war on Germany after Poland and warned him about heading west but would turn a blind eye to heading east.

Hitler did what he said many times. His hatred of the Jews, his hatred for the Slav's gypsi's and other "subhumans", the need for "living room" and resources, to beat back the communists, and to rebuild Germany to her rightful place in the world. Thus the rehabilitation of Hitler is a farce. Among other things that have been listed that brought Hitler to power is the deep seated belief Germany did not start the war but participated and was the one who had to suffer and pay for it.

Posted by: snedly arkus | Jun 5 2019 21:05 utc | 45

Well it's really true that most of German munition production during WW2 was not targeting land war. In fact about 30-33% of munitions went to army, 12% to sea warfare and staggering 55-58% to air war.

On the other hand as Market Garden and Ardennes proved one just can't trust only air power. US and Commonwealth land forces were never strong enough to decimate Germans. Only Red Army had to capacity.

Posted by: Frankie | Jun 5 2019 21:22 utc | 46

@ BM | Jun 5, 2019 3:20:29 PM | 24

Point taken! I carelessly framed the inappropriate presence of Merkel and the absence of Putin from the Queen's perspective.

You're quite right to object that the Queen, of all people, embodies "the elite point of view"-- thus, there's nothing "Orwellian" about the arrangements from her point of view.

Posted by: Ort | Jun 5 2019 21:27 utc | 47

“If we see that Germany is winning, we ought to help Russia and if Russia is winning we ought to help Germany, and that way let them kill as many as possible."

Maximum and protracted bloodletting (and the resultant national traumas created) in the heart of Eurasia was always the (great) game. The combination of an inevitable post-Merkel pivot east into Eurasian consolidation (marriage of German industrial prowess and inestimable Russian resource wealth) combined with the new GEO-political reality of Land Power's own private northern sea lane (luv ya buh-bye oh distant Suez choke-point) portends the twilight of MacKinder containment. Toss in some belts, roads and hypersonic missilry and

But imagine a Washington-London-Berlin-Moscow-Beijing northern hemisphere strung pearl trade zone. Only Trump's geopolitical naivete and unschooledness in the all the fading tropes could even contemplate such a configuration. Russia is the primordial enemy of Britain. But a Trump-Farage marriage could change all that. Founded in 1832, the Tories received 9% of the EU Parliament vote. Six weeks old, the Brexit Party got 32%. Trump will emerge from the Russiagate debacle vindicated. He's pissed at Bolton/Pompeo's Venezuelan misadventure not to mention their earnest efforts to create Western finance's Waterloo in the Straits of Hormuz. They've given him yards of rope. Now he must hang them. of course he must stay alive too.

So a bold new paradigm is possible. US-Russia-China arms treaties could still avert tens of billions of useless military malinvestment.

Posted by: Full Spectrum Domino | Jun 5 2019 21:40 utc | 48

i think you folks need to go back to the start 1897,, the 1st Zionist Congress.. where the British, French and Russian Hungarian.. bankers, corporate traders and slavers, adopted Hertzl's plan to find a place for the poor Jews" as cover for the arrangements to keep Germany and Russia from enjoying the oil under the Ottoman empire. In 1908 the first Zionist attempt to over through the Ottoman and remove Ottoman control over the Ottoman lands failed, as the Zionist tried to infiltrate the Ottoman Army and use the Ottomans own Army to over throw the Ottomans, it failed, and the Ottomans burned the wealthy traders and Jews who had been in Salonika, guest of the Ottomans, since they were run out of Spain in 1392 and 1401.. 1/2 the Salonika Jews went to NYC (Wilson) the other have to Russia (1919, the October Revolution)

Why were these British bankers, trading corporations, Slavers and the like after the land of the Ottoman <= because under the Ottoman land were vast known oil reserves and oil was becoming important because slaving was being criminalized, and the whale oil was insufficient to meet the growing need for engines.. So the Zionist wanted a monopoly on the oil.. Private property ownership was an essential, and Israel was the means to provide the claims of private property ownership.. But first the problem was to over through the Zionist, and the second was to establish the nation state so they could use political process to make it possible to own the as yet undivided nearly public lands under the vast Ottoman empire. (Turkey, Syria, Saudia Arabia, Iran, Libya, etc.)..

But how were these bankers going to overthrow the powerful Ottoman, more how were they going to deny Russia and Germany access to that oil? <=they weaponized immigration. and directed as many law abiding Jewish immigrants as they could to the so called promised land.. It took fifteen years to arrange it all , that is to line up the states and to figure out how to get the powerful USA to fight the war for the weak British and French..

Two books and one UN document explain the property rights part of it all
1 by an American U. professor written before the War.. Pan Germanism, Roland Greene User, 1913-14
2. the other by the Kaiser of Germany himself written after the war My Memoirs Ex-Kaiser William, II, 1922.
in ref 3. please note this map Source:

from the above clearly its all about monopoly rights
1. private property rights and public property rights 2. copyrights
3. patents.
all three are monopolies. and they are the strength of a few own everything capitalism..
Capitalism only works when no one is allowed any kind of monopoly and the state makes sure no one has a monopoly.

from the planning documents and discussions that the USA and UK were to combine in an effort to control the post-war world, that the paramount holders and extollers of Private Property could not in any way allow any anti-private property system to arise and challenge, and that drive and its supporting propaganda can easily be seen operating today. The struggle's Titanic. Peter Lee in his preface to his primary evidence documentation of the events surrounding Tian An Men cites the following quotation at its top: karlof1 | Jun 5, 2019 3:43:14 PM | 31

Responding to Den Haag | Jun 5, 2019 2:02:19 PM | 9
Churchill, under ideal circumstances, would definitely choose to side with the Germans against the USSR for ideological reasons -- but would the British people do the same? Same case for FDR: he had just "saved capitalism from itself"; would the American people of the time (a time when Dobbs received significant votes for the Presidency in the 1930s) agree to cross the Atlantic to fight for the Nazis against the socialists? vk | Jun 5, 2019 3:49:03 PM | 33

the whole thing the Hollercaust, WWI, WWII, and the many wars since have been about property rights and control rights.
even the Hauwei things is about patented software vs Linux, Intel stuff vs no hidden stuff, and so on.. the whole problem in the war today is monopoly powers.. the people in the various nations states do not hate each other, unless they are made to.

Posted by: snake | Jun 5 2019 21:54 utc | 49

German army was mostly decimated before D-Day and as David Glantz has estimated even without D-Day and Italian Front Soviet Union would have conquerred Berlin but a year later, in 1946. It's one thing to keep 10,000 anti air craft artillery in Germany and other to send them far to east with crews and supplies + ammo.

O'Brien has made interesting study. However one only has to compare US forces in Vietnam and how relatively happless they were when facing dogged and determined fighting NLF/NVA forces. One can't win wars just because "using more money for munitions".

If you are interested in study lessons of Vietnam, get James Gibson's book: "Perfect War, Techno War". US forces there had never chance to win anything though mythmakers are claiming the opposite. For instance USA never could send more than 40,000 combat soldiers to frontline combat duties though having in maximum about 540,000 soldiers there. Nowadays only 5% of U.S Army and Marine soldiers are truly combat soldiers while 95% are mostly "rear area pigs".

Posted by: Travis | Jun 5 2019 21:56 utc | 50

Although much is mentioned about lend lease, there are no mentions of USSR manufacturing power during WWII. Something like 13000 tanks and 7-10000 aircraft. Considering the conditions, it was a huge number.

Posted by: Peter AU 1 | Jun 5 2019 21:56 utc | 51

OFF TOPIC but relelvent:

[no, total nonsense and thus irrelevant - b.]

Posted by: Ian Fransis | Jun 5 2019 22:09 utc | 52

It is some time since I read the numbers of tanks and aircraft produced in USSR through WWII and may be well under in the numbers I quoted.

A quick search brought up this.
"By mid-1941, the USSR had more than 22,000 tanks—more tanks than all the armies of the world combined, and four times the number of tanks in the German arsenal.
By the end of the war, the Soviet Union had produced nearly 60,000 T-34 tanks—proving the point that quantity does have a quality all of its own."

Those sort of numbers make the lend lease a drop in the ocean.

Posted by: Peter AU 1 | Jun 5 2019 22:19 utc | 53

@Paul Cockschott #38
You're repeating someone else's work, so this isn't aimed at the statement itself.
However, it is impossible to imagine that 5000 V2 and 1200 V1 rockets/buzz bombs would cost more than the recruitment, training and operational costs for 200-250 divisions on troops - which was over 1M soldiers - for the duration of World War 2.
The author most likely either made a mistake or framed the comparison in very narrow terms - like the ammunition costs or supply budgets of the troops vs. the "official" budget enjoyed by the rocket makers. For that matter, the rockets, the factory they were made in and the facilities they were launched from were operated largely with slave labor.

Posted by: c1ue | Jun 5 2019 22:19 utc | 54

By late 1945, Germany would have had far more jet fighters. How were those atom bombs supposed to be delivered?

Posted by: lysias | Jun 5 2019 22:25 utc | 55

In 1971, wasn't de Gaulle dead?

Posted by: lysias | Jun 5 2019 22:30 utc | 56

A minor point, perhaps, but the quality of German units fighting in Normandy after D-Day is not to be downplayed. Crack SS divisions including Germany's top tank ace Michael Wittmann fought the the British and Canadians to a standstill outside of Caen. The Germans made good use of the hedgerow country of Normandy in their defense. The forces were not outside of the balance to be expected for attacking heavily defended terrain. The main allied advantage was with air power and it came and went depending upon the weather, which was frequently overcast and sometimes stormy. Of course the big breakthrough followed a massive blow from the air. Considering everything that happened on the western front between June and September, the German forces showed great competence - apart from some bad decisions higher up. But then the allied commanders weren't always on the ball either.

Posted by: Thirdeye | Jun 5 2019 22:45 utc | 57

Point #1: The current UK government has demonstrated once again that it is beneath contempt. Merkel ought not to be at those celebrations, and there ought to be many from the countries to the East.

Point #2: So far as I know, the Soviets did nothing comparable to the invasion at Normandy during the course of World War 2. Going ashore against fortifications is a very big deal, especially when the enemy knows you're coming and had narrowed down the landing places to Calais and Normandy.

This is not to disparage the Western Allied soldiers who fought and died to free the world from Nazism.

Point #3: I disagree. IMO that's precisely the guy's goal, and I take it personally. A still-living relative landed at Utah beach then fought in the Hurtgen, and many others now gone were in Europe. All just lollygagging around as tourists, or so I now learn.

Point #4: Regarding Normandy, the British navy damned well ought to be doing something useful. The US was engaged in a naval war in the Pacific, and had a June landing at Saipan which in many ways rivaled the one in France.

Point #5: Before June 22 had ended, Churchill had pledged support for the Soviets. Roosevelt instantly directed Harry Hopkins to go to Moscow to see if the USSR could hang on, and subsequently started the Lend Lease ball rolling. I believe I could make a stout case the Germans would have won in the East without the alliance with the US and the UK. In 1941 Harry Truman was a typical loudmouth southern hick - and what he thought about nearly anything didn't matter the least bit.

Point #6: Stalin was in a big hole in 1941, but that was his own doing. Helping Germany take out the western Europe countries left him alone on the continent. His whining about a "second front" was BS he didn't believe himself. Unless the man was as delusional as say, DJT.

Enough. I could go on for several pages, but why bother.

Posted by: Zachary Smith | Jun 5 2019 22:46 utc | 58

@49 "Something like 13000 tanks and 7-10000 aircraft"

Production of the Ilyushin Shturmovik alone amounted to over 40,000 aircraft.
The largest production run of any US aircraft is the B-24 Liberator, at over 18,000.
The most produced British warplane was the Spitfire, with 20,000 built.

The notion that the USSR was armed and equipped by lend-lease equipment from the western allies is nonsense. The idea that the Red Army would have been defeated without that supply is a falsehood.

The supplies were handy - the Russians were never going to turn them away - but they were only ever amounted to the icing on the cake.

Posted by: Yeah, Right | Jun 5 2019 22:46 utc | 59

Peter AU 1 @51--

At the war's outset, Soviet armor while having great numbers was very inferior, most lacking radios for proper communication! IMO, the real feat of Soviet industry was relocating its factories to the Urals and beyond in record time to resume production in the numbers that made the difference.

Posted by: karlof1 | Jun 5 2019 22:55 utc | 60

World War II was a set up. Here is a link to a brilliant book by an Italian academic Guido Giacomo Preparata, subsequently fired from his job in academia, that explains in great and sometimes difficult detail the money and the strategy behind it. The title says it all - Conjuring Hitler. How could a sort of marginal type like Hitler achieve global prominence without serious backers? You have to select how you want to download - PDF, etc. Archive is a great source.

Posted by: Lochearn | Jun 5 2019 23:23 utc | 61

Looking at it again on the right at the top there is "See Other Formats" - that is where you can download

Posted by: Lochearn | Jun 5 2019 23:33 utc | 62

The snub is hardly surprising, considering that the 70th anniversary of Victory Day in 2015 was not televised or read about in the U.S. by and large, relegated to RT. It is almost as if Russia never happened in WWII. Rod Serling could not have done it better.

Posted by: T Mike | Jun 5 2019 23:57 utc | 63

The British and the Americans were also fighting 5 million Japanese troops. The Russians were fighting more German troops than the Western Allies, but fewer Axis troops.

Posted by: xtree | Jun 5 2019 23:57 utc | 64

@ Lochearn | Jun 5, 2019 7:23:06 PM #59

I was unable to locate a single academic review for this book and that's unusual. Then there is this:

BS in Economics at the Libera University
M-Phil in criminology at the University of Cambridge
Master's degree in Economics
PhD in Political Economy & Public Policy

No history experience anywhere in sight, and it shows. Seventeen references to David freaking Irving is telling. The man knows essentially nothing about either WW1 or WW2 war history. He has some beautiful conspiracy notions though.

I don't doubt that Preparata has uncovered some of the dirtier linen from the process of "uplifting/elevating" Hitler. The Amazon 3 star reviewer said this:

This book should in some ways deserve 5 stars, but the gross absurdity of its conclusion means I can't give more than 3. Nevertheless, it's a fascinating read, and well worth the effort.

I'll certainly skim it, but already I've spotted so many howlers that I urge any other readers to be really cautious.

Posted by: Zachary Smith | Jun 6 2019 0:10 utc | 65

This is a "so what?" diatribe. Neither WW2 nor WW1 was an American war and the citizens did not want any part of either of them. Both were wars started by the Brits because they could not economically compete against Germany, which they wished destroyed. Both wars the perfidious Brits and their power buddies in the U.S. conned the U.S. government into pulling Britain's sorry ass out of their mess.

Damn the Brits, they are the scum of the earth and home of the Rothschild cabal which now owns most of the earth.

Posted by: Tony B. | Jun 6 2019 0:36 utc | 66

@Full Spectrum Domino 47

"The combination of an inevitable post-Merkel pivot east into Eurasian consolidation.."

The German Greens are polling number 1 these days and they are well known russophobes.

It will be quite a surprise for some to learn that russophobia in Europe is big among western european "progressives" or in "the best progressive example to follow" - Scandinavia.

By the way, a country well known for kissing israeli behind is not going to move away from the Anglo - Zionist Empire. The German Parliament just designated the BDS Movement as Anti-Semitic..

Posted by: T | Jun 6 2019 0:48 utc | 67

xtree @62--

After Singapore, the Brits were out and the French went well before them. The Americans openly stated Europe was the priority; the Pacific was mostly a Navy and Marines job with a few Army sprinkled in as well as Army Air Corp once airstrips were built for their bombers. The China, Burma, India Theatre was treated as a backwater. The Submarine War versus Japan came close to winning the Pacific single handed, a fact proving Hitler's reluctance to escalate his U-Boat War to be one of his top strategic mistakes.

Posted by: karlof1 | Jun 6 2019 0:50 utc | 68

His biggest mistake was declaring war on the US.
Doesn't make sense to this day,the Japanese acted without consulting the axis partners,he
was under no obligation to do that.There was no stomach in the US for a war on Germany,until
he did that.

Posted by: Winston2 | Jun 6 2019 1:05 utc | 69

Not even the American comedy Hogan’s Heroes knew that it was the Eastern front was the most important

Posted by: Dennis De Jarnette | Jun 6 2019 1:15 utc | 70

@ Posted by: Zachary Smith | Jun 5, 2019 6:46:21 PM | 56

My counterarguments:

1) agree.

2) The Soviets didn't do it because it wasn't needed. Amphibious invasions may be neat, but neatness do not win wars -- specially not wars of anihilation. Germany only had one Festung in the region, so it wasn't like D-Day was some kind of suicidal attack. But the important point is that Normandy was of a very small scale compared to what was happening in the East. Bagration -- the operation that essentially vanquished Army Group Center -- was the decisive factor in 1944.

3) didn't understand the context.

4) that only highlights the American unimportance in the European Theater. In the Pacific, there's no discussion: when the Soviets anihilated the Guandong Army, it already was only a shell of itself, thanks to the Americans. But the American role in the Pacific only highlights again, even more, the fact that it was the Red Army, not the liberal allies with their D-Day, which was responsible for the defeat of the Third Reich.

5) Churchill, as Roosevelt, were capitalists (liberals) before anything else. Doesn't mean their respective peoples were. To wage a war of anihilation, your people must be completely commited morally. There was no chance Germany could defeat the USSR. Just read the documents of Operation Barbarossa: it simply didn't have a victory plan; they hoped that, once they got to the imaginary line of Arkanghelsk-Moscow-Baku, the would get the oil and the Soviet State would collapse. It was pure wishful thinking. What you can argue is if the USSR would be capable of marching to Berlin without the Lend Lease that fast or at all: it gave the USSR trucks necessary to fill the logistic gap between trains and the Army, and the high-octane fuel was essential to power and speed up the Red Air Force -- both were essential ingredients for the counter-offensive.

6) By 1939, BOTH the USSR and Germany were fully embargoed by the main imperialist powers. The Treat of Non-Aggression was the last resort of both nations to prepare for war in a way it was possible for at least one of them to get out of it alive. They knew they were being used as pawns by the imperialists; the big difference -- and that's why WWII begun exactly in 1939 in Europe, and not in any other year -- was that Germany didn't have oil, do they had to attack soon; Stalin was hoping he could buy at least one decade -- we now know that was false hope, but he got two years, which ultimately gave the Soviet Union the victory.

Posted by: vk | Jun 6 2019 1:22 utc | 71

Zachary Smith @ 63

Re: "Seventeen references to David freaking Irving is telling."

The Remarkable Historiography of David Irving

In 1993, Deborah Lipstadt, a rather ignorant and fanatic professor of Theology and Holocaust Studies (or perhaps “Holocaust Theology”) ferociously attacked him [Irving] in her book as being a “Holocaust Denier,” leading Irving’s timorous publisher to suddenly cancel the contract for his major new historical volume. This development eventually sparked a rancorous lawsuit in 1998, which resulted in a celebrated 2000 libel trial held in British Court.

That legal battle was certainly a David-and-Goliath affair, with wealthy Jewish movie producers and corporate executives providing a huge war-chest of $13 million to Lipstadt’s side, allowing her to fund a veritable army of 40 researchers and legal experts, captained by one of Britain’s most successful Jewish divorce lawyers. By contrast, Irving, being an impecunious historian, was forced to defend himself without benefit of legal counsel.

In real life unlike in fable, the Goliaths of this world are almost invariably triumphant, and this case was no exception, with Irving being driven into personal bankruptcy, resulting in the loss of his fine central London home. But seen from the longer perspective of history, I think the victory of his tormenters was a remarkably Pyrrhic one.

Although the target of their unleashed hatred was Irving’s alleged “Holocaust denial,” as near as I can tell, that particular topic was almost entirely absent from all of Irving’s dozens of books, and exactly that very silence was what had provoked their spittle-flecked outrage. Therefore, lacking such a clear target, their lavishly-funded corps of researchers and fact-checkers instead spent a year or more apparently performing a line-by-line and footnote-by-footnote review of everything Irving had ever published, seeking to locate every single historical error that could possibly cast him in a bad professional light. With almost limitless money and manpower, they even utilized the process of legal discovery to subpoena and read the thousands of pages in his bound personal diaries and correspondence, thereby hoping to find some evidence of his “wicked thoughts.” Denial, a 2016 Hollywood film co-written by Lipstadt, may provide a reasonable outline of the sequence of events as seen from her perspective.

Yet despite such massive financial and human resources, they apparently came up almost entirely empty, at least if Lipstadt’s triumphalist 2005 book History on Trial may be credited. Across four decades of research and writing, which had produced numerous controversial historical claims of the most astonishing nature, they only managed to find a couple of dozen rather minor alleged errors of fact or interpretation, most of these ambiguous or disputed. And the worst they discovered after reading every page of the many linear meters of Irving’s personal diaries was that he had once composed a short “racially insensitive” ditty for his infant daughter, a trivial item which they naturally then trumpeted as proof that he was a “racist.” Thus, they seemingly admitted that Irving’s enormous corpus of historical texts was perhaps 99.9% accurate. [emphasis added]

Posted by: pogohere | Jun 6 2019 1:23 utc | 72

Interesting news. For the first time, the original (not some dubious "photocopies") non-aggression agreement between the USSR and Germany was published. Documents are available in Russian and German.


Den Haag, #2:

Before attacked, Soviet-Union was ready to massive attack Europe.

Poor kid. Totally brainwashed. Or just a complete lack of education.

Posted by: alaff | Jun 6 2019 1:52 utc | 73

vk, #69:

that's why WWII begun exactly in 1939 in Europe, and not in any other year

I do not agree. In general, this is a very big convention - to consider the beginning of the war exactly 1939. This is not at all a "well-established historical fact". Some Western countries began to consider September 1, 1939 the beginning of the war, and over time this "became fashionable". Although there were many other dates that can also be considered the beginning of the WWII.

Why, for example, not 1938? The infamous "Munich Collusion" - a very symbolic beginning of the WWII. It is rather strange that the attack on Czechoslovakia of several western countries is not considered the beginning of the war, while the attack on Poland of one western country is considered as such. Anschluss of Austria in 1938 - also a good "candidate" to be considered WWII beginning.

Or the events of 1937 between China and Japan - why not consider them the beginning of the war? By the way, there is a big misconception about this - to consider as WWII only military actions between “Western countries” on the Western front. China and Japan - exactly the same participants in the Second World War. Military actions between them in the same way can conditionally be considered the beginning of the Second World War.

Posted by: alaff | Jun 6 2019 2:21 utc | 74

@ Lochearn @ Zachary Smith

Re: Conjuring Hitler

I read it about six months ago and agree with the Amazon reviewer's three star rating. It is entirely plausible that many in Britain preferred a fascist to a Bolshevik, but the author grasps at every single instance of gold or currency manipulation as evidence of a British conspiracy to bring Hitler to power and destroy Germany. Overall, it was not convincing.

That said, the discussions of how exchange rates fluctuated under a gold standard as well as the hyperinflation were interesting since I had negligible familiarity with both.

Posted by: Schmoe | Jun 6 2019 2:42 utc | 75

@ Posted by: alaff | Jun 5, 2019 10:21:39 PM | 72

I forgot his name, but Hitler's finance minister (or its equivalent) sent a memo that informed him Germany would run out of natural oil to wage war at September 1941. Operation Barbarossa begun at June 1941.

Germany was in a very difficult situation. In 1937, the UK embargoed it from what was essentially its only source of oil (the Middle East, Iraq in special). The USSR probably knew he wanted to invade them at the beginning of the 1930s. If it didn't act fast (i.e. triggered WWII) it would have been crushed between two sides (UK and USSR).

It would only be a matter of time before the USSR also cut its supply of oil. The Germans were lucky the Soviets were in the middle of a major reform of its Armed Forces (great purge of 1936), so it was still in flux. That earned them two years, plus two more after the Non-Aggression Pact of 1939 (the partition of Poland). The Soviets need at least one decade more, so they were at an initial disadvantage. Certainly, the 1939 Pact wouldn't have happened without the 1938 Pact, so we have a perfect timeline here: if we consider the 1939 Pact as a legitimate treaty, then the partition of Poland wasn't the beginning of WWII in Europe, but the German invasion of France of 1940.

Nazi spetacular gains in the future "Iron Curtain" and in Western USSR (Baltics, Ukraine and Belarus) were only possible because the Wehrmacht faced skeleton formations of the Red Army, so in many points they outnumbered the Reds 10:1 (this shatters the myth the USSR only won because it had more people: Germany plus its allies had a population comparable to the USSR at the time).

If it was up to Stalin, WWII would've begun much later, at least in 1950-1951. That was his ideal chronogram to finish the reforms of the Soviet Union war economy. However, it is also a myth the Soviets were got by surprise when the Germans attacked: the only doubt was the exact date. They were 100% sure Germany would invade them; why it was in 1941 we now know, thanks to the German archives.

Yes, I agree the Pacific Theater begun at 1937, with the Japanese invasion of China.

Posted by: vk | Jun 6 2019 2:54 utc | 76

"The China, Burma, India Theatre was treated as a backwater..."
Not by the people who lived, and fought there. This fixation on the 'Pacific War'is another example of 'History American Style': the naval battles in the Pacific and the island hopping were important but the real war against Japan was fought in China, Vietnam, Manchuria. And the forces that fought it were, for the most part nationalist coalitions led by communists. After the war, from Malaya to Korea including Vietnam, The Phillipines and Indonesia, western imperialism took up the fight the Japanese had lost. That war is still going-North Korea's Kim is the grandson of the Korean Communist who fought Japan in Manchuria as part of the PLA.
One striking fact about D-Day and the western front is the enormous contribution that Canada made. Despite having a much smaller population, in both economic and military terms Canada's contribution was not much less than that of the USA. The Poles too made a significant military contribution in Normandy.

I am old enough to remember well the days when every other man in the UK was a veteran of the war, and family members had all been mobilised. None of them, Tory or Socialist, had any doubts who had won the war ("It wasn't the Yanks that won the war..."the song went) and they were uniformly grateful and respectful of the Red Army. The same might be said of the respect that many Americans had for the Russians. Battles like Stalingrad and Kursk were on a scale far larger than any in the west or Africa.

One final point: it was Nazi policy to treat Soviet POWs like dirt-they died in their millions, and were enslaved and starved. There is no comparison between the, relatively benign and legal treatment of western POWs and that of those on the Eastern Front.

It has always to be borne in mind that imperialist ideology shapes much of the 'historical research' emanating from the Academy: academics can set themselves up for life by distorting history to denigrate the role played by the Soviet Union and its allies in the Communist liberation movements (aka the Resistance). The central fact is that fascism was, and is, a form of capitalism's defence against socialism. That is what Hitler and Mussolini were all about.

Posted by: bevin | Jun 6 2019 3:14 utc | 77

@66 karlof1

What are you referring to in the second half of this sentcnce: "The Submarine War versus Japan came close to winning the Pacific single handed, a fact proving Hitler's reluctance to escalate his U-Boat War to be one of his top strategic mistakes."
Doenitz heavily withdrew the U-boat force in 1943 or 1944 as I recall due to casualties from better Allied technology, weapons (eg, Hedgehog),and bridging the airgap with escort carriers.
The British were reasonably prepared for the U-boat war but Japan was blindsided by the effectiveness of the Silent Service.

Posted by: Schmoe | Jun 6 2019 3:19 utc | 78

Anatoly Karlin, May 9, 2015:

Hollywood, WW2, and the Red Army

A few months ago, I wrote the following:

This is a series of polls that took place in France in 1945, 1994, and 2004, respectively, asking which nation was most responsible for the defeat of Germany. Right after France’s liberation, with American and British soldiers walking the streets, a solid majority of 57% nonetheless believed that it had been the Soviet Union. But by 2004, the situation had cardinally reversed itself, with 58% now crediting the Americans and only 20% – the Soviet Union. This even constituted a decline relative to 1994, despite the intervening decade having been one of the best ever for West-Russia relations. The fact that great bulk of German divisions and airpower were destroyed on the Eastern Front pales into insignificance besides the power of Cold War and just plain anti-Russian propaganda acting on the human biomasses over the course of two generations. …

I haven’t seen any similar polls from the US or Britain, but I very much doubt they would be substantially different.

Well, now we do have such polls, not only for the US and Britain but also for some other countries of interest like Germany and Finland, all thanks to two big recent polls by YouGov and ICM Research.

Updated with an additional IFOP poll for France, and some VCIOM polls on the topic that I dug up for Russia, I believe I have assembled what may be the most comprehensive graph on changing Western attitudes towards the Soviet victory in World War 2 anywhere on the Internet.


Posted by: John Smith | Jun 6 2019 4:03 utc | 79

Anatoly Karlin, May 9, 2015:

Hollywood, WW2, and the Red Army

Posted by: John Smith | Jun 6 2019 4:04 utc | 80

Bryan MacDonald
‏Verified account @27khv
3h3 hours ago

BBC says "figures from every country that fought alongside the UK (in WW2) are attending (the D-Day memorial)." But doesn't mention Russia. In fact, someone who doesn't know history could believe, from reading it, that UK & Germany were allies in WW2, fighting against Russia.

Posted by: brian | Jun 6 2019 4:06 utc | 81

The amaricans are delusional, they believe in their own liar. Goebbels :: “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” LOL it suits for the USA 's paralell reality

Anyway Merkel is fucking cynical. She knows it is a fraud. Her dad and a uncle fought on the eastern front. 85% of whole German army was fighting against the Soviets

Posted by: Nicks | Jun 6 2019 4:10 utc | 82

Tushonka: I understand this is still sold in Russia. High protein + high fat made it a good food for soldiers in cold weather. Russians thought this was a heavenly meal, while Americans who sampled it declared it to be vile. Spam was another storable basic. Chaotic conditions, restricted crop land, and many refugees from the West - keeping just the civilians out of starvation was a real issue. It's my understanding that US food amounted to at least one full daily meal for Red Army soldiers. Maybe more - I don't have that reference book close at hand. Soldiers with food in their bellies will keep fighting. Starving ones will not.

Posted by: Zachary Smith | Jun 6 2019 4:30 utc | 84

karlof1 58

Not sure what tanks the soviets had at the start but I believe they started producing the T-34 just before or around the start of the war. I have read it from a number of sources now that the sloping frontal armour, the gun, and the speed made it the best of the allied tanks.

Posted by: Peter AU 1 | Jun 6 2019 4:37 utc | 85

@ Vitaliy Yakubovskiy | Jun 5, 2019 11:22:37 PM #77

Google Translate работает для меня. Почему бы вам не попробовать его использовать?

Posted by: Zachary Smith | Jun 6 2019 4:46 utc | 86

любой переводчик будет делать! i think his concept is to speak in his first language i guess..

Posted by: james | Jun 6 2019 4:52 utc | 87

@ Peter AU 1 | Jun 6, 2019 12:37:54 AM #83 of the allied tanks.

That's a mighty low bar. NIH - not invented here - was likely the main reason the US didn't take a copy and tweak it. The US turned down the excellent "funnies" specialty armor developed by the Brits. Kept the worthless Mark 14 torpedo in service for an insane amount of time. And we didn't even shoot any of the Bureau Bastards who prevented the fighting Navy from getting improved torpedoes.

Posted by: Zachary Smith | Jun 6 2019 4:56 utc | 88

Xtree @ 62:

The Soviets and their Mongolian allies had already defeated the Imperial Japanese Army at the Battle of Khalkhin Gol in August 1939. This victory forced Japan to abandon all ideas about conquering the Soviet Far East and Mongolia, and to adopt Plan B (taking over the western Pacific region) instead.

Posted by: Jen | Jun 6 2019 4:57 utc | 89

Schmoe @76--

The early part of the Battle of the Atlantic from 1939-1942 before the full scale entry of the US Navy and development of more effective ASW weapons and tactics were the most critical years. Churchill admitted as much. If the Germans had numerous, reliable 4-engine bombers to employ during the Battle of Britain in combination with totally unrestricted submarine warfare, it would have made it very difficult for the British to survive without America's total involvement, which didn't begin to make a difference until mid 1942. But that's all one of history's What Ifs. If Britain had capitulated well before 7 Dec 1941, IMO it's likely Japan never attacks and the USA joins the Germans against USSR as that would have been the only way for US Bankers to get their money back--recall all the US corporate investment in Germany already helping its war effort and the outstanding animus against Communism.

Posted by: karlof1 | Jun 6 2019 5:02 utc | 90

@ Jen | Jun 6, 2019 12:57:57 AM #87

Relatively small battle, but enormous strategic consequences. The Japanese were a spoiled rotten bunch, and had been for ages. They'd built their little empire with almost no trouble at all, and China was the first real brick wall they ran into. So why not try for some low-hanging fruit in the North? At great cost the Russians smashed them. One of Japan's best divisions was killed off almost to the man. That leaves a mark! Because they had defined themselves as supermen and Americans as wusses, they headed south to try for greener pastures. That turned out not to work either....

Posted by: Zachary Smith | Jun 6 2019 5:08 utc | 91

@ karlof1 | Jun 6, 2019 1:02:03 AM #88

Churchill admitted as much.

I believe we need to keep in mind Churchill wasn't the most reliable of Historians. Things got twisted around, or left out entirely if it worked best for him when the books got written.

As the Allies learned later, without escorts Bombers are easy meat. Anyhow, Germany survived far heavier bombing than England ever would have, and the people there didn't cave in.

Regarding the subs, Hitler simply started his war too early. His submarine force looked so awesome mostly because the Allies had neglected anti-sub warfare since WW1. With a larger force in the beginning England would have had to stop fighting or starve.

Posted by: Zachary Smith | Jun 6 2019 5:19 utc | 92

United Europe likes to discuss who made a greater contribution to the defeat of Germany and its allies in the Second World War. But the same Europe oh, how it does not want to discuss, how she, as a complete prostitute, easily fell under Hitler. And it is still unknown whether she crawled out from under him, if the Soviet Union did not win on the eastern front. For example, the single so-called house of Sergeant Pavlov in Stalingrad beat off attacks by German forces longer than the whole of France resisted Germany.

And why not discuss how much German patents and other intellectual property were stolen by American occupying forces and their allies. According to some reports, the effect of the introduction of these patents and inventions exceeded the cost of the Marshall Plan.

Good picture:

Posted by: truth seeker | Jun 6 2019 5:23 utc | 93

Peter AU 1 @83--

T-34 entered service mid 1940 and eventually 80,000+ of all variants were produced. Also, more than 55% were lost to enemy fire, more than any other main battle tank--the Tiger and Panther were that good. The Soviets had a plethora of tanks at the war's outset, most inferior to German armor and were hamstrung by lack of radios, which are critical for coordinating movement when assaulting & defending--hand signals just don't work! Plus, many Soviet light and medium tanks could be stopped by an anti-tank rifle and even concentrated heavy MG fire. The Finns destroyed many with Molotov Cocktails and by jamming logs into the drive sprockets as tanks then lacked close defense systems to defend against infantry. Mechanical reliability was also poor. German success on the battlefield day after day generated confidence and bolder action while the opposite was true for the Soviets. It was very ugly and huge numbers were captured. Stalin expected to be arrested and shot. Many think his survival saved USSR from defeat, that the Battle for Moscow would have been lost and the time needed to reassemble the munition and other war materiel factories wouldn't have been gained.

Posted by: karlof1 | Jun 6 2019 5:28 utc | 94

Zach @93--

Churchill's admission was confirmed by many. Yep, lots of What Ifs in every war. WW2 has a dozen or so doozies.

Posted by: karlof1 | Jun 6 2019 5:32 utc | 95

Anya Parampil:

Consider this history as European powers (including Germany) & US celebrate #DDay:

Then Soviet ambassador to US, Andrei Gromyko, writes in his memoirs that Churchill didn’t want to open a western front during the 1943 Tehran Conference. Stalin pushed him to commit to Normandy:

Posted by: truth seeker | Jun 6 2019 5:45 utc | 96

Zachary Smith "That's a mighty low bar."
The only tank that outperformed it in armour and gun is the heavy German Tiger tank with very heavy armour and 88mm gun.
"The Panther was intended to counter the Soviet T-34 and to replace the Panzer III and Panzer IV. Nevertheless, it served alongside the Panzer IV and the heavier Tiger I until the end of the war. It is considered one of the best tanks of World War II for its excellent firepower and protection, although its reliability was less impressive.[5]"

"The overall design remained somewhat over-engineered.[8][9] The Panther was rushed into combat at the Battle of Kursk despite numerous unresolved technical problems, leading to high losses due to mechanical failure. Most design flaws were rectified by late 1943 and the spring of 1944, though the bombing of production plants, increasing shortages of high quality alloys for critical components, shortage of fuel and training space, and the declining quality of crews all impacted the tank's effectiveness."

By 1944, the panzer may have been a better tank, but by then it was too late.

Posted by: Peter AU 1 | Jun 6 2019 6:03 utc | 97

Should have read .. By 1944, the panther may have been a better tank,.. @98

Posted by: Peter AU 1 | Jun 6 2019 6:05 utc | 98

Some tank weights.

T-34 26 ton
Panzer IV 25 ton
Panther 45 ton
Tiger 56 ton

Posted by: Peter AU 1 | Jun 6 2019 6:24 utc | 99

Angela Merkel's presence at this gathering is obscene. Disgusting, insolent. But all the other heads of state don't seem to agree with me. The UK gets a twofer: not only the head of state but also the head of government. Who is this Queen anyway? Can anyone tell me.

Posted by: Quentin | Jun 6 2019 6:26 utc | 100

next page »

The comments to this entry are closed.