The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 John Derbyshire ArchiveBlogview
Thank You for Warsaw, Mr. President—And Especially for Mentioning Katyn Massacre
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
The President speaks in Krasiński Square, Warsaw, Poland
The President speaks in Krasiński Square, Warsaw, Poland
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

Our President went to Poland and made a stirring speech. Remember the old radical chant, “Hey hey, ho ho, Western Civ. has got to go!”? Our President took the opposite line, counter-attacking: “Ho ho, hey hey, Western Civ. is here to stay!

I sure hope he’s right.

The speech of course was grandiloquent. A speech of that kind can hardly be otherwise.

And there are parts of it I’d disagree with. We need to get out of NATO and let Europeans organize their own collective defense, if they have the will. So I’m not as thrilled as the President is about the money pouring into NATO’s coffers.

Nor do I agree with him that the jihadis of Afghanistan and Iraq are significant enemies of our civilization—so long as we make an effort to keep them out of our countries, which we currently don’t.

There was also some polite papering-over of the history of our past solidarity with the Poles, too. Here I can’t resist quoting the story that opens Chapter 13 of Paul Johnson’s Modern Times:

On 10 January 1946, the Tory MP and diarist “Chips” Channon attended a society wedding in London and remarked to another guest, Lady (“Emerald”) Cunard, “how quickly normal life had been resumed. ‘After all,’ I said, pointing to the crowded room, ‘this is what we have been fighting for.’ ‘What,’ said Emerald, ‘are they all Poles?’”

And with the best will in the world towards our President—and I do have the best will in the world towards him—it was hard not to wince, knowing the President’s own personal history then hearing him say that

If we do not have strong families and strong values, then we will be weak and we will not survive.

These are trivial blemishes, though, by comparison with the nuggets of pure gold in the speech. Nuggets like this:

The fundamental question of our time is whether the West has the will to survive. Do we have the confidence in our values to defend them at any cost? Do we have enough respect for our citizens to protect our borders? Do we have the desire and the courage to preserve our civilization in the face of those who would subvert and destroy it?

Those really are the fundamental questions of our time. They are the questions on the mind of every thoughtful patriot in the West, of everyone who cherishes our civilization.

(They are, incidentally, the questions posed by Douglas Murray in his book The Strange Death of Europe: Immigration, Identity, Islam, which I took delivery of mid-week. I’ll be posting a full review in due course. Here I just note, at a hundred pages into the book, that it’s one everybody who cares about those big civilizational issues should read).

I’ll allow some modest difference of opinion with our President over exactly who those people are who “would subvert and destroy” our civilization.

Sure: the Muslim fanatics of the Middle East, Africa, and West Asia are in there. They would destroy us if they could.

Much more important in the ranks of our enemies, though, are those of our own people who would open our countries to mass settlement from those regions. Also, those of our own people who hate Western Civ., people to whom Western Civ. is only a catalog of oppression, slavery, colonialism, patriarchy, and cruelty.

These people infest our government bureaucracies, our schools and universities, our media outlets, our churches, our corporations. Do we have the will to face them down, to drain the swamps, clean out the stables, chase the money-lenders from the temples?

Well, that just circles us back to the President’s question. Thank you, Mr. President; thank you, thank you for stating that question out loud for the world to hear.

And you could hardly find a better place then Poland to say it. Protect our borders? The Poles can tell you things about that. They remember very vividly—how could they ever forget? —what happened to their borders 78 years ago, when Stalin and Hitler simultaneously invaded.

Concerning which, by the way—as an old Cold Warrior, but also as a person who just likes to hear the plain truth spoken—I’d like to thank our President all over again for not eliding the monstrous crimes of Soviet Russia.

Leftist historians and media types have been playing that game for decades—very successfully, stuffing Stalin’s crimes down the memory hole. Our politicians have mostly gone along with them. Any ordinary, not-very-attentive citizen of the West knows that Hitler invaded Poland in 1939; nothing like as many know that it was a co-invasion, Hitler and Stalin acting together.

I just put the phrase “Hitler invaded Poland” into the Google search box. “About 450,000 results,” says Google. Then I put in “Stalin invaded Poland.” Replied Google: “About 211,000 results.” Try it for yourself.

All right, history is written by the victors. When one of the victors is a savage totalitarian despotism, though, its evil deeds should be remembered.

Thanks to our President for remembering them, and reminding us of them on a major public stage. Said he: “In 1939, you were invaded yet again, this time by Nazi Germany from the west and the Soviet Union from the east.” Thanks for that.

He went on to mention the Katyn Forest massacre, when much of the officer class of the Polish military were murdered by Stalin’s secret police.

Is Trump the first U.S. President to mention Katyn in public? The story was suppressed by the Western Allies for decades. I don’t know, but I wouldn’t be surprised.

Then our President spoke frankly about the 1944 uprising, when Soviet troops, under Stalin’s orders, held back from intervening while the Nazis put down the Polish patriots. Stalin didn’t want Polish patriots around after the war, he wanted his own place-men.

ORDER IT NOW

So for all the fudging on NATO, for all the smirk-inducing stuff about family values, for all the over-the-top grandiloquence, I call this a great speech. I thank my President for having made it, and whichever one of his staffers—rumor says Stephen Miller—wrote it for him.

Thank you, Mr. President, thank you.

And one more quote from our President’s Warsaw speech:

We write symphonies. We pursue innovation. We celebrate our ancient heroes, embrace our timeless traditions and customs, and always seek to explore and discover brand-new frontiers.

We do indeed do those things—those of us not busy pulling down statues and demanding new pronouns.

Here’s a sample: the tremendous last movement coda to Brahms’ Fourth Symphony, performed by the Brussels Philharmonic.

John Derbyshire [email him] writes an incredible amount on all sorts of subjects for all kinds of outlets. (This no longer includes National Review, whose editors had some kind of tantrum and fired him. ) He is the author of We Are Doomed: Reclaiming Conservative Pessimism and several other books. He’s had two books published by VDARE.com: FROM THE DISSIDENT RIGHT (also available in Kindle) and From the Dissident Right II: Essays 2013. His writings are archived at JohnDerbyshire.com.

(Republished from VDare.com by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: Donald Trump, EU, Immigration, VDare Archives 
    []
  1. JamesG says:
    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    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.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /jderbyshire/thank-you-for-warsaw-mr-president-and-especially-for-mentioning-katyn-massacre/#comment-1927781
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  2. 5371 says:

    Germany and the USSR did not invade Poland simultaneously in September 1939; the USSR did so once Polish forces had already been defeated. Nor is it at all clear that Soviet forces could have occupied Warsaw already in August 1944, had they received orders to do so.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Candide III
    Only proves that Stalin was sneakier than Hitler. Stalin wisely left the opprobium of being the first to invade Poland to Hitler and came in two weeks later. The fighting went on for three more weeks, so the Poles hadn't yet been defeated. Then the Soviet and Nazi armies held a joint victory-over-Poland parade in Brest, Guderian and the Soviet general Krivoshein having a friendly breakfast together. The Nazis then withdrew to the previously agreed demarcation line and the Soviets got busy sovietizing their newly acquired territory, which included Katyn and a lot more.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German%E2%80%93Soviet_military_parade_in_Brest-Litovsk
    , @Andrei Martyanov
    Well, Polish role in unleashing a WW II is somehow unknown to Derb who, probably, didn't read Correlli Barnett's scathing characterization of this very Polish role, together with British one.

    https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-OAoptzMBygE/WWEuIpid-cI/AAAAAAAABG8/bWY3n_wRN_0yek4r6Pl7X5t7RA17SVmSQCLcBGAs/s1600/EastEurope.jpg

    This very same Barnett writes about "moralizing internationalism" which is a permanent feature of Anglo-Saxon "elites" and which is the main reason for an instinct for constant desire to pontificate while ignoring "facts on the ground". Obviously, the fact that Red Army lost more KIAs liberating Poland than US and UK combined in WW II is of very little concern. Obviously, the fact of modern Poland's rabid Russo-phobia which may lead to a very real war, not to mention Poland's literally insane elites (enough to take a look at her current Defense Minister), is not considered at all.
    , @Jim
    The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was signed on August 23, 1939 just prior to the German invasion on September 1, 1939. In a secret protocol attached to this treaty Hitler and Stalin agreed to the division of Poland. The Soviet Union denied the existence of this secret protocol until 1989 when they admitted it.

    Stalin is just as responsible as Hitler for World War II. Had the principles of the Nuremberg trials been applied to Stalin or Molotov consistent with their application to Ribbentrop both of the former two would have been hung. Ribbentrop was hung.

    , @reiner Tor

    Nor is it at all clear that Soviet forces could have occupied Warsaw already in August 1944, had they received orders to do so.
     
    Even if they could, it would've cost them enormous amounts of blood.
    , @Thirdeye
    Not only that, the Soviet forces were under orders not to interfere with the retreat of Polish forces to Romania. That was the single biggest factor allowing the PGIE to assemble a military force for the British. Polish soldiers caught behind the lines were treated as internees, which the USSR was obligated to do as a non-belligerent towards Germany. The big question is whether the Katyn executions (which were on a much smaller scale than has been claimed in propaganda accounts) would have happened had the PGIE not declared war on the USSR as soon as they got established in Paris in December 1939.
  3. Varenik says:

    It would be a lot more refreshing if the President visited dozens and dozens of the countries where US instigated and supported violent regime changes SINCE WWII, invariably supporting bloodiest, most corrupt dictators AND apologized for the countless millions US has killed,
    WOULDN’T IT ?

    Read More
  4. Miro23 says:

    And you could hardly find a better place then Poland to say it. Protect our borders? The Poles can tell you things about that. They remember very vividly—how could they ever forget? —what happened to their borders 78 years ago, when Stalin and Hitler simultaneously invaded.

    And prior to that, their country was partitioned three times by Prussia, Russia and Austria-Hungary until it ceased to exist in 1795 – a situation that continued for 123 years.

    With a whole series of secret agreements directed against them, and the fact that their losses in WW2 (in per capita terms) were almost twice as high as the Soviet Union, it’s not a surprise that they want Poland for Poles. And with regard to the Holocaust, the ratio of Jewish to non-Jewish deaths in Poland was virtually 1:1. For every Polish Jew who perished in the Holocaust, there was a Gentile Polish citizen who had perished in one or other of the many wartime horrors (Norman Davies 2012).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thirdeye
    That's a meaningless statistic. Polish Jews were much more impacted as a population than were Polish gentiles.
  5. KenH says:

    I didn’t hear the full speech but from the parts I heard it seems Trump, via his speechwriter Stephen Miller, misidentified threats to Western civilization. The EU poses a much greater threat to Poland and Eastern Europe than Vladimir Putin and Putin is no Stalin although the media is doing their darndest to make him the 21st century incarnate of uncle Joe. The EU is demanding Poland and Hungary take large numbers of African and Muslim refugees, not Putin

    I wonder if (((Stephen Miller))) included the substantial role his kisnmen had in the Bolshevik revolution and their over representation in Stalin’s murder apparatus in Trump’s speech? I think we know the answer to that.

    http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3342999,00.html

    “The West” or Western civilization isn’t just a set of lofty ideals with universal applicability. It’s about a unique genetic code that gave rise to it.

    The West needs Westerners (i.e., white Europeans) who are willing to fight for their race and culture and it needs to expel alien interlopers en masse in order to survive. That was another important point missing from the speech which doesn’t surprise me considering who wrote it.

    Read More
  6. Cyrano says:

    I guess not every country can be as peace loving as Britain. Instead of invading half of Poland, the Soviet Union should have followed the lead of Chamberlain and give all of Poland to Hitler. That would have brought peace in our time, like the one Chamberlain arranged with Hitler.

    It’s too bad that not everybody has the diplomatic skills of the British. The world should have continued to bring peace in “their” time, time after time, until eventually they run out of time to deal with Hitler. I wish the world back than had more brilliant minds like the British used to produce in large quantities. Why stop Germany half way into Poland, when you can move the border with them much closer to the Soviet Union by giving them all of Poland. Is that a brilliant strategy or what?

    Read More
  7. Then our President spoke frankly about the 1944 uprising, when Soviet troops, under Stalin’s orders, held back from intervening while the Nazis put down the Polish patriots. Stalin didn’t want Polish patriots around after the war, he wanted his own place-men.

    A complete propaganda baloney stemmed from Anglo-American WW II narrative much of which can give early (1950-1960) Soviet versions a run for their money. There is one difference, though, Russians long ago addressed many “discrepancies” in their narrative, while Western narrative remains as ignorant and as self-confident (self-righteous?) as it was 70, 30 or 10 years ago. This, plus a very shoddy understanding of large combined arms operations and a history of WW II intelligence operations written exactly within framework Anthony Cave Brown described. And now everyone wonders how combined West came to what it is today–a rather pathetic picture? One is bound to do so when lives in thoroughly falsified “reality”.

    Read More
  8. anonymous says: • Website • Disclaimer

    Just a quibble but …

    And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves, — Matthew 21:12 (KJV)

    Changers not lenders.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dab
    kollubistes "one dealing in coin", could be "banker" in general.

    But, sure, you would expect Derb to use the KJV and not freely paraphrase the Greek.
    , @RealDonaldTrump
    ( Matthew 21:12 ; Mark 11:15 ; John 2:15 ) According to ( Exodus 30:13-15 ) every Israelite who had reached or passed the age of twenty must pay into the sacred treasury, whenever the nation was numbered, a half-shekel as an offering to Jehovah. The money-changers whom Christ, for their impiety, avarice and fraudulent dealing, expelled from the temple were the dealers who supplied half-shekels, for such a premium as they might be able to exact, to the Jews from all parts of the world who assembled at Jerusalem during the great festivals, and were required to pay their tribute or ransom money in the Hebrew coin.
  9. utu says:

    USSR bears large responsibility for starting the WWII. The Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact accelerated the start of hostilities. Then the Katyn massacre 6-7 months later was the first great war crime of the WWII. It was unprecedented.

    Read More
    • Replies: @annamaria
    "USSR bears large responsibility for starting the WWII."

    This is a refreshing approach and the MSM should pick this one up: the invasion of Russia by Polish-Lithuanian Kingdom (17th century), by Napoleon (19th century), and by Hitler (20th century) were all the responsibility of Russians. Same with the NATO on Russian borders in the 21st century. Keep digging; the neocons approve you wholeheartedly.
    Are you among those who cheer the desecration and destruction of monuments to the fallen Soviets in Poland? - you know, those 600000 men and women who died while freeing Poland from Nazism? - So grand for Poland and their current rulers Zhidlo and Duda to bring the clarity re Nazism. Perhaps they (and you) are longing for a neo-Nazi regime (of ziocon flavor) that Ukraine is enjoying currently.

  10. @5371
    Germany and the USSR did not invade Poland simultaneously in September 1939; the USSR did so once Polish forces had already been defeated. Nor is it at all clear that Soviet forces could have occupied Warsaw already in August 1944, had they received orders to do so.

    Only proves that Stalin was sneakier than Hitler. Stalin wisely left the opprobium of being the first to invade Poland to Hitler and came in two weeks later. The fighting went on for three more weeks, so the Poles hadn’t yet been defeated. Then the Soviet and Nazi armies held a joint victory-over-Poland parade in Brest, Guderian and the Soviet general Krivoshein having a friendly breakfast together. The Nazis then withdrew to the previously agreed demarcation line and the Soviets got busy sovietizing their newly acquired territory, which included Katyn and a lot more.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German%E2%80%93Soviet_military_parade_in_Brest-Litovsk

    Read More
    • Replies: @David In TN
    I once read that while Stalin was characterized by paranoia, with Hitler it was willful stupidity.
    , @5371
    [The fighting went on for three more weeks, so the Poles hadn’t yet been defeated]

    Here's how Bernie can still win.

    I eagerly await your description of how Polish and German forces jointly occupied Czechoslovak territory in 1938. I'm sure it's on the way.
  11. @5371
    Germany and the USSR did not invade Poland simultaneously in September 1939; the USSR did so once Polish forces had already been defeated. Nor is it at all clear that Soviet forces could have occupied Warsaw already in August 1944, had they received orders to do so.

    Well, Polish role in unleashing a WW II is somehow unknown to Derb who, probably, didn’t read Correlli Barnett’s scathing characterization of this very Polish role, together with British one.

    This very same Barnett writes about “moralizing internationalism” which is a permanent feature of Anglo-Saxon “elites” and which is the main reason for an instinct for constant desire to pontificate while ignoring “facts on the ground”. Obviously, the fact that Red Army lost more KIAs liberating Poland than US and UK combined in WW II is of very little concern. Obviously, the fact of modern Poland’s rabid Russo-phobia which may lead to a very real war, not to mention Poland’s literally insane elites (enough to take a look at her current Defense Minister), is not considered at all.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Zenarchy
    He could have also mentioned that at least one reason for strange stupidities in current Poland must be one of the worst eliticides in history:

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

    Sure, Stalin killed military elites. But, long term, that's nothing to what Nazis did to Polish intelligentsia by wiping out some probably superb genes (many must have been young enough to still have kids).
    , @Thirdeye
    Barnett has the opposite take as this author, that Germany and Poland were close to resolving the Danzig Corridor issue that had been festering for close to 15 years under the Locarno Treaty, until Britain sabotaged the negotiations with, among other things, their "guarantee" to Poland.

    http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/11448682-1939---the-war-that-had-many-fathers

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBLgZAv_Iqo

    Britain's exact motive for doing that is subject to interpretation. Maybe they were looking to force Hitler to back down, humiliating him and settling scores after the Munich debacle. Or maybe they were looking for a war in which Germany, at least on paper, would be soundly defeated by Britain and France.

    IMO the desultory Anglo-French war effort was driven by their belief that Germany and the USSR would soon be at war, given credence by the Winter War between Finland and the Soviets. They were almost right, except that Germany took out France first. D'OH!
    , @Edward
    "the fact that Red Army lost more KIAs liberating Poland". Liberating? Asinine comment. They didn't liberate anything... They invaded Poland.
  12. Anon 2 says:

    Trump’s speech in Warsaw will go down in history as one of the defining moments of our time! The gauntlet has been thrown. Now Trump must deliver on his promises.

    Interestingly, not once did the main article in the New York Times mention the significance of the monument in front of which Trump delivered his speech – there was no mention of the 1944 Warsaw Uprising at all. Very predictable for the NY Times not to mention it – 200,000 dead and the capital city reduced to rubble, why should the Times worry about such historical trivia.

    It was good to see U.S. servicemen in his Warsaw audience. And the Confederate flag? Well, there are 10 million Polish Americans in the U.S. Some came on the Mayflower but most in the last 200 years. As a result, thousands of people in Poland have relatives in the U.S. and know what’s going on across the Atlantic, including the latest controversies.To quote the Polish- American singer Sarah Jarosz, things can sometimes get a little “Crazy”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Matra
    Well, there are 10 million Polish Americans in the U.S. Some came on the Mayflower

    There were no Poles on the Mayflower.
  13. [1] This essay begins with a photograph of the rally in Warsaw, with a Confederate flag highlighted. (On closer inspection, this is not a genuine Stars-and-Bars, which has 13 stars, but a “fake news” Confederate flag with only 9 stars at most.) But then Derb says nothing about this flag. Could not some enterprising reporter from CNN track down this story and interview the person(s) who brought it to the rally? This flag remains a mystery.

    [2] Is Trump the first U.S. president to utter the word “Katyn” in public, 77 years after the event? This would be like acknowledging some Civil War atrocity of 1865 for the first time in 1942.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov

    This would be like acknowledging some Civil War atrocity of 1865 for the first time in 1942.
     
    No, it wouldn't be for a simple reason--despite a lot of rah-rah about American Civil War, it was, in the end a civil war, that is the war fought among people of the same culture, same nation. This is absolutely not the case between Russians and Poles--two very different peoples, from language to culture (religion) etc. Also, two very different destinies. Katyn atrocity (war crime) for which Russia expressed both apologies and condolences not for once, will remain a focal point (one of, actually) of Poland's mythology and for external (especially for Anglo-Saxons--easy to BS people who don't know what real war is) consumption mostly for a simple reason. I am not going to parrot Putin's statement (on Ukraine) yesterday--and I have legitimate proofs of me using this construct for years now--but can state: because rabid Polish Russo-phobia is one of very few things Poland can offer for export and which will be in demand. Especially now, when Polish agricultural products are not needed in Russia and NS-2 threatens Poland with irrelevance. In general, people who are even remotely acquainted with architecture of the Red Square in Moscow, not to mention being able to finish War And Peace, would have no problem understanding what a load of sappy sentimental geopolitical baloney this piece by Derb is. I hope it is just a momentary lapse of reason.
    , @Jake
    The 'stars and bars' is not the same thing as the Confederate Battle Flag.

    The Confederate Battle Flag is a St, Andrew's Cross (and also a St Patrick's cross). Andrew is the patron saint of Scotland (hence, St Andrew's). The Confederate Battle Flag was not drawn up by committee. It is not an abstraction. It simply appeared and was loved immediately by Confederate troops. That means it struck a deep cultural chord.

    Deep hatred of the Confederate Battle Flag necessarily is significantly anti-Christian, anti-Scottish and anti-Irish, or both.

    St Andrew's cross flags are not restricted to the British Isles (see Spain, for example). In fact, they have long been prominent in Eastern Europe, invariably with military units fighting to save Europe from Moslem depredations.

    I also remember seeing pictures of Confederate Battle Flags in Croatia, Serbia, and Bosnia at anti-Communist rallies.

    America will NEVER have a halfway meaningful 'conservatism' until the Confederate Battle Flag and all it represents are honored.
  14. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    The fighting went on for three more weeks, so the Poles hadn’t yet been defeated.

    At that point, the war was already lost for the Second Polish Republic.

    Read More
  15. Katyn was certainly a war crime, but a relatively minor one in the context of WW2. For context, an analogous number of Soviet POWs died in Polish camps during the Polish-Soviet war when Poland invaded Soviet Ukraine.

    Why does nobody ever mention that, or even know about it, while Katyn has assumed one of the central positions in Western mythology about WW2?

    For the same reason that most people now believe the US played the most important role in winning WW2.

    I do sometimes wish there had been a way to occupy Berlin while walling Poland off and leaving it under Nazi occupation indefinitely. Judging from their behavior (e.g. removing Soviet war memorials), the Poles would have preferred things that way, and I believe in giving people what they want.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov

    Why does nobody ever mention that, or even know about it, while Katyn has assumed one of the central positions in Western mythology about WW2?
     
    Because this, plus other things of similar nature blow Anglo-American version of WW II out of the water. Once that is blown out of the water the whole myth of Cold War also gets blown out of the water, albeit it is happening as I type this and for a much more substantive reasons. You see, the value of lives of those "commie" Russkies can only be fixed within "Western" framework, in and of itself this value is usually zero. In the end, according to none other than Mr.Clapper--Russians are genetically inferior.
    , @syonredux

    Why does nobody ever mention that, or even know about it, while Katyn has assumed one of the central positions in Western mythology about WW2?
     
    I rather doubt that. I teach English Lit at a university, and I've polled my students about Katyn on several occasions. None of them have heard of it.And none of them have heard about Blokhin, the fellow who actually carried out the order

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

    Katyn was certainly a war crime, but a relatively minor one in the context of WW2.
     
    Numerically? Sure. Heck, placed alongside Stalin's other megadeaths (The Ukraine Famine, the Great Terror, etc), it's fairly minor.
    , @German_reader

    For context, an analogous number of Soviet POWs died in Polish camps during the Polish-Soviet war when Poland invaded Soviet Ukraine.
     
    Sorry, but that really comes across as revisionist whataboutery. Unless there's definite proof that the Poles during the Polish-Soviet war deliberately exterminated pows (like the Germans did in WW2), there's really no equivalence with systematic murder of a country's elite like happened at Katyn.
    I also agree with Syonredux, most Westerners today probably haven't even heard of Katyn.
    , @Hibernian
    "For the same reason that most people now believe the US played the most important role in winning WW2."

    We did. Remember Guadalcanal, Midway, Iwo Jima, Okinawa, etc. Plus TORCH, Scicily, Anzio, and the Battle of the Bulge. Plus Lend-Lease.
    , @jimbojones
    People also forget that Poland was a widely distrusted fascist state that gleefully participated in the partition of Czechoslovakia.

    While I do think that "the West" is a great thing worth defending, given the context, Trump's comment is ridiculous at best. The only threat to the West is the West itself.
    , @Anonymous
    Katyn is two crimes.
    First the actual killing, and then blaming it on someone else.
  16. Jim says:
    @5371
    Germany and the USSR did not invade Poland simultaneously in September 1939; the USSR did so once Polish forces had already been defeated. Nor is it at all clear that Soviet forces could have occupied Warsaw already in August 1944, had they received orders to do so.

    The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was signed on August 23, 1939 just prior to the German invasion on September 1, 1939. In a secret protocol attached to this treaty Hitler and Stalin agreed to the division of Poland. The Soviet Union denied the existence of this secret protocol until 1989 when they admitted it.

    Stalin is just as responsible as Hitler for World War II. Had the principles of the Nuremberg trials been applied to Stalin or Molotov consistent with their application to Ribbentrop both of the former two would have been hung. Ribbentrop was hung.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov

    In a secret protocol attached
     
    Goodness gracious, and then one has to wonder why the West is what it is today. Specially for you, a "secret" part of this published openly in two leading Soviet Newspapers Pravda and Isvestya. Even the "secret" map is attached for everyone to see.

    https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-m-JS7wDh3RY/WWFptt1gM1I/AAAAAAAABHI/KEOXLPhhMbU52hzkvNiMVbqfW_6Fq9BoQCLcBGAs/s1600/Mol-Rib.jpg

    https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-_Bdu2L24_mQ/WWFpz9woCuI/AAAAAAAABHM/YsAdtWyHlVcLXpWd0VJXJXsEwcEV3T98gCLcBGAs/s1600/Mol-Rib-2.jpg

    https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-0Hnk8Xz_BI0/WWFp6R7tQkI/AAAAAAAABHQ/K8-kiLYRiYIJ8QG-Xk4tz7Uvd7LbJlhAQCLcBGAs/s1600/Mol-Rib-3.jpg

    Considering the "level" of most Western WW II historiography, her active falsification (under different pre-texts, favorite being prior to 1990s lack of access to Soviet archives) it is no wonder to see people being so brainwashed. Per "denial" claims--Vyacheslav Nikonov, the grandson of none other than Molotov and currently MP of State Duma vehemently denied (supported by many serious Russian historians) of any such "secret" protocol ever existing. One is forced, indeed, question mental adequacy of claimants when right in a front of their eyes are official documents published in Soviet Press in 1939 where Poland is officially pronounced as "former Polish State" and the map of her partition is attached. What else "secret"can possibly trump (no pun intended) this--I abstain from discussing "moral" dimension of this for now--into one's face open termination of Polish State? Unless, of course, Stalin and Ribbentrop were served with some roasted babies for lunch?
    , @5371
    The "principles of the Nuremberg trials" were ad hoc justifications for actions of which the real motivation was "vae victis".
    , @animalogic
    It's interesting that the Polish "guarantee" only extended to a German invasion: Britain declined to defend Poland from the USSR....funny....

    [Wikipedia: "According to the Polish-British Common Defence Pact, the United Kingdom should give Poland “all the support and assistance in its power” if Poland was "engaged in hostilities with a European Power in consequence of aggression by the latter". The Polish ambassador in London, Raczyński, contacted the British Foreign Office pointing out that clause 1(b) of the agreement which concerned an "aggression by a European power" on Poland, should apply to the Soviet invasion. The Foreign Secretary Lord Halifax responded that the obligation of British Government towards Poland arising out of the Anglo-Polish Agreement, was restricted to Germany, according to the first clause of the secret protocol.[3]"]
  17. G. Mayre says:

    Poles are worthless pseudo-conservative cucks who enjoy the benefits and protection of the liberal west in thw EU and NATO while they don’t want liberal values. These fake Europeans want their cake and eat it too. Douglas Murray is a neocon/liberal Islamophobe and Zionist stooge. Katyn is typical totem of “pro-west” Russophobe cucks the way Srebrenica is for the R2P liberal interventionists.

    Read More
  18. @Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY)
    [1] This essay begins with a photograph of the rally in Warsaw, with a Confederate flag highlighted. (On closer inspection, this is not a genuine Stars-and-Bars, which has 13 stars, but a "fake news" Confederate flag with only 9 stars at most.) But then Derb says nothing about this flag. Could not some enterprising reporter from CNN track down this story and interview the person(s) who brought it to the rally? This flag remains a mystery.

    [2] Is Trump the first U.S. president to utter the word "Katyn" in public, 77 years after the event? This would be like acknowledging some Civil War atrocity of 1865 for the first time in 1942.

    This would be like acknowledging some Civil War atrocity of 1865 for the first time in 1942.

    No, it wouldn’t be for a simple reason–despite a lot of rah-rah about American Civil War, it was, in the end a civil war, that is the war fought among people of the same culture, same nation. This is absolutely not the case between Russians and Poles–two very different peoples, from language to culture (religion) etc. Also, two very different destinies. Katyn atrocity (war crime) for which Russia expressed both apologies and condolences not for once, will remain a focal point (one of, actually) of Poland’s mythology and for external (especially for Anglo-Saxons–easy to BS people who don’t know what real war is) consumption mostly for a simple reason. I am not going to parrot Putin’s statement (on Ukraine) yesterday–and I have legitimate proofs of me using this construct for years now–but can state: because rabid Polish Russo-phobia is one of very few things Poland can offer for export and which will be in demand. Especially now, when Polish agricultural products are not needed in Russia and NS-2 threatens Poland with irrelevance. In general, people who are even remotely acquainted with architecture of the Red Square in Moscow, not to mention being able to finish War And Peace, would have no problem understanding what a load of sappy sentimental geopolitical baloney this piece by Derb is. I hope it is just a momentary lapse of reason.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Neil Templeton
    The salient question is not whether Russians have a deep and productive culture, it is whether they can leave their neighbors alone. Americans are concerned about privacy, or once were.
  19. @Anatoly Karlin
    Katyn was certainly a war crime, but a relatively minor one in the context of WW2. For context, an analogous number of Soviet POWs died in Polish camps during the Polish-Soviet war when Poland invaded Soviet Ukraine.

    Why does nobody ever mention that, or even know about it, while Katyn has assumed one of the central positions in Western mythology about WW2?

    For the same reason that most people now believe the US played the most important role in winning WW2.

    I do sometimes wish there had been a way to occupy Berlin while walling Poland off and leaving it under Nazi occupation indefinitely. Judging from their behavior (e.g. removing Soviet war memorials), the Poles would have preferred things that way, and I believe in giving people what they want.

    Why does nobody ever mention that, or even know about it, while Katyn has assumed one of the central positions in Western mythology about WW2?

    Because this, plus other things of similar nature blow Anglo-American version of WW II out of the water. Once that is blown out of the water the whole myth of Cold War also gets blown out of the water, albeit it is happening as I type this and for a much more substantive reasons. You see, the value of lives of those “commie” Russkies can only be fixed within “Western” framework, in and of itself this value is usually zero. In the end, according to none other than Mr.Clapper–Russians are genetically inferior.

    Read More
  20. @Jim
    The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was signed on August 23, 1939 just prior to the German invasion on September 1, 1939. In a secret protocol attached to this treaty Hitler and Stalin agreed to the division of Poland. The Soviet Union denied the existence of this secret protocol until 1989 when they admitted it.

    Stalin is just as responsible as Hitler for World War II. Had the principles of the Nuremberg trials been applied to Stalin or Molotov consistent with their application to Ribbentrop both of the former two would have been hung. Ribbentrop was hung.

    In a secret protocol attached

    Goodness gracious, and then one has to wonder why the West is what it is today. Specially for you, a “secret” part of this published openly in two leading Soviet Newspapers Pravda and Isvestya. Even the “secret” map is attached for everyone to see.

    Considering the “level” of most Western WW II historiography, her active falsification (under different pre-texts, favorite being prior to 1990s lack of access to Soviet archives) it is no wonder to see people being so brainwashed. Per “denial” claims–Vyacheslav Nikonov, the grandson of none other than Molotov and currently MP of State Duma vehemently denied (supported by many serious Russian historians) of any such “secret” protocol ever existing. One is forced, indeed, question mental adequacy of claimants when right in a front of their eyes are official documents published in Soviet Press in 1939 where Poland is officially pronounced as “former Polish State” and the map of her partition is attached. What else “secret”can possibly trump (no pun intended) this–I abstain from discussing “moral” dimension of this for now–into one’s face open termination of Polish State? Unless, of course, Stalin and Ribbentrop were served with some roasted babies for lunch?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Miro23

    –I abstain from discussing “moral” dimension of this for now–into one’s face open termination of Polish State.
     
    At some point you need to discuss the moral dimension of "terminating" nations instead of just abstaining.

    Hitler aimed to terminate Russia and turn Ukraine into some sort of Germans only holiday resort. Russians have the moral right to live undisturbed in Russia and Poles have the moral right to live undisturbed in Poland. Post -Imperial world relations are based on this morality.
  21. syonredux says:
    @Anatoly Karlin
    Katyn was certainly a war crime, but a relatively minor one in the context of WW2. For context, an analogous number of Soviet POWs died in Polish camps during the Polish-Soviet war when Poland invaded Soviet Ukraine.

    Why does nobody ever mention that, or even know about it, while Katyn has assumed one of the central positions in Western mythology about WW2?

    For the same reason that most people now believe the US played the most important role in winning WW2.

    I do sometimes wish there had been a way to occupy Berlin while walling Poland off and leaving it under Nazi occupation indefinitely. Judging from their behavior (e.g. removing Soviet war memorials), the Poles would have preferred things that way, and I believe in giving people what they want.

    Why does nobody ever mention that, or even know about it, while Katyn has assumed one of the central positions in Western mythology about WW2?

    I rather doubt that. I teach English Lit at a university, and I’ve polled my students about Katyn on several occasions. None of them have heard of it.And none of them have heard about Blokhin, the fellow who actually carried out the order

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

    Katyn was certainly a war crime, but a relatively minor one in the context of WW2.

    Numerically? Sure. Heck, placed alongside Stalin’s other megadeaths (The Ukraine Famine, the Great Terror, etc), it’s fairly minor.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov

    Numerically? Sure. Heck, placed alongside Stalin’s other megadeaths (The Ukraine Famine, the Great Terror, etc), it’s fairly minor.
     
    Sure, evidently, numbers of Zemskov are too below your academic credentials, same as, I recon, what Axis did in USSR.

    I rather doubt that. I teach English Lit at a university, and I’ve polled my students about Katyn on several occasions.
     
    And English Lit and WW II History are related how?
    , @jacques sheete


    Why does nobody ever mention that, or even know about it, while Katyn has assumed one of the central positions in Western mythology about WW2?
     
    I rather doubt that. I teach English Lit at a university, and I’ve polled my students about Katyn on several occasions. None of them have heard of it.
     
    Well, people of that age group are largely clueless about the war on the Vietnamese people too, so your poll doesn't tell us much. And it certainly doesn't negate the claim that Katyn has assumed one of the central positions in Western mythology about WW2
  22. @syonredux

    Why does nobody ever mention that, or even know about it, while Katyn has assumed one of the central positions in Western mythology about WW2?
     
    I rather doubt that. I teach English Lit at a university, and I've polled my students about Katyn on several occasions. None of them have heard of it.And none of them have heard about Blokhin, the fellow who actually carried out the order

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

    Katyn was certainly a war crime, but a relatively minor one in the context of WW2.
     
    Numerically? Sure. Heck, placed alongside Stalin's other megadeaths (The Ukraine Famine, the Great Terror, etc), it's fairly minor.

    Numerically? Sure. Heck, placed alongside Stalin’s other megadeaths (The Ukraine Famine, the Great Terror, etc), it’s fairly minor.

    Sure, evidently, numbers of Zemskov are too below your academic credentials, same as, I recon, what Axis did in USSR.

    I rather doubt that. I teach English Lit at a university, and I’ve polled my students about Katyn on several occasions.

    And English Lit and WW II History are related how?

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    Numerically? Sure. Heck, placed alongside Stalin’s other megadeaths (The Ukraine Famine, the Great Terror, etc), it’s fairly minor.

    Sure, evidently, numbers of Zemskov are too below your academic credentials, same as, I recon, what Axis did in USSR.
     
    Well, the "etc" was meant to indicate that I didn't feel like listing all of Stalin's crimes (it's a lengthy list)....

    And I don't discount what the Nazis did to the peoples of the Soviet Union during WW2. Heck, the only thing more horrible than what the Nazis actually did is what they were planning on doing:



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

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

    I rather doubt that. I teach English Lit at a university, and I’ve polled my students about Katyn on several occasions.

    And English Lit and WW II History are related how?

     

    Well, this is the passage that I was responding to:

    Why does nobody ever mention that, or even know about it, while Katyn has assumed one of the central positions in Western mythology about WW2?
     
    If Katyn occupies "one of the central positions in Western mythology about WW2," one would expect college-educated Americans to be at least somewhat aware of it. For example, my students have heard of the bombing of Dresden, the Holocaust, the Normandy Landings, the Battle of Stalingrad, etc. But they haven't heard about Katyn.......
  23. @Anatoly Karlin
    Katyn was certainly a war crime, but a relatively minor one in the context of WW2. For context, an analogous number of Soviet POWs died in Polish camps during the Polish-Soviet war when Poland invaded Soviet Ukraine.

    Why does nobody ever mention that, or even know about it, while Katyn has assumed one of the central positions in Western mythology about WW2?

    For the same reason that most people now believe the US played the most important role in winning WW2.

    I do sometimes wish there had been a way to occupy Berlin while walling Poland off and leaving it under Nazi occupation indefinitely. Judging from their behavior (e.g. removing Soviet war memorials), the Poles would have preferred things that way, and I believe in giving people what they want.

    For context, an analogous number of Soviet POWs died in Polish camps during the Polish-Soviet war when Poland invaded Soviet Ukraine.

    Sorry, but that really comes across as revisionist whataboutery. Unless there’s definite proof that the Poles during the Polish-Soviet war deliberately exterminated pows (like the Germans did in WW2), there’s really no equivalence with systematic murder of a country’s elite like happened at Katyn.
    I also agree with Syonredux, most Westerners today probably haven’t even heard of Katyn.

    Read More
    • Agree: reiner Tor
    • Replies: @AP

    "For context, an analogous number of Soviet POWs died in Polish camps during the Polish-Soviet war when Poland invaded Soviet Ukraine."

    Sorry, but that really comes across as revisionist whataboutery. Unless there’s definite proof that the Poles during the Polish-Soviet war deliberately exterminated pows (like the Germans did in WW2),
     
    AFAIK, the Soviet POWs captured by Poland died during a typhus epidemic in which Poles also died, they were not murdered as in Katyn.
    , @animalogic
    "most Westerners today probably haven’t even heard of Katyn."
    Most Westerners would have problems naming the various belligerents to WW II, or when/where it took place. Or am I being unfair....?
  24. Hibernian says:
    @Anatoly Karlin
    Katyn was certainly a war crime, but a relatively minor one in the context of WW2. For context, an analogous number of Soviet POWs died in Polish camps during the Polish-Soviet war when Poland invaded Soviet Ukraine.

    Why does nobody ever mention that, or even know about it, while Katyn has assumed one of the central positions in Western mythology about WW2?

    For the same reason that most people now believe the US played the most important role in winning WW2.

    I do sometimes wish there had been a way to occupy Berlin while walling Poland off and leaving it under Nazi occupation indefinitely. Judging from their behavior (e.g. removing Soviet war memorials), the Poles would have preferred things that way, and I believe in giving people what they want.

    “For the same reason that most people now believe the US played the most important role in winning WW2.”

    We did. Remember Guadalcanal, Midway, Iwo Jima, Okinawa, etc. Plus TORCH, Scicily, Anzio, and the Battle of the Bulge. Plus Lend-Lease.

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader

    Plus TORCH, Scicily, Anzio, and the Battle of the Bulge.
     
    Those were minor affairs compared with Stalingrad, Kursk or the destruction of Heeresgruppe Mitte in 1944. All of my German relatives who fought and died in WW2 did so on the Eastern front, the western allies only came up in recollections of the war via their air attacks.
    I don't entirely agree with AK's Russian nationalism (which has its significant blind spots as well), but he's right about this.
    , @Andrei Martyanov

    We did. Remember Guadalcanal, Midway, Iwo Jima, Okinawa, etc. Plus TORCH, Scicily, Anzio, and the Battle of the Bulge. Plus Lend-Lease.
     
    This thing it seems is never ending story on Unz but, man, you have no idea of scales and proportions. Nor do you understand realities of the Eastern Front. Sir, just to give you a sense of scale, while Allies landed in Sicily in July of 1943, they faced about 50000 isolated second-rate Germans (plus some totally demoralized Italians), this very same time cream of the cream of the Red Army and Wehrmacht (and SS) had about 2.5 million men, about 8 000 tanks on both sides clashing at Kursk salient. Just to give you a bit of a heads up, by the time much touted in US General Patton's Third Army got to Lorraine it faced, and I quote from Combat Studies Institute US Army Command and General Staff College: "Few of the Germans defending Lorraine could be considered First-rate troops. Third Army encountered whole battalions made up of deaf men, others of cooks, and others consisting entirely of soldiers with stomach ulcers. The G2 also identified a new series of German formations designated voIksrenadier divisions). These hastily constituted divisions numbered only 10,000."

    While by no means denying a valiant contribution of Allies in Europe and by no means trying to take from them rightly deserved combat glory and recognition, it seems very many in Anglo-Saxon world fail to understand completely that by early to mid 1944 the best of the best of Wehrmacht and SS simply perished at the Eastern Front.

    , @animalogic
    "Remember Guadalcanal, Midway, Iwo Jima, Okinawa"
    Yes, the US role in the Pacific was paramount. But not so in Europe, where it's role was only paramount re the western allies (Britain, Canada etc). In terms of the European war considered as a whole, the USSR had the paramount role. The European matters you mention were important, without doubt, but they don't come close to surpassing the role of the USSR in crushing Germany.
  25. syonredux says:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    Numerically? Sure. Heck, placed alongside Stalin’s other megadeaths (The Ukraine Famine, the Great Terror, etc), it’s fairly minor.
     
    Sure, evidently, numbers of Zemskov are too below your academic credentials, same as, I recon, what Axis did in USSR.

    I rather doubt that. I teach English Lit at a university, and I’ve polled my students about Katyn on several occasions.
     
    And English Lit and WW II History are related how?

    Numerically? Sure. Heck, placed alongside Stalin’s other megadeaths (The Ukraine Famine, the Great Terror, etc), it’s fairly minor.

    Sure, evidently, numbers of Zemskov are too below your academic credentials, same as, I recon, what Axis did in USSR.

    Well, the “etc” was meant to indicate that I didn’t feel like listing all of Stalin’s crimes (it’s a lengthy list)….

    And I don’t discount what the Nazis did to the peoples of the Soviet Union during WW2. Heck, the only thing more horrible than what the Nazis actually did is what they were planning on doing:

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

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

    I rather doubt that. I teach English Lit at a university, and I’ve polled my students about Katyn on several occasions.

    And English Lit and WW II History are related how?

    Well, this is the passage that I was responding to:

    Why does nobody ever mention that, or even know about it, while Katyn has assumed one of the central positions in Western mythology about WW2?

    If Katyn occupies “one of the central positions in Western mythology about WW2,” one would expect college-educated Americans to be at least somewhat aware of it. For example, my students have heard of the bombing of Dresden, the Holocaust, the Normandy Landings, the Battle of Stalingrad, etc. But they haven’t heard about Katyn…….

    Read More
    • Agree: Miro23
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov

    If Katyn occupies “one of the central positions in Western mythology about WW2,” one would expect college-educated Americans to be at least somewhat aware of it.
     
    Forgive me, but LOL. I do not rate high at all namely college-educated America in terms of knowledge of the outside world, let alone of WWII since it was this very same college-educated America, some of it with Masters others with Ph.Ds in all kinds of humanities "sciences" who concocted this America-The-Victor-Of-Nazism (with some minor help from those commies) narrative used (to a devastating effect, including on US herself) to reinforce US exceptionalism and totally false sense of a moral high ground--that is why such a desperate desire to avoid any conversations with actual archival numbers. But as I said not for once: sense of scale, proportion and measure are not strong points of most US "elites", as your posts about "great purges" demonstrate. So, no--your argument about what college-educated America is aware about is false, especially when dealing with this very field of Russian so called "studies" whose complete bankruptcy in US has been demonstrated with such a spectacular results in the last 3 + years. Damn, I am even writing a book about it. Yes, the question is how and why all those college-educated US intelligence, economy, military "experts" (some of them with many degrees) could have failed to understand how the whole world will change and not in their favor. I predicted that in 2014 (I have documented proof of that), my only mistake was in how fast all that happened, I expected it to be somewhat teeny-weeny bit slower. So, I do not take seriously most judgements by "college-educated" America on most subjects related to Russian/Soviet history.
    , @Sergey Krieger
    Andrei mentioned Zemskov commission findings regarding numbers of victims of so called Stalin purges. You avoid addressing this while mentioning some lenghty list of Stalin crimes. What then those would be? In Russian it is called while he is talking about Ivan you are talking about Bolvan. Could you address particular Stalin crimes and assotiated numbers. What are your sources? Solzhenicin?
  26. @Hibernian
    "For the same reason that most people now believe the US played the most important role in winning WW2."

    We did. Remember Guadalcanal, Midway, Iwo Jima, Okinawa, etc. Plus TORCH, Scicily, Anzio, and the Battle of the Bulge. Plus Lend-Lease.

    Plus TORCH, Scicily, Anzio, and the Battle of the Bulge.

    Those were minor affairs compared with Stalingrad, Kursk or the destruction of Heeresgruppe Mitte in 1944. All of my German relatives who fought and died in WW2 did so on the Eastern front, the western allies only came up in recollections of the war via their air attacks.
    I don’t entirely agree with AK’s Russian nationalism (which has its significant blind spots as well), but he’s right about this.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Cyrano
    Come on, German Reader, cut the Americans some slack, will you. After all, they had to fight the entire German civilian population – which was what- 67 million? While the Russians on the other hand only had to fight the Wehrmacht – which was only 3 million strong - I believe. What takes more bravery - to fight against 67 million, or only against 3 million?
    , @reiner Tor
    The air war and the naval war in themselves were pretty significant contributions. If you add the military involvements (like Torch etc.), which in themselves were pretty insignificant (but for example in the summer of 1943 you'll find some elite SS divisions like Das Reich in Italy after being withdrawn from Russia... it did contribute in a way), but together with the more important air and naval wars and the idly tied down divisions in places like Norway, and it adds to almost half (definitely well over third) of the German war effort, plus the lower German war production (perhaps over 30% by 1944), it's quite significant. Throw in the US supplies to the USSR (like spam given in soldiers' rations) and it's probably more than 50%. In fact, it's hard to see how the USSR could've won alone.
  27. @Candide III
    Only proves that Stalin was sneakier than Hitler. Stalin wisely left the opprobium of being the first to invade Poland to Hitler and came in two weeks later. The fighting went on for three more weeks, so the Poles hadn't yet been defeated. Then the Soviet and Nazi armies held a joint victory-over-Poland parade in Brest, Guderian and the Soviet general Krivoshein having a friendly breakfast together. The Nazis then withdrew to the previously agreed demarcation line and the Soviets got busy sovietizing their newly acquired territory, which included Katyn and a lot more.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German%E2%80%93Soviet_military_parade_in_Brest-Litovsk

    I once read that while Stalin was characterized by paranoia, with Hitler it was willful stupidity.

    Read More
  28. @syonredux

    Numerically? Sure. Heck, placed alongside Stalin’s other megadeaths (The Ukraine Famine, the Great Terror, etc), it’s fairly minor.

    Sure, evidently, numbers of Zemskov are too below your academic credentials, same as, I recon, what Axis did in USSR.
     
    Well, the "etc" was meant to indicate that I didn't feel like listing all of Stalin's crimes (it's a lengthy list)....

    And I don't discount what the Nazis did to the peoples of the Soviet Union during WW2. Heck, the only thing more horrible than what the Nazis actually did is what they were planning on doing:



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

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

    I rather doubt that. I teach English Lit at a university, and I’ve polled my students about Katyn on several occasions.

    And English Lit and WW II History are related how?

     

    Well, this is the passage that I was responding to:

    Why does nobody ever mention that, or even know about it, while Katyn has assumed one of the central positions in Western mythology about WW2?
     
    If Katyn occupies "one of the central positions in Western mythology about WW2," one would expect college-educated Americans to be at least somewhat aware of it. For example, my students have heard of the bombing of Dresden, the Holocaust, the Normandy Landings, the Battle of Stalingrad, etc. But they haven't heard about Katyn.......

    If Katyn occupies “one of the central positions in Western mythology about WW2,” one would expect college-educated Americans to be at least somewhat aware of it.

    Forgive me, but LOL. I do not rate high at all namely college-educated America in terms of knowledge of the outside world, let alone of WWII since it was this very same college-educated America, some of it with Masters others with Ph.Ds in all kinds of humanities “sciences” who concocted this America-The-Victor-Of-Nazism (with some minor help from those commies) narrative used (to a devastating effect, including on US herself) to reinforce US exceptionalism and totally false sense of a moral high ground–that is why such a desperate desire to avoid any conversations with actual archival numbers. But as I said not for once: sense of scale, proportion and measure are not strong points of most US “elites”, as your posts about “great purges” demonstrate. So, no–your argument about what college-educated America is aware about is false, especially when dealing with this very field of Russian so called “studies” whose complete bankruptcy in US has been demonstrated with such a spectacular results in the last 3 + years. Damn, I am even writing a book about it. Yes, the question is how and why all those college-educated US intelligence, economy, military “experts” (some of them with many degrees) could have failed to understand how the whole world will change and not in their favor. I predicted that in 2014 (I have documented proof of that), my only mistake was in how fast all that happened, I expected it to be somewhat teeny-weeny bit slower. So, I do not take seriously most judgements by “college-educated” America on most subjects related to Russian/Soviet history.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Quartermaster

    Damn, I am even writing a book about it.
     
    If it will contain the entire body of your knowledge on the subject, all pages will be blank. Like most Russians I've seen writing about this, you're quite provincial.
    , @Ivan
    Why don't you admit that Katyn was a genocidal crime committed to irrevocably destroy Polish nationalism by destroying the Polish elite, instead of asking how an Eng Lit can study History? Who are you; Aristotle? And how is a Russian able to write in English by your reasoning?
    , @jacques sheete

    So, I do not take seriously most judgements by “college-educated” America on most subjects related to Russian/Soviet history.
     
    And well you shouldn't.

    One will NOT get "educated" about history by attending a US institution of "higher learning." Aside from science and math, most are nothing more than brainwashing factories and have pretty much always been. Upton Sinclair explained why in his book, "The Goose-Step" written in 1923, and his claims are still valid today.
  29. @syonredux

    Numerically? Sure. Heck, placed alongside Stalin’s other megadeaths (The Ukraine Famine, the Great Terror, etc), it’s fairly minor.

    Sure, evidently, numbers of Zemskov are too below your academic credentials, same as, I recon, what Axis did in USSR.
     
    Well, the "etc" was meant to indicate that I didn't feel like listing all of Stalin's crimes (it's a lengthy list)....

    And I don't discount what the Nazis did to the peoples of the Soviet Union during WW2. Heck, the only thing more horrible than what the Nazis actually did is what they were planning on doing:



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

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

    I rather doubt that. I teach English Lit at a university, and I’ve polled my students about Katyn on several occasions.

    And English Lit and WW II History are related how?

     

    Well, this is the passage that I was responding to:

    Why does nobody ever mention that, or even know about it, while Katyn has assumed one of the central positions in Western mythology about WW2?
     
    If Katyn occupies "one of the central positions in Western mythology about WW2," one would expect college-educated Americans to be at least somewhat aware of it. For example, my students have heard of the bombing of Dresden, the Holocaust, the Normandy Landings, the Battle of Stalingrad, etc. But they haven't heard about Katyn.......

    Andrei mentioned Zemskov commission findings regarding numbers of victims of so called Stalin purges. You avoid addressing this while mentioning some lenghty list of Stalin crimes. What then those would be? In Russian it is called while he is talking about Ivan you are talking about Bolvan. Could you address particular Stalin crimes and assotiated numbers. What are your sources? Solzhenicin?

    Read More
  30. @Anatoly Karlin
    Katyn was certainly a war crime, but a relatively minor one in the context of WW2. For context, an analogous number of Soviet POWs died in Polish camps during the Polish-Soviet war when Poland invaded Soviet Ukraine.

    Why does nobody ever mention that, or even know about it, while Katyn has assumed one of the central positions in Western mythology about WW2?

    For the same reason that most people now believe the US played the most important role in winning WW2.

    I do sometimes wish there had been a way to occupy Berlin while walling Poland off and leaving it under Nazi occupation indefinitely. Judging from their behavior (e.g. removing Soviet war memorials), the Poles would have preferred things that way, and I believe in giving people what they want.

    People also forget that Poland was a widely distrusted fascist state that gleefully participated in the partition of Czechoslovakia.

    While I do think that “the West” is a great thing worth defending, given the context, Trump’s comment is ridiculous at best. The only threat to the West is the West itself.

    Read More
    • Agree: jacques sheete
    • Replies: @annamaria
    Poland doth protest too much and feign amnesia re Poland' participation in dismembering Czechoslovakia - in a company with Germany - only months before Hitler invaded Poland:
    http://www.weeklyuniverse.com/2003/poland.htm
  31. @Hibernian
    "For the same reason that most people now believe the US played the most important role in winning WW2."

    We did. Remember Guadalcanal, Midway, Iwo Jima, Okinawa, etc. Plus TORCH, Scicily, Anzio, and the Battle of the Bulge. Plus Lend-Lease.

    We did. Remember Guadalcanal, Midway, Iwo Jima, Okinawa, etc. Plus TORCH, Scicily, Anzio, and the Battle of the Bulge. Plus Lend-Lease.

    This thing it seems is never ending story on Unz but, man, you have no idea of scales and proportions. Nor do you understand realities of the Eastern Front. Sir, just to give you a sense of scale, while Allies landed in Sicily in July of 1943, they faced about 50000 isolated second-rate Germans (plus some totally demoralized Italians), this very same time cream of the cream of the Red Army and Wehrmacht (and SS) had about 2.5 million men, about 8 000 tanks on both sides clashing at Kursk salient. Just to give you a bit of a heads up, by the time much touted in US General Patton’s Third Army got to Lorraine it faced, and I quote from Combat Studies Institute US Army Command and General Staff College: “Few of the Germans defending Lorraine could be considered First-rate troops. Third Army encountered whole battalions made up of deaf men, others of cooks, and others consisting entirely of soldiers with stomach ulcers. The G2 also identified a new series of German formations designated voIksrenadier divisions). These hastily constituted divisions numbered only 10,000.”

    While by no means denying a valiant contribution of Allies in Europe and by no means trying to take from them rightly deserved combat glory and recognition, it seems very many in Anglo-Saxon world fail to understand completely that by early to mid 1944 the best of the best of Wehrmacht and SS simply perished at the Eastern Front.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rich
    If not for the American involvement in WWII, the Russians that still lived would be speaking German and shining Nazi boots. The Americans were the straw that broke Germany, and without US supplies Stalin would've been hanged by his own people. The Russians made a valiant stand against the Germans in Stalingrad, but they damn well should have, it was their native land. The Americans defeated the Germans from the West fighting for the land of others countries. We should've just stayed home for all the gratitude we're shown.
    , @Hibernian
    Sure France was defended by inferior troops; on D-Day, they just happened to be manning very strong fortifications. As was better explained than I can by another commenter answering German Reader, my post set forth three areas where we Americans played a great part in the war. You limited yourself to rebutting one of them as if it stood alone. And the Pacific Theater was very important; what do you think would have happened if the US had concluded a separate peace with Japan?
    , @ken
    The only shame of the combined 2.5 million Wehrmacht and Red Army fighting was that they all weren't killed.
  32. Cyrano says:
    @German_reader

    Plus TORCH, Scicily, Anzio, and the Battle of the Bulge.
     
    Those were minor affairs compared with Stalingrad, Kursk or the destruction of Heeresgruppe Mitte in 1944. All of my German relatives who fought and died in WW2 did so on the Eastern front, the western allies only came up in recollections of the war via their air attacks.
    I don't entirely agree with AK's Russian nationalism (which has its significant blind spots as well), but he's right about this.

    Come on, German Reader, cut the Americans some slack, will you. After all, they had to fight the entire German civilian population – which was what- 67 million? While the Russians on the other hand only had to fight the Wehrmacht – which was only 3 million strong – I believe. What takes more bravery – to fight against 67 million, or only against 3 million?

    Read More
  33. Allow me to throw a bomb into this discussion, since we are told we must fight to save Ukraine. From my May 1, 2017 blog, that has links and a map:

    For those concerned about European borders and justice, they should address a truly outrageous annexation. In 1939, the Soviet Union invaded Poland and seized half of its land while Soviet police massacred 22,000 influential Polish POWs and civilians. This area was invaded by Germany two years later, which formed Ukrainian paramilitary units that murdered over 100,000 Poles during the war. Entire Polish villages disappeared as Ukrainians massacred everyone to include women and children, who were buried in mass graves. After the war, the Polish regions of Volhynia and Eastern Galicia were formally annexed by Soviet Ukraine after 1.5 million Poles were forcibly deported. Over the next decade, another 1.5 million Poles were deported by Ukraine to ethically cleanse these regions (noted in yellow below).

    The West did nothing about this brutality because it occurred within the powerful Soviet Union. However, that union broke up and Ukraine is weak and at odds with Russia. On July 22, 2016, the Parliament of Poland passed a resolution recognizing the massacres of ethnic Poles in Volhynia and Galicia as genocide. Poland is now part of NATO and American troops are based there. Thousands of Poles are still alive who were expelled from these regions. Homes and land were seized from millions of Poles. Ukrainian war criminals remain at large.

    This raises several questions. If Poland demands a return of its territory or compensation for Poles, will powerful NATO support its demand? Will sanctions be imposed against Ukraine for this genocide and illegal seizure of Polish territory? Since Crimea was attached to Ukraine without a democratic vote, and the citizens of Crimea voted to rejoin Russia, should sanctions against Russia be removed?

    Informed people know these issues will never be addressed because NATO does not exist to protect member states, but is a proxy arm of America’s neocon empire trying to conquer the world. However, as Poland’s military grows stronger and Ukraine struggles, this issue may arise, and crafty Russia may support a return of Poland’s, Slovakia’s, and Romania’s seized territories!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lex
    No one in Poland is interested in Ukrainian territory.
  34. We need to get out of NATO and let Europeans organize their own collective defense, if they have the will.

    Last time an European country – France – organized their own defense, Washington had kittens and they still haven’t forgiven the French.

    Speaking as a Dane, I’d love to stop acquiring the useless fighter aircraft we’re obliged to buy from Lockheed at an eye-watering price and spend the money where you get the biggest bang for the buck. But I somehow doubt that 28 new nuclear states would be applauded by America.

    Washington wants Europe to not rapproach with Russia, and if you want to call the tune, you have to pay the piper.

    Read More
    • Replies: @OutWest
    Actually, "America" sees the benefit of working with rather than against with Russia. If Europe has matured beyond the state that brought on the two immediate past wars, why shouldn't the U.S. butt out?
  35. Miro23 says:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    In a secret protocol attached
     
    Goodness gracious, and then one has to wonder why the West is what it is today. Specially for you, a "secret" part of this published openly in two leading Soviet Newspapers Pravda and Isvestya. Even the "secret" map is attached for everyone to see.

    https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-m-JS7wDh3RY/WWFptt1gM1I/AAAAAAAABHI/KEOXLPhhMbU52hzkvNiMVbqfW_6Fq9BoQCLcBGAs/s1600/Mol-Rib.jpg

    https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-_Bdu2L24_mQ/WWFpz9woCuI/AAAAAAAABHM/YsAdtWyHlVcLXpWd0VJXJXsEwcEV3T98gCLcBGAs/s1600/Mol-Rib-2.jpg

    https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-0Hnk8Xz_BI0/WWFp6R7tQkI/AAAAAAAABHQ/K8-kiLYRiYIJ8QG-Xk4tz7Uvd7LbJlhAQCLcBGAs/s1600/Mol-Rib-3.jpg

    Considering the "level" of most Western WW II historiography, her active falsification (under different pre-texts, favorite being prior to 1990s lack of access to Soviet archives) it is no wonder to see people being so brainwashed. Per "denial" claims--Vyacheslav Nikonov, the grandson of none other than Molotov and currently MP of State Duma vehemently denied (supported by many serious Russian historians) of any such "secret" protocol ever existing. One is forced, indeed, question mental adequacy of claimants when right in a front of their eyes are official documents published in Soviet Press in 1939 where Poland is officially pronounced as "former Polish State" and the map of her partition is attached. What else "secret"can possibly trump (no pun intended) this--I abstain from discussing "moral" dimension of this for now--into one's face open termination of Polish State? Unless, of course, Stalin and Ribbentrop were served with some roasted babies for lunch?

    –I abstain from discussing “moral” dimension of this for now–into one’s face open termination of Polish State.

    At some point you need to discuss the moral dimension of “terminating” nations instead of just abstaining.

    Hitler aimed to terminate Russia and turn Ukraine into some sort of Germans only holiday resort. Russians have the moral right to live undisturbed in Russia and Poles have the moral right to live undisturbed in Poland. Post -Imperial world relations are based on this morality.

    Read More
  36. 5371 says:
    @Jim
    The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was signed on August 23, 1939 just prior to the German invasion on September 1, 1939. In a secret protocol attached to this treaty Hitler and Stalin agreed to the division of Poland. The Soviet Union denied the existence of this secret protocol until 1989 when they admitted it.

    Stalin is just as responsible as Hitler for World War II. Had the principles of the Nuremberg trials been applied to Stalin or Molotov consistent with their application to Ribbentrop both of the former two would have been hung. Ribbentrop was hung.

    The “principles of the Nuremberg trials” were ad hoc justifications for actions of which the real motivation was “vae victis”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    The “principles of the Nuremberg trials” were ad hoc justifications for actions of which the real motivation was “vae victis”.
     
    Exactly so.

    It's actually a particularly topical issue since there is currently a (likely doomed) attempt to argue in the British Supreme Court (what was called the House of Lords before it was renamed in that latest attempt to ape the Yanks and destroy any vestiges of traditionalism) that the laws we claimed existed and could be applied to German WW2 leaders should be applied to Tony Blair.

    Tony Blair should be prosecuted over Iraq war, high court hears

    Likely doomed, because it's established English law that in fact there is no crime of aggression in English law, so to find otherwise the Supreme Court would have to overturn its own precedent (and one set by a panel including two of its more eminent recent members).

    Judgments - R v. Jones (Appellant)

    How very convenient for the UK establishment, that it should be a "crime in international customary law" so they could impose punishments on their enemies, but not a crime in English law so they themselves could not be held to account for it.
  37. 5371 says:
    @Candide III
    Only proves that Stalin was sneakier than Hitler. Stalin wisely left the opprobium of being the first to invade Poland to Hitler and came in two weeks later. The fighting went on for three more weeks, so the Poles hadn't yet been defeated. Then the Soviet and Nazi armies held a joint victory-over-Poland parade in Brest, Guderian and the Soviet general Krivoshein having a friendly breakfast together. The Nazis then withdrew to the previously agreed demarcation line and the Soviets got busy sovietizing their newly acquired territory, which included Katyn and a lot more.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German%E2%80%93Soviet_military_parade_in_Brest-Litovsk

    [The fighting went on for three more weeks, so the Poles hadn’t yet been defeated]

    Here’s how Bernie can still win.

    I eagerly await your description of how Polish and German forces jointly occupied Czechoslovak territory in 1938. I’m sure it’s on the way.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Carlton Meyer
    Poland grabbed a chunk first. After a threatening ultimatum from Warsaw on September 27, 1938, Czechoslovakia ceded to Poland the district of Tesin (Teschen) an area of some 625 square miles with a population of 230,000 people.

    And when Germany and the Soviet Union invaded Poland a year later, why didn’t the British and French declare war on the Soviet Union too?
  38. Matra says:
    @Anon 2
    Trump's speech in Warsaw will go down in history as one of the defining moments of our time! The gauntlet has been thrown. Now Trump must deliver on his promises.

    Interestingly, not once did the main article in the New York Times mention the significance of the monument in front of which Trump delivered his speech - there was no mention of the 1944 Warsaw Uprising at all. Very predictable for the NY Times not to mention it - 200,000 dead and the capital city reduced to rubble, why should the Times worry about such historical trivia.

    It was good to see U.S. servicemen in his Warsaw audience. And the Confederate flag? Well, there are 10 million Polish Americans in the U.S. Some came on the Mayflower but most in the last 200 years. As a result, thousands of people in Poland have relatives in the U.S. and know what's going on across the Atlantic, including the latest controversies.To quote the Polish- American singer Sarah Jarosz, things can sometimes get a little "Crazy"

    Well, there are 10 million Polish Americans in the U.S. Some came on the Mayflower

    There were no Poles on the Mayflower.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hibernian
    I think that might have been a clumsy reference to Pulaski and Kociusczko who were Generals in the American Revolution about a century and a half after the Mayflower.
  39. Matra says:

    As soon as I saw the word Katyn in the title I knew the thread would be full of seething Russians. Sure enough. The Second World War brings out the ugliness in the Russian character. Every single time.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Cyrano
    Not every nation can have the moral beauty of the US. Do you know that US wars are 50% less violent than the wars other nations fight? How so? Well, by fighting almost exclusively civilians – which have no weapons and can’t fight back – US reduces the violence by half, with only their side being able to apply the violence.

    Examples? Too many to count them all, - Hamburg, Dresden, Tokyo and to top it all off – Hiroshima and Nagasaki – all of them examples of reduced violence (to only one side) modern (American) way of fighting wars. I would say that’s clearly a more humane way to fight wars (at least to one of the sides).

    But other than that, you go on blabbering about Katyn, don’t mention how many Katyns US has inflicted on innocent civilians all over the world. That’s what I call taking the moral high ground.
    , @jimbojones
    As a non-Russian, I would venture three guesses:
    - Perhaps arrogant casual bigotry of the kind that is so fashionable nowadays and that you so generously display exasperates the Russians.
    - Perhaps the Russians, while conscious of the crimes of their ancestors, are also conscious of the epic butcheries conducted by certain powers in Ireland, India, Vietnam, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, and many other places, and are reminded of the notion of the pot calling the kettle black.
    - Perhaps the Russians may have their own views of certain events, and may want to share those views for the record and whatever else.
  40. Lex says:
    @Carlton Meyer
    Allow me to throw a bomb into this discussion, since we are told we must fight to save Ukraine. From my May 1, 2017 blog, that has links and a map:

    For those concerned about European borders and justice, they should address a truly outrageous annexation. In 1939, the Soviet Union invaded Poland and seized half of its land while Soviet police massacred 22,000 influential Polish POWs and civilians. This area was invaded by Germany two years later, which formed Ukrainian paramilitary units that murdered over 100,000 Poles during the war. Entire Polish villages disappeared as Ukrainians massacred everyone to include women and children, who were buried in mass graves. After the war, the Polish regions of Volhynia and Eastern Galicia were formally annexed by Soviet Ukraine after 1.5 million Poles were forcibly deported. Over the next decade, another 1.5 million Poles were deported by Ukraine to ethically cleanse these regions (noted in yellow below).

    The West did nothing about this brutality because it occurred within the powerful Soviet Union. However, that union broke up and Ukraine is weak and at odds with Russia. On July 22, 2016, the Parliament of Poland passed a resolution recognizing the massacres of ethnic Poles in Volhynia and Galicia as genocide. Poland is now part of NATO and American troops are based there. Thousands of Poles are still alive who were expelled from these regions. Homes and land were seized from millions of Poles. Ukrainian war criminals remain at large.

    This raises several questions. If Poland demands a return of its territory or compensation for Poles, will powerful NATO support its demand? Will sanctions be imposed against Ukraine for this genocide and illegal seizure of Polish territory? Since Crimea was attached to Ukraine without a democratic vote, and the citizens of Crimea voted to rejoin Russia, should sanctions against Russia be removed?

    Informed people know these issues will never be addressed because NATO does not exist to protect member states, but is a proxy arm of America's neocon empire trying to conquer the world. However, as Poland's military grows stronger and Ukraine struggles, this issue may arise, and crafty Russia may support a return of Poland's, Slovakia's, and Romania's seized territories!

    No one in Poland is interested in Ukrainian territory.

    Read More
    • LOL: Andrei Martyanov
    • Replies: @annamaria
    "According to Polish nationalists, Poland must consume Lviv, Volyn, Ivano-Frankovsk, Ternopol, Rovnensk cities and their districts (oblasts)."
    http://www.veteranstoday.com/2016/01/17/poland-will-begin-dividing-ukraine/
  41. JamesG says:

    One thing I’ve learned today: old Stalinoids never die.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alberto Campos
    Apart from: brainless hence ignorant vegetables are also able to type things and participate in fora like this one.
  42. Cyrano says:
    @Matra
    As soon as I saw the word Katyn in the title I knew the thread would be full of seething Russians. Sure enough. The Second World War brings out the ugliness in the Russian character. Every single time.

    Not every nation can have the moral beauty of the US. Do you know that US wars are 50% less violent than the wars other nations fight? How so? Well, by fighting almost exclusively civilians – which have no weapons and can’t fight back – US reduces the violence by half, with only their side being able to apply the violence.

    Examples? Too many to count them all, – Hamburg, Dresden, Tokyo and to top it all off – Hiroshima and Nagasaki – all of them examples of reduced violence (to only one side) modern (American) way of fighting wars. I would say that’s clearly a more humane way to fight wars (at least to one of the sides).

    But other than that, you go on blabbering about Katyn, don’t mention how many Katyns US has inflicted on innocent civilians all over the world. That’s what I call taking the moral high ground.

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader

    Hamburg, Dresden
     
    That was the RAF. The American air offensive in Europe actually wasn't based on indiscriminate area bombing, but targeted key industries (like the ball-bearings plant at Schweinfurt, the oil industry etc.), Luftwaffe installations and transport networks. By the standards of the time it was a pretty smart use of air power that arguably really did shorten the war.
    And anyway, this whataboutery in relation to WW2 is pretty annoying. Whatever the misdeeds of other powers, the Katyn massacre really was a monstrous crime (it also wasn't a "war crime" in the sense of massacres of prisoners in the heat or immediate aftermath of battle like they have happened in many wars; it was a cold-blooded act of mass murder that was part of a wider programme of repression).
  43. Randal says:
    @5371
    The "principles of the Nuremberg trials" were ad hoc justifications for actions of which the real motivation was "vae victis".

    The “principles of the Nuremberg trials” were ad hoc justifications for actions of which the real motivation was “vae victis”.

    Exactly so.

    It’s actually a particularly topical issue since there is currently a (likely doomed) attempt to argue in the British Supreme Court (what was called the House of Lords before it was renamed in that latest attempt to ape the Yanks and destroy any vestiges of traditionalism) that the laws we claimed existed and could be applied to German WW2 leaders should be applied to Tony Blair.

    Tony Blair should be prosecuted over Iraq war, high court hears

    Likely doomed, because it’s established English law that in fact there is no crime of aggression in English law, so to find otherwise the Supreme Court would have to overturn its own precedent (and one set by a panel including two of its more eminent recent members).

    Judgments – R v. Jones (Appellant)

    How very convenient for the UK establishment, that it should be a “crime in international customary law” so they could impose punishments on their enemies, but not a crime in English law so they themselves could not be held to account for it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Che Guava
    Randal,

    I agree with most of your post, but Bliar's Supreme Court did not replace the House of Lords. It only replaced the role of the Law Lords within the House of Lords.

    It is of interest that both the first president and current incumbent at the new institution are Jews.

    All of the war stuff on this thread is interesting, but I don't have anything much to add, only things others have already raised. and what I could is off-topic from the Derb's article on the speech,

    I do have one thing that i was thinking about this week. I think the role of U.S. lend-lease and aid to the USSR is exaggerated. The USSR made its own aeroplanes, tanks, Katyushas, other artillery, rifles, etc.

    So, they received some jeeps and (I would guess), some other transport things from the U.S., but nothing really crucial.

    I watched a Chinese govt. approved version of Bertolucci's The Last Emperor, dubbed into Chinese, but with subtitles, with my mainland Chinese friend, it was faithful up to the Manchukuo parts, from there, heavily cut.

    The Red Army's invasion (or liberation), of Manchuria, for one, disappeared.

    In Japan, this is presented as a treacherous act. It was not, Stalin agreed to it at Yalta, and we never opened an Eastern front with the USSR only because of the earlier defeat at Nomonha.

    It was also clearly an impetus (among several others) for the war-crime atomic bombings by the U.S. They had to get a quick not-quite-surrender before the Red Army went further.
  44. @Cyrano
    Not every nation can have the moral beauty of the US. Do you know that US wars are 50% less violent than the wars other nations fight? How so? Well, by fighting almost exclusively civilians – which have no weapons and can’t fight back – US reduces the violence by half, with only their side being able to apply the violence.

    Examples? Too many to count them all, - Hamburg, Dresden, Tokyo and to top it all off – Hiroshima and Nagasaki – all of them examples of reduced violence (to only one side) modern (American) way of fighting wars. I would say that’s clearly a more humane way to fight wars (at least to one of the sides).

    But other than that, you go on blabbering about Katyn, don’t mention how many Katyns US has inflicted on innocent civilians all over the world. That’s what I call taking the moral high ground.

    Hamburg, Dresden

    That was the RAF. The American air offensive in Europe actually wasn’t based on indiscriminate area bombing, but targeted key industries (like the ball-bearings plant at Schweinfurt, the oil industry etc.), Luftwaffe installations and transport networks. By the standards of the time it was a pretty smart use of air power that arguably really did shorten the war.
    And anyway, this whataboutery in relation to WW2 is pretty annoying. Whatever the misdeeds of other powers, the Katyn massacre really was a monstrous crime (it also wasn’t a “war crime” in the sense of massacres of prisoners in the heat or immediate aftermath of battle like they have happened in many wars; it was a cold-blooded act of mass murder that was part of a wider programme of repression).

    Read More
    • Agree: utu
    • Disagree: SolontoCroesus
    • Replies: @KenH

    That was the RAF.
     
    The USAF also took part and almost played as much of a role as the RAF. This was simply an act of mass murder of civilians since the war was all but over, Dresden had no war industry and was known to be home to civilians, fleeing refugees and some POW's. Again, nothing that would help the Allies win the war other than to inflict maximum suffering on the population.
    , @SolontoCroesus

    The American air offensive in Europe actually wasn’t based on indiscriminate area bombing, but targeted key industries (like the ball-bearings plant at Schweinfurt, the oil industry etc.), Luftwaffe installations and transport networks. By the standards of the time it was a pretty smart use of air power that arguably really did shorten the war.
     
    You are wrong, German_reader.

    1. The destruction of Dresden was a combined British -- USAF undertaking:


    "The bombing of Dresden was a British/American aerial bombing attack on the city of Dresden, the capital of the German state of Saxony, that took place during the Second World War in the European Theatre. In four raids between 13 and 15 February 1945, 722 heavy bombers of the British Royal Air Force (RAF) and 527 of the United States Army Air Forces (USAAF) dropped more than 3,900 tons of high-explosive bombs and incendiary devices on the city. "
     
    2. US bombing strategy targeted not only industrial centers but also, and deliberately, civilians; specifically working-class Germans and even "infants in cribs" to the extent that USAF constructed mock-ups of German worker's housing and practiced/perfected the chemicals and techniques used to kill the maximum number of civilians most efficiently:

    From, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior http://lcweb2.loc.gov/master/pnp/habshaer/ut/ut0500/ut0568/data/ut0568data.pdf


    The Dugway German Village was the primary American site for testing incendiary bombs prior to large- scale attacks near the end of World War II against civilian targets such as Dresden, Germany. The extant structure paralleled that of an adjacent, but no longer extant, Japanese Village, used to test incendiaries for the Pacific theater. The buildings in the German Village were constructed from materials*and designs that replicated contemporary residential buildings in German urban industrial districts.
    In order to build a facility that was an authentic reproduction, studies were conducted to determine which materials and furnishings available in the
    U.S. would closely match those in use in Germany.

    A group of German-American architects affiliated with the "Gropius group at Harvard," including prominent Jewish architects Eric Mendelsohn and Konrad Wachsmann, were employed to design the facility. Both men had been associated with the prominent architectural group der Berliner Zehner- Ring [the Berlin Circle of 10, or the Ring] while living in Europe. The Ring included among its members Walter Gropius and Mies van der Rohe.

    The AN-M50 model of incendiary bomb, extensively
    tested at the German Village, accounted for more . than 97 percent (by number) of the incendiary
    bombs dropped on Germany by American forces.

    . . .

    For the German Village, a total of 19 pieces of furniture, manufactured in multiples, completed the mock up of the second floor flats. Furniture included an upholstered sofa (7); an upholstered easy chair (14); a settee (14); a kitchen buffet (7); a chest of drawers (7); a side table
    (7) ; a straight chair (77) ; an oval table (7) ; a dining table (14) ; a wardrobe (14); a single bed, with mattress, springs, and bolsters (28) ; a crib, with mattress and springs (14); a wicker chair (7) ; a bed table (28); a radio cabinet (7); a 9' by 13' rug (28); a 2' by 31 throw rug (28); window drapes (24 pairs); and incidental cushions (42). Quantities reflected an understanding that some
    furnishings would be lost in the fires set by the incendiary tests, and would then be replaced in kind. In the bedroom, the single beds were placed together in pairs, with a crib adjacent, reflective of a young family with an infant.
     

    3. In 2007, German historian Jörg Friedrich spoke to an audience in Washington, DC, about his book, The Fire. His words are gut-wrenching. Several moments are noteworthy:

    @ 38 min Friedrich mentions watching televised reports of the 2006 war in Lebanon, including the BBC reporter who challenged Benjamin Netanyahu about the Israel tactic of bombing civilians in a bid to force their government to capitulate. Netanyahu retorted, "Do you know what your people did to German cities?"

    @ 54 min. an audience members recites the American (and British) version of the division of blame between the British and USA: the British bombed indiscriminately, the Americans bombed only industrial targets. This is what Americans have been led to believe about their "greatest generation" who fought "the good war."
    Friedrich advises the questioner that he is "50% correct." Friedrich quotes Curtis LeMay:


    " 'In total warfare there are no non-combatants. Everyone is engaged in the war by industries or by morale or will.' At Nuremberg, German generals tried to raise this as a defense . . . It is a myth [that US targeted only industrial sites] . . . In the beginning the Americans tried to do so. Later on . . . they carried out carpet bombing . . . in Dresden, in Swinemunde, in Munster -- I can name you a lot of cities which are seldom mentioned in your literature, but they were carpet bombed . . . We can discuss what was the logic that drew the Americans into the British strategy . . . to make a city burn, this was the main strategy. . . . This strategy was continued in the Korean war. [nota bene]."
     
    @ 58 min an audience member -- a grey-haired white male, tells of

    "watching a PBS documentary about the B-17, "the history told from the viewpoint of the people who flew them on the bombing raids over Germany. And there was nowhere in this documentary of the type of destruction described in your book. I remember that the narrator called the B-17 'a symbol of hope to the people in Germany.' Well. After reading at least half of your book so far, I see that that was not a correct characterization. . . . I hope your book is part of the education process, because the documentary that I saw is certainly not doing proper justice to the job of education."
     
    This was in 2007 that an older man in what is claimed to be the most sophisticated book shop in the most sophisticated city in USA. You are not alone, German_reader, in your incorrect understanding of the bombing of Germany by Americans.

    There's more:

    4. US Air Force bombed the Nordhausen forced labor camp, and used images of dead prisoners as evidence against Germans at Nuremberg:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Vs1eR7hsT8

    It's noteworthy that in a DVD about "The Ritchie Boys," German Jewish refugees who were trained as intelligence officers at Fort Ritchie, Maryland, one of the Jewish Ritchie boys describes how he surveilled Nordhausen to ensure that the camp's technological facilities were intact because it had had been promised to Stalin.
    https://dvd.netflix.com/Movie/The-Ritchie-Boys/70082783

    , @Beefcake the Mighty
    Cuck.
    , @annamaria
    "That was the RAF. The American air offensive in Europe actually wasn’t based on indiscriminate area bombing, but targeted key industries (like the ball-bearings plant at Schweinfurt, the oil industry etc.), Luftwaffe installations and transport networks. By the standards of the time it was a pretty smart use of air power that arguably really did shorten the war. And anyway, this whataboutery in relation to WW2 is pretty annoying."
    You mean, killing Polish military officers was a horrible crime whereas killing civilians en masse was OK and is just whataboutery and such. Very clear.

    And what exactly gave you this brilliant idea that the criminal bombardment of Dresden "arguably really did shorten the war?" Guess this is the same kind of reasoning that had produced certain use of nuclear weapon against the civilian population in Japan. Here is the word: Cowards. It was not Stalingrad where British-USAF excelled - it was the slaughter of civilians in Germany. In Dresden, "a minimum of 22,70o and a maximum of 25,000 people [civilians] were killed" by the UK/US joined forces. Half a century later, the same "approach" was practiced in Iraq, Libya, and Syria.
  45. @Matra
    As soon as I saw the word Katyn in the title I knew the thread would be full of seething Russians. Sure enough. The Second World War brings out the ugliness in the Russian character. Every single time.

    As a non-Russian, I would venture three guesses:
    - Perhaps arrogant casual bigotry of the kind that is so fashionable nowadays and that you so generously display exasperates the Russians.
    - Perhaps the Russians, while conscious of the crimes of their ancestors, are also conscious of the epic butcheries conducted by certain powers in Ireland, India, Vietnam, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, and many other places, and are reminded of the notion of the pot calling the kettle black.
    - Perhaps the Russians may have their own views of certain events, and may want to share those views for the record and whatever else.

    Read More
  46. @5371
    [The fighting went on for three more weeks, so the Poles hadn’t yet been defeated]

    Here's how Bernie can still win.

    I eagerly await your description of how Polish and German forces jointly occupied Czechoslovak territory in 1938. I'm sure it's on the way.

    Poland grabbed a chunk first. After a threatening ultimatum from Warsaw on September 27, 1938, Czechoslovakia ceded to Poland the district of Tesin (Teschen) an area of some 625 square miles with a population of 230,000 people.

    And when Germany and the Soviet Union invaded Poland a year later, why didn’t the British and French declare war on the Soviet Union too?

    Read More
    • Replies: @annamaria
    "Poland grabbed a chunk first. After a threatening ultimatum from Warsaw on September 27, 1938, Czechoslovakia ceded to Poland the district of Tesin (Teschen) an area of some 625 square miles with a population of 230,000 people." https://blogcritics.org/poland-joined-hitler-in-dismembering-czechoslovakia/

    I wonder if John Derbyshire is aware of this fact.
    "... in May 1938 Hitler mobilized his military to annex Czechoslovakia’s German-speaking Sudetenland. When Britain, France, and the USSR threatened war, Hitler backed down, but continued pressing the issue. On September 15, Britain’s Neville Chamberlain visited Hitler to discuss a peaceful solution. On September 22, Chamberlain agreed to allow Hitler to annex the Sudetenland but refused to permit immediate entry for German troops, thus Hitler remained dissatisfied. On September 23, Czechoslovakia mobilized its military and war looked imminent.
    Then Poland made its move. On September 27, seeing Czechoslovakia in crisis as Germany prepared to invade, Poland issued an ultimatum demanding that Czechoslovakia cede its Tesin (Teschen) district.
    On September 29, France, Britain, Germany, and Italy signed the Munich Agreement. This allowed Hitler to take the Sudetenland in exchange for him agreeing to “guarantee” Czechoslovakia’s borders — but only after Poland and Hungary (which by now had joined in) had taken their shares.
    “As Article 1 of the [Munich] agreement put it, ‘when the question of the Polish and Hungarian minorities in Czechoslovakia has been settled, Germany and Italy will each give a similar guarantee to Czechoslovakia’. Poland had been first to share in the spoils. After an ultimatum from Warsaw on September 27, 1938, Czechoslovakia had ceded to Poland the district of Tesin (Teschen) — an area of some 625 square miles with a population of 230,000 people.”

    Poland behaved like a bandit by joining Nazi Germany in dismembering Czechoslovakia in 1938.
  47. KenH says:
    @German_reader

    Hamburg, Dresden
     
    That was the RAF. The American air offensive in Europe actually wasn't based on indiscriminate area bombing, but targeted key industries (like the ball-bearings plant at Schweinfurt, the oil industry etc.), Luftwaffe installations and transport networks. By the standards of the time it was a pretty smart use of air power that arguably really did shorten the war.
    And anyway, this whataboutery in relation to WW2 is pretty annoying. Whatever the misdeeds of other powers, the Katyn massacre really was a monstrous crime (it also wasn't a "war crime" in the sense of massacres of prisoners in the heat or immediate aftermath of battle like they have happened in many wars; it was a cold-blooded act of mass murder that was part of a wider programme of repression).

    That was the RAF.

    The USAF also took part and almost played as much of a role as the RAF. This was simply an act of mass murder of civilians since the war was all but over, Dresden had no war industry and was known to be home to civilians, fleeing refugees and some POW’s. Again, nothing that would help the Allies win the war other than to inflict maximum suffering on the population.

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader
    No, US strategy in the European air war was different...certainly they killed German civilians as well by attacking targets of opportunity like trains, or by misidentifying targets, dropping bombs through cloud cover etc. But the intentional incineration of entire city centres was a strategy the British developed (and stubbornly clung to, despite evidence that other uses of air power might have made more sense on a military level).
    And I tend to regard the RAF's actions at least in late 1944/early 1945 as war crimes. They were certainly completely excessive.
  48. Rich says:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    We did. Remember Guadalcanal, Midway, Iwo Jima, Okinawa, etc. Plus TORCH, Scicily, Anzio, and the Battle of the Bulge. Plus Lend-Lease.
     
    This thing it seems is never ending story on Unz but, man, you have no idea of scales and proportions. Nor do you understand realities of the Eastern Front. Sir, just to give you a sense of scale, while Allies landed in Sicily in July of 1943, they faced about 50000 isolated second-rate Germans (plus some totally demoralized Italians), this very same time cream of the cream of the Red Army and Wehrmacht (and SS) had about 2.5 million men, about 8 000 tanks on both sides clashing at Kursk salient. Just to give you a bit of a heads up, by the time much touted in US General Patton's Third Army got to Lorraine it faced, and I quote from Combat Studies Institute US Army Command and General Staff College: "Few of the Germans defending Lorraine could be considered First-rate troops. Third Army encountered whole battalions made up of deaf men, others of cooks, and others consisting entirely of soldiers with stomach ulcers. The G2 also identified a new series of German formations designated voIksrenadier divisions). These hastily constituted divisions numbered only 10,000."

    While by no means denying a valiant contribution of Allies in Europe and by no means trying to take from them rightly deserved combat glory and recognition, it seems very many in Anglo-Saxon world fail to understand completely that by early to mid 1944 the best of the best of Wehrmacht and SS simply perished at the Eastern Front.

    If not for the American involvement in WWII, the Russians that still lived would be speaking German and shining Nazi boots. The Americans were the straw that broke Germany, and without US supplies Stalin would’ve been hanged by his own people. The Russians made a valiant stand against the Germans in Stalingrad, but they damn well should have, it was their native land. The Americans defeated the Germans from the West fighting for the land of others countries. We should’ve just stayed home for all the gratitude we’re shown.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov

    If not for the American involvement in WWII, the Russians that still lived would be speaking German and shining Nazi boots. The Americans were the straw that broke Germany, and without US supplies Stalin would’ve been hanged by his own people.
     
    LOL, read arguably best American military historians in generations and send all your conclusions to US Army Command and General Staff College at Leavenworth, KS.

    http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-c5hbLfJ9AVw/VjT_ccnWrtI/AAAAAAAAAOk/kDjVXsYCUGs/s1600/Glantz-House_2.jpg

    As per "straw", you obviously have no a faintest idea about US-British discussions on European strategy.

    http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Hhs882opTA0/VjY1vej8pkI/AAAAAAAAAPE/sH9CR7N8uEo/s1600/Ike_2.jpg

    I'll give you a hint--after Kursk it became abundantly clear that the question was not about Wehrmacht being defeated (that was clear after Stalingrad), at issue was a complete annihilation of Nazi machine in all of Europe and Soviets, who unequivocally signed on with FDR's "unconditional surrender" clause, were damn poised to see it through. Obviously, that is why after 3 years of Churchill's and Imperial General Staff sabotage Tehran Conference has happened and Churchill has been almost completely removed from formulation of strategy. So, while Soviet Union did welcome real Second Front (finally, and Moscow saluted it with major fireworks), by Overlord unfolding it was clear to everyone that the question was in not allowing Soviet Union have all of Europe. But main Soviet objective, by far, was annihilation of the Third Reich and here Soviet contribution dwarfs that of Allies. As even Dr.Seuss understood it then.

    https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-50jwLOMJzBk/WUkpNrJxFAI/AAAAAAAABEE/zFiKlpx4j64_qgVCNO4ECvcdg--1kJ6vwCLcBGAs/s1600/pro5.jpg

    In other words, Red Army was completely capable of reaching French coast. But destroying Third Reich was at the very top of the agenda, but, yes, sure live in your parallel universe.

    , @annamaria
    You are funny.
    And please inform the readers how many wars the US has won in the 20th-21st centuries - even when fighting the helplessly under-armed opponents (basically civilians)? Was it Vietnam or perhaps Iraq? Why atomic bombs, why napalm, why depleted uranium, why drones?

    "The Red Army was "the main engine of Nazism’s destruction," writes British historian and journalist Max Hastings in "Inferno: The World at War, 1939-1945." The Soviet Union paid the harshest price: though the numbers are not exact, an estimated 26 million Soviet citizens died during World War II, including as many as 11 million soldiers. At the same time, the Germans suffered three-quarters of their wartime losses fighting the Red Army. "It was the Western Allies’ extreme good fortune that the Russians, and not themselves, paid almost the entire ‘butcher’s bill’ for [defeating Nazi Germany], accepting 95 per cent of the military casualties of the three major powers of the Grand Alliance," writes Hastings."
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/05/08/dont-forget-how-the-soviet-union-saved-the-world-from-hitler/?utm_term=.d565fc8faead
  49. @KenH

    That was the RAF.
     
    The USAF also took part and almost played as much of a role as the RAF. This was simply an act of mass murder of civilians since the war was all but over, Dresden had no war industry and was known to be home to civilians, fleeing refugees and some POW's. Again, nothing that would help the Allies win the war other than to inflict maximum suffering on the population.

    No, US strategy in the European air war was different…certainly they killed German civilians as well by attacking targets of opportunity like trains, or by misidentifying targets, dropping bombs through cloud cover etc. But the intentional incineration of entire city centres was a strategy the British developed (and stubbornly clung to, despite evidence that other uses of air power might have made more sense on a military level).
    And I tend to regard the RAF’s actions at least in late 1944/early 1945 as war crimes. They were certainly completely excessive.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    No, US strategy in the European air war was different
     
    The Yanks started out naively thinking they would bomb only military targets (though with the conveniently flexible and self-serving definitions of such we see from the US to this day), but found, just as the others had before them, that the accuracy simply wasn't there to do so. Nevertheless they persisted with daylight raids to maintain the pretence (probably to try to fool themselves as much as anyone else). However, by 1943 they were joining in British incendiary attacks on cities, albeit supposedly themselves only targeting "military" targets (like factories and railways).

    When they initiated the firebombing attacks in Japan, and ultimately the atomic bomb attacks, in 1945 they were transparently engaging in terrorist slaughter bombing to try to coerce the Japanese government into unconditional surrender.

    Imo these were all "war crimes", for whatever that might be worth, and only justified, where they were, by necessity. But by and large war crimes trials are for the losers of wars, not the winners, as Curtis Lemay and Robert McNamara famously recognised:

    LeMay said, "If we'd lost the war, we'd all have been prosecuted as war criminals." And I think he's right. He, and I'd say I, were behaving as war criminals. LeMay recognized that what he was doing would be thought immoral if his side had lost. But what makes it immoral if you lose and not immoral if you win?

    It's important to understand that such intentional mass slaughter of women and children, such obvious war crimes, are not necessarily carried out by bad or disreputable men. Indeed they are often carried out by admirable men courageously doing their duty, as in the case of the men of Bomber Command and the USAAF. The same, of course, applies to many of the German men who did terrible things for their country in that war.

    That's war (and human conflict in general).

    , @KenH
    I understand, but what I'm saying is that USAF bombers took part in the bombing raids of both Hamburg and Dresden. It wasn't like USAF just bombed ball bearing and tank factories while the RAF bombed civilian centers. After all, it was an "allied" effort.
  50. @Rich
    If not for the American involvement in WWII, the Russians that still lived would be speaking German and shining Nazi boots. The Americans were the straw that broke Germany, and without US supplies Stalin would've been hanged by his own people. The Russians made a valiant stand against the Germans in Stalingrad, but they damn well should have, it was their native land. The Americans defeated the Germans from the West fighting for the land of others countries. We should've just stayed home for all the gratitude we're shown.

    If not for the American involvement in WWII, the Russians that still lived would be speaking German and shining Nazi boots. The Americans were the straw that broke Germany, and without US supplies Stalin would’ve been hanged by his own people.

    LOL, read arguably best American military historians in generations and send all your conclusions to US Army Command and General Staff College at Leavenworth, KS.

    As per “straw”, you obviously have no a faintest idea about US-British discussions on European strategy.

    I’ll give you a hint–after Kursk it became abundantly clear that the question was not about Wehrmacht being defeated (that was clear after Stalingrad), at issue was a complete annihilation of Nazi machine in all of Europe and Soviets, who unequivocally signed on with FDR’s “unconditional surrender” clause, were damn poised to see it through. Obviously, that is why after 3 years of Churchill’s and Imperial General Staff sabotage Tehran Conference has happened and Churchill has been almost completely removed from formulation of strategy. So, while Soviet Union did welcome real Second Front (finally, and Moscow saluted it with major fireworks), by Overlord unfolding it was clear to everyone that the question was in not allowing Soviet Union have all of Europe. But main Soviet objective, by far, was annihilation of the Third Reich and here Soviet contribution dwarfs that of Allies. As even Dr.Seuss understood it then.

    In other words, Red Army was completely capable of reaching French coast. But destroying Third Reich was at the very top of the agenda, but, yes, sure live in your parallel universe.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rich
    You actually believe that if Hitler had only been fighting a one front war he wouldn't have been able to defeat the Soviets? Obviously, if that's the starting point of the discussion, nothing I write will make any difference to your understanding of the Western Front, the North African campaign, the defeat of the Luftwaffe or the massive rapes of females from age 8 to 80 that the Red Army perpetrated.
    , @Peter Akuleyev
    I don't think Stalin ever wanted to have to occupy France. Every Soviet soldier who stepped foot in France (or Italy for that matter) would have become politically unreliable from the exposure to a real civilization. The defection rate would have been huge. At least the Soviets occupying Germany were somewhat innoculated from bad ideas due to the fact that the Germans had been trying to murder them, and the obvious devastation Germany had suffered during the war.
  51. Randal says:
    @German_reader
    No, US strategy in the European air war was different...certainly they killed German civilians as well by attacking targets of opportunity like trains, or by misidentifying targets, dropping bombs through cloud cover etc. But the intentional incineration of entire city centres was a strategy the British developed (and stubbornly clung to, despite evidence that other uses of air power might have made more sense on a military level).
    And I tend to regard the RAF's actions at least in late 1944/early 1945 as war crimes. They were certainly completely excessive.

    No, US strategy in the European air war was different

    The Yanks started out naively thinking they would bomb only military targets (though with the conveniently flexible and self-serving definitions of such we see from the US to this day), but found, just as the others had before them, that the accuracy simply wasn’t there to do so. Nevertheless they persisted with daylight raids to maintain the pretence (probably to try to fool themselves as much as anyone else). However, by 1943 they were joining in British incendiary attacks on cities, albeit supposedly themselves only targeting “military” targets (like factories and railways).

    When they initiated the firebombing attacks in Japan, and ultimately the atomic bomb attacks, in 1945 they were transparently engaging in terrorist slaughter bombing to try to coerce the Japanese government into unconditional surrender.

    Imo these were all “war crimes”, for whatever that might be worth, and only justified, where they were, by necessity. But by and large war crimes trials are for the losers of wars, not the winners, as Curtis Lemay and Robert McNamara famously recognised:

    LeMay said, “If we’d lost the war, we’d all have been prosecuted as war criminals.” And I think he’s right. He, and I’d say I, were behaving as war criminals. LeMay recognized that what he was doing would be thought immoral if his side had lost. But what makes it immoral if you lose and not immoral if you win?

    It’s important to understand that such intentional mass slaughter of women and children, such obvious war crimes, are not necessarily carried out by bad or disreputable men. Indeed they are often carried out by admirable men courageously doing their duty, as in the case of the men of Bomber Command and the USAAF. The same, of course, applies to many of the German men who did terrible things for their country in that war.

    That’s war (and human conflict in general).

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader

    When they initiated the firebombing attacks in Japan, and ultimately the atomic bomb attacks, in 1945 they were transparently engaging in terrorist slaughter
     
    Yes, US bombing against Japan in 1945 was pretty terroristic (probably also a reflection of how much Americans back then hated the Japanese, admittedly not without some reason). I was purely referring to the air war in Europe, and there was a real difference there between US and British strategies (even if the distinctions between the two became blurred at times).
    Good book which I've already recommended several times on Unz is Richard Overy's "The bombing war: Europe 1939-1945", covers the air war in Europe (including Italy and the Soviet Union) in exhaustive detail.
  52. KenH says:
    @German_reader
    No, US strategy in the European air war was different...certainly they killed German civilians as well by attacking targets of opportunity like trains, or by misidentifying targets, dropping bombs through cloud cover etc. But the intentional incineration of entire city centres was a strategy the British developed (and stubbornly clung to, despite evidence that other uses of air power might have made more sense on a military level).
    And I tend to regard the RAF's actions at least in late 1944/early 1945 as war crimes. They were certainly completely excessive.

    I understand, but what I’m saying is that USAF bombers took part in the bombing raids of both Hamburg and Dresden. It wasn’t like USAF just bombed ball bearing and tank factories while the RAF bombed civilian centers. After all, it was an “allied” effort.

    Read More
  53. @Randal

    No, US strategy in the European air war was different
     
    The Yanks started out naively thinking they would bomb only military targets (though with the conveniently flexible and self-serving definitions of such we see from the US to this day), but found, just as the others had before them, that the accuracy simply wasn't there to do so. Nevertheless they persisted with daylight raids to maintain the pretence (probably to try to fool themselves as much as anyone else). However, by 1943 they were joining in British incendiary attacks on cities, albeit supposedly themselves only targeting "military" targets (like factories and railways).

    When they initiated the firebombing attacks in Japan, and ultimately the atomic bomb attacks, in 1945 they were transparently engaging in terrorist slaughter bombing to try to coerce the Japanese government into unconditional surrender.

    Imo these were all "war crimes", for whatever that might be worth, and only justified, where they were, by necessity. But by and large war crimes trials are for the losers of wars, not the winners, as Curtis Lemay and Robert McNamara famously recognised:

    LeMay said, "If we'd lost the war, we'd all have been prosecuted as war criminals." And I think he's right. He, and I'd say I, were behaving as war criminals. LeMay recognized that what he was doing would be thought immoral if his side had lost. But what makes it immoral if you lose and not immoral if you win?

    It's important to understand that such intentional mass slaughter of women and children, such obvious war crimes, are not necessarily carried out by bad or disreputable men. Indeed they are often carried out by admirable men courageously doing their duty, as in the case of the men of Bomber Command and the USAAF. The same, of course, applies to many of the German men who did terrible things for their country in that war.

    That's war (and human conflict in general).

    When they initiated the firebombing attacks in Japan, and ultimately the atomic bomb attacks, in 1945 they were transparently engaging in terrorist slaughter

    Yes, US bombing against Japan in 1945 was pretty terroristic (probably also a reflection of how much Americans back then hated the Japanese, admittedly not without some reason). I was purely referring to the air war in Europe, and there was a real difference there between US and British strategies (even if the distinctions between the two became blurred at times).
    Good book which I’ve already recommended several times on Unz is Richard Overy’s “The bombing war: Europe 1939-1945″, covers the air war in Europe (including Italy and the Soviet Union) in exhaustive detail.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    Is Overy's book written in the early 80s or something? I just recently read his "Why the Allies Won?", and I really found it superb. One chapter dealt with the air war, and he was extensively citing a book written earlier by himself. It was a very good chapter (though I liked the whole book), so perhaps I'll read the whole book. It demolished a number of myths and misconceptions I had of the air war. For example I didn't realize that one of the important effects of the air war after the winter of 1943/44 (when they started using long range fighters with the extra fuel tanks) was that it effectively wiped out the Luftwaffe fighter arm. Since it forced the Germans to try to defend their own airspace, and the long range fighters simply inflicted so high losses on the German fighter arm, that they couldn't replace the planes and especially the pilots, and by the time of D-Day the Germans no longer had a meaningful air force left. (Perhaps they should've withdrawn their fighters and pilots to Austria or somewhere out of the range of the Allied bomber forces, and only sent them forward - and then to France, not to Germany - right before the D-Day. But then the damage to the German war economy, which was already approaching catastrophic proportions, would've been even a lot higher, so maybe that wouldn't have helped... Same is true of losses to French infrastructure, which would've been higher if the Germans didn't even try to engage the bombers.)
    , @Randal
    I recall liking Robin Neillands' book "Bomber War: Arthur Harris and the Allied Bomber Offensive 1939-1945" quite a few years ago.
  54. Rich says:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    If not for the American involvement in WWII, the Russians that still lived would be speaking German and shining Nazi boots. The Americans were the straw that broke Germany, and without US supplies Stalin would’ve been hanged by his own people.
     
    LOL, read arguably best American military historians in generations and send all your conclusions to US Army Command and General Staff College at Leavenworth, KS.

    http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-c5hbLfJ9AVw/VjT_ccnWrtI/AAAAAAAAAOk/kDjVXsYCUGs/s1600/Glantz-House_2.jpg

    As per "straw", you obviously have no a faintest idea about US-British discussions on European strategy.

    http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Hhs882opTA0/VjY1vej8pkI/AAAAAAAAAPE/sH9CR7N8uEo/s1600/Ike_2.jpg

    I'll give you a hint--after Kursk it became abundantly clear that the question was not about Wehrmacht being defeated (that was clear after Stalingrad), at issue was a complete annihilation of Nazi machine in all of Europe and Soviets, who unequivocally signed on with FDR's "unconditional surrender" clause, were damn poised to see it through. Obviously, that is why after 3 years of Churchill's and Imperial General Staff sabotage Tehran Conference has happened and Churchill has been almost completely removed from formulation of strategy. So, while Soviet Union did welcome real Second Front (finally, and Moscow saluted it with major fireworks), by Overlord unfolding it was clear to everyone that the question was in not allowing Soviet Union have all of Europe. But main Soviet objective, by far, was annihilation of the Third Reich and here Soviet contribution dwarfs that of Allies. As even Dr.Seuss understood it then.

    https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-50jwLOMJzBk/WUkpNrJxFAI/AAAAAAAABEE/zFiKlpx4j64_qgVCNO4ECvcdg--1kJ6vwCLcBGAs/s1600/pro5.jpg

    In other words, Red Army was completely capable of reaching French coast. But destroying Third Reich was at the very top of the agenda, but, yes, sure live in your parallel universe.

    You actually believe that if Hitler had only been fighting a one front war he wouldn’t have been able to defeat the Soviets? Obviously, if that’s the starting point of the discussion, nothing I write will make any difference to your understanding of the Western Front, the North African campaign, the defeat of the Luftwaffe or the massive rapes of females from age 8 to 80 that the Red Army perpetrated.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov

    I write will make any difference to your understanding of the Western Front, the North African campaign
     
    Sir, open wonderful series of US Army in WW II and start with ABC Conferences in early 1941 and start your study from there. Remember, though, the name, General Stanley Embick--he features prominently there. And then read about his memorandum at Casablanca Conference. Bringing up operation Torch against the background of a titanic scale of operations at Eastern Front is not indication of a good taste. In the end, try to read David Eisenhower's outstanding work about his glorious Grandfather and then try Colonels Glantz and House and their seminal:

    https://www.amazon.com/When-Titans-Clashed-Stopped-Studies/dp/0700608990

    2015 Edition. Highly recommend. I can not convey things better than they do.
    , @Alberto Campos
    You parrot very well the "historians", why don't you start reading the researchers? It's funny how some participants here lose their time trying to contest your comic books rhetoric. You should educate us more Batman and Mickey Mouse. Pleeeease!
    , @annamaria
    Agree with Alberto Campos that your expertise aligns with the Batman' and Mickey Mouse'.
  55. @German_reader

    Hamburg, Dresden
     
    That was the RAF. The American air offensive in Europe actually wasn't based on indiscriminate area bombing, but targeted key industries (like the ball-bearings plant at Schweinfurt, the oil industry etc.), Luftwaffe installations and transport networks. By the standards of the time it was a pretty smart use of air power that arguably really did shorten the war.
    And anyway, this whataboutery in relation to WW2 is pretty annoying. Whatever the misdeeds of other powers, the Katyn massacre really was a monstrous crime (it also wasn't a "war crime" in the sense of massacres of prisoners in the heat or immediate aftermath of battle like they have happened in many wars; it was a cold-blooded act of mass murder that was part of a wider programme of repression).

    The American air offensive in Europe actually wasn’t based on indiscriminate area bombing, but targeted key industries (like the ball-bearings plant at Schweinfurt, the oil industry etc.), Luftwaffe installations and transport networks. By the standards of the time it was a pretty smart use of air power that arguably really did shorten the war.

    You are wrong, German_reader.

    1. The destruction of Dresden was a combined British — USAF undertaking:

    “The bombing of Dresden was a British/American aerial bombing attack on the city of Dresden, the capital of the German state of Saxony, that took place during the Second World War in the European Theatre. In four raids between 13 and 15 February 1945, 722 heavy bombers of the British Royal Air Force (RAF) and 527 of the United States Army Air Forces (USAAF) dropped more than 3,900 tons of high-explosive bombs and incendiary devices on the city. “

    2. US bombing strategy targeted not only industrial centers but also, and deliberately, civilians; specifically working-class Germans and even “infants in cribs” to the extent that USAF constructed mock-ups of German worker’s housing and practiced/perfected the chemicals and techniques used to kill the maximum number of civilians most efficiently:

    From, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior http://lcweb2.loc.gov/master/pnp/habshaer/ut/ut0500/ut0568/data/ut0568data.pdf

    The Dugway German Village was the primary American site for testing incendiary bombs prior to large- scale attacks near the end of World War II against civilian targets such as Dresden, Germany. The extant structure paralleled that of an adjacent, but no longer extant, Japanese Village, used to test incendiaries for the Pacific theater. The buildings in the German Village were constructed from materials*and designs that replicated contemporary residential buildings in German urban industrial districts.
    In order to build a facility that was an authentic reproduction, studies were conducted to determine which materials and furnishings available in the
    U.S. would closely match those in use in Germany.

    A group of German-American architects affiliated with the “Gropius group at Harvard,” including prominent Jewish architects Eric Mendelsohn and Konrad Wachsmann, were employed to design the facility. Both men had been associated with the prominent architectural group der Berliner Zehner- Ring [the Berlin Circle of 10, or the Ring] while living in Europe. The Ring included among its members Walter Gropius and Mies van der Rohe.

    The AN-M50 model of incendiary bomb, extensively
    tested at the German Village, accounted for more . than 97 percent (by number) of the incendiary
    bombs dropped on Germany by American forces.

    . . .

    For the German Village, a total of 19 pieces of furniture, manufactured in multiples, completed the mock up of the second floor flats. Furniture included an upholstered sofa (7); an upholstered easy chair (14); a settee (14); a kitchen buffet (7); a chest of drawers (7); a side table
    (7) ; a straight chair (77) ; an oval table (7) ; a dining table (14) ; a wardrobe (14); a single bed, with mattress, springs, and bolsters (28) ; a crib, with mattress and springs (14); a wicker chair (7) ; a bed table (28); a radio cabinet (7); a 9′ by 13′ rug (28); a 2′ by 31 throw rug (28); window drapes (24 pairs); and incidental cushions (42). Quantities reflected an understanding that some
    furnishings would be lost in the fires set by the incendiary tests, and would then be replaced in kind. In the bedroom, the single beds were placed together in pairs, with a crib adjacent, reflective of a young family with an infant.

    3. In 2007, German historian Jörg Friedrich spoke to an audience in Washington, DC, about his book, The Fire. His words are gut-wrenching. Several moments are noteworthy:

    @ 38 min Friedrich mentions watching televised reports of the 2006 war in Lebanon, including the BBC reporter who challenged Benjamin Netanyahu about the Israel tactic of bombing civilians in a bid to force their government to capitulate. Netanyahu retorted, “Do you know what your people did to German cities?”

    @ 54 min. an audience members recites the American (and British) version of the division of blame between the British and USA: the British bombed indiscriminately, the Americans bombed only industrial targets. This is what Americans have been led to believe about their “greatest generation” who fought “the good war.”
    Friedrich advises the questioner that he is “50% correct.” Friedrich quotes Curtis LeMay:

    ” ‘In total warfare there are no non-combatants. Everyone is engaged in the war by industries or by morale or will.’ At Nuremberg, German generals tried to raise this as a defense . . . It is a myth [that US targeted only industrial sites] . . . In the beginning the Americans tried to do so. Later on . . . they carried out carpet bombing . . . in Dresden, in Swinemunde, in Munster — I can name you a lot of cities which are seldom mentioned in your literature, but they were carpet bombed . . . We can discuss what was the logic that drew the Americans into the British strategy . . . to make a city burn, this was the main strategy. . . . This strategy was continued in the Korean war. [nota bene].”

    @ 58 min an audience member — a grey-haired white male, tells of

    “watching a PBS documentary about the B-17, “the history told from the viewpoint of the people who flew them on the bombing raids over Germany. And there was nowhere in this documentary of the type of destruction described in your book. I remember that the narrator called the B-17 ‘a symbol of hope to the people in Germany.’ Well. After reading at least half of your book so far, I see that that was not a correct characterization. . . . I hope your book is part of the education process, because the documentary that I saw is certainly not doing proper justice to the job of education.”

    This was in 2007 that an older man in what is claimed to be the most sophisticated book shop in the most sophisticated city in USA. You are not alone, German_reader, in your incorrect understanding of the bombing of Germany by Americans.

    There’s more:

    4. US Air Force bombed the Nordhausen forced labor camp, and used images of dead prisoners as evidence against Germans at Nuremberg:

    It’s noteworthy that in a DVD about “The Ritchie Boys,” German Jewish refugees who were trained as intelligence officers at Fort Ritchie, Maryland, one of the Jewish Ritchie boys describes how he surveilled Nordhausen to ensure that the camp’s technological facilities were intact because it had had been promised to Stalin.

    https://dvd.netflix.com/Movie/The-Ritchie-Boys/70082783

    Read More
    • Replies: @jacques sheete
    That, good sir, is how to write a worthwhile comment!
  56. @Rich
    You actually believe that if Hitler had only been fighting a one front war he wouldn't have been able to defeat the Soviets? Obviously, if that's the starting point of the discussion, nothing I write will make any difference to your understanding of the Western Front, the North African campaign, the defeat of the Luftwaffe or the massive rapes of females from age 8 to 80 that the Red Army perpetrated.

    I write will make any difference to your understanding of the Western Front, the North African campaign

    Sir, open wonderful series of US Army in WW II and start with ABC Conferences in early 1941 and start your study from there. Remember, though, the name, General Stanley Embick–he features prominently there. And then read about his memorandum at Casablanca Conference. Bringing up operation Torch against the background of a titanic scale of operations at Eastern Front is not indication of a good taste. In the end, try to read David Eisenhower’s outstanding work about his glorious Grandfather and then try Colonels Glantz and House and their seminal:

    https://www.amazon.com/When-Titans-Clashed-Stopped-Studies/dp/0700608990

    2015 Edition. Highly recommend. I can not convey things better than they do.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    After 1942, roughly 40% of German war production went into air defense systems (and ammunition) and air superiority fighters to defend against the Allied air campaign. Probably an even higher proportion of the German gasoline consumption went into these efforts. So at least after the winter of 1942/43 you'd need to posit a German armed force in the East with 60% more weapons for this reason alone. (Before that a 20-30% more weaponry, which might still have proved crucial at Stalingrad...) Then add the divisions diverted to the West (there always had to be dozens of divisions stationed in the West for fear of a British invasion), so it's even more than that. In the meantime, by late 1942 Red Army rations very very often contained US food shipments. Similarly a lot of the fuel used by the Red Army was supplied by the US, a lot of telephone cables, radios, trucks, etc. I'd say already by late 1942 the Red Army was perhaps 20% stronger thanks to these. So, you'd posit a 15% weaker Red Army against a 60% (or more) stronger Wehrmacht would still have been victorious. I'd say it's contentious, to put it mildly.

    Then there's the question of German war production. It's estimated that it was perhaps 30-35% lower by 1944 due to the bombing campaign. Without it, you get a further significantly stronger Wehrmacht by 1944, fighting just one front, and probably - because it now didn't lack reserves - not suffering most of the catastrophic losses which it suffered in 1943 and especially 1944.

    It's highly likely the Germans wouldn't have been able to knock out the Soviets in one blow in 1941. Maybe not in 1942. It's also possible the war would've come to a standstill somewhere deep inside Soviet territory. (Though I'd expect that one on one slowly the German economic advantage would've decisively turned the war against the Soviets by 1945 at the latest.) But if I recall correctly even Glantz thought that the Red Army in Berlin would never have happened without the Allied contributions. Which, to repeat myself, included lowering German war production by 30%, diverting 40% of the remaining war production, and dozens of divisions idly standing in Western Europe and Norway throughout the war. All this was quite significant.

    , @Rich
    Because your mind is already made up, I won't bother to give you the long list of books written by historians who believe the Soviets would have been defeated if not for the intervention of the US. Yes, there are often disagreements among historians, you've chosen to believe those who for some reason want to minimize the American contribution, while inflating the Soviet contribution. Nothing I point out to you will have any effect. Just remember it was the glorious Red Army that raped little children and old women with the full consent of their commanders. Such an Army is a disgrace and deserves credit for nothing.
  57. K says:

    >>”These people infest our government bureaucracies, our schools and universities, our media outlets, our churches, our corporations. Do we have the will to face them down, to drain the swamps, clean out the stables, chase the money-lenders from the temples?”<<

    Ron, please stop writers from printing the above kind of stuff on this site of yours.

    It will only create divisions between the above people and the other people. And could lead to violence against the above people also. I just read a few hours back about security being needed for places of worship of the above people. How long do you think violence is away? Not much if they read stuff like this.

    Read More
  58. reiner Tor says: • Website
    @German_reader

    When they initiated the firebombing attacks in Japan, and ultimately the atomic bomb attacks, in 1945 they were transparently engaging in terrorist slaughter
     
    Yes, US bombing against Japan in 1945 was pretty terroristic (probably also a reflection of how much Americans back then hated the Japanese, admittedly not without some reason). I was purely referring to the air war in Europe, and there was a real difference there between US and British strategies (even if the distinctions between the two became blurred at times).
    Good book which I've already recommended several times on Unz is Richard Overy's "The bombing war: Europe 1939-1945", covers the air war in Europe (including Italy and the Soviet Union) in exhaustive detail.

    Is Overy’s book written in the early 80s or something? I just recently read his “Why the Allies Won?”, and I really found it superb. One chapter dealt with the air war, and he was extensively citing a book written earlier by himself. It was a very good chapter (though I liked the whole book), so perhaps I’ll read the whole book. It demolished a number of myths and misconceptions I had of the air war. For example I didn’t realize that one of the important effects of the air war after the winter of 1943/44 (when they started using long range fighters with the extra fuel tanks) was that it effectively wiped out the Luftwaffe fighter arm. Since it forced the Germans to try to defend their own airspace, and the long range fighters simply inflicted so high losses on the German fighter arm, that they couldn’t replace the planes and especially the pilots, and by the time of D-Day the Germans no longer had a meaningful air force left. (Perhaps they should’ve withdrawn their fighters and pilots to Austria or somewhere out of the range of the Allied bomber forces, and only sent them forward – and then to France, not to Germany – right before the D-Day. But then the damage to the German war economy, which was already approaching catastrophic proportions, would’ve been even a lot higher, so maybe that wouldn’t have helped… Same is true of losses to French infrastructure, which would’ve been higher if the Germans didn’t even try to engage the bombers.)

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader

    Is Overy’s book written in the early 80s or something?
     
    No, it's quite recent, published in 2013. There are a lot of earlier books by him about WW2 topics (iirc a biography of Göring among them), but I've only read "Russia's war" and "Why the allies won" (read them as a teenager, can't remember much). I think he modified some of his views in the recent book about the bombing war, e.g. in his earlier books his assessment of Britain's bombing offensive was more positive. Anyway, since you're very interested in WW2, I'd highly recommend "The bombing war: Europe 1939-1945", it tells you pretty much everything you need to know about the subject.
  59. reiner Tor says: • Website
    @Andrei Martyanov

    I write will make any difference to your understanding of the Western Front, the North African campaign
     
    Sir, open wonderful series of US Army in WW II and start with ABC Conferences in early 1941 and start your study from there. Remember, though, the name, General Stanley Embick--he features prominently there. And then read about his memorandum at Casablanca Conference. Bringing up operation Torch against the background of a titanic scale of operations at Eastern Front is not indication of a good taste. In the end, try to read David Eisenhower's outstanding work about his glorious Grandfather and then try Colonels Glantz and House and their seminal:

    https://www.amazon.com/When-Titans-Clashed-Stopped-Studies/dp/0700608990

    2015 Edition. Highly recommend. I can not convey things better than they do.

    After 1942, roughly 40% of German war production went into air defense systems (and ammunition) and air superiority fighters to defend against the Allied air campaign. Probably an even higher proportion of the German gasoline consumption went into these efforts. So at least after the winter of 1942/43 you’d need to posit a German armed force in the East with 60% more weapons for this reason alone. (Before that a 20-30% more weaponry, which might still have proved crucial at Stalingrad…) Then add the divisions diverted to the West (there always had to be dozens of divisions stationed in the West for fear of a British invasion), so it’s even more than that. In the meantime, by late 1942 Red Army rations very very often contained US food shipments. Similarly a lot of the fuel used by the Red Army was supplied by the US, a lot of telephone cables, radios, trucks, etc. I’d say already by late 1942 the Red Army was perhaps 20% stronger thanks to these. So, you’d posit a 15% weaker Red Army against a 60% (or more) stronger Wehrmacht would still have been victorious. I’d say it’s contentious, to put it mildly.

    Then there’s the question of German war production. It’s estimated that it was perhaps 30-35% lower by 1944 due to the bombing campaign. Without it, you get a further significantly stronger Wehrmacht by 1944, fighting just one front, and probably – because it now didn’t lack reserves – not suffering most of the catastrophic losses which it suffered in 1943 and especially 1944.

    It’s highly likely the Germans wouldn’t have been able to knock out the Soviets in one blow in 1941. Maybe not in 1942. It’s also possible the war would’ve come to a standstill somewhere deep inside Soviet territory. (Though I’d expect that one on one slowly the German economic advantage would’ve decisively turned the war against the Soviets by 1945 at the latest.) But if I recall correctly even Glantz thought that the Red Army in Berlin would never have happened without the Allied contributions. Which, to repeat myself, included lowering German war production by 30%, diverting 40% of the remaining war production, and dozens of divisions idly standing in Western Europe and Norway throughout the war. All this was quite significant.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    I forgot the fact that the German fleet and naval production was all tied up fighting the Allies. If there was no war against the Allies, they would have been able to use all those resources (raw materials, workers, etc.) to build more tanks or trucks instead (as well as the fuel used to run the U-boots could've been used to run the tanks or the trucks in the East). Similarly, a lot of the Allied naval effort went into blockading Germany, which made it more difficult for them to fight the war. Just imagine if Germany had been able to import oil throughout the war. Or if they didn't need to invest in synthetic rubber plants, and instead could've just imported natural rubber. The list goes on and on.
    , @Randal
    The problem with these arguments is that it's most likely no country in the world could have defeated Germany alone (although the US might have been able to survive a war by virtue of its continental security). If the Soviet Union could not have defeated Germany alone, certainly Britain, France and the US could not have. It was a collective effort.

    The reality is surely indisputable, though, that the Soviet Union took the lion's share of the military work of defeating Germany - the sheer scale of the warfare in Russia dwarfs all the rest of the fighting.

    Figures for the practical effects on war production of strategic bombing are disputed - for every study finding the kinds of huge effects you quote you will find others finding the contrary. Though for sure the vast majority of the bomb tonnages and the likely effectiveness of bombing was from 1943 onwards, and especially 1944 onwards, when the war had already been lost by Germany in Russia. There really was no coming back after Kursk.
    , @Andrei Martyanov

    Then add the divisions diverted to the West (there always had to be dozens of divisions stationed in the West for fear of a British invasion
     
    Most of them were in effect reserve and recuperating divisions in which by 1944 the quality of personnel was very low--the fact well document by late Stephen Ambrose (among many others). Very large number of personnel were ethnic units including but not limited to Kalmyks, Bosniaks etc.--hardly your crack SS Panzer divisions. But I want to be very clear hear--I will reject any accusations in trying to diminish or denigrate Allied contribution to WW II in Europe, my point is completely different--realities and scales of the Eastern Front are still largely unknown in the West, some of it due to a general lack of education but most of it due to incessant propaganda.

    As per British "invasion"--some of the sources (all Anglo-American) I pointed out in posts above blow this whole "British invasion" out of the water. Germany knew damn well that there will be no invasion in 1941, 1942 and even later for a simple reason of being well-informed about the nature of a strategic discussion between Allies, which prior to Casablanca was dominated by Churchill and his Imperial General Staff, hence general Stanley Embick's memorandum on "primrose path" by Great Britain and very serious ramblings among American top military people starting from George Marshall and Ike himself down to Embick, Gerow and others. Germany knew that any attempts on real European invasion will be sabotaged by British side, which deliberately set for failure, catastrophic raid on Dieppe only confirmed, never mind 5000 Canadian and 1000 American lives sacrificed. But whatever the case is or was, what matters is what was happening on the Eastern Front where a bulk of Third Reich's best men and materiel were ground into dust. What led to Tehran Conference was a dramatic, radical strategic change (in Russian perelom) in Winter-Summer 1943 which convinced Allied military-political top in a complete ability of the Soviet Union to not merely destroy Third Reich but take it to the French shores. Would it cost USSR more lives and effort? Surely it would, but as Allied intelligence noted already by 1942--the scale of losses on both sides and atrocities committed by Nazis in Russia completely precluded any possibility of any political settlement between Germany and USSR. After Kursk and Orel-Belgorod Offensive by the Red Army it was over for Wehrmacht, plain and simple--at that time every person in USSR knew it, without any propaganda, that Berlin was now in sight. Allies knew it too. There is a remarkable piece by Molly Panter Downess (at the time New Yorker's correspondent in Britain) in her London War Notes about Kursk Battle how most Londoners were anxiously waiting any news from Kursk salient and the feeling of unease among people because they were, as Downess states, felt as being on the sidelines observing how their best friend was fighting a huge decisive battle. But, of course, the main thing of Anglo-American WW II historiography in the post-WW II period, with some exceptions, was to obfuscate and eventually rewrite the history of WW II. But as last 3-4 years has so dramatically shown most (not all) of Anglo-American political and academe establishments have issues with causality.

  60. reiner Tor says: • Website
    @reiner Tor
    After 1942, roughly 40% of German war production went into air defense systems (and ammunition) and air superiority fighters to defend against the Allied air campaign. Probably an even higher proportion of the German gasoline consumption went into these efforts. So at least after the winter of 1942/43 you'd need to posit a German armed force in the East with 60% more weapons for this reason alone. (Before that a 20-30% more weaponry, which might still have proved crucial at Stalingrad...) Then add the divisions diverted to the West (there always had to be dozens of divisions stationed in the West for fear of a British invasion), so it's even more than that. In the meantime, by late 1942 Red Army rations very very often contained US food shipments. Similarly a lot of the fuel used by the Red Army was supplied by the US, a lot of telephone cables, radios, trucks, etc. I'd say already by late 1942 the Red Army was perhaps 20% stronger thanks to these. So, you'd posit a 15% weaker Red Army against a 60% (or more) stronger Wehrmacht would still have been victorious. I'd say it's contentious, to put it mildly.

    Then there's the question of German war production. It's estimated that it was perhaps 30-35% lower by 1944 due to the bombing campaign. Without it, you get a further significantly stronger Wehrmacht by 1944, fighting just one front, and probably - because it now didn't lack reserves - not suffering most of the catastrophic losses which it suffered in 1943 and especially 1944.

    It's highly likely the Germans wouldn't have been able to knock out the Soviets in one blow in 1941. Maybe not in 1942. It's also possible the war would've come to a standstill somewhere deep inside Soviet territory. (Though I'd expect that one on one slowly the German economic advantage would've decisively turned the war against the Soviets by 1945 at the latest.) But if I recall correctly even Glantz thought that the Red Army in Berlin would never have happened without the Allied contributions. Which, to repeat myself, included lowering German war production by 30%, diverting 40% of the remaining war production, and dozens of divisions idly standing in Western Europe and Norway throughout the war. All this was quite significant.

    I forgot the fact that the German fleet and naval production was all tied up fighting the Allies. If there was no war against the Allies, they would have been able to use all those resources (raw materials, workers, etc.) to build more tanks or trucks instead (as well as the fuel used to run the U-boots could’ve been used to run the tanks or the trucks in the East). Similarly, a lot of the Allied naval effort went into blockading Germany, which made it more difficult for them to fight the war. Just imagine if Germany had been able to import oil throughout the war. Or if they didn’t need to invest in synthetic rubber plants, and instead could’ve just imported natural rubber. The list goes on and on.

    Read More
  61. reiner Tor says: • Website
    @German_reader

    Plus TORCH, Scicily, Anzio, and the Battle of the Bulge.
     
    Those were minor affairs compared with Stalingrad, Kursk or the destruction of Heeresgruppe Mitte in 1944. All of my German relatives who fought and died in WW2 did so on the Eastern front, the western allies only came up in recollections of the war via their air attacks.
    I don't entirely agree with AK's Russian nationalism (which has its significant blind spots as well), but he's right about this.

    The air war and the naval war in themselves were pretty significant contributions. If you add the military involvements (like Torch etc.), which in themselves were pretty insignificant (but for example in the summer of 1943 you’ll find some elite SS divisions like Das Reich in Italy after being withdrawn from Russia… it did contribute in a way), but together with the more important air and naval wars and the idly tied down divisions in places like Norway, and it adds to almost half (definitely well over third) of the German war effort, plus the lower German war production (perhaps over 30% by 1944), it’s quite significant. Throw in the US supplies to the USSR (like spam given in soldiers’ rations) and it’s probably more than 50%. In fact, it’s hard to see how the USSR could’ve won alone.

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader
    Yes, that's certainly true, one shouldn't minimise the contributions of the western allies; something like the defeat of the Luftwaffe over the Reich in 1944 was a major achievement. Still, the popular image among many Westerners that Nazi Germany was defeated primarily by Americans storming Normandy beaches (it's usually just Americans, even British, Canadians, Poles etc. usually don't get mentioned) is pretty bizarre.
    , @Alberto Campos
    "it’s hard to see how the USSR could’ve won alone".
    You don't mean "hard", you mean "painful".

    Sidebar: it was also hard, at the time, for "historians" like you, to see how the USSR could have crushed the Blitzkrieg tsunami alone between June and December 1941.
  62. reiner Tor says: • Website
    @5371
    Germany and the USSR did not invade Poland simultaneously in September 1939; the USSR did so once Polish forces had already been defeated. Nor is it at all clear that Soviet forces could have occupied Warsaw already in August 1944, had they received orders to do so.

    Nor is it at all clear that Soviet forces could have occupied Warsaw already in August 1944, had they received orders to do so.

    Even if they could, it would’ve cost them enormous amounts of blood.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bies Podkrakowski
    Soviets didn't have to spill their own blood. There was a lot of Poles around to do the dying. Berling's First Polish People Army tried to send help across Vistula. Without artillery and material support he couldn't do much apart from sending warm bodies in pontoons.
  63. Randal says:
    @German_reader

    When they initiated the firebombing attacks in Japan, and ultimately the atomic bomb attacks, in 1945 they were transparently engaging in terrorist slaughter
     
    Yes, US bombing against Japan in 1945 was pretty terroristic (probably also a reflection of how much Americans back then hated the Japanese, admittedly not without some reason). I was purely referring to the air war in Europe, and there was a real difference there between US and British strategies (even if the distinctions between the two became blurred at times).
    Good book which I've already recommended several times on Unz is Richard Overy's "The bombing war: Europe 1939-1945", covers the air war in Europe (including Italy and the Soviet Union) in exhaustive detail.

    I recall liking Robin Neillands’ book “Bomber War: Arthur Harris and the Allied Bomber Offensive 1939-1945″ quite a few years ago.

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader
    Have never heard of it tbh. I know there still are many sympathetic treatments of Harris in Britain (and some years ago I actually bought one - a biography by Henry Probert - as a present for my father), but he comes across pretty badly in Overy's recent book, stubbornly insisting on area bombing despite the criticism the policy aroused even at the time. One thing that actually shocked me somewhat was that in 1944 he would have liked to firebomb French cities. He wasn't allowed to do that by Churchill due to political (and maybe humanitarian) considerations, but in any case his behaviour and views were pretty extreme even by the standards of the time.
  64. Randal says:
    @reiner Tor
    After 1942, roughly 40% of German war production went into air defense systems (and ammunition) and air superiority fighters to defend against the Allied air campaign. Probably an even higher proportion of the German gasoline consumption went into these efforts. So at least after the winter of 1942/43 you'd need to posit a German armed force in the East with 60% more weapons for this reason alone. (Before that a 20-30% more weaponry, which might still have proved crucial at Stalingrad...) Then add the divisions diverted to the West (there always had to be dozens of divisions stationed in the West for fear of a British invasion), so it's even more than that. In the meantime, by late 1942 Red Army rations very very often contained US food shipments. Similarly a lot of the fuel used by the Red Army was supplied by the US, a lot of telephone cables, radios, trucks, etc. I'd say already by late 1942 the Red Army was perhaps 20% stronger thanks to these. So, you'd posit a 15% weaker Red Army against a 60% (or more) stronger Wehrmacht would still have been victorious. I'd say it's contentious, to put it mildly.

    Then there's the question of German war production. It's estimated that it was perhaps 30-35% lower by 1944 due to the bombing campaign. Without it, you get a further significantly stronger Wehrmacht by 1944, fighting just one front, and probably - because it now didn't lack reserves - not suffering most of the catastrophic losses which it suffered in 1943 and especially 1944.

    It's highly likely the Germans wouldn't have been able to knock out the Soviets in one blow in 1941. Maybe not in 1942. It's also possible the war would've come to a standstill somewhere deep inside Soviet territory. (Though I'd expect that one on one slowly the German economic advantage would've decisively turned the war against the Soviets by 1945 at the latest.) But if I recall correctly even Glantz thought that the Red Army in Berlin would never have happened without the Allied contributions. Which, to repeat myself, included lowering German war production by 30%, diverting 40% of the remaining war production, and dozens of divisions idly standing in Western Europe and Norway throughout the war. All this was quite significant.

    The problem with these arguments is that it’s most likely no country in the world could have defeated Germany alone (although the US might have been able to survive a war by virtue of its continental security). If the Soviet Union could not have defeated Germany alone, certainly Britain, France and the US could not have. It was a collective effort.

    The reality is surely indisputable, though, that the Soviet Union took the lion’s share of the military work of defeating Germany – the sheer scale of the warfare in Russia dwarfs all the rest of the fighting.

    Figures for the practical effects on war production of strategic bombing are disputed – for every study finding the kinds of huge effects you quote you will find others finding the contrary. Though for sure the vast majority of the bomb tonnages and the likely effectiveness of bombing was from 1943 onwards, and especially 1944 onwards, when the war had already been lost by Germany in Russia. There really was no coming back after Kursk.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor

    The problem with these arguments is that it’s most likely no country in the world could have defeated Germany alone (although the US might have been able to survive a war by virtue of its continental security). If the Soviet Union could not have defeated Germany alone, certainly Britain, France and the US could not have. It was a collective effort.
     
    We're completely in agreement, also that the US would've survived but not won. (Some do argue, though, that the US would've been able to start dropping nukes on Germany. I'm a bit doubtful - nuking Japan required air supremacy, or else the bomber might be shot down, and the working bomb to be reverse engineered might end up in German hands... And it's not like the Germans would've been unable to build a bomb, once the USSR was defeated.)

    The reality is surely indisputable, though, that the Soviet Union took the lion’s share of the military work of defeating Germany – the sheer scale of the warfare in Russia dwarfs all the rest of the fighting.
     
    That's what I'm having an issue with. The Soviets sure took the lion's share of the blood spilt, whereas the Western war effort was more capital intensive, but in terms of war production, the Western war was almost as large as the Eastern one, and if you add Lend Lease aid, then it will be very close to 50%. The Western war included the air war (with the destroyed German production capacity), naval war, the potential of an invasion which kept dozens of German divisions in the West even in 1941, and finally the ground campaigns, which in themselves were surely much smaller than the similar Soviet campaigns. In other words, it decreased German strength relative to Soviet strength by roughly 50%.

    Figures for the practical effects on war production of strategic bombing are disputed – for every study finding the kinds of huge effects you quote you will find others finding the contrary.
     
    The earlier studies purportedly showing no effect for the bombing are not very credible, at least later descriptions of the German war economy (like Overy, Tooze, Evans, etc.) all describe the effects as huge - and seriously, it's obvious that the Germans had to reverse a lot of the centralization designed by Speer, they had to spend a lot of man hours on clearing the rubble, absenteeism grew enormously in the wake of bombings, etc.

    Though for sure the vast majority of the bomb tonnages and the likely effectiveness of bombing was from 1943 onwards, and especially 1944 onwards, when the war had already been lost by Germany in Russia. There really was no coming back after Kursk.
     
    There really was no coming back, but only because the Germans couldn't concentrate all their efforts on the Eastern front (for example the tens of thousands of anti-aircraft guns or fighter planes could've served the Eastern Front just as well...), and also their efforts to increase production to its true potential were dampened by the bombing campaign. Don't forget that for example German logistics was to get simpler as the front was moving closer to the German borders. There was no reason for the Soviets to be able to continue on to Berlin, if it weren't for the bombing campaign destroying German infrastructure and the Germans having to split their resources between fighting the Soviets and fighting the rest.

    The Soviets simply lost a lot of lives (a not insignificant portion of it due to the idiocy or incompetence of their own military and civilian leaderships), but the Germans weren't destroyed by human sacrifice. The Soviets lost more soldiers and material in 1941 than in an subsequent year, yet they inflicted more damage on the Germans in any of the following years. It's easy to see that sacrificing more soldiers doesn't mean you contributed more to the victory - 1941 Soviets killed less Germans at a higher price than, say, 1943 or 1945 Soviets. Had the Soviets stayed as inept as they had been in 1941, they would never have stopped the Germans, much less reached Berlin, even with all the Western help they got. If we can accept that Soviet contributions to destroying the German war effort were not proportional to their own losses (higher Soviet losses, yet smaller German losses, in 1941, than in 1944), then we have to accept that it wasn't proportional between the Western Allies and the USSR - the Allies waged a capital intensive war (with relatively little human losses, but relatively large quantities of weapons built and lost), while the Soviets a labor-intensive war, with enormous human sacrifice. Both sides used what they had - the Soviets had a lot of high-quality soldiers and workers willing to make the sacrifice, but little capital, while the Americans had all the capital needed and then some more, but their population was less willing to accept sacrifice. (It was still probably capable of withstanding way higher losses than it really did have to endure.)

    I'm not sure if we're in disagreement here.

  65. @reiner Tor
    Is Overy's book written in the early 80s or something? I just recently read his "Why the Allies Won?", and I really found it superb. One chapter dealt with the air war, and he was extensively citing a book written earlier by himself. It was a very good chapter (though I liked the whole book), so perhaps I'll read the whole book. It demolished a number of myths and misconceptions I had of the air war. For example I didn't realize that one of the important effects of the air war after the winter of 1943/44 (when they started using long range fighters with the extra fuel tanks) was that it effectively wiped out the Luftwaffe fighter arm. Since it forced the Germans to try to defend their own airspace, and the long range fighters simply inflicted so high losses on the German fighter arm, that they couldn't replace the planes and especially the pilots, and by the time of D-Day the Germans no longer had a meaningful air force left. (Perhaps they should've withdrawn their fighters and pilots to Austria or somewhere out of the range of the Allied bomber forces, and only sent them forward - and then to France, not to Germany - right before the D-Day. But then the damage to the German war economy, which was already approaching catastrophic proportions, would've been even a lot higher, so maybe that wouldn't have helped... Same is true of losses to French infrastructure, which would've been higher if the Germans didn't even try to engage the bombers.)

    Is Overy’s book written in the early 80s or something?

    No, it’s quite recent, published in 2013. There are a lot of earlier books by him about WW2 topics (iirc a biography of Göring among them), but I’ve only read “Russia’s war” and “Why the allies won” (read them as a teenager, can’t remember much). I think he modified some of his views in the recent book about the bombing war, e.g. in his earlier books his assessment of Britain’s bombing offensive was more positive. Anyway, since you’re very interested in WW2, I’d highly recommend “The bombing war: Europe 1939-1945″, it tells you pretty much everything you need to know about the subject.

    Read More
  66. @reiner Tor
    After 1942, roughly 40% of German war production went into air defense systems (and ammunition) and air superiority fighters to defend against the Allied air campaign. Probably an even higher proportion of the German gasoline consumption went into these efforts. So at least after the winter of 1942/43 you'd need to posit a German armed force in the East with 60% more weapons for this reason alone. (Before that a 20-30% more weaponry, which might still have proved crucial at Stalingrad...) Then add the divisions diverted to the West (there always had to be dozens of divisions stationed in the West for fear of a British invasion), so it's even more than that. In the meantime, by late 1942 Red Army rations very very often contained US food shipments. Similarly a lot of the fuel used by the Red Army was supplied by the US, a lot of telephone cables, radios, trucks, etc. I'd say already by late 1942 the Red Army was perhaps 20% stronger thanks to these. So, you'd posit a 15% weaker Red Army against a 60% (or more) stronger Wehrmacht would still have been victorious. I'd say it's contentious, to put it mildly.

    Then there's the question of German war production. It's estimated that it was perhaps 30-35% lower by 1944 due to the bombing campaign. Without it, you get a further significantly stronger Wehrmacht by 1944, fighting just one front, and probably - because it now didn't lack reserves - not suffering most of the catastrophic losses which it suffered in 1943 and especially 1944.

    It's highly likely the Germans wouldn't have been able to knock out the Soviets in one blow in 1941. Maybe not in 1942. It's also possible the war would've come to a standstill somewhere deep inside Soviet territory. (Though I'd expect that one on one slowly the German economic advantage would've decisively turned the war against the Soviets by 1945 at the latest.) But if I recall correctly even Glantz thought that the Red Army in Berlin would never have happened without the Allied contributions. Which, to repeat myself, included lowering German war production by 30%, diverting 40% of the remaining war production, and dozens of divisions idly standing in Western Europe and Norway throughout the war. All this was quite significant.

    Then add the divisions diverted to the West (there always had to be dozens of divisions stationed in the West for fear of a British invasion

    Most of them were in effect reserve and recuperating divisions in which by 1944 the quality of personnel was very low–the fact well document by late Stephen Ambrose (among many others). Very large number of personnel were ethnic units including but not limited to Kalmyks, Bosniaks etc.–hardly your crack SS Panzer divisions. But I want to be very clear hear–I will reject any accusations in trying to diminish or denigrate Allied contribution to WW II in Europe, my point is completely different–realities and scales of the Eastern Front are still largely unknown in the West, some of it due to a general lack of education but most of it due to incessant propaganda.

    As per British “invasion”–some of the sources (all Anglo-American) I pointed out in posts above blow this whole “British invasion” out of the water. Germany knew damn well that there will be no invasion in 1941, 1942 and even later for a simple reason of being well-informed about the nature of a strategic discussion between Allies, which prior to Casablanca was dominated by Churchill and his Imperial General Staff, hence general Stanley Embick’s memorandum on “primrose path” by Great Britain and very serious ramblings among American top military people starting from George Marshall and Ike himself down to Embick, Gerow and others. Germany knew that any attempts on real European invasion will be sabotaged by British side, which deliberately set for failure, catastrophic raid on Dieppe only confirmed, never mind 5000 Canadian and 1000 American lives sacrificed. But whatever the case is or was, what matters is what was happening on the Eastern Front where a bulk of Third Reich’s best men and materiel were ground into dust. What led to Tehran Conference was a dramatic, radical strategic change (in Russian perelom) in Winter-Summer 1943 which convinced Allied military-political top in a complete ability of the Soviet Union to not merely destroy Third Reich but take it to the French shores. Would it cost USSR more lives and effort? Surely it would, but as Allied intelligence noted already by 1942–the scale of losses on both sides and atrocities committed by Nazis in Russia completely precluded any possibility of any political settlement between Germany and USSR. After Kursk and Orel-Belgorod Offensive by the Red Army it was over for Wehrmacht, plain and simple–at that time every person in USSR knew it, without any propaganda, that Berlin was now in sight. Allies knew it too. There is a remarkable piece by Molly Panter Downess (at the time New Yorker’s correspondent in Britain) in her London War Notes about Kursk Battle how most Londoners were anxiously waiting any news from Kursk salient and the feeling of unease among people because they were, as Downess states, felt as being on the sidelines observing how their best friend was fighting a huge decisive battle. But, of course, the main thing of Anglo-American WW II historiography in the post-WW II period, with some exceptions, was to obfuscate and eventually rewrite the history of WW II. But as last 3-4 years has so dramatically shown most (not all) of Anglo-American political and academe establishments have issues with causality.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thirdeye
    The Germans made good use of their knowledge of Anglo-American plans in planning Operation Zitadel. They knew they could strip their reserves out of France to strengthen their forces at Kursk. German forces in France were stronger in June 1944 than they were in June 1943.
  67. @reiner Tor
    The air war and the naval war in themselves were pretty significant contributions. If you add the military involvements (like Torch etc.), which in themselves were pretty insignificant (but for example in the summer of 1943 you'll find some elite SS divisions like Das Reich in Italy after being withdrawn from Russia... it did contribute in a way), but together with the more important air and naval wars and the idly tied down divisions in places like Norway, and it adds to almost half (definitely well over third) of the German war effort, plus the lower German war production (perhaps over 30% by 1944), it's quite significant. Throw in the US supplies to the USSR (like spam given in soldiers' rations) and it's probably more than 50%. In fact, it's hard to see how the USSR could've won alone.

    Yes, that’s certainly true, one shouldn’t minimise the contributions of the western allies; something like the defeat of the Luftwaffe over the Reich in 1944 was a major achievement. Still, the popular image among many Westerners that Nazi Germany was defeated primarily by Americans storming Normandy beaches (it’s usually just Americans, even British, Canadians, Poles etc. usually don’t get mentioned) is pretty bizarre.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    I grew up in communist Hungary with the opposite image prevailing, with the Allied effort minimized, and only the Soviet effort lionized. Yes, the American view of US heroes liberating Europe on D-Day with no mention of Bagration is bizarre.
  68. reiner Tor says: • Website
    @Randal
    The problem with these arguments is that it's most likely no country in the world could have defeated Germany alone (although the US might have been able to survive a war by virtue of its continental security). If the Soviet Union could not have defeated Germany alone, certainly Britain, France and the US could not have. It was a collective effort.

    The reality is surely indisputable, though, that the Soviet Union took the lion's share of the military work of defeating Germany - the sheer scale of the warfare in Russia dwarfs all the rest of the fighting.

    Figures for the practical effects on war production of strategic bombing are disputed - for every study finding the kinds of huge effects you quote you will find others finding the contrary. Though for sure the vast majority of the bomb tonnages and the likely effectiveness of bombing was from 1943 onwards, and especially 1944 onwards, when the war had already been lost by Germany in Russia. There really was no coming back after Kursk.

    The problem with these arguments is that it’s most likely no country in the world could have defeated Germany alone (although the US might have been able to survive a war by virtue of its continental security). If the Soviet Union could not have defeated Germany alone, certainly Britain, France and the US could not have. It was a collective effort.

    We’re completely in agreement, also that the US would’ve survived but not won. (Some do argue, though, that the US would’ve been able to start dropping nukes on Germany. I’m a bit doubtful – nuking Japan required air supremacy, or else the bomber might be shot down, and the working bomb to be reverse engineered might end up in German hands… And it’s not like the Germans would’ve been unable to build a bomb, once the USSR was defeated.)

    The reality is surely indisputable, though, that the Soviet Union took the lion’s share of the military work of defeating Germany – the sheer scale of the warfare in Russia dwarfs all the rest of the fighting.

    That’s what I’m having an issue with. The Soviets sure took the lion’s share of the blood spilt, whereas the Western war effort was more capital intensive, but in terms of war production, the Western war was almost as large as the Eastern one, and if you add Lend Lease aid, then it will be very close to 50%. The Western war included the air war (with the destroyed German production capacity), naval war, the potential of an invasion which kept dozens of German divisions in the West even in 1941, and finally the ground campaigns, which in themselves were surely much smaller than the similar Soviet campaigns. In other words, it decreased German strength relative to Soviet strength by roughly 50%.

    Figures for the practical effects on war production of strategic bombing are disputed – for every study finding the kinds of huge effects you quote you will find others finding the contrary.

    The earlier studies purportedly showing no effect for the bombing are not very credible, at least later descriptions of the German war economy (like Overy, Tooze, Evans, etc.) all describe the effects as huge – and seriously, it’s obvious that the Germans had to reverse a lot of the centralization designed by Speer, they had to spend a lot of man hours on clearing the rubble, absenteeism grew enormously in the wake of bombings, etc.

    Though for sure the vast majority of the bomb tonnages and the likely effectiveness of bombing was from 1943 onwards, and especially 1944 onwards, when the war had already been lost by Germany in Russia. There really was no coming back after Kursk.

    There really was no coming back, but only because the Germans couldn’t concentrate all their efforts on the Eastern front (for example the tens of thousands of anti-aircraft guns or fighter planes could’ve served the Eastern Front just as well…), and also their efforts to increase production to its true potential were dampened by the bombing campaign. Don’t forget that for example German logistics was to get simpler as the front was moving closer to the German borders. There was no reason for the Soviets to be able to continue on to Berlin, if it weren’t for the bombing campaign destroying German infrastructure and the Germans having to split their resources between fighting the Soviets and fighting the rest.

    The Soviets simply lost a lot of lives (a not insignificant portion of it due to the idiocy or incompetence of their own military and civilian leaderships), but the Germans weren’t destroyed by human sacrifice. The Soviets lost more soldiers and material in 1941 than in an subsequent year, yet they inflicted more damage on the Germans in any of the following years. It’s easy to see that sacrificing more soldiers doesn’t mean you contributed more to the victory – 1941 Soviets killed less Germans at a higher price than, say, 1943 or 1945 Soviets. Had the Soviets stayed as inept as they had been in 1941, they would never have stopped the Germans, much less reached Berlin, even with all the Western help they got. If we can accept that Soviet contributions to destroying the German war effort were not proportional to their own losses (higher Soviet losses, yet smaller German losses, in 1941, than in 1944), then we have to accept that it wasn’t proportional between the Western Allies and the USSR – the Allies waged a capital intensive war (with relatively little human losses, but relatively large quantities of weapons built and lost), while the Soviets a labor-intensive war, with enormous human sacrifice. Both sides used what they had – the Soviets had a lot of high-quality soldiers and workers willing to make the sacrifice, but little capital, while the Americans had all the capital needed and then some more, but their population was less willing to accept sacrifice. (It was still probably capable of withstanding way higher losses than it really did have to endure.)

    I’m not sure if we’re in disagreement here.

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader

    The Western war included the air war (with the destroyed German production capacity)
     
    I'm not sure you can say it destroyed German production capacity, more like "put a ceiling on it". After all German production of war materiel still increased by a lot during the later war years.
    I think it's also important to note the time frame...iirc the bomber offensive with heavy four-engined bombers really only took off in spring or summer 1943. That was after Stalingrad and shortly before/at the same time as Kursk. It's certainly true that consequently it made it harder for the Germans to recover from their setbacks on the Eastern front as you write, but I don't think Allied bombing played much of a role in making Soviet successes at Stalingrad and Kursk possible.
    , @Anatoly Karlin

    If we can accept that Soviet contributions to destroying the German war effort were not proportional to their own losses (higher Soviet losses, yet smaller German losses, in 1941, than in 1944), then we have to accept that it wasn’t proportional between the Western Allies and the USSR – the Allies waged a capital intensive war (with relatively little human losses, but relatively large quantities of weapons built and lost), while the Soviets a labor-intensive war, with enormous human sacrifice.
     
    I certainly agree with all of that.

    It is highly unlikely that the Soviets could have defeated or even survived against Nazi Germany on their own - not so much because of the absolute volume of aid (Lend Lease accounted for 5% of Soviet military production in 1942, and 10% in 1943 and 1944) but because it filled in critical gaps in the centrally planned Soviet economy (esp. telephone wires, aviation fuel) and because the margin separating the USSR from all-out collapse in 1943 and especially 1942 was very tight and even modest amounts of aid might have been critical.

    The bombing campaign put a ceiling on German war production in 1943 and esp. 1944-45 but wasn't really critical by that point (that said, the Germans would have been able to mount a much better defense and perhaps stabilize the frontline in 1943 without the Allies attritioning their air power). The Nazis' main mistake was to wait until early 1943 to start moving towards a total war economy.
    , @Andrei Martyanov

    That’s what I’m having an issue with. The Soviets sure took the lion’s share of the blood spilt, whereas the Western war effort was more capital intensive, but in terms of war production, the Western war was almost as large as the Eastern one, and if you add Lend Lease aid, then it will be very close to 50%. The Western war included the air war (with the destroyed German production capacity), naval war, the potential of an invasion which kept dozens of German divisions in the West even in 1941, and finally the ground campaigns, which in themselves were surely much smaller than the similar Soviet campaigns.
     
    With all due respect, but this is plainly highly unprofessional from any military (from strategy down to the very tactical level) POV to judge things like that. But that is, and I apologize if I hurt someone's sensibilities--this is unintentional, what dominates posts about WW II (or any modern war) on so many forums, this one included. War is NOT a linear affair--never was. We may discuss here (and I wrote it in my blog) until the hell freezes over virtues (or otherwise) of Osipov-Lanchester Differential Equations (Model--in reality system of equations) but they do give a framework which allows to judge relation of forces in operations which is always NON-Linear. Moreover, discussing WW II without considering interaction of fighting doctrines (Blitzkrieg and Deep Operation) respectively, without understanding of the materiel involved (from daily rations to how logistics works, to how losses are calculated) . There is a reason why best military historians are former military--they have academic background (some after General Staff Academies) to relate that, this is also a reason why those very same historians could be a virtuoso falsifiers. Such as defeated Wehrmacht Generals who left a truck load of self-serving and virtuoso excuses filled memoirs which for decades influenced Anglo-American view on WW II.

    As per highlighted phrase in your quote--you are missing obvious: USSR was able to maintain, supply, reinforce and arm (granted with some help from Lend-Lease, especially after 1943) on average a 6-7 million strong regular armed forces, which for four years were engaged constantly in the warfare of a ferocity never recorded or repeated since in human history. Red Air Force alone flew in excess of 3.5 million sorties and, btw, ended WW II being largest and most experienced operational-tactical air force in the world. Talking about capital intensive: remember Soviets produced world-class tanks, aircraft, artillery etc. ? To really give you some sense of Lend-Lease role, here is the scan from US West Point Military Academy outstanding WW II History, under the supervision of General Brigadier Griess and West Point's History Department. This is how it reads:

    http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-A-bbcZU50dU/VjT_cQAbxDI/AAAAAAAAAOo/vC-BHm5guJc/s1600/West-Point_3.jpg

    Good luck in your (serious) study of WW II if you want to pursue it.
    , @Alberto Campos
    Hey, don't pretend to be an expert in these matters and a master on percentages, you're annoyingly dull.
  69. @Randal
    I recall liking Robin Neillands' book "Bomber War: Arthur Harris and the Allied Bomber Offensive 1939-1945" quite a few years ago.

    Have never heard of it tbh. I know there still are many sympathetic treatments of Harris in Britain (and some years ago I actually bought one – a biography by Henry Probert – as a present for my father), but he comes across pretty badly in Overy’s recent book, stubbornly insisting on area bombing despite the criticism the policy aroused even at the time. One thing that actually shocked me somewhat was that in 1944 he would have liked to firebomb French cities. He wasn’t allowed to do that by Churchill due to political (and maybe humanitarian) considerations, but in any case his behaviour and views were pretty extreme even by the standards of the time.

    Read More
  70. OutWest says:
    @Felix Krull

    We need to get out of NATO and let Europeans organize their own collective defense, if they have the will.
     
    Last time an European country - France - organized their own defense, Washington had kittens and they still haven't forgiven the French.

    Speaking as a Dane, I'd love to stop acquiring the useless fighter aircraft we're obliged to buy from Lockheed at an eye-watering price and spend the money where you get the biggest bang for the buck. But I somehow doubt that 28 new nuclear states would be applauded by America.

    Washington wants Europe to not rapproach with Russia, and if you want to call the tune, you have to pay the piper.

    Actually, “America” sees the benefit of working with rather than against with Russia. If Europe has matured beyond the state that brought on the two immediate past wars, why shouldn’t the U.S. butt out?

    Read More
  71. reiner Tor says: • Website
    @German_reader
    Yes, that's certainly true, one shouldn't minimise the contributions of the western allies; something like the defeat of the Luftwaffe over the Reich in 1944 was a major achievement. Still, the popular image among many Westerners that Nazi Germany was defeated primarily by Americans storming Normandy beaches (it's usually just Americans, even British, Canadians, Poles etc. usually don't get mentioned) is pretty bizarre.

    I grew up in communist Hungary with the opposite image prevailing, with the Allied effort minimized, and only the Soviet effort lionized. Yes, the American view of US heroes liberating Europe on D-Day with no mention of Bagration is bizarre.

    Read More
    • Replies: @David In TN
    Since at least the 1970's the Soviets have been given credit in the United States for their contribution to defeating Hitler.

    I recall editorials in American newspapers lionizing Marshal Zhukov for his part in the Allied cause when Zhukov died in 1974.
  72. @reiner Tor

    The problem with these arguments is that it’s most likely no country in the world could have defeated Germany alone (although the US might have been able to survive a war by virtue of its continental security). If the Soviet Union could not have defeated Germany alone, certainly Britain, France and the US could not have. It was a collective effort.
     
    We're completely in agreement, also that the US would've survived but not won. (Some do argue, though, that the US would've been able to start dropping nukes on Germany. I'm a bit doubtful - nuking Japan required air supremacy, or else the bomber might be shot down, and the working bomb to be reverse engineered might end up in German hands... And it's not like the Germans would've been unable to build a bomb, once the USSR was defeated.)

    The reality is surely indisputable, though, that the Soviet Union took the lion’s share of the military work of defeating Germany – the sheer scale of the warfare in Russia dwarfs all the rest of the fighting.
     
    That's what I'm having an issue with. The Soviets sure took the lion's share of the blood spilt, whereas the Western war effort was more capital intensive, but in terms of war production, the Western war was almost as large as the Eastern one, and if you add Lend Lease aid, then it will be very close to 50%. The Western war included the air war (with the destroyed German production capacity), naval war, the potential of an invasion which kept dozens of German divisions in the West even in 1941, and finally the ground campaigns, which in themselves were surely much smaller than the similar Soviet campaigns. In other words, it decreased German strength relative to Soviet strength by roughly 50%.

    Figures for the practical effects on war production of strategic bombing are disputed – for every study finding the kinds of huge effects you quote you will find others finding the contrary.
     
    The earlier studies purportedly showing no effect for the bombing are not very credible, at least later descriptions of the German war economy (like Overy, Tooze, Evans, etc.) all describe the effects as huge - and seriously, it's obvious that the Germans had to reverse a lot of the centralization designed by Speer, they had to spend a lot of man hours on clearing the rubble, absenteeism grew enormously in the wake of bombings, etc.

    Though for sure the vast majority of the bomb tonnages and the likely effectiveness of bombing was from 1943 onwards, and especially 1944 onwards, when the war had already been lost by Germany in Russia. There really was no coming back after Kursk.
     
    There really was no coming back, but only because the Germans couldn't concentrate all their efforts on the Eastern front (for example the tens of thousands of anti-aircraft guns or fighter planes could've served the Eastern Front just as well...), and also their efforts to increase production to its true potential were dampened by the bombing campaign. Don't forget that for example German logistics was to get simpler as the front was moving closer to the German borders. There was no reason for the Soviets to be able to continue on to Berlin, if it weren't for the bombing campaign destroying German infrastructure and the Germans having to split their resources between fighting the Soviets and fighting the rest.

    The Soviets simply lost a lot of lives (a not insignificant portion of it due to the idiocy or incompetence of their own military and civilian leaderships), but the Germans weren't destroyed by human sacrifice. The Soviets lost more soldiers and material in 1941 than in an subsequent year, yet they inflicted more damage on the Germans in any of the following years. It's easy to see that sacrificing more soldiers doesn't mean you contributed more to the victory - 1941 Soviets killed less Germans at a higher price than, say, 1943 or 1945 Soviets. Had the Soviets stayed as inept as they had been in 1941, they would never have stopped the Germans, much less reached Berlin, even with all the Western help they got. If we can accept that Soviet contributions to destroying the German war effort were not proportional to their own losses (higher Soviet losses, yet smaller German losses, in 1941, than in 1944), then we have to accept that it wasn't proportional between the Western Allies and the USSR - the Allies waged a capital intensive war (with relatively little human losses, but relatively large quantities of weapons built and lost), while the Soviets a labor-intensive war, with enormous human sacrifice. Both sides used what they had - the Soviets had a lot of high-quality soldiers and workers willing to make the sacrifice, but little capital, while the Americans had all the capital needed and then some more, but their population was less willing to accept sacrifice. (It was still probably capable of withstanding way higher losses than it really did have to endure.)

    I'm not sure if we're in disagreement here.

    The Western war included the air war (with the destroyed German production capacity)

    I’m not sure you can say it destroyed German production capacity, more like “put a ceiling on it”. After all German production of war materiel still increased by a lot during the later war years.
    I think it’s also important to note the time frame…iirc the bomber offensive with heavy four-engined bombers really only took off in spring or summer 1943. That was after Stalingrad and shortly before/at the same time as Kursk. It’s certainly true that consequently it made it harder for the Germans to recover from their setbacks on the Eastern front as you write, but I don’t think Allied bombing played much of a role in making Soviet successes at Stalingrad and Kursk possible.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    I should've written "destroyed a portion of" said capacity - in my mind, if Germany was capable of producing maybe 30,000 battle tanks in 1944, but only managed to produce 19,000 of them because of the air campaign, then a capacity of 11,000 was destroyed. Also, it was completely destroyed in some industries, most notably synthetic fuel production all but stopped by late summer 1944. But yes, perhaps "put a ceiling to" is a better way to express it. (Also, the German war economy really was destroyed from the air in the sense that by spring 1945 production collapsed, and because transportation largely ground to a halt, too, in late March and April 1945 Allied troops encountered thousands of fully assembled tanks at factory sites and railway junctions waiting to be transported to the front line, but of course no trains could pick them up because by that time railway traffic dropped by over 50% due to the bombing campaign. So German production capacity really was destroyed by spring 1945 from the air - yes, it didn't change the outcome, except it probably saved the lives of hundreds of thousands of Soviet, Allied (and paradoxically probably also German) soldiers by further weakening German resistance.
  73. @reiner Tor
    I grew up in communist Hungary with the opposite image prevailing, with the Allied effort minimized, and only the Soviet effort lionized. Yes, the American view of US heroes liberating Europe on D-Day with no mention of Bagration is bizarre.

    Since at least the 1970′s the Soviets have been given credit in the United States for their contribution to defeating Hitler.

    I recall editorials in American newspapers lionizing Marshal Zhukov for his part in the Allied cause when Zhukov died in 1974.

    Read More
  74. @reiner Tor

    Nor is it at all clear that Soviet forces could have occupied Warsaw already in August 1944, had they received orders to do so.
     
    Even if they could, it would've cost them enormous amounts of blood.

    Soviets didn’t have to spill their own blood. There was a lot of Poles around to do the dying. Berling’s First Polish People Army tried to send help across Vistula. Without artillery and material support he couldn’t do much apart from sending warm bodies in pontoons.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    You are correct about the later effort of the First Army of the LWP, when Stalin really didn't provide them with enough support. It was also quite late for the Polish troops trapped in Warsaw anyway.

    But I'm not sure how much material supply was available in early August, for example I remember that one tank corps only had maybe four serviceable tanks, and artillery was also difficult to supply with ammunition or even to transport to the frontline, so fast had the frontline advanced. The Soviet forces had been several hundreds of kilometers to the east less than six weeks earlier, so their supply lines were very long, which overstretched their logistical capabilities.

    Another point is that I think it even took some time for the communist army units to reach Warsaw, because originally they were fighting around Lwów (also known as Lemberg, in the USSR Lvov, present day Lviv), and they needed to be transferred to the Warsaw frontline. So it was out of the question for them to immediately be sent to help the Warsaw Uprising.

    Let me also make the point that obviously Stalin was quite happy to see Poles and Germans massacring each other, here he was hoping for a battle in which both sides would lose. But it's a separate question whether he actually could have helped the Warsaw Uprising at the beginning of August, had he wanted to.

    As everything here, I'm writing mostly off the top of my head, so I hope I don't get many details wrong.
  75. @JamesG
    One thing I've learned today: old Stalinoids never die.

    Apart from: brainless hence ignorant vegetables are also able to type things and participate in fora like this one.

    Read More
  76. anon says: • Disclaimer

    Muslim immigration is insane and suicidal. Those westerners who support it are either mad or traitors.

    Read More
  77. Rich says:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    I write will make any difference to your understanding of the Western Front, the North African campaign
     
    Sir, open wonderful series of US Army in WW II and start with ABC Conferences in early 1941 and start your study from there. Remember, though, the name, General Stanley Embick--he features prominently there. And then read about his memorandum at Casablanca Conference. Bringing up operation Torch against the background of a titanic scale of operations at Eastern Front is not indication of a good taste. In the end, try to read David Eisenhower's outstanding work about his glorious Grandfather and then try Colonels Glantz and House and their seminal:

    https://www.amazon.com/When-Titans-Clashed-Stopped-Studies/dp/0700608990

    2015 Edition. Highly recommend. I can not convey things better than they do.

    Because your mind is already made up, I won’t bother to give you the long list of books written by historians who believe the Soviets would have been defeated if not for the intervention of the US. Yes, there are often disagreements among historians, you’ve chosen to believe those who for some reason want to minimize the American contribution, while inflating the Soviet contribution. Nothing I point out to you will have any effect. Just remember it was the glorious Red Army that raped little children and old women with the full consent of their commanders. Such an Army is a disgrace and deserves credit for nothing.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    there are often disagreements among historians, you’ve chosen to believe those who for some reason...

    In 2013, Putin vowed to create one approved line for school history books

    The regional education ministry in Sverdlovsk, near the Ural Mountains, issued a decree telling school and university libraries to 'check the availability of books' by the historians and 'take measures to remove them from access by students and teaching staff'.

    Beevor's award-winning bestsellers, particularly 'Berlin: The Downfall 1945', have been criticised in Russia for focusing on appalling atrocities committed by the advancing Red Army.

    Books by British historians that focus on Red Army atrocities are stripped from Russian libraries after officials say they promote 'Nazi-era stereotypes'

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3186267/Books-British-historians-focus-Red-Army-atrocities-stripped-Russian-libraries-officials-say-promote-Nazi-era-stereotypes.html#ixzz4mUP7ElDV
    , @Alberto Campos
    So are they "historians" or military analysts? That says it all.

    And for the rapes - none was perpetrated by the Wehrmacht before, when invading and massacre entire villages, of course. Not even in England by US soldiers even before starting fighting, of course. Shame on you.
    , @annamaria
    Let me guess, you are from the land of the "most moral" army (IDF).
  78. @reiner Tor

    The problem with these arguments is that it’s most likely no country in the world could have defeated Germany alone (although the US might have been able to survive a war by virtue of its continental security). If the Soviet Union could not have defeated Germany alone, certainly Britain, France and the US could not have. It was a collective effort.
     
    We're completely in agreement, also that the US would've survived but not won. (Some do argue, though, that the US would've been able to start dropping nukes on Germany. I'm a bit doubtful - nuking Japan required air supremacy, or else the bomber might be shot down, and the working bomb to be reverse engineered might end up in German hands... And it's not like the Germans would've been unable to build a bomb, once the USSR was defeated.)

    The reality is surely indisputable, though, that the Soviet Union took the lion’s share of the military work of defeating Germany – the sheer scale of the warfare in Russia dwarfs all the rest of the fighting.
     
    That's what I'm having an issue with. The Soviets sure took the lion's share of the blood spilt, whereas the Western war effort was more capital intensive, but in terms of war production, the Western war was almost as large as the Eastern one, and if you add Lend Lease aid, then it will be very close to 50%. The Western war included the air war (with the destroyed German production capacity), naval war, the potential of an invasion which kept dozens of German divisions in the West even in 1941, and finally the ground campaigns, which in themselves were surely much smaller than the similar Soviet campaigns. In other words, it decreased German strength relative to Soviet strength by roughly 50%.

    Figures for the practical effects on war production of strategic bombing are disputed – for every study finding the kinds of huge effects you quote you will find others finding the contrary.
     
    The earlier studies purportedly showing no effect for the bombing are not very credible, at least later descriptions of the German war economy (like Overy, Tooze, Evans, etc.) all describe the effects as huge - and seriously, it's obvious that the Germans had to reverse a lot of the centralization designed by Speer, they had to spend a lot of man hours on clearing the rubble, absenteeism grew enormously in the wake of bombings, etc.

    Though for sure the vast majority of the bomb tonnages and the likely effectiveness of bombing was from 1943 onwards, and especially 1944 onwards, when the war had already been lost by Germany in Russia. There really was no coming back after Kursk.
     
    There really was no coming back, but only because the Germans couldn't concentrate all their efforts on the Eastern front (for example the tens of thousands of anti-aircraft guns or fighter planes could've served the Eastern Front just as well...), and also their efforts to increase production to its true potential were dampened by the bombing campaign. Don't forget that for example German logistics was to get simpler as the front was moving closer to the German borders. There was no reason for the Soviets to be able to continue on to Berlin, if it weren't for the bombing campaign destroying German infrastructure and the Germans having to split their resources between fighting the Soviets and fighting the rest.

    The Soviets simply lost a lot of lives (a not insignificant portion of it due to the idiocy or incompetence of their own military and civilian leaderships), but the Germans weren't destroyed by human sacrifice. The Soviets lost more soldiers and material in 1941 than in an subsequent year, yet they inflicted more damage on the Germans in any of the following years. It's easy to see that sacrificing more soldiers doesn't mean you contributed more to the victory - 1941 Soviets killed less Germans at a higher price than, say, 1943 or 1945 Soviets. Had the Soviets stayed as inept as they had been in 1941, they would never have stopped the Germans, much less reached Berlin, even with all the Western help they got. If we can accept that Soviet contributions to destroying the German war effort were not proportional to their own losses (higher Soviet losses, yet smaller German losses, in 1941, than in 1944), then we have to accept that it wasn't proportional between the Western Allies and the USSR - the Allies waged a capital intensive war (with relatively little human losses, but relatively large quantities of weapons built and lost), while the Soviets a labor-intensive war, with enormous human sacrifice. Both sides used what they had - the Soviets had a lot of high-quality soldiers and workers willing to make the sacrifice, but little capital, while the Americans had all the capital needed and then some more, but their population was less willing to accept sacrifice. (It was still probably capable of withstanding way higher losses than it really did have to endure.)

    I'm not sure if we're in disagreement here.

    If we can accept that Soviet contributions to destroying the German war effort were not proportional to their own losses (higher Soviet losses, yet smaller German losses, in 1941, than in 1944), then we have to accept that it wasn’t proportional between the Western Allies and the USSR – the Allies waged a capital intensive war (with relatively little human losses, but relatively large quantities of weapons built and lost), while the Soviets a labor-intensive war, with enormous human sacrifice.

    I certainly agree with all of that.

    It is highly unlikely that the Soviets could have defeated or even survived against Nazi Germany on their own – not so much because of the absolute volume of aid (Lend Lease accounted for 5% of Soviet military production in 1942, and 10% in 1943 and 1944) but because it filled in critical gaps in the centrally planned Soviet economy (esp. telephone wires, aviation fuel) and because the margin separating the USSR from all-out collapse in 1943 and especially 1942 was very tight and even modest amounts of aid might have been critical.

    The bombing campaign put a ceiling on German war production in 1943 and esp. 1944-45 but wasn’t really critical by that point (that said, the Germans would have been able to mount a much better defense and perhaps stabilize the frontline in 1943 without the Allies attritioning their air power). The Nazis’ main mistake was to wait until early 1943 to start moving towards a total war economy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov

    but because it filled in critical gaps in the centrally planned Soviet economy (esp. telephone wires, aviation fuel) and because the margin separating the USSR from all-out collapse in 194
     
    Anatoly, with all due respect. There are several levels of wrong in this short phrase. I'll give you a hint about one--even by November of 1942, even before Operation Uran there was no any "margin separating USSR from collapse". This is the first time I read anything like this. After 23 November 1942 it became obvious to anyone, from STAVKA to OKW (Oberkommando der Wehrmacht) that that was it for Axis. Alexander Werth, who spent most of his time in USSR during WW II, left wonderful descriptions about this time in his now classic Russia At War. Hell, I guess my parents and grandparents lied to me at that time.

    P.S. Recall the fate of PQ-17 Convoy and the start of the Battle of Stalingrad.
    , @reiner Tor

    The Nazis’ main mistake was to wait until early 1943 to start moving towards a total war economy.
     
    I think it's a common misconception.

    Mistakes were made in the economy, but the economy was set on war footing already by 1941. The problems were multifold.

    1) The major European war started earlier than the Germans expected (Hitler only wanted a short little war against Poland in 1939), so a lot of the German investment programs (building synthetic fuel and synthetic rubber capacity, building a number of new factories, etc.) only bore fruit by 1942, after which they were often scaled down. (And some of them, like the Buna chemical factory in Auschwitz, weren't finished even by 1945, the Buna chemical plant started production only in 1950s communist Poland.) The German investment program was so heavy, and often geared to quantity over quality (buying for example multi-purpose machine tools instead of tools geared to specific weapons which couldn't later be upgraded), that German machine tool capacity stood in 1945 at roughly late 1930s levels, helping to make the later German economic miracle possible. It also meant that a lot of the production capacity which could've been geared to producing weapons was instead geared to produce investments for later war production. The problem was, of course, that by the time these capacities came in line, the war was lost for good.

    2) The German army demanded endless improvements and multiple variants of the same weapons, which fit smaller workshops well, but suppressed production numbers in large factories. In fact, smaller workshops should've been closed down by 1941 (because they used up a lot of resources for relatively little production, even if their production was of good quality), but it happened way slower than necessary, because Hitler allowed the German army to have too large influence over war production for too long. (Eventually German generals responsible for war production also came around to the view that after a point quantity was way more important than quality, but it took them very long.)

    3) Meanwhile, living standards dropped very quickly, in fact, according to Overy and others between 1939 and 1941 they dropped more than between 1941 and 1945. So it really was a war economy in the sense that over half of the GDP was spent on the war effort. It just wasn't very efficient. For all the stereotypes about German efficiency and Russian lousiness (to which I think there is a lot of truth), the Soviet war economy was organized in a more efficient way. Again, Lend Lease helped them enormously because it filled in crucial gaps, but a lot of credit should go to Stalin, Voznesensky, and the civilian leadership in general. The Germans also made a lot of huge mistakes in the economic policies, mainly by not rationalizing production fast enough after 1939.
  79. @reiner Tor

    The problem with these arguments is that it’s most likely no country in the world could have defeated Germany alone (although the US might have been able to survive a war by virtue of its continental security). If the Soviet Union could not have defeated Germany alone, certainly Britain, France and the US could not have. It was a collective effort.
     
    We're completely in agreement, also that the US would've survived but not won. (Some do argue, though, that the US would've been able to start dropping nukes on Germany. I'm a bit doubtful - nuking Japan required air supremacy, or else the bomber might be shot down, and the working bomb to be reverse engineered might end up in German hands... And it's not like the Germans would've been unable to build a bomb, once the USSR was defeated.)

    The reality is surely indisputable, though, that the Soviet Union took the lion’s share of the military work of defeating Germany – the sheer scale of the warfare in Russia dwarfs all the rest of the fighting.
     
    That's what I'm having an issue with. The Soviets sure took the lion's share of the blood spilt, whereas the Western war effort was more capital intensive, but in terms of war production, the Western war was almost as large as the Eastern one, and if you add Lend Lease aid, then it will be very close to 50%. The Western war included the air war (with the destroyed German production capacity), naval war, the potential of an invasion which kept dozens of German divisions in the West even in 1941, and finally the ground campaigns, which in themselves were surely much smaller than the similar Soviet campaigns. In other words, it decreased German strength relative to Soviet strength by roughly 50%.

    Figures for the practical effects on war production of strategic bombing are disputed – for every study finding the kinds of huge effects you quote you will find others finding the contrary.
     
    The earlier studies purportedly showing no effect for the bombing are not very credible, at least later descriptions of the German war economy (like Overy, Tooze, Evans, etc.) all describe the effects as huge - and seriously, it's obvious that the Germans had to reverse a lot of the centralization designed by Speer, they had to spend a lot of man hours on clearing the rubble, absenteeism grew enormously in the wake of bombings, etc.

    Though for sure the vast majority of the bomb tonnages and the likely effectiveness of bombing was from 1943 onwards, and especially 1944 onwards, when the war had already been lost by Germany in Russia. There really was no coming back after Kursk.
     
    There really was no coming back, but only because the Germans couldn't concentrate all their efforts on the Eastern front (for example the tens of thousands of anti-aircraft guns or fighter planes could've served the Eastern Front just as well...), and also their efforts to increase production to its true potential were dampened by the bombing campaign. Don't forget that for example German logistics was to get simpler as the front was moving closer to the German borders. There was no reason for the Soviets to be able to continue on to Berlin, if it weren't for the bombing campaign destroying German infrastructure and the Germans having to split their resources between fighting the Soviets and fighting the rest.

    The Soviets simply lost a lot of lives (a not insignificant portion of it due to the idiocy or incompetence of their own military and civilian leaderships), but the Germans weren't destroyed by human sacrifice. The Soviets lost more soldiers and material in 1941 than in an subsequent year, yet they inflicted more damage on the Germans in any of the following years. It's easy to see that sacrificing more soldiers doesn't mean you contributed more to the victory - 1941 Soviets killed less Germans at a higher price than, say, 1943 or 1945 Soviets. Had the Soviets stayed as inept as they had been in 1941, they would never have stopped the Germans, much less reached Berlin, even with all the Western help they got. If we can accept that Soviet contributions to destroying the German war effort were not proportional to their own losses (higher Soviet losses, yet smaller German losses, in 1941, than in 1944), then we have to accept that it wasn't proportional between the Western Allies and the USSR - the Allies waged a capital intensive war (with relatively little human losses, but relatively large quantities of weapons built and lost), while the Soviets a labor-intensive war, with enormous human sacrifice. Both sides used what they had - the Soviets had a lot of high-quality soldiers and workers willing to make the sacrifice, but little capital, while the Americans had all the capital needed and then some more, but their population was less willing to accept sacrifice. (It was still probably capable of withstanding way higher losses than it really did have to endure.)

    I'm not sure if we're in disagreement here.

    That’s what I’m having an issue with. The Soviets sure took the lion’s share of the blood spilt, whereas the Western war effort was more capital intensive, but in terms of war production, the Western war was almost as large as the Eastern one, and if you add Lend Lease aid, then it will be very close to 50%. The Western war included the air war (with the destroyed German production capacity), naval war, the potential of an invasion which kept dozens of German divisions in the West even in 1941, and finally the ground campaigns, which in themselves were surely much smaller than the similar Soviet campaigns.

    With all due respect, but this is plainly highly unprofessional from any military (from strategy down to the very tactical level) POV to judge things like that. But that is, and I apologize if I hurt someone’s sensibilities–this is unintentional, what dominates posts about WW II (or any modern war) on so many forums, this one included. War is NOT a linear affair–never was. We may discuss here (and I wrote it in my blog) until the hell freezes over virtues (or otherwise) of Osipov-Lanchester Differential Equations (Model–in reality system of equations) but they do give a framework which allows to judge relation of forces in operations which is always NON-Linear. Moreover, discussing WW II without considering interaction of fighting doctrines (Blitzkrieg and Deep Operation) respectively, without understanding of the materiel involved (from daily rations to how logistics works, to how losses are calculated) . There is a reason why best military historians are former military–they have academic background (some after General Staff Academies) to relate that, this is also a reason why those very same historians could be a virtuoso falsifiers. Such as defeated Wehrmacht Generals who left a truck load of self-serving and virtuoso excuses filled memoirs which for decades influenced Anglo-American view on WW II.

    As per highlighted phrase in your quote–you are missing obvious: USSR was able to maintain, supply, reinforce and arm (granted with some help from Lend-Lease, especially after 1943) on average a 6-7 million strong regular armed forces, which for four years were engaged constantly in the warfare of a ferocity never recorded or repeated since in human history. Red Air Force alone flew in excess of 3.5 million sorties and, btw, ended WW II being largest and most experienced operational-tactical air force in the world. Talking about capital intensive: remember Soviets produced world-class tanks, aircraft, artillery etc. ? To really give you some sense of Lend-Lease role, here is the scan from US West Point Military Academy outstanding WW II History, under the supervision of General Brigadier Griess and West Point’s History Department. This is how it reads:

    Good luck in your (serious) study of WW II if you want to pursue it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @KenH

    Such as defeated Wehrmacht Generals who left a truck load of self-serving and virtuoso excuses filled memoirs which for decades influenced Anglo-American view on WW II.
     
    As if Russians or Russian generals are totally incapable of serving up self serving accounts of WWII and any failures in that conflict. Soviet Russia was great at airbrushing military failures and embarrassments from official accounts or blaming it on "saboteurs". Operation Mars, where the Russian offensive to dislodge the Wehrmact from their defensive positions west of Moscow, was one such account. Zhukov's army was torn to shreds but this was concealed to preserve Zhukov's reputation.

    https://www.amazon.com/Zhukovs-Greatest-Defeat-Operation-Paperback/dp/0700614176
    , @reiner Tor

    War is NOT a linear affair–never was.
     
    I never stated it was. Just to give a few examples what I meant.

    Red Air Force alone flew in excess of 3.5 million sorties and, btw, ended WW II being largest and most experienced operational-tactical air force in the world.
     
    Over half of its fuel supply came from the Americans, as well as 10% of the airplanes themselves. All the while German airplane production could've been at least 30-40% higher by 1944 without the air war, and most or all of the Luftwaffe could've been employed on the Eastern Front instead of a mere third of it. Tens of thousands of anti-aircraft guns (granted, many of them would've been used as anti-tank or regular artillery, of which they were also capable of). How much weaker would the Soviet air force have been if the German air force on the Eastern front was three or four times larger (perhaps more, because German air losses would also have been smaller without the air war), with more fuel (because both Romanian oil and synthetic fuel production would've been higher without the bombing campaign), more experienced pilots (again, less losses in the West)?

    Talking about capital intensive: remember Soviets produced world-class tanks, aircraft, artillery etc. ?
     
    You are correct, but we are in agreement, because I meant it in relative terms. The Soviet war effort was way more labor intensive than the Western war effort. Compared to China or even Japan, the Soviet war effort was quite capital intensive, indeed, especially in the summer of 1941, and then again after late 1942. (In the winter of 1941-42 its capital intensity reached its low point.)

    granted with some help from Lend-Lease, especially after 1943
     
    In late 1942 the Caucasus front already had a huge portion of its supplies coming from the Persian Corridor. Otherwise it's even questionable how they would've been able to supply these forces at all, what with Stalingrad all but cut off. I already mentioned it to Anatoly, as well as the fact that in fall 1942 Hungarian troops fighting at Voronezh found American cans of meat on captured or killed Soviet soldiers. Soviet soldiers were eating better due to Lend Lease (at least in the important areas of operations - Voronezh was to the north of Stalingrad, maybe in the north soldiers didn't yet eat that well), which cannot but have positively affected their moral and their sheer physical ability to fight under extremely demanding conditions, especially in the winter.

    But after 1943 the arrival of hundreds of thousands of trucks significantly increased Soviet troop mobility. This no doubt enormously contributed to the Germans' inability to stop the Soviet advances, especially with the German supply lines considerably shorter in the second half of 1943 than they had been in fall 1942. Still, it was impossible to stop them, because the Soviet army got more and more motorized, while the German army even lost the motorization it had already possessed when in 1941 they attacked. Motorized (or from 1943 Panzergrenadier) and Panzer divisions were usually motorized in name only.

    Especially if war is not linear, these profound changes in the equation must have helped the Soviets enormously. Which is why I think that despite the occasional setbacks (like Stalingrad) Germany would've won the war of attrition that set in by late 1942, simply because it had a considerably larger industrial capacity and just a little bit smaller population 1941-43 (don't forget that the Soviet population was perhaps 120-140 million 1941-43, simply because a lot of the population was under German occupation), but in control of large portions of the rest of Europe.
  80. @Anatoly Karlin

    If we can accept that Soviet contributions to destroying the German war effort were not proportional to their own losses (higher Soviet losses, yet smaller German losses, in 1941, than in 1944), then we have to accept that it wasn’t proportional between the Western Allies and the USSR – the Allies waged a capital intensive war (with relatively little human losses, but relatively large quantities of weapons built and lost), while the Soviets a labor-intensive war, with enormous human sacrifice.
     
    I certainly agree with all of that.

    It is highly unlikely that the Soviets could have defeated or even survived against Nazi Germany on their own - not so much because of the absolute volume of aid (Lend Lease accounted for 5% of Soviet military production in 1942, and 10% in 1943 and 1944) but because it filled in critical gaps in the centrally planned Soviet economy (esp. telephone wires, aviation fuel) and because the margin separating the USSR from all-out collapse in 1943 and especially 1942 was very tight and even modest amounts of aid might have been critical.

    The bombing campaign put a ceiling on German war production in 1943 and esp. 1944-45 but wasn't really critical by that point (that said, the Germans would have been able to mount a much better defense and perhaps stabilize the frontline in 1943 without the Allies attritioning their air power). The Nazis' main mistake was to wait until early 1943 to start moving towards a total war economy.

    but because it filled in critical gaps in the centrally planned Soviet economy (esp. telephone wires, aviation fuel) and because the margin separating the USSR from all-out collapse in 194

    Anatoly, with all due respect. There are several levels of wrong in this short phrase. I’ll give you a hint about one–even by November of 1942, even before Operation Uran there was no any “margin separating USSR from collapse”. This is the first time I read anything like this. After 23 November 1942 it became obvious to anyone, from STAVKA to OKW (Oberkommando der Wehrmacht) that that was it for Axis. Alexander Werth, who spent most of his time in USSR during WW II, left wonderful descriptions about this time in his now classic Russia At War. Hell, I guess my parents and grandparents lied to me at that time.

    P.S. Recall the fate of PQ-17 Convoy and the start of the Battle of Stalingrad.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin

    This is the first time I read anything like this.
     
    There's some interesting arguments by Mark Harrison to that effect:

    https://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/mharrison/public/totalwar2005.pdf
  81. utu says:
    @Rich
    Because your mind is already made up, I won't bother to give you the long list of books written by historians who believe the Soviets would have been defeated if not for the intervention of the US. Yes, there are often disagreements among historians, you've chosen to believe those who for some reason want to minimize the American contribution, while inflating the Soviet contribution. Nothing I point out to you will have any effect. Just remember it was the glorious Red Army that raped little children and old women with the full consent of their commanders. Such an Army is a disgrace and deserves credit for nothing.

    there are often disagreements among historians, you’ve chosen to believe those who for some reason…

    In 2013, Putin vowed to create one approved line for school history books

    The regional education ministry in Sverdlovsk, near the Ural Mountains, issued a decree telling school and university libraries to ‘check the availability of books’ by the historians and ‘take measures to remove them from access by students and teaching staff’.

    Beevor’s award-winning bestsellers, particularly ‘Berlin: The Downfall 1945′, have been criticised in Russia for focusing on appalling atrocities committed by the advancing Red Army.

    Books by British historians that focus on Red Army atrocities are stripped from Russian libraries after officials say they promote ‘Nazi-era stereotypes’

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3186267/Books-British-historians-focus-Red-Army-atrocities-stripped-Russian-libraries-officials-say-promote-Nazi-era-stereotypes.html#ixzz4mUP7ElDV

    Read More
    • Replies: @annamaria
    And you are lecturing us from Kiev - the same Kiev that that has reinstalled Bandera glory and allows neo-Nazi parades? Since the Russian language has become illegal in Ukraine after the ziocon putsch, what are your sources of information about Russian Federation?
  82. @Rich
    You actually believe that if Hitler had only been fighting a one front war he wouldn't have been able to defeat the Soviets? Obviously, if that's the starting point of the discussion, nothing I write will make any difference to your understanding of the Western Front, the North African campaign, the defeat of the Luftwaffe or the massive rapes of females from age 8 to 80 that the Red Army perpetrated.

    You parrot very well the “historians”, why don’t you start reading the researchers? It’s funny how some participants here lose their time trying to contest your comic books rhetoric. You should educate us more Batman and Mickey Mouse. Pleeeease!

    Read More
  83. @reiner Tor
    The air war and the naval war in themselves were pretty significant contributions. If you add the military involvements (like Torch etc.), which in themselves were pretty insignificant (but for example in the summer of 1943 you'll find some elite SS divisions like Das Reich in Italy after being withdrawn from Russia... it did contribute in a way), but together with the more important air and naval wars and the idly tied down divisions in places like Norway, and it adds to almost half (definitely well over third) of the German war effort, plus the lower German war production (perhaps over 30% by 1944), it's quite significant. Throw in the US supplies to the USSR (like spam given in soldiers' rations) and it's probably more than 50%. In fact, it's hard to see how the USSR could've won alone.

    “it’s hard to see how the USSR could’ve won alone”.
    You don’t mean “hard”, you mean “painful”.

    Sidebar: it was also hard, at the time, for “historians” like you, to see how the USSR could have crushed the Blitzkrieg tsunami alone between June and December 1941.

    Read More
  84. @reiner Tor

    The problem with these arguments is that it’s most likely no country in the world could have defeated Germany alone (although the US might have been able to survive a war by virtue of its continental security). If the Soviet Union could not have defeated Germany alone, certainly Britain, France and the US could not have. It was a collective effort.
     
    We're completely in agreement, also that the US would've survived but not won. (Some do argue, though, that the US would've been able to start dropping nukes on Germany. I'm a bit doubtful - nuking Japan required air supremacy, or else the bomber might be shot down, and the working bomb to be reverse engineered might end up in German hands... And it's not like the Germans would've been unable to build a bomb, once the USSR was defeated.)

    The reality is surely indisputable, though, that the Soviet Union took the lion’s share of the military work of defeating Germany – the sheer scale of the warfare in Russia dwarfs all the rest of the fighting.
     
    That's what I'm having an issue with. The Soviets sure took the lion's share of the blood spilt, whereas the Western war effort was more capital intensive, but in terms of war production, the Western war was almost as large as the Eastern one, and if you add Lend Lease aid, then it will be very close to 50%. The Western war included the air war (with the destroyed German production capacity), naval war, the potential of an invasion which kept dozens of German divisions in the West even in 1941, and finally the ground campaigns, which in themselves were surely much smaller than the similar Soviet campaigns. In other words, it decreased German strength relative to Soviet strength by roughly 50%.

    Figures for the practical effects on war production of strategic bombing are disputed – for every study finding the kinds of huge effects you quote you will find others finding the contrary.
     
    The earlier studies purportedly showing no effect for the bombing are not very credible, at least later descriptions of the German war economy (like Overy, Tooze, Evans, etc.) all describe the effects as huge - and seriously, it's obvious that the Germans had to reverse a lot of the centralization designed by Speer, they had to spend a lot of man hours on clearing the rubble, absenteeism grew enormously in the wake of bombings, etc.

    Though for sure the vast majority of the bomb tonnages and the likely effectiveness of bombing was from 1943 onwards, and especially 1944 onwards, when the war had already been lost by Germany in Russia. There really was no coming back after Kursk.
     
    There really was no coming back, but only because the Germans couldn't concentrate all their efforts on the Eastern front (for example the tens of thousands of anti-aircraft guns or fighter planes could've served the Eastern Front just as well...), and also their efforts to increase production to its true potential were dampened by the bombing campaign. Don't forget that for example German logistics was to get simpler as the front was moving closer to the German borders. There was no reason for the Soviets to be able to continue on to Berlin, if it weren't for the bombing campaign destroying German infrastructure and the Germans having to split their resources between fighting the Soviets and fighting the rest.

    The Soviets simply lost a lot of lives (a not insignificant portion of it due to the idiocy or incompetence of their own military and civilian leaderships), but the Germans weren't destroyed by human sacrifice. The Soviets lost more soldiers and material in 1941 than in an subsequent year, yet they inflicted more damage on the Germans in any of the following years. It's easy to see that sacrificing more soldiers doesn't mean you contributed more to the victory - 1941 Soviets killed less Germans at a higher price than, say, 1943 or 1945 Soviets. Had the Soviets stayed as inept as they had been in 1941, they would never have stopped the Germans, much less reached Berlin, even with all the Western help they got. If we can accept that Soviet contributions to destroying the German war effort were not proportional to their own losses (higher Soviet losses, yet smaller German losses, in 1941, than in 1944), then we have to accept that it wasn't proportional between the Western Allies and the USSR - the Allies waged a capital intensive war (with relatively little human losses, but relatively large quantities of weapons built and lost), while the Soviets a labor-intensive war, with enormous human sacrifice. Both sides used what they had - the Soviets had a lot of high-quality soldiers and workers willing to make the sacrifice, but little capital, while the Americans had all the capital needed and then some more, but their population was less willing to accept sacrifice. (It was still probably capable of withstanding way higher losses than it really did have to endure.)

    I'm not sure if we're in disagreement here.

    Hey, don’t pretend to be an expert in these matters and a master on percentages, you’re annoyingly dull.

    Read More
  85. Buddha says:

    There is a potential for some Katyn Forest action in many countries now. Iraq Ba’athists were recent examples of officers out of favor and their defenestration came to mean they went on to make Isis. That was a disaster for all people involved. Will American or Russian or EU or China policy cause some new country to be next to suffer elimination of officer class or other leaders and with bad consequences?

    Read More
  86. @Rich
    Because your mind is already made up, I won't bother to give you the long list of books written by historians who believe the Soviets would have been defeated if not for the intervention of the US. Yes, there are often disagreements among historians, you've chosen to believe those who for some reason want to minimize the American contribution, while inflating the Soviet contribution. Nothing I point out to you will have any effect. Just remember it was the glorious Red Army that raped little children and old women with the full consent of their commanders. Such an Army is a disgrace and deserves credit for nothing.

    So are they “historians” or military analysts? That says it all.

    And for the rapes – none was perpetrated by the Wehrmacht before, when invading and massacre entire villages, of course. Not even in England by US soldiers even before starting fighting, of course. Shame on you.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rich
    A historian can be a military analyst, and a military analyst can be a historian. A historian writing about war, has to be a military analyst, I'd think.
    The Red Army gave permission to soldiers to rape females from young children to old ladies. The Germans may have committed atrocities on their March eastward, but rape was still a crime and soldiers would be punished for it. In the Red Army soldiers who tried to prevent the abuse were arrested.
    And of course, any American soldier who committed rape would be prosecuted and if convicted faced serious punishment.
  87. @Andrei Martyanov

    but because it filled in critical gaps in the centrally planned Soviet economy (esp. telephone wires, aviation fuel) and because the margin separating the USSR from all-out collapse in 194
     
    Anatoly, with all due respect. There are several levels of wrong in this short phrase. I'll give you a hint about one--even by November of 1942, even before Operation Uran there was no any "margin separating USSR from collapse". This is the first time I read anything like this. After 23 November 1942 it became obvious to anyone, from STAVKA to OKW (Oberkommando der Wehrmacht) that that was it for Axis. Alexander Werth, who spent most of his time in USSR during WW II, left wonderful descriptions about this time in his now classic Russia At War. Hell, I guess my parents and grandparents lied to me at that time.

    P.S. Recall the fate of PQ-17 Convoy and the start of the Battle of Stalingrad.

    This is the first time I read anything like this.

    There’s some interesting arguments by Mark Harrison to that effect:

    https://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/mharrison/public/totalwar2005.pdf

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    It's important to note that the "collapse" of the USSR would've meant simply a serious enough economic crisis. With the most important oil production center in the Caucasus area cut off from the rest of the country, and the most important agricultural areas lost, while all of agriculture (including what was left of the major agricultural areas) already heavily mechanized and thus dependent on oil supplies. The country also had difficulties supplying coal. Had the Germans captured Moscow (probably the single most important rail junction) and Stalingrad (and perhaps Astrakhan, reducing the flow of oil to tankers on the Caspian), huge portions of the economy might've ground to a near-halt, all of which would've meant a drastic drop in military production and agricultural production and also distribution (since the railway system would also have been negatively impacted). The famine (well, there was starvation as it was, but it could've been much worse), in turn, would've further negatively impacted the industrial production and transportation, as rations would've been reduced below the necessary minimum for all non-workers, and workers would've tried to save their non-working relatives (especially children and perhaps elderly parents) by sharing some of their food with them. (This was a serious problem for coal and steel production in Germany and German-controlled areas, where the Germans found it difficult to provide adequate food rations to the workers: the food supply leaked to miners' and steel workers' families, and so the workers themselves weren't well-nourished enough to work at 100% capacity.)

    Such a serious economic crisis wouldn't have meant a complete stop to the fighting, nor is it likely that Stalin's system would've crumbled (all people in the communist party and officer class and police and even ordinary soldiers understood that they were not to survive German rule, so they would've desperately hung on to power by increasing coercion), but its military capabilities would've weakened enough for the Germans to occupy huge areas and consolidate their rule in the whole of European Russia.

    Regarding Lend Lease and how the USSR stopped the Germans without Lend Lease - the Persian Corridor was opened in the summer of 1942, and they provided most of the supplies to the Soviet troops fighting in the Caucasus, at a time when it would've been quite difficult to supply them because the most important railway line leading to the Caucasus was effectively cut off at Stalingrad. Hungarian troops fighting at Voronezh regularly found American cans of spam in the backpacks of captured or killed Soviet soldiers by late fall 1942. The Soviet air force already had air superiority or at least parity around Stalingrad by the time of Uranus, and this would have been all but impossible without two thirds of the German air force already fighting the Western Allies, as well as the supplies of aviation fuel.

    The supply of trucks proved crucial after 1943, when the Soviet offensive wouldn't have been able to maintain momentum without the mobility provided by the Studebakers. Yes, the USSR also produced trucks, but I think over half of the trucks came from American supplies. The Americans also supplied thousands of railway cars and locomotives, without which it would also have been quite difficult to rebuild supply lines with a few months after each successive offensive (until they reached Berlin). The view that by 1943 the war was essentially over is only correct because the Soviets had all these supplies and the Germans had to spend enormous resources to fight the air war.

    Even the much belittled land effort of the Western Allies was also significant (though admittedly smaller scale than the Eastern Front) already after November 1942, by May 1943 the North African campaign destroyed an Axis force equivalent in size to that of the force destroyed at Stalingrad (granted, a smaller proportion of these were Germans, but those were almost all elite divisions, and the force destroyed at Stalingrad also famously included Romanian and Italian troops), and by September 1943 Italy was out of the war, which forced the Germans to spare a million troops for occupation duties in Southern France, the Balkan peninsula, and Italy itself, as well as for the Italian front. It wasn't always second-rate troops either (though of course second-rate troops could also have been used to fight partisans in the USSR, too, as partisan warfare was getting worse at precisely that time - or those people could've been released from the army and sent to work in military production), the elite Waffen-SS division Leibstandarte was sent to Italy in the summer of 1943 right after Kursk, and other elite SS-divisions (I think for example Das Reich, too) were sent to the Balkan and later to the West.
  88. Rich says:
    @Alberto Campos
    So are they "historians" or military analysts? That says it all.

    And for the rapes - none was perpetrated by the Wehrmacht before, when invading and massacre entire villages, of course. Not even in England by US soldiers even before starting fighting, of course. Shame on you.

    A historian can be a military analyst, and a military analyst can be a historian. A historian writing about war, has to be a military analyst, I’d think.
    The Red Army gave permission to soldiers to rape females from young children to old ladies. The Germans may have committed atrocities on their March eastward, but rape was still a crime and soldiers would be punished for it. In the Red Army soldiers who tried to prevent the abuse were arrested.
    And of course, any American soldier who committed rape would be prosecuted and if convicted faced serious punishment.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Avery
    {The Red Army gave permission to soldiers to rape females from young children to old ladies. }

    Really? You have the pics of the written orders issued by Soviet high command to their troops allegedly giving permission to rape young children?
    Show it.


    { The Germans may have committed atrocities on their March eastward, but rape was still a crime and soldiers would be punished for it.}


    No S_____, Adolf.
    So Hitler gave permission to murder Slavs and do whatever else they wanted, but allegedly forbade them to rape?

    The savage Nazi invaders did anything they pleased: who was going to stop them?
    The 18-20 year olds with surging testosterone had the blessing from Hitler to murder Russian women, Russian children - but allegedly rape was a 'crime'?

    Was rape, then murder still a crime?


    One more thing:
    You can look it up: its true.
    Those young Fräulein were lining up the streets in Berlin by the 10s of 1,000s, waving their SS and Einsatzgruppen murderers marching due East- to exterminate those Untermensch.

    With the full knowledge that the their genocidal men were headed East to commit war crimes and genocide.
    , @Avery
    {The Germans may have committed atrocities on their March eastward, but rape was still a crime and soldiers would be punished for it. }

    The minute the Nazi Germans crossed the border of USSR, they became criminals.
    Even taking food from a Russian peasant was a crime.

    In US, if you break into somebody house, you are considered a criminal: the owner of the house can legally kill you - for "fear of his life".

    Every Nazi German who was in USSR was a war criminal.
    And thanks to the heroic efforts of the Red Army and the peoples of USSR, most of the criminal invaders were chopped to pieces and left in USSR to fertilize the already rich Russian soil.
    , @annamaria
    "...any American soldier who committed rape would be prosecuted and if convicted faced serious punishment."
    Poor Rich. Have you heard about "collateral damage" story? (does the name Manning ring anything for you?) Have you heard about Hiroshima? - anybody punished for the war crime? What about the illegal wars of aggression in Iraq, Libya, and Syria? It seems that you seriously believe that the US army is the "most moral" army, like IDF.
  89. @Andrei Martyanov

    If Katyn occupies “one of the central positions in Western mythology about WW2,” one would expect college-educated Americans to be at least somewhat aware of it.
     
    Forgive me, but LOL. I do not rate high at all namely college-educated America in terms of knowledge of the outside world, let alone of WWII since it was this very same college-educated America, some of it with Masters others with Ph.Ds in all kinds of humanities "sciences" who concocted this America-The-Victor-Of-Nazism (with some minor help from those commies) narrative used (to a devastating effect, including on US herself) to reinforce US exceptionalism and totally false sense of a moral high ground--that is why such a desperate desire to avoid any conversations with actual archival numbers. But as I said not for once: sense of scale, proportion and measure are not strong points of most US "elites", as your posts about "great purges" demonstrate. So, no--your argument about what college-educated America is aware about is false, especially when dealing with this very field of Russian so called "studies" whose complete bankruptcy in US has been demonstrated with such a spectacular results in the last 3 + years. Damn, I am even writing a book about it. Yes, the question is how and why all those college-educated US intelligence, economy, military "experts" (some of them with many degrees) could have failed to understand how the whole world will change and not in their favor. I predicted that in 2014 (I have documented proof of that), my only mistake was in how fast all that happened, I expected it to be somewhat teeny-weeny bit slower. So, I do not take seriously most judgements by "college-educated" America on most subjects related to Russian/Soviet history.

    Damn, I am even writing a book about it.

    If it will contain the entire body of your knowledge on the subject, all pages will be blank. Like most Russians I’ve seen writing about this, you’re quite provincial.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    How can one possibly do military analysis without the special insight one can only glean from 3000 year dead Jewish haruspices?
  90. @Quartermaster

    Damn, I am even writing a book about it.
     
    If it will contain the entire body of your knowledge on the subject, all pages will be blank. Like most Russians I've seen writing about this, you're quite provincial.

    How can one possibly do military analysis without the special insight one can only glean from 3000 year dead Jewish haruspices?

    Read More
  91. Avery says:
    @Rich
    A historian can be a military analyst, and a military analyst can be a historian. A historian writing about war, has to be a military analyst, I'd think.
    The Red Army gave permission to soldiers to rape females from young children to old ladies. The Germans may have committed atrocities on their March eastward, but rape was still a crime and soldiers would be punished for it. In the Red Army soldiers who tried to prevent the abuse were arrested.
    And of course, any American soldier who committed rape would be prosecuted and if convicted faced serious punishment.

    {The Red Army gave permission to soldiers to rape females from young children to old ladies. }

    Really? You have the pics of the written orders issued by Soviet high command to their troops allegedly giving permission to rape young children?
    Show it.


    { The Germans may have committed atrocities on their March eastward, but rape was still a crime and soldiers would be punished for it.}

    No S_____, Adolf.
    So Hitler gave permission to murder Slavs and do whatever else they wanted, but allegedly forbade them to rape?

    The savage Nazi invaders did anything they pleased: who was going to stop them?
    The 18-20 year olds with surging testosterone had the blessing from Hitler to murder Russian women, Russian children – but allegedly rape was a ‘crime’?

    Was rape, then murder still a crime?

    One more thing:
    You can look it up: its true.
    Those young Fräulein were lining up the streets in Berlin by the 10s of 1,000s, waving their SS and Einsatzgruppen murderers marching due East- to exterminate those Untermensch.

    With the full knowledge that the their genocidal men were headed East to commit war crimes and genocide.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rich
    Are you in some way justifying the brutal rapes perpetrated by the Red Army on innocent civilian females, some young children, some old women? Do you really believe the young women who saw their friends and relatives off to war deserved to be raped? You might want to reread what you wrote, if you have any humanity left, and realize that any rape is a vicious act. Do you believe the illegal actions of the small groups of SS and Einsatzgruppen justifies the rape of females who had nothing to do with their actions? If your brother robs a bank, should you be imprisoned?

    Obviously, you're joking when you say that the civilians in Germany had "full knowledge their genocidal men were headed East to commit war crimes and genocide." No one could possibly believe that to be true. The soldiers themselves didn't know what awaited them on the Eastern Front, let alone those at home.
  92. Avery says:
    @Rich
    A historian can be a military analyst, and a military analyst can be a historian. A historian writing about war, has to be a military analyst, I'd think.
    The Red Army gave permission to soldiers to rape females from young children to old ladies. The Germans may have committed atrocities on their March eastward, but rape was still a crime and soldiers would be punished for it. In the Red Army soldiers who tried to prevent the abuse were arrested.
    And of course, any American soldier who committed rape would be prosecuted and if convicted faced serious punishment.

    {The Germans may have committed atrocities on their March eastward, but rape was still a crime and soldiers would be punished for it. }

    The minute the Nazi Germans crossed the border of USSR, they became criminals.
    Even taking food from a Russian peasant was a crime.

    In US, if you break into somebody house, you are considered a criminal: the owner of the house can legally kill you – for “fear of his life”.

    Every Nazi German who was in USSR was a war criminal.
    And thanks to the heroic efforts of the Red Army and the peoples of USSR, most of the criminal invaders were chopped to pieces and left in USSR to fertilize the already rich Russian soil.

    Read More
  93. Rich says:
    @Avery
    {The Red Army gave permission to soldiers to rape females from young children to old ladies. }

    Really? You have the pics of the written orders issued by Soviet high command to their troops allegedly giving permission to rape young children?
    Show it.


    { The Germans may have committed atrocities on their March eastward, but rape was still a crime and soldiers would be punished for it.}


    No S_____, Adolf.
    So Hitler gave permission to murder Slavs and do whatever else they wanted, but allegedly forbade them to rape?

    The savage Nazi invaders did anything they pleased: who was going to stop them?
    The 18-20 year olds with surging testosterone had the blessing from Hitler to murder Russian women, Russian children - but allegedly rape was a 'crime'?

    Was rape, then murder still a crime?


    One more thing:
    You can look it up: its true.
    Those young Fräulein were lining up the streets in Berlin by the 10s of 1,000s, waving their SS and Einsatzgruppen murderers marching due East- to exterminate those Untermensch.

    With the full knowledge that the their genocidal men were headed East to commit war crimes and genocide.

    Are you in some way justifying the brutal rapes perpetrated by the Red Army on innocent civilian females, some young children, some old women? Do you really believe the young women who saw their friends and relatives off to war deserved to be raped? You might want to reread what you wrote, if you have any humanity left, and realize that any rape is a vicious act. Do you believe the illegal actions of the small groups of SS and Einsatzgruppen justifies the rape of females who had nothing to do with their actions? If your brother robs a bank, should you be imprisoned?

    Obviously, you’re joking when you say that the civilians in Germany had “full knowledge their genocidal men were headed East to commit war crimes and genocide.” No one could possibly believe that to be true. The soldiers themselves didn’t know what awaited them on the Eastern Front, let alone those at home.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Avery
    {You might want to reread what you wrote, if you have any humanity left, and realize that any rape is a vicious act. }

    If _you_ have _any_ humanity left, and realize that you are a neo-Hitlerite revisionist apologists for the genocidal Nazi criminals, you will kneel down and beg forgiveness for the mass murders and mass rapes your Nazi German kin perpetrated in USSR.

    Kneel down in penance for the murders of millions of Slavic peoples:

    http://rarehistoricalphotos.com/warschauer-kniefall-1970/
    [Kniefall von Warschau (German for “Warsaw Genuflection”) refers to a gesture of humility and penance by German Chancellor Willy Brandt towards the victims of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising.
    Those who witnessed the scene were awe-struck: a politician actually displayed his emotions by confessing to guilt and begging for forgiveness. With his head bowed low, he froze in this position for twenty or thirty seconds. “I have been often asked what the gesture was all about. Was it planned? No, it wasn’t”. This is how Willy Brandt described the situation many years later in his memoirs: “As I stood on the edge of the Germany’s historical abyss, feeling the burden of millions of murders, I did what people do when words fail”.]


    I have yet to hear any of you neo-Nazi apologists crying crocodile tears for the German civilians, shed a single tear for the 15 million (mostly) Slavic civilians your savage Nazi forbears killed, murdered, raped, starved to death, massacred, hanged, burnt them alive in barns,.......

    Savages.


    {No one could possibly believe that to be true. The soldiers themselves didn’t know what awaited them on the Eastern Front, let alone those at home.}

    The invading scum knew very well they were in somebody else's country.
    Or maybe you delusional neo-Hitlerite revisionists think Russian peasants spoke German.

    You vile neo-Hitlerite revisionist apologists are disgusting.
    , @JL
    You got called out in a bald faced lie about rape orders to the Red Army and so all you can do now is stammer about some false moral equivalency. Avery wasn't justifying anything, he was merely putting events into context, something you seem singularly unable to do. If you need further explanation, see Anatoly Karlin's Rapewhistling for Hitler post:

    (https://www.unz.com/akarlin/rapewhistling-for-hitler/)

    But what's really funny is how incredulous you are that anyone even has the gall to challenge your flat earth narrative. Do you know what Russians write on their cars during Victory Day celebrations? "We can do it again".
  94. Hibernian says:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    We did. Remember Guadalcanal, Midway, Iwo Jima, Okinawa, etc. Plus TORCH, Scicily, Anzio, and the Battle of the Bulge. Plus Lend-Lease.
     
    This thing it seems is never ending story on Unz but, man, you have no idea of scales and proportions. Nor do you understand realities of the Eastern Front. Sir, just to give you a sense of scale, while Allies landed in Sicily in July of 1943, they faced about 50000 isolated second-rate Germans (plus some totally demoralized Italians), this very same time cream of the cream of the Red Army and Wehrmacht (and SS) had about 2.5 million men, about 8 000 tanks on both sides clashing at Kursk salient. Just to give you a bit of a heads up, by the time much touted in US General Patton's Third Army got to Lorraine it faced, and I quote from Combat Studies Institute US Army Command and General Staff College: "Few of the Germans defending Lorraine could be considered First-rate troops. Third Army encountered whole battalions made up of deaf men, others of cooks, and others consisting entirely of soldiers with stomach ulcers. The G2 also identified a new series of German formations designated voIksrenadier divisions). These hastily constituted divisions numbered only 10,000."

    While by no means denying a valiant contribution of Allies in Europe and by no means trying to take from them rightly deserved combat glory and recognition, it seems very many in Anglo-Saxon world fail to understand completely that by early to mid 1944 the best of the best of Wehrmacht and SS simply perished at the Eastern Front.

    Sure France was defended by inferior troops; on D-Day, they just happened to be manning very strong fortifications. As was better explained than I can by another commenter answering German Reader, my post set forth three areas where we Americans played a great part in the war. You limited yourself to rebutting one of them as if it stood alone. And the Pacific Theater was very important; what do you think would have happened if the US had concluded a separate peace with Japan?

    Read More
  95. Hibernian says:
    @Matra
    Well, there are 10 million Polish Americans in the U.S. Some came on the Mayflower

    There were no Poles on the Mayflower.

    I think that might have been a clumsy reference to Pulaski and Kociusczko who were Generals in the American Revolution about a century and a half after the Mayflower.

    Read More
  96. And the Pacific Theater was very important; what do you think would have happened if the US had concluded a separate peace with Japan?

    US Navy performed magnificently in the Pacific and rightfully earned itself a recognition and admiration, Pacific is a great military achievement of the United States. But in terms of separate peace? It is one of those “what if” things which is one of many contingencies. I think after Khalhin-Gol the case could be made of Japan not being too eager, with or without hypothetical separate peace with US, to attack USSR. Actually, if my Alzheimer doesn’t fail me–this point features very prominently in many American historians assessments. But Pearl Harbor happened and this can not be changed. Victory in the Pacific plus A-bomb helped to propel United States into the super power status, what came after that–is a separate issue.

    Read More
  97. Avery says:
    @Rich
    Are you in some way justifying the brutal rapes perpetrated by the Red Army on innocent civilian females, some young children, some old women? Do you really believe the young women who saw their friends and relatives off to war deserved to be raped? You might want to reread what you wrote, if you have any humanity left, and realize that any rape is a vicious act. Do you believe the illegal actions of the small groups of SS and Einsatzgruppen justifies the rape of females who had nothing to do with their actions? If your brother robs a bank, should you be imprisoned?

    Obviously, you're joking when you say that the civilians in Germany had "full knowledge their genocidal men were headed East to commit war crimes and genocide." No one could possibly believe that to be true. The soldiers themselves didn't know what awaited them on the Eastern Front, let alone those at home.

    {You might want to reread what you wrote, if you have any humanity left, and realize that any rape is a vicious act. }

    If _you_ have _any_ humanity left, and realize that you are a neo-Hitlerite revisionist apologists for the genocidal Nazi criminals, you will kneel down and beg forgiveness for the mass murders and mass rapes your Nazi German kin perpetrated in USSR.

    Kneel down in penance for the murders of millions of Slavic peoples:

    http://rarehistoricalphotos.com/warschauer-kniefall-1970/

    [Kniefall von Warschau (German for “Warsaw Genuflection”) refers to a gesture of humility and penance by German Chancellor Willy Brandt towards the victims of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising.
    Those who witnessed the scene were awe-struck: a politician actually displayed his emotions by confessing to guilt and begging for forgiveness. With his head bowed low, he froze in this position for twenty or thirty seconds. “I have been often asked what the gesture was all about. Was it planned? No, it wasn’t”. This is how Willy Brandt described the situation many years later in his memoirs: “As I stood on the edge of the Germany’s historical abyss, feeling the burden of millions of murders, I did what people do when words fail”.]

    I have yet to hear any of you neo-Nazi apologists crying crocodile tears for the German civilians, shed a single tear for the 15 million (mostly) Slavic civilians your savage Nazi forbears killed, murdered, raped, starved to death, massacred, hanged, burnt them alive in barns,…….

    Savages.

    {No one could possibly believe that to be true. The soldiers themselves didn’t know what awaited them on the Eastern Front, let alone those at home.}

    The invading scum knew very well they were in somebody else’s country.
    Or maybe you delusional neo-Hitlerite revisionists think Russian peasants spoke German.

    You vile neo-Hitlerite revisionist apologists are disgusting.

    Read More
    • Agree: JL
    • Replies: @JL
    Ah, but that's the Warsaw Ghetto, a much different thing altogether. In Rich's narrative, the Nazis' treatment of the Jews was genocide and a crime. As for their treatment of the Soviets, well, that was war, and all's fair.
    , @Rich
    You are, perhaps, beyond redemption. I've met a few older Soviets who also thought the rape of children and old ladies was somehow justified, but thought they were just crazy old men. Is it a commie thing?
    And just to clarify, I'm no "neo-Hitlerite." Five of my uncles fought against the Nazis in WWII. I'm just a simple man, who's against rape. Something you obviously can't understand.
  98. K says:

    Ron, when i clicked on ‘K’ i also saw comments from years ago that i dont remember making. Is it possible that comments by some other ‘K’ could have been mixed up with mine?

    Read More
  99. JL says:
    @Rich
    Are you in some way justifying the brutal rapes perpetrated by the Red Army on innocent civilian females, some young children, some old women? Do you really believe the young women who saw their friends and relatives off to war deserved to be raped? You might want to reread what you wrote, if you have any humanity left, and realize that any rape is a vicious act. Do you believe the illegal actions of the small groups of SS and Einsatzgruppen justifies the rape of females who had nothing to do with their actions? If your brother robs a bank, should you be imprisoned?

    Obviously, you're joking when you say that the civilians in Germany had "full knowledge their genocidal men were headed East to commit war crimes and genocide." No one could possibly believe that to be true. The soldiers themselves didn't know what awaited them on the Eastern Front, let alone those at home.

    You got called out in a bald faced lie about rape orders to the Red Army and so all you can do now is stammer about some false moral equivalency. Avery wasn’t justifying anything, he was merely putting events into context, something you seem singularly unable to do. If you need further explanation, see Anatoly Karlin’s Rapewhistling for Hitler post:

    (https://www.unz.com/akarlin/rapewhistling-for-hitler/)

    But what’s really funny is how incredulous you are that anyone even has the gall to challenge your flat earth narrative. Do you know what Russians write on their cars during Victory Day celebrations? “We can do it again”.

    Read More
  100. JL says:
    @Avery
    {You might want to reread what you wrote, if you have any humanity left, and realize that any rape is a vicious act. }

    If _you_ have _any_ humanity left, and realize that you are a neo-Hitlerite revisionist apologists for the genocidal Nazi criminals, you will kneel down and beg forgiveness for the mass murders and mass rapes your Nazi German kin perpetrated in USSR.

    Kneel down in penance for the murders of millions of Slavic peoples:

    http://rarehistoricalphotos.com/warschauer-kniefall-1970/
    [Kniefall von Warschau (German for “Warsaw Genuflection”) refers to a gesture of humility and penance by German Chancellor Willy Brandt towards the victims of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising.
    Those who witnessed the scene were awe-struck: a politician actually displayed his emotions by confessing to guilt and begging for forgiveness. With his head bowed low, he froze in this position for twenty or thirty seconds. “I have been often asked what the gesture was all about. Was it planned? No, it wasn’t”. This is how Willy Brandt described the situation many years later in his memoirs: “As I stood on the edge of the Germany’s historical abyss, feeling the burden of millions of murders, I did what people do when words fail”.]


    I have yet to hear any of you neo-Nazi apologists crying crocodile tears for the German civilians, shed a single tear for the 15 million (mostly) Slavic civilians your savage Nazi forbears killed, murdered, raped, starved to death, massacred, hanged, burnt them alive in barns,.......

    Savages.


    {No one could possibly believe that to be true. The soldiers themselves didn’t know what awaited them on the Eastern Front, let alone those at home.}

    The invading scum knew very well they were in somebody else's country.
    Or maybe you delusional neo-Hitlerite revisionists think Russian peasants spoke German.

    You vile neo-Hitlerite revisionist apologists are disgusting.

    Ah, but that’s the Warsaw Ghetto, a much different thing altogether. In Rich’s narrative, the Nazis’ treatment of the Jews was genocide and a crime. As for their treatment of the Soviets, well, that was war, and all’s fair.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rich
    I'm not sure I understand your point. Are you denying that the Soviet high command as well as officers in the field gave permission to soldiers to rape females from 8 to 80? Are you denying that the communist barbarians committed these acts? Either you're ignorant of the facts, or are playing a silly game.
    If, perhaps, you're simply ignorant of what the Reds did to innocent civilian women and children, just Google it. There's more than enough evidence of these atrocities.
    I was actually told about this by two Russian immigrants I met many years ago who were soldiers in the Red army, further research proved they were telling the truth .
  101. Rich says:
    @Avery
    {You might want to reread what you wrote, if you have any humanity left, and realize that any rape is a vicious act. }

    If _you_ have _any_ humanity left, and realize that you are a neo-Hitlerite revisionist apologists for the genocidal Nazi criminals, you will kneel down and beg forgiveness for the mass murders and mass rapes your Nazi German kin perpetrated in USSR.

    Kneel down in penance for the murders of millions of Slavic peoples:

    http://rarehistoricalphotos.com/warschauer-kniefall-1970/
    [Kniefall von Warschau (German for “Warsaw Genuflection”) refers to a gesture of humility and penance by German Chancellor Willy Brandt towards the victims of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising.
    Those who witnessed the scene were awe-struck: a politician actually displayed his emotions by confessing to guilt and begging for forgiveness. With his head bowed low, he froze in this position for twenty or thirty seconds. “I have been often asked what the gesture was all about. Was it planned? No, it wasn’t”. This is how Willy Brandt described the situation many years later in his memoirs: “As I stood on the edge of the Germany’s historical abyss, feeling the burden of millions of murders, I did what people do when words fail”.]


    I have yet to hear any of you neo-Nazi apologists crying crocodile tears for the German civilians, shed a single tear for the 15 million (mostly) Slavic civilians your savage Nazi forbears killed, murdered, raped, starved to death, massacred, hanged, burnt them alive in barns,.......

    Savages.


    {No one could possibly believe that to be true. The soldiers themselves didn’t know what awaited them on the Eastern Front, let alone those at home.}

    The invading scum knew very well they were in somebody else's country.
    Or maybe you delusional neo-Hitlerite revisionists think Russian peasants spoke German.

    You vile neo-Hitlerite revisionist apologists are disgusting.

    You are, perhaps, beyond redemption. I’ve met a few older Soviets who also thought the rape of children and old ladies was somehow justified, but thought they were just crazy old men. Is it a commie thing?
    And just to clarify, I’m no “neo-Hitlerite.” Five of my uncles fought against the Nazis in WWII. I’m just a simple man, who’s against rape. Something you obviously can’t understand.

    Read More
  102. Rich says:
    @JL
    Ah, but that's the Warsaw Ghetto, a much different thing altogether. In Rich's narrative, the Nazis' treatment of the Jews was genocide and a crime. As for their treatment of the Soviets, well, that was war, and all's fair.

    I’m not sure I understand your point. Are you denying that the Soviet high command as well as officers in the field gave permission to soldiers to rape females from 8 to 80? Are you denying that the communist barbarians committed these acts? Either you’re ignorant of the facts, or are playing a silly game.
    If, perhaps, you’re simply ignorant of what the Reds did to innocent civilian women and children, just Google it. There’s more than enough evidence of these atrocities.
    I was actually told about this by two Russian immigrants I met many years ago who were soldiers in the Red army, further research proved they were telling the truth .

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS

    I’ve met a few older Soviets who also thought the rape of children and old ladies was somehow justified, but thought they were just crazy old men. Is it a commie thing?
     
    Not really.
    It’s “Eastern European thing”.
    Further to the East you go, more prevalent it becomes.
    Start from Slovakia and keep going.....

    As for orders….ha…ha…...

    Most people here discussing the topic just have no idea how that shit really works.
    Westerners I mean.

    Russians...and the rest of the tribes from the East.....oh they know.
    They just play "ignorant".

  103. Svigor says:

    The fundamental question of our time is whether the West has the will to survive. Do we have the confidence in our values to defend them at any cost? Do we have enough respect for our citizens to protect our borders? Do we have the desire and the courage to preserve our civilization in the face of those who would subvert and destroy it?

    Yeah that was badass. Bannon/Miller’s thumb in the left’s eye.

    ALWAYS STICK YOUR THUMB IN THE LEFT’S EYE, EVERY CHANCE YOU GET.

    They murdered 175 million people in the 20th century. ALWAYS STICK YOUR THUMB IN THE LEFT’S EYE.

    Much more important in the ranks of our enemies, though, are those of our own people who would open our countries to mass settlement from those regions. Also, those of our own people who hate Western Civ., people to whom Western Civ. is only a catalog of oppression, slavery, colonialism, patriarchy, and cruelty.

    Oh don’t worry Derb, Trump didn’t need to announce them. They loudly announced themselves in the wake of Trump’s speech, hissing collectively like so many vampires presented with a cross.

    Read More
  104. Jake says:
    @Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY)
    [1] This essay begins with a photograph of the rally in Warsaw, with a Confederate flag highlighted. (On closer inspection, this is not a genuine Stars-and-Bars, which has 13 stars, but a "fake news" Confederate flag with only 9 stars at most.) But then Derb says nothing about this flag. Could not some enterprising reporter from CNN track down this story and interview the person(s) who brought it to the rally? This flag remains a mystery.

    [2] Is Trump the first U.S. president to utter the word "Katyn" in public, 77 years after the event? This would be like acknowledging some Civil War atrocity of 1865 for the first time in 1942.

    The ‘stars and bars’ is not the same thing as the Confederate Battle Flag.

    The Confederate Battle Flag is a St, Andrew’s Cross (and also a St Patrick’s cross). Andrew is the patron saint of Scotland (hence, St Andrew’s). The Confederate Battle Flag was not drawn up by committee. It is not an abstraction. It simply appeared and was loved immediately by Confederate troops. That means it struck a deep cultural chord.

    Deep hatred of the Confederate Battle Flag necessarily is significantly anti-Christian, anti-Scottish and anti-Irish, or both.

    St Andrew’s cross flags are not restricted to the British Isles (see Spain, for example). In fact, they have long been prominent in Eastern Europe, invariably with military units fighting to save Europe from Moslem depredations.

    I also remember seeing pictures of Confederate Battle Flags in Croatia, Serbia, and Bosnia at anti-Communist rallies.

    America will NEVER have a halfway meaningful ‘conservatism’ until the Confederate Battle Flag and all it represents are honored.

    Read More
  105. Svigor says:

    It would be a lot more refreshing if the President visited dozens and dozens of the countries where US instigated and supported violent regime changes SINCE WWII, invariably supporting bloodiest, most corrupt dictators AND apologized for the countless millions US has killed,
    WOULDN’T IT ?

    US invariably supported the left? Need cite.

    The West needs Westerners (i.e., white Europeans) who are willing to fight for their race and culture and it needs to expel alien interlopers en masse in order to survive. That was another important point missing from the speech which doesn’t surprise me considering who wrote it.

    It’s got to do with a Hell of a lot more than just who wrote it.

    Obviously, the fact that Red Army lost more KIAs liberating Poland than US and UK combined in WW II is of very little concern.

    It would help if the commie scum had actually liberated Poland; they didn’t.

    Obviously, the fact of modern Poland’s rabid Russo-phobia which may lead to a very real war,

    It won’t.

    not to mention Poland’s literally insane elites (enough to take a look at her current Defense Minister), is not considered at all.

    I’d put them in charge of USA in a nanosecond.

    Trump’s speech in Warsaw will go down in history as one of the defining moments of our time! The gauntlet has been thrown. Now Trump must deliver on his promises.

    Indeed. Trump weathers the Russia Collusion Hoax, them flies to Poland and comes out swinging. Lovin it.

    It was good to see U.S. servicemen in his Warsaw audience. And the Confederate flag? Well, there are 10 million Polish Americans in the U.S. Some came on the Mayflower but most in the last 200 years. As a result, thousands of people in Poland have relatives in the U.S. and know what’s going on across the Atlantic, including the latest controversies.To quote the Polish- American singer Sarah Jarosz, things can sometimes get a little “Crazy”

    Somebody at Twitter posted a screen grab of Fox showing a sea of Polish (i.e. WHITE) faces, all waving Polish, American, and a Confederate flag, dressed in military uniforms, etc. It was bloody beautiful. (Tweet’s caption read something like, “Why do these Poles look more American than we do?” Love it.

    Why does nobody ever mention that, or even know about it, while Katyn has assumed one of the central positions in Western mythology about WW2?

    Fake News.

    Heck, the only thing more horrible than what the Nazis actually did is what they were planning on doing:

    What the Soviets did was also worse than what the Nazis did.

    Forgive me, but LOL. I do not rate high at all namely college-educated America in terms of knowledge of the outside world, let alone of WWII since it was this very same college-educated America, some of it with Masters others with

    Bla bla bla, your assertion about Katyn’s place in the western consciousness/narrative/mythology was Fake News. Bullshit. Hogwash. Got it? Hardly anybody’s ever fucking heard of it. It’s only well-known among anti-communists and certain kinds of scholar.

    Come on, German Reader, cut the Americans some slack, will you. After all, they had to fight the entire German civilian population – which was what- 67 million? While the Russians on the other hand only had to fight the Wehrmacht – which was only 3 million strong – I believe. What takes more bravery – to fight against 67 million, or only against 3 million?

    This American thinks our entire involvement was a mistake. If anything we should have waited for the Nazis and Soviets to finish each other, then rolled the victor back to his proper borders.

    Cyrano says:
    July 9, 2017 at 5:36 pm GMT • 200 Words

    How many millions of their own people did the Soviets murder again? How many millions of people lived in the jail the Soviets made out of Eastern Europe after the war? Zero standing for moralizing. Never listen to this kind of scheisse from Russians; just kick the rickety soapbox out from under them – works every time.

    As for nuking the Japs, zero fucks given. Not even a twinge of guilt. Don’t want to get your ass kicked, don’t star wars. Japs were a nasty bunch.

    Figures for the practical effects on war production of strategic bombing are disputed – for every study finding the kinds of huge effects you quote you will find others finding the contrary.

    “The contrary” seems like a poor choice of words.

    Read More
  106. KenH says:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    That’s what I’m having an issue with. The Soviets sure took the lion’s share of the blood spilt, whereas the Western war effort was more capital intensive, but in terms of war production, the Western war was almost as large as the Eastern one, and if you add Lend Lease aid, then it will be very close to 50%. The Western war included the air war (with the destroyed German production capacity), naval war, the potential of an invasion which kept dozens of German divisions in the West even in 1941, and finally the ground campaigns, which in themselves were surely much smaller than the similar Soviet campaigns.
     
    With all due respect, but this is plainly highly unprofessional from any military (from strategy down to the very tactical level) POV to judge things like that. But that is, and I apologize if I hurt someone's sensibilities--this is unintentional, what dominates posts about WW II (or any modern war) on so many forums, this one included. War is NOT a linear affair--never was. We may discuss here (and I wrote it in my blog) until the hell freezes over virtues (or otherwise) of Osipov-Lanchester Differential Equations (Model--in reality system of equations) but they do give a framework which allows to judge relation of forces in operations which is always NON-Linear. Moreover, discussing WW II without considering interaction of fighting doctrines (Blitzkrieg and Deep Operation) respectively, without understanding of the materiel involved (from daily rations to how logistics works, to how losses are calculated) . There is a reason why best military historians are former military--they have academic background (some after General Staff Academies) to relate that, this is also a reason why those very same historians could be a virtuoso falsifiers. Such as defeated Wehrmacht Generals who left a truck load of self-serving and virtuoso excuses filled memoirs which for decades influenced Anglo-American view on WW II.

    As per highlighted phrase in your quote--you are missing obvious: USSR was able to maintain, supply, reinforce and arm (granted with some help from Lend-Lease, especially after 1943) on average a 6-7 million strong regular armed forces, which for four years were engaged constantly in the warfare of a ferocity never recorded or repeated since in human history. Red Air Force alone flew in excess of 3.5 million sorties and, btw, ended WW II being largest and most experienced operational-tactical air force in the world. Talking about capital intensive: remember Soviets produced world-class tanks, aircraft, artillery etc. ? To really give you some sense of Lend-Lease role, here is the scan from US West Point Military Academy outstanding WW II History, under the supervision of General Brigadier Griess and West Point's History Department. This is how it reads:

    http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-A-bbcZU50dU/VjT_cQAbxDI/AAAAAAAAAOo/vC-BHm5guJc/s1600/West-Point_3.jpg

    Good luck in your (serious) study of WW II if you want to pursue it.

    Such as defeated Wehrmacht Generals who left a truck load of self-serving and virtuoso excuses filled memoirs which for decades influenced Anglo-American view on WW II.

    As if Russians or Russian generals are totally incapable of serving up self serving accounts of WWII and any failures in that conflict. Soviet Russia was great at airbrushing military failures and embarrassments from official accounts or blaming it on “saboteurs”. Operation Mars, where the Russian offensive to dislodge the Wehrmact from their defensive positions west of Moscow, was one such account. Zhukov’s army was torn to shreds but this was concealed to preserve Zhukov’s reputation.

    https://www.amazon.com/Zhukovs-Greatest-Defeat-Operation-Paperback/dp/0700614176

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov

    As if Russians or Russian generals are totally incapable of serving up self serving accounts of WWII
     
    Who said that they were incapable? I never said so. I am also keenly aware of Glantz book precisely because it was challenged and not without success by some serious Russian military historians (if my Alzheimer doesn't fail me Alexey Isaev wrote, among others, on this issue). It is also true that this book, together with Glatntz' and House's Kursk, were published more than 17 years ago. There is a case (which still makes Glantz' perspective valuable) for Mars offensive that it was conceived from the get go as a diversionary operation--it is now a well-known fact. Did Zhukov have failures? Absolutely, as any other great military leaders did. Did he enjoy his status? Yes! Was there professional jealousy (and rivalry) between Soviet marshals? Hell, yeah! Big time. So, please--you are preaching to a choir. At issue here not how many battles Red Army lost--it lost a few, but the monstrous scale and, consequently, a very different dynamics between Eastern and, with the opening in 1944, Western Fronts. As this very same Glantz recites in one of his books: when asked, POW Wehrmacht officers in 1945 stated that while the war in the West was sports proper, war in the East was an unmitigated horror. This difference is crucial and, together, with enormous scale of the War in the East, constitute one of the key elements in foundation of the Cold War and what we all observe today.
  107. @KenH

    Such as defeated Wehrmacht Generals who left a truck load of self-serving and virtuoso excuses filled memoirs which for decades influenced Anglo-American view on WW II.
     
    As if Russians or Russian generals are totally incapable of serving up self serving accounts of WWII and any failures in that conflict. Soviet Russia was great at airbrushing military failures and embarrassments from official accounts or blaming it on "saboteurs". Operation Mars, where the Russian offensive to dislodge the Wehrmact from their defensive positions west of Moscow, was one such account. Zhukov's army was torn to shreds but this was concealed to preserve Zhukov's reputation.

    https://www.amazon.com/Zhukovs-Greatest-Defeat-Operation-Paperback/dp/0700614176

    As if Russians or Russian generals are totally incapable of serving up self serving accounts of WWII

    Who said that they were incapable? I never said so. I am also keenly aware of Glantz book precisely because it was challenged and not without success by some serious Russian military historians (if my Alzheimer doesn’t fail me Alexey Isaev wrote, among others, on this issue). It is also true that this book, together with Glatntz’ and House’s Kursk, were published more than 17 years ago. There is a case (which still makes Glantz’ perspective valuable) for Mars offensive that it was conceived from the get go as a diversionary operation–it is now a well-known fact. Did Zhukov have failures? Absolutely, as any other great military leaders did. Did he enjoy his status? Yes! Was there professional jealousy (and rivalry) between Soviet marshals? Hell, yeah! Big time. So, please–you are preaching to a choir. At issue here not how many battles Red Army lost–it lost a few, but the monstrous scale and, consequently, a very different dynamics between Eastern and, with the opening in 1944, Western Fronts. As this very same Glantz recites in one of his books: when asked, POW Wehrmacht officers in 1945 stated that while the war in the West was sports proper, war in the East was an unmitigated horror. This difference is crucial and, together, with enormous scale of the War in the East, constitute one of the key elements in foundation of the Cold War and what we all observe today.

    Read More
    • Replies: @KenH
    The Red Army lost many battles, but still managed to win the war. If Stalin wanted to conceal the failure of operation Mars to protect morale that would make sense since at that point in the conflict Russia was losing and morale and confidence was still fragile. But there was no need to maintain a blackout long after the war and consign this battle to the Soviet memory hole.
  108. Mothers of the world unite in protest against all Wars ! Fathers of the world, – you’ve made mess !
    Dana I. Alvi
    danaialvi@gmail.com

    - – – – – – -

    Read More
  109. Ivan says:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    If Katyn occupies “one of the central positions in Western mythology about WW2,” one would expect college-educated Americans to be at least somewhat aware of it.
     
    Forgive me, but LOL. I do not rate high at all namely college-educated America in terms of knowledge of the outside world, let alone of WWII since it was this very same college-educated America, some of it with Masters others with Ph.Ds in all kinds of humanities "sciences" who concocted this America-The-Victor-Of-Nazism (with some minor help from those commies) narrative used (to a devastating effect, including on US herself) to reinforce US exceptionalism and totally false sense of a moral high ground--that is why such a desperate desire to avoid any conversations with actual archival numbers. But as I said not for once: sense of scale, proportion and measure are not strong points of most US "elites", as your posts about "great purges" demonstrate. So, no--your argument about what college-educated America is aware about is false, especially when dealing with this very field of Russian so called "studies" whose complete bankruptcy in US has been demonstrated with such a spectacular results in the last 3 + years. Damn, I am even writing a book about it. Yes, the question is how and why all those college-educated US intelligence, economy, military "experts" (some of them with many degrees) could have failed to understand how the whole world will change and not in their favor. I predicted that in 2014 (I have documented proof of that), my only mistake was in how fast all that happened, I expected it to be somewhat teeny-weeny bit slower. So, I do not take seriously most judgements by "college-educated" America on most subjects related to Russian/Soviet history.

    Why don’t you admit that Katyn was a genocidal crime committed to irrevocably destroy Polish nationalism by destroying the Polish elite, instead of asking how an Eng Lit can study History? Who are you; Aristotle? And how is a Russian able to write in English by your reasoning?

    Read More
    • Replies: @David In TN
    This thread was supposed to be about the Katyn Massacre being something you weren't supposed to mention. But several posters took it elsewhere.
    , @Andrei Martyanov

    Why don’t you admit that Katyn was a genocidal crime committed to irrevocably destroy Polish nationalism by destroying the Polish elite, instead of asking how an Eng Lit can study History?
     
    Just get back on your meds.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-11845315
    , @peterAUS
    ".....Katyn was a genocidal crime committed to irrevocably destroy Polish nationalism by destroying the Polish elite,...."
    Probably the best comment here so far, IMHO.
    Short, into the heart of the matter and directly related to the article.
  110. @Ivan
    Why don't you admit that Katyn was a genocidal crime committed to irrevocably destroy Polish nationalism by destroying the Polish elite, instead of asking how an Eng Lit can study History? Who are you; Aristotle? And how is a Russian able to write in English by your reasoning?

    This thread was supposed to be about the Katyn Massacre being something you weren’t supposed to mention. But several posters took it elsewhere.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Peter Akuleyev
    This thread was supposed to be about the Katyn Massacre being something you weren’t supposed to mention

    Except that the anti-Russian Obama administration mentioned Katyn quite often. There was also the Wajda film about Katyn that was nominated for an Oscar back under the Bush administration, so it wasn't much of a taboo even 10 years ago.

    Giving Trump credit for mentioning Katyn is pretty silly. Is Derbyshire going to write a paen to Anne Appelbaum next?

  111. reiner Tor says: • Website
    @Bies Podkrakowski
    Soviets didn't have to spill their own blood. There was a lot of Poles around to do the dying. Berling's First Polish People Army tried to send help across Vistula. Without artillery and material support he couldn't do much apart from sending warm bodies in pontoons.

    You are correct about the later effort of the First Army of the LWP, when Stalin really didn’t provide them with enough support. It was also quite late for the Polish troops trapped in Warsaw anyway.

    But I’m not sure how much material supply was available in early August, for example I remember that one tank corps only had maybe four serviceable tanks, and artillery was also difficult to supply with ammunition or even to transport to the frontline, so fast had the frontline advanced. The Soviet forces had been several hundreds of kilometers to the east less than six weeks earlier, so their supply lines were very long, which overstretched their logistical capabilities.

    Another point is that I think it even took some time for the communist army units to reach Warsaw, because originally they were fighting around Lwów (also known as Lemberg, in the USSR Lvov, present day Lviv), and they needed to be transferred to the Warsaw frontline. So it was out of the question for them to immediately be sent to help the Warsaw Uprising.

    Let me also make the point that obviously Stalin was quite happy to see Poles and Germans massacring each other, here he was hoping for a battle in which both sides would lose. But it’s a separate question whether he actually could have helped the Warsaw Uprising at the beginning of August, had he wanted to.

    As everything here, I’m writing mostly off the top of my head, so I hope I don’t get many details wrong.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bies Podkrakowski

    Let me also make the point that obviously Stalin was quite happy to see Poles and Germans massacring each other, here he was hoping for a battle in which both sides would lose.
     
    And Stalin did what he could to make that happen. There was for example soviet propaganda radio - Kościuszko Radio - its broadcast about invincible march of the Red Army that soon will be in Warsaw were crucial to starting the Uprising. And after the Uprising began Soviets forbid allied planes that were dropping supplies from landing on their airfields. Pilots had to return to Italy, meaning they had to take more fuel instead of supplies and had to again risk German fighters.
  112. reiner Tor says: • Website
    @Anatoly Karlin

    This is the first time I read anything like this.
     
    There's some interesting arguments by Mark Harrison to that effect:

    https://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/mharrison/public/totalwar2005.pdf

    It’s important to note that the “collapse” of the USSR would’ve meant simply a serious enough economic crisis. With the most important oil production center in the Caucasus area cut off from the rest of the country, and the most important agricultural areas lost, while all of agriculture (including what was left of the major agricultural areas) already heavily mechanized and thus dependent on oil supplies. The country also had difficulties supplying coal. Had the Germans captured Moscow (probably the single most important rail junction) and Stalingrad (and perhaps Astrakhan, reducing the flow of oil to tankers on the Caspian), huge portions of the economy might’ve ground to a near-halt, all of which would’ve meant a drastic drop in military production and agricultural production and also distribution (since the railway system would also have been negatively impacted). The famine (well, there was starvation as it was, but it could’ve been much worse), in turn, would’ve further negatively impacted the industrial production and transportation, as rations would’ve been reduced below the necessary minimum for all non-workers, and workers would’ve tried to save their non-working relatives (especially children and perhaps elderly parents) by sharing some of their food with them. (This was a serious problem for coal and steel production in Germany and German-controlled areas, where the Germans found it difficult to provide adequate food rations to the workers: the food supply leaked to miners’ and steel workers’ families, and so the workers themselves weren’t well-nourished enough to work at 100% capacity.)

    Such a serious economic crisis wouldn’t have meant a complete stop to the fighting, nor is it likely that Stalin’s system would’ve crumbled (all people in the communist party and officer class and police and even ordinary soldiers understood that they were not to survive German rule, so they would’ve desperately hung on to power by increasing coercion), but its military capabilities would’ve weakened enough for the Germans to occupy huge areas and consolidate their rule in the whole of European Russia.

    Regarding Lend Lease and how the USSR stopped the Germans without Lend Lease – the Persian Corridor was opened in the summer of 1942, and they provided most of the supplies to the Soviet troops fighting in the Caucasus, at a time when it would’ve been quite difficult to supply them because the most important railway line leading to the Caucasus was effectively cut off at Stalingrad. Hungarian troops fighting at Voronezh regularly found American cans of spam in the backpacks of captured or killed Soviet soldiers by late fall 1942. The Soviet air force already had air superiority or at least parity around Stalingrad by the time of Uranus, and this would have been all but impossible without two thirds of the German air force already fighting the Western Allies, as well as the supplies of aviation fuel.

    The supply of trucks proved crucial after 1943, when the Soviet offensive wouldn’t have been able to maintain momentum without the mobility provided by the Studebakers. Yes, the USSR also produced trucks, but I think over half of the trucks came from American supplies. The Americans also supplied thousands of railway cars and locomotives, without which it would also have been quite difficult to rebuild supply lines with a few months after each successive offensive (until they reached Berlin). The view that by 1943 the war was essentially over is only correct because the Soviets had all these supplies and the Germans had to spend enormous resources to fight the air war.

    Even the much belittled land effort of the Western Allies was also significant (though admittedly smaller scale than the Eastern Front) already after November 1942, by May 1943 the North African campaign destroyed an Axis force equivalent in size to that of the force destroyed at Stalingrad (granted, a smaller proportion of these were Germans, but those were almost all elite divisions, and the force destroyed at Stalingrad also famously included Romanian and Italian troops), and by September 1943 Italy was out of the war, which forced the Germans to spare a million troops for occupation duties in Southern France, the Balkan peninsula, and Italy itself, as well as for the Italian front. It wasn’t always second-rate troops either (though of course second-rate troops could also have been used to fight partisans in the USSR, too, as partisan warfare was getting worse at precisely that time – or those people could’ve been released from the army and sent to work in military production), the elite Waffen-SS division Leibstandarte was sent to Italy in the summer of 1943 right after Kursk, and other elite SS-divisions (I think for example Das Reich, too) were sent to the Balkan and later to the West.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
    One of the major objectives of the Allied campaign to take Italy was control over Italian airfields, the better to carry out morale bombing of German cities. US bombers were fully involved in carpet bombing of German cities from 1943 forward. Inasmuch as it was understood by the Allies that Wehrmacht was mortally wounded by 1942, one can only conclude that the overarching goal was the genocide of the German people and culture. Even A. C. Grayling, otherwise a double-talking British sycophant, called the destruction of German cities "culturecide," the equivalent of the destruction of the Buddha and the rape of the museums in Baghdad.

    Jews were involved in forming these goals at the highest level: Louis Brandeis announced them as early as Feb. 1933; Unz pointed out that the British were responsible for the propaganda campaign that incited Americans to war, but Jews were significant elements in propaganda planning -- i.e. Ewan Montagu in London, and his brother, who collaborated w/ Charlie Chaplin and other Jewish Hollywood studios to make propaganda films; Henry Morgenthau, Jr. was officially Sec'y of Treasury but inserted himself in State Dept decision making, he spoke w/ FDR daily; FDR met w/ Bernard Baruch and conceived the plan for Mark Clark's unitary campaign to take Rome at Baruch's North Carolina plantation; the Ritchie Boys -- several thousand German Jews -- were trained by and worked w/ US forces to infiltrate, spy on, steal from, then prosecuted Germans.
  113. reiner Tor says: • Website
    @German_reader

    The Western war included the air war (with the destroyed German production capacity)
     
    I'm not sure you can say it destroyed German production capacity, more like "put a ceiling on it". After all German production of war materiel still increased by a lot during the later war years.
    I think it's also important to note the time frame...iirc the bomber offensive with heavy four-engined bombers really only took off in spring or summer 1943. That was after Stalingrad and shortly before/at the same time as Kursk. It's certainly true that consequently it made it harder for the Germans to recover from their setbacks on the Eastern front as you write, but I don't think Allied bombing played much of a role in making Soviet successes at Stalingrad and Kursk possible.

    I should’ve written “destroyed a portion of” said capacity – in my mind, if Germany was capable of producing maybe 30,000 battle tanks in 1944, but only managed to produce 19,000 of them because of the air campaign, then a capacity of 11,000 was destroyed. Also, it was completely destroyed in some industries, most notably synthetic fuel production all but stopped by late summer 1944. But yes, perhaps “put a ceiling to” is a better way to express it. (Also, the German war economy really was destroyed from the air in the sense that by spring 1945 production collapsed, and because transportation largely ground to a halt, too, in late March and April 1945 Allied troops encountered thousands of fully assembled tanks at factory sites and railway junctions waiting to be transported to the front line, but of course no trains could pick them up because by that time railway traffic dropped by over 50% due to the bombing campaign. So German production capacity really was destroyed by spring 1945 from the air – yes, it didn’t change the outcome, except it probably saved the lives of hundreds of thousands of Soviet, Allied (and paradoxically probably also German) soldiers by further weakening German resistance.

    Read More
  114. reiner Tor says: • Website
    @Andrei Martyanov

    That’s what I’m having an issue with. The Soviets sure took the lion’s share of the blood spilt, whereas the Western war effort was more capital intensive, but in terms of war production, the Western war was almost as large as the Eastern one, and if you add Lend Lease aid, then it will be very close to 50%. The Western war included the air war (with the destroyed German production capacity), naval war, the potential of an invasion which kept dozens of German divisions in the West even in 1941, and finally the ground campaigns, which in themselves were surely much smaller than the similar Soviet campaigns.
     
    With all due respect, but this is plainly highly unprofessional from any military (from strategy down to the very tactical level) POV to judge things like that. But that is, and I apologize if I hurt someone's sensibilities--this is unintentional, what dominates posts about WW II (or any modern war) on so many forums, this one included. War is NOT a linear affair--never was. We may discuss here (and I wrote it in my blog) until the hell freezes over virtues (or otherwise) of Osipov-Lanchester Differential Equations (Model--in reality system of equations) but they do give a framework which allows to judge relation of forces in operations which is always NON-Linear. Moreover, discussing WW II without considering interaction of fighting doctrines (Blitzkrieg and Deep Operation) respectively, without understanding of the materiel involved (from daily rations to how logistics works, to how losses are calculated) . There is a reason why best military historians are former military--they have academic background (some after General Staff Academies) to relate that, this is also a reason why those very same historians could be a virtuoso falsifiers. Such as defeated Wehrmacht Generals who left a truck load of self-serving and virtuoso excuses filled memoirs which for decades influenced Anglo-American view on WW II.

    As per highlighted phrase in your quote--you are missing obvious: USSR was able to maintain, supply, reinforce and arm (granted with some help from Lend-Lease, especially after 1943) on average a 6-7 million strong regular armed forces, which for four years were engaged constantly in the warfare of a ferocity never recorded or repeated since in human history. Red Air Force alone flew in excess of 3.5 million sorties and, btw, ended WW II being largest and most experienced operational-tactical air force in the world. Talking about capital intensive: remember Soviets produced world-class tanks, aircraft, artillery etc. ? To really give you some sense of Lend-Lease role, here is the scan from US West Point Military Academy outstanding WW II History, under the supervision of General Brigadier Griess and West Point's History Department. This is how it reads:

    http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-A-bbcZU50dU/VjT_cQAbxDI/AAAAAAAAAOo/vC-BHm5guJc/s1600/West-Point_3.jpg

    Good luck in your (serious) study of WW II if you want to pursue it.

    War is NOT a linear affair–never was.

    I never stated it was. Just to give a few examples what I meant.

    Red Air Force alone flew in excess of 3.5 million sorties and, btw, ended WW II being largest and most experienced operational-tactical air force in the world.

    Over half of its fuel supply came from the Americans, as well as 10% of the airplanes themselves. All the while German airplane production could’ve been at least 30-40% higher by 1944 without the air war, and most or all of the Luftwaffe could’ve been employed on the Eastern Front instead of a mere third of it. Tens of thousands of anti-aircraft guns (granted, many of them would’ve been used as anti-tank or regular artillery, of which they were also capable of). How much weaker would the Soviet air force have been if the German air force on the Eastern front was three or four times larger (perhaps more, because German air losses would also have been smaller without the air war), with more fuel (because both Romanian oil and synthetic fuel production would’ve been higher without the bombing campaign), more experienced pilots (again, less losses in the West)?

    Talking about capital intensive: remember Soviets produced world-class tanks, aircraft, artillery etc. ?

    You are correct, but we are in agreement, because I meant it in relative terms. The Soviet war effort was way more labor intensive than the Western war effort. Compared to China or even Japan, the Soviet war effort was quite capital intensive, indeed, especially in the summer of 1941, and then again after late 1942. (In the winter of 1941-42 its capital intensity reached its low point.)

    granted with some help from Lend-Lease, especially after 1943

    In late 1942 the Caucasus front already had a huge portion of its supplies coming from the Persian Corridor. Otherwise it’s even questionable how they would’ve been able to supply these forces at all, what with Stalingrad all but cut off. I already mentioned it to Anatoly, as well as the fact that in fall 1942 Hungarian troops fighting at Voronezh found American cans of meat on captured or killed Soviet soldiers. Soviet soldiers were eating better due to Lend Lease (at least in the important areas of operations – Voronezh was to the north of Stalingrad, maybe in the north soldiers didn’t yet eat that well), which cannot but have positively affected their moral and their sheer physical ability to fight under extremely demanding conditions, especially in the winter.

    But after 1943 the arrival of hundreds of thousands of trucks significantly increased Soviet troop mobility. This no doubt enormously contributed to the Germans’ inability to stop the Soviet advances, especially with the German supply lines considerably shorter in the second half of 1943 than they had been in fall 1942. Still, it was impossible to stop them, because the Soviet army got more and more motorized, while the German army even lost the motorization it had already possessed when in 1941 they attacked. Motorized (or from 1943 Panzergrenadier) and Panzer divisions were usually motorized in name only.

    Especially if war is not linear, these profound changes in the equation must have helped the Soviets enormously. Which is why I think that despite the occasional setbacks (like Stalingrad) Germany would’ve won the war of attrition that set in by late 1942, simply because it had a considerably larger industrial capacity and just a little bit smaller population 1941-43 (don’t forget that the Soviet population was perhaps 120-140 million 1941-43, simply because a lot of the population was under German occupation), but in control of large portions of the rest of Europe.

    Read More
  115. reiner Tor says: • Website
    @Anatoly Karlin

    If we can accept that Soviet contributions to destroying the German war effort were not proportional to their own losses (higher Soviet losses, yet smaller German losses, in 1941, than in 1944), then we have to accept that it wasn’t proportional between the Western Allies and the USSR – the Allies waged a capital intensive war (with relatively little human losses, but relatively large quantities of weapons built and lost), while the Soviets a labor-intensive war, with enormous human sacrifice.
     
    I certainly agree with all of that.

    It is highly unlikely that the Soviets could have defeated or even survived against Nazi Germany on their own - not so much because of the absolute volume of aid (Lend Lease accounted for 5% of Soviet military production in 1942, and 10% in 1943 and 1944) but because it filled in critical gaps in the centrally planned Soviet economy (esp. telephone wires, aviation fuel) and because the margin separating the USSR from all-out collapse in 1943 and especially 1942 was very tight and even modest amounts of aid might have been critical.

    The bombing campaign put a ceiling on German war production in 1943 and esp. 1944-45 but wasn't really critical by that point (that said, the Germans would have been able to mount a much better defense and perhaps stabilize the frontline in 1943 without the Allies attritioning their air power). The Nazis' main mistake was to wait until early 1943 to start moving towards a total war economy.

    The Nazis’ main mistake was to wait until early 1943 to start moving towards a total war economy.

    I think it’s a common misconception.

    Mistakes were made in the economy, but the economy was set on war footing already by 1941. The problems were multifold.

    1) The major European war started earlier than the Germans expected (Hitler only wanted a short little war against Poland in 1939), so a lot of the German investment programs (building synthetic fuel and synthetic rubber capacity, building a number of new factories, etc.) only bore fruit by 1942, after which they were often scaled down. (And some of them, like the Buna chemical factory in Auschwitz, weren’t finished even by 1945, the Buna chemical plant started production only in 1950s communist Poland.) The German investment program was so heavy, and often geared to quantity over quality (buying for example multi-purpose machine tools instead of tools geared to specific weapons which couldn’t later be upgraded), that German machine tool capacity stood in 1945 at roughly late 1930s levels, helping to make the later German economic miracle possible. It also meant that a lot of the production capacity which could’ve been geared to producing weapons was instead geared to produce investments for later war production. The problem was, of course, that by the time these capacities came in line, the war was lost for good.

    2) The German army demanded endless improvements and multiple variants of the same weapons, which fit smaller workshops well, but suppressed production numbers in large factories. In fact, smaller workshops should’ve been closed down by 1941 (because they used up a lot of resources for relatively little production, even if their production was of good quality), but it happened way slower than necessary, because Hitler allowed the German army to have too large influence over war production for too long. (Eventually German generals responsible for war production also came around to the view that after a point quantity was way more important than quality, but it took them very long.)

    3) Meanwhile, living standards dropped very quickly, in fact, according to Overy and others between 1939 and 1941 they dropped more than between 1941 and 1945. So it really was a war economy in the sense that over half of the GDP was spent on the war effort. It just wasn’t very efficient. For all the stereotypes about German efficiency and Russian lousiness (to which I think there is a lot of truth), the Soviet war economy was organized in a more efficient way. Again, Lend Lease helped them enormously because it filled in crucial gaps, but a lot of credit should go to Stalin, Voznesensky, and the civilian leadership in general. The Germans also made a lot of huge mistakes in the economic policies, mainly by not rationalizing production fast enough after 1939.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    Anyone who studied in detail WWII knows that Germany never prepared for war.
    True is that Hitler knew quite well that he could not reverse Versailles without letting Germany's enemies believe he was preparing for war.
    Goering's diaries show how foreign visitors were fooled, they thought they saw other planes flying, it were the same, the paint still wet.
    War production just in 1944 was highest, too late.
    Hitler underestimated both thr V1 and the V2, the hydrogen bomb never left the experimental phase.
  116. reiner Tor says: • Website

    OT

    Paging Ron Unz, my connection is often “not secure”, and Chrome doesn’t want to let me comment on this site, I have to manually override it. Why could that be? Do others experience the same thing, too?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ron Unz

    Paging Ron Unz, my connection is often “not secure”, and Chrome doesn’t want to let me comment on this site, I have to manually override it. Why could that be? Do others experience the same thing, too?
     
    That's very unfortunate, and clearly due to some of my recent or very recent software changes, probably including trying to switch the website to the https "secure" protocol.

    I'll be putting up a "Software Open Thread" Announcement in the next day or so, where people can provide their detailed software complaints and suggestions, including regarding annoyance at some of the various features I've recently added, so please provided leave a comment there describing the exact nature of the problems you are experiencing, and exactly when they began.
  117. Ron Unz says:
    @reiner Tor
    OT

    Paging Ron Unz, my connection is often "not secure", and Chrome doesn't want to let me comment on this site, I have to manually override it. Why could that be? Do others experience the same thing, too?

    Paging Ron Unz, my connection is often “not secure”, and Chrome doesn’t want to let me comment on this site, I have to manually override it. Why could that be? Do others experience the same thing, too?

    That’s very unfortunate, and clearly due to some of my recent or very recent software changes, probably including trying to switch the website to the https “secure” protocol.

    I’ll be putting up a “Software Open Thread” Announcement in the next day or so, where people can provide their detailed software complaints and suggestions, including regarding annoyance at some of the various features I’ve recently added, so please provided leave a comment there describing the exact nature of the problems you are experiencing, and exactly when they began.

    Read More
  118. reiner Tor says: • Website
    @Ron Unz

    Paging Ron Unz, my connection is often “not secure”, and Chrome doesn’t want to let me comment on this site, I have to manually override it. Why could that be? Do others experience the same thing, too?
     
    That's very unfortunate, and clearly due to some of my recent or very recent software changes, probably including trying to switch the website to the https "secure" protocol.

    I'll be putting up a "Software Open Thread" Announcement in the next day or so, where people can provide their detailed software complaints and suggestions, including regarding annoyance at some of the various features I've recently added, so please provided leave a comment there describing the exact nature of the problems you are experiencing, and exactly when they began.

    Thanks!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Avery
    Wow!
    That is some 'Customer' service.

    'Page' went out [July 13, 2017 at 8:29 am GMT]
    CEO of UNZ.com responded [July 13, 2017 at 10:44 am GMT]
    And all completely free of charge.
  119. @Ivan
    Why don't you admit that Katyn was a genocidal crime committed to irrevocably destroy Polish nationalism by destroying the Polish elite, instead of asking how an Eng Lit can study History? Who are you; Aristotle? And how is a Russian able to write in English by your reasoning?

    Why don’t you admit that Katyn was a genocidal crime committed to irrevocably destroy Polish nationalism by destroying the Polish elite, instead of asking how an Eng Lit can study History?

    Just get back on your meds.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-11845315

    Read More
  120. Avery says:
    @reiner Tor
    Thanks!

    Wow!
    That is some ‘Customer’ service.

    ‘Page’ went out [July 13, 2017 at 8:29 am GMT]
    CEO of UNZ.com responded [July 13, 2017 at 10:44 am GMT]
    And all completely free of charge.

    Read More
  121. @reiner Tor
    It's important to note that the "collapse" of the USSR would've meant simply a serious enough economic crisis. With the most important oil production center in the Caucasus area cut off from the rest of the country, and the most important agricultural areas lost, while all of agriculture (including what was left of the major agricultural areas) already heavily mechanized and thus dependent on oil supplies. The country also had difficulties supplying coal. Had the Germans captured Moscow (probably the single most important rail junction) and Stalingrad (and perhaps Astrakhan, reducing the flow of oil to tankers on the Caspian), huge portions of the economy might've ground to a near-halt, all of which would've meant a drastic drop in military production and agricultural production and also distribution (since the railway system would also have been negatively impacted). The famine (well, there was starvation as it was, but it could've been much worse), in turn, would've further negatively impacted the industrial production and transportation, as rations would've been reduced below the necessary minimum for all non-workers, and workers would've tried to save their non-working relatives (especially children and perhaps elderly parents) by sharing some of their food with them. (This was a serious problem for coal and steel production in Germany and German-controlled areas, where the Germans found it difficult to provide adequate food rations to the workers: the food supply leaked to miners' and steel workers' families, and so the workers themselves weren't well-nourished enough to work at 100% capacity.)

    Such a serious economic crisis wouldn't have meant a complete stop to the fighting, nor is it likely that Stalin's system would've crumbled (all people in the communist party and officer class and police and even ordinary soldiers understood that they were not to survive German rule, so they would've desperately hung on to power by increasing coercion), but its military capabilities would've weakened enough for the Germans to occupy huge areas and consolidate their rule in the whole of European Russia.

    Regarding Lend Lease and how the USSR stopped the Germans without Lend Lease - the Persian Corridor was opened in the summer of 1942, and they provided most of the supplies to the Soviet troops fighting in the Caucasus, at a time when it would've been quite difficult to supply them because the most important railway line leading to the Caucasus was effectively cut off at Stalingrad. Hungarian troops fighting at Voronezh regularly found American cans of spam in the backpacks of captured or killed Soviet soldiers by late fall 1942. The Soviet air force already had air superiority or at least parity around Stalingrad by the time of Uranus, and this would have been all but impossible without two thirds of the German air force already fighting the Western Allies, as well as the supplies of aviation fuel.

    The supply of trucks proved crucial after 1943, when the Soviet offensive wouldn't have been able to maintain momentum without the mobility provided by the Studebakers. Yes, the USSR also produced trucks, but I think over half of the trucks came from American supplies. The Americans also supplied thousands of railway cars and locomotives, without which it would also have been quite difficult to rebuild supply lines with a few months after each successive offensive (until they reached Berlin). The view that by 1943 the war was essentially over is only correct because the Soviets had all these supplies and the Germans had to spend enormous resources to fight the air war.

    Even the much belittled land effort of the Western Allies was also significant (though admittedly smaller scale than the Eastern Front) already after November 1942, by May 1943 the North African campaign destroyed an Axis force equivalent in size to that of the force destroyed at Stalingrad (granted, a smaller proportion of these were Germans, but those were almost all elite divisions, and the force destroyed at Stalingrad also famously included Romanian and Italian troops), and by September 1943 Italy was out of the war, which forced the Germans to spare a million troops for occupation duties in Southern France, the Balkan peninsula, and Italy itself, as well as for the Italian front. It wasn't always second-rate troops either (though of course second-rate troops could also have been used to fight partisans in the USSR, too, as partisan warfare was getting worse at precisely that time - or those people could've been released from the army and sent to work in military production), the elite Waffen-SS division Leibstandarte was sent to Italy in the summer of 1943 right after Kursk, and other elite SS-divisions (I think for example Das Reich, too) were sent to the Balkan and later to the West.

    One of the major objectives of the Allied campaign to take Italy was control over Italian airfields, the better to carry out morale bombing of German cities. US bombers were fully involved in carpet bombing of German cities from 1943 forward. Inasmuch as it was understood by the Allies that Wehrmacht was mortally wounded by 1942, one can only conclude that the overarching goal was the genocide of the German people and culture. Even A. C. Grayling, otherwise a double-talking British sycophant, called the destruction of German cities “culturecide,” the equivalent of the destruction of the Buddha and the rape of the museums in Baghdad.

    Jews were involved in forming these goals at the highest level: Louis Brandeis announced them as early as Feb. 1933; Unz pointed out that the British were responsible for the propaganda campaign that incited Americans to war, but Jews were significant elements in propaganda planning — i.e. Ewan Montagu in London, and his brother, who collaborated w/ Charlie Chaplin and other Jewish Hollywood studios to make propaganda films; Henry Morgenthau, Jr. was officially Sec’y of Treasury but inserted himself in State Dept decision making, he spoke w/ FDR daily; FDR met w/ Bernard Baruch and conceived the plan for Mark Clark’s unitary campaign to take Rome at Baruch’s North Carolina plantation; the Ritchie Boys — several thousand German Jews — were trained by and worked w/ US forces to infiltrate, spy on, steal from, then prosecuted Germans.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thirdeye

    US bombers were fully involved in carpet bombing of German cities from 1943 forward.
     
    Nope. And the rest of your playing on your favorite hobby horse isn't any better.
    , @jilles dykstra
    No mention of Frankfurter, the author of Lend Lease, that gave FRD unlimited powers for war.
    Bruce Allen Murphy, ‘The Brandeis/Frankfurter Connection, The Secret Political Activities of Two Supreme Court Justices’, New York, 1983
  122. Zenarchy says:
    @Andrei Martyanov
    Well, Polish role in unleashing a WW II is somehow unknown to Derb who, probably, didn't read Correlli Barnett's scathing characterization of this very Polish role, together with British one.

    https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-OAoptzMBygE/WWEuIpid-cI/AAAAAAAABG8/bWY3n_wRN_0yek4r6Pl7X5t7RA17SVmSQCLcBGAs/s1600/EastEurope.jpg

    This very same Barnett writes about "moralizing internationalism" which is a permanent feature of Anglo-Saxon "elites" and which is the main reason for an instinct for constant desire to pontificate while ignoring "facts on the ground". Obviously, the fact that Red Army lost more KIAs liberating Poland than US and UK combined in WW II is of very little concern. Obviously, the fact of modern Poland's rabid Russo-phobia which may lead to a very real war, not to mention Poland's literally insane elites (enough to take a look at her current Defense Minister), is not considered at all.

    He could have also mentioned that at least one reason for strange stupidities in current Poland must be one of the worst eliticides in history:

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

    Sure, Stalin killed military elites. But, long term, that’s nothing to what Nazis did to Polish intelligentsia by wiping out some probably superb genes (many must have been young enough to still have kids).

    Read More
  123. AP says:
    @German_reader

    For context, an analogous number of Soviet POWs died in Polish camps during the Polish-Soviet war when Poland invaded Soviet Ukraine.
     
    Sorry, but that really comes across as revisionist whataboutery. Unless there's definite proof that the Poles during the Polish-Soviet war deliberately exterminated pows (like the Germans did in WW2), there's really no equivalence with systematic murder of a country's elite like happened at Katyn.
    I also agree with Syonredux, most Westerners today probably haven't even heard of Katyn.

    “For context, an analogous number of Soviet POWs died in Polish camps during the Polish-Soviet war when Poland invaded Soviet Ukraine.”

    Sorry, but that really comes across as revisionist whataboutery. Unless there’s definite proof that the Poles during the Polish-Soviet war deliberately exterminated pows (like the Germans did in WW2),

    AFAIK, the Soviet POWs captured by Poland died during a typhus epidemic in which Poles also died, they were not murdered as in Katyn.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thirdeye
    .......and most Jews who died in concentration camps died of disease and starvation.

    The Polish wars of expansion against the Russia and the Ukrainian republics were accompanied by ethnic cleansing. Poland puts their war against Russia in the light of the Russians being big bad Commies. What's their excuse for their wars against the then-independent Ukrainian republics?
  124. Thirdeye says:
    @5371
    Germany and the USSR did not invade Poland simultaneously in September 1939; the USSR did so once Polish forces had already been defeated. Nor is it at all clear that Soviet forces could have occupied Warsaw already in August 1944, had they received orders to do so.

    Not only that, the Soviet forces were under orders not to interfere with the retreat of Polish forces to Romania. That was the single biggest factor allowing the PGIE to assemble a military force for the British. Polish soldiers caught behind the lines were treated as internees, which the USSR was obligated to do as a non-belligerent towards Germany. The big question is whether the Katyn executions (which were on a much smaller scale than has been claimed in propaganda accounts) would have happened had the PGIE not declared war on the USSR as soon as they got established in Paris in December 1939.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    The big question is whether the Katyn executions (which were on a much smaller scale than has been claimed in propaganda accounts) would have happened had the PGIE not declared war on the USSR as soon as they got established in Paris in December 1939.

    What declaration of war by PGIE? Poland and its PGIE with respect to USSR followed the position of its Allies: do not aggravate the Soviet Union.

    (which were on a much smaller scale than has been claimed in propaganda accounts)

    Katyn can account for about 4000 victims (3000? verified in exhumation), however there were other sites that never were investigated. The total number of officers killed is at at least at 12,000. Some estimates claim 22,000 but they include police officers, I think.

    When in 1940 USSR invaded Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia there were quite a few interned Polish officers who then fell into the Soviet hands. These officers were not killed by the Soviets. Some speculate that after the defeat of France Stalin no longer saw the need of eliminating the officers of Polish armed forces, that Poland was irrevocably finished.
  125. Thirdeye says:
    @Miro23

    And you could hardly find a better place then Poland to say it. Protect our borders? The Poles can tell you things about that. They remember very vividly—how could they ever forget? —what happened to their borders 78 years ago, when Stalin and Hitler simultaneously invaded.
     
    And prior to that, their country was partitioned three times by Prussia, Russia and Austria-Hungary until it ceased to exist in 1795 - a situation that continued for 123 years.

    With a whole series of secret agreements directed against them, and the fact that their losses in WW2 (in per capita terms) were almost twice as high as the Soviet Union, it's not a surprise that they want Poland for Poles. And with regard to the Holocaust, the ratio of Jewish to non-Jewish deaths in Poland was virtually 1:1. For every Polish Jew who perished in the Holocaust, there was a Gentile Polish citizen who had perished in one or other of the many wartime horrors (Norman Davies 2012).

    That’s a meaningless statistic. Polish Jews were much more impacted as a population than were Polish gentiles.

    Read More
  126. Thirdeye says:
    @Andrei Martyanov
    Well, Polish role in unleashing a WW II is somehow unknown to Derb who, probably, didn't read Correlli Barnett's scathing characterization of this very Polish role, together with British one.

    https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-OAoptzMBygE/WWEuIpid-cI/AAAAAAAABG8/bWY3n_wRN_0yek4r6Pl7X5t7RA17SVmSQCLcBGAs/s1600/EastEurope.jpg

    This very same Barnett writes about "moralizing internationalism" which is a permanent feature of Anglo-Saxon "elites" and which is the main reason for an instinct for constant desire to pontificate while ignoring "facts on the ground". Obviously, the fact that Red Army lost more KIAs liberating Poland than US and UK combined in WW II is of very little concern. Obviously, the fact of modern Poland's rabid Russo-phobia which may lead to a very real war, not to mention Poland's literally insane elites (enough to take a look at her current Defense Minister), is not considered at all.

    Barnett has the opposite take as this author, that Germany and Poland were close to resolving the Danzig Corridor issue that had been festering for close to 15 years under the Locarno Treaty, until Britain sabotaged the negotiations with, among other things, their “guarantee” to Poland.

    http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/11448682-1939—the-war-that-had-many-fathers

    Britain’s exact motive for doing that is subject to interpretation. Maybe they were looking to force Hitler to back down, humiliating him and settling scores after the Munich debacle. Or maybe they were looking for a war in which Germany, at least on paper, would be soundly defeated by Britain and France.

    IMO the desultory Anglo-French war effort was driven by their belief that Germany and the USSR would soon be at war, given credence by the Winter War between Finland and the Soviets. They were almost right, except that Germany took out France first. D’OH!

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    that Germany and Poland were close to resolving the Danzig Corridor issue that had been festering for close to 15 years under the Locarno Treaty, until Britain sabotaged the negotiations with, among other things, their “guarantee” to Poland.

    Perhaps w/o the British guarantees Poland would have to make a deal with Germany. Certainly being an ally of Germany was better than being its enemy. For Jews in particular. Hungary is the best example.

    Here is a book on alternate history where Poland becomes an ally of Germany.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pact_Ribbentrop_-_Beck

    "In the history of nations there are moments when one has to bite the bullet and allow for painful concessions. To give up in order to save the nation from destruction, and its citizens from slaughter. This was the situation of Poland in 1939. Piotr Zychowicz claims in his book that the decision to enter the war against Nazi Germany in an illusive alliance with France and Great Britain, was a grave mistake, for which we paid a horrible price. History could have turned in a different way. Instead of biting off more than we could chew, we should have used realpolitik. We should have made concessions to Hitler, and agreed for annexation of the Free City of Danzig into the Third Reich, as well as for the construction of an extraterritorial highway across the Polish Corridor. And then, together with the Germans, we should have attacked the Soviet Union. Forty valiant divisions of the Polish Army, fighting on the Eastern Front would have sealed the fate of Stalin's empire"
     
  127. Thirdeye says:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    Then add the divisions diverted to the West (there always had to be dozens of divisions stationed in the West for fear of a British invasion
     
    Most of them were in effect reserve and recuperating divisions in which by 1944 the quality of personnel was very low--the fact well document by late Stephen Ambrose (among many others). Very large number of personnel were ethnic units including but not limited to Kalmyks, Bosniaks etc.--hardly your crack SS Panzer divisions. But I want to be very clear hear--I will reject any accusations in trying to diminish or denigrate Allied contribution to WW II in Europe, my point is completely different--realities and scales of the Eastern Front are still largely unknown in the West, some of it due to a general lack of education but most of it due to incessant propaganda.

    As per British "invasion"--some of the sources (all Anglo-American) I pointed out in posts above blow this whole "British invasion" out of the water. Germany knew damn well that there will be no invasion in 1941, 1942 and even later for a simple reason of being well-informed about the nature of a strategic discussion between Allies, which prior to Casablanca was dominated by Churchill and his Imperial General Staff, hence general Stanley Embick's memorandum on "primrose path" by Great Britain and very serious ramblings among American top military people starting from George Marshall and Ike himself down to Embick, Gerow and others. Germany knew that any attempts on real European invasion will be sabotaged by British side, which deliberately set for failure, catastrophic raid on Dieppe only confirmed, never mind 5000 Canadian and 1000 American lives sacrificed. But whatever the case is or was, what matters is what was happening on the Eastern Front where a bulk of Third Reich's best men and materiel were ground into dust. What led to Tehran Conference was a dramatic, radical strategic change (in Russian perelom) in Winter-Summer 1943 which convinced Allied military-political top in a complete ability of the Soviet Union to not merely destroy Third Reich but take it to the French shores. Would it cost USSR more lives and effort? Surely it would, but as Allied intelligence noted already by 1942--the scale of losses on both sides and atrocities committed by Nazis in Russia completely precluded any possibility of any political settlement between Germany and USSR. After Kursk and Orel-Belgorod Offensive by the Red Army it was over for Wehrmacht, plain and simple--at that time every person in USSR knew it, without any propaganda, that Berlin was now in sight. Allies knew it too. There is a remarkable piece by Molly Panter Downess (at the time New Yorker's correspondent in Britain) in her London War Notes about Kursk Battle how most Londoners were anxiously waiting any news from Kursk salient and the feeling of unease among people because they were, as Downess states, felt as being on the sidelines observing how their best friend was fighting a huge decisive battle. But, of course, the main thing of Anglo-American WW II historiography in the post-WW II period, with some exceptions, was to obfuscate and eventually rewrite the history of WW II. But as last 3-4 years has so dramatically shown most (not all) of Anglo-American political and academe establishments have issues with causality.

    The Germans made good use of their knowledge of Anglo-American plans in planning Operation Zitadel. They knew they could strip their reserves out of France to strengthen their forces at Kursk. German forces in France were stronger in June 1944 than they were in June 1943.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov

    German forces in France were stronger in June 1944 than they were in June 1943.
     
    Nominally (division, IIRC, and materiel count)--yes, personnel-wise--no. The Wehrmacht's quality started to drop precipitously by end of 1943 . By mid-June 1944 Germany simply ran out of adequate human resources and Volksgrenadier Divisions sprung into existence. .

    They knew they could strip their reserves out of France to strengthen their forces at Kursk.
     
    Yet, that brings fore the issue of, at the very least, of the Roundup, doesn't it?
  128. Thirdeye says:
    @SolontoCroesus
    One of the major objectives of the Allied campaign to take Italy was control over Italian airfields, the better to carry out morale bombing of German cities. US bombers were fully involved in carpet bombing of German cities from 1943 forward. Inasmuch as it was understood by the Allies that Wehrmacht was mortally wounded by 1942, one can only conclude that the overarching goal was the genocide of the German people and culture. Even A. C. Grayling, otherwise a double-talking British sycophant, called the destruction of German cities "culturecide," the equivalent of the destruction of the Buddha and the rape of the museums in Baghdad.

    Jews were involved in forming these goals at the highest level: Louis Brandeis announced them as early as Feb. 1933; Unz pointed out that the British were responsible for the propaganda campaign that incited Americans to war, but Jews were significant elements in propaganda planning -- i.e. Ewan Montagu in London, and his brother, who collaborated w/ Charlie Chaplin and other Jewish Hollywood studios to make propaganda films; Henry Morgenthau, Jr. was officially Sec'y of Treasury but inserted himself in State Dept decision making, he spoke w/ FDR daily; FDR met w/ Bernard Baruch and conceived the plan for Mark Clark's unitary campaign to take Rome at Baruch's North Carolina plantation; the Ritchie Boys -- several thousand German Jews -- were trained by and worked w/ US forces to infiltrate, spy on, steal from, then prosecuted Germans.

    US bombers were fully involved in carpet bombing of German cities from 1943 forward.

    Nope. And the rest of your playing on your favorite hobby horse isn’t any better.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    Zionist Thirdeye is absolutely wrong again. Well, he is a Zionist, so .....

    Read and learn:
    Who started bombing civilians first?
    http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=8172

    The '6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers' are scientifically impossible frauds.
    see the 'holocaust' scam debunked here:
    http://codoh.com
    No name calling, level playing field debate here:
    http://forum.codoh.com

  129. @Thirdeye
    The Germans made good use of their knowledge of Anglo-American plans in planning Operation Zitadel. They knew they could strip their reserves out of France to strengthen their forces at Kursk. German forces in France were stronger in June 1944 than they were in June 1943.

    German forces in France were stronger in June 1944 than they were in June 1943.

    Nominally (division, IIRC, and materiel count)–yes, personnel-wise–no. The Wehrmacht’s quality started to drop precipitously by end of 1943 . By mid-June 1944 Germany simply ran out of adequate human resources and Volksgrenadier Divisions sprung into existence. .

    They knew they could strip their reserves out of France to strengthen their forces at Kursk.

    Yet, that brings fore the issue of, at the very least, of the Roundup, doesn’t it?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thirdeye

    Yet, that brings fore the issue of, at the very least, of the Roundup, doesn’t it?
     
    Indeedy. David Eisenhower in Eisenhower at War has some rather scathing comments on the matter. Churchill just couldn't keep his eye on the strategic ball because he was still thinking in terms of imperial goals. The whole Italian fiasco was driven by his hare-brained notion of driving into the Balkans to project power into eastern Europe. So the ironic result was the whole thing grinding to a bloody halt at the Gustav Line while the Soviet forces were rolling through the Ukraine. By the time they got moving again the campaign was just a sideshow. Market Garden was another roll of the dice to set up a drive across northern Germany in a race with the Soviets. In a way it was a stroke of good fortune for the Anglo-Americans that it got stopped where it did, because there were much greater risks down the road from a battle-of-the-bulge type drive against its southern flank that would have been much harder to stop than the one that actually occurred. Montgomery defended those bloopers on the basis of the political outcomes that they sought to achieve.
  130. KenH says:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    As if Russians or Russian generals are totally incapable of serving up self serving accounts of WWII
     
    Who said that they were incapable? I never said so. I am also keenly aware of Glantz book precisely because it was challenged and not without success by some serious Russian military historians (if my Alzheimer doesn't fail me Alexey Isaev wrote, among others, on this issue). It is also true that this book, together with Glatntz' and House's Kursk, were published more than 17 years ago. There is a case (which still makes Glantz' perspective valuable) for Mars offensive that it was conceived from the get go as a diversionary operation--it is now a well-known fact. Did Zhukov have failures? Absolutely, as any other great military leaders did. Did he enjoy his status? Yes! Was there professional jealousy (and rivalry) between Soviet marshals? Hell, yeah! Big time. So, please--you are preaching to a choir. At issue here not how many battles Red Army lost--it lost a few, but the monstrous scale and, consequently, a very different dynamics between Eastern and, with the opening in 1944, Western Fronts. As this very same Glantz recites in one of his books: when asked, POW Wehrmacht officers in 1945 stated that while the war in the West was sports proper, war in the East was an unmitigated horror. This difference is crucial and, together, with enormous scale of the War in the East, constitute one of the key elements in foundation of the Cold War and what we all observe today.

    The Red Army lost many battles, but still managed to win the war. If Stalin wanted to conceal the failure of operation Mars to protect morale that would make sense since at that point in the conflict Russia was losing and morale and confidence was still fragile. But there was no need to maintain a blackout long after the war and consign this battle to the Soviet memory hole.

    Read More
  131. Thirdeye says:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    German forces in France were stronger in June 1944 than they were in June 1943.
     
    Nominally (division, IIRC, and materiel count)--yes, personnel-wise--no. The Wehrmacht's quality started to drop precipitously by end of 1943 . By mid-June 1944 Germany simply ran out of adequate human resources and Volksgrenadier Divisions sprung into existence. .

    They knew they could strip their reserves out of France to strengthen their forces at Kursk.
     
    Yet, that brings fore the issue of, at the very least, of the Roundup, doesn't it?

    Yet, that brings fore the issue of, at the very least, of the Roundup, doesn’t it?

    Indeedy. David Eisenhower in Eisenhower at War has some rather scathing comments on the matter. Churchill just couldn’t keep his eye on the strategic ball because he was still thinking in terms of imperial goals. The whole Italian fiasco was driven by his hare-brained notion of driving into the Balkans to project power into eastern Europe. So the ironic result was the whole thing grinding to a bloody halt at the Gustav Line while the Soviet forces were rolling through the Ukraine. By the time they got moving again the campaign was just a sideshow. Market Garden was another roll of the dice to set up a drive across northern Germany in a race with the Soviets. In a way it was a stroke of good fortune for the Anglo-Americans that it got stopped where it did, because there were much greater risks down the road from a battle-of-the-bulge type drive against its southern flank that would have been much harder to stop than the one that actually occurred. Montgomery defended those bloopers on the basis of the political outcomes that they sought to achieve.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov
    Excellent observation. In fact, David Eisenhower in his outstanding treatise is much closer to Soviet/Russian assessment of the Western Front than one may think. Market Garden is a an excellent example of a somewhat underestimation (by Monty and Churchill, Ike simply "surrendered" and let Monty fail) of still significant German ability in applying Wehrmacht's favorite operational tools both in defense and in offensive, which bring to the fore yet another issue of a much maligned (mostly by Patton's fanboys) Broad Front strategy, which far from being "timid" as arm chair strategists who watch too much Hollywood suggest, was completely justified and proven right Ike's decision, who has proven himself an excellent strategist. In the end, as Patton's Third Army maneuver to the North during Ardennes Battle has proven--while not being solely responsible for relieving the pressure in the Bulge (heroic actions of US 2nd, 99th Divisions and others on the North Face of the Bulge early in operation extinguished German momentum) played a significant role in the outcome.
  132. utu says:
    @Thirdeye
    Not only that, the Soviet forces were under orders not to interfere with the retreat of Polish forces to Romania. That was the single biggest factor allowing the PGIE to assemble a military force for the British. Polish soldiers caught behind the lines were treated as internees, which the USSR was obligated to do as a non-belligerent towards Germany. The big question is whether the Katyn executions (which were on a much smaller scale than has been claimed in propaganda accounts) would have happened had the PGIE not declared war on the USSR as soon as they got established in Paris in December 1939.

    The big question is whether the Katyn executions (which were on a much smaller scale than has been claimed in propaganda accounts) would have happened had the PGIE not declared war on the USSR as soon as they got established in Paris in December 1939.

    What declaration of war by PGIE? Poland and its PGIE with respect to USSR followed the position of its Allies: do not aggravate the Soviet Union.

    (which were on a much smaller scale than has been claimed in propaganda accounts)

    Katyn can account for about 4000 victims (3000? verified in exhumation), however there were other sites that never were investigated. The total number of officers killed is at at least at 12,000. Some estimates claim 22,000 but they include police officers, I think.

    When in 1940 USSR invaded Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia there were quite a few interned Polish officers who then fell into the Soviet hands. These officers were not killed by the Soviets. Some speculate that after the defeat of France Stalin no longer saw the need of eliminating the officers of Polish armed forces, that Poland was irrevocably finished.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thirdeye

    What declaration of war by PGIE?
     
    December 18, 1939. It included weasel wording to satisfy their Anglo-French sponsors. It was later rescinded under pressure from said sponsors, but the damage was already done.

    https://searchworks.stanford.edu/view/3176410

    There is no evidence for more than 4000 Poles executed by the Soviets, those at the actual Katyn Forest site. The 12,000 - 22,000 numbers are propaganda. A Polish forensic anthropological team investigated purported Katyn-related NKVD execution sites and published its report in 2012. (there used to be a PDF in Polish online). Their conclusion was that they were SS execution sites. There was identifying information showing that some of those victims were among the purported Katyn victims.
  133. utu says:
    @Thirdeye
    Barnett has the opposite take as this author, that Germany and Poland were close to resolving the Danzig Corridor issue that had been festering for close to 15 years under the Locarno Treaty, until Britain sabotaged the negotiations with, among other things, their "guarantee" to Poland.

    http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/11448682-1939---the-war-that-had-many-fathers

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBLgZAv_Iqo

    Britain's exact motive for doing that is subject to interpretation. Maybe they were looking to force Hitler to back down, humiliating him and settling scores after the Munich debacle. Or maybe they were looking for a war in which Germany, at least on paper, would be soundly defeated by Britain and France.

    IMO the desultory Anglo-French war effort was driven by their belief that Germany and the USSR would soon be at war, given credence by the Winter War between Finland and the Soviets. They were almost right, except that Germany took out France first. D'OH!

    that Germany and Poland were close to resolving the Danzig Corridor issue that had been festering for close to 15 years under the Locarno Treaty, until Britain sabotaged the negotiations with, among other things, their “guarantee” to Poland.

    Perhaps w/o the British guarantees Poland would have to make a deal with Germany. Certainly being an ally of Germany was better than being its enemy. For Jews in particular. Hungary is the best example.

    Here is a book on alternate history where Poland becomes an ally of Germany.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pact_Ribbentrop_-_Beck

    “In the history of nations there are moments when one has to bite the bullet and allow for painful concessions. To give up in order to save the nation from destruction, and its citizens from slaughter. This was the situation of Poland in 1939. Piotr Zychowicz claims in his book that the decision to enter the war against Nazi Germany in an illusive alliance with France and Great Britain, was a grave mistake, for which we paid a horrible price. History could have turned in a different way. Instead of biting off more than we could chew, we should have used realpolitik. We should have made concessions to Hitler, and agreed for annexation of the Free City of Danzig into the Third Reich, as well as for the construction of an extraterritorial highway across the Polish Corridor. And then, together with the Germans, we should have attacked the Soviet Union. Forty valiant divisions of the Polish Army, fighting on the Eastern Front would have sealed the fate of Stalin’s empire”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Avery
    { Forty valiant divisions of the Polish Army, fighting on the Eastern Front would have sealed the fate of Stalin’s empire}

    Those same supposedly valiant Polish divisions lasted exactly 1 month and 5 days (1 September – 6 October 1939) against the Wehrmacht.

    At the battle of Stalingrad 220,000 Italians, 200,000 Hungarians, 140,000 Romanians were chopped up like the Germans. If Polacs had been there with their Nazi 'allies', they would end up the same. When the ring started closing around the invaders in Stalingrad (Operation Uranus) those useless hangers-on basically gave up the fight or ran. The only ones who stood and fought to the bitter end were the Germans.

    The real valiant army on the Eastern Front - the Red Army - would have crushed the stupid Polish if they had joined the Wehrmacht. Same as 80% of Wehrmacht, its best and toughest divisions.

    One more thing: Hitler would not deign to be 'allies' with Untermenschen Polacs. They were to be enslaved and exterminated by Nazis like all other Untermenschen Slavic peoples.
    , @Thirdeye
    I suspect Hitler's vision was to have Poland as a vassal state like Hungary or Romania. But when you game it out, the Nazis would have lost the allegiance they had among the west Ukrainians, who hate the Poles with the same passion they hate the Russians, so the two scenarios may have been a strategic wash for Germany.
  134. Katyn indeed characterises the Neurenberg shows, the allies knew quite well that not Germany but Stalin had perpetrated the mass murder.
    And indeed, GB declared war to protect Poland, but the allies gave it away to Stalin, Churchill, I suppose with Roosevelt consent, even murdered the Polish president in exile, Sikorski.
    Sikorski refused to cooperate with Stallin.
    Two or three earlier aircraft ‘accidents’ failed.

    David Irving, ‘Accident – The death of General Sikorsky’, 1979, München (German translation)

    Jan Ciechanowski, vormals polnischer Botschafter in den Vereinigten Staaten, ´Vergeblicher Sieg’, Zürich 1948 ( Defeat in Victory, New York, 1947)

    Read More
  135. @reiner Tor

    The Nazis’ main mistake was to wait until early 1943 to start moving towards a total war economy.
     
    I think it's a common misconception.

    Mistakes were made in the economy, but the economy was set on war footing already by 1941. The problems were multifold.

    1) The major European war started earlier than the Germans expected (Hitler only wanted a short little war against Poland in 1939), so a lot of the German investment programs (building synthetic fuel and synthetic rubber capacity, building a number of new factories, etc.) only bore fruit by 1942, after which they were often scaled down. (And some of them, like the Buna chemical factory in Auschwitz, weren't finished even by 1945, the Buna chemical plant started production only in 1950s communist Poland.) The German investment program was so heavy, and often geared to quantity over quality (buying for example multi-purpose machine tools instead of tools geared to specific weapons which couldn't later be upgraded), that German machine tool capacity stood in 1945 at roughly late 1930s levels, helping to make the later German economic miracle possible. It also meant that a lot of the production capacity which could've been geared to producing weapons was instead geared to produce investments for later war production. The problem was, of course, that by the time these capacities came in line, the war was lost for good.

    2) The German army demanded endless improvements and multiple variants of the same weapons, which fit smaller workshops well, but suppressed production numbers in large factories. In fact, smaller workshops should've been closed down by 1941 (because they used up a lot of resources for relatively little production, even if their production was of good quality), but it happened way slower than necessary, because Hitler allowed the German army to have too large influence over war production for too long. (Eventually German generals responsible for war production also came around to the view that after a point quantity was way more important than quality, but it took them very long.)

    3) Meanwhile, living standards dropped very quickly, in fact, according to Overy and others between 1939 and 1941 they dropped more than between 1941 and 1945. So it really was a war economy in the sense that over half of the GDP was spent on the war effort. It just wasn't very efficient. For all the stereotypes about German efficiency and Russian lousiness (to which I think there is a lot of truth), the Soviet war economy was organized in a more efficient way. Again, Lend Lease helped them enormously because it filled in crucial gaps, but a lot of credit should go to Stalin, Voznesensky, and the civilian leadership in general. The Germans also made a lot of huge mistakes in the economic policies, mainly by not rationalizing production fast enough after 1939.

    Anyone who studied in detail WWII knows that Germany never prepared for war.
    True is that Hitler knew quite well that he could not reverse Versailles without letting Germany’s enemies believe he was preparing for war.
    Goering’s diaries show how foreign visitors were fooled, they thought they saw other planes flying, it were the same, the paint still wet.
    War production just in 1944 was highest, too late.
    Hitler underestimated both thr V1 and the V2, the hydrogen bomb never left the experimental phase.

    Read More
  136. @SolontoCroesus
    One of the major objectives of the Allied campaign to take Italy was control over Italian airfields, the better to carry out morale bombing of German cities. US bombers were fully involved in carpet bombing of German cities from 1943 forward. Inasmuch as it was understood by the Allies that Wehrmacht was mortally wounded by 1942, one can only conclude that the overarching goal was the genocide of the German people and culture. Even A. C. Grayling, otherwise a double-talking British sycophant, called the destruction of German cities "culturecide," the equivalent of the destruction of the Buddha and the rape of the museums in Baghdad.

    Jews were involved in forming these goals at the highest level: Louis Brandeis announced them as early as Feb. 1933; Unz pointed out that the British were responsible for the propaganda campaign that incited Americans to war, but Jews were significant elements in propaganda planning -- i.e. Ewan Montagu in London, and his brother, who collaborated w/ Charlie Chaplin and other Jewish Hollywood studios to make propaganda films; Henry Morgenthau, Jr. was officially Sec'y of Treasury but inserted himself in State Dept decision making, he spoke w/ FDR daily; FDR met w/ Bernard Baruch and conceived the plan for Mark Clark's unitary campaign to take Rome at Baruch's North Carolina plantation; the Ritchie Boys -- several thousand German Jews -- were trained by and worked w/ US forces to infiltrate, spy on, steal from, then prosecuted Germans.

    No mention of Frankfurter, the author of Lend Lease, that gave FRD unlimited powers for war.
    Bruce Allen Murphy, ‘The Brandeis/Frankfurter Connection, The Secret Political Activities of Two Supreme Court Justices’, New York, 1983

    Read More
  137. Is Trump the first U.S. President to mention Katyn in public?

    Not at all. In fact back in September 2012 President Obama asked the National Archives to declassify US wartime documents demonstrating Soviet guilt in the Katyn massacre. Another reason why Putin dislikes Obama.

    Read More
  138. @David In TN
    This thread was supposed to be about the Katyn Massacre being something you weren't supposed to mention. But several posters took it elsewhere.

    This thread was supposed to be about the Katyn Massacre being something you weren’t supposed to mention

    Except that the anti-Russian Obama administration mentioned Katyn quite often. There was also the Wajda film about Katyn that was nominated for an Oscar back under the Bush administration, so it wasn’t much of a taboo even 10 years ago.

    Giving Trump credit for mentioning Katyn is pretty silly. Is Derbyshire going to write a paen to Anne Appelbaum next?

    Read More
    • Replies: @David In TN
    A well-known ABC "journalist" was blaming Katyn on the Germans in the 1970's.

    And name a prominent American liberal who "mentioned Katyn" while the Soviet Union was still in existence.
  139. peterAUS says:
    @Rich
    I'm not sure I understand your point. Are you denying that the Soviet high command as well as officers in the field gave permission to soldiers to rape females from 8 to 80? Are you denying that the communist barbarians committed these acts? Either you're ignorant of the facts, or are playing a silly game.
    If, perhaps, you're simply ignorant of what the Reds did to innocent civilian women and children, just Google it. There's more than enough evidence of these atrocities.
    I was actually told about this by two Russian immigrants I met many years ago who were soldiers in the Red army, further research proved they were telling the truth .

    I’ve met a few older Soviets who also thought the rape of children and old ladies was somehow justified, but thought they were just crazy old men. Is it a commie thing?

    Not really.
    It’s “Eastern European thing”.
    Further to the East you go, more prevalent it becomes.
    Start from Slovakia and keep going…..

    As for orders….ha…ha……

    Most people here discussing the topic just have no idea how that shit really works.
    Westerners I mean.

    Russians…and the rest of the tribes from the East…..oh they know.
    They just play “ignorant”.

    Read More
  140. @Andrei Martyanov

    If not for the American involvement in WWII, the Russians that still lived would be speaking German and shining Nazi boots. The Americans were the straw that broke Germany, and without US supplies Stalin would’ve been hanged by his own people.
     
    LOL, read arguably best American military historians in generations and send all your conclusions to US Army Command and General Staff College at Leavenworth, KS.

    http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-c5hbLfJ9AVw/VjT_ccnWrtI/AAAAAAAAAOk/kDjVXsYCUGs/s1600/Glantz-House_2.jpg

    As per "straw", you obviously have no a faintest idea about US-British discussions on European strategy.

    http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Hhs882opTA0/VjY1vej8pkI/AAAAAAAAAPE/sH9CR7N8uEo/s1600/Ike_2.jpg

    I'll give you a hint--after Kursk it became abundantly clear that the question was not about Wehrmacht being defeated (that was clear after Stalingrad), at issue was a complete annihilation of Nazi machine in all of Europe and Soviets, who unequivocally signed on with FDR's "unconditional surrender" clause, were damn poised to see it through. Obviously, that is why after 3 years of Churchill's and Imperial General Staff sabotage Tehran Conference has happened and Churchill has been almost completely removed from formulation of strategy. So, while Soviet Union did welcome real Second Front (finally, and Moscow saluted it with major fireworks), by Overlord unfolding it was clear to everyone that the question was in not allowing Soviet Union have all of Europe. But main Soviet objective, by far, was annihilation of the Third Reich and here Soviet contribution dwarfs that of Allies. As even Dr.Seuss understood it then.

    https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-50jwLOMJzBk/WUkpNrJxFAI/AAAAAAAABEE/zFiKlpx4j64_qgVCNO4ECvcdg--1kJ6vwCLcBGAs/s1600/pro5.jpg

    In other words, Red Army was completely capable of reaching French coast. But destroying Third Reich was at the very top of the agenda, but, yes, sure live in your parallel universe.

    I don’t think Stalin ever wanted to have to occupy France. Every Soviet soldier who stepped foot in France (or Italy for that matter) would have become politically unreliable from the exposure to a real civilization. The defection rate would have been huge. At least the Soviets occupying Germany were somewhat innoculated from bad ideas due to the fact that the Germans had been trying to murder them, and the obvious devastation Germany had suffered during the war.

    Read More
  141. @Jim
    The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was signed on August 23, 1939 just prior to the German invasion on September 1, 1939. In a secret protocol attached to this treaty Hitler and Stalin agreed to the division of Poland. The Soviet Union denied the existence of this secret protocol until 1989 when they admitted it.

    Stalin is just as responsible as Hitler for World War II. Had the principles of the Nuremberg trials been applied to Stalin or Molotov consistent with their application to Ribbentrop both of the former two would have been hung. Ribbentrop was hung.

    It’s interesting that the Polish “guarantee” only extended to a German invasion: Britain declined to defend Poland from the USSR….funny….

    [Wikipedia: "According to the Polish-British Common Defence Pact, the United Kingdom should give Poland “all the support and assistance in its power” if Poland was "engaged in hostilities with a European Power in consequence of aggression by the latter". The Polish ambassador in London, Raczyński, contacted the British Foreign Office pointing out that clause 1(b) of the agreement which concerned an "aggression by a European power" on Poland, should apply to the Soviet invasion. The Foreign Secretary Lord Halifax responded that the obligation of British Government towards Poland arising out of the Anglo-Polish Agreement, was restricted to Germany, according to the first clause of the secret protocol.[3]“]

    Read More
  142. @German_reader

    For context, an analogous number of Soviet POWs died in Polish camps during the Polish-Soviet war when Poland invaded Soviet Ukraine.
     
    Sorry, but that really comes across as revisionist whataboutery. Unless there's definite proof that the Poles during the Polish-Soviet war deliberately exterminated pows (like the Germans did in WW2), there's really no equivalence with systematic murder of a country's elite like happened at Katyn.
    I also agree with Syonredux, most Westerners today probably haven't even heard of Katyn.

    “most Westerners today probably haven’t even heard of Katyn.”
    Most Westerners would have problems naming the various belligerents to WW II, or when/where it took place. Or am I being unfair….?

    Read More
  143. @Hibernian
    "For the same reason that most people now believe the US played the most important role in winning WW2."

    We did. Remember Guadalcanal, Midway, Iwo Jima, Okinawa, etc. Plus TORCH, Scicily, Anzio, and the Battle of the Bulge. Plus Lend-Lease.

    “Remember Guadalcanal, Midway, Iwo Jima, Okinawa”
    Yes, the US role in the Pacific was paramount. But not so in Europe, where it’s role was only paramount re the western allies (Britain, Canada etc). In terms of the European war considered as a whole, the USSR had the paramount role. The European matters you mention were important, without doubt, but they don’t come close to surpassing the role of the USSR in crushing Germany.

    Read More
  144. @syonredux

    Why does nobody ever mention that, or even know about it, while Katyn has assumed one of the central positions in Western mythology about WW2?
     
    I rather doubt that. I teach English Lit at a university, and I've polled my students about Katyn on several occasions. None of them have heard of it.And none of them have heard about Blokhin, the fellow who actually carried out the order

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

    Katyn was certainly a war crime, but a relatively minor one in the context of WW2.
     
    Numerically? Sure. Heck, placed alongside Stalin's other megadeaths (The Ukraine Famine, the Great Terror, etc), it's fairly minor.

    Why does nobody ever mention that, or even know about it, while Katyn has assumed one of the central positions in Western mythology about WW2?

    I rather doubt that. I teach English Lit at a university, and I’ve polled my students about Katyn on several occasions. None of them have heard of it.

    Well, people of that age group are largely clueless about the war on the Vietnamese people too, so your poll doesn’t tell us much. And it certainly doesn’t negate the claim that Katyn has assumed one of the central positions in Western mythology about WW2

    Read More
  145. @Andrei Martyanov

    If Katyn occupies “one of the central positions in Western mythology about WW2,” one would expect college-educated Americans to be at least somewhat aware of it.
     
    Forgive me, but LOL. I do not rate high at all namely college-educated America in terms of knowledge of the outside world, let alone of WWII since it was this very same college-educated America, some of it with Masters others with Ph.Ds in all kinds of humanities "sciences" who concocted this America-The-Victor-Of-Nazism (with some minor help from those commies) narrative used (to a devastating effect, including on US herself) to reinforce US exceptionalism and totally false sense of a moral high ground--that is why such a desperate desire to avoid any conversations with actual archival numbers. But as I said not for once: sense of scale, proportion and measure are not strong points of most US "elites", as your posts about "great purges" demonstrate. So, no--your argument about what college-educated America is aware about is false, especially when dealing with this very field of Russian so called "studies" whose complete bankruptcy in US has been demonstrated with such a spectacular results in the last 3 + years. Damn, I am even writing a book about it. Yes, the question is how and why all those college-educated US intelligence, economy, military "experts" (some of them with many degrees) could have failed to understand how the whole world will change and not in their favor. I predicted that in 2014 (I have documented proof of that), my only mistake was in how fast all that happened, I expected it to be somewhat teeny-weeny bit slower. So, I do not take seriously most judgements by "college-educated" America on most subjects related to Russian/Soviet history.

    So, I do not take seriously most judgements by “college-educated” America on most subjects related to Russian/Soviet history.

    And well you shouldn’t.

    One will NOT get “educated” about history by attending a US institution of “higher learning.” Aside from science and math, most are nothing more than brainwashing factories and have pretty much always been. Upton Sinclair explained why in his book, “The Goose-Step” written in 1923, and his claims are still valid today.

    Read More
    • Replies: @robt
    Just math, and the empirical content of scientific study, not 'science and math' They are not equivalent. Taken as a whole discipline, and on a much longer time scale, theoretical 'science' is like the fad diet of the year. Just an objective study of Global Warming/Cooling generational rotation by 'scientists' for the last 150 years quickly reveals that. Or study the theory of Wegener's Continental Drift which was ridiculed until just 60 years ago, now renamed Tectonics, and accepted as irrefutable truth. What seemed obvious when I was a child and had read Wegener and looked at maps got me into terrible arguments with 'teachers', and kicked out of class.
    But read 'The Structure of Scientific Revolutions', by Thomas Kuhn. Then reflect on the state of educational institutions today - it's not about education, it's about politics, and the politics of science.

    Anyway, you will not be objectively educated about political history in any nation. Your only hope is to try to put together all the pieces from all different sources, and most important, apply logic.
    The American Revolution is a good place to start.
  146. @SolontoCroesus

    The American air offensive in Europe actually wasn’t based on indiscriminate area bombing, but targeted key industries (like the ball-bearings plant at Schweinfurt, the oil industry etc.), Luftwaffe installations and transport networks. By the standards of the time it was a pretty smart use of air power that arguably really did shorten the war.
     
    You are wrong, German_reader.

    1. The destruction of Dresden was a combined British -- USAF undertaking:


    "The bombing of Dresden was a British/American aerial bombing attack on the city of Dresden, the capital of the German state of Saxony, that took place during the Second World War in the European Theatre. In four raids between 13 and 15 February 1945, 722 heavy bombers of the British Royal Air Force (RAF) and 527 of the United States Army Air Forces (USAAF) dropped more than 3,900 tons of high-explosive bombs and incendiary devices on the city. "
     
    2. US bombing strategy targeted not only industrial centers but also, and deliberately, civilians; specifically working-class Germans and even "infants in cribs" to the extent that USAF constructed mock-ups of German worker's housing and practiced/perfected the chemicals and techniques used to kill the maximum number of civilians most efficiently:

    From, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior http://lcweb2.loc.gov/master/pnp/habshaer/ut/ut0500/ut0568/data/ut0568data.pdf


    The Dugway German Village was the primary American site for testing incendiary bombs prior to large- scale attacks near the end of World War II against civilian targets such as Dresden, Germany. The extant structure paralleled that of an adjacent, but no longer extant, Japanese Village, used to test incendiaries for the Pacific theater. The buildings in the German Village were constructed from materials*and designs that replicated contemporary residential buildings in German urban industrial districts.
    In order to build a facility that was an authentic reproduction, studies were conducted to determine which materials and furnishings available in the
    U.S. would closely match those in use in Germany.

    A group of German-American architects affiliated with the "Gropius group at Harvard," including prominent Jewish architects Eric Mendelsohn and Konrad Wachsmann, were employed to design the facility. Both men had been associated with the prominent architectural group der Berliner Zehner- Ring [the Berlin Circle of 10, or the Ring] while living in Europe. The Ring included among its members Walter Gropius and Mies van der Rohe.

    The AN-M50 model of incendiary bomb, extensively
    tested at the German Village, accounted for more . than 97 percent (by number) of the incendiary
    bombs dropped on Germany by American forces.

    . . .

    For the German Village, a total of 19 pieces of furniture, manufactured in multiples, completed the mock up of the second floor flats. Furniture included an upholstered sofa (7); an upholstered easy chair (14); a settee (14); a kitchen buffet (7); a chest of drawers (7); a side table
    (7) ; a straight chair (77) ; an oval table (7) ; a dining table (14) ; a wardrobe (14); a single bed, with mattress, springs, and bolsters (28) ; a crib, with mattress and springs (14); a wicker chair (7) ; a bed table (28); a radio cabinet (7); a 9' by 13' rug (28); a 2' by 31 throw rug (28); window drapes (24 pairs); and incidental cushions (42). Quantities reflected an understanding that some
    furnishings would be lost in the fires set by the incendiary tests, and would then be replaced in kind. In the bedroom, the single beds were placed together in pairs, with a crib adjacent, reflective of a young family with an infant.
     

    3. In 2007, German historian Jörg Friedrich spoke to an audience in Washington, DC, about his book, The Fire. His words are gut-wrenching. Several moments are noteworthy:

    @ 38 min Friedrich mentions watching televised reports of the 2006 war in Lebanon, including the BBC reporter who challenged Benjamin Netanyahu about the Israel tactic of bombing civilians in a bid to force their government to capitulate. Netanyahu retorted, "Do you know what your people did to German cities?"

    @ 54 min. an audience members recites the American (and British) version of the division of blame between the British and USA: the British bombed indiscriminately, the Americans bombed only industrial targets. This is what Americans have been led to believe about their "greatest generation" who fought "the good war."
    Friedrich advises the questioner that he is "50% correct." Friedrich quotes Curtis LeMay:


    " 'In total warfare there are no non-combatants. Everyone is engaged in the war by industries or by morale or will.' At Nuremberg, German generals tried to raise this as a defense . . . It is a myth [that US targeted only industrial sites] . . . In the beginning the Americans tried to do so. Later on . . . they carried out carpet bombing . . . in Dresden, in Swinemunde, in Munster -- I can name you a lot of cities which are seldom mentioned in your literature, but they were carpet bombed . . . We can discuss what was the logic that drew the Americans into the British strategy . . . to make a city burn, this was the main strategy. . . . This strategy was continued in the Korean war. [nota bene]."
     
    @ 58 min an audience member -- a grey-haired white male, tells of

    "watching a PBS documentary about the B-17, "the history told from the viewpoint of the people who flew them on the bombing raids over Germany. And there was nowhere in this documentary of the type of destruction described in your book. I remember that the narrator called the B-17 'a symbol of hope to the people in Germany.' Well. After reading at least half of your book so far, I see that that was not a correct characterization. . . . I hope your book is part of the education process, because the documentary that I saw is certainly not doing proper justice to the job of education."
     
    This was in 2007 that an older man in what is claimed to be the most sophisticated book shop in the most sophisticated city in USA. You are not alone, German_reader, in your incorrect understanding of the bombing of Germany by Americans.

    There's more:

    4. US Air Force bombed the Nordhausen forced labor camp, and used images of dead prisoners as evidence against Germans at Nuremberg:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Vs1eR7hsT8

    It's noteworthy that in a DVD about "The Ritchie Boys," German Jewish refugees who were trained as intelligence officers at Fort Ritchie, Maryland, one of the Jewish Ritchie boys describes how he surveilled Nordhausen to ensure that the camp's technological facilities were intact because it had had been promised to Stalin.
    https://dvd.netflix.com/Movie/The-Ritchie-Boys/70082783

    That, good sir, is how to write a worthwhile comment!

    Read More
  147. Avery says:
    @utu
    that Germany and Poland were close to resolving the Danzig Corridor issue that had been festering for close to 15 years under the Locarno Treaty, until Britain sabotaged the negotiations with, among other things, their “guarantee” to Poland.

    Perhaps w/o the British guarantees Poland would have to make a deal with Germany. Certainly being an ally of Germany was better than being its enemy. For Jews in particular. Hungary is the best example.

    Here is a book on alternate history where Poland becomes an ally of Germany.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pact_Ribbentrop_-_Beck

    "In the history of nations there are moments when one has to bite the bullet and allow for painful concessions. To give up in order to save the nation from destruction, and its citizens from slaughter. This was the situation of Poland in 1939. Piotr Zychowicz claims in his book that the decision to enter the war against Nazi Germany in an illusive alliance with France and Great Britain, was a grave mistake, for which we paid a horrible price. History could have turned in a different way. Instead of biting off more than we could chew, we should have used realpolitik. We should have made concessions to Hitler, and agreed for annexation of the Free City of Danzig into the Third Reich, as well as for the construction of an extraterritorial highway across the Polish Corridor. And then, together with the Germans, we should have attacked the Soviet Union. Forty valiant divisions of the Polish Army, fighting on the Eastern Front would have sealed the fate of Stalin's empire"
     

    { Forty valiant divisions of the Polish Army, fighting on the Eastern Front would have sealed the fate of Stalin’s empire}

    Those same supposedly valiant Polish divisions lasted exactly 1 month and 5 days (1 September – 6 October 1939) against the Wehrmacht.

    At the battle of Stalingrad 220,000 Italians, 200,000 Hungarians, 140,000 Romanians were chopped up like the Germans. If Polacs had been there with their Nazi ‘allies’, they would end up the same. When the ring started closing around the invaders in Stalingrad (Operation Uranus) those useless hangers-on basically gave up the fight or ran. The only ones who stood and fought to the bitter end were the Germans.

    The real valiant army on the Eastern Front – the Red Army – would have crushed the stupid Polish if they had joined the Wehrmacht. Same as 80% of Wehrmacht, its best and toughest divisions.

    One more thing: Hitler would not deign to be ‘allies’ with Untermenschen Polacs. They were to be enslaved and exterminated by Nazis like all other Untermenschen Slavic peoples.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ANON
    you write from your spleen not your frontal lobe, Avery. That renders your jottings irrelevant. You may have something important to add, and you definitely have passion -- a necessary element in good communication. But passion must be an instrument of reason, not its master.
  148. @Thirdeye

    Yet, that brings fore the issue of, at the very least, of the Roundup, doesn’t it?
     
    Indeedy. David Eisenhower in Eisenhower at War has some rather scathing comments on the matter. Churchill just couldn't keep his eye on the strategic ball because he was still thinking in terms of imperial goals. The whole Italian fiasco was driven by his hare-brained notion of driving into the Balkans to project power into eastern Europe. So the ironic result was the whole thing grinding to a bloody halt at the Gustav Line while the Soviet forces were rolling through the Ukraine. By the time they got moving again the campaign was just a sideshow. Market Garden was another roll of the dice to set up a drive across northern Germany in a race with the Soviets. In a way it was a stroke of good fortune for the Anglo-Americans that it got stopped where it did, because there were much greater risks down the road from a battle-of-the-bulge type drive against its southern flank that would have been much harder to stop than the one that actually occurred. Montgomery defended those bloopers on the basis of the political outcomes that they sought to achieve.

    Excellent observation. In fact, David Eisenhower in his outstanding treatise is much closer to Soviet/Russian assessment of the Western Front than one may think. Market Garden is a an excellent example of a somewhat underestimation (by Monty and Churchill, Ike simply “surrendered” and let Monty fail) of still significant German ability in applying Wehrmacht’s favorite operational tools both in defense and in offensive, which bring to the fore yet another issue of a much maligned (mostly by Patton’s fanboys) Broad Front strategy, which far from being “timid” as arm chair strategists who watch too much Hollywood suggest, was completely justified and proven right Ike’s decision, who has proven himself an excellent strategist. In the end, as Patton’s Third Army maneuver to the North during Ardennes Battle has proven–while not being solely responsible for relieving the pressure in the Bulge (heroic actions of US 2nd, 99th Divisions and others on the North Face of the Bulge early in operation extinguished German momentum) played a significant role in the outcome.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thirdeye
    Yes, a "Patton turn" across the Rhine in the fall of 1944 would have....errr....had some problems!
  149. And let’s no forget that prior to the collapse of the Soviet Union in the mid 1990s, the MSM had everyone believing Germans had committed the Katyn massacre. As a result of Jews controlling the MSM, how many other lies have you been fed since the day you were born?

    Read More
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    Not everyone, immediately after German troops occupied Katyn, and found the bodies, the International Red Cross, invited by the Germans, investigated, and concluded that the massacre had been before Germans were there.
    This was conveniently ignored during the Neurenberg show trials.
  150. Che Guava says:
    @Randal

    The “principles of the Nuremberg trials” were ad hoc justifications for actions of which the real motivation was “vae victis”.
     
    Exactly so.

    It's actually a particularly topical issue since there is currently a (likely doomed) attempt to argue in the British Supreme Court (what was called the House of Lords before it was renamed in that latest attempt to ape the Yanks and destroy any vestiges of traditionalism) that the laws we claimed existed and could be applied to German WW2 leaders should be applied to Tony Blair.

    Tony Blair should be prosecuted over Iraq war, high court hears

    Likely doomed, because it's established English law that in fact there is no crime of aggression in English law, so to find otherwise the Supreme Court would have to overturn its own precedent (and one set by a panel including two of its more eminent recent members).

    Judgments - R v. Jones (Appellant)

    How very convenient for the UK establishment, that it should be a "crime in international customary law" so they could impose punishments on their enemies, but not a crime in English law so they themselves could not be held to account for it.

    Randal,

    I agree with most of your post, but Bliar’s Supreme Court did not replace the House of Lords. It only replaced the role of the Law Lords within the House of Lords.

    It is of interest that both the first president and current incumbent at the new institution are Jews.

    All of the war stuff on this thread is interesting, but I don’t have anything much to add, only things others have already raised. and what I could is off-topic from the Derb’s article on the speech,

    I do have one thing that i was thinking about this week. I think the role of U.S. lend-lease and aid to the USSR is exaggerated. The USSR made its own aeroplanes, tanks, Katyushas, other artillery, rifles, etc.

    So, they received some jeeps and (I would guess), some other transport things from the U.S., but nothing really crucial.

    I watched a Chinese govt. approved version of Bertolucci’s The Last Emperor, dubbed into Chinese, but with subtitles, with my mainland Chinese friend, it was faithful up to the Manchukuo parts, from there, heavily cut.

    The Red Army’s invasion (or liberation), of Manchuria, for one, disappeared.

    In Japan, this is presented as a treacherous act. It was not, Stalin agreed to it at Yalta, and we never opened an Eastern front with the USSR only because of the earlier defeat at Nomonha.

    It was also clearly an impetus (among several others) for the war-crime atomic bombings by the U.S. They had to get a quick not-quite-surrender before the Red Army went further.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jacques sheete

    ... I think the role of U.S. lend-lease and aid to the USSR is exaggerated. The USSR made its own aeroplanes, tanks, Katyushas, other artillery, rifles, etc.

    So, they received some jeeps and (I would guess), some other transport things from the U.S., but nothing really crucial.
     

    Wrong.

    The US supplied Stalin, through Lend Lease, large amounts of just about everything he needed including planes and locomotives along with rolling stock. Through the Persian Corridor alone, enough material was supplied to equip 60 (sixty) Soviet divisions. Another huge conduit for Lend Lease supplies was through what's now called Malmstrom Air Force base in Montana. The Soviets received crucial material and technical info for starting a nuclear program. they also got money printing supplies with which to print counterfeit money. Much of it was used to print dollars and Soviet agents came back to the US with suitcases full of cash to start businesses and who knows what else.

    In 1943, a Congressional investigation revealed that even before the U.S. had built its first atomic bomb, half of all the uranium and [the] technical information needed to construct such a bomb was secretly sent to Russia.

    This included chemicals, metals, and minerals instrumental in creating an atomic bomb, and manufacturing a hydrogen bomb. In 1980, James Roosevelt, the son of President Franklin Roosevelt, wrote a novel, A Family Matter, which detailed how his father made "a bold secret decision... to share the results of the Manhattan Project with the Soviet Union," in 1943 and 1944.

    Air Force Major Racey Jordan was a Lend-Lease expediter and liaison officer for the Soviets in Great Falls, Montana, (now Malmstrom AFB) which was the primary staging area for the massive Lend-Lease supply operation to the Soviet Union. In his diaries which were published in 1952 he said that the U.S. built the Soviet war machine by shipping all the materials needed to construct an atomic pile, including graphite, cadmium metal, thorium, and uranium.

    The above summary is from Wiki and the link below, but it is verifiable. I've read both books.

    http://modernhistoryproject.org/mhp?Article=FinalWarning&C=7.4

     


    It was also clearly an impetus (among several others) for the war-crime atomic bombings by the U.S. They had to get a quick not-quite-surrender before the Red Army went further.
     
    The bombings were war crimes. The Japanese militarists were defeated before the attack on Pearl. They never had a chance since FDR initiated economic warfare against them. The Japanese tried to surrender but FDR's admin ignored them and stalled long enough to be able to test the weapons on the long since defeated Japanese.

    Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.

    The United States Strategic Bombing Survey
    Japan's Struggle to End the War
    Chairman's Office
    1 July 1946
     

    , @Thirdeye

    I do have one thing that i was thinking about this week. I think the role of U.S. lend-lease and aid to the USSR is exaggerated.
     
    Don't let the 4% figure fool you. It was a much bigger portion during the critical 1941-42 period. Hurricane fighters and British tanks played a critical role in the defense of Moscow in December 1941, when the Red Army was critically short of materiel. The P-39 was a mainstay of the Soviet fighter force through 1942, before Soviet production of more up-to-date fighters was in full swing. And that's not even considering machine tools, locomotives, and other supplies that bootstrapped Soviet war production.
  151. @Carroll Price
    And let's no forget that prior to the collapse of the Soviet Union in the mid 1990s, the MSM had everyone believing Germans had committed the Katyn massacre. As a result of Jews controlling the MSM, how many other lies have you been fed since the day you were born?

    Not everyone, immediately after German troops occupied Katyn, and found the bodies, the International Red Cross, invited by the Germans, investigated, and concluded that the massacre had been before Germans were there.
    This was conveniently ignored during the Neurenberg show trials.

    Read More
  152. ANON says: • Disclaimer
    @Avery
    { Forty valiant divisions of the Polish Army, fighting on the Eastern Front would have sealed the fate of Stalin’s empire}

    Those same supposedly valiant Polish divisions lasted exactly 1 month and 5 days (1 September – 6 October 1939) against the Wehrmacht.

    At the battle of Stalingrad 220,000 Italians, 200,000 Hungarians, 140,000 Romanians were chopped up like the Germans. If Polacs had been there with their Nazi 'allies', they would end up the same. When the ring started closing around the invaders in Stalingrad (Operation Uranus) those useless hangers-on basically gave up the fight or ran. The only ones who stood and fought to the bitter end were the Germans.

    The real valiant army on the Eastern Front - the Red Army - would have crushed the stupid Polish if they had joined the Wehrmacht. Same as 80% of Wehrmacht, its best and toughest divisions.

    One more thing: Hitler would not deign to be 'allies' with Untermenschen Polacs. They were to be enslaved and exterminated by Nazis like all other Untermenschen Slavic peoples.

    you write from your spleen not your frontal lobe, Avery. That renders your jottings irrelevant. You may have something important to add, and you definitely have passion — a necessary element in good communication. But passion must be an instrument of reason, not its master.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Avery
    { That renders your jottings irrelevant.}

    Then don't read my 'irrelevant jottings'.
    Nobody is forcing you to either read or REPLY to my jottings.
    Your highly developed frontal lobe ought to be able to figure out that much.
    No?
  153. Ram says:

    ” savage totalitarian despotism ” was in control of Russia at the time. Now, it controls the USA, though Trump thinks he does.

    US soldiers are today sacrificial lamb, as the Slavs were then.

    Read More
  154. 1. Lie A gets shown up.
    2a. Apologists steps in, ok, Soviet Union made those contributions but you are understating the contributions of the Allies.
    2b. Apologists also go the whatabout line.
    3. Debate shifts to point 2.
    4. Apologists wins cos he deflected Lie A successfully.

    Better to focus on point 1 and keep refocusing it while ignoring the trolls, oops apologists. You should see how fast the American Hasbara call whatabout counter points even made in arguments with the Chinese.

    America don’t even manufacture good weapons anymore but they still kickass with manufacturing consent.

    Read More
  155. Let us not forget that the Poles “saved the west” at the “siege of Vienna” with their winged hussars driving 300,000 Muslims back where they came from.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    That stands close to the national Polish folksong 'Polish army took Berlin in 1945, and the Russians only helped a little'. Poles always buy the idea of 'We are part of the West, and have to pay for that'.

    John seems to be a kind of ignoramus taken hostage by Western pseudo-historical narrative.
    First, there was no invasion of Poland proper by USSR in 1939. Instead, USSR took back Russian lands in Belorussia (White Russia) and Ukraine (Small Russia) inhabited by Russian orthodox majority. It was done after the dissolution of Polish state and army, treason of the government that fled away.
    Second, Katyn grave-dwellers, whoever shot them, were definitely not the elite. They were the same Nazi-lovers and collaborators as rulers of interbellum Poland. Nazi bosses were their dear guests for years, and all these times they prepared themselves to war with USSR. If not shot somewhere, they would collaborate with Nazi, report 6 million of their Jewish neighbors to gestapo, and finally, go enlist to waffen-ss or get lucrative contracts to supply Polish deathcamps with firewood and coal. Katyn served them well!

  156. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Rhett Hardwick
    Let us not forget that the Poles "saved the west" at the "siege of Vienna" with their winged hussars driving 300,000 Muslims back where they came from.

    That stands close to the national Polish folksong ‘Polish army took Berlin in 1945, and the Russians only helped a little’. Poles always buy the idea of ‘We are part of the West, and have to pay for that’.

    John seems to be a kind of ignoramus taken hostage by Western pseudo-historical narrative.
    First, there was no invasion of Poland proper by USSR in 1939. Instead, USSR took back Russian lands in Belorussia (White Russia) and Ukraine (Small Russia) inhabited by Russian orthodox majority. It was done after the dissolution of Polish state and army, treason of the government that fled away.
    Second, Katyn grave-dwellers, whoever shot them, were definitely not the elite. They were the same Nazi-lovers and collaborators as rulers of interbellum Poland. Nazi bosses were their dear guests for years, and all these times they prepared themselves to war with USSR. If not shot somewhere, they would collaborate with Nazi, report 6 million of their Jewish neighbors to gestapo, and finally, go enlist to waffen-ss or get lucrative contracts to supply Polish deathcamps with firewood and coal. Katyn served them well!

    Read More
    • Disagree: German_reader
    • Troll: reiner Tor
    • Replies: @anarchyst
    I see your hasbara attitude is showing. It was jewish Bolsheviks who massacred the Polish officers at Katyn. Since the Soviet Union was our "ally", the American and British powers were reluctant to blame those who were REALLY responsible. It took the honesty of Germans to "internationalize" the massacre to keep it from being "swept under the rug", something that American and British traitors were willing to do, to keep it from exposing the perpetrators--jewish Bolsheviks...
    As an aside, even Patton admitted that we were "on the wrong side"...and paid for his comments with his life...couldn't have a truth-teller around to spoil the "spoils of war" and the demonization of Germany. Read his writings on the jews...
  157. The Poles had no government after the Germans invaded. The government had skedaddled to Rumania, with their delusions about Polish military prowess and Britain’s guarantees to them. The Soviets moved up to the Curzon line, the Polish/Soviet border determined after WWI. It was not done under the Nazi-Soviet pact, but as a pragmatic, strategic move.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor

    It was not done under the Nazi-Soviet pact, but as a pragmatic, strategic move.
     
    This is a special kind of stupid.
  158. anarchyst says:
    @Anon
    That stands close to the national Polish folksong 'Polish army took Berlin in 1945, and the Russians only helped a little'. Poles always buy the idea of 'We are part of the West, and have to pay for that'.

    John seems to be a kind of ignoramus taken hostage by Western pseudo-historical narrative.
    First, there was no invasion of Poland proper by USSR in 1939. Instead, USSR took back Russian lands in Belorussia (White Russia) and Ukraine (Small Russia) inhabited by Russian orthodox majority. It was done after the dissolution of Polish state and army, treason of the government that fled away.
    Second, Katyn grave-dwellers, whoever shot them, were definitely not the elite. They were the same Nazi-lovers and collaborators as rulers of interbellum Poland. Nazi bosses were their dear guests for years, and all these times they prepared themselves to war with USSR. If not shot somewhere, they would collaborate with Nazi, report 6 million of their Jewish neighbors to gestapo, and finally, go enlist to waffen-ss or get lucrative contracts to supply Polish deathcamps with firewood and coal. Katyn served them well!

    I see your hasbara attitude is showing. It was jewish Bolsheviks who massacred the Polish officers at Katyn. Since the Soviet Union was our “ally”, the American and British powers were reluctant to blame those who were REALLY responsible. It took the honesty of Germans to “internationalize” the massacre to keep it from being “swept under the rug”, something that American and British traitors were willing to do, to keep it from exposing the perpetrators–jewish Bolsheviks…
    As an aside, even Patton admitted that we were “on the wrong side”…and paid for his comments with his life…couldn’t have a truth-teller around to spoil the “spoils of war” and the demonization of Germany. Read his writings on the jews…

    Read More
  159. Agent76 says:

    Feb 23, 2012 The history of the Rockefellers

    The Rockefeller family is an American industrial, banking, and political family of German origin that made one of the world’s largest private fortunes in the oil business during the late 19th and early 20th century, primarily through the Standard Oil Company.

    Read More
  160. reiner Tor says: • Website
    @Shakesvshav
    The Poles had no government after the Germans invaded. The government had skedaddled to Rumania, with their delusions about Polish military prowess and Britain's guarantees to them. The Soviets moved up to the Curzon line, the Polish/Soviet border determined after WWI. It was not done under the Nazi-Soviet pact, but as a pragmatic, strategic move.

    It was not done under the Nazi-Soviet pact, but as a pragmatic, strategic move.

    This is a special kind of stupid.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Shakesvshav
    Your debating skills require a little polish.
    , @Thirdeye
    What did you think would happen? The Soviets would say to the Germans, "sure, come right on up to our border, take the territory that Poland took from us in 1921?" No problem at all!
  161. @Che Guava
    Randal,

    I agree with most of your post, but Bliar's Supreme Court did not replace the House of Lords. It only replaced the role of the Law Lords within the House of Lords.

    It is of interest that both the first president and current incumbent at the new institution are Jews.

    All of the war stuff on this thread is interesting, but I don't have anything much to add, only things others have already raised. and what I could is off-topic from the Derb's article on the speech,

    I do have one thing that i was thinking about this week. I think the role of U.S. lend-lease and aid to the USSR is exaggerated. The USSR made its own aeroplanes, tanks, Katyushas, other artillery, rifles, etc.

    So, they received some jeeps and (I would guess), some other transport things from the U.S., but nothing really crucial.

    I watched a Chinese govt. approved version of Bertolucci's The Last Emperor, dubbed into Chinese, but with subtitles, with my mainland Chinese friend, it was faithful up to the Manchukuo parts, from there, heavily cut.

    The Red Army's invasion (or liberation), of Manchuria, for one, disappeared.

    In Japan, this is presented as a treacherous act. It was not, Stalin agreed to it at Yalta, and we never opened an Eastern front with the USSR only because of the earlier defeat at Nomonha.

    It was also clearly an impetus (among several others) for the war-crime atomic bombings by the U.S. They had to get a quick not-quite-surrender before the Red Army went further.

    … I think the role of U.S. lend-lease and aid to the USSR is exaggerated. The USSR made its own aeroplanes, tanks, Katyushas, other artillery, rifles, etc.

    So, they received some jeeps and (I would guess), some other transport things from the U.S., but nothing really crucial.

    Wrong.

    The US supplied Stalin, through Lend Lease, large amounts of just about everything he needed including planes and locomotives along with rolling stock. Through the Persian Corridor alone, enough material was supplied to equip 60 (sixty) Soviet divisions. Another huge conduit for Lend Lease supplies was through what’s now called Malmstrom Air Force base in Montana. The Soviets received crucial material and technical info for starting a nuclear program. they also got money printing supplies with which to print counterfeit money. Much of it was used to print dollars and Soviet agents came back to the US with suitcases full of cash to start businesses and who knows what else.

    In 1943, a Congressional investigation revealed that even before the U.S. had built its first atomic bomb, half of all the uranium and [the] technical information needed to construct such a bomb was secretly sent to Russia.

    This included chemicals, metals, and minerals instrumental in creating an atomic bomb, and manufacturing a hydrogen bomb. In 1980, James Roosevelt, the son of President Franklin Roosevelt, wrote a novel, A Family Matter, which detailed how his father made “a bold secret decision… to share the results of the Manhattan Project with the Soviet Union,” in 1943 and 1944.

    Air Force Major Racey Jordan was a Lend-Lease expediter and liaison officer for the Soviets in Great Falls, Montana, (now Malmstrom AFB) which was the primary staging area for the massive Lend-Lease supply operation to the Soviet Union. In his diaries which were published in 1952 he said that the U.S. built the Soviet war machine by shipping all the materials needed to construct an atomic pile, including graphite, cadmium metal, thorium, and uranium.

    The above summary is from Wiki and the link below, but it is verifiable. I’ve read both books.

    http://modernhistoryproject.org/mhp?Article=FinalWarning&C=7.4

    It was also clearly an impetus (among several others) for the war-crime atomic bombings by the U.S. They had to get a quick not-quite-surrender before the Red Army went further.

    The bombings were war crimes. The Japanese militarists were defeated before the attack on Pearl. They never had a chance since FDR initiated economic warfare against them. The Japanese tried to surrender but FDR’s admin ignored them and stalled long enough to be able to test the weapons on the long since defeated Japanese.

    Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.

    The United States Strategic Bombing Survey
    Japan’s Struggle to End the War
    Chairman’s Office
    1 July 1946

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thirdeye

    The bombings were war crimes.
     
    They were of a piece with the Anglo-American air war strategy devised by Sir Arthur "Bomber" Harris, which led to city raids on Hamburg, Cologne, Dresden, Tokyo, and Nagoya. They weren't even more lethal than the biggest raids. The atomic bomb was just a more efficient tool for doing the same job.

    The Japanese militarists were defeated before the attack on Pearl. They never had a chance since FDR initiated economic warfare against them.
     
    No they weren't. They were defeated by bad strategic decisions in their conduct of the Far East war, to which the Pearl Harbor attack was unnecessary. And even then, with a little more savvy conduct of their war effort they could have bottled up the US Pacific Fleet on the west coast of the US.

    The Japanese tried to surrender but FDR’s admin ignored them and stalled long enough to be able to test the weapons on the long since defeated Japanese.
     
    FDR died on April 12, 1945, over three months before the Trinity test. Until July 16, nobody was sure that the thing would actually work. The Potsdam ultimatum followed shortly after the Trinity test. The Japanese were seeking negotiated terms, not trying to surrender. The US actually won their surrender by conceding the point that the Emperor would remain the head of the Japanese state.
    , @Thirdeye

    Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.
     
    And how many Japanese would have died from bombing raids, starvation, and disease in the meantime?
    , @Che Guava
    Thanks, Jaques.

    Re. the info. on supplies to the USSR. I had intended to look more closely into it, and still will, but generally am finding that your posts are quite factual and informative. Of course, there were also the Brit. Murmansk convoys.

    Re. Japan's frantic efforts for a not-quite-surrender, the diplomats were largely (or entirely) trying to arrange it through the USSR, which would imply that they had no idea of the Yalta agreement, and it was a hopeless endeavour.

    One of our major LDP politicians was claiming, in the very early fifties, that Japan actually won the war.

    Thanks again for the informative rebuttal on the point of supply. I will be re-reading it. Right now, hot, glary afternoon.
  162. peterAUS says:
    @Ivan
    Why don't you admit that Katyn was a genocidal crime committed to irrevocably destroy Polish nationalism by destroying the Polish elite, instead of asking how an Eng Lit can study History? Who are you; Aristotle? And how is a Russian able to write in English by your reasoning?

    “…..Katyn was a genocidal crime committed to irrevocably destroy Polish nationalism by destroying the Polish elite,….”
    Probably the best comment here so far, IMHO.
    Short, into the heart of the matter and directly related to the article.

    Read More
  163. ken says:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    We did. Remember Guadalcanal, Midway, Iwo Jima, Okinawa, etc. Plus TORCH, Scicily, Anzio, and the Battle of the Bulge. Plus Lend-Lease.
     
    This thing it seems is never ending story on Unz but, man, you have no idea of scales and proportions. Nor do you understand realities of the Eastern Front. Sir, just to give you a sense of scale, while Allies landed in Sicily in July of 1943, they faced about 50000 isolated second-rate Germans (plus some totally demoralized Italians), this very same time cream of the cream of the Red Army and Wehrmacht (and SS) had about 2.5 million men, about 8 000 tanks on both sides clashing at Kursk salient. Just to give you a bit of a heads up, by the time much touted in US General Patton's Third Army got to Lorraine it faced, and I quote from Combat Studies Institute US Army Command and General Staff College: "Few of the Germans defending Lorraine could be considered First-rate troops. Third Army encountered whole battalions made up of deaf men, others of cooks, and others consisting entirely of soldiers with stomach ulcers. The G2 also identified a new series of German formations designated voIksrenadier divisions). These hastily constituted divisions numbered only 10,000."

    While by no means denying a valiant contribution of Allies in Europe and by no means trying to take from them rightly deserved combat glory and recognition, it seems very many in Anglo-Saxon world fail to understand completely that by early to mid 1944 the best of the best of Wehrmacht and SS simply perished at the Eastern Front.

    The only shame of the combined 2.5 million Wehrmacht and Red Army fighting was that they all weren’t killed.

    Read More
  164. Where I live in West London our parks and public spaces are overflowing with young Polish men and women, smoking weed and drinking cans of high strength lager, usually shouting at one another oblivious to the offence they cause to others.
    While walking my dog recently I had cause to get into a conversation with a group of them after recovering my dog’s chewy toy when he wondered up to them.

    They were very pleasant natured and keen to chat.

    One of them told me how Poland was the strongest country in europe and how proud they were to be Polish, his friend elaborated how the germans were trying to keep them down and how Russia wanted to destroy them so I asked him why they didnt go home and help make their country stronger.
    At this, the girl who was with them said to me ‘ you are kidding, our politicians are all corrupt and and all the jobs pay sh /t wages!’

    Read More
  165. @Peter Akuleyev
    This thread was supposed to be about the Katyn Massacre being something you weren’t supposed to mention

    Except that the anti-Russian Obama administration mentioned Katyn quite often. There was also the Wajda film about Katyn that was nominated for an Oscar back under the Bush administration, so it wasn't much of a taboo even 10 years ago.

    Giving Trump credit for mentioning Katyn is pretty silly. Is Derbyshire going to write a paen to Anne Appelbaum next?

    A well-known ABC “journalist” was blaming Katyn on the Germans in the 1970′s.

    And name a prominent American liberal who “mentioned Katyn” while the Soviet Union was still in existence.

    Read More
  166. Thirdeye says:
    @utu
    The big question is whether the Katyn executions (which were on a much smaller scale than has been claimed in propaganda accounts) would have happened had the PGIE not declared war on the USSR as soon as they got established in Paris in December 1939.

    What declaration of war by PGIE? Poland and its PGIE with respect to USSR followed the position of its Allies: do not aggravate the Soviet Union.

    (which were on a much smaller scale than has been claimed in propaganda accounts)

    Katyn can account for about 4000 victims (3000? verified in exhumation), however there were other sites that never were investigated. The total number of officers killed is at at least at 12,000. Some estimates claim 22,000 but they include police officers, I think.

    When in 1940 USSR invaded Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia there were quite a few interned Polish officers who then fell into the Soviet hands. These officers were not killed by the Soviets. Some speculate that after the defeat of France Stalin no longer saw the need of eliminating the officers of Polish armed forces, that Poland was irrevocably finished.

    What declaration of war by PGIE?

    December 18, 1939. It included weasel wording to satisfy their Anglo-French sponsors. It was later rescinded under pressure from said sponsors, but the damage was already done.

    https://searchworks.stanford.edu/view/3176410

    There is no evidence for more than 4000 Poles executed by the Soviets, those at the actual Katyn Forest site. The 12,000 – 22,000 numbers are propaganda. A Polish forensic anthropological team investigated purported Katyn-related NKVD execution sites and published its report in 2012. (there used to be a PDF in Polish online). Their conclusion was that they were SS execution sites. There was identifying information showing that some of those victims were among the purported Katyn victims.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    The 12,000 – 22,000 numbers are propaganda.

    They are the ones who escaped to Manchuria and vanished there, right? So Stalin spoke the truth.

    December 18, 1939

    Wishful thinking confabulation on your part.

    they were SS execution sites

    I am sure there are many people in Russia and not only in Russia who would like this to be true. Guilty conscience works in many ways. A denial is one of them. Russians and Soviets in general did not owned up to the crimes that were made in their name. Poor people.
    , @Wally
    My, my you are certainly attached to Marxist / Zionist propaganda, you even link to some.

    See here for actual excavations, international witness confirmation, verifiable photos, the whole deal:
    'Katyn facts: 'Amtliches Material zum Massenmord von Katyn' '
    http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=758

    The only reason the average American is silenced about parasitical Zionists and Israel is because they’ve had their head filled with various absurd fictions such as Holocaust propaganda, “Judeo-Christian values”, and Jews being a uniquely righteous, exceptional, and persecuted people.

    The '6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers' are laughable, scientifically impossible frauds.
    see the 'holocaust' scam debunked here:
    http://codoh.com
    No name calling, level playing field debate here:
    http://forum.codoh.com


    We're talking about an alleged '6M Jews & 5M others' ... 11,000,000.
    There is not a single verifiable excavated enormous mass grave with contents actually SHOWN, not just claimed, (recall the claim of 900,000 buried at Treblinka, 1,250,000 at Auschwitz, or 250,000 at Sobibor, 34,000 at Babi Yar) even though Jews claim they still exist and claim to know exactly where these alleged enormous mass graves are.
    Note: actually show us excavations & their contents, not some Zionist liar claiming mass graves where none exist, and not showing the alleged, verifiable enormous human remains of Jews.
     
  167. @reiner Tor

    It was not done under the Nazi-Soviet pact, but as a pragmatic, strategic move.
     
    This is a special kind of stupid.

    Your debating skills require a little polish.

    Read More
  168. Thirdeye says:
    @utu
    that Germany and Poland were close to resolving the Danzig Corridor issue that had been festering for close to 15 years under the Locarno Treaty, until Britain sabotaged the negotiations with, among other things, their “guarantee” to Poland.

    Perhaps w/o the British guarantees Poland would have to make a deal with Germany. Certainly being an ally of Germany was better than being its enemy. For Jews in particular. Hungary is the best example.

    Here is a book on alternate history where Poland becomes an ally of Germany.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pact_Ribbentrop_-_Beck

    "In the history of nations there are moments when one has to bite the bullet and allow for painful concessions. To give up in order to save the nation from destruction, and its citizens from slaughter. This was the situation of Poland in 1939. Piotr Zychowicz claims in his book that the decision to enter the war against Nazi Germany in an illusive alliance with France and Great Britain, was a grave mistake, for which we paid a horrible price. History could have turned in a different way. Instead of biting off more than we could chew, we should have used realpolitik. We should have made concessions to Hitler, and agreed for annexation of the Free City of Danzig into the Third Reich, as well as for the construction of an extraterritorial highway across the Polish Corridor. And then, together with the Germans, we should have attacked the Soviet Union. Forty valiant divisions of the Polish Army, fighting on the Eastern Front would have sealed the fate of Stalin's empire"
     

    I suspect Hitler’s vision was to have Poland as a vassal state like Hungary or Romania. But when you game it out, the Nazis would have lost the allegiance they had among the west Ukrainians, who hate the Poles with the same passion they hate the Russians, so the two scenarios may have been a strategic wash for Germany.

    Read More
  169. Thirdeye says:
    @Che Guava
    Randal,

    I agree with most of your post, but Bliar's Supreme Court did not replace the House of Lords. It only replaced the role of the Law Lords within the House of Lords.

    It is of interest that both the first president and current incumbent at the new institution are Jews.

    All of the war stuff on this thread is interesting, but I don't have anything much to add, only things others have already raised. and what I could is off-topic from the Derb's article on the speech,

    I do have one thing that i was thinking about this week. I think the role of U.S. lend-lease and aid to the USSR is exaggerated. The USSR made its own aeroplanes, tanks, Katyushas, other artillery, rifles, etc.

    So, they received some jeeps and (I would guess), some other transport things from the U.S., but nothing really crucial.

    I watched a Chinese govt. approved version of Bertolucci's The Last Emperor, dubbed into Chinese, but with subtitles, with my mainland Chinese friend, it was faithful up to the Manchukuo parts, from there, heavily cut.

    The Red Army's invasion (or liberation), of Manchuria, for one, disappeared.

    In Japan, this is presented as a treacherous act. It was not, Stalin agreed to it at Yalta, and we never opened an Eastern front with the USSR only because of the earlier defeat at Nomonha.

    It was also clearly an impetus (among several others) for the war-crime atomic bombings by the U.S. They had to get a quick not-quite-surrender before the Red Army went further.

    I do have one thing that i was thinking about this week. I think the role of U.S. lend-lease and aid to the USSR is exaggerated.

    Don’t let the 4% figure fool you. It was a much bigger portion during the critical 1941-42 period. Hurricane fighters and British tanks played a critical role in the defense of Moscow in December 1941, when the Red Army was critically short of materiel. The P-39 was a mainstay of the Soviet fighter force through 1942, before Soviet production of more up-to-date fighters was in full swing. And that’s not even considering machine tools, locomotives, and other supplies that bootstrapped Soviet war production.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Che Guava
    Thank you for your informative post, too, Thirdeye.

    It is interesting that the many Soviet accounts that I have read don't mention the Hurricane fighters and British-made tanks.

    So, you partly answer my mental question about what the Murmansk convoys were carrying.
  170. utu says:
    @Thirdeye

    What declaration of war by PGIE?
     
    December 18, 1939. It included weasel wording to satisfy their Anglo-French sponsors. It was later rescinded under pressure from said sponsors, but the damage was already done.

    https://searchworks.stanford.edu/view/3176410

    There is no evidence for more than 4000 Poles executed by the Soviets, those at the actual Katyn Forest site. The 12,000 - 22,000 numbers are propaganda. A Polish forensic anthropological team investigated purported Katyn-related NKVD execution sites and published its report in 2012. (there used to be a PDF in Polish online). Their conclusion was that they were SS execution sites. There was identifying information showing that some of those victims were among the purported Katyn victims.

    The 12,000 – 22,000 numbers are propaganda.

    They are the ones who escaped to Manchuria and vanished there, right? So Stalin spoke the truth.

    December 18, 1939

    Wishful thinking confabulation on your part.

    they were SS execution sites

    I am sure there are many people in Russia and not only in Russia who would like this to be true. Guilty conscience works in many ways. A denial is one of them. Russians and Soviets in general did not owned up to the crimes that were made in their name. Poor people.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thirdeye
    I'll take that balloon of hot air from you as a concession that you have no substantial argument.
  171. Thirdeye says:
    @jacques sheete

    ... I think the role of U.S. lend-lease and aid to the USSR is exaggerated. The USSR made its own aeroplanes, tanks, Katyushas, other artillery, rifles, etc.

    So, they received some jeeps and (I would guess), some other transport things from the U.S., but nothing really crucial.
     

    Wrong.

    The US supplied Stalin, through Lend Lease, large amounts of just about everything he needed including planes and locomotives along with rolling stock. Through the Persian Corridor alone, enough material was supplied to equip 60 (sixty) Soviet divisions. Another huge conduit for Lend Lease supplies was through what's now called Malmstrom Air Force base in Montana. The Soviets received crucial material and technical info for starting a nuclear program. they also got money printing supplies with which to print counterfeit money. Much of it was used to print dollars and Soviet agents came back to the US with suitcases full of cash to start businesses and who knows what else.

    In 1943, a Congressional investigation revealed that even before the U.S. had built its first atomic bomb, half of all the uranium and [the] technical information needed to construct such a bomb was secretly sent to Russia.

    This included chemicals, metals, and minerals instrumental in creating an atomic bomb, and manufacturing a hydrogen bomb. In 1980, James Roosevelt, the son of President Franklin Roosevelt, wrote a novel, A Family Matter, which detailed how his father made "a bold secret decision... to share the results of the Manhattan Project with the Soviet Union," in 1943 and 1944.

    Air Force Major Racey Jordan was a Lend-Lease expediter and liaison officer for the Soviets in Great Falls, Montana, (now Malmstrom AFB) which was the primary staging area for the massive Lend-Lease supply operation to the Soviet Union. In his diaries which were published in 1952 he said that the U.S. built the Soviet war machine by shipping all the materials needed to construct an atomic pile, including graphite, cadmium metal, thorium, and uranium.

    The above summary is from Wiki and the link below, but it is verifiable. I've read both books.

    http://modernhistoryproject.org/mhp?Article=FinalWarning&C=7.4

     


    It was also clearly an impetus (among several others) for the war-crime atomic bombings by the U.S. They had to get a quick not-quite-surrender before the Red Army went further.
     
    The bombings were war crimes. The Japanese militarists were defeated before the attack on Pearl. They never had a chance since FDR initiated economic warfare against them. The Japanese tried to surrender but FDR's admin ignored them and stalled long enough to be able to test the weapons on the long since defeated Japanese.

    Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.

    The United States Strategic Bombing Survey
    Japan's Struggle to End the War
    Chairman's Office
    1 July 1946
     

    The bombings were war crimes.

    They were of a piece with the Anglo-American air war strategy devised by Sir Arthur “Bomber” Harris, which led to city raids on Hamburg, Cologne, Dresden, Tokyo, and Nagoya. They weren’t even more lethal than the biggest raids. The atomic bomb was just a more efficient tool for doing the same job.

    The Japanese militarists were defeated before the attack on Pearl. They never had a chance since FDR initiated economic warfare against them.

    No they weren’t. They were defeated by bad strategic decisions in their conduct of the Far East war, to which the Pearl Harbor attack was unnecessary. And even then, with a little more savvy conduct of their war effort they could have bottled up the US Pacific Fleet on the west coast of the US.

    The Japanese tried to surrender but FDR’s admin ignored them and stalled long enough to be able to test the weapons on the long since defeated Japanese.

    FDR died on April 12, 1945, over three months before the Trinity test. Until July 16, nobody was sure that the thing would actually work. The Potsdam ultimatum followed shortly after the Trinity test. The Japanese were seeking negotiated terms, not trying to surrender. The US actually won their surrender by conceding the point that the Emperor would remain the head of the Japanese state.

    Read More
  172. Thirdeye says:
    @jacques sheete

    ... I think the role of U.S. lend-lease and aid to the USSR is exaggerated. The USSR made its own aeroplanes, tanks, Katyushas, other artillery, rifles, etc.

    So, they received some jeeps and (I would guess), some other transport things from the U.S., but nothing really crucial.
     

    Wrong.

    The US supplied Stalin, through Lend Lease, large amounts of just about everything he needed including planes and locomotives along with rolling stock. Through the Persian Corridor alone, enough material was supplied to equip 60 (sixty) Soviet divisions. Another huge conduit for Lend Lease supplies was through what's now called Malmstrom Air Force base in Montana. The Soviets received crucial material and technical info for starting a nuclear program. they also got money printing supplies with which to print counterfeit money. Much of it was used to print dollars and Soviet agents came back to the US with suitcases full of cash to start businesses and who knows what else.

    In 1943, a Congressional investigation revealed that even before the U.S. had built its first atomic bomb, half of all the uranium and [the] technical information needed to construct such a bomb was secretly sent to Russia.

    This included chemicals, metals, and minerals instrumental in creating an atomic bomb, and manufacturing a hydrogen bomb. In 1980, James Roosevelt, the son of President Franklin Roosevelt, wrote a novel, A Family Matter, which detailed how his father made "a bold secret decision... to share the results of the Manhattan Project with the Soviet Union," in 1943 and 1944.

    Air Force Major Racey Jordan was a Lend-Lease expediter and liaison officer for the Soviets in Great Falls, Montana, (now Malmstrom AFB) which was the primary staging area for the massive Lend-Lease supply operation to the Soviet Union. In his diaries which were published in 1952 he said that the U.S. built the Soviet war machine by shipping all the materials needed to construct an atomic pile, including graphite, cadmium metal, thorium, and uranium.

    The above summary is from Wiki and the link below, but it is verifiable. I've read both books.

    http://modernhistoryproject.org/mhp?Article=FinalWarning&C=7.4

     


    It was also clearly an impetus (among several others) for the war-crime atomic bombings by the U.S. They had to get a quick not-quite-surrender before the Red Army went further.
     
    The bombings were war crimes. The Japanese militarists were defeated before the attack on Pearl. They never had a chance since FDR initiated economic warfare against them. The Japanese tried to surrender but FDR's admin ignored them and stalled long enough to be able to test the weapons on the long since defeated Japanese.

    Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.

    The United States Strategic Bombing Survey
    Japan's Struggle to End the War
    Chairman's Office
    1 July 1946
     

    Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.

    And how many Japanese would have died from bombing raids, starvation, and disease in the meantime?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    You know just enough to make yourself look foolish.

    The US got the same deal from the Japs after the A-bombs were dropped that what was offered before they were dropped.

    Zero necessity for the US terror A bombs at the end of the war, not to mention the deliberate US terror bombing of civilian targets throughout the war.

    No need to keep bombing after your enemy offered surrender terms.

  173. Thirdeye says:
    @Andrei Martyanov
    Excellent observation. In fact, David Eisenhower in his outstanding treatise is much closer to Soviet/Russian assessment of the Western Front than one may think. Market Garden is a an excellent example of a somewhat underestimation (by Monty and Churchill, Ike simply "surrendered" and let Monty fail) of still significant German ability in applying Wehrmacht's favorite operational tools both in defense and in offensive, which bring to the fore yet another issue of a much maligned (mostly by Patton's fanboys) Broad Front strategy, which far from being "timid" as arm chair strategists who watch too much Hollywood suggest, was completely justified and proven right Ike's decision, who has proven himself an excellent strategist. In the end, as Patton's Third Army maneuver to the North during Ardennes Battle has proven--while not being solely responsible for relieving the pressure in the Bulge (heroic actions of US 2nd, 99th Divisions and others on the North Face of the Bulge early in operation extinguished German momentum) played a significant role in the outcome.

    Yes, a “Patton turn” across the Rhine in the fall of 1944 would have….errr….had some problems!

    Read More
  174. Avery says:
    @ANON
    you write from your spleen not your frontal lobe, Avery. That renders your jottings irrelevant. You may have something important to add, and you definitely have passion -- a necessary element in good communication. But passion must be an instrument of reason, not its master.

    { That renders your jottings irrelevant.}

    Then don’t read my ‘irrelevant jottings’.
    Nobody is forcing you to either read or REPLY to my jottings.
    Your highly developed frontal lobe ought to be able to figure out that much.
    No?

    Read More
  175. anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    On closer inspection, this is not a genuine Stars-and-Bars, which has 13 stars, but a “fake news” Confederate flag with only 9 stars at most

    Oh please. The Confederate battle flag — the one with the X (actually the St Andrews cross which also appears on the flag of Scotland and Jamaica) — is NOT the same flag as the Stars and Bars.

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

    My ancestors fought for the North, but, I’m a stickler for facts.

    Read More
  176. Thirdeye says:
    @utu
    The 12,000 – 22,000 numbers are propaganda.

    They are the ones who escaped to Manchuria and vanished there, right? So Stalin spoke the truth.

    December 18, 1939

    Wishful thinking confabulation on your part.

    they were SS execution sites

    I am sure there are many people in Russia and not only in Russia who would like this to be true. Guilty conscience works in many ways. A denial is one of them. Russians and Soviets in general did not owned up to the crimes that were made in their name. Poor people.

    I’ll take that balloon of hot air from you as a concession that you have no substantial argument.

    Read More
  177. Thirdeye says:
    @reiner Tor

    It was not done under the Nazi-Soviet pact, but as a pragmatic, strategic move.
     
    This is a special kind of stupid.

    What did you think would happen? The Soviets would say to the Germans, “sure, come right on up to our border, take the territory that Poland took from us in 1921?” No problem at all!

    Read More
  178. Wally says: • Website
    @Thirdeye

    What declaration of war by PGIE?
     
    December 18, 1939. It included weasel wording to satisfy their Anglo-French sponsors. It was later rescinded under pressure from said sponsors, but the damage was already done.

    https://searchworks.stanford.edu/view/3176410

    There is no evidence for more than 4000 Poles executed by the Soviets, those at the actual Katyn Forest site. The 12,000 - 22,000 numbers are propaganda. A Polish forensic anthropological team investigated purported Katyn-related NKVD execution sites and published its report in 2012. (there used to be a PDF in Polish online). Their conclusion was that they were SS execution sites. There was identifying information showing that some of those victims were among the purported Katyn victims.

    My, my you are certainly attached to Marxist / Zionist propaganda, you even link to some.

    See here for actual excavations, international witness confirmation, verifiable photos, the whole deal:
    ‘Katyn facts: ‘Amtliches Material zum Massenmord von Katyn’ ‘

    http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=758

    The only reason the average American is silenced about parasitical Zionists and Israel is because they’ve had their head filled with various absurd fictions such as Holocaust propaganda, “Judeo-Christian values”, and Jews being a uniquely righteous, exceptional, and persecuted people.

    The ’6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers’ are laughable, scientifically impossible frauds.
    see the ‘holocaust’ scam debunked here:

    http://codoh.com

    No name calling, level playing field debate here:

    http://forum.codoh.com

    We’re talking about an alleged ’6M Jews & 5M others’ … 11,000,000.
    There is not a single verifiable excavated enormous mass grave with contents actually SHOWN, not just claimed, (recall the claim of 900,000 buried at Treblinka, 1,250,000 at Auschwitz, or 250,000 at Sobibor, 34,000 at Babi Yar) even though Jews claim they still exist and claim to know exactly where these alleged enormous mass graves are.
    Note: actually show us excavations & their contents, not some Zionist liar claiming mass graves where none exist, and not showing the alleged, verifiable enormous human remains of Jews.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Jesus Christ, they're not even talking about Jews. They're talking about how many Poles the NKVD shot at Katyn.
    , @Thirdeye
    What "Marxist/Zionist propaganda" did I link to? Gerd Schultze-Ronhof of "The War With Many Fathers?"

    And you link to codoh propaganda as your source on Katyn?

    Sure, the Polish forensic team that identified "Katyn Massacre" sites as SS massacre sites was just a bunch of Jooz.

    Well slap my fanny, there weren't 1,250,000 corpses buried at Auschwitz? That must mean nothing happened! It's not like they cremated bodies or anything.......

    You seem too dumb to realize how ridiculous your posts are.
  179. Wally says:
    @Thirdeye

    Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.
     
    And how many Japanese would have died from bombing raids, starvation, and disease in the meantime?

    You know just enough to make yourself look foolish.

    The US got the same deal from the Japs after the A-bombs were dropped that what was offered before they were dropped.

    Zero necessity for the US terror A bombs at the end of the war, not to mention the deliberate US terror bombing of civilian targets throughout the war.

    No need to keep bombing after your enemy offered surrender terms.

    Read More
    • Agree: jacques sheete
    • Replies: @jacques sheete
    See response #173. Clearly this one thinks he's one upping the rest of us with snark. Not even worth responding to.

    He thinks resource poor Japan wasn't beaten long before Pearl when they couldn't even control coastal China or Manchukuo with any sort of efficiency. FDR provoked the attack on Pearl knowing full well that the Japanese military was no threat to the US whatsoever, and thinks that FDR's death before the bombs were unleashed indicates that he didn't deliberately prolong the war so's to be able to test them on real targets.
  180. Wally says: • Website
    @Thirdeye

    US bombers were fully involved in carpet bombing of German cities from 1943 forward.
     
    Nope. And the rest of your playing on your favorite hobby horse isn't any better.

    Zionist Thirdeye is absolutely wrong again. Well, he is a Zionist, so …..

    Read and learn:
    Who started bombing civilians first?

    http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=8172

    The ’6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers’ are scientifically impossible frauds.
    see the ‘holocaust’ scam debunked here:

    http://codoh.com

    No name calling, level playing field debate here:

    http://forum.codoh.com

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Did you ever wonder why people don't like you? Did you maybe ever consider that the only people who do like you are people you don't treat this way?
    , @Thirdeye
    What part of "US bombers" and "carpet bombing" and "1943" do you not understand? It's got to be one of those three if you think your link has any bearing on it.
  181. @Wally
    You know just enough to make yourself look foolish.

    The US got the same deal from the Japs after the A-bombs were dropped that what was offered before they were dropped.

    Zero necessity for the US terror A bombs at the end of the war, not to mention the deliberate US terror bombing of civilian targets throughout the war.

    No need to keep bombing after your enemy offered surrender terms.

    See response #173. Clearly this one thinks he’s one upping the rest of us with snark. Not even worth responding to.

    He thinks resource poor Japan wasn’t beaten long before Pearl when they couldn’t even control coastal China or Manchukuo with any sort of efficiency. FDR provoked the attack on Pearl knowing full well that the Japanese military was no threat to the US whatsoever, and thinks that FDR’s death before the bombs were unleashed indicates that he didn’t deliberately prolong the war so’s to be able to test them on real targets.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thirdeye
    Thanks for referencing post 173. This way, anyone can compare what I said with what you said I said. You seem kind of butthurt and sulky right now.
  182. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Wally
    My, my you are certainly attached to Marxist / Zionist propaganda, you even link to some.

    See here for actual excavations, international witness confirmation, verifiable photos, the whole deal:
    'Katyn facts: 'Amtliches Material zum Massenmord von Katyn' '
    http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=758

    The only reason the average American is silenced about parasitical Zionists and Israel is because they’ve had their head filled with various absurd fictions such as Holocaust propaganda, “Judeo-Christian values”, and Jews being a uniquely righteous, exceptional, and persecuted people.

    The '6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers' are laughable, scientifically impossible frauds.
    see the 'holocaust' scam debunked here:
    http://codoh.com
    No name calling, level playing field debate here:
    http://forum.codoh.com


    We're talking about an alleged '6M Jews & 5M others' ... 11,000,000.
    There is not a single verifiable excavated enormous mass grave with contents actually SHOWN, not just claimed, (recall the claim of 900,000 buried at Treblinka, 1,250,000 at Auschwitz, or 250,000 at Sobibor, 34,000 at Babi Yar) even though Jews claim they still exist and claim to know exactly where these alleged enormous mass graves are.
    Note: actually show us excavations & their contents, not some Zionist liar claiming mass graves where none exist, and not showing the alleged, verifiable enormous human remains of Jews.
     

    Jesus Christ, they’re not even talking about Jews. They’re talking about how many Poles the NKVD shot at Katyn.

    Read More
  183. Thirdeye says:
    @AP

    "For context, an analogous number of Soviet POWs died in Polish camps during the Polish-Soviet war when Poland invaded Soviet Ukraine."

    Sorry, but that really comes across as revisionist whataboutery. Unless there’s definite proof that the Poles during the Polish-Soviet war deliberately exterminated pows (like the Germans did in WW2),
     
    AFAIK, the Soviet POWs captured by Poland died during a typhus epidemic in which Poles also died, they were not murdered as in Katyn.

    …….and most Jews who died in concentration camps died of disease and starvation.

    The Polish wars of expansion against the Russia and the Ukrainian republics were accompanied by ethnic cleansing. Poland puts their war against Russia in the light of the Russians being big bad Commies. What’s their excuse for their wars against the then-independent Ukrainian republics?

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    The Polish wars of expansion against the Russia and the Ukrainian republics were accompanied by ethnic cleansing.
     
    Whiles Poles murdered about 300 Ukrainian civilians in the looting spree after taking Lviv in 1918 this was too small scale of a crime to be considered "ethnic cleansing."

    What’s their excuse for their wars against the then-independent Ukrainian republics?
     
    Poland invaded and occupied the territory of the Western Ukrainian Republic. It engaged in skirmishes with the ex-Russian Ukrainian Republic but did not go to war with it. Indeed, those two countries were allies against the Soviets (an alliance that was a betrayal by central Ukraine against Galicia).
  184. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Wally
    Zionist Thirdeye is absolutely wrong again. Well, he is a Zionist, so .....

    Read and learn:
    Who started bombing civilians first?
    http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=8172

    The '6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers' are scientifically impossible frauds.
    see the 'holocaust' scam debunked here:
    http://codoh.com
    No name calling, level playing field debate here:
    http://forum.codoh.com

    Did you ever wonder why people don’t like you? Did you maybe ever consider that the only people who do like you are people you don’t treat this way?

    Read More
  185. Thirdeye says:
    @Wally
    My, my you are certainly attached to Marxist / Zionist propaganda, you even link to some.

    See here for actual excavations, international witness confirmation, verifiable photos, the whole deal:
    'Katyn facts: 'Amtliches Material zum Massenmord von Katyn' '
    http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=758

    The only reason the average American is silenced about parasitical Zionists and Israel is because they’ve had their head filled with various absurd fictions such as Holocaust propaganda, “Judeo-Christian values”, and Jews being a uniquely righteous, exceptional, and persecuted people.

    The '6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers' are laughable, scientifically impossible frauds.
    see the 'holocaust' scam debunked here:
    http://codoh.com
    No name calling, level playing field debate here:
    http://forum.codoh.com


    We're talking about an alleged '6M Jews & 5M others' ... 11,000,000.
    There is not a single verifiable excavated enormous mass grave with contents actually SHOWN, not just claimed, (recall the claim of 900,000 buried at Treblinka, 1,250,000 at Auschwitz, or 250,000 at Sobibor, 34,000 at Babi Yar) even though Jews claim they still exist and claim to know exactly where these alleged enormous mass graves are.
    Note: actually show us excavations & their contents, not some Zionist liar claiming mass graves where none exist, and not showing the alleged, verifiable enormous human remains of Jews.
     

    What “Marxist/Zionist propaganda” did I link to? Gerd Schultze-Ronhof of “The War With Many Fathers?”

    And you link to codoh propaganda as your source on Katyn?

    Sure, the Polish forensic team that identified “Katyn Massacre” sites as SS massacre sites was just a bunch of Jooz.

    Well slap my fanny, there weren’t 1,250,000 corpses buried at Auschwitz? That must mean nothing happened! It’s not like they cremated bodies or anything…….

    You seem too dumb to realize how ridiculous your posts are.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Schultz s-Rhonhof would probably find it pretty funny to be called Marxist or Zionist.
  186. Thirdeye says:
    @Wally
    Zionist Thirdeye is absolutely wrong again. Well, he is a Zionist, so .....

    Read and learn:
    Who started bombing civilians first?
    http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=8172

    The '6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers' are scientifically impossible frauds.
    see the 'holocaust' scam debunked here:
    http://codoh.com
    No name calling, level playing field debate here:
    http://forum.codoh.com

    What part of “US bombers” and “carpet bombing” and “1943″ do you not understand? It’s got to be one of those three if you think your link has any bearing on it.

    Read More
  187. Thirdeye says:
    @jacques sheete
    See response #173. Clearly this one thinks he's one upping the rest of us with snark. Not even worth responding to.

    He thinks resource poor Japan wasn't beaten long before Pearl when they couldn't even control coastal China or Manchukuo with any sort of efficiency. FDR provoked the attack on Pearl knowing full well that the Japanese military was no threat to the US whatsoever, and thinks that FDR's death before the bombs were unleashed indicates that he didn't deliberately prolong the war so's to be able to test them on real targets.

    Thanks for referencing post 173. This way, anyone can compare what I said with what you said I said. You seem kind of butthurt and sulky right now.

    Read More
  188. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Thirdeye
    What "Marxist/Zionist propaganda" did I link to? Gerd Schultze-Ronhof of "The War With Many Fathers?"

    And you link to codoh propaganda as your source on Katyn?

    Sure, the Polish forensic team that identified "Katyn Massacre" sites as SS massacre sites was just a bunch of Jooz.

    Well slap my fanny, there weren't 1,250,000 corpses buried at Auschwitz? That must mean nothing happened! It's not like they cremated bodies or anything.......

    You seem too dumb to realize how ridiculous your posts are.

    Schultz s-Rhonhof would probably find it pretty funny to be called Marxist or Zionist.

    Read More
  189. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Anatoly Karlin
    Katyn was certainly a war crime, but a relatively minor one in the context of WW2. For context, an analogous number of Soviet POWs died in Polish camps during the Polish-Soviet war when Poland invaded Soviet Ukraine.

    Why does nobody ever mention that, or even know about it, while Katyn has assumed one of the central positions in Western mythology about WW2?

    For the same reason that most people now believe the US played the most important role in winning WW2.

    I do sometimes wish there had been a way to occupy Berlin while walling Poland off and leaving it under Nazi occupation indefinitely. Judging from their behavior (e.g. removing Soviet war memorials), the Poles would have preferred things that way, and I believe in giving people what they want.

    Katyn is two crimes.
    First the actual killing, and then blaming it on someone else.

    Read More
  190. robt says:
    @jacques sheete

    So, I do not take seriously most judgements by “college-educated” America on most subjects related to Russian/Soviet history.
     
    And well you shouldn't.

    One will NOT get "educated" about history by attending a US institution of "higher learning." Aside from science and math, most are nothing more than brainwashing factories and have pretty much always been. Upton Sinclair explained why in his book, "The Goose-Step" written in 1923, and his claims are still valid today.

    Just math, and the empirical content of scientific study, not ‘science and math’ They are not equivalent. Taken as a whole discipline, and on a much longer time scale, theoretical ‘science’ is like the fad diet of the year. Just an objective study of Global Warming/Cooling generational rotation by ‘scientists’ for the last 150 years quickly reveals that. Or study the theory of Wegener’s Continental Drift which was ridiculed until just 60 years ago, now renamed Tectonics, and accepted as irrefutable truth. What seemed obvious when I was a child and had read Wegener and looked at maps got me into terrible arguments with ‘teachers’, and kicked out of class.
    But read ‘The Structure of Scientific Revolutions’, by Thomas Kuhn. Then reflect on the state of educational institutions today – it’s not about education, it’s about politics, and the politics of science.

    Anyway, you will not be objectively educated about political history in any nation. Your only hope is to try to put together all the pieces from all different sources, and most important, apply logic.
    The American Revolution is a good place to start.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jacques sheete

    Then reflect on the state of educational institutions today – it’s not about education, it’s about politics, and the politics of science.

    Anyway, you will not be objectively educated about political history in any nation. Your only hope is to try to put together all the pieces from all different sources, and most important, apply logic.
    The American Revolution is a good place to start.
     
    We are in complete agreement on those points.

    I would go so far as to say that no intelligent person interested in educating himself would waste his time in such institutions these days. Anyone getting into debt for the scam is double dumb.
  191. Edward says:
    @Andrei Martyanov
    Well, Polish role in unleashing a WW II is somehow unknown to Derb who, probably, didn't read Correlli Barnett's scathing characterization of this very Polish role, together with British one.

    https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-OAoptzMBygE/WWEuIpid-cI/AAAAAAAABG8/bWY3n_wRN_0yek4r6Pl7X5t7RA17SVmSQCLcBGAs/s1600/EastEurope.jpg

    This very same Barnett writes about "moralizing internationalism" which is a permanent feature of Anglo-Saxon "elites" and which is the main reason for an instinct for constant desire to pontificate while ignoring "facts on the ground". Obviously, the fact that Red Army lost more KIAs liberating Poland than US and UK combined in WW II is of very little concern. Obviously, the fact of modern Poland's rabid Russo-phobia which may lead to a very real war, not to mention Poland's literally insane elites (enough to take a look at her current Defense Minister), is not considered at all.

    “the fact that Red Army lost more KIAs liberating Poland”. Liberating? Asinine comment. They didn’t liberate anything… They invaded Poland.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP
    Correct. Soviet "liberation" of Poland was analogous to someone killing a serial killer, taking the killer's soon-to-be-victim, and locking her up in a basement and enslaving her. Yes, she is at least alive thanks to the second person, but gratitude would be an absurd attitude.

    Oh, and the enslaver only did this after the serial killer chose to attack him first.
  192. AP says:
    @Thirdeye
    .......and most Jews who died in concentration camps died of disease and starvation.

    The Polish wars of expansion against the Russia and the Ukrainian republics were accompanied by ethnic cleansing. Poland puts their war against Russia in the light of the Russians being big bad Commies. What's their excuse for their wars against the then-independent Ukrainian republics?

    The Polish wars of expansion against the Russia and the Ukrainian republics were accompanied by ethnic cleansing.

    Whiles Poles murdered about 300 Ukrainian civilians in the looting spree after taking Lviv in 1918 this was too small scale of a crime to be considered “ethnic cleansing.”

    What’s their excuse for their wars against the then-independent Ukrainian republics?

    Poland invaded and occupied the territory of the Western Ukrainian Republic. It engaged in skirmishes with the ex-Russian Ukrainian Republic but did not go to war with it. Indeed, those two countries were allies against the Soviets (an alliance that was a betrayal by central Ukraine against Galicia).

    Read More
  193. AP says:
    @Edward
    "the fact that Red Army lost more KIAs liberating Poland". Liberating? Asinine comment. They didn't liberate anything... They invaded Poland.

    Correct. Soviet “liberation” of Poland was analogous to someone killing a serial killer, taking the killer’s soon-to-be-victim, and locking her up in a basement and enslaving her. Yes, she is at least alive thanks to the second person, but gratitude would be an absurd attitude.

    Oh, and the enslaver only did this after the serial killer chose to attack him first.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Edward
    Then the enslaver slowly tortured the victim who he already cut the hands off of by using razors then become a new killer, but just slower and brainwasher to some extent. There is no excuse for what the Soviet Union did to Poland and other countries. The Soviets were murderers and in many ways no better than the Nazis. One should never forget what they did to the Ukrainians as well as Poland as stated - the patriots after the war who fought the Nazis. The Poles have every reason to question Russia. Yes, gratitude would be an absurd attitude.