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

« previous page

The Bomb Didn’t Beat Japan … Stalin Did

Have 70 years of nuclear policy been based on a lie?

Posted by: truth seeker | Jun 6 2019 6:34 utc | 101

Posted by: Quentin | Jun 6, 2019 2:26:24 AM | 101

Who is this Queen anyway? Can anyone tell me.

Future Queen Elizabeth II giving a Nazi Salute with sister Princess Margaret

Posted by: truth seeker | Jun 6 2019 6:40 utc | 102

Posted by: Montreal | Jun 5, 2019 4:00:35 PM | 35

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

The Maisky Diaries: Red Ambassador to the Court of St James's, 1932-1943

1939, 13 november

... We turned to the war. Churchill exclaimed: 'Your non-aggression pact with Germany triggered the war, but I bear you no grudge. I'm even glad. For a long time now I've felt that a war with Germany is necessary. Without your pact, we would have hesitated and drawn things out, until we procrastinated to the point when we could no longer win the war. But now we will win it, even though it cost us dearly.' (p. 238, emphasis in original)

Posted by: Den Haag | Jun 6 2019 7:17 utc | 103

Posted by: alaff | Jun 5, 2019 9:52:15 PM | 73

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

The Chief Culprit
Stalin's Grand Design to Start World War II
Viktor Suvorov
Stalins Grand Design To Start World War II.pdf

After page 74: photos

Joachim von Ribbentrop signs the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact dividing Poland
between the Soviet Union and Germany. Hitler was not aware that France and
England would declare war against Germany after he attacked Poland.
But Stalin knew it. It was part of his plan for the conquest of Europe

Stalin shakes Ribbentrop’s hand. Next to Stalin is Marshal Shaposhnikov, Chief of Staff of the Red
Army, who coined the slogan, “Mobilization is war.” On August 19, 1939, Stalin ordered secret

Ribbentrop brings great news to Hitler: “We can start the war against Poland.” They do not realize
they have fallen into Stalin’s trap

On September 29, 1939, Nikita Khrushchev, then a Politburo member, inspected the
new border on the river San. General I. Tyulenev, accompanying Khrushchev, wrote
that Khrushchev said, “Let the Germans do their evil crimes and then we will come as

Chapter 17 Stalin’s Trap for Hitler
According to this agreement, it turned out that Hitler started the war. This was beneficial
for us from the military and from the moral standpoint. With his actions, he would provoke war with France and England, by going against Poland. We could remain neutral.

Posted by: Den Haag | Jun 6 2019 7:23 utc | 104

@lysias ... De Gaulle died indeed in 1970; but he never trusted the US "impartiality". It is true that France sent a warship in New York to get back its gold from the Fed in August 1971.

Posted by: Red Corvair | Jun 6 2019 7:54 utc | 105

Den Haag: "Suvorov" is a complete hack. I'm still wondering if he's actually a neo-nazi or just a bitter cheap hack that felt he hadn't the consideration he deserved from USSR and turned traitor.

Posted by: Clueless Joe | Jun 6 2019 10:23 utc | 106

Thank you for the historical re-write.

Let me see here. Russians slaughtered some 40,000 plus Polish troops, initially blaming it on the Germans. Those slaughtered troops would have slowed the German advance towards Soviet Union, but, oh well.

Also, the S.U. did ask for the allies to "open a western front". When was Dunkirk again?

Try not to stupid, b.

Posted by: Bardi | Jun 6 2019 10:24 utc | 107

Having seen all the pomp and circumstance I’m wondering are we - -
Celebrating war or comemerating war ?
Becouse if it’s the later, what actually did we learn ?
Did we learn that war is a terrible thing ? Apparently not, we still do it !
Did we learn that power corrupts and total power curupts totaly, no !

We’ve learned nothing ! that’s the truth. Even on this thread comparing the size of our weapons !
Teressa May gave a speech saying how marevelous world peace is ! dear god , send a lightning bolt !
If guns and bombs are the problem guns and bombs won’t be the answer ! She’s lying. as a true psychopath, deliberately fooling the victem public, whilst murdering them !
The whole circus is a travesty our ancestors would be turning in there graves.
It’s about greed was then, is now, get it.
Does enyone here beleave US, U.K. Israel are a benign force and not a malignant force for evil ?
It’s all just a charade !!!

Posted by: Mark2 | Jun 6 2019 10:35 utc | 108

Or, maybe, the case is, that m-me Merkel, who graduated form Donetsk university, is not actually representing German nation there but Russian nation, being Putin's proxy? Maybe that was what they were signaling so desperately? :-D

Posted by: Arioch | Jun 6 2019 11:09 utc | 109

why do we need to go through this every year then?

It took all of the allies to defeat the Germans.
this tiresome scorecard about who contributed more is pointless.

Posted by: heath | Jun 6 2019 11:10 utc | 110

> Heroic Americans with their British sidekicks won World War Two

Another thing that bugs me is when people talk about WW2 but only means a European war, a fight with Third Reich.

But there was the war in Far East!
That started long before Poland and Third Reich invaded Czechoslovakia in 1938.
Then ended months after Soviet Army drove into Berlin.

But even claims that American nukes brought WW2 to end are met with "refutations" that nukes were not used in WW2.

Such a blind eurocentrism, on the verge of racism.

I guess either people should officially decouple war against Third Reich and war against Japan and treat them TWO events, or it is nauseating how people talk about WW2 but then exclusively focus on European theatre like there was nothing else of importance.

Posted by: Arioch | Jun 6 2019 11:15 utc | 111

> In particular, the seamen who enabled Lend-Lease,..... possibly played a crucial role in preventing its collapse in 1941-42.

Except that they didn't. Not in 1941-1942. It all gained steam in very late 1942 and mostly in 1943.

In other words, after USSR proven it gonna not collapse and USA turned sure in their ROI.

Which keeps Lend-Lease very important (for example all post-WW2 trucks industry in USSR was based upon experience with much more advanced American trucks, they were kind of eye-openers), but it never was "preventing collapse" or turning tides in any other way.

Posted by: Arioch | Jun 6 2019 11:19 utc | 112

> Joachim von Ribbentrop signs the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact dividing Poland

It is all because of them!!! Bad evil men of 1939.

It was not about Pilsudksy-Hitler Pact of 1935, which created the very concept of unguarded non-aggression pact and destroyed all European diplomacy.

It was not about Chamberlaine-Hitler pact of 1938

It was not about half-dozen pacts Europeans signed with Hitler laughing at stupid Soviets missing their chance over their stupidly rigid stance on politics.

....but when Soviets decided to be Europeans too and do as Europeans do - our THAT was the day all hell broke loose.

Posted by: Arioch | Jun 6 2019 11:27 utc | 113

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

Yep, that was what Ribbentrope said justifying their attack. It is heartwarming seeing his heritage was not forgotten.

But WHEN was USSR planning to unleash that massive attack and with WHICH forces?

....this argument was already beaten to death.

> For several months during summer 1940, between 7 and 15 German divisions were facing 102 Soviet divisions. Similar strengths per unit, similar mix of infantry and mechanised units.
> That would have been the moment for a Russian attack

But while "would have" it was not.
When USSR had overwhelming advantage over Third European Reich - it did not invade.
The moment Third European Reich got advantage over USSR - it did invade.

Posted by: Arioch | Jun 6 2019 11:38 utc | 114

#108 Russians slaughtered some 40,000 plus Polish troops, initially blaming it on the Germans.

Katyn massacre, Churchill and Roosevelt knew the perpetrators...

13.8.43, Churchill in a letter to Roosevelt:

The first of these two papers is a grim, well-
·written story, but perhaps a little too well-written.
Nevertheless if you have time to read it, it would
repay the trouble. I should like to have it back when
you have fini~hed with it as we are not circulating it
officially in any way.

Posted by: Den Haag | Jun 6 2019 11:39 utc | 115

to quote myself:


Let me make it sink.

1. Stalin intended to attack and smash Third Reich at the first opportunity
2. In summer 1940 he gained 6:1 ratio in all significant factors but it was still not good enough for him
3. In the said timeframe Hitler had “the second front” opened in the west. The thing that Stalin kept asking allies for since 22-06-1941 until the very German agony. Here he had it for granted. Still not good enough for Stalin to attack.
4. Stalin learns that Allies resistans dries out “unexpectedly rapidly”. In other words in few weeks he would loose – forever! – both advantages, 6:1 ratio and the second front. It is now or never moment. Stalin does not attack. He chooses never over now.
5. In 1941 summer the ratios by different factors is from 2:1 to 1:2. There is no second front and no reasonably hope for it. Still Stalin suddenly decides to attack immediately and only by thread width Hitler preempts him.

The 6:1 ratio and two fronts were not good enough for Stalin to attack, but 1:2 ratio and single front is good enough.

What a “historical fact”, my.

Alternatively there is much more simple explanation: Stalin did not really planned to attack Hitler, neither with 1:2 ration nor with 6:1 nor with 60:1 if it somehow could had happened.

Posted by: Arioch | Jun 6 2019 11:43 utc | 116

> Those slaughtered [Polish] troops would have slowed the German advance towards Soviet Union, but, oh well.

Posted by: Bardi | Jun 6, 2019 6:24:21 AM | 108

They would not. Regardless of who slaughtered them, they would at best be neutral, but most probably would be anti-Soviet, like most Poles were during WW2. Like they manifested it during "Anders army" fraud and anti-Soviet Warsaw uprising.

Posted by: Arioch | Jun 6 2019 11:50 utc | 117

World War II Victory 75th Anniversary Proof Coin Collection

24K gold-plated collectible Proof coins honor key Allied victories in WWII with dramatic imagery, dates, more. Crystal-clear capsules, display box.

Posted by: John Smith | Jun 6 2019 12:05 utc | 118


Pardon the salty language.

Aka REMF: Rear Echelon Mother Fuckers

Posted by: morongobill | Jun 6 2019 13:11 utc | 119

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

Because this was not about domination but colonization, and whilst in Germany's wars before the prize was coal, this time it was Russia's oil.

Germany was late in industrialisation and too late for colonisation. Being late in industrialisation was an advantage - they had the most modern industry of the time - being late in colonisation meant they lacked cheap resource.

Thanks for the Truman quote b., it explains the start of the cold war. The US tried to limit Russia's influence in Europe.

Posted by: somebody | Jun 6 2019 13:17 utc | 120

"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."

Yes, now the Russians. Those folks over there. Racialist ideology doesn't trouble itself with nation-state exactitudes. The resurgence of virulent antislavism serves a lot of interests. So don't expect this bit of revisionism to swarm western media any time soon. Manufactured consent is prepping the peeps for the post-War on Terror specter. Remember Hillary's blunt equivalency repeated ad nauseam Putin = Hitler.

Posted by: Full Spectrum Domino | Jun 6 2019 14:04 utc | 121

From The Economist June 6 1944:

The Russian cry for a Second Front was always a cry of bitterest need, and now that the Second Front has come, it is only fitting that the Allies in the West should recognise the scale of their obligation to Russia’s efforts on the Eastern front.

Posted by: b | Jun 6 2019 14:14 utc | 122

Bevin @77

Yes - to your complete comment. The war was what we grew up with because our parents were involved. And I do not recall any animosity toward the Russians/Soviets, at least at home, while the last thing one would have called my father was anti-racist.

I have been nauseated beyond belief with the repeated message on the radio (both BBC World Service and NPR) that Muricans particularly and Brits (no mention of any others, by the way) "liberated Europe" with the "Normandy Landings." No mention, not a breath about the Soviet Union, about Russian lives lost (but then, over these past few decades, since the Eichmann trial, only one group of people's dreadful fate at the hands of Nazi Germany is ever spoken of, as if *no* other group had unthinkable numbers slaughtered, as if *no* groups were deliberately targeted).

Posted by: AnneR | Jun 6 2019 14:22 utc | 123

that picture at the top of your post is quite revealing!

it is interesting reading the comments here on this thread, the number of different views on all this.. b quote - "The U.S. dominated western Europe ever since and quite successfully indoctrinated it with its false version of history." clearly it has worked well..

i recall reading margaret macmillans book - paris 1919

in it she describes the 3 world leaders, uk, france and usa - agreeing on how to divide up the spoils and deal with the world.. russia is given very short shrift in it all in spite of what they contributed in ww1... there was a fear around russia as expressed by these world leaders, over the Bolshevik movement and the thought that a different system that was unfolding couldn't fit into the nice design these countries had on the shape of the world in 1919... it seems none of this has changed, except the world has changed significantly...

margarat mcmillan is a canadian historian and author.. worth the read for anyone interested...

Posted by: james | Jun 6 2019 14:52 utc | 124


Terrific link, b. Thanks!

Posted by: spudski | Jun 6 2019 15:22 utc | 125

typo b@123

Posted by: spudski | Jun 6 2019 15:23 utc | 126

AnneR - 124
Indeed. There is a tragic irony in WW2, in that Nazis were beaten up - thankfully - quite fast, before the full lunacy of the regime and its ideology could manifest across a sizable chunk of the world for decades (unlike, say, capitalism and communism). This was enough for the Holocaust to happen, alas. Yet because the Holocaust was the biggest and most prominent crime they could commit during their reign of terror, people think that Holocaust is the worst thing ever, and that Holocaust was the peak of any possible Nazi atrocity. This is a terribly wrong and limited view of history. Nazis being eventually beaten up by Red Army and destroyed by their combined numerous enemies means that people don't realize what should be obvious when one looks a bit into that sordid regime. The murder of 10 mio Jews across Eurasia was, surely, a primary goal of Nazism, but the extermination itself was actually just the prelude, a trial of the far bigger and wider exterminations projected in the next decades - had Nazis won and be allowed to wreck the world as they saw fit, there's no doubt that 100 to 200 mio Slavs would've been slaughtered, and had they eventually ruled the world, at the very least 1 bio humans worldwide would've been mass-murdered by these crazies.
Not that other regimes / ideologies / economic or political systems can't have terrible results and couldn't end up in the deaths of hundreds of millions, of course, if left unchecked and put in full control of vast parts of the world.

Posted by: Clueless Joe | Jun 6 2019 15:29 utc | 127

I wonder if average American knows about Operation Forager AKA 1944 Marianna islands campaign ?

Posted by: Arioch | Jun 6 2019 16:02 utc | 128

2019 and ignorants still think nazis were the only evil in WW2, totally ignoring facts that soviets were worse and usa/uk worse than nazis and soviets combined.

Posted by: dsadsa | Jun 6 2019 16:26 utc | 129

108;Dunkirk was in 40,Soviet nazi invasion was in 41.

Posted by: dahoit | Jun 6 2019 17:13 utc | 130

Really not enjoying the constant and repetitive America-uber-alles posts from Zachary Smith, including mocking a Russian who lost his grandfather in 1943 in the Kursk Salient (world's most famous tank battle for those who don't know, involving about 10,000 tanks). Loudmouth, jingoistic scum like this are why the Americans are loathed throughout the world.

With his posting frequency, I'd say Zachary has qualified himself as spam. I've noticed that there have been waves of more subtle disruptors after the earlier troll invasions were unsuccessful (the trolls have wreaked havoc on more open alternative forums, making them places no one of intelligence would want to frequent). Death Star AI learns from its mistakes.

Posted by: Uncoy | Jun 6 2019 17:31 utc | 131

@ Arioch | Jun 6, 2019 7:43:27 AM #117

1. Stalin intended to attack and smash Third Reich at the first opportunity

Opinion time: Stalin had built a large and modern army. I'd assume it was created initially for defense, but at some point expansion possibilities began to look interesting. The invasion of Finland demonstrated to the world the Red Army wasn't ready for Prime Time. So Plan B was to wait for the British/French/Germans to exhaust themselves in a replay of WW1. When these countries had fought themselves out, the Soviets could easily scoop them all up.
The astonishing German victory in France put those notions into the 'smoking dope' category, so Plan B was to rebuild the Red Army to be able to withstand a blitzkreig. I'm assuming Stalin sort of forgot his offensive deployment in the West, so when Operation Barbarossa began the Red Army was in no shape at all to make any effective resistance. Hence the easy early Nazi victories. The undersized Nazi offensive against too large a foe, overextended supply lines, and desperate valor by the Russian soldiers finally halted the Germans. The coming of winter didn't hurt, either. By middle to late 1942 Lend Lease was beginning to trickle in, and the promise of more such aid stiffened the Russians. Stalin stopped believing he was some kind of stable military genius and Stalingrad happened. Any assistance which might have gone to the Eastern front went instead to Rommel in Africa. Such dispersion led to massive defeats in both places. Fighting on two fronts led to other such debacles. Kursk was a mindless German offensive, and it was interrupted by the invasion of Sicily. Two more defeats. And so on...

Posted by: Zachary Smith | Jun 6 2019 17:41 utc | 132

@ Posted by: Zachary Smith | Jun 6, 2019 1:41:42 PM | 133

It is moot point what Stalin wanted or didn't want in 1939: the situation was already decided for the USSR.

Hitler made clear and public in the beginning of the 1930s that he would invade the USSR; Poland made a pact of non-aggression in 1937; France and the UK did the same in 1938 (the "Munich Betrayal"); by that time, Hitler had already realized the trap the imperialists set for him, so he made a pact with the USSR in order to neutralize France and the UK in the West before waging a war against the Soviets.

In that scenario, all Stalin could do was to accelerate the development of the Red Army. Invasion of his country was already a given by the time his faction won the dispute against the Trotskyists in 1936; there was no room for him to contemplate otherwise.

Posted by: vk | Jun 6 2019 19:02 utc | 133

Zachary Smith "Kursk was a mindless German offensive"

Not so much mindless as lack of intelligence on Soviet defences. When the Germans broke through one line of defence, they found another then another and so on. The defences were designed to absorb and engulf the German offensive.

Posted by: Peter AU 1 | Jun 6 2019 19:03 utc | 134

"The Soviet government had foreknowledge of the German intentions, provided in part by the British intelligence service and Tunny intercepts. Aware months in advance that the attack would fall on the neck of the Kursk salient, the Soviets built a defence in depth designed to wear down the German armoured spearhead.[37] The Germans delayed the offensive while they tried to build up their forces and waited for new weapons, mainly the new Panther tank but also larger numbers of the Tiger heavy tank.[38][39][40] This gave the Red Army time to construct a series of deep defensive belts. The defensive preparations included minefields, fortifications, artillery fire zones and anti-tank strong points, which extended approximately 300 km (190 mi) in depth.[41] Soviet mobile formations were moved out of the salient and a large reserve force was formed for strategic counter-offensives.[42]"

Posted by: Peter AU 1 | Jun 6 2019 19:11 utc | 135

Easy to understand... easy to explain... just look at the figure and dates on the picture:
1. In 1945: De Gaulle had managed to secure his power over 'liberated' France thanks to his forced alliance with the then powerful – highly murderous (in terms of French hostages killed by German repression) – and disciplined Communist Party (« PC ») of France...
2. May 1994 and June 2004: reversal of trend due to: 2.1. disappearance of the USSR understood as a communistic power; 2.2 increasing formatting impact of Hollywood generated myths over zombified western minds in general and in France in particular to consider the subject of today...

REAL (combined) reasons for Hitler's Greater Germany losing the war:
1. Sheer mathematics (too few vs too many);
2. Russian blood (and Stalin's 'guts') - a slaughter;
3. US material (for greater economic profit and the conquest of non-domestic markets);
4. From June 1934 onward an constant – steadily increasing – betrayal of the NS cause by treacherous high-ranking 'reactionary' (read "conservative") clique of felonious officers (a very small non-representative minority within the whole Wehrmacht, of which the major part were eventually hung as a logical result of the failed July 20th 1944 putsch attempt) with a comparatively high capacity for nuisance.

Posted by: Italo Vernazza | Jun 6 2019 20:07 utc | 136

"2019 and ignorants still think nazis were the only evil in WW2, totally ignoring facts that soviets were worse and usa/uk worse than nazis and soviets combined."
Posted by: dsadsa | Jun 6, 2019 12:26:26 PM | 130

If you are awarding accolades to monsters, reserve a tip of the hat for the Japanese invasions and occupations of China and Korea.

Posted by: frances | Jun 6 2019 20:14 utc | 137

I do agree that likely more than 80% of German military personal deaths and missing happened in Eastern Front, the share could be even as high as 85% because wrong estimates of Rydiger Overmans about German losses in Western Front 1944-45 and Italy 1943-45. Not 5.3 million but most likely 4.3-4.5 million German soldiers deceased during the 1939-45 war. On the other hand there are some claims of German material losses in east not true at all.Until early 1945 not more than 11,000 Luftwaffe aircraft were lost in east while staggering 32,000 in west and south. Besides, try to understand this - majority of WW2-aircraft losses were not in combat but operational: written offs, damaged, outdated, accidents, mechanical failuries, lost in training etc.

According Erikson, Zetterling, Bonn, Frieser etc 35% of German combat armor losses were in south and west and once again majority were not lost in combat but because lack of fuel, spare parts, operational losses (bad weather, poor roads etc).

Almost 75% of German Luftwaffe aircraft combat losses were those outside Eastern Front. Of all German produced aircraft just about 10-12% were lost in Eastern Front combat, 28-30% air war against Western Allied and about 60% for other non-combat reasons (many of aircraft were not even able to fly a single sortie).

Red Army kill huge majority of German soldiers, while Allied caused most of German industrial/production losses. Soviet VVS never was the main force decimating Luftwaffe.Claim of 77,000 lost German aircraft in east is utter nonsense. Never take those Soviet claims seriously.

Posted by: Travis | Jun 6 2019 21:08 utc | 138

On May 9th, the US propaganda apparatus was completely silent. There was no mention of the end of the war in Europe and the surrender of Germany.
But for the last few days, it has been blaring out D-Day propaganda non-stop. D-Day, the day the US opened a second front in Europe, on June 6th, 1944, after the Germans had been defeated in Russia and were being driven back to Germany, 75 years ago. That is when the US invaded France and headed to Germany.

Really? Are we really going to dance around in celebration, patting ourselves on the back and bragging about our Great and Glorious Victory, only one month after totally ignoring the actual end of the war?

It is embarrassing as hell to be an American. But the Europeans aren't much better. Imaging inviting Merkel, but not Putin. Must be embarrassing to be French, also.

Posted by: wagelaborer | Jun 6 2019 21:52 utc | 139

Certainly having to fight a war on 2 fronts was crippling for the Nazis. Hitlers failure to beat Stalin was at least partly due to the early arrival of lend lease materials and badly needed tanks before an early winter stalled their advance. The US entry into the war at the same time was another set back. Hitler was an idiot to declare war to support Japan, agreements to do so notwithstanding. What were the Japanese going to do if he didn't?

Not mentioned much were the demoralizing attacks on German civilians by the RAF thanks in no small part to lend lease before the US entry into the war, which escalated greatly once the US got geared up as the Japanese war became a mopping up exercise.

Its not clear the Russians on their own could actually have invaded and defeated Germany without the US and British decimating the civilian population from the air, not to mention war materials they provided.

In the end the British War over Poland ended with one of the parties that invaded Poland (Stalin) remaining in control of Poland. In fact the winner of WWII was Communism with over 50% of the population under Communist control, and although the name has been changed and some modifications made to definition (eg mixed economy, private ownership of elites) , its still winning . Over 90% of the population are under defacto “Communist” control , most of them in an Orwellian Doublethink fashion are blissfully unaware they are not living in a Democracy or Capitalist (competitive vs monopoly, monopoly capitalism is communism). Such is the power of Propaganda, people can be made to believe any of the lies on the approved menu of lies, no matter how preposterous, especially in the age of the internet and social media. People get to choose their favorite lies. How cool is that?

Posted by: Pft | Jun 6 2019 22:15 utc | 140

All is in the timing:
June 6th 1944: D-Day in Normandy; most of the allied targets are missed by a long shot. Caen should have been taken on day One. many more blunders and shorcomings lead to the Brits, Canadians and US GI,s being stuck in the muddy Normandy bocage with huge casualty rates. Life span of US reinforcements being assessed at 3 weeks.
23 June – 19 August 1944 Bagration offensive on the eastern front leads to the capture of 600,000 german troopers while the front pulls back 200 miles to the west from its start down to Varsaw walls.
German Army Group Center remaining as a ghost army with scant military capacity will never be able to threaten the Red army again.
July 20th Attempted putsch against Hitler fails after the fürher survives the blast of a bomb let behind by Col. Stauffenberg.
25–31 July 1944 operation Cobra, Us troops under Gen. Patton succeed in crossing german line at Coutances after a horrendous carpet bombing by Strategic US and British bombers wich levels down the elite Panzer Lehr divison but also a number of allied units. The German commander of the fallschirmjaeger is none other that Gen. Von Choltitz - the only German War criminal NOT to be prosecuted after the war that would also later surrender Paris without combat to French and US troops.
On 24 July, bombers carrying out a bombardment in preparation for operation Cobra, who were not informed of the 24-hour delay in the beginning of the attack due to bad weather, dropped their bombs over US positions, due to poor visibility. The Germans of the 84th corps, in the axis of the bombardment, are jostled and the American soldiers of the 1st army (leading the 7th corps of General Collins), constantly in liaison with their aviation, attack immediately after the attack of the bombers. The Panzerlehrdivision, then in reserve near Marigny, 15 kilometers from Saint-Lô, is also a victim of the massive bombing.
During the initial hours of the fighting, German paratroopers were complaining of constant counter productive orders end counter orders that rendered their stiff resistance to US progress moot.
On 27 July the advanced elements of the 2nd American Armored Division reached the Tessy-Bréhal road and overtook Coutances, which fell on the 28th. The 84th German corps was decimated and its commander, von Choltitz, was replaced by General Elfeld.
7 August to 13 August 1944 - Operation Lüttich The offensive is also referred to in American and British histories of the Battle of Normandy as the Mortain counterattack.
Operation Lüttich Fails mainly because Generalfeldmarschall Günther Adolf Ferdinand von Kluge (30 October 1882 – 19 August 1944) launches it two days in advance against Hitler orders without waiting to Luftwaffe reinforcements being gathered: dooming it to failure. An otherwise victory to Germany would have been posisble by capturing Patton divisions.
Commanded to Hitler's headquarters he commits suicide instead.
Officially: ''On August 15, as British and American armies cut deep into the forces of Army Group West, Kluge decided after all to contemplate surrender and left his headquarters all day. But at fuehrer headquarters, an American radio transmission was intercepted asking for Kluge's whereabouts.

Hitler immediately suspected Kluge of attempting to negotiate an armistice and called it the worst day of his life. Dr. Udo Esche, Kluge's son-in-law (who provided the cyanide capsule with which the field marshal later commited suicide) told Allied interrogators that Kluge had contemplated surrender and "went to the front line but was unable to get in touch with the Allied commanders."
A persistant rumor says otherwise: Kluge did meet eisenhower and wowed to let the US push succeed.
When the Gestapo investigated the conspiracy . . . they found documents in which Field-Marshal von Kluge’s name was mentioned, so he
came under grave suspicion. Then another incident made things look worse. Shortly after General Patton’s break-out from Normandy,
while the decisive battle at Avranches was in progress, Field-Marshal von Kluge was out of touch with his headquarters for more than
twelve hours. The reason was that he had gone up to the front, and there been trapped in a heavy artillery bombardment. . . . Meantime, we
had been suffering ‘bombardment’ from the rear. For the Field-Marshal’s prolonged ‘absence’ excited Hitler’s suspicion immediately, in
view of the documents that had been found . . . Hitler suspected that the Field-Marshal’s purpose in going right up to the front was to get in
touch with the Allies and negotiate a surrender. The Field-Marshal’s eventual return did not calm Hitler. From this date onward the orders
which Hitler sent him were worded in a brusque and even insulting language. The Field-Marshal became very worried. He feared that he
would be arrested at any moment — and at the same time realized more and more that he could not prove his loyalty by any battlefield
All this had a very bad effect on any chance that remained of preventing the Allies from breaking out. In the days of crisis Field-Marshal
von Kluge gave only part of his attention to what was happening at the front. He was looking back over his shoulder anxiously — towards
Hitler’s headquarters.
He was not the only general who was in that state of worry for conspiracy in the plot against Hitler. Fear permeated and paralysed the
higher commands in the weeks and months that followed.*
* Liddell Hart: The Other Side of the Hill, pp. 414-15.

The effort (Operation Lüttich) failed — whereat Hitler caustically said: ‘It only failed because Kluge didn’t want to succeed.’

I say ''Treason'' only from CHoltitz and Von Kluge - in order to have western allies taking over Germany before the Soviets - allowed US to pierce the german front in Cotentin. This view contrary to main stream history does account for all the discrepancies in official tell tale made up afterwards.

Posted by: GregGalloway | Jun 7 2019 0:47 utc | 141

The supplies sent by the US to Russia were very helpful and well received, but it is a dramatic overstatement that they were the key to Russia beating Germany up.
Here is a list of what was sent by the US to Russia from 1941 to 1945:

14,795 planes
12,000 armored vehicles (tanks, armored personnel carriers)
427,284 cars
1977 locomotives
35,170 motorcycles

It seems like a lot and it is a lot, but let's look in comparison to what the German Army lost in the Eastern Front:

6,800,000 troops. (3,500,000 dead and 3,300,000 prisoners) These were the peak-age crack troops that stormed western Europe not the 1944 wet nose 17 yo recruits or the 57 yo WWI veterans with prostate problems.

75,500 aircraft. BTW have you ever wondered why the Battle of Britain ended the same month as Barbarossa started? And what happened to those Luftwaffe planes that stopped bombing London and dog-fighting the Spitfires?

47,000 tanks, tank destroyers, and assault guns.

Now, do you think the Germans killed more than one for one? Given the production totals other posters have put up, it is clear that they did. The Russians were using 100K+ armored vehicles during the course of the war - between tanks, APCs, self propelled artillery, etc. The aid was material and helpful - it was a fraction of what was used though. Lend Lease helped - it was not a major factor.

Food: Consider the feeding of 7 million German soldiers - presumably facing 1.5x to 2.5x their number (250 divisions vs 450+ divisions). An MRE weighs 16 ounces; a WW2 equivalent is likely heavier.
The Russian Army was likely consuming 3-4 million pounds of rations every day = 1500 to 2500 tons per day. The US is supposed to have sent 1.75 million tons of food, at the stated consumption rate, it would be 2 to 3 years' worth of food. This claim is credible, although of course this food didn't all go to the soldiers.
Of course, a cynical person might note that the US was a major food exporter that couldn't export to its normal European markets...

Posted by: c1ue | Jun 7 2019 0:56 utc | 142

@ GregGalloway | Jun 6, 2019 8:47:04 PM #142

The effort (Operation Lüttich) failed — whereat Hitler caustically said: ‘It only failed because Kluge didn’t want to succeed.’

A more accurate statement would be to say this particular offensive failed because Hitler had regressed to being a delusional moron.

As for the substantial US Army deaths from their own bombers, that was a consequence of the Bomber Forces (both British and US) being basically insubordinate.

Carlo D'Este's book Decision In Normandy lays out the ugly political in-fighting between all the oversized personalities involved in the battle there. Bradley was an above-average US General (substantially better than Patton) but he was responsible for a lot of the US problems on account of poor pre-invasion planning as well as personality conflicts with Montgomery.

Posted by: Zachary Smith | Jun 7 2019 1:32 utc | 143

@ c1ue | Jun 6, 2019 8:56:10 PM #143

I believe your list of "stuff" sent to the USSR is rather incomplete. Most of the incoming weapons were so inferior to Russian tanks and planes their use was restricted to training. The fact the Russians could build such enormous quantities of their own armaments was due to the Lend Lease supplies of crucial materials they didn't have to bother with themselves. Another minor reason the civilians didn't starve as much as they might have was due to the more than 5 thousand tons of vegetable seeds sent to Russia. Little things like that really do matter.

Lend Lease to Russia
From Major Jordan' Diaries

Posted by: Zachary Smith | Jun 7 2019 1:47 utc | 144

@128 Yes, the genocidal Generalplan Ost had been outlined in 1939, a good two years before mass slaughter of Jews began and about three years before the Nazis put a comprehensive plan for exterminating Europe's Jews in place. The systematic elimination of Jews was mere frosting on the cake of Generalplan Ost. Hitler had made genocidal-sounding threats against Jews in 1939, but they were more of a character of threatening to use Europe's Jews as hostages in the event of war between Germany and Britain or France. The lid was taken off the genocide once Hitler saw no prospect for settlement of the war with Britain and Germany was conquering Soviet territory.


Truman's comment was completely in line with sentiments in Britain and France prior to the fall of France. As far as they were concerned, if Germany and the Soviet Union weakened each other in a war, so much the merrier. The way would be clear for them to finally establish hegemony over eastern Europe. That prospect went out the window when France was defeated, leaving Britain alone too weak to do much of anything on the continent. Details, details!

Posted by: Thirdeye | Jun 7 2019 2:17 utc | 145

@145 Machine tools were another biggie. The US understood better than just about anybody else how adequate numbers of machine tools were critical for efficient production and they passed that benefit to the Soviets. One of the reasons Germany's war production was less efficient was a shortage of machine tools that forced them to be deployed in a multi-purpose fashion, far from optimal for efficiency.

The American tanks sent to the Soviets were outdated, but the British tanks sent through the lend-lease chain were among their best and they made a difference in the defense of Moscow, as did the Hurricane fighters. They weren't the highest performance fighters but they were simple and rugged, and the Soviets were able to keep them flying while subzero temperatures and bad logistics were keeping the Luftwaffe on the ground. British and American fighters were also significant before the Soviet industry recovered and started producing updated designs. The weapons aid was small in the overall picture but it was major at a critical time when the Soviets were facing forces superior in number and armament approaching Moscow.

Posted by: Thirdeye | Jun 7 2019 2:54 utc | 146

Putin has shrugged of the D Day snub and the BBC actually shows Russia some sympathy.

>Russia's most popular newspaper Komsomolskaya Pravda asked: "Why does the West want everyone to think that their front wasn't just the second front, but the main one?". It added that millions of Soviet soldiers had been killed while the USSR was waiting for the Allies to open the second front.

Perhaps if President Putin had been invited to join the D-Day commemorations in Normandy, Russia's viewpoint might be more positive.

One Russian TV presenter declared: "There wouldn't even have been a Normandy landing if it hadn't been for the Soviet soldiers who'd died from 1941 onwards in the fight against fascism."<

Posted by: dh | Jun 7 2019 3:34 utc | 147

The landing at Omaha Beach was a very close call, and there is a good case the US Navy saved the day.

DD at Omaha Beach

Posted by: Zachary Smith | Jun 7 2019 4:27 utc | 148

A maternal uncle was a pre-war Regular soldier, went to France with the BEF in 1939 and ended up swimming out to a destroyer a mile of Dunkirk in June 1940. As he put it ' We went in with flowers thrown at our feet, and came out with no ass in our trousers'.
He returned on D-day, and was in the whole campaign up to the fall of Berlin and beyond. At one point he was batman to General Brian Horrocks and heard and saw things that have not found their way into the history books.
In conversation before his death he told me that he had had a 'gentleman's war' in the west compared to what went on in the east, and that by the time they ended up fighting the SS in Normandy and the Ardennes it was in the knowledge that the Red Army had largeley annihilated the best of the Wehrmacht and most of the SS in the east.
He told me that German units they ran across, after initial stiff resistance before ammo ran out, were more than happy to be captured by British and Americans rather than the dreaded Russians.
To his dying day he maintained that it was Americam equipment and materiel and great Russian sacrifice that made the end of the war in May 1945 possible. Like all of his comrades of that generation he had a great respect for the Red Army and what it achieved against what had been the most ruthless and efficient military forces in history so far. Like other contributors here I think it disgraceful (but not surprising) that there was not an acknowledgement of the great sacrifices by Russia and its peoples in the defeat of Fascism, during the recent commemorations.

Posted by: Emmanuel Goldstein | Jun 7 2019 10:56 utc | 149

During the Cold War, the US naturally played down the role of the USSR in defeating Nazi Germany. We never really recovered from that myopic viewpoint.

In the end, neither side would have won without the other's assistance, but at any given time, at least 2/3 of all Axis forces were deployed on the Eastern Front.

Posted by: ralphieboy | Jun 7 2019 13:33 utc | 150

They need war.
They always need war...›watch?v=dV-Wn_lezJo

Posted by: Arioch | Jun 7 2019 13:55 utc | 151

Reading through the comments here, especially the reference to the USSR's inferior output during WWII, I'm drawing on an excellent book by Andrei Martyanov, a Russian military expert, resident in the US, who has written a vitally important book: 'Losing Military Supremacy - The Myopia of American Strategic Planning', in which he says about the USSR during WWII:

Soviet Russia had learned how to produce world-class machines. This fact had massive, ideological, political, and indeed geopolitical, implications. Soviet WWII military production overall roughly matched that of the United States and surpassed by far Nazi Germany's output. By the end of WWII it was not just the Red Army whose power was uncontested; the Red Air Force was the largest tactical-operational air force in the world.

He goes on:

Apart from its obvious purely military achievement in defeating Nazism, the fact that the Soviet Union could, largely on its own, produce machinery which could defeat any enemy, even despite the stupefying scale of destruction the USSR sustained, placed the Soviet Union squarely into superpower status.

Posted by: Barovsky | Jun 7 2019 14:31 utc | 152

If the Russians held a celebration/photo op honoring Stalingrad, Kursk, or Bagaration, should they include western representatives?

Didn't think so...

And it's nonsense to only count the divisions facing Eisenhower as lost to the Eastern front. There's Italy, plus all the garrisons. IIRC Norway was garrisoned by 200k troops.

300k+ trucks via lend lease ain't peanuts. Or perhaps the Russians just ran quickly to achieve their breakthroughs.

The points wrt the USSR's bearing the brunt of the war are true and well taken, but still Normandy wasn't a walk in the park.

Posted by: Sam | Jun 7 2019 14:52 utc | 153

No sympathy for the Soviets. At all. The Soviets helped Germany re-arm and re-train in violation of the Treaty of Versailles even before Hitler came to power. The Soviets also joined Germany in invading Poland as well as invading several other nations on their own. In fact, the Soviets controlled the US Communist Party and directed it to agitate against US intervention in WW2. That is, until Germany invaded the USSR.

The fact that Soviet forces were deployed right on the border with German forces indicates they were in an offensive posture (as was Germany). If they were defensive, they would have been deployed farther back to offer a buffer zone or warning track.

Oh, and then there is that matter of Katyn.

Posted by: kevin | Jun 7 2019 14:58 utc | 154

@Zachary Smith #145
Saying it helped is very different than saying it mattered.
The amount sent was helpful - it is in no way clear that it was the tipping point.
The inferior crap sent is no surprise to me; I can easily see the US military dumping its old gear for new material. That it helped the war effort is far less clear. People have trained with sticks for guns - having obsolete crap doesn't help train artillerymen, pilots, tank commanders and gunners, or even machine gunners and riflemen.
I also noted that the material sent was a small fraction of what the Russians actively produced.
The other note is that the implicit assumption being made was that the material could otherwise not have been sent. That is utterly false: even if the U.S. wasn't interested in helping Slavs kill Germans (and vice versa), the profit motive would have seen the US military switch out its old gear for new; the ongoing Great Depression would have militated for printing money "to fight the Nazis" but in reality to stimulate the US economy. No doubt there are a thousand, lesser reasons as well.
The US help was welcome and appreciated; this is not the same thing as saying it was what made the difference or could ever have not come.
To say otherwise is pure propanda.

Posted by: c1ue | Jun 7 2019 17:23 utc | 155

@Emmanuel Goldstein #150
A great story and thank you.
I would note, however, that UK benefit from US materials was far greater, in proportion, than Russia's. UK doesn't have much natural resources of its own, it is a much smaller country, and it had lost a tremendous amount of material in the events leading up to Dunkirk.
I suspect that a lot of Americans and British (and French) transpose this Western Front situation to what happened on the Eastern Front. However, the numbers of troops and losses in the Western Front vs. the Eastern Front make it crystal clear what the overall balance of forces, as associated materials, were.

Posted by: c1ue | Jun 7 2019 17:35 utc | 156

@ Posted by: kevin | Jun 7, 2019 10:58:48 AM | 155

But the USSR and the Third Reich only "helped" each other during the 1930s because the Western imperialist powers embargoed both to begin with. It is pure game theory: it would be bad for both nations to let themselves literally starve to death and letting the imperialists to simply take over both in a sweep operation. The only other -- and much better, albeit not ideal by any means -- option for them would be to strike a trade deal while not stopping their respective build ups, even though each knew it would be used against each other in the near future. A slim chance is better than none, after all.

Besides, there was no political climate in Germany for Hitler not to wage war and, once doing it, not waging it at least against France -- the country responsible for the most humiliating clauses of Versailles. The entire legitimacy of the Nazis laid upon the myth the SPD had "stabbed the Army in the back" during WWI, that being the sole reason Germany lost that war.

And your deployment theory simply doesn't make any sense: the USSR territory is USSR territory; the goal of an Army is to protect a nation's territory, which is one of the three ingredients that makes a Westphalian Nation-State (Territory, Government and People). For an army of a sovereign Nation-State in the Westphalian fashion to automatically give up its borders when it already has intelligence that indicates it will be invaded by a conventional enemy is akin to giving up sovereignty; indeed, that was the spirit of Order nº 227.

Posted by: vk | Jun 7 2019 19:19 utc | 157

How can they invite Merkel and not invite Russia. No doubt, we are in a new Cold War

Posted by: Anunnaki | Jun 8 2019 3:24 utc | 158

@vk #158
Indeed. The same can be said for Japan being oil embargoed prior to Pearl Harbor.
In fact, we're seeing the same action today regarding Russia, China and Iran.
Russia and China are inherently confrontational - primarily over Siberia. Russia and China were not, in fact, friends for many years in which both were "Communist".
Russia and Iran are also natural enemies. Iran blocks Russian trade routes and influence to the South and is a rival influence in the Muslim mountainous and Central Asian regions. Iran used to host US spying on Russia ranging from radio listening stations to U2 overflights.
Iran and China don't have any particular enmity that I am aware of - other than ideological - but also never had much to do with each other, beyond both being part of the (old) Silk Road.
That's the nature of major conflict - whether it is geopolitics or just politics. That's why there's a Republican party vs. Democrats in the US even though the two parties have switched ideological positions at least once with each other, and also why the "multiparty" systems in Europe are really just the centrists and everyone else (and why the far right is growing - they're the only ones even trying to listen to what people want).

Posted by: c1ue | Jun 8 2019 16:10 utc | 159

What a sad state of affairs for history to find itself in; sliced and diced, massaged and kneaded, bent and twisted to meet the requirements of some ill thought out opinions or deranged conspiracy theories. After reading these commentaries, an observation that history has no future is the only conclusion that can be drawn. When a student no longer knows what has happened, any concoction can be fed them for any purpose or agenda being promulgated and that student can be none the wiser. Are there no adults with memories about anymore? Imagine living life in a carnival's house of mirrors.

The historic Prussian/German Empire was always faced with a two front conflict and their military planning was always about conducting a rapid, effective assault to bring a quick end to those conditions, one of Napoleon's great gifts to Europe. Likewise Imperial Russia/USSR/Russian Federation was always in a lesser state of development than their western neighbours Germany and Austro.Hungarian Empires and made plans to forestall conflict until their military could be better internally supported by buying time. None of those parties was either stupid, ill-educated or unsophisticated; they would not be empires had they been, it is disingenuous and self-deluding not to give any of them full credit for statecraft. Most shallow opinions and convoluted conspiracies do not allow this.

Posted by: Formerly T-Bear | Jun 8 2019 17:46 utc | 160

Merkel should have rejected to be there unless Putin would also be invited.

If Merkel had any decency she would have done so. But she is a after all a product of the former SED, an entity very good at lying especially when it was about its own Nazis within its "True Socialist" Borders.

Posted by: Peter Moritz | Jun 8 2019 18:20 utc | 161

Putin commented on the lack of an invitation to Normandy:


"Regarding the invitation or not the invitation: we do not invite everyone either, and not to every event, why should I always be invited everywhere? Am I a wedding general? I have enough of my business here. This is not a problem at all,” said Putin at a meeting with heads of news agencies.


Speaking of the second front, the Russian leader noted that "this is the second front, the first was with us."




Posted by: truth seeker | Jun 8 2019 19:14 utc | 162

As a joke, the president did not rule out the fact that "Western leaders wanted to sneak among themselves before starting any kind of contacts" with Russia.

At the same time, the Russian leader stressed that the issue of invitations does not matter.

Posted by: truth seeker | Jun 8 2019 19:16 utc | 163


The "gentleman's war" in the west was only gentlemanly relative to the east, and it became even less so in the final months of the war. For the GI Joe the war against Germany was about abstractions; for the Tommy it was more visceral. The Brits were barely a generation away from the horrific losses of WWI, they had suffered during the blitz, and they really wanted to kill the Hun. That was reflected at all levels of the war effort, from the unlimited air war against the German civilian population to Tommy's raging attitude towards Fritz in combat. British veterans talked about the satisfaction they gained from generating an impressive body count in a way that American veterans didn't. In Chuck Yeager's memoir he related the "maximum effort" that turned large swaths of the German countryside into a free fire zone against "everything that moved" with a certain amount of shame, knowing that it was an atrocity. But the American attitude did eventually converge with the British one, partly as a result of the Malmedy massacre in the Ardennes, and partly in response to news of multiple millions killed in concentration camps. Rage ruled the day.


I disagree about the Russians being natural enemies of the Chinese and the Iranians. The Communist era saw conflicts between the Soviet Union and China based on ideology and rivalry for leadership of the Communist movement, which ultimately served the interests of neither. China's main interest in Siberia is in not having a hostile power on its northern border. China has had no historical interest in expanding into Siberia. Instead of expanding northward into the vacuum of Siberia when Russia was weak the Ming Dynasty they built a wall. A big, beautiful wall. Nowadays there are many convergent interests between Russia and China, from keeping stability in central and west Asia, developing trade through Asia, and fending off Western imperial designs. A strong, stable Russia is in China's best interest and vice versa. Iran's behavior as an American Cold War toady under the Shah has little relevance to the current situation. Russia is no more inherently opposed, as a Christian country neighboring Islamic countries, to Iran than it is to any of the central Asian "stans." Its main historical conflict concerning the Islamic world was with one specific entity, the Ottoman Empire. Russian and Iranian interests converge in many spheres, from combating Sunni Islamist extremism and American/Israeli/Gulf Arab power grabs to developing a secure sphere of trade and finance. The notion that Russia ever had designs on Iranian oil fields was nothing more than a Cold War fantasy wrapped in bogus "intelligence."

Posted by: Thirdeye | Jun 8 2019 20:45 utc | 164

I see that Bretton Woods started on July 1, 1944, 3 weeks before D Day. Considering that weeks, if not months, of planning the conference were required, it is logical to suspect that the end result of the war had long been known. That Soviet Union, having attacked (belatedly) Poland in agreement with Germany, had attacked Finland and Baltics and been ejected from league of Nations, sent 125 reps to Bretton Woods shows the BS that the entire scam was.

Posted by: BigTim | Jun 9 2019 2:53 utc | 165

There is a collary myth to that of Americans winning the war. In watching Cold War documentaries about World War II, their major focus was of course on how the Western powers won, and very critically, how the Nazis allowed the Soviet Union to win. A myth has grown over time that the Soviets were incompetent and they only won because of grievous errors by Hitler over and against the military geniuses of his invading Nazi army.

Well, the idea that Hitler singlar mistakes caused the Nazi loss is, well, nonsense. In most cased Hitler deffered to his professional military staff. Here is a youtube video 55 minutes long called "How the Red Army Defeated Germany: The Three Alibis - Dr. Jonathon House" in which tears down some huge prevailing common Western myths about the Eastern Front.

How the Red Army Defeated Germany: The Three Alibis - Dr. Jonathon House

One of the primary reasons for many misconceptions is that after the war, Nazi generals were encouraged to write their accounts which of course blamed Hitler for all their failures, and not to the fact they screwed up. This one-sided rendering of history must have reached its zenith when Enemies at the Gate on the battle of Stalingrad which became a best seller: and it was totally written from the perspective of the Germans. I think Chuikov may have been mentioned maybe twice in passing.

Posted by: Erelis | Jun 9 2019 19:44 utc | 166

D Day invasion was encouraged by Stalin as a Diversion giving Russia time to rearm and train more combatants.
It worked.
Although Russia lost millions to starvation as well as combat we must not overlook the purges that Stalin had, crushing political opposition and exterminating others

Posted by: Michael Wilkinson | Jun 10 2019 14:15 utc | 167

@Thirdeye #165
China may not have cared about Siberia in its isolationist period; it very much cares today due to land for food, energy, minerals and what not.
Your commentary is therefore not valid if it is solely based on 1000+ year, or even pre-Opium War, thinking.
Siberia has a *lot* of Chinese right now - so yet again, I wonder where your information is coming from.
Equally, your view on Iran isn't very valid either. Russia has always struggled against near neighbors for influence in its Marcher regions - whether on the West vs. Germans, Poles and Lithuanians; south vs. Turks and Iranian, or East vs Mongols. More importantly, you did not demonstrate any credibility at all when you failed to address what I said: it is not the Russia is "Christian" why it has had a historical rivalry with the Persians, it is because the Dagestanis, Chechens and other Muslims in Russian sovereign land are ideologically and religiously more sympathetic to co-religionists than they are to Moscow and St. Petersburg.
Shared interests and inherent conflicts are not mutually exclusive. Russia's Far East is very much vulnerable to a much more populated and now wealthier China.

Posted by: c1ue | Jun 10 2019 17:41 utc | 168

It took the effort of all the Axis countries, including the Soviet Union, to defeat the Nazis.
And Russia, fighting in their own homeland, slaughtered by supposedly "superior" Germans fought desperately.
But without American equipment, planes over Alaska, British supply ships, and the 150,000 Studebaker trucks given to Stalin, then Germany and Russia would have fought to a stalemate.
Before Russia got the "made in the U.S.A." Studebaker 6x6's to travel the primitive routes of the Soviet Union, the poor Russian soldier was footbound and easily outmaneuvered.
Even the terrifying and extremely effective Stalin's organs, were mounted on American-made Studebakers. A damn sight better than dragging them around with horses.

Posted by: Kupkee | Jun 11 2019 15:24 utc | 169

The British and the Americans were also fighting 5 million Japanese troops. The Russians were
@xtree | Jun 5, 2019 7:57:58 PM | 64

"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."

You sounded like China never fought in WW2! China along fought at least 2.5M Japanese troops in China, Burma, and other countries. So, US and UK never fought 5M Japanese troops in WW2, period.

BTW, at the ending days of WW2, the Russians engaged over 1M Japanese troops in Northeastern China, North Korea, Kuril Islands, and Kamchatka Peninsula.

Conclusion: Your statement does not hold water at all.

Posted by: Xing Chen | Jun 11 2019 23:30 utc | 170

Where were these numbers found?, I can not find confirmation.
Anything Ive are not these numbers.

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

Thx for any response.

[changed moniker from "b" to "benw" as "b" is the blog owners one - b.]

Posted by: benw | Jun 12 2019 5:53 utc | 171

@benw - Where were these numbers found?

It is a quote linked to Andrew Neil, a well known British journo and BBC presenter who's opinion one may dislike but who usually has his facts straight. You will have to ask him for the exact source.

Posted by: b | Jun 12 2019 8:25 utc | 172

Posted by: Kupkee | Jun 11, 2019 11:24:54 AM | 170

There was also a Nazi faction among US industrialists arming Nazi Germany.

"when the Allied troops successfully invaded France near the end of World War II, they discovered that they had something in common with their German enemies: Ford and General Motors vehicles"

Posted by: somebody | Jun 12 2019 9:18 utc | 173

The summary of the link quoted above

"The bottom line is this: World War II could have occurred without Hitler, but it couldn’t have occurred without Ford, General Motors and Standard Oil"

Posted by: somebody | Jun 12 2019 9:22 utc | 174

You should take into consideration the number of nazi and fascists divisions in Yugoslavia and number of killed civilians and soldiers in YU especially on the part of the antinazi Titos partisan resistance forces during 2ww. You might be very surprised, I guess. Enough said, you might take it as a necessary homework about much more real consequences and weight of 2ww in Europe or not. It is up to you, dear reader.

Posted by: miro | Jun 13 2019 18:05 utc | 175

Earlier I was flipping through a yet-unread book on D-Day by Antony Beevor when I saw a couple of paragraphs comparing that battle with the Eastern Front. Seems a liaison officer from the Red Army made some disapproving comments about the way the British were handling the battle. A British officer asked him about the situation in the East where his own division had been fighting.


9 German divisions spread over 600 miles faced the Russians in the Eastern sector

10 German divisions - including 6 panzer divisions - faced the Brits on a 62 mile front

Posted by: Zachary Smith | Jun 14 2019 5:46 utc | 176

« previous page

The comments to this entry are closed.