The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewEric Margolis Archive
Germany Was Defeated on the Eastern Front, Not Normandy
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

On my many walking visits to the vast Normandy battlefield in France, I kept recalling the ever so wise dictum of Prussia’s great monarch, Frederick the Great: ‘he who defends everything, defends nothing.’ On this 74th anniversary of the D-Day landings, it’s well worth recalling the old warrior-king.

Adolf Hitler, a veteran of the infantry, should certainly have known better. Defending the European coast from Brittany to Norway was an impossibility given Germany’s military and economic weakness in 1944. But he did not understand this. Having so brilliantly overcome France’s Maginot Line fortifications in 1940, Hitler and his High Command repeated the same strategic and tactical errors as the French only four years later: not having enough reserves to effectively counter-attack enemy breakthrough forces.

Germany’s vaunted Atlantic Wall looked formidable on paper, but it was too long, too thin, lacked defensive depth and was lacking in adequate reserve forces. The linear Maginot Line suffered the same failings. America’s fortifications protecting Manila and Britain’s ‘impregnable’ fortifications at Singapore also proved worthless. The Japanese merely marched into their undefended rears.

In 1940, the German Wehrmacht was modern history’s supreme fighting machine. But only four years later, the Wehrmacht was broken. Most Americans, British and Canadians believe that D-Day was the decisive stroke that ended WWII in Europe. But this is not true.

Germany’s mighty Wehrmacht, which included the Luftwaffe, was destroyed by Stalin’s Soviet Union. The Red Army claims to have destroyed 507 German divisions, 48,000 German tanks, 77,000 German aircraft, and 100 divisions of Axis troops allied to Germany from Italy, Romania, Hungary, Slovakia, and Finland.

Few Americans have ever heard of the Soviet Far East offensive of 1945, a huge operation that extended from Central Asia to Manchuria and the Pacific. At least 450,000 Japanese soldiers were killed, wounded or captured by the Red Army, 32% of Japan’s total wartime military losses. The Soviets were poised to invade Japan when the US struck it with two nuclear weapons.

Of Germany’s 10 million casualties in WWII, 75% were inflicted by the Red Army. The once mighty Luftwaffe was decimated over Russia. Almost all German military production went to supplying the 1,600 km Eastern Front where Germany’s elite forces were ground up in titanic battles like Kursk and Stalingrad that involved millions of soldiers.

Soviet forces lost upwards of 20 million men. Total US losses, including the Pacific, were one million. To Marshal Stalin, D-Day, the North African and Italian campaign were merely diversionary side-shows to tie down Axis forces while the Red Army pushed on to Berlin.

D-Day was without doubt one of the greatest logistical feats of modern military history. Think of General Motors versus the German warrior Siegfried. For every US tank the Germans destroyed, ten more arrived. Each German tank was almost irreplaceable. Transporting over one million men and their heavy equipment across the Channel was a triumph. But who remembers that Germany crossed the heavily defended Rhine River into France in 1940?

ORDER IT NOW

By June, 1944, German forces at Normandy and along the entire Channel coast had almost no diesel fuel or gasoline. Their tanks and trucks were immobilized. Allied air power shot up everything that moved, including a staff car carrying Marshal Erwin Rommel strafed by Canada’s own gallant future aviator general, Richard Rohmer. German units in Normandy were below 40% combat effectiveness even without their shortages in fuel.

The Germans in France were also very short of ammunition, supplies and communications. Units could only move by night, and then very slowly. Hitler was reluctant to release armored forces from his reserves. Massive Allied bombing of Normandy alone killed 15,000 to 20,000 French civilians and shattered many cities and towns.

Churchill once said, ‘you will never know war until you fight Germans.’ With no air cover or fuel and heavily outnumbered, German forces in Normandy managed to mount a stout resistance, inflicting 209,000 casualties on US, Canadian, British, Free French and allied forces. German losses were around 200,000.

The most important point of the great invasion is that without it, the Red Army would have reached Paris and the Channel Ports by the end of 1944, making Stalin the master of all Europe except Spain. Of course, the Allies could have reached a peace agreement with Germany in 1944, which Hitler was seeking and Gen. George Patton was rumored to be advocating. But the German-hating Churchill and left-leaning Roosevelt were too bloody-minded to consider a peace that would have kept Stalin out of at least some of Eastern Europe.

(Republished from EricMargolis.com by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: History • Tags: Russia, World War II 
Hide 137 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Heymrguda says:

    Most of us interested in military history know by now the war was won on the eastern front, how many times do we have to go over it.

    • Agree: YetAnotherAnon
  2. The author is criticizing Hitler for trying to defend the Atlantic Wall. I think the author misses the point. The Germans were never stupid enough in 1943-44 to believe they could permanently hold back a red tide from the East while holding onto the line in France. That wasn’t the point. The point was to slow down the Allies long enough to stabilize some kind of a front in the East, and possibly win a negotiated peace. What other choice did they have?

    Before the 1940s, Hitler knew all along he could not win a two front war.

    This was a very common thought among all German military theorists. That is why he agreed to the Moscow Pact with Stalin: to take care of his problems with France and Britain, before later turning on the Soviet Union.

    The hitch in the plan was two-fold: First, Britain ended up failing to fall. Churchill (correctly) refused to negotiate in 1940. Second, the Italians ended up being terrible at war and Germany had to rescue them in the Mediterranean.

    All this meant that Germany was still at war, which meant it needed far more oil than it could get anywhere in its sphere of influence.

    When Hitler invaded Russia, so the stock historiography goes, it was largely because he needed the oil of the Caucasian region. And you know what, it almost worked. Depending on the historians you read, some say Hitler wanted to go southwest – towards the oil fields – all along but that Franz Halder revised the attack in 1941 towards Moscow instead. Others suggest Hitler wanted to knock out the Soviet government first. Either way, it almost worked.

    But once Fall Blau failed in 1942, the Germans had almost no choice but to continue with the war as it developed.

    And Germany’s stubborn defense in both fronts did, in the end, preserve many millions of Germans from Soviet domination.

    Of course, if Viktor Suvorov (Vladimur Rezun)) is right, then Stalin was planning on plunging Hitler into a two-front war during 1941-43 anyway.

    • Replies: @James Brown
    , @byrresheim
  3. @Heymrguda

    “How many times do we have to go over it”

    Probably forever, as this is the primary argument used by leftists to diminish and nullify the US efforts to subdue the Nazis, and of course they always conveniently leave out the terrible toll of the US invasions of North Africa and Italy, and the Pacific front, as if these scenarios never occured.

    These hateful anti-American jerks have never viewed ( which I have ) a US military cemetary in Europe in which white grave markers of young American GI’s go up and down hill as far as the eye can see.

    And they never consider the thousands of women, including my mother, who built 24/7 the planes and weapons delivered to the Russians, without which they, the Russians, would have been fighting the Germans with single-shot rifles and handguns, on horseback.

    My mother, a so-called “Rosie the riveter” was assembling bazookas, shoulder held anti-tank rocket-launchers at a plant in Detroit, and she told me about Russian officers, during the war, being led through the factory by American officers.

    Authenticjazzman “Mensa” qualified since 1973, airborne trained US Army vet, and pro jazz artist.

  4. @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan

    “Churchill (correctly) refused to negotiate in 1940.”

    If you knew how stupid and criminal Churchill’s refusal to the honorable peace plan he got from the Germans, you wouldn’t have written that.

    Don’t take it from me. Read or just listen to one of the few (honest) historians that know about this subject. You don’t need to go very far. Ron has just introduced David Irving to Unz’s reader.

    If you’re interested in the truth, just listen to David Irving and you will realize how wrong you are.

  5. anon[814] • Disclaimer says: • Website

    The USA was the key to Soviet victory, without the US Army Air Force and the US Navy taking the fight to germany the Soviet ground forces would have had no chance.

    • Replies: @anon
    , @AnonFromTN
  6. @Authenticjazzman

    And they never consider the thousands of women, including my mother, who built 24/7 the planes and weapons delivered to the Russians, without which they, the Russians, would have been fighting the Germans with single-shot rifles and handguns, on horseback.

    Likewise, you don’t seem to want to consider the over 25,000 tanks Stalin had buried deep in the Soviet interior, brand new, built for soviet terrain, and ready to roll. Hitler himself said, “if I’d known about all those tanks, I would never have initiated Barbarossa!”

    Tell your mom that her President got Americans involved in a european civil war that we had no moral business meddling in, which allied us with a violent, Geneva convention ignoring psychopath, killing tens of millions of Europeans unecessarily, and brought fear and paranoia to the world for generations. And tell her she may stick her American bazookas up her god-fearing, matronly ass.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  7. @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan

    Mr. Buchanan argues among similar lines: St. Winstons stubborness made things much worse.

    Britain lost her empire.
    Eastern Europe lost its freedom.
    Millions of people died.

  8. Eagle Eye says:
    @Authenticjazzman

    My mother, a so-called “Rosie the riveter” was assembling bazookas, shoulder held anti-tank rocket-launchers at a plant in Detroit, …

    Interesting. Didn’t know that the iconic Soviet “Bazookas” were actually manufactured by American women and men in Detroit. History books for the general public tends to gloss over the U.S. contribution to Soviet armaments.

    • Replies: @Authenticjazzman
  9. anon[146] • Disclaimer says:

    The real geopolitical blunder was the INSANE pledge to Poland (only half-honored as the Anglo-French ignored the USSR’s invasion of it). Without this WW2 would have simply been a Russo-German war with the western European countries watching on the sidelines and acting in accordance with their own best interests. Instead Hitler’s eastern thrust was needlessly turned westward.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  10. anon[146] • Disclaimer says:
    @Heymrguda

    Depends on what you mean by “won”. I don’t see how Poland was in any way better off in 1946 then it was in 1939. About 6,000,000 Polish citizens had been killed, the whole country was in ruins, Warsaw was utterly destroyed and the USSR annexed 100,000 square miles of her territory (more then 100 times the area of the Danzig corridor Hitler had wanted). In contrast Czechoslovakia had 100,000 citizens killed and Prague was virtually untouched. What was better to be a “liberated” Pole or a “sold out” Czech?

    I can’t think how the Baltic states or the peoples of the Balkans gained anything either.

    As for Britain she lost her empire, global standing and was bankrupt.

    • Replies: @byrresheim
  11. anon[146] • Disclaimer says:
    @anon

    Unlikely. The USSR would probably have won or at least fought Germany to a standstill without any help from anybody. By February 1942, just eight months into the conflict, they had already inflicted over 1,000,000 casualties on the German invaders. The advance of army group north had been stopped at Leningrad and would remain so for the rest of the war. Army group center had been pushed back 150 miles from Moscow and had narrowly escaped destruction while army group south had to pull back from Rostov and the Crimea.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  12. Germany lost the war on Sept 3 1939. Everything after that was a dead man walking. That was the day the British converted Germany from a world power to a landlocked European power. That is: a regional power. From this point onwards, without the Japanese it would never have been a world war.

    Less than a year later in June/July 1940 Germans were stopped dead in the west with the battle of Britain. Any offensive in the west was now impossible for the Germans. British production of aircraft, ships and other critical technology outpaced the Germans throughout the war.

    Germans next tried going South and were stopped dead in North Africa and the Middle East. They were in a trap. East was all that was left, so they were desperate enough attack their ally Stalin. That is what Stalin was up to this point.. Germany’s ally. He supplied the German war machine against the British. From 1939 to 1941 Stalin and Russia were Hitlers bestus buddies. Never forget this all you Russia lovers!

    That the Russian managed to hold the Germans in the east was only possible due to the massive infusion of material from Britain and the United States. That the Germans were short of fuel always was down to the British and Americans. That the Russians lost 20 million was mostly down to absolute incompetence of their system and the fact that their leadership put no value on Russian lives. I mean Stalin murdered more Soviet citizens than this by some margin.

    In the end the British/American way of war in 1944/5, namely freezing German armies in place and then destroying them would have prevailed no matter the quantity of wermacht.

    Many people say the big mistake was stopping at the Elbe. British/American power was such that Vladivostok was a very doable objective and we would all be better off today had that been the case, even the Russians

  13. A good point, but with errors.

    Corregidor was the key defense to Manila Bay, and it effectively held out for months. The trapped Americans could have held out longer, but MacArthur’s staff didn’t bring along enough food as they carefully withdrew into these fortifications.

    Many believe the Germans could have won on the Eastern front if they remained focused on capturing Moscow in 1942, rather than directing forces for an huge offensive in the South that became Stalingrad.

    Rommel’s experience with allied airpower convinced him to place forces near the waters edge, knowing that reserve forces would be hammered if they moved toward the beaches.

    This History Channel clip about American Sherman tanks slaughtered in France is of interest.

  14. Total US losses, including the Pacific, were one million.

    This is incorrect, and exaggerates the number by a factor of about 2.5. About 418,000 Americans lost their lives in WWII, almost all of them military personnel.

  15. Ahem says:

    “Few Americans have ever heard of the Soviet Far East offensive of 1945, a huge operation that extended from Central Asia to Manchuria and the Pacific.”

    Balderdash. It took place well before 1945. The Soviets signed a treaty with Japan to release forty Soviet divisions from Manchuria to meet the German attack from the West.

    “…At least 450,000 Japanese soldiers were killed, wounded or captured by the Red Army, 32% of Japan’s total wartime military losses.’

    Chronological error. See my comment above.

    “…The Soviets were poised to invade Japan when the US struck it with two nuclear weapons.”

    More balderdash.

    The USSR declared war on Japan nine days before US atom bombs wiped out two medium sized Japanese cities and forced a capitulation. They had been fully and reliably informed of the USA’s intentions by various pro soviet spies that riddled the Roosevelt administration. Up to then masses of war materiel in fully loaded Liberty ships – many of which were, in effect, gifted under “Lend Lease” – were allowed to move freely between the USA and Eastern Siberia.

    Check Wiki for the huge amounts of US weaponry, particularly thousands of trucks, without which the Soviet army would have been incapable of moving troops from different sectors quickly enough to meet the German point of attack. Remember that the soviet road network consisted of only a few properly sealed roads.

    • Replies: @Sparkon
    , @Philip
  16. “The most important point of the great invasion is that without it, the Red Army would have reached Paris and the Channel Ports by the end of 1944″

    Eh?

    End of 1945, maybe. More likely end of 1946.

    • Replies: @Chris Mallory
  17. @Eagle Eye

    ” History books for the general public tend to gloss over the US contribution to soviet armaments”.

    Well history books “in general” tend to lie about everything, and to twist and distort facts beyond redemption.

    The most dispicable dishonest, deceptive scumbags of society are leftist Academics, and these dirt-bags are the ones who write : history books.

    That russian ground troops were ruthlessly fed into battle and sure death by their “leaders” is one of the “facts” of ww2, which is most profoundly ignored and hidden by the history book writing academics, this also holds true regarding the “lend-lease” program of millions of tons of war material afforded the Russians by the US.

    Authenticjazzman, “Mensa” qualified since 1973, airborne trained Us Army vet, and pro jazz artist.

    • Replies: @byrresheim
  18. @Authenticjazzman

    leave out the terrible toll of the US invasions of North Africa and Italy, and the Pacific front,

    What did the war in the Pacific have to do with defeating the Germans?

    the Russians, would have been fighting the Germans with single-shot rifles and handguns, on horseback.

    Not likely. For the most part the only small arms sent by the US to the Russians were some pistols, a few sub machine guns, and your mother’s bazookas.

    The Russians fought the war with millions of Russian produced bolt action, 5 shot rifles , Russian produced sub-machine guns, Russian produced heavy machine guns, and Russian produced grenades. The only small arms the Russians did not produce for some reason were man portable anti-tank rocket launchers. They used American, British and captured German units.

    Artillery, both traditional and truck mounted rockets, was another area the Russians produced most of their own weaponry. Other than some of the trucks that the rockets were mounted upon.

    We did send the Russians about 7000 tanks, the majority of which were small Stuart scout tanks. All total the Russians produced over 70,000 of the mainstay T-34′s not to mention thousands of other small, medium and heavy tanks.

    What the US sent that kept the Russians in the fight were trucks, locomotives and rolling stock, food and manufactured goods other than weapons.

    It is a shame the US lost any men in WWII. Like WWI, it was a war against our interests and we should have stayed out.

  19. @Simon in London

    That claim left me scratching my head as well.

  20. @Leander Starr

    Germans next tried going South

    The main reason the Germans went South was because the Italians were useless as allies and kept stepping on their own “privates” in both North Africa and Greece.

  21. Sparkon says:
    @Ahem

    Balderdash. It took place well before 1945. The Soviets signed a treaty with Japan to release forty Soviet divisions from Manchuria to meet the German attack from the West.

    Really? Your chronology is suspect, as is your version of events.

    Zhukov had defeated the Japanese at Khalkhin Gol in late August 1939 even while Stalin was concluding the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact with Nazi Germany, so there was no German attack at the time requiring the release of “forty Soviet divisions from Manchuria.”

    More balderdash.

    The USSR declared war on Japan nine days before US atom bombs wiped out two medium sized Japanese cities and forced a capitulation.

    Ah so. It seems the clocks and calenders are a little bit off in the Land of Balderdash, for I read in Wikipedia:

    On 9 August, the Soviet Union repudiated the Soviet–Japanese Neutrality Pact and launched a full-scale invasion of Manchuria in the Soviet–Japanese War of 1945. It should be noted that this invasion occurred 2 days after the United States atomic bombing of Hiroshima. This included the planned invasion of Japanese territory in Sakhalin. The main purpose of the invasion was to clear Japanese resistance and then — within 10 to 14 days — be prepared to invade Hokkaido, the northernmost of Japan’s home islands.

    (my emphasis)

    I don’t know if anyone has ever been hoist by their own balderdash before, but you’ve certainly done a fine job of it here!

  22. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

  23. @byrresheim

    You – and James Brown – are both wrong. Mr. Buchanan argues that Churchill and the British were wrong to go to war. However, Mr. Buchanan has argued that Churchill was correct to not negotiate with Hitler in 1940.

  24. @Carlton Meyer

    Mr. Meyer: Having become aware of your commenting presence here, I just want to take the opportunity to thank you for your work on your blog over the years. It was a big influence on me when I was a youth.

  25. @Leander Starr

    Solzhenitsyn, in the Gulag Archipelago, makes two rather thought-provoking suggestions

    1) That if the Germans had been less obsessed with their racist ideology as applied to Slavs and more willing to work together with Slavs in an anti-Bolshevik alliance, millions of “zeks” (Soviet slave laborers) and common folks would have been more willing to fight against Stalin. Such a rebellion against Stalin at his most desperate hour would have probably resulted in his destruction. Anecdotes like Vlasov and the war record of Feldataman Helmuth von Pannwitz (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmuth_von_Pannwitz) seem to imply this view may have been correct.
    2) That an American-led invasion may have been welcomed likewise, especially by the “zeks” in their camps. (However, Stalin may have been able to propagandize and whip (literally) enough support from his soldiers to make a fight of it)

    • Replies: @JackOH
  26. @Chris Mallory

    This is all true, although it is worth mentioning in our historigraphy that most Soviet tanks designed before WW2 were borrowed or outright stolen from American engineers in the 1930s. #ThanksFDR

    • Replies: @George Taylor
  27. JackOH says:
    @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan

    “That if the Germans had been less obsessed with their racist ideology as applied to Slavs . . .”.

    Kudos, JBGP. My feeling for a while now is that a thoughtful German with the right German nationalist cred could do us all a favor by arguing the “un-Germanness”, for want of a better term, of Herr Hitler and his Nazis. My candidates for themes in any takedown of Hitler would be the invasion of Poland and the Nazis’ virulent and stupid anti-Slavism.

  28. KenH says:

    In David Irving’s War Between the Generals he documents how Stalin pestered Roosevelt to open up a Western front to relieve pressure on the red army. Both Roosevelt and the American generals resisted and were perfectly content with working their way up from Italy into Central Europe. Eventually Stalin’s continued demands and an assist from (((Bernard Baruch))) changed Roosevelt’s mind which led to the landings in Normandy and elsewhere on the French coast in the 1944 D-Day invasion.

    So Russia and the pro-Russian side love to boast about how they destroyed most of the German army while belittling the American contribution to the war but without the U.S. opening up a Southern front in Italy and a Western front in France, thus forcing Germany to fight on three fronts, and suffer from a sizable numerical disadvantage in men and equipment in the East which led to the collapse and headlong retreat of German forces in in the East beginning in June 1944.

    America’s terror bombing of German civilian centers and destruction of her industry through the air also worked to Russia’s benefit.

    • Replies: @Nick Diaz
  29. @Chris Mallory

    FWIW,

    1. This is a list of what the America supplied the USSR under Lend Lease program during WWII.

    http://www.jrbooksonline.com/fdr-scandal-page/lend.html

    2. This is a table of Soviet armaments production during WWII.

    https://ww2-weapons.com/russian-arms-production/

    • Replies: @anon111
  30. Anon[425] • Disclaimer says:

    But the German-hating Churchill and left-leaning Roosevelt were too bloody-minded to consider a peace that would have kept Stalin out of at least some of Eastern Europe.

    In retro, Stalin saved Eastern Europe. If not for communism, Budapest could look like London or Paris.

    It’s too bad Stalin didn’t take all of Europe.

    • Replies: @byrresheim
  31. anon111 says:
    @PiltdownMan

    ~$11 billion total in lend-lease doesn’t sound like that much

  32. anon[146] • Disclaimer says:
    @Leander Starr

    “The Germans next tried going south..”

    The only reason they went south was to bail out their useless as tits on a bull ally Italy. Had Italy remained a friendly neutral like Franco’s Spain, rather then an active belligerent, Germany would have been far better off.

    • Agree: Bliss
  33. Golobki says:

    “For every American tank the Germans destroyed, ten more arrived.”
    That was also the attitude toward American infantry at Normandy.
    Expendable “assets” for a blundering, unnecessary, and suicidal beach landing on a coastline of German fortifications that should have been preemptively destroyed by air and naval power.

  34. Anonymous[128] • Disclaimer says:
    @anon

    Hitler was obviously going to come after Strasbourg once he had Danzig. The French couldn’t ignore this threat. Nor could Hitler risk plunging into Russia without first neutralising the French army at his back. Another French-German war was inevitable.

    The question is whether this was any of Britain’s business.

    • Replies: @anon
  35. 22pp22 says:

    Margolis thinks this is news?!?

    Now go away and tell us something we didn’t already know.

  36. anon[146] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous

    Sorry but I completely disagree. Hitler neither wanted or sought war with France. He even built a defensive line on the border. It was stupid diplomacy on the Franco-British part for turning him westwards. The pledge to Poland was an act of sheer madness. I still don’t know who was crazier? The British for making a pledge they couldn’t possibly hope to honor? Or the brain-dead Polish military junta for accepting the offer at full face value.

    I do agree that the whole affair though – Germany the USSR & France – should have been of no concern to Britain.

    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
  37. ” The Soviets were poised to invade Japan when the US struck it with two nuclear weapons.”

    How?

    • Replies: @Sparkon
  38. @Carlton Meyer

    Contra the claims in the embedded video about the vulnerability of the Sherman, check out this discussion about the low number of American tanker casualties in this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-Z2eV72iv4 about the 6:20 mark. Also see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNjp_4jY8pY .

  39. Sparkon says:
    @Gandydancer

    You seem to be unaware that the Soviet Union successfully used marine operations and amphibious landings to help defeat the Japanese on Southern Sakhalin island in conjunction with operations against the IJA and Kwantung Army in Manchuria.

    There was nothing to prevent the Red Army and/or Soviet Naval Infantry and Marines from landing on Hokkaido and even Honshu:

    In order to speed up the invasion of Sakhalin island and relieve pressure on the ground invasion the Soviet Navy launched an amphibious assault operation against the key Japanese ports. A naval blockade of Sakhalin island was put into place to prevent the evacuation of Japanese troops
    [...]
    On 16 August…1,400 Soviet troops of the 365th Separate Marine Battalion and one battalion of the 113th Infantry Brigade landed in Toro (now Shakhtyorsk) and engaged a Japanese garrison of 200 men.
    [...]
    On 20 August, 3,400 troops of the Soviet Navy combined marine battalion and the 113th Infantry Brigade landed in Port Maoka (now Kholmsk). The landing party was met with fierce Japanese defense. A few naval vessels were damaged which led to the Soviet response of intense naval bombardment of the city, causing approximately 600 to 1,000 civilian deaths. Maoka was captured on 22 August, with heavy Japanese resistance continuing throughout the city. Japanese military casualties in this battle were 300 killed and 600 captured. Soviet casualties were 60 army soldiers killed and 17 naval infantry killed.[5]

    On 25 August, 1,600 Soviet troops landed in Otomari (now Korsakov). The Japanese garrison of 3,400 men surrendered. The same day the remnants of the Japanese 88th Division surrendered to the 16th Army and the city of Toyohara was captured without resistance officially ending the Invasion of Sakhalin.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_South_Sakhalin

    • Replies: @Gandydancer
  40. @Sparkon

    Reread your own quotes. For comparison, the US invasion of Okinawa faced 155,000 defenders. For further comparison the proposed Operation Olympic was to require 800,000 troops and Operation Coronet over a million. The suggestion that the USSR had any significant fraction of the necessary amphibious capability is ludicrous.

    • Replies: @Sparkon
  41. Sparkon says:
    @Gandydancer

    My quotes were in answer to your question “How?” and show incontrovertibly that the Red Army and Soviet Navy were capable of mounting amphibious operations. Your mistake is thinking everyone must do it the big, wasteful American way.

    In any event, the inflated numbers cited necessary to invade Japan are used to justify the atom bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Incidentally, how were the British able to evacuate Dunkirk without landing craft?

    The invasion of Hokkaido had already been scheduled for August 18, 1945 and again on August 22 but both were canceled by Stalin.

    According to a comment I found on Reddit:

    As Richard Frank concludes in Downfall: The End of the Imperial Japanese Empire, “The Soviet Navy’s amphibious shipping resources were limited but sufficient to transport the three assault divisions in several echelons.

    Towards the end of the war, Hokkaido was very lightly defended with just 2 divisions and and a single brigade. There was nothing much the IJA had to stop Soviet Marines from seizing a good port on the very northern tip of Hokkaido at Wakkanai, just about 30 miles from Sakhalin across the La Perouse Strait, and many place on the coastlines diverging from Soya point where boats could be beached, and Soviet Marines and Naval Infantry could come ashore.

    And don’t forget Ron’s Suvorov’s paratroopers. The Soviets continued to form up new airborne units throughout the war, and after, forming new corps in WWII through at least 1944, although many of these were ultimately reformed as so-called Guards rifle divisions. Nevertheless, reportedly some airborne operations were conducted against the Kwantung Army in Manchuria, and also on Sakhalin.

    • Replies: @Gandydancer
  42. Nick Diaz says:
    @Authenticjazzman

    You post is sheer idiocy. This has nothing to do with being a “leftist” or “rightist”, or “centrist”: it is simply a matter of factual history and statistics.

    Roughly 65% of all Wehrmacht casualties happened in the eastern front, by the account of *the Wehrmacht itself.* America played no significant role besides the Ardennes offensive, where the Germans actually made the Americans retreat despite the Americans having an almost 3 to 1 numerical advantage. It was the Soviet flag and not the American flag that flew over the Reischstag in Berlin.

    The battles that America fought in France and north Africa were *trifles* compared to the battles of Stalingrad or Kursk, or the siege of Leningrad. These were battles that involved *millions* of soldiers on both sides, tens of thousands of tanks, and the eastern front was fought over 1,600 miles.

    Russians would be fighting with rifles on horseback without American aid? Really? Sorry to break this to you, but they had their own military industry, which was decently advanced and possessed an output comparable or even slightly superior to America, especially when it comes to armored infantry and heavy artillery. Ever heard of the T-34 tank? Probably not.

    There is an American military cemetery in Europe with thousands of Americans buried in it, true. But what you don’t understand is that Russian casualties did not number in the thousands, but in the *millions* . The actual number of Soviets/Russians that died in WWII is difficult to estimate, but it is put at somewhere between 14 to 26.5 millions depending on how you count it. Conversely, America lost about 350,000-400,000, or less than half a million.

    I don’t think you understand how *terrifyingly* powerful the Wehrmacht was in 1941 when the clash between the two nations begun. If you think that the modern American military is powerful, you have no idea what powerful really is: the German Wehrmacht had a total of 13 million conscripted men, and almost 40% of those were professionals with years and years of military training. They had the best technology. Everything state-of-the-art. They had fighter jets before everybody else(Messerschmitt Me 262), they had interballistic missiles before everyone else. The German Tiger tank was the most heavily armored *and* fastest tank in the World, and Germany roled literally thousands of them into Russia. They also had the strongest corps of generals in the World, following the strong Prussian tradition. And yet *the Russians beat them down!* And that is what is so crazy, that Russia won as the biggest underdog in the history of underdogs. Russia was already one of the #5 greatest industrial powers in the World, had a large population and was decently advanced. And yet, the fact that they were massive underdogs and given no chance to win goes to show just how horrifyingly powerful Germany’s military was. Make no mistake about it: the Wehrmacht was the most powerful army *ever* in the history of the Earth, and the Russians grinded them down. It was the most stunning military accomplishment ever.

    I suggest you educate yourself by reading the book “When Titans Clashed”. This book was actually written by military historians of the U.S Army and not “leftists” and it shows the real story of who truly stopped Hitler.(Russia)

  43. Nick Diaz says:
    @KenH

    German resources and men committed to north Africa was tiny. Rommel constantly send exasperated letters to the German High Command in Berlin of how they couldn’t fight even two British divisions because they lacked gas. I don’t think America’s efforts in NA made much difference in the outcome of the war. At the most America speeded Geramny’s defeat by 6 months. The Red Army was already in western Poland when American landed in Normandy.

    • Replies: @KenH
  44. Nick Diaz says:
    @Leander Starr

    Actually, you got it all wrong. Putting aside the fact that you greatly overblow the importance of American and British supplies to the Russians, the fact is that, if Hitler had not invaded the U.S.S.R, Britain would be strangled and eventually run out of food and pretty much everything else. If the kriegmarine could focus on all their forces on Britain, and if Germany could turn all their industrial might to producing U-boats, they would sink each and every single American ship that tried to supply food, ammunition and everything else to Britain. Britain would capitulate. It would be Britain and not Germany that would be frozen in place. There would be literally no possibility for an American amphibious landing and saving of Britain and Europe if Germany had all the Atlantic line fortified and the entire Wehrmacht free to protect that line. America would need a military 50 X bigger and stronger than it had at it’s peak to launch an amphibious assault against a fresh German army with no casualties that committed 100% of it’s strength to that single purpose of holding the Atlantic line. Britain and America would have lost. Badly. Hitler’s big mistake was invading Russia.

    • Replies: @Leander Starr
    , @byrresheim
  45. @Nick Diaz

    Look you know-it-all , I resided for forty-plus years in Germany, was married to three “upperclass-German women : A “Von”, an “MD”, and my current wife a retired teacher, and I have more INSIDE knowledge of Germany ww2 history than you could ever dream of, my first wife’s mother for example had a photo of her uncle, a high-ranking officer, standing next to : AH, and the stories her mother related to me of the third Reich could fill tomes.

    What you do not grasp is that all of the numbers and statistics which you are pushing to support your viewpoint , all of this information will be contradicted in other sources, and none of it is accurate.

    If you for one moment think that the high casualty numbers of the Russians somehow reflect a superior russian heroism than you are as clueless as I think you are. the Russians suffered such horrible casualites because of the cruel relentlessnees of their officers, who literally pushed the foot soldiers into a sure death.

    “Ever hear of the T 34 tank obviously not”. Look friend I have been “Mensa” qualified since 1973, with a tested IQ soaring above 150 points, and have heard of things which you in your double-digit IQ world could never imagine.

    You are a, in spite of your Latino handle, a typical German “Know-it-all” deutscher “Besserwisser” and your viewpoint is silly and superfluous.

    AJM

    • Replies: @Nick Diaz
    , @L Woods
    , @gwynedd1
  46. @Nick Diaz

    I don’t think you understand how *terrifyingly* powerful the Wehrmacht was in 1941 when the clash between the two nations begun. ……..They had the best technology. Everything state-of-the-art. They had fighter jets before everybody else(Messerschmitt Me 262), they had interballistic missiles before everyone else. The German Tiger tank was the most heavily armored *and* fastest tank in the World, and Germany roled literally thousands of them into Russia.

    You seem to be playing a little fast and loose with the timeline here.
    When the war started and when the Germans invaded Russia, their tanks were inferior in both quanity and quality to both the French and the Russians.

    The Germans might have had the “best technology” and “everything state of the art” when they invaded Russia, but they would have been better off with a few more winter coats.

    The V1 and the Me 262 did not take the field until late in the war.

    Production of the Tiger 1 and the Tiger 2 was limited to roughly 2000 units, some of these were kept in the West. Both the Sherman and the T-34 were faster than the Tigers, though the Tiger 2 had closed this gap. The Tiger 2 was notorious for being unreliable when it was first fielded.

    if Germany could turn all their industrial might to producing U-boats, they would sink each and every single American ship that tried to supply food, ammunition and everything else to Britain.

    Very,very doubtful. At most it might have delayed the defeat of Japan. But the U-boats were a strategic failure.

    • Replies: @Gandydancer
  47. anon[104] • Disclaimer says:

    Hardly news.

    Normandy: The decisive factor was air superiority. Without total air dominance, forget about it. All the reasons for air superiority could, of course be asserted as the cause. IE Eastern Front, oil shortages, etc.

    The one thing that generally isn’t given enough emphasis is the German reliance on horses. The Germans relied on 2.75 million horses to support their infantry. I suppose it doesn’t frame the German military as modern. Russia had trucks.

    • Replies: @Philip Owen
  48. @Nick Diaz

    @ Nick Diaz

    By 1943 the U boat threat was over – utterly defeated, beyond hope, finished, done, busted, kaput.

  49. Anonymous[150] • Disclaimer says:
    @anon

    Has any historian compiled a graph of German casualties by month for the war? That would be interesting to see. (For WWI also.)

    • Replies: @Philip Owen
  50. Anonymous[150] • Disclaimer says:

    There was a conspiracy theory in the Soviet Union during the Cold War, that the purpose of D-Day was to save Nazi Germany from destruction.

    • Replies: @AnonFromTN
  51. Of course, anyone who compares German forces and German losses in the East and in the West would know that >80% of victory over Germany belongs to the USSR. That is why Soviet troops took Berlin and Vienna. That is why Stalin was able to negotiate a huge buffer zone in Eastern Europe, which he converted into socialist countries, spending lots of treasure to keep them – a huge mistake, considering that among those “brotherly countries” were Hitler’s allies Hungary, Romania, and Bulgaria, as well as Eastern Germany itself. Anyway, life is irreversible: what’s done is done, cannot be undone.
    Russia learned from the mistakes of the USSR: it no longer feeds any parasites and only pursues its own interests. On the other hand, the EU is repeating the mistakes of the USSR in Eastern Europe. It is said that fools learn from their own mistakes, whereas smart people learn from the mistakes of the fools. So, what do we call those who repeat the mistakes of the fools?

    • Replies: @Philip Owen
  52. @anon

    I knew that the education in the US is very bad, but I didn’t think that it is so bad. You opened my eyes.

  53. @Leander Starr

    I once read a German saying that when they heard Shostakovich symphony via loudspeakers from besieged Leningrad, he realized that Germany lost the war.

  54. @Anonymous

    There was much more prosaic reason for the allied operation in Normandy: get a slice of the pie before it is all taken by Stalin.

    • Replies: @Philip Owen
  55. Pat Boyle says:
    @Heymrguda

    Something like two thirds or three fourths of all the Germans killed were killed by Russians. But then again the US supplied 9 out of ten of the trucks Russia used. We wanted Hitler defeated (he had declared war on us) and we got Russia to do the hand-to-hand stuff. We spent a lot of money but had relatively few casualties. Seems pretty clever.

    • Replies: @Hibernian
  56. Nick Diaz says:
    @Authenticjazzman

    I doubt very, very much that you have an IQ above 150 or even remotely close to that: you come across as too dense and childish to have high intelligence. Your post is a bunch of anecdotes that you try to pass on as facts, and a bunch of ad hominem invective.

    You were supposedly married to 3(!!!) German women, and yet you show extreme levels of hostility and contempt towards Germans. I wonder why you would have married 3 women from a people you have so much contempt for. Unless, of course, you are not telling the truth, which would make a lot more sense.

    No, the reason so many Soviets/Russians died is because the German Military was really fucking powerful, and because the Germans had a lebensraum policy of exterminating Slavs, who were viewed as an inferior race. The casualties came both from the battlefield and cold-blooded extermination of Slavs on the part of the SS.

    You claim that my my numbers and statistics are contradicted in other reliable sources, and yet you don’t post any of such evidence to contradict me. Unlike you, I actually know a lot about WWII. Even though my background is in chemical engineering – an area where Germans made colossal contributions -, I have polymathic interests, and one of those is WWII, the greatest war ever. I have a total of about 20 books on WWII, from “Rise And Fall Of The Third Reich” to “Hitler’s Generals” to “When Titans Clashed”. Trust me, buddy: I have forgotten more about WWII than you have ever known.

    I am not a German. My Latino handle is a tribute to MMA fighter, Nick Diaz, but you’re too slow to pick up on that despite your supposed 150+ IQ – and it’s not like Diaz is known only in MMA, so you can’t even use the excuse of not following the sport to justify not knowing him.

    Get upset all you want, facts are that the U.S.S.R defeated Hitler. They would have defeated Hitler even if America had never entered the war; it would have have taken 6 months longer.

    As for me having double-digit IQ, that is hilarious. The difference between you and me is that I *actually* have an IQ above 150. I tested on the WAIS(Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale) and scored above the test’s ceiling. The test’s ceiling is 135 for adults, and my extrapolated IQ score was 151+(SD=15). Furthermore, I was put on the gifted program when I was a child and entered university at age 16, graduating with a masters degree in chemical engineering before turning 22 years old. I couldn’t care less about your opinion about my intelligence. Again: you are just laughable. Even more laughable is your claim of being IQ 150+. I think you slipped your fingers on your keyboard: I think you meant an IQ of 15. That seems more likely. LOL.

  57. Hibernian says:
    @Pat Boyle

    Following the lead of our “mother country.”

    • Agree: Dan Hayes
  58. @Nick Diaz

    Yeah I am just fabricating my Mensa qualification to impress morons on the net, such as yourself.

    “Argue with a a fool (you) and what do you get: two fools” Mark Twain

    You wear me out with your nonsense.

    AJM

    • Replies: @Nick Diaz
  59. @Nick Diaz

    You were supposedly married to 3(!!!) German women, and yet you show extreme levels of hostility and contempt towards Germans.

    If you have every been married you would understand . But I have nothing but contempt and hostility towards Germans. A nation of sheep baaing for someone to lead them.

    the German Military was really fucking powerful

    A very convincing argument. Do you have a newsletter to which I might subscribe?

    , I have polymathic interests, and one of those is WWII, the greatest war ever. I have a total of about 20 books on WWII,

    Wars are not “great”. They are destructive, horrific wastes of lives and resources.
    Wow, 20 books! Have you got all the pictures colored in yet?

    .

    My Latino handle is a tribute to MMA fighter, Nick Diaz, but you’re too slow to pick up on that despite your supposed 150+ IQ – and it’s not like Diaz is known only in MMA, so you can’t even use the excuse of not following the sport to justify not knowing him.

    I didn’t know who he was. But then sweaty men in their underwear is not my thing. I do applaud your bravery in your lifestyle choice. Were your parents upset when you came out of the closet?

    facts are that the U.S.S.R defeated Hitler. They would have defeated Hitler even if America had never entered the war; it would have have taken 6 months longer.

    True, but it would have taken them longer than six months. The 88 AA guns used to defend Germany from American air raids would have been put to better use knocking out Soviet tanks in the East. But the Germans had to put up a show of defending against the raids.

  60. @Authenticjazzman

    I’ve been with my kids to the cemetery near Omaha Beach, 10,000 graves, and I don’t hate America. But even Churchill wrote that the German power had its back broken on the Eastern Front.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normandy_American_Cemetery_and_Memorial

    • Replies: @Hibernian
  61. @anon

    ” I still don’t know who was crazier? The British for making a pledge they couldn’t possibly hope to honor? Or the brain-dead Polish military junta for accepting the offer at full face value.”

    Churchill and the Poles were perfectly aware that there was no way of honouring the guarantee to Poland without the help of Russia (‘you only had to look at the map’, he wrote). The idea was to make Germany aware that attacking Poland would mean war with Britain.

    When Hitler signed his deal with Stalin he was still hoping that Chamberlain would find an excuse not to attack – and indeed the UK didn’t (and perhaps couldn’t) do much in Europe. But they declared war.

    How well the USSR would have fared against Germany without Western, especially US, military aid is one of those questions I’ve not seen a decent answer to.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @Hibernian
  62. @Chris Mallory

    ” A nation of sheep” And this is most profoundly reflected through the manifestation of their
    Big-brother “Meldepflicht”, their “Meldegesetz”, their registration law, which requires each and every resident to report their address to the local police registry, the local “Meldeamt”, and the amazing thing is that everyone willingly complies with this horrible police-state requirement, and they never question the philosophical implication of said requirement : Sheep

    I have a very good (German) friend who told me upon meeting him for the first time on “Rosenmontag”, 1968, that he intended to move to the US when circumstances permitted, as he simply hated this oppressive law, and he has now been residing, as US citizen, in the US since 1981, and has become quite successful in his field. Aside from him I have never encountered one single german individual who was even capable of understanding the philosophical ramifications of this tyrannical requirement: Sheep.

    Authenticjazzman “Mensa” qualified since 1973, airborne trained uS Army vet and pro Jazz artist.

    • Replies: @Sparkon
    , @Philip Owen
  63. Sparkon says:
    @Authenticjazzman

    In most jurisdictions in the United States, the Post Office has to have your address if you want your mail delivered. Also, the DMV has to have your current address, and so does your insurance agent, along with gas, water, electrical utilities, and the garbage man. Phone company, library … what have I forgotten? Social Security Administration, cable and Internet providers, most charities, your bank, credit card companies, and stockbroker. junk mail mills, registrar of voters…the list goes on. Some of these outfits also want your social security number.

    Of course, I make only ersatz jazz, so there’s that.

    • Replies: @Authenticjazzman
  64. Corvinus says:
    @Growabrain

    “Tell your mom that her President got Americans involved in a european civil war that we had no moral business meddling in…”

    Actually, it was America’s “moral business”, but no meddling, to become involved here. Several European nations were trading partners with the U.S. And assume that Germany was able to keep Europe under its thumb, why wouldn’t America believe it would be in Hitler’s sights in the future?

    “killing tens of millions of Europeans unecessarily…”

    That’s what happens in wars.

    “And tell her she may stick her American bazookas up her god-fearing, matronly ass.”

    Sounds like a personal problem on your part. You OK, bro?

    • Replies: @Chris Mallory
  65. Anonymous[150] • Disclaimer says:
    @YetAnotherAnon

    If the French had invaded Germany with a million men, while the British bombed the Ruhr with a thousand bombers, they could have caused serious difficulties for Germany. This is what the Poles were counting on, and what Hitler feared. In the event they did nothing.

  66. @Corvinus

    why wouldn’t America believe it would be in Hitler’s sights in the future?

    Germany could not cross the Channel, why would anyone believe they could cross the Atlantic? Besides Germany lost when it went east. There was no threat to the US from Germany.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  67. If the French had invaded Germany with a million men

    They didn’t use a million men, but the French did make a half hearted invasion of Germany between Sept 7 and Sept 16 1939.

    After the quick collapse of Poland, France retreated back to it’s own borders.

  68. Anonymous[150] • Disclaimer says:

    German involvement in the Western hemisphere would probably (like that of the USSR a generation later) have been limited to supporting friendly governments and rebel groups. The idea of a Fall of Liberty type Nazi invasion of the U.S. is absurd.

  69. Corvinus says:
    @Chris Mallory

    “Germany could not cross the Channel, why would anyone believe they could cross the Atlantic?”

    Yes, Germany’s advancement was repelled. But Hitler was hasty in breaking his treaty with Russia and going for broke, rather than concentrating efforts on neutralizing Germany’s largest military and economic rival. Regardless, the thought process was that Germany posed a danger to American sovereignty. Moreover, America’s trading partners in Europe were overrun. And, Great Britain asked for our assistance.

    We thankfully obliged.

    “Besides Germany lost when it went east. There was no threat to the US from Germany.”

    Yes, there was a distinct threat as I correctly outlined. You are decidedly wrong on this matter. Give it up already.

  70. Greg S. says:

    Few seem to ever talk about it, but it seems clear that the UK/American alliance was playing a cunning game in WWII. Margolis alludes to it in his final paragraph: there were many opportunities to stop WWII from grinding to its bloody conclusion but they were not taken. I believe the Americans saw both Germany and the Soviets as threats and wanted to see both destroyed. Their calculus was to see Germany destroy Russia, and THEN come in destroy the weakened Germany and mop up all the spoils.

    Only Russia did the unthinkable: they poured 20 million souls into defeating Germany instead, and then came rolling onward into Europe. Seeing this developing, the U.S. was forced to really get involved in a serious way, otherwise the Russians would be in Paris as Margolis says (aka, the Russians would get all the spoils).

    In the end, the Americans did “win” WWII. They avoided the heaviest lifting but still got a lion’s share of the spoils, without a home country to rebuild.

    • Replies: @Philip Owen
  71. @Sparkon

    Apparently you are not able to grasp the difference between these various entities you have listed, and a “big brother” law requiring you to report to the local police registry office and furnish them with your private address, whether you wish to or not and under penalty of fine, meaning you have no right to remain anomynous.
    This regristration requirement dates back to the “Fürstenzeit” when no one was allowed to leave their “Fürstentum” without permission from the authorities.
    If you do not comprehend the tryannical implications of this code than that is your own deficit.

    AJM

    • Replies: @Sparkon
  72. @Anonymous

    If the French had attacked the Siegfried Line in 1939 (remember, unlike Germany, they couldn’t just go via Belgium and Holland) they’d have been stuffed. Attacking a defended position is hard – see Verdun or Cassino.

    And the Brits didn’t have a thousand bombers then – and the bombers they had in 1939 had small bomb loads, low speeds and low ranges. They had about 500 Whitleys, Hampdens and Wellingtons in total. Couldn’t bomb Germany by day without long range escort fighters which they didn’t have.

    HOWEVER

    The Brits afaik didn’t make demand on France to station bombers in France, dramatically shortening the range to Germany. Those 500 bombers might have been able to to do something if escorted by Hurricanes from French bases.

    • Replies: @Chris Mallory
  73. Anonymous[421] • Disclaimer says:

    The British had problems bombing Italy from French bases because the French feared that Axis reprisals would fall on them, not the British:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haddock_Force

    despite the agreement to attack Italy, the French civilian authorities decided that bombing Italy would provoke attacks on the huge petrol dumps on the Étang de Berre 25 km (16 mi) north-west of Marseille; retaliation against civilians which could only fall on French cities and was to be avoided.

    Presumably there would have been similar problems if the British had tried to bomb Germany from northern France.

  74. Sparkon says:
    @Authenticjazzman

    you are not able to grasp the difference between these various entities you have listed, and a “big brother” law …you have no right to remain anomynous [sic]…the tryannical [sic] implications of this code

    And I have shown that — at least for a law-abiding citizen — it is virtually impossible to remain anonymous or “anomynous” either one in the United States. As they say, there’s more than one way to skin a cat. (But only one way to spell “anonymous” correctly.¹)

    Beyond that, no small number of people seeking anonymity are in fact criminals with something to hide.

    Germans may bitch about the law, but I’d wager identity theft is not a big problem in Germany, where in the United States it is. Especially in So. California — but all over the U.S. — mail theft is rampant. If you don’t have a locked mailbox, roaming mail thieves will snatch your mail sooner or later, and even if you have a locked mailbox, you may not be safe.

    “We have to be proactive because the Post Office isn’t concerned,” said Riverside resident Jana Nocella, three times a victim of mailbox break-ins.

    U.S. mail thieves have been quite bold and audacious in recent years, in one case uprooting and ripping out the entire drop box from in front of a Post Office, before the thieves loaded it up, and drove off with the whole shebang.

    If you want to rent an apartment in the United States, your prospective landlord will insist you provide him with your social security number, which he will then use to run “a credit check” with some big outfit, or “credit bureau,” that maintains a data base with millions of citizens’ vital personal information, including a lot more than just your name and address.

    Open a bank account. Same routine. Tax man knows all about you too. DMV knows where you live, and so does the CHP.

    Cut to the chase closing credits: in my view, registering with the cops is among the least of the injustices suffered by browbeaten and guilt-infused Germans.

    ¹ I’m aided in my efforts to spell correctly by the various software working together here, including Linux Mint, Firefox, and UR, with the result that I get red squiggles under my misspelled words, which is a nice feature to have, if you can get it.

    • Replies: @Authenticjazzman
  75. @YetAnotherAnon

    If the French had attacked the Siegfried Line in 1939 (remember, unlike Germany, they couldn’t just go via Belgium and Holland) they’d have been stuffed. Attacking a defended position is hard

    If the French had moved fast and hard during those first days of the war, they might have done some damage. The French had 40 divisions slated for their invasion of Germany. The Germans had 22 divisions able to oppose them, the rest were involved in the invasion of Poland.

    But the French dallied between the Siegfried Line and the German border, never committing or really attacking.

  76. @Sparkon

    You obviously are not endowed with the mental capacity required to grasp the philosophical crux of this issue, and that being :

    This law represents the ultimate in involuntary police-state survailance, this is “big-brother” to the Nth degree, and of course where else could such tyrannical citizen control be more symbolically expressed than in Germany, a nation of sheep, a nation of authority-worshipers.

    Germans worship and venerate all of the most reprehensible scoundrels of any society : Judges, attorneys, journalists, medicos, clergy, politicians, etc, etc, and of course in tune with their ” Untertanen ” mentality, this law fit perfectly within their vision of society.

    AJM

    • Replies: @Sparkon
  77. Sparkon says:
    @Authenticjazzman

    This law represents the ultimate in involuntary police-state survailance [sic], this is “big-brother” to the Nth degree.

    Yeah, right. Are you really this naive?

    • Replies: @Authenticjazzman
  78. @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan

    This is all true, although it is worth mentioning in our historigraphy that most Soviet tanks designed before WW2 were borrowed or outright stolen from American engineers in the 1930s. #ThanksFDR

    What tanks would that be? The mainstay of Soviet armor in WWII was the T-34 which was perhaps the most successful tank of all time, and was entirely homegrown. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-34

    • Replies: @Sparkon
    , @Tlotsi
  79. Hibernian says:
    @YetAnotherAnon

    And Japanese power was tied down in the Pacific. Remember Midway, Guadalcanal, Tarawa, New Guinea, Leyte Gulf, Iwo Jima and Okinawa. They’re never mentioned by the cheerleaders for the USSR.

    • Replies: @Philip Owen
  80. Hibernian says:
    @YetAnotherAnon

    “How well the USSR would have fared against Germany without Western, especially US, military aid is one of those questions I’ve not seen a decent answer to.”

    The answer is they’d have been destroyed in a pincers movement of the Germans and the Japanese.

    • Replies: @Sparkon
  81. @Nick Diaz

    No. The convoy system worked against U boats. The Kriegsmarine lost in 1940, like the Luftwaffe. A lot of the British advantage was technical but there was a lot a lot of superior command and control at sea and in the air. Equal numbers to equal numbers the Germans rated the British. As a captured British General said in Tunisia to Rommel. “They are our Italians”.

    And the German bomb programme was always headed in the wrong direction, unlike the British, later Allied bomb. Russia shortened the war by months. The US by years (quicker to a bomb) but even in 1940, the UK, not including Canada produced more tanks, aircraft and ships than Germany.

  82. @anon

    The USSR had British and American trucks. The USSR focussed on weapons production and imported logistics.

  83. @Anonymous

    It has been done. Over 50%, well over but I can’t remember, occured on the Eastern front in 1945 – is the last few months.

  84. @AnonFromTN

    So why bother with Italy?

    • Replies: @AnonFromTN
  85. @AnonFromTN

    Military significance is not measured by the size of losses. Stalingrad and El Alamein achieved approximately the same objective – denying Germany oil.

    • Replies: @AnonFromTN
  86. @Authenticjazzman

    But in Germany you have 6 months to register. In Russia it is now 7 days, was three.

    • Replies: @Authenticjazzman
  87. @Anonymous

    Britain did not have a heavy bomber until 1942, never mind thousands. Britain had a tiny, mostly obsolete Army (a good tank badly deployed), a very modern short range fighter airforce backed up by radar in the process of being created and a huge but not very modern (Bismarck Vs Hood) navy, radar and aircraft carriers excepted. The UK spent the 20′s and 30′s trying to lead world disarmament by setting a good example. Germany and the USSR were 5 years ahead in terms of military build up. Stalin’s efforts to provoke war between UK and Germany in 1938 (landlocked Czechoslovakia) were futile.

    • Replies: @Gandydancer
  88. @Greg S.

    So why 1000 British and Canadian tanks outside Moscow in 1941, about a third of the total. Followed by American Lend Lease. Better to blockade Iran and let the Germans and Italians supply the Axis in Russia via the Med/Black Sea.

  89. Eagle Eye says:
    @Nick Diaz

    … a bunch of anecdotes that you try to pass on as facts …

    Anecdotes can be perfectly useful factual material.

    Anecdotes are either factual and interesting, or fictitious but illustrative of a broader truth, as expressed in the adage se non è vero, è ben trovato.

    As regards IQ – having or claiming a high IQ does not make a person right or wrong. In too many cases, high IQ people just come up with more elaborate rationalizations for what they wish to believe.

    ‘Some ideas are so stupid that only intellectuals believe them.’ George Orwell

  90. Sparkon says:
    @Hibernian

    The answer is they’d have been destroyed in a pincers movement of the Germans and the Japanese.

    It takes a staggering ignorance of geography — without even getting into the military aspect — to suggest the Japanese would have been able — say — to cross into the Lake Baikal region of Siberia from, say Khalkin Gol and advance to Chita – a distance of ~370 miles – and then undertake this fantastic pincer movement on say Moscow, just about 3,890 miles away.

    And of course it wasn’t the U.S. Army standing in the way of the Japanese at Khalkin Gol, but rather those “hardened Siberians” we’ve heard so much about, and they weren’t going anywhere.

    • Replies: @Hibernian
  91. @Hibernian

    Nor indeed Burma. The allied (British Empire army/navy, US air, some Koumintang) counterattack from Kohima to Rangoon was the longest sustained advance of the war in very difficult logistical circumstances. Only the original Japanese attack, largely uncontested, in the other direction comes close.

  92. @Philip Owen

    Yet another piece of an unearned pie, no?

  93. @Philip Owen

    Stalingrad was only one of the battles. Even Churchill, who hated the USSR as vehemently as Hitler, acknowledged that Soviet Army broke the back of Wehrmacht.

    • Replies: @Philip Owen
  94. Sparkon says:
    @George Taylor

    The mainstay of Soviet armor in WWII was the T-34 which was perhaps the most successful tank of all time, and was entirely homegrown.

    The Christie suspension was an American design.

    1942 Soviet report:

    The Christie’s suspension was tested a long time ago by the Americans and unconditionally rejected. On our tanks, as a result of the poor steel on the springs, it very quickly [unclear word] and as a result clearance is noticeably reduced. The deficiencies in our tracks from their viewpoint result from the lightness of their construction. They can easily be damaged by small-caliber and mortar rounds. The pins are extremely poorly tempered and made of poor steel. As a result, they quickly wear and the track often breaks.

    Two battle-tested T-34s were sent to the Americans for tests at Aberdeen:

    The testing at Aberdeen revealed other problems as well. The turret drive also suffered from poor reliability. The use of poorly machined, low quality steel side friction clutches and the T-34′s outdated and poorly manufactured transmission meant frequent mechanical failure occurred and that they “create an inhuman harshness for the driver”. A lack of properly installed and shielded radios – if they existed at all – restricted their operational range to under 16 km (9.9 mi)

    Judging by samples, Russians when producing tanks pay little attention to careful machining or the finishing and technology of small parts and components, which leads to the loss of the advantage what would otherwise accrue from what on the whole are well-designed tanks. Despite the advantages of the use of diesel, the good contours of the tanks, thick armor, good and reliable armaments, the successful design of the tracks etc., Russian tanks are significantly inferior to American tanks in their simplicity of driving, manoeuvrability, the strength of firing (reference to muzzle velocity), speed, the reliability of mechanical construction and the ease of keeping them running

    All from the Wiki article.

  95. @Philip Owen

    In Germany, if you have moved there from a foreign country you must register your first address within six months, after that for every new address you must register within two weeks, and you can be fined 500 Euro-plus, for not doing so.

    Authenticjazzman “Mensa” qualified since 1973, airborne trained US army vet, and pro Jazz artist.

    • Replies: @Philip Owen
  96. @Sparkon

    So you apparently love oppressive, big-brother tyrannical gov measures.
    You are the naive one and stupid beyond hope.

    Authenticjazzman “Mensa” qualified since 1973, airboren trained US army vet, and pro Jazz artist.

    • Replies: @Sparkon
  97. KenH says:
    @Nick Diaz

    German resources and men committed to north Africa was tiny.

    Several hundred thousand is not that tiny of which 250K were taken prisoner and sent to America. If America had stayed neutral that’s 250K men that could have made a difference fighting on the Eastern front. Germany had about 28-30 divisions in Southern Europe that otherwise could have been brought to bear in the East.

    At the most America speeded Geramny’s defeat by 6 months.

    Perhaps, but Germany had to station almost sixty divisions on the Western front to prepare for an allied invasion of which I’m guessing half were transferred from the Eastern front. Many of the divisions were at half strength but that’s still half a million men. That many men can spell the difference between victory and defeat. If Stalin was forced to remove thirty or so divisions from their Western front during the battle of Kursk and station them in Siberia they would have likely lost the battle.

    If Stalin had to remove a total of ninety divisions and station them East of Moscow or on the Manchurian border in preparation for a Japanese attack the war would have progressed and ended very differently either in a stalemate or Soviet loss .

    • Replies: @AnonFromTN
  98. @KenH

    FYI: 40 Russian divisions were stationed throughout the war in the East, ready for Japanese attack that did not come: Japanese were afraid after their defeats at Khalkhyn-Gol (1939) and near Khasan lake (1938).

    • Replies: @KenH
    , @Sparkon
  99. KenH says:
    @AnonFromTN

    Thanks and I’m aware of all that but historians can’t seem to agree on how many of these were transferred to the Moscow sector in late fall of 1941. I’ve seen estimates as low as 14-15 divisions to as high as all 40. Supposedly these divisions were replenished to always maintain 40 divisions in the far east but again it seems depending on the source estimates range from as low as 20 to as high as 40 depending on the needs of Russia’s Western front against Germany.

    Even though some are now trying to downplay the effectiveness of the Sorge spy network, I believe it was instrumental in helping the Soviet high command determine how many divisions were necessary at any given time based on Japanese intentions. If the Japanese ever posed a serious threat of invasion I guarantee Stalin would need many more divisions than the 20-40 that were typically stationed in the far east during WWII.

  100. Sparkon says:
    @AnonFromTN

    I don’t know about this.

    In fact, the USSR and Japan had signed a non-aggression pact on April 13, 1941 effective through 13 Apr 1946, but broken by the Soviets on 8 Aug 1945.

    Indeed the original Khalkin Gol / Nomonhon battles had been “provoked by a notorious Japanese officer named TSUJI Masanobu, ring-leader of a clique in Japan’s Kwantung Army, which occupied Manchuria.”

    This myth about Far Eastern or Siberian divisions being transferred to Moscow or the Western Front has been effectively debunked, imo, by Nigel Askey.

    In short, of all the divisions transferred west after August 1941, only three rifle divisions originated with Siberian personnel and only two went into the Western Front defending Moscow.

    Whichever way data is analysed, the whole Siberian transfer story is a myth in all respects: including timing, numbers, source of personnel and overall combat performance.

    So the question is; who stopped the Germans in December 1941 if it couldn’t possibly have been hordes of newly arrived Siberian or East Front troops?

    The answer is a massive number of newly mobilised and deployed divisions and brigades. The Soviet land model shows that 182 rifle divisions, 43 militia rifle divisions, eight tank divisions, three mechanised divisions, 62 tank brigades, 50 cavalry divisions, 55 rifle brigades, 21 naval rifle brigades, 11 naval infantry brigades, 41 armies, 11 fronts and a multitude of other units were newly Mobilised and Deployed (MD) in the second half of 1941. If Mobilized and Not Deployed (MND) units are included then this list is considerably higher.(2) Even if the few Siberian divisions exhibited a higher than average combat proficiency in the winter of 1941/42, their contribution was almost insignificant compared to the mass of newly mobilised units.

    There is no doubt that the 1941 Soviet mobilisation programme was simply the largest and fastest wartime mobilisation in history. The multitude of average Soviet soldiers from all over the USSR that made up these units saved the day, and definitely not the existing units transferred west after June 1941, or the mostly non-existent and mythical Siberian divisions.

    http://www.operationbarbarossa.net/the-siberian-divisions-and-the-battle-for-moscow-in-1941-42/

    I concede that records of these or similar transfers could have been suppressed, or even destroyed, but Askey work’s shows there is no extant record of any large or significant transfer of Siberian, or Far Eastern Red Army formations to the Western Front in time to have played any role in the defeat of Army Group Center before Moscow in 1941.

    Indeed, as I’ve argued before, the Red Army had well over 10 million trained reservists and was able to mobilize over 200 new divisions and other large formations from the outset of Barbarossa in June to the defeat of Army Group Center in December. I suggest most of the reservists were in the so-called European Part of the USSR within easy train ride to Moscow, and that there was therefore no need to strip or denude Far Eastern Soviet defenses to transfer a mere 10-20 divisions close to 5,000 miles to save Moscow.

    In fact, Stavka continued to reinforce its Far Eastern forces throughout the war.

    For their part, the Japanese had virtually nothing to gain by attacking into Siberia, and everything to lose.

    If Stalin had not been completely opposed to fighting a 2-front war, I suggest the Red Army probably could have routed the Kwantung Army at any time during the war, and probably could have mounted an invasion of the Japanese home islands too, which likely would have knocked Japan out of the war before the U.S. could drop the A-bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

  101. @AnonFromTN

    But they were generally pointless self destruction in the mud. As I said losses don’t equal strategic significance.

    But yes, there is no dispute that over time the Soviet Army did break the Axis armies.

  102. @Authenticjazzman

    Ah. That is near enough Russian in controlling the population.

  103. Sparkon says:
    @Authenticjazzman

    So you apparently love oppressive, big-brother tyrannical gov measures. You are the naive one and stupid beyond hope.

    Authenticjazzman “Mensa” qualified since 1973, airboren [sic] trained US army vet, and pro Jazz artist.

    Nope; those all are your words, not mine. Nowhere have I ever said anything like that, and your attempt to put words in my mouth does not sit well with me at all.

    Now, the rich part is — wait for it — you don’t even understand the German address registration issue correctly, yet you dare call others “stupid.”

    You said:

    Apparently you are not able to grasp the difference between these various entities you have listed, and a “big brother” law requiring you to report to the local police registry office and furnish them with your private address,

    But no, that’s not how it works:

    *Correction: The headline and two sentences in this story originally said that German citizens must register with police. It turns out that isn’t quite the case. As a reader who lives in Germany and has knowledge of the law in question clarifies:

    Your commenters are correct that you don’t go to the police station to register yourself. However, the police (and other federal and local agencies) have immediate access to the data collected by the resident registration office, without a warrant or other administrative procedure, so essentially it is the same thing. The police (and other agencies) make use of that data on a regular basis. And since administrative penalties (fines) would notionally attach to a failure to register, there is very much a law enforcement aspect to it. This isn’t an agency one voluntarily registers with to “get something”, like a driver’s license or a voting register. It’s mandatory. As Wolf and Christine mentioned, enforcement isn’t rigid, but on the books, it is still the law (and if you are a foreigner and fail to register, that does create considerable administrative problems). And no — Germans really don’t seem to mind it!

    national/archive/2013/10/why-dont-germans-object-to-registering-their-home-addresses-with-authorities/280320/

    Yes indeed; you’re the genius ranting and raving about an issue you don’t even understand correctly. Ha ha! No wonder you need to remind yourself and everyone else that you really are that brilliant guy by adding your hilariously cheesy boilerplate fruit salad at the bottom of your comments, misspellings and all.

    But the genius really is in the details.

    • Replies: @Authenticjazzman
  104. @Sparkon

    ” As a reader who lives in Germany and has knowledge of the law in question clarifies”

    Look I myself resided in Germany for forty-plus years and I can “clarify” the details of said law as well as any German individua, as I had registered and re-registerd myself umpteen times.

    “Enforcement isn’t rigid” : Total bullshit, as failure to regist can be and will be punished with fine or even imprisonment. German gov officials do not ever let anything slip through the cracks.

    AJM

  105. L Woods says:
    @Authenticjazzman

    LMAO. Of all the autistic geriatric blowhards on this site, you may be the quirkiest

  106. @Sparkon

    LOL! In other words, the Soviets were capable of amphibious pinpricks on peripheral and unimportant Japanese possessions. You don’t even seem to realize that that is what you are saying, and that it is entirely different than your initial misleading claim.

    • Replies: @Sparkon
  107. @Nick Diaz

    ” The German Tiger tank was the most heavily armored *and* fastest tank in the World, and Germany roled(sic) literally thousands of them into Russia.”

    This ^^^^^^^^^ is ignorance on stilts.

    Quantity: 1,347 Tiger I and 492 Tiger II
    First produced 1942 (Tiger I)
    Cross country speed: 12–16 mph (Tiger I)

  108. @Chris Mallory

    “Both the Sherman and the T-34 were faster than the Tigers, though the Tiger 2 had closed this gap.”

    Jeez. More ignorance on stilts.

    Tiger I Cross country speed: 12–16 mph
    Tiger II Cross country speed: 9-12 mph
    T-34 Cross country speed (later models w/5-speed gearbox): 19 mph

    • Replies: @Chris Mallory
  109. Sparkon says:
    @Gandydancer

    LOL! You don’t even seem to realize that that is what you are saying.

    Of course I don’t realize it, because it is what you are saying – not I – which makes you just another guy trying to put words in my mouth.

    In other words, the Soviets were capable of amphibious pinpricks on peripheral and unimportant Japanese possessions.

    Pathetic. If you don’t realize the importance of S. Sakhalin for invasion of Hokkaido, there’s little I can do to help you, other than refer you to a map. Like others here, geography doesn’t seem to be your strong suit.

    Notice. From now on, if you expect a response from me, put what I’ve said in quotation marks, or use the blockquote tag, like I do. Otherwise,you’re going straight to “ignore. I’ve had my fill of dudes like you on this blog using this mischaracterization ploy.

  110. @Philip Owen

    “Britain had a tiny, mostly obsolete Army (a good tank badly deployed), a very modern short range fighter airforce backed up by radar in the process of being created and a huge but not very modern (Bismarck Vs Hood) navy, radar and aircraft carriers excepted. ”

    Well, it was huge in comparison with the Germans. Neither was “modern” in that neither had recognized that aircraft carriers were the only capital ships that still mattered for seapower purposes.

    Britain’s regular army was fully mechanized, so not “obsolete”. The Matildas, to which I suppose you refer, were not large in number, but in 1940 tank quality was anyway a poor measure of military effectiveness. Most German “tanks” were crap, too.

  111. @anon

    That’s the price they all willingly paid as if the result had really been so unforseeable.

    That’s also the reason british tabloids will never ever forget their empire’s final victory.

    What is tragicomic on this site is Russians complaining how Polish people do not love them, lack gratitude etc. Do they really not know what happened in Poland?

  112. @Nick Diaz

    Actually, it should be known by now that there are strong hints as to this not being a mistake but rather his last chance to preempt a Russian attack.

    However, it is incomprehensible that the Reich did not sue for peace in 1942 or on the latest 1943.

  113. @Anon

    On the aesthetics I sadly agree.

    The human cost was horrifying however.

  114. @Authenticjazzman

    That russian ground troops were ruthlessly fed into battle and sure death by their “leaders” is one of the “facts” of ww2, which is most profoundly ignored and hidden by the history book writing academics, this also holds true regarding the “lend-lease” program of millions of tons of war material afforded the Russians by the US.

    Wanton ignorance of both facts is among the basic tenets of the German Schuldkult which is blossoming of late.

    There is an element of tragic farce in that many of the high priests of the Schuldkult are at the same time leading russophobes in Germany.

  115. @Gandydancer

    Listen Spanky, I said “closed”, not erased. The source I used might have been wrong, I am too lazy to look it up now.

    Now scamper off like a good boy.

  116. Hibernian says:
    @Sparkon

    With the US not in the war, the Soviets would have had to commit a lot of troops to their own Eastern front. The endurance and courage of the Japanese are well known. The US not being in the war also means no American ships, guns, etc. for the Reds. A USSR reduced to the Urals and corridors a few miles wide on each side could not long endure.

    Recipe for lionizing the USSR and denying the great value of the US to the Allies:

    Totally ignore the Pacific.

    Almost totally ignore US aid to Russia..

    Equate D-Day with the landings in North Africa and Italy.

    It’s your arrogance that’s on display.

    • Replies: @byrresheim
  117. Nick Diaz says:
    @Chris Mallory

    “If you have every been married you would understand . But I have nothing but contempt and hostility towards Germans. A nation of sheep baaing for someone to lead them.”

    For being sheep, they certainly have produced more great original thinkers than America(Hegel, Leibniz, Nietzsche, Kant, etc). How many revolutionary thinkers have America produced? And don’t say the Founding Fathers, because their thinking was inspired by the great French thinkers like Voltaire and Rousseau. America is far more of a mediocre, vulgar, unoriginal culture than Germany ever was.

    “A very convincing argument. Do you have a newsletter to which I might subscribe?”

    I actually made a ton of arguments in my previous posts, unlike you. All you have to say is that “Germans are sheep”.

    “Wars are not “great”. They are destructive, horrific wastes of lives and resources.”

    Wars are not great, but they are interesting. A lot of human factors go into war, like being resourceful, cunning, etc. It also involves a plethora of political and economic motivations and consequences that tells a lot about human nature.

    “Wow, 20 books! Have you got all the pictures colored in yet?”

    20 books on a narrow subject is impressive. Your sarcasm is pathetic. The stuff that adolescents would pass for ad hominem invective.

    “I didn’t know who he was. But then sweaty men in their underwear is not my thing. I do applaud your bravery in your lifestyle choice. Were your parents upset when you came out of the closet?”

    You seem very defensive about homosexuality. From what I have observed, guys that have a defensive attitude about homosexuality are the ones that truly have something to hide about their sexuality. But don’t worry. I understand. Given the level of maturity you display with your replies, you are clearly 16 years-old. It is ok to be confused about your sexuality at your age. You have a long time to figure that out.

    “True, but it would have taken them longer than six months. The 88 AA guns used to defend Germany from American air raids would have been put to better use knocking out Soviet tanks in the East. But the Germans had to put up a show of defending against the raids.”

    No, I don’t think so. At that point, the Soviets were making 20,000 T-34s a year, and the Germans did not have any gas left that would allow them to support the mobility of even mid-ranged artillery. They would for all practical purposes be left with infantry, and in a flat terrain like eastern Germany, tanks + infantry beat infantry all the time.

  118. Nick Diaz says:
    @Authenticjazzman

    You do not have a high IQ. I have read many of your posts and you strike me as being fairly dim witted. You have also not made any convincing arguments about the topic at hand. I think you should drop the condescending attitute, because it doesen’t suit you.

  119. Sparkon says:

    A USSR reduced to the Urals and corridors a few miles wide on each side could not long endure.

    That’s almost funny, considering the tin pot Kwantung Army could not advance even 10 miles against the Red Army at Khalkin Gol, but you would have them advance almost 2,500 miles to the Ural mountains against that same Red Army.

    No way Sergei.

    The Heer’s Army Group Center was defeated and very nearly destroyed by the Red Army in front of Moscow in late 1941 and early 1942, but many of the Heer’s finest units had been ground to a pulp already even before Zhukov’s counteroffensive.

    There were a few British and American lend lease aircraft involved, but hardly in any kind of decisive numbers.

    99 Hurricanes and 39 Tomahawks were in service with the Soviet air defense forces on January 1, 1942, out of a total of 1,470 fighters. About 15 percent of the aircraft of the 6th Fighter Air Corps defending Moscow were Tomahawks or Hurricanes.

    The British Matilda lend lease tanks were found to be unsuited for cold weather operations — among several shortcomings — and were soon withdrawn from front line service despite their good armor. Neither the Matildas nor the Valentines had much more than a token role in the defense of Moscow in ’41.

    In plain language, the Red Army demonstrated it could defeat the Japanese, and also defeat the Germans without any significant material help from any of its allies.

    After their defeat in front of Moscow in 1941, the Germans had no chance to prevail over the Soviet Union in WWII, let alone advance to the Ural mountains, so this fantastic idea that the enormous country that was the USSR during WWII could be crushed in a pincers movement between the Germans and the Japanese requires not only ignorance of geography, but also of logistics, and most importantly, ignorance of the military balance of power between the two nations, which was no balance but rather a huge disparity and mismatch, as we would see when Malinovsky’s forces steamrolled the Kwantung Army in August 1945.

    • Replies: @Sparkon
  120. Sparkon says:
    @Sparkon

    Erratum
    Malinovsky’s Vasilvesky’s forces steamrolled the Kwantung Army in August 1945.

    • Replies: @Hibernian
  121. @Nick Diaz

    ” America is far more of a mediocre, vulgar, unoriginal than Germany ever was”

    You simply have no clue as to what you are blathering about.

    Germany , aside from the royal courts, the “Fürstenhäuser”, was nothing but a conglomeration of peasant societies, a conglomeration of illiterate poor farmers, mine workers, military conscriptees, and various and sundry skilled such as smithys, shoemakers, stonecutters, etc.

    The only “higher” culture Germany incorporated was at the courts, and the courts, the royality themselves, were nothing more than slave-drivers, oppressors, thieves and exploiters, who employed a gaggle of “Philosophers” such as Voltaire and co, and composers who served to afford them with pastime “hobbies” : Frederich the Great having been an accomplished flute player.
    Other than these examples, Germany was nothing but a dirt-poor nightmare of continuous war and pandemonia.

    I have walked the halls of great palaces in Germany : Mannheim, Schwetzingen, cathedrals and baroque churches, with the knowledge of the sordid history behind their existance, behind their “Higher culture”.

    AJM

    • Replies: @byrresheim
  122. Tlotsi says:
    @George Taylor

    The T-34 used the Christie suspension, designed in America, as did the BT-series of tanks that were in use when the Germans invaded.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christie_suspension

  123. gwynedd1 says:

    Germany under estimated the Soviets . Its as simple as that. Unless the Soviets were broken by the winter of 41-42 there was little hope for Germany to win. She should have sued for peace with the West by spring of 42.

    Germany may have lasted longer had it taken easy territory with light resistance an held defensively until fall. It would also have to try and win allies within the Soviet sphere in a liberation style offense to have any chance.

  124. gwynedd1 says:
    @Authenticjazzman

    “If you for one moment think that the high casualty numbers of the Russians somehow reflect a superior russian heroism than you are as clueless as I think you are. the Russians suffered such horrible casualites because of the cruel relentlessnees of their officers, who literally pushed the foot soldiers into a sure death.”

    Stalin’s dead lines. They could never miss them. If they did then they would end up as dead. Thus the attacks could rarely be coordinated. Artillery barrages would commence and other units and reserves were nowhere near the area to exploit it. It might be the next day. And of course many Russian units were not mechanized.

  125. Precious says:
    @Authenticjazzman

    Probably forever, as this is the primary argument used by

    …used by people who understand math and can count.

    Count how many German divisions the Russians destroyed, and count how many German divisions the Americans and British destroyed.

    We will always have math, so we will always have this argument.

    • Replies: @Hibernian
  126. Hibernian says:
    @Sparkon

    That was after the Japanese war machine had been taking a pounding from the U.S. (with some British help) for 3 years.

    • Replies: @Sparkon
  127. Hibernian says:
    @Precious

    Count the Japanese divisions the U.S. pinned down.

  128. @Hibernian

    Very true.

    Please remember however, that in order to keep the Germans in line, they had to bee fed that nonsense about the mighty Soviet Union. US support for the SU was not mentioned in polite society, couldn’t have critical thinking in Germany about their new friends, could one?

    The error is a result of efficient US post war propaganda.

  129. @Authenticjazzman

    If I understood rightly, you are slightly traumatized by one or more failed marriages.

    Up to a point that is an excuse for clouded judgement.

    Up to a point.

    • Replies: @Authenticjazzman
  130. Sparkon says:
    @Hibernian

    But at Khalkin Gol, Japan was not yet at war with the United States, so you can’t use that excuse.

    The Imperial Japanese Army fought WWII largely with WWI-era weapons. Do a little research. It had no chance against either the United States or the Soviet Union in any large-scale ground war. In fact, the IJA couldn’t defeat either of the two rag tag Chinese forces during the Second Sino-Japanese War that started in 1937, nor could it even control the Chinese countryside.

    I guess their “pincers movement” wasn’t quite ready for prime time, even in China.

    • Replies: @Hibernian
  131. @byrresheim

    “If I understood rightly, you are slightly traumatized by one or more failed marriages”

    No you did not “understand rightly” as I never made such a statement, and I am most happily married to my third and last wife.

    Take a look in a mirror and you will view someone who is expressing “clouded judgement”.

    AJM

  132. Patricus says:
    @Nick Diaz

    Some good points although the Soviet Union was no underdog. She had more than three times the population of Germany. She outproduced Germany by a similar ratio.

    Germans were qualitatively superior to Russians, Americans and others. Only overwhelming numbers beat them.

  133. Patricus says:
    @Nick Diaz

    This is bitchy stuff. Please go away.

  134. Hibernian says:
    @Sparkon

    “It had no chance against either the United States or the Soviet Union in any large-scale ground war.”

    There were large scale ground wars in New Gunea and the Phillipines. We won, but it was no Sunday School picnic.

  135. Ralph Rat says:

    First, I have a couple of engineering degrees, Mechanical Engineering and Metallurgy, and have built engines, etc…….

    I have seen pictures of the ROLLER BEARINGS used on the crankshafts of German tanks.

    They were built to easily have a service life of 20 years with proper maintenance.

    OK, some of the later ones were too much armor on too little chassis, but….and took 30 seconds for the turret to traverse 90 degrees, ….

    However, they also had an AVERAGE ACTUAL SERVICE LIFE OF less than 2 MONTHS during most of the war.

    The above noted number of 2,000 of the Tiger tanks being produced says it all.

    The US and Soviets were EACH producing some 5,000 tanks a MONTH.

    Finally, comparing the quality of tanks is a bit of a pissing contest.

    Tanks were not INTENDED to fight tanks.

    Yes, it happened, but their primary intent was to support infantry.

    Assorted planes and artillery were the intended weapons for dealing with tanks.

  136. Philip says:
    @Ahem

    Thank you for correcting the error about the war between the Soviets and the Japanese. I knew when I read it that it was incorrect for two reasons. First, I recall listening to my dad and uncle, both of whom served in WWII, discuss the politics of dropping the atomic bombs on Japan, and being exceedingly annoyed that the USSR had not declared war on Japan until just a few days before that event.
    Second, The Soviets were desperately focused on protecting Moscow, and then pushing back through Europe. What happened in Siberia/Manchuria was a long way away and could be dealt with when the Germans were no longer a threat, and when they had pushed their front lines as far and fast as they could into Europe.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Eric Margolis Comments via RSS
Personal Classics
Bin Laden is dead, but his strategy still bleeds the United States.
Egyptians revolted against American rule as well as Mubarak’s.
“America’s strategic and economic interests in the Mideast and Muslim world are being threatened by the agony in...
A menace grows from Bush’s Korean blind spot.
Far from being a model for a “liberated” Iraq, Afghanistan shows how the U.S. can get bogged down Soviet-style.