The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewEric Margolis Archive
Stalin's Soviet Union Defeated Germany --- We Should Not Forget
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll 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 three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

It was churlish for western leaders to boycott this week’s Victory Parade in Moscow that commemorated the Soviet Union’s defeat of Nazi Germany 70 years ago.

Historic events are facts that should not be manipulated according to the latest political fashions. Being angry at Moscow for mucking about in Ukraine does not in any way lessen the glory, admiration and thanks owed to the Russian people for their heroism during World War II.

Americans and Canadians like to believe they won the war in Europe and give insufficient recognition to the decisive Soviet role. Most Europeans would rather not think about the matter. By contrast, Russians know that it was their soldiers who really won the war. They remain angry that their military achievements are ignored by American triumphalists and myth -makers.

Not only did Stalin’s Soviet Union play the key role in crushing Nazi Germany, its huge sacrifices saved the lives of countless American, British and Canadian soldiers. Were it not for the USSR’s victory, Nazi Germany might be alive and well today.

Let’s do the numbers. The Soviet armed forces destroyed 507 German division and 100 allied Axis divisions (according to Soviet figures). These latter included the pan-European Waffen SS whose largest numbers came from Belgium, Holland and Scandinavia, Italy, Romania, Hungary, Finland and a division from Spain.

Soviet military historians claim their forces destroyed 77,000 enemy planes, 48,000 enemy tanks and armored vehicles. The Red Army accounted for 75-80% of Axis casualties in World war II.

In the process, 1,710 Russian cities, 70,000 towns and villages, 31,850 factories or and 1,974 collective farms were destroyed. Add 84,000 schools, 43,000 libraries and 65,000 km of railway.

The leading Russian military historian Dimitri Volkogonov revealed during the Gorbachev years that Russia’s total losses from 1941-1945 were 26.6 to 27 million dead. Ten million of them were Soviet soldiers dead or missing. Compare this to total US dead in the European theater of 139,000.

No one likes to admit it was Stalin who defeated Nazi Germany. Stalin killed far more people than Adolf Hitler, including 6 million Ukrainians liquidated in the early 1930’s and four million Muslims during the war. The Soviet gulag was grinding up victims well into the 1950’s.

Today, seven decades later, we are barraged with films and reports about Germany’s concentration camps while Stalin’s far more extensive and lethal gulag is ignored. Roosevelt spoke warmly of Stalin as “Uncle Joe.” Churchill kept silent.

When Americans, British and Canadians landed at Normandy in June, 1944, they met Germany forces that had been shattered on the Eastern Front and bled white. Understrength German units had almost no gasoline and were low on ammunition, tanks and artillery.

Equally important, the Allies had absolute air superiority over the Western European battlefields. Understrength German units could only move at night – when they could find fuel. By 1944, both Germany and Japan were crippled by a calamitous lack of fuel. Planes could not fly, tanks and trucks could not moved, and warships were forced to stay in port.

The reason Germany had no air cover at Normandy was because most of the once potent Luftwaffe had been destroyed on the Eastern Front, its best pilots killed, and aviation fuel scarce. Germany’s advanced ME262 jet fighter that should have swept the skies was grounded because of fuel shortages.

Had Germany’s Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe not been largely destroyed in Russia, the Normandy D-Day invasion would likely have been pushed into the Channel. Britain may have been invaded well before June, 1944. Hitler’s foolish notion that Germany and the British Empire should be allies saved the beaten British Army in France in 1940, allowing it to escape across the Channel while leaving its French allies in the lurch.

By the time the Allies established themselves in France, they outnumbered degraded German forces by 2:1. At least 67,000 German soldiers died in the Normandy operation. In a heartbreaking but little-known statistic of war, 6.7 million German horses were killed on both fronts.

Soviet Ukraine bore the brunt of the war, losing some 5 million soldiers and 6 million civilians – roughly half of total Soviet losses.

By April, 1944, Germany still maintained 214 divisions on the East Front facing the advancing Soviet and just 60 divisions (mostly understrength, many only brigades in reality) on the Western Front.

At that time, both Roosevelt and Churchill lavished praise and thanks on the Soviet Union, admitting its “gigantic effort” in defeating Hitler’s Germany. Today, however, we have chosen to forget who really won the war in Europe.

Just as much, we have totally ignored the huge Soviet contribution to the war in the Pacific Theater. The US Navy swept the seas of the Imperial Japanese Navy in a series of brilliant actions that rate among the greatest feats in naval history, but Japan still held large parts of China and Manchuria.

On 9 Aug, 1945, the Soviets unleashed one of the war’s largest campaigns. Some 1.57 million Red Army troops in 89 divisions, backed by 27,000 guns, 5,500 tanks, and 3721 warplanes stormed south in a giant, 2,500-km long arc from Outer Mongolia to Korea. Soviet tank armies raced across desert, mountain ranges and forests in a giant pincer movement that enveloped Japan’s Manchurian-based 600,000-man, 25 division Kwantung Army.

In only eleven days of blitzkrieg, the once-feared Kwantung Army – Japan’s largest – was crushed. Soviet forces reached Port Arthur in northern China, much of Manchuria and right up to Korea’s 38th parallel. Five years later, a proxy war between the US and Soviet Union would begin over divided Korea.

The shattering of the Kwantung army is believed by some historians to have contributed to Japan’s surrender. Other historians suggest that America’s use of two nuclear weapons against Japan was a hasty effort to make it surrender before the Red Army landed in Japan.

ORDER IT NOW

While making it plain that the western democracies have no kudos for Soviet leader Stalin, and disapprove of Vladimir Putin’s machination in Ukraine and Crimea, it should still have been possible to acknowledge the mighty Soviet contribution to our victory in World War II. At the very least, Russia’s valiant soldiers deserve a sharp salute from us. They defeated Nazi Germany and save many of our men from death.

(Republished from EricMargolis.com by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: History • Tags: Russia, World War II 
Hide 48 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. fnn says:

    “Stalin’s Soviet Union Defeated Germany”

    And then mass insanity ensued:
    http://www.ctpost.com/news/article/White-Lives-Matter-flyers-trigger-outcry-in-6251307.php

    Flyers with the slogan — “#White Lives Matter” — an apparent racist response to the widely used social-media hashtag, #Black Lives Matter, have been tossed on local driveways and lawns in the Compo Road area, prompting local officials to denounce the message.

    Officials say they are troubled by the distribution of the flyers in town, which have unsettled many of those who found them on their doorsteps over the last week.

    “I am deeply concerned and disappointed that statements like this have found their way to Westport homes,” First Selectman Jim Marpe said in a statement Friday. “This kind of racial ugliness has no place anywhere, and certainly not in Westport.”

    The first selectman added, “I have always been proud to speak of Westport as an open and welcoming community, and I continue to believe that the vast majority of Westporters practice that belief through tolerance, inclusion and everyday civil behavior … This past year has reminded us that our nation still needs to deal with some serious racial issues, and now we know that Westport is not immune.”

    • Replies: @Hibernian
  2. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Yes that Stalin dude was such a swell guy.

    • Replies: @Chris Mallory
  3. @Anonymous

    Did you even read the article? Stalin’s mass murder and war crimes were pointed out.

    • Replies: @Hibernian
  4. If anything, today’s school children are in danger of thinking that Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin went to war against Hitler because of what was happening to the Jews.

    Auschwitz revisited by Robert Cohen on Mondoweiss

    Presumably, Cohen believes that Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin did NOT go to war against Hitler because of what was happening to the Jews.

    Eric Margolis informs us, with a hint of triumph, that

    Stalin killed far more people than Adolf Hitler, including 6 million Ukrainians liquidated in the early 1930’s and four million Muslims during the war. The Soviet gulag was grinding up victims well into the 1950’s.

    Today, seven decades later, we are barraged with films and reports about Germany’s concentration camps while Stalin’s far more extensive and lethal gulag is ignored. Roosevelt spoke warmly of Stalin as “Uncle Joe.” Churchill kept silent

    .

    Put ’em together and what have you got?

    —> Stalin killed far more people

    —> Stalin was committing mass murders nearly a decade before Sept 1, 1939

    —> In the first half of 1933 these things happened:

    a. Jan 30, 1933 Hitler became chancellor

    b. Feb 14, 1933 Louis Brandeis directed Rabbi Stephen Wise to remove all Jews from Germany

    c. March 24, 1933 British (and later Polish and US) newspapers carry front-page banner headline reports: “Judea Declares War on Germany . . . Jews of All the World Unite in Action” — that action was an economic boycott of Germany the goal of which was to destroy Germany’s export capacity, “upon which Germany’s existence depended.” In other words, the boycott was an “existential threat” to the German people.

    d. July 1933 Samuel Untermyer met with thirty or more representatives of “International Jewry” in Europe to coordinate the boycott against Germany, “intended to bring Germany to its knees.”

    e. August 1933 Untermyer, Rabbi Wise, Brandeis, Fiorello LaGuardia and Jewish war veterans organize protest marches and protest rallies in major US cities where anti-German atrocity propaganda is spread. German Jews oppose these actions. In one such rally in Philadelphia, only three German Jews attend.

    —> Mr. Margolis assures us that “Hitler [had the] foolish notion that Germany and the British Empire should be allies”

    —> Richard Breitman and Allen Lichtman write in “FDR and the Jews” that “Nazis curbed violence against Jews . . . No Jews were sent to concentration camps until after Nov. 11, 1938.

    —> Robert Cohen implies that the war against Germany was NOT about Jews.

    So what WAS the war against Germany all about?

    Why did Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin go to war against Germany?

    (n.b. “Germany declared war on US” is a non-answer)

  5. MarkinLA says:

    No we shouldn’t forget but neither should we make stuff up about Germany. They were not working on an atom bomb and we were. They had no naval force of note and the US and Britain had already neutralized their submarine fleet with destroyers, escort carriers, and long range bombers equipped for anti-submarine duty . The Germans couldn’t even invade Britain when they had the war all to themselves. The British were even outproducing the Germans is some areas of wartime production. The idea that Germany could defeat both the US and Britain is ridiculous.

  6. Elena says:

    Bravo Eric. Thank you for the reminder of who really won the war for the West. No matter what we think of Stalin, it was the Soviet army that liberated Europe from Nazism! And we have the 27 million Soviet dead heroes to thank for that.

    • Replies: @Peter Akuleyev
    , @Anonymous
  7. Perhaps “Churchill kept silent” because, as Churchill said, “There is only thing worse than fighting with allies, and that is fighting without them!”

    Stalin’s command of the Red Army caused millions of needless Russian casualties, including casualties suffered by the tens of thousands of members of Soviet penal units whose men were forced to advance unarmed at the van of Red Army attacks to serve as human detonators of German minefields. Also, God only knows how many Red Army soldiers Stalin’s NKVD shot out of hand on the merest suggestion – or no hint at all – of those soldiers having been cowards or deserters. Moreover, when the Red Army “liberated” German-held Red Army POW’s, Stalin sent all of them to his gulags on his pretense that their exposure to the West had somehow “contaminated” them; and Stalin pronounced the same sentence upon untold numbers of the Soviet civilians whom the Red Army “liberated” from Nazi occupation.

    Stalin also deliberately withheld Red Army forces from taking Warsaw, to enable Stalin’s cynical use of the Wehrmacht to annihilate the Polish Home Army, thus eliminating one of the prime opposition forces to Soviet enslavement of postwar Poland.

    Further, manpower depletion sapped Wehrmacht units on all fronts – on the Russian front, the Italian front, and in German-occupied Greece and the Balkans as well, not just on the Western Allies’ Normandy front. By mid-1944 almost all of the Wehrmacht units facing the Red Army were gravely understrength, not just in manpower but also in weaponry. And it was the Western Allies’ strategic and tactical bombing campaigns that forced the Luftwaffe to deploy tens of thousands of 88mm guns (and 105mm guns) in Germany as antiaircraft guns that expended an enormous quantity of shells, most of which exploded harmlessly in the sky – when those tens of thousands of guns and millions of shells, in their devastating anti-tank role, would have otherwise immensely strengthened the Wehrmacht units facing the Red Army.

    Atop all that, the Russian front was of far greater span than the Western Allies’ north European front, effecting a greater concentration of the fewer Wehrmacht units facing the Western Allies and a greater dispersion of German Army strength all along the Russian front.

    The elimination of the Luftwaffe was not accomplished solely by Red Army aviation, much of the Luftwaffe was shot from the skies by Western Allied air forces in their relentless air campaign against Nazi Germany, or was bombed to ruin by the Western Allies’ massive strategic and tactical bombing. It was also the Western Allies strategic bombing that caused Germany to suffer dire fuel and lubricant shortage.

    Stalin’s incessant demands for Western materiel support also prompted FDR and Churchill to supply the Red Army with thousands of aircraft, armored vehicles, trucks, railway locomotives, and millions of tons of foodstuffs and munitions.

    On the strategic level, Stalin had to fight on just one large front, and the USSR devoted but a scant proportion of its war effort to sea warfare, while the Western Allies fought on several, often far-flung fronts, all of which required an industrial, naval and aviation combat, and aviation and merchant marine support, and base construction effort of colossal proportions.

    In short, the exertions of the Western Allies were directly responsible for easing enormously the burden borne by Stalin’s Red Army.

    All of the above and there was no – absolutely no – reciprocity from Stalin.

    Finally, FDR’s and Truman’s insistence that Stalin declare and make war against Japan formed a strategic error of monumental proportion. Japan’s Kwantung Army in China would have withered on the vine as, even in the absence of the two U.S. A-bomb attacks, the Kwantung Army was powerless to have prevented conventional Western Allied invasion of Japan’s home islands. Compounding that error was the massive support which, following the Red Army campaign that took Manchuria, Stalin was thus enabled to funnel efficiently to Mao Tse Tung’s Communist forces for their postwar campaign against Chiang Kai Shek’s Nationalist army – which, in due course, allowed Red China to furnish massive materiel aid to Ho Chi Minh’s Viet Minh and Pathet Lao units in their war against French Union Forces in Laos and Vietnam.

    • Replies: @Hibernian
    , @Begemot
  8. Hibernian says:
    @Chris Mallory

    Mention of Stalin’s crimes and his very belated aid in the defeat of Japan are footnotes in a piece praising Stalin, using Soviet self-reporting as authority for the extent of his admittedly very major contribution to the defeat of Hitler. Mention is made of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but none of Pearl Harbor, the Phillipines, U.S. defense of Australia, Guadalcanal, Tarawa, Iwo Jima, Okinawa, etc. Not to mention the Nazi-Soviet pact which ended only when Hitler stabbed Stalin in the back. Mr. Margolis in many of his writings is very good at pointing out the failures of the present neocon establishment, but his leftist bias shows through in the nth degree in this piece.

    • Replies: @Chris Mallory
  9. The Soviet Union had no choice but to defeat Germany, it was fight or die. The UK and France had a choice whether to support Poland against Germany in 1939, and they made the moral choice. All credit to the many individual Soviet citizens who fought and sacrificed, but the Soviet Union and Stalin have no moral claim to crow about a victory over a country and regime they supported from 1939 right up to the moment where Hitler attacked them.

  10. Hibernian says:
    @fnn

    Are you blaming Stalin for present day political correctness in affluent SW Connecticut? He has enough to answer for as it is.

  11. Hibernian says:
    @Auntie Analogue

    Thanks for injecting some reality into this discussion.

    • Replies: @Auntie Analogue
  12. @Elena

    The Soviet Union didn’t liberate the Baltics, Hungary, Poland or Romania. Or East Germany for that matter. They simply replaced one murderous regime with another. The Czechs, the Poles and the Jews were generally better off under the Soviets than the Nazis. Although in the case of Poles and Jews that is due only to the fact that the Nazis were genocidal and the Soviets simply vicious. There is a good case to be made that every other nationality in Central Europe actually lived better under the Nazis or Nazi allied governments. The US and the UK actually did liberate France and Italy. There is a huge difference.

  13. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Elena

    You must have a very peculiar idea of what “liberation” means.

  14. German_reader says:

    “These latter included the pan-European Waffen SS whose largest numbers came from Belgium, Holland and Scandinavia, Italy, Romania, Hungary, Finland and a division from Spain.”

    The Spanish Blue Division wasn’t part of the Waffen-SS…also very much doubt that there were Italians, Romanians, Hungarians or Finns in the Waffen-SS. These countries were allies of Germany and sent troop contingents of their national armies…but that’s different from forming Waffen-SS divisions.
    It’s also news to me that the Luftwaffe was destroyed on the Eastern Front…as far as I know that actually was an achievement of the western allies, mostly the 8th air force.
    Seems like a pretty worthless article to me if it doesn’t even get basic facts right.

    • Replies: @MisterCharlie
  15. @Hibernian

    My dear Hibernian, thank you for your kind compliment.

  16. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factor"] says:

    True.

    But Stalin collaborated with Hitler in the invasion and partition of Poland.

    Stalin colluded with Hitler and got burned.

    So, the credit should go to the Russian people and all others who fought in the war.
    The credit should not go to Stalin who was a mass killer in his own right.

    • Replies: @Frau Katze
  17. “. . . The U.S. Navy swept the seas of the Imperial Japanese Navy in a series of brilliant actions that rate among the greatest feats in naval history . . .” The USN covered itself in glory in the Pacific war. Whether submerged, on the surface, or in the air, the Fleet fought on to ultimate victory.

    The opposition was first-rate. The IJN was arguably the world’s best navy in 1941. Rigorous training in all conditions–and an exceptional devotion to night fighting and torpedo tactics–gave it the edge. (And, of course, it helps if you’ve got one of the best weapons. The Type 93 torpedo–the “Long Lance”–was the best weapon of its kind in the world. The USN’s Mark 14 was bargain basement crap by comparison.)

    With the beginning of the Guadalcanal campaign in August 1942, the USN and IJN locked horns in earnest. Savo Island . . . Cape Esperance . . . Naval Battle of Guadalcanal . . . Tassafaronga . . . Kula Gulf . . . Kolombangara . . . Vella Lavella . . . all hard-fought surface actions. The USN took a pasting, but it learned in the school of battle. As the war went on, the USN never stopped getting better.

    • Replies: @Hibernian
  18. None of the comments has explained why FDR, Churchill and Stalin went to war against Germany; neither idd Mr. Margolis.

    That question — rather, a slightly modified version of that question, is extremely important.

    Wilson’s government considered Bolshevism problematic and, in the latter days of WWI sent US troops in coalition with Japanese forces to destroy Bolshevism. The scheme backfired and resulted in more Russians joining with Bolsheviks in resistance to the American and (especially) Japanese forces that had earlier defeated the Russian army. Shades of ISIS.

    Herbert Hoover tried valiantly to dissuade the French, British and Americans from involving themselves in a conflict between Germany and Russia. Hoover argued, consistent with Germany’s actions, that NSDAP had no designs on western Europe; Hitler was determined to destroy Bolshevic Communism and to acquire agricultural land in the East so that Never Again could the German people be starved into capitulation as had occurred in WWI and the Versailles negotiations period. The National Socialists were forthright in their goals, and they did not include conquest of USA or of France or of Western Europe. For those who read and think critically, the key word is national; contrasted with Bolshevik Communism which had international ambitions. Hoover argued that if the British, French and Americans stayed out of the conflict, Germany and Russia would fight each other to exhaustion and a hundred years of peace would ensue.

    FDR demonstrated that vanquishing Communism was on his agenda (in addition to dismantling the British empire) by his actions in taking Rome. Plans had been carefully laid for a coordinated US-British action to take Rome and to cut off the German ability to retreat. US and British forces were scheduled to enter Rome together, but in a meeting at Bernard Baruch’s estate in North Carolina, FDR instructed Mark Clark to jump the gun and drive American forces into Rome unaccompanied by British personnel. In this way, FDR hoped to gain American control over Italy’s future, shutting out British influence and also gaining the position to control Communist influence in Italy.

    It appears that FDR played a double game: USA was as interested in destroying Communism as was the NSDAP.
    So why did FDR take the USA into a war against Germany, rather than freeing Germany to destroy Bolshevik Communism, as Germany sought to do?

    • Replies: @Auntie Analogue
  19. Frau Katze says: • Website
    @Priss Factor

    The leaders of the Western countries are basing their decision on the behaviour of leader Putin.

    How to distinguish between the people and the leaders?

    Stalin was ghastly and was happy to collaborate with Hitler in 1939.

    But millions of Soviets did lose their lives in the war so I’m thinking it’s not very respectful of the population at large to skip the victory anniversary.

    • Replies: @solontoCroesus
  20. @Frau Katze

    It is my impression that Putin 2015 is attempting to model a Russian national character and culture far different and removed from Stalinist Russia. I think he’s reaching back for a culture that valorized Byzantine Christianity and the high points of Russian literature, the Russia that Kennan knew and admired.

    At the same time, vigorous anti-Nazism works well for him and for Russia.

    Holocaustism has skewed the history such that Stalin & Bolshevism’s genocides become forgettable footnotes to the bestest genocide of them all, the non-event of holocaustism.

    Holocaustism has reduced USA (and Germany) to Useful Idiot status, equal parts ignorant of and giddily acquiescent to the valorization of Stalin’s genocides, Zhukov’s slaughter of his own troops, mass rape, and Allied carpet bombing of civilians — the most significant contribution to “victory” made by British & US allies.

    The Allies got away with war crimes and crimes against humanity not once but twice in the first half of the twentieth century, and the ability to not only kill with impunity, benefit mightily from it, blame it on someone else, and collect reparations for it, has created the monstrosity of zionized Israel and US complicity in killing its way to reductio ad Zio-Americanum of the Middle East.

    Machiavelli counsels that politics is not a tea party, so conflict is to be expected. That being the case, however, the American people are going to have to trade in their goody-two-shoes for the jack-boots that more appropriately fit their footprint on the world today.

  21. Kat Grey says:

    Why don’t we just say the Allies defeated Nazi Germany and leave it at that? Let’s not deprecate any of the nations who lost so much precious lifeblood in this obscene charnel house conflict

  22. Mulegino1 says:

    It is certainly true that the Soviets bore the brunt of the fighting and were the major factor in the defeat of the Axis powers in Europe. The “Great Patriotic War” is and remains, along with Orthodoxy, at the core of the Russian identity.

    What is lesser known is that Germany and its allies did not attack the Soviet Union out of a lust for conquest of “Lebensraum”. It was not a war of Hitler’s choice. Operation Barbarossa was launched as a desperate preemptive strike against enormous Soviet forces massing on the western frontier of the Soviet Union, themselves in the prepping stages for a massive invasion of Europe.

    The most powerful Soviet force – the 9th Rifle Corps – was deployed along the Romanian border approximately a hundred miles or so from the oil fields at Ploesti. Had the Soviets seized the fields, the Wehrmacht would have ground to a halt within weeks.

    These massive deployments – enormous numbers of troops, tanks, airplanes, vehicles, ammunition, etc. deploying in vulnerable salients – alone account for the smashing successes of the first weeks and months of Barbarossa.

    The myth that the Russians were inferior soldiers with inferior equipment is just that – a myth. They were simply caught in an enormous trap sprung by the Wehrmacht (the majority of its artillery was horse drawn – even in 1941). It all depended upon who struck first. The defense of the Brest fortress demonstrates the raw courage and fighting spirit of the Russian soldier. The Soviet military was not inferior, it was simply sucker punched.

    The Soviet – Japanese non-aggression pact probably sealed the defeat of Germany, allowing the Soviet Union to free up its Eastern Armies for the Moscow counteroffensive.

    • Replies: @Kat Grey
  23. Begemot says:
    @Auntie Analogue

    @Auntie Analogue

    You state:

    “In short, the exertions of the Western Allies were directly responsible for easing enormously the burden borne by Stalin’s Red Army.

    “All of the above and there was no – absolutely no – reciprocity from Stalin.”

    I agree with your first sentence. Your second statement is absurd. Keeping 60% of the German military tied down in combat in the Soviet Union was the Soviet contribution. Do you think the US and Britain would have successfully liberated Western Europe if they had to have 100% of Germany’s military?

  24. @Hibernian

    I read the essay as praising the Russian people, not the thug Stalin. On all sides a whole lot of people who would have rather been farming, building, creating, raising families, and just living were killed due to the egos of “great men”. It was the same in WWI and the same today.

    The world would be a better place if the “great men” were smothered in their cribs.

    • Replies: @solontoCroesus
  25. My first boss who played some very significant non-military parts in WW2 recalled the same thing being said to him twice in 1941-42, namely “we’ve won the war” first when the Soviet Union was invaded and second after Pearl Harbour.

    Quibble: the Soviet Union’s attack on the Japanese on 9th August 1945, five days before unconditional surrender was no great contribution to the Pacific War. The atomic bombs were enough without the USSR doing anything.

    Also it may be overstating the USSR’s contribution in 1945 if one assumes that the atomic bomb could have been used against Germany.

  26. @Chris Mallory

    I regret that I missed this conference—

    COMMITTEE FOR THE REPUBLIC

    World War I Centennial Salon
    ___________________________

    The Committee for the Republic is holding its first salon on World War I.

    Entangling alliances plunged the major European powers into war. Could England have stayed out of the Great War in August 1914? Committee member Martin Sieff will explain the key role of Winston Churchill and Edward Grey in the British intervention. In 1915, Secretary of State William Jennings Bryant resigned after President Woodrow Wilson broke his campaign pledge of neutrality by selling munitions and extending loans to England and France. Taking sides created pressures which led America to go to war against Germany in April 1917. David Stockman will argue the counterfactual on U.S. entry into WWI.

    American intervention in the Great War changed the course of history. American doughboys broke the stalemate and allowed the British and French armies to defeat Germany in France. American intervention in the First World War was the equivalent of a European power coming to the United States during the Civil War and saying South wins, North loses. The Treaty of Versailles repudiated Wilson’s Fourteen Points on which Germany relied in their surrender. John Maynard Keynes walked out of the peace conference denouncing Wilson’s ineptitude and hypocrisy. In the Economic Consquences of the Peace, Keynes described Wilson as an egotistical idealist without the “intellectual equipment” to negotiate effectively with David Lloyd George and George Clemenceau. In a war to “make the world safe for democracy”, the British empire acquired an additional 8.2 million people and 862,549 square miles and the French empire gained 5.6 million people and 238,168 square miles. The British and French were allowed to carve up the Middle East among themselves, assign war guilt to Germany, crush their economy with vengeful reparations, and redraw Germany’s borders leaving German populations outside their country. Congress rejected Wilson’s utopian League of Nations, declared a separate peace with Germany and the Democratic Party suffered the worst defeat in American history in the 1920 presidential election.

    Transforming a European conflict into a world war and losing the peace set the stage for World War II. The Versailles Treaty laid the ground for the rise of the Nazi Party. The prolongation of WWI encouraged the communist takeover of Russia. Wilson’s war of choice created the Espionage Act and violated American civil liberties. Thirty million Russians killed in WWII set up the Cold War. A hundred years after WWI, Germany is the arbiter of Europe and America is entangled in alliances around the globe. Wilson bequeathed America a civil religion that replaced the founding narrative of self-restraint and limits on power. His militant idealism — adopted by humanitarian interventionists, neoconservatives, and assertive nationalists — animates our foreign policy debates today. We have to “do something” constantly because Americans are a chosen people indispensable to our conception of world order. Both political parties embrace the Wilsonian narrative of America as “a force for good in the world.”

    David Stockman and Martin Sieff are students of the Great War and its long shadow. David gained national recognition as Reagan’s Budget Director before going on to a career on Wall Street. Martin’s career in journalism included stints at United Press International as Managing Editor, International Affairs, and the Washington Times as Chief Foreign Correspondent.

  27. Kat Grey says:
    @Mulegino1

    Have you ever read Mein Kampf? Hitler specifically mentions Russia as having a surplus of land which Germans needed in order to feed its population and expand, in short lebensraum.

  28. bobbiemac says:

    Eric is correct in noting that the USSR defeated the bulk of the Wehrmacht, but he overstates the case somewhat as poster Auntie analogue covered pretty thoroughly.
    While Allied aid may not have been much of a factor in 1941-2, it was a huge asset to the Soviets in the last 2 years. Every one of those tanks and aircraft — whether on par with Soviet equipment or inferior — was one more thing that had to be destroyed by the Germans. The massive number of trucks and material enabled the Red Army to concentrate on tanks and artillery.
    The Luftwaffe was constantly having to pull fighter units from the east to combat the Western allies’ air offensive, leaving most of the east front denuded of fighter cover. That is well known, But I failed to take into account the anti-aircraft artillery that also could have been deployed to the east as “auntie” pointed out.
    All in all the West should have let the USSR and Germany fight it out. Whoever survived would have been in no condition to threaten anyone.

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
  29. Dutch Boy says:

    WW II became inevitable with the establish of the Bolshevik regime in Russia as a consequence of WWI. For that you can thank the nitwit Woodrow Wilson, who got the USA involved in WWI because the British and French had convinced him that they were on the verge of victory and he wanted in on the peace deal. Of course, as soon as the US declared war, the French and British ambassadors and their military staffs were at the White House demanding the immediate transfer of American troops to the Western Front because it was the Germans who were on the verge of victory (alas, the German offensive petered out). Hitler or no Hitler, war was coming because of the aggressive designs of the USSR. I suspect that the US and Britain would have supported the USSR no matter who was ruling Germany.

  30. @SolontoCroesus

    To the Most Excellent Solon,

    You really must begin to think about some other subject, my friend. Mr. Margolis’ article mentions neither Jews, Hebrews, Israel, nor Zion. Not every noteworthy event in history is traceable to Jews doing something nefarious.

    Peace, love, truth,

    The Grate Deign

    • Replies: @solontoCroesus
  31. @The Grate Deign

    You mistake me for your friend.

    You are not mistaken that Margolis did not mention Jews, Hebrews, Israel or Zion. Nor do most, almost all histories of WWI and WWII mention Jews, zionists, etc. in any role other than perpetual victims.

    That is the problem that, if we truly desire “Peace, love, truth,” must be rectified.

    The role of prominent Jewish leaders in provoking wars in Russia and Germany must be fully explored in order to understand the full context of events.

    Someone who deliberately kicks away the pebble that is holding a boulder in place, foreseeably allowing it to roll downhill and smash a group of kindergarteners is as culpable of causing the death & destruction that results as if he carried out the deaths and destruction with his own two hands and with malice aforethought.

    The roles of provocateurs — pebble-pushers — such as Jacob Schiff, Chaim Weizmann, Louis Brandeis, Felix Frankfurter, Benzion Netanyahu, etc. have been carefully hidden behind a smokescreen of holocaustism. It’s time to stop blowing smoke in favor of blowing away the smoke and exposing the guilty parties and calling them to account for what they did.

  32. @solontoCroesus

    solontoCroesus wrote:

    “The National Socialists were forthright in their goals, and they did not include conquest of USA or of France or of Western Europe. For those who read and think critically, the key word is national; contrasted with Bolshevik Communism which had international ambitions.”

    So, my dear solontoCroesus, Hitler’s conquests of western and eastern Europe and an enormous swathe of the USSR were somehow not “international”? So Hitler’s “Today Germany, tomorrow the world!” is somehow not “international”?

    solontoCroesus wrote further:

    “FDR instructed Mark Clark to jump the gun and drive American forces into Rome unaccompanied by British personnel.”

    You overlook that Mark Clark was a consummate egotist, so much so that he ordered his pubic relations officers to insist that all press references to his multi-national command call it “Mark Clark’s Fifth Army.” It was Clark himself, far more than FDR, who shoved U.S. troops ahead to take Rome before British troops could enter the city. You also overlook that the vast bulk of British forces in Italy campaigned on the right flank – the eastern Italian seaboard’s Adriatic flank – of the Allied northward drive, so that U.S. forces on the left flank were nearest to Rome, which facilitated a U.S. entry into the German-vacated Eternal City. Chiefly, U.S. forces first entering Rome was due to Clark’s monumental ego at work.

    More from solontoCroesus:

    “So why did FDR take the USA into a war against Germany, rather than freeing Germany to destroy Bolshevik Communism, as Germany sought to do?”

    You might consider that, less than a week after the Japanese sneak attack on Pearl Harbor, it was Nazi Germany that declared war on the United States – not the other way round.

    Most of all, solontoCroesus, you err gravely when you claim that Hitler’s invasion of the USSR “was not a war of Hitler’s choice.” It was entirely Hitler’s choice, which he’d expressed ceaselessly throughout his turgid Mein Kampf and in his endless public and private rants against “Jewish Bolshevism.”

    @Mulegino1:

    “Operation Barbarossa was launched as a desperate preemptive strike against enormous Soviet forces massing on the western frontier of the Soviet Union, themselves in the prepping stages for a massive invasion of Europe.”

    Stalin made no preparations for an offensive against Germany and, in fact, Stalin took great pains not to provoke Hitler in any way to regard the USSR as a threat to Germany. Up to the moment of Barbarossa’s launch, the last railway load of Soviet oil crossed the Russian border to its German purchasers. The Red Army was almost completely unprepared to defend against Barbarossa. Stalin himself ignored his own spies’ reports that Hitler’s attack on the USSR was imminent. What’s more, Mulegino1, you yourself torpedo your own “Soviet forces massing….prepping for a major invasion of Europe” contention with your correct appreciation that “[T]he Russians….were simply caught in an enormous trap sprung by the Wehrmacht….[t]he Soviet military was not inferior, it was simply sucker punched.” Further, Stalin’s bloody late-1930’s purges of the Red Army officer corps had vitiated its quality leadership down to company commander level and had replaced many purged competent officers with Stalin-loyalist lackeys of dubious or scant military acumen; so that after Barbarossa had jumped off, it would take more than a year’s massive losses and blunders for further ruthless purges – this time based on combat efficiency instead of upon political distrust – to rid the Red Army of incompetent (and often inebriate and dissolute) commanders and to replace them with ruthless but effective leaders (this formed one reason why Stalin increasingly trusted and empowered the utterly ruthless and effective Zhukov as his front-hopping fireman).

    @Begemot:

    “Your second statement is absurd. Keeping 60% of the German military tied down in combat in the Soviet Union was the Soviet contribution.”

    My dear Begemot, I omitted to have stipulated that there was “absolutely no” diplomatic “reciprocity from Stalin, “absolutely no” political “reciprocity from Stalin. There is no quibble I could make with the Red Army’s massive military exertions in gutting the Wehrmacht.

    • Replies: @solontoCroesus
  33. MarkinLA says:
    @bobbiemac

    But I failed to take into account the anti-aircraft artillery that also could have been deployed to the east as “auntie” pointed out.

    As far as I was aware the anti-aircraft flak guns were the legendary 88s. These were highly efficient tank killers. So yeah pulling them out of the east would have been costly to the German troops facing Russian tanks.

  34. @Auntie Analogue

    So, my dear solontoCroesus, Hitler’s conquests of western and eastern Europe and an enormous swathe of the USSR were somehow not “international”? So Hitler’s “Today Germany, tomorrow the world!” is somehow not “international”?

    The meaning of If

    if
    [if]
    conjunction
    on condition that
    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/if

    Conditional sentences are sentences expressing factual implications, or hypothetical situations and their consequences. They are so called because the validity of the main clause of the sentence is conditional on the existence of certain circumstances, which may be expressed in a dependent clause or may be understood from the context.

    A full conditional sentence (one which expresses the condition as well as its consequences) therefore contains two clauses: the dependent clause expressing the condition, called the protasis; and the main clause expressing the consequence, called the apodosis. An example of such a sentence (in English) is the following:

    If it rains, the picnic will be cancelled. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conditional_sentence

    Herbert Hoover wrote that he came away from his 1938 meeting with Hitler and Goering (iirc) convinced that Hitler’s three “idees fixes” were:

    ~”to unify Germany from its fragmentation by the Treaty of Versailles;
    ~ to expand its physical resources by moving into Russia or the Balkan States . . .
    ~and to destroy the Russian Communist government.” http://www.amazon.com/Freedom-Betrayed-Herbert-Hoovers-Aftermath/dp/0817912347/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1431370550&sr=1-1&keywords=freedom+betrayed page 64.

    You will note, dear Auntie Onalog, that Hoover reports nothing about German intentions to attack France, although the French went out of their way to stir up sh*t and increase the strains on Germany’s finances at a time when all of the WWI powers were struggling to pay their war debts to each other — and, above all, the United States, and while Germany was bobbing and weaving between war debts, reparations, and hyperinflation. Liaquat Ahamad discusses this in “Lords of Finance.”
    As regards Britain, Hitler thought Britain was the appropriate hegemony and that Britain and Germany should be allies.

    As for Germany’s threat to the USA mainland, they were so remote that British propagandists based in Toronto had to manufacture a map and war plans, allegedly retrieved from German sources, that demonstrated German plans to invade US from Mexico, march up the middle of the country and take Washington, DC. FDR revealed the contents of the “map and plan” to the American people in a fireside chat. It was all a fraud. See Lynn Olson, “Those Angry Days.”

    Back to IF: Since Germany had no designs on Britain, France or USA, but DID have the burning Idee fixes to destroy Russia’s Communist government, which was, incidentally, consistent with American “Idee fixes” since the Wilson administration; IF Britain, France and USA stayed out of the way, “the Great Dictators” would exhaust each other,” words shamelessly plagiarized from the title of Chapter 34 of Hoover’s “Freedom Betrayed:”–

    My Appeal that the United States Stay on the Side Lines until the Great Dictators Exhaust Each Other.

    If it rains, the picnic will be cancelled.
    It rained. The picnic — German restraint from waging war in a battlefield that encompassed Western Europe — was cancelled.
    It rained. Germany’s determinedly nationalistic perforce took on internationalist scope.

    The USA (and Britain & France) did NOT stay on the sidelines; therefore the “then” part of that conditional sentence fell into place: war was declared and in the course of fighting that war western European states became battlefields and were occupied. (It’s worth noting that Allies did more damage to France and Italy than Germany did.)

    Hoover’s Chapter 34 is worth reading, Auntie A — here are some excerpts:

    To Mr. Roosevelt now came the greatest opportunity to make lasting peace in the world that ever knocked at the door of one man. The two dictators of the world’s two great aggressor nations were locked in a death struggle. If [ahem] left alone, these evil spirits were destined, sooner or later, to exhaust each other.
    But twenty-four hours after Germany’s attack on Russia, on June 23, 1941, Sumner Welles, Under Secretary of State, implied at a press conference that the United States would give material aid to Russia.
    At a press conference on June 24, two days after Hitler’s attack, the President stated that “the United States would give all possible aid to Soviet Russia.” He announced that the Treasury, acting on his orders, had released $40,000,000 in Soviet credits, frozen June 14.

    On the next day it was announced that FDR “would not invoke the Neutrality Act against Russia, enabling American merchant ships to carry war supplies from USA to Russian ports. [Thus] the Communists were furnished, under the Lend-Lease law — a possible action never disclosed to the Congress during the Lend-Lease debate. “

    Author Peter Moreira scoured the million pages of Henry Morgenthau, Jr.’s notes and diaries to produce The Jew Who Defeated Hitler: Henry Morgenthau Jr., FDR, and How We Won the War.

    We’ll return to Hoover and Morgenthau to discuss your last charge, Auntie, but as to Mark Clark:

    You wrote:

    You overlook that Mark Clark was a consummate egotist, so much so that he ordered his pubic relations officers to insist that all press references to his multi-national command call it “Mark Clark’s Fifth Army.” It was Clark himself, far more than FDR, who shoved U.S. troops ahead to take Rome before British troops could enter the city. You also overlook that the vast bulk of British forces in Italy campaigned on the right flank – the eastern Italian seaboard’s Adriatic flank – of the Allied northward drive, so that U.S. forces on the left flank were nearest to Rome, which facilitated a U.S. entry into the German-vacated Eternal City. Chiefly, U.S. forces first entering Rome was due to Clark’s monumental ego at work.

    I have some awareness of Gen. Mark Clark and his doings. My Father, son of Italian immigrants to the US, was a sailor on a US Navy landing craft carrier. His job on Sept. 9, 1943 was to lower the gate and allow forces to disembark as they approached the Italian shore. He was injured on that day on that craft. In the same week, his father (my namesake) died in their home in the US leaving my Dad a permanently disabled orphan.

    Back to Clark — According to research by Andrew Buchanan, American Grand Strategy in the Mediterranean during World War II, sometimes a Commander in Chief uses the “egotism” of his military leaders to their best advantage. Buchanan reports (please excuse the cut-and-paste; view it yourself to suss out errors and omissions):

    THEN, MARK CLARK, THE COMMANDER OF THE FIFTH ARMY ACTUALLY GOES TO THE HEADQUARTERS . . . THEY REORIENT THE AMERICAN ADVANCE, RATHER THAN CUTTING ACROSS THE REAR OF THE 10TH ARMY, HE DRIVES STRAIGHT INTO ROME AND ARRIVES IN ROME AND PARKS THERE. ROME IS LIBERATED BY THE AMERICANS.
    THE GERMAN 10TH ARMY — THE TRAP DOES NOT CLOSE, THE ROADS ARE LEFT OPEN AND EVER AFTERWARDS, THIS COMES ONE OF THE GREAT DEBATES AMONG MILITARY HISTORIANS: WHAT THE HELL WAS CLARK THINKING?

    THE ARGUMENT USUALLY ADVANCES THAT CLARK IS A PUBLICITY HOUND AND ALWAYS WANTED THE GLORY OF CAPTURING ROME AND DOESN’T WANT THE BRITISH TO GET THEIR FIRST. HE KNOWS THE BRITISH ARE SNEAKY. HE IS RIGHT ABOUT THAT. [LAUGHTER]
    A MOMENTS THOUGHT WILL SURELY TELL YOU THAT THIS EXPLANATION HOLDS VERY LITTLE WATER. THIS WAS A LINE OF CHAIN OF COMMAND. THEY WERE FROM DIFFERENT NATIONALITIES, BUT THE AMERICAN SUPREME COMMANDER — OR SUPREME COMMANDER AND AMERICAN SUBORDINATE. ALEXANDER HAD EVERY RIGHT UNDER THE UNITY OF COMMAND PRINCIPLE ESTABLISHED AT THE FIRST WARTIME CONFERENCE TO ISSUE THE DIRECT ORDER.
    WHEN YOU READ THE ORDERS, THEY ARE DIRECT ORDERS ON WHAT THE LINE SHOULD BE. CLARK CLAIMS THEY WERE RECOMMENDATIONS RATHER THAN ORDERS AND THE OPPORTUNITY TO MOVE INTO ROME DIRECTLY, HE WAS ENTITLED TO TAKE HER.
    ALEXANDER IS APOPLECTIC WITH RAGE BUT STRANGELY ENOUGH, NOTHING BAD EVER HAPPENS TO CLARK.

    I HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF A DIFFERENT EXPLANATION. FOR THE OFFENSIVE LAUNCH IN MAY 1944, MARK CLARK IS SUMMONED BACK TO WASHINGTON. HE IS NOT EVEN GOING TO BE ABLE TO TELL HIS WIFE HE IS COMING. HE IS WHISKED DOWN TO THE ESTATE OF BERNARD BARUCH IN NORTH CAROLINA, A CLOSE FRIEND OF ROOSEVELT AND THERE’S FDR.
    IN THE MEMOIRS, THERE ARE LINES — HE SAYS I HAVE A VERY GOOD MEETING WITH ROOSEVELT. WE TALKED ABOUT THE ITALIAN CAMPAIGN AND THE CAPTURE OF ROME.

    I DON’T KNOW WHAT THEY SAID, NOR DOES ANYONE ELSE. BUT I THINK CLARK’S ACTION WHEN HE MOVES ON ROME GIVES SOME CLUES. WHEN HE MOVES ON ROME, HE ISSUES A REMARKABLE ORDERNO ALLIED CIVILIANS ARE GOING TO BE ALLOWED INTO ROME FOR THE NEXT SEVERAL DAYS.

    WHO IS THIS DIRECTED AT? TWO PEOPLE. HAROLD MCMILLAN, THE BRITISH MINISTER IN THE REGION AND CERTAIN OLD CHARLES, THE BRITISH AMBASSADOR TO THE ALLIED CONTROL COMMISSION, BOTH OF THEM DESPERATELY WANT TO GET INTO ROME BECAUSE THEY KNOW SOMETHING SERIOUSLY LYRICAL IS GOING TO GO DOWN. THEY’RE GOING TO BE BANNED BY AMERICAN FORCES FROM ENTERING ROME.

    WHO DOES GO TO ROME — HE IS PUT ON A PLANE AND BROUGHT FOR A MEETING WITH — A MEETING WITH THE LEADERS OF THE LOCAL RESISTANCE.

    YOU DON’T HAVE TO KNOW MUCH ABOUT ITALIAN POLITICS TO KNOW WHAT’S GOING TO HAPPEN BY THE END OF THE DAY. BY THE END OF THE DAY, ONE DAY OF ARGUMENT, BUT OLIO — HE HAD BEEN BOOTED OUT.

    COMMUNISTS AND A LIBERAL COALITION GOVERNMENT UNDER THE PROTECTION OF AMERICAN MILITARY POWER AND LED BY A VETERAN ITALIAN ANTIFASCIST. THIS IS WHAT THE AMERICANS HAD BEEN TRYING TO PUT IN PLACE FOR THE PREVIOUS SIX MONTHS AND NOW WE HAVE THE CAPTURE OF ROME AND WE HAVE THIS GOVERNMENT TO ESTABLISH.

    CHURCH HILL IS ABSOLUTELY FURIOUS. HE SAYS WE SHOULD NOT RECOGNIZE THIS GOVERNMENT. WE’VE GOT TO PUT THEM BACK IN POWER AND ROOSEVELT SAYS HUMPTY DUMPTY HAS FALLEN OFF THE WALL AND CANNOT BE PUT ACT TOGETHER.

    AS I SAID, I CAN’T PROVE AND NOR WILL ANYONE EVER PROVE WHAT WAS DISCUSSED BETWEEN ROOSEVELT AND CLARK, BUT I SUGGEST THE OUTCOME OF EVENTS KIND OF INDICATES CLARK HAD A PROMISE FROM VERY HIGH UP, THAT HIS PUBLICITY HUNTING DRIVE ON ROME WOULD BE WELL REWARDED WITH POLITICAL COVER WHICH WOULD PREVENT ANYTHING BAD FROM HAPPENING TO HIM AS A CONSEQUENCE AND WOULD BURY THE ISSUE.

    AND THIS IS THE RESULT — THE AMERICANS WOULD GET WHAT THEY SOUGHT ALL ALONG — A LIBERAL GOVERNMENT IN ITALY WHICH WOULD OPEN THE DOOR TO THE EXTENSION OF AMERICAN INFLUENCE TO THE RAPID MARGINALIZATION OF THE BRITISH. THIS IS IN FACT WHAT HAPPENS. IN SEPTEMBER OF 1944, ROOSEVELT ANNOUNCES CHURCHILL’S BEGRUDGING AGREEMENT, WHAT HE DESCRIBES AS A NEW DEAL FOR ITALY. U.S. INVESTMENT IS GOING TO FLOW INTO THE COUNTRY.

    Argue with Andrew Buchanan. I think his interpretation of events makes sense. Buchanan concedes at every possible juncture that he cannot provide slam-dunk proof of his narrative, but it makes more sense than yellow cake and aluminum tubes. (The Niger uranium forged documents were revealed by Italian Military Intelligence. It’s worth noting that Michael Ledeen, self-styled “Italian expert” who was also connected with the Iran Contra affair, was active in Italian shadow politics at the time.)

    Lastly, Auntie —

    re:

    Most of all, solontoCroesus, you err gravely when you claim that Hitler’s invasion of the USSR “was not a war of Hitler’s choice.” It was entirely Hitler’s choice, which he’d expressed ceaselessly throughout his turgid Mein Kampf and in his endless public and private rants against “Jewish Bolshevism.”

    SolontoCroesus made no such claim or statement, but thank you, Auntie, for making clear that Hitler held great animus toward “Jewish Bolshevism.” He did indeed; so did many Germans and also American leaders, and not without good reason.

    For Germany’s part, “Jewish Bolsheviks” were working zealously to spread their internationalist doctrine among the German people in an attempt to subvert the fragile German political system, weakened as it was by the sequelae of mass starvation between 1915 and 1919 (see “The Politics of Hunger: The Allied Blockade of Germany, 1915 – 1919” by C. Paul Vincent); the chaos of Weimar politics; the catastrophe of Germany’s financial system that caused further starvation and required prostitution in order for mothers to feed their children. This snapshot of Life in Germany, 1923, from “Lords of Finance” gives a sense of what was behind the determination to resist the influence of “Jewish Bolshevism” in Germany:

    “On Nov. 5 the price of a two-kilo loaf of bread had soared from 20 billion marks to 140 billion, sparking off nationwide riots. In Berlin, thousands of men and women had paraded the streets, shouting “Bread and work!” Over a thousand shops — bakeries, butchers, and even clothing stores–had been looted. . . . cars were held up and their occupants robbed. In the heavily Jewish areas . . .anyone who was known to be Jewish, or “looked Jewish” had been attacked by gangs of young hoodlums. The worst violence was directed at Galician Jews, many of whom had their distinctive beards scissored off or their clothes ripped away. The Borse, the stock exchange, had come under siege by a mob shouting, “Kill the Borse Jews.”
    By the end of the evening on Nov 8, the streets were at last quiet, the mobs dispersed at bayonet point by military police. Heavily armed Prussian state police in green uniforms now patrolled the city. . . .the weather turned extremely cold. That night it began to rain, making life even more difficult for those innumerable Berliners forced to queue up outside the municipal food kitchens and public feeding stations spread across the city. . . .
    Despite the riots and the rain, the infamously louche and tawdry nightlife of Berlin–that “new Babylon of the world” — continued unabated. …along the Kurfurstendamm, the bars and dance halls were, as always, full. As on every night, hordes of prostitutes of both sexes–there were said to be a hundred thousand of them in Berlin alone–paraded outside . . . “A kind of madness” had taken hold of the city, unhinging the whole society.

    In this same time-period, The Polish Jew

    Gregory “Zinoviev is best remembered as the longtime head of the Communist International and the architect of several failed attempts to transform Germany into a communist country during the early 1920s. He was in competition against Joseph Stalin who eliminated him from the Soviet political leadership.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grigory_Zinoviev#

    Not just Hitler but the German people were more than wary of “Jewish Bolshevism” because it was a real and present threat to German society that they experienced daily and had done for at many years.

    Resistance to “Jewish Bolshevism” was not a top-down affair; quite the contrary: As
    Richard Breitman and Allen Lichtman, two Jewish American authors who are not at all sympathetic to NSDAP Germany, but wrote in their book, “FDR and the Jews” —

    [B]efore the war Nazi oppression of German Jews followed a jagged trajectory. Some Nazi activists physically assaulted Jews in the early exuberant days of Hitler’s semi legal revolution [in Jan. 1933]. Once secure in their authority, Nazi officials curbed personal violence, . . . against Jews. Only in late 1938 . . .for the first time [did] the Gestapo imprison tens of thousands of German Jews in concentration camps that also held other alleged enemies of Hitler’s new Reich.”

    Hard as it is for Americans who have been conditioned to salivate venom upon hearing the words “Hitler,” “Nazi,” and even “German,” “Hitler’s new Reich” grabbed the reins of power and imposed order and protected German Jews from the anger of the frightened, starving and unemployed German people by reminding them of their native values in bombastic rhetoric, imposing “semi-legal” — but nonviolent measures to detoxify the population, and by implementing economic measures to stimulate the German economy and achieve full employment.


    This is getting tiresome — quick summing up —
    Hoover’s spent several pages discussing how much American leaders hated Communism and the efforts American administrations ever since Wilson had taken to root it out — just as Hitler proposed to do and would have done had not FDR intervened.

    According to Moreira’s research in Morgenthau’s extensive diaries, Henry Morgenthau, Jr. maneuvered behind FDR’s back to funnel money to Russia and to insert Lend-Lease aid to Russia into the bill that US Congress was led to believe pertained only to Britain.

    Morgenthau was a remarkably inarticulate, unpolished, bumbling man; he may have been afflicted with what would today be diagnosed as ADHD or autism. His right-hand man at the US Department of Treasury was Harry Dexter White, son of Jewish Lithuanian immigrants and a

    senior U.S. Treasury department official. Working closely with the Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau, Jr., he helped set American financial policy toward the Allies of World War II while at the same time he passed numerous secrets to the Soviet Union. He was the senior American official at the 1944 Bretton Woods conference, that established the postwar economic order. He dominated the conference and imposed his vision of post-war financial institutions over the objections of John Maynard Keynes, the British representative. At Bretton Woods, White was a major architect of the International Monetary Fund and World Bank.

    White was accused in 1948 of spying for the Soviet Union, which he adamantly denied, but which was later confirmed by the release of declassified FBI documents related to the interception and decoding of Soviet communications, known as the Venona Project.

    My question remains unanswered:

    Why DID FDR, Churchill and Stalin wage war on Germany?

    ~Communism was antithetical to the American system from the time of Woodrow Wilson.
    ~As Margolis noted, Stalinist Communists had killed tens of millions even before the evil Nazis took enough power to “quell violence against Jews” and renovate German society along non-violent lines.
    ~It can be argued that FDR ordered Mark Clark to beat the British into Rome in order to exert American, not British, influence over Italy and to ensure that Italy remain out of Communist hands.
    ~For fifty years and billions of dollars, US struggled against Communism in the Cold War.

    Has history proven Patton — and Hoover — correct? FDR fought the wrong enemy.
    Why?

    And do these two titles shed any light on that query —

    The Jew Who Defeated Hitler: Henry Morgenthau Jr.

    and

    How the Jews Defeated Hitler: Exploding the Myth of Jewish Passivity in the Face of Nazism by Benjamin Ginsberg

  35. @German_reader

    German_reader:

    I also found the sentence that you quote questionable. Waffen SS included very large number of Ukrainians – also Lithuanians, although number of Lithuanians willing to join the Nazis greatly diminished after the Soviet victory at Stalingrad.

    In the current Ukraine mess, Ukrainians who joined Nazis against Soviets continue to be venerated by their ideological descendants within the current Kiev government.

  36. Vijay says:

    Yes, this is so.

    But one should not forget, as the Soviets intentionally did, that they would not have won their battle without American supplies. 17 Million tons, including the vast majority of trucks, boots and desperately needed food.

    It was an alliance that won the war. Blood is worth more than two and a half ton trucks, so it’s only fair to judge the Soviet effort greater. But to say they won the war alone is folly. Stalin admitted as much in ’43.

  37. @SolontoCroesus

    So what was the war against Germany all about?

    Why did Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin go to war against Germany?

    (n.b. “Germany declared war on US” is a non-answer) – Solonto Croesus

    But “Germany declared war on US is one of the possible correct answers to the Roosevelt part of the question! And that answer or non-answer (whatever it may be) cannot be totally disregarded, even if it is an incomplete answer to the question. As for Churchill, England declared war against Germany because Germany (with Russia) invaded Poland … and England had no choice but to stand by its treaty with Poland! That is, of course, an incomplete answer to Solonto’s question … but no other true answer could possibly omit it! Then we get to Stalin. He, of course, went to war against Hitler because Hitler betrayed Stalin when it invaded the USSR in violation of the Molotov-Ribbentrop treaty.

    Let’s talk about causes. There are always many causes: underlying cause, efficient cause, sufficient cause, proximate cause … and when we discuss automobile accidents, there is the doctrine of who had the clear last opportunity to prevent the disaster. Hitler could have stopped Germany’s declaration of war against the USA. Hitler could have prevented the German invasion of Poland. Hitler could have prevented the German invasion of the Soviet Union.

    Anyway you look at it, Hitler had something to do with it all. That doesn’t mean that Jews, especially Zionist Jews, had nothing to do with it. More than one Jew has assured me that, after all, Hitler (born ‘Shekelgruber’ or ‘money-grubber’) probably was a Jew himself under the Nuremberg Laws, enacted by the Third Reich in 1935.

    I am not sure what Solonto Croesus’ point really is, but I am sure that he has a strange way of going about making it. On the other hand, Eric Margolis – although a little fuzzy on some details – is easily understood as to his main point and it’s clear how he argues it.

    • Replies: @solontoCroesus
  38. @MisterCharlie

    But “Germany declared war on US is one of the possible correct answers to the Roosevelt part of the question! And that answer or non-answer (whatever it may be) cannot be totally disregarded, even if it is an incomplete answer to the question.

    Consider this —

    “Much in German history between 1919 and 1939 cannot be understood without knowledge of the contemporaneous events in other countries; action and reaction mesh too closely together. But it is not only the simultaneous history of our neighboring nations, which has influenced the start of the war. It is also . . .the common history of the disputing parties before the dispute. The Israeli Ambassador in Bonn, Asher ben Nathan, once in an interview on [Bonn television] answered the question: “Who began the 6-Day War in 1967 and fired the first shots?” with the reply: “That is totally unimportant. What is decisive is what preceded the first shots.” ” see: 1939: The War that had Many Fathers. Maj. Gen. Gerd Schultze-Rhonhof.

    What precedes “the first shot?”
    More precisely, how does an entity, or in this case a group of entities such as those accurately defined by Charles Lindbergh, cause someone to fire that first shot when the sequel of the first shot, war, is desired by one side, but it is equally desired that the adversary initiate the action?

    While discussing his book, titled “The Worth of War,” Johns Hopkins professor Benjamin Ginsberg used the example of Martin Luther King to explain how a party can start a war without firing the first shot; indeed, while retaining the mantle of innocent victim. Ginsberg said:

    Martin Luther King was a tremendous practitioner of civil disobedience, but he understood it for what it was; he learned from Gandhi, he learned from Samuel Adams that civil disobedience is a MECHANISM OF GOADING YOUR OPPONENT INTO BEING VIOLENT. ONCE THEY BECOME VIOLENT, you can call on YOUR FRIENDS TO BE EVEN MORE VIOLENT AGAINST THEM.
    So Dr. King knew that he could goad Sheriff Jim Clark into behaving VIOLENTLY AND STUPIDLY AND THEN THE FBI WOULD DESCEND ON THEM.

    FDR’s administration carried out numerous provocations — attempts to “goad Germany into being violent” well before a first shot was fired: Henry Morgenthau, Jr. began implementing plans for the construction of aircraft to attack Germany at least as early as Oct. 17, 1938, before the Munich pact of Sept. 29, 1938 had been ratified and also well within the timeframe that Jews in Germany were buffered from violence. As Breitman & Lichtman stated, Jews were not subjected to physical violence or detention in concentration camps until after the assassination of Ernst vom Rath in November 1938.

    As for Churchill, England declared war against Germany because Germany (with Russia) invaded Poland … and England had no choice but to stand by its treaty with Poland!

    As for Britain’s part in “goading Germany,” as Patrick Buchanan argued in “Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War,” neither England nor France had interests to protect in Poland; their protection pacts were cynical as well as tragic. The defense pact had the effect of removing from Polish leaders any compelling need to settle the Danzig question nonviolently.

    The German government had an obligation to protect German citizens, and Poland’s refusal to negotiate in good faith on the Danzig question meant that German would be starved of coal that was essential to run German industry and heat German homes. As Gen. Gerd Schultze-Rhonhof chronicled, Hitler made offers of settlement that were more than fair and generous, but Polish leaders would not settle the matter because they felt no urgency to do so: Churchill wanted a war; FDR needed a war; France was drawn into war, and they used the Danzig question as the “goad” to set up Germany to fire the first shot.
    To use your analogy of a car accident, the British-French treaty with Poland amounted to those parties driving the Polish car onto the railroad tracks seconds before the German train was barreling past.
    Based on Gen. Schultze-Rhonhof’s evidence and arguments, I disagree with you claim that Hitler had the last clear opportunity to stop the war. Poland was in that position, but Britain and France egged Poland on to goad Germany into firing the first shot.
    I argue that had Hitler not declared war on USA immediately after US declared war on Japan, some other stratagem would have been devised to draw Germany into war: FDR and Morgenthau were already arming and financially supporting Stalin. Did they do this because Russia was going to wage war on Japan?

    Hitler could have prevented the German invasion of the Soviet Union.

    This is the battle that Hitler intended to fight, and to do so in order to destroy Bolshevik Communism. In 1918-1919 Woodrow Wilson waged the same battle — as Dr. Carl J Richard argues in When the United States Invaded Russia: Woodrow Wilson’s Siberian Disaster:

    President Woodrow Wilson dispatched thousands of American soldiers to Siberia. . . . Wilson s original intent was to enable Czechs and anti-Bolshevik Russians to rebuild the Eastern Front against the Central Powers. But Wilson continued the intervention for a year and a half after the armistice in order to overthrow the Bolsheviks.

    The plan backfired but the point remains: Bolshevik Communism was considered a threat to Europe and to the world to the extent that the USA attempted, unsuccessfully, to destroy it. Bolsheviks were attempting to subvert Germany and the German leadership was intent on destroying it.

    <blockquote?Anyway you look at it, Hitler had something to do with it all.

    duh

    That doesn’t mean that Jews, especially Zionist Jews, had nothing to do with it.

    Ta da!

    More than one Jew has assured me that, after all, Hitler (born ‘Shekelgruber’ or ‘money-grubber’) probably was a Jew himself under the Nuremberg Laws, enacted by the Third Reich in 1935.

    argumentum ad stupidendum

    Eric Margolis – although a little fuzzy on some details – is easily understood as to his main point and it’s clear how he argues it.

    Given the nature of the holocaust narrative that sacralizes the alleged deaths of 6 million Jews allegedly at the hands of Hitler, against Margolis’s claim that while Hitler was protecting Jews in Germany, Stalin was killing

    far more people than Adolf Hitler, including 6 million Ukrainians liquidated in the early 1930’s

    and yet USA allied with Stalin, Morgenthau maneuvered to include Stalin’s Russia in the Lend-Lease bill that US Congress thought was for the benefit of Britain only.

    The complaint, the casus belli, was genocide, and it was Stalin and not Germany who was committing genocide, yet FDR and Churchill allied with the genocide against Germany.

    WHY?

    What had Germany done to the USA — and Morgenthau — or to Britain that those two felt compelled to goad Germany into war and ‘hire’ Stalin to fight it?

  39. We can look at the period before Barbarossa, when not only wasn’t Russia helping out, they were actually allied with Germany and providing them with materials they had shortages of (especially oil), in addition to removing the threat of a second front.

    During this period was the Battle of Britain, where Germany was unable to to suppress the RAF get air superiority over Britain and the channel for an invasion. Later, British and Americans air forces would have air superiority over Germany. In North Africa, the attempt to capture Egypt fails and British start a counter-attack (Operation Battleaxe 15–17 June 1941).

    The Allies were already winning, even without Russia’s help. With control of the seas and air superiority, they could just bomb stuff and wait to invent the A-bomb.

    German–Soviet Credit Agreement (1939)
    During both the first period of the 1940 agreement (February 11, 1940 to February 11, 1941) and the second (February 11, 1941 until the Pact was broken), Germany received massive quantities of raw materials, including over:

    900,000 tons of oil
    140,000 tons of manganese
    200,000 tons of phosphates
    20,000 tons of chrome ore
    18,000 tons of rubber
    500,000 tons of iron ores
    300,000 tons of scrap metal and pig iron
    2,000 kilograms of platinum

    German–Soviet Commercial Agreement (1940)
    The Soviet alliance resulted in a huge military benefit to Germany, which thereafter needed to station only four regular and nine territorial divisions on its eastern border, permitting it to commit the remainder of its forces westward.[35] The pact also avoided at the outset the two front war, or “encirclement”, that Germans had feared since the late 19th century,[36] and against which Germany was not then prepared to fight.[37]

    Basis Nord
    Basis Nord was a secret naval base of Nazi Germany’s Kriegsmarine in Zapadnaya Litsa Bay, west of Murmansk provided by the Soviet Union.

    Moskau, Stalin und Ribbentrop

    • Replies: @MisterCharlie
  40. @Hippopotamusdrome

    The Allies were already winning, even without Russia’s help. With control of the seas and air superiority, they could just bomb stuff and wait to invent the A-bomb. – Hippopotomusdrome

    It wasn’t until the end of 1942 (2 December 1942) that anyone knew, or had real evidence to suppose, that Einstein’s theory about the feasibility of an A-bomb actually could hold heavy water, so to speak. In other words, that intelligence could not possibly have figured into FDR’s strategic calculations until well into 1943, that is, after Germany had already been decisively defeated in North Africa and even after Sicily had fallen. But more importantly, after Stalingrad and the German defeat there.

    This theory of yours could not apply until after July 1942, at the earliest. That is, your theory is about the decision-making environment for, say, FDR and his staff (General George C. Marshall) in the latter half of 1942, and what was that environment? It was the ongoing yet-o-be-decided Battle of Stalingrad, which raged from July 1942 into early 1943. After that battle, everyone in Central and Eastern Europe knew that Germany had been defeated – everyone except Hitler. So, what do you mean really by “The Allies were already winning, even without Russia’s help”? Your theory has nothing whatsoever to do with the realities of the mind-set of FDR and his staff. That environment also included enough faith (and that’s all it could have been at that point in time) to give a green light to the Manhattan Project but that was none of it substantial enough for war planners to count it as solid reality.

    In short, “Yeah, Hippopotomus man, far out … and how about you stop bogarting that joint and pass it around to the rest of us?”

    • Replies: @Hippopotamusdrome
  41. The complaint, the casus belli, was genocide, and it was Stalin and not Germany who was committing genocide, yet FDR and Churchill allied with the genocide against Germany.

    WHY?

    What had Germany done to the USA — and Morgenthau — or to Britain that those two felt compelled to goad Germany into war and ‘hire’ Stalin to fight it?

    — Solonto Croesus

    Solonto Croesus:

    Until your summation, quoted above, you had me spellbound in the wonder of your intricately constructed house of cards … but your closing words bring the whole structure down.

    You are a brilliant propagandist. But it only works on your intended audience, which is the last of the True Believers in the religion of anti-Communism. But, I am sorry to have to inform you that I am not a True Believer in the religion of anti-Communism – which most of humanity in this post-modern world have long since identified as just one more false religion – or, if not entirely false, then simply irrelevant. But to get to the blow-by-blow:

    First of all, NO, the casus belli was never genocide.
    That’s all a later smoke screen imposed on history with the help of holocaust mentality combined with revelations from beyond the Bible, according to the religion of revealed anti-Communism. The casus belli was that Hitler (and Benito and Tojo) really did intend to overthrow the existing world order – existing even though seriously ailing. They convinced themselves that the existing world order was crumbling, and they were probably right about that, if they had the timing critically off … but their plan to give the rotting hulk a shove and then pick up the pieces for themselves … well, they were the kind of con artists who make the mistake of believing their own shtick.

    You ask, “What had Germany ever done to Britain and the USA that those two felt compelled to goad Germany into war?” You surely do get inside the paranoid mentality of one Adolf Hitler, but you might try just a little to understand the extremely idealistic and also extremely USA-centric, mindset of FDR … because you miss FDR entirely (as is typical of the True Believers in the religion of anti-Communism).

    Let me make the point again: NO, the casus belli was never genocide, except (1) insofar as ‘casus belli’ means that part of war propaganda that continues postwar and embodies the purported ex post facto justification for the war, and, (2) insofar as the fundamental cause of every war is genocide – especially every modern war, including every Marxist class war.

    BTW: No I am not a true-believer in the false religions of Marxism or of Communism anymore than in the false religion of anti-Communism.

  42. PapayaSF says:

    Thanks to a number of the above posters for pointing out how overstated this articles is. A few more points that at least partly undercut the “USSR defeated the Nazis” trope:

    1. In violation of treaties, the USSR helped Weimar Germany re-arm.

    2. Stalin crippled his own military with purges and poor decisions, later leading to greater losses than would otherwise have occurred.

    3. The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact of August 1939 gave the go-ahead for Hitler to invade Poland in September. The Soviets invaded Poland two weeks later, and fought as allies of the Nazis until June 1941. This alone removes much of the credit they claim for “defeating the Nazis.”

    4. The Soviets have long exaggerated their WWII losses. Immediately after the war, the figures they released were far lower. Later they realized they could both gain sympathy and help cover up the vast scale of Stalin’s purges by claiming much higher losses.

    5. I am less sympathetic to Soviet deaths when so many were caused by their utter disregard for the lives of their own men. E.g. when you clear minefields by forcing political prisoners to walk through them, you don’t get full credit for your “sacrifices.”

    • Replies: @David In TN
    , @Kat Grey
  43. @PapayaSF

    I once read that in considering what casualty figures for WWII he would announce, Stalin chose a number that would be high enough to engender sympathy in the West but not so high as to cast doubt on his own competence.

  44. @MisterCharlie

    I wasn’t saying that they knew they were going to invent the bomb and could plan on having it, just that it would have eventually happened.

  45. When Americans, British and Canadians landed at Normandy in June, 1944, they met Germany forces that had been shattered on the Eastern Front and bled white. Understrength German units had almost no gasoline and were low on ammunition, tanks and artillery.

    While I generally agree with the overall thrust of your post, the above is not true. In fact several first line German units including panzer units hammered the allies in Normandy. What hampered them greatly was Allied airpower, and German hesitation to fully commit the panzers. They were no pushovers. Panzer Lehr for example was one of the most elite units in the entire German Wehrmacht. It was lavishly equipped in comparison to the ordinary Panzer divisions of the Wehrmacht. It was the only division to be fully armoured with tanks and halftracks, and had first call on other weaponry. Its personnel were not second string greenhorns but had seen action in Russia, North Africa and Italy. Along with the other mobile forces it could well have driven a huge gap in the allied line all the way to the sea, and contained the dangerous British/Canadian penetration for a significant time, that could have collapsed the entire German line.

    Also Hitler’s Directive 51 of late 1943 directed that the bulk of German war effort would now focus on the West and there was renewed emphasis West in preparation for the expected Second Front. So the troops facing West were not weak dregs cobbled together. Most were solid regular forces, many high quality, some static garrison type foreign origin outfits. But all in all a credible force facing West. And on the Eastern front Germany eventually had to use understrength weak formations.

  46. PapayaSF says:

    Also, a lot of the reason the Germans were weak at Normandy was that the British and American strategic bombing campaign had destroyed railroads, oil facilities, most of the Luftwaffe, etc.

  47. Kat Grey says:
    @PapayaSF

    Your last statement is also pertinent to the high number of Russian casualties in WWI. The officers were negligent almost to point of homocidal when it came to the safety, sustenance and fighting capacity of their own troops (rations of one bullet per day for each soldier!); and I think we all know the gross incompetence of the feeble-willed Tsar, his deluded consort and his amateurish ministers (many of whom were appointed on the advice of Rasputin!)

Current Commenter
says:

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


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