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
The Soviet Union Defeated Germany in World War II - Not the Western Forces
🔊 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

President Donald Trump claimed last week that the US and Britain had won World War II. This was a shameless lie and distortion of the facts.

Many Americans and Canadians like to believe their nations 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 divisions and 100 allied Axis divisions (according to Soviet figures). These latter included the pan-European Waffen SS whose largest numbers came from Belgium, Holland, 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 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 Dmitri 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 the 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 American, British and Canadian troops landed at Normandy in June, 1944, they met Germany forces that had been shattered on the Eastern Front and bled white. Under strength 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. Under strength 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 move, and warships were forced to stay in port.

ORDER IT NOW

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 Eastern Front facing the advancing Soviet and just 60 divisions (mostly under strength, 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.

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 saved many of our men from death.

 
• Category: History • Tags: American Media, Nazi Germany, Russia, World War II 
Hide 172 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Blankaerd says:

    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

    Perhaps no British, American and Canadian soldiers needed to die at all had Britain not guaranteed Polish independence, a guarantee that the British could never reasonably honor. Britain and France went to war to maintain the independence of an unstable military dictatorship and ended up handing half of Europe over to Stalin. Well Done. Mission Complete. Thank you for your Victory.

  2. Whoever boosted uncle joe defeated Germany at the eastern front

  3. Dutch Boy says:

    Seeing as Germany posed no threat to either Britain or the USA, their participation at all was ill-advised, at least. I recall James Burnham’s satirical description of America’s WWII crusade: “A war against totalitarianism in alliance with the principal totalitarian power.”

    • Agree: Fuerchtegott
    • LOL: ruralguy
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @Glinka
  4. Sulu says:

    The Soviets did indeed play a huge part in destroying the war machine of Nazi Germany. It is, however, an overstatement to claim that they won the war. Limited strategic bombing by the Royal Air Force started in 1940. By 42 England was carrying out largely unrestricted bombing against Germany and by January of 43 America’s 8th Air Force joined in. From that point on Germany was enduring bombing day and night. One has to wonder if you took America and England out of the equation how much different Germany might have fared against the Soviets. Obviously it would have done much better. How much better is anyone’s guess.

    If Hitler had gotten to Moscow with his first initial push and also captured the oil fields in the South it would have been a totally different war. Could he have prevailed against the Soviets without the bombing by the Allies? We will never know but it would have greatly improved his chances. But one thing is for sure. The world we know now would be a vastly different place.

    Sulu

    • Agree: ruralguy
  5. Anonymous[398] • Disclaimer says:

    “Germany’s advanced ME262 jet fighter that should have swept the skies was grounded because of fuel shortages.”
    Not true – the ME262 did not require high octane aviation fuel – which was in critically short supply due to bombing refineries – it flew on KEROSENE which was relatively plentiful at the time.
    The ME 262 deployment as an air superiority fighter was delayed by Hitler who was adamant that it be deployed as a bomber. Consequently Germany missed its last chance of preventing inevitable defeat.

    • Replies: @Alexandros
  6. Ahem says:

    Yes, Trump’s claim was based on his near complete ignorance of what happened in WWII. However, a quote from Nikita Khrushchev’s memoirs should also be taken into account by Mr. Margolis:

    “I would like to express my candid opinion about Stalin’s views on whether the Red Army and the Soviet Union could have coped with Nazi Germany and survived the war without aid from the United States and Britain. First, I would like to tell about some remarks Stalin made and repeated several times when we were “discussing freely” among ourselves. He stated bluntly that if the United States had not helped us, we would not have won the war. If we had had to fight Nazi Germany one on one, we could not have stood up against Germany’s pressure, and we would have lost the war. No one ever discussed this subject officially, and I don’t think Stalin left any written evidence of his opinion, but I will state here that several times in conversations with me he noted that these were the actual circumstances. He never made a special point of holding a conversation on the subject, but when we were engaged in some kind of relaxed conversation, going over international questions of the past and present, and when we would return to the subject of the path we had traveled during the war, that is what he said. When I listened to his remarks, I was fully in agreement with him, and today I am even more so.”

    The number of Lend Lease transport vehicles alone, about 11,000, capable of handling the Soviet Union’s terrible road system were of great significance in that without them Soviet ground forces would be incapable of engaging anything resembling a war of maneuver.

    • Agree: Oikeamielinen
    • Replies: @anon
    , @SBaker
  7. “When American, British and Canadian troops landed at Normandy in June, 1944, they met Germany forces that had been shattered on the Eastern Front and bled white. Under strength German units had almost no gasoline and were low on ammunition, tanks and artillery.”

    And despite this, it took the Allied armies ten weeks to break out of Normandy. Why?

    The excellence of the German Army, that’s why. British historian Max Hastings, in his study “Overlord: D-Day, June 6, 1944,” quotes the findings of Colonel Trevor N. Dupuy, USA:

    “On a man for man basis, the German ground soldier consistently inflicted casualties at about a 50% higher rate than they incurred from the opposing British and American troops UNDER ALL CIRCUMSTANCES. This was true when they were attacking and when they were defending, when they had a local numerical superiority and when, as was usually the case, they were outnumbered, when they had air superiority and when they did not, when they won and when they lost.”

    • Replies: @LondonBob
    , @Dutch Boy
  8. anon[230] • Disclaimer says:
    @Sulu

    Could he have prevailed against the Soviets without the bombing by the Allies?

    Other than kill women and children, what effect did Allied bombing have on the German war machine? Nothing, The factories went underground and actual increased production.

    • Replies: @Blankaerd
    , @Sulu
  9. anon[230] • Disclaimer says:
    @Ahem

    The number of Lend Lease transport vehicles alone, about 11,000, capable of handling the Soviet Union’s terrible road system were of great significance in that without them Soviet ground forces would be incapable of engaging anything resembling a war of maneuver.

    Having been to East Germany and spoken to people there that experienced its handover to the USSR first hand, I can tell you this is complete BS. They told me the Americans left with their trucks and jeeps and the Soviet Army came in with their horses and wagons

    The Second World War was a war of attrition, and Germany simply did not have the resources or manpower to outlast the USSR. Once German troops were stopped before Moscow, it was only a question of time.

    • Replies: @Ahem
    , @Obama's boyfriend
  10. Heymrguda says:
    @Blankaerd

    Yes, we exchanged the occupation of Western Europe for the occupation of Eastern Europe, and Hitler for Stalin.

  11. Heymrguda says:

    In another two or three months this piece by margolis will be regurgitated once again.

  12. LondonBob says:
    @Orville H. Larson

    There were some top level German units deployed in Normandy like the SS Panzer divisions, Das Reich was transferred from the East. Supreme Commander West was one of the great commands to hold, by the end of the Battle of Normandy Army Group B had been annihilated, Twenty seven infantry divisions destroyed and seven panzer divisions reduced to shells, half million dead or captured.

    The RAF broke the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain and the Royal Navy was never seriously challenged by the Kriegsmarine. The Italians had been reduced as a fighting force in 40-41 by General Richard O’Connor’s campaigns in North Africa, in Operation Compass British and Australian forces advanced over 800 miles (1,300 km), destroyed an entire Italian army of ten divisions, taken over 130,000 prisoners, 400 tanks and 1,292 guns at the cost of 500 killed and 1,373 wounded, forcing Germany to send the Africa Korps.

    US and British Empire forces continued to occupy large numbers of German forces in North Africa and Italy throughout the rest of the war.

    Not to forget the importance of Western supplies to the Red Army.

  13. Ahem says:
    @anon

    Other than information from a few East German people you met, you have quoted no reliable source to support your opinion.

    There is ample information on the web giving details of everything provided during WWII by the US to various countries under Lend Lease. Rather than rely on anecdotes should learn to use a search engine to check for yourself. It’s really quite easy. Even Wiki would provide you with enough reliable information on this non controversial topic.

    • Replies: @anon
  14. Blankaerd says:
    @anon

    How much more could they have increased their production if they did not need to invest resources and time into moving the production underground?

    • Replies: @anon
  15. Big Daddy says:

    Having read Mr. Margolis’ accurate comments over the years I must at least partially disagree here.

    Great Britain and America gave Stalin slightly over 1/3 of all wheeled vehicles in the Soviet Army.

    I was privileged to have a neighbor who was a Hungarian survivor of a Soviet prison camp and escapee from Hungary in 1956.. He said EVERYTHING in the camp in WWII was American made or food from America. Britain gave the Soviets 15,000,000 pairs of boots alone!

    Stalin, Kruschev, Beria and other Soviets stated that they would have lost without Western aid.

    What is disturbing is FDR’s and Churchill’s bizarre policies. If Poland were solved Hitler was going to retire. Read Goebbels diary. And why was the USA and Britain siding and aiding Stalin anyway?

    A sinister outlook was that Churchill was bought and sold by Rothchild interests after bailing him out from ruin in 1938. FDR’s family changed its name from Rosenberg in the 1850’s. On his mother’s side it was Delano, also Jewish. 34 of FDR’s top 40 advisors were Jews, a 6 billion to one shot in America at that time.

    When Churchill thought the war ending thrust was to go up the Balkans and keep Stalin somewhat at bay, Stalin and FDR laughed at him and he scurried away.

    Just a quick mention of the massive air power diversion Hitler had to use defending Germany from Allied bombing.

  16. If we are to avoid a third world war it is essential we are truthful about history, as Eric Margolis argues. It is important to remember that what followed World War II, the Cold War, was a time of peace (or relative peace). Since 1991 we have been moving toward a state of total war. The period 1945-1991 is near its end and just like the 19th century Concert of Europe finally collapsed in 1914, and Treaty of Versailles in 1939, we are on the precipice of yet another global catastrophe.
    https://www.ghostsofhistory.wordpress.com/

  17. anon[230] • Disclaimer says:
    @Blankaerd

    How much more could they have increased their production if they did not need to invest resources and time into moving the production underground?

    My point is Germany didn’t run out of war materials, Germany ran our out soldiers, food and oil which the allied bombing did not impact. Churchill’s whole purpose of bombing Germany was a terror campaign against women and children.

  18. CK says:

    On the day that Japan surrendered, soviet forces were preparing to invade Hokkaido which was completely undefended. And the USA was out of atom bombs. Had three tested one dropped two,
    Truman and Ike hoped that Japan would surrender before the 90 days was up and Russia declared war on and attacked Japan.
    Russian troops had retaken south Sakhlin Island and the Kuriles.
    Mao’s army had an unattackable supply line to Russia and with that the defeat and departure of Chiang Kai-shek was inevitable. Or to answer that old question Who Lost China? Truman.
    Internal supply line from Russia to VietNam meant the inevitable defeat of France there, and the equally inevitable intrusion of American forces starting at Dien Bien Phu in 54 and going forward to 75 and defeat.
    The Soviet victory in Europe in 1945 was pretty much reversed by 1989 — 44 years 2 generations;
    the results of the Soviet victory on mainland Asia have not yet been reversed, 75 years almost 4 generations.

  19. anon[230] • Disclaimer says:
    @Ahem

    There is ample information on the web giving details of everything provided during WWII by the US to various countries under Lend Lease. Rather than rely on anecdotes should learn to use a search engine to check for yourself. It’s really quite easy. Even Wiki would provide you with enough reliable information on this non controversial topic.

    I am not questioning whether the Allies lent the USSR 11 thousand vehicles. The question is how much impact they had on the Soviet Union war effort which used over 3.5 million horses for transport etc. To suggest that 11 thousand vehicles had any significant impact at all on the Soviet Union war effort is ludicrous but not surprising coming from someone who apparently uses search engines and Wikipedia for their primary sources of information.

  20. He’s not as subtle as say a Robert Fisk. Them all red herrings are as blatant as a kick in the head.

  21. martin_2 says:

    I can’t speak for Americans but I don’t think there is anyone in the UK among those who profess to know something about the war who would claim that we or we and the Americans won it. The most that is claimed on the British side is that in 1940 we stopped it from being lost.

    But I listened to a youtube lecture some time back where the historian claimed that a German invasion of England would have never succeeded anyway.

    • Replies: @anon
  22. Dutch Boy says:
    @Orville H. Larson

    Normandy’s terrain is advantageous for defensive warfare and the German army took full advantage, Once the Americans were able to breakout out of the Normandy hedgerows, the Americans’ advantage in air power and vehicular transport was decisive.

    • Replies: @Begemot
  23. Dutch Boy says:
    @LondonBob

    Fortunately for the Allies, the best German units were kept near the Pas De Calais and were not deployed to Normandy until it was too late to throw back the Allies. Allied air power was decisive in preventing those armored units from arriving in Normandy unscathed. German soldiers had a joke about it: “If you see silver-colored planes, they’re British. If they are colored, they’re American. If you don’t see them at all, they’re German.”

    • Replies: @foolisholdman
  24. Sulu says:
    @anon

    Other than kill women and children, what effect did Allied bombing have on the German war machine? Nothing, The factories went underground and actual increased production.

    You are most certainly clueless if you believe that. You are not one of those people that believes their own bullshit no matter how ludicrous, are you? I suppose all the Nazi railroads went underground too? Just look on you tube for old gun camera footage of allied planes strafing German trains. But that did nothing to hinder the German war effort, right? So every Allied General that supported strategic bombing of Germany was wrong and you are right? You are just a dumb ass!

    Sulu

    • Agree: UK
    • Replies: @anon
    , @statemachine
    , @anon
  25. Begemot says:
    @Dutch Boy

    Then the American advance bogged down in September 1944 and it was slog into 1945. Why was that?

  26. @Blankaerd

    If only the Allies had been more magnanimous at Versailles in 1919 …
    If only Germany had not taken Alsace & Lorraine from a humiliated France in 1871 …
    If only France hadn’t meddled in German affairs, invading its southern states in 1870 …
    If only Germany had not taken the Quadriga back from Paris in 1814 …
    If only Napoleon Bonaparte hadn’t taken the Quadriga from Berlin in 1806 …
    If only …
    If only …
    ad nauseum …
    If only Emperor Hadrian had gone full Carthaginian peace when putting down revolts ….

  27. anon[230] • Disclaimer says:
    @martin_2

    I can’t speak for Americans but I don’t think there is anyone in the UK among those who profess to know something about the war who would claim that we or we and the Americans won it.

    Most Brits I have met claim the the US and Britain won the war with comments like we really showed those Gerrys and deriding the US for entering the war late. This appears to be changing with the younger generation though.

    • Replies: @Wielgus
  28. Thank you Mr. Margolis for this excellent article and all others. Truth will make us free.
    Ignacio Fernandez

  29. Adûnâi says:

    > “No one likes to admit it was Stalin who defeated Nazi Germany.”

    Is that the case in America? No wonder. The stupid fat diabetic Americans cannot point find Australia on the map, and love hating on everything Soviet. HBO’s Chernobyl was met with critical acclaim, although it is filled to the brim with bullshit anti-Soviet lies.

    https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2017/p0718-diabetes-report.html

    > “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.”

    Grinding its victims… with a sub-2% mortality rate?

    © Dima Vorobiev
    https://www.quora.com/In-the-USSR-what-was-the-annual-death-rate-among-GULAG-inmates/answer/Dima-Vorobiev
    https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-8f3ab65f2fe2b5ef9a2b0fec668f7fef

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

    As a good American goy, you must mention muh’ Holodomor – and yet here these dead Ukrainians are not on Hitler’s conscience?

    > “…it should still have been possible to acknowledge the mighty Soviet contribution to our victory in World War II.”

    Obviously, that victory was for nought, because National Socialist Germany was the only Aryan nation that died with dignity. The Soviet Union after Stalin stopped sending degenerate Western spies to the GULAG, and was infiltrated and rotten away from within – its proletarians eagerly sold out their own mothers and fathers for drugs and Coca-Cola. The West is now full of Muslim Negroes and pink-haired mutilated transvestites. The victory surely seems incredible. Give them a few decades, and the colossus with the feet of clay that is the USA will fall, and the spirit of Hitler will have his revenge.

    Geopolitics is a hilarious matter when each side subscribes to the suicidal notion of Christian out-group altruism. Why didn’t Russians murder every German man to repopulate the land with Russians? Why didn’t Americans exterminate the Japanese to end their threat for all eternity? Suicide, plain suicide.

    https://chechar.wordpress.com/?s=marcus+eli+ravage&submit=Search
    https://chechar.wordpress.com/?s=mitchell+heisman&submit=Search

    Only the DPR of Korea upholds the traditions of bellicose valour in these transvestite times. Oh how the mighty Aryans have fallen! Why does it come to Juche Korea to advance intelligent life on this planet?

    • Agree: commandor
    • Replies: @UK
  30. anon[230] • Disclaimer says:
    @Sulu

    You are most certainly clueless if you believe that. You are not one of those people that believes their own bullshit no matter how ludicrous, are you? I suppose all the Nazi railroads went underground too? Just look on you tube for old gun camera footage of allied planes strafing German trains. But that did nothing to hinder the German war effort, right?

    If you want to educate yourself and learn how inaccurate your comments are, I can highly recommend the 1968 book The Arms Of Krupp by William Manchester. It is available in many libraries. If you don’t want to read, Amazon has an audio book which is available by clicking here.

    Even if you are not interested in WWII, it is a fascinating read about the history of the Krupp company, which includes how Krupp helped build the US Railroad system and how the Krupp family created a company with employees so loyal, they would be willing to die for it.

    • Replies: @Sulu
  31. KenH says:

    Germany’s advanced ME262 jet fighter that should have swept the skies was grounded because of fuel shortages.

    Not exactly. According to David Irving in War Between the Generals the entry into service of the ME-262 on a mass scale continued to get delayed since Hitler wanted it to be a fighter bomber instead of just a fighter. The modifications to make it such made it less effective as a fighter and there was never enough in the air at any given time to check the allied bombing campaign over Germany.

    Irving said in Hitler’s War that Hitler possessed poison gas that if used against the Russians would have forced a surrender or stalemate on the Eastern front. But Hitler the “madman” refused.

  32. Hibernian says:
    @Big Daddy

    FDR’s family changed its name from Rosenberg

    Van Rosenvelt. A name like that doesn’t prove somebody’s ethnicity or religion.

  33. @CK

    You corrected Mr. Margolis before I could:

    “Russian troops had retaken south Sakhlin Island and the Kuriles.
    soviet forces were preparing to invade Hokkaido”

    The Soviets had Liberty ships in the Pacific provided by lend lease that hauled American aid directly to Vladivostok, and the Japanese allowed this. They used these ships to begin invading Japan, which had very few soldiers in the far north.

    The Americans should have accepted Japan’s conditional surrender offer in May 1945 to keep the Soviets out of Manchuria (which they gave to Mao) and Korea and parts of Japan. But the USA delayed this until two atomic bombs could be dropped. The Pentagon wanted to impress the Soviets, justify this ultra-expensive project, and wanted funding for lots more nukes.

    Once their two bombs had been tested/demonstrated, the USA finally accepted Japan’s long standing conditional surrender offer and launched Operation Blacklist (the immediate occupation of Japan) that had been planned for over three months.

  34. The US won the war by sending an enormous amount of resources to Russia .

    • Agree: Hibernian
    • Replies: @anon
  35. Envy is a hell of a uniting force.

  36. UK says:
    @Adûnâi

    Geopolitics is a hilarious matter when each side subscribes to the suicidal notion of Christian out-group altruism. Why didn’t Russians murder every German man to repopulate the land with Russians? Why didn’t Americans exterminate the Japanese to end their threat for all eternity? Suicide, plain suicide.

    The Unz dichotomy: you can choose to slaughter everyone who doesn’t fit in the particular label you adhere to for the moment, or you can choose suicide, and there is nothing in between. Lovely…

    You know, right, that no one has ever subscribed to your notion of sensible geopolitics and no one ever will. No one is that shallow, not even you, internet tough guy.

    • Replies: @Adûnâi
  37. anon[230] • Disclaimer says:
    @Alastair Ross

    The US won the war by sending an enormous amount of resources to Russia .

    What may seem enormous to you was actually a drop in the bucket compared to the war material fielded by the USSR. It’s like picking some parsley in your garden, giving it to your wife and then claiming she couldn’t make dinner without it.

    • Replies: @trickster
  38. Sulu says:
    @anon

    Other than kill women and children, what effect did Allied bombing have on the German war machine? Nothing, The factories went underground and actual increased production.

    That was your original statement. And it is quite obviously indefensible. No one but a fool would make such an asinine statement. If you had said something like. “Allied bombing didn’t have as large effect as initially thought.” you might have a leg to stand on. But to claim the effect was “Nothing” is no less than shear buffoonery. But, just like a fool, instead of backing up and admitting that you overstated your case you simply dig your heels in and try to maintain your original false statement is true by trying to reference some historical work.

    You admitted that the bombing killed women and children. It quite obviously killed some men too. If that was all it did without touching one factory it would have still hindered the war effort because it killed some of the people involved in war production.

    Why don’t you just man up and admit that you overstated your case and thereby try and claw back one tiny shred of credibility for yourself. Because if you don’t do that your credibility is zero and you are quite obviously a confirmed dumbass. On display for the entire World to see.

    Sulu

    • Replies: @anon
  39. President Donald Trump claimed last week that the US and Britain had won World War II. This was a shameless lie and distortion of the facts.

    This is a hit piece pretending to be a history lesson.

    • Agree: Sulu
  40. Adûnâi says:
    @UK

    > “The Unz dichotomy: you can choose to slaughter everyone who doesn’t fit in the particular label you adhere to for the moment, or you can choose suicide, and there is nothing in between. Lovely…”

    Literally nobody on Unz subscribes to my axiology (aside from commandor and maybe Dr. Robert Morgan). I am warring with all – all who have Christianity in their heart, be it liberals, National Socialists, neo-Nazis or Communists.

    > “You know, right, that no one has ever subscribed to your notion of sensible geopolitics and no one ever will. No one is that shallow, not even you, internet tough guy.”

    Genghis Khan did. That is why Hazarajat in central Afghanistan is partially Mongoloid.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hazaras
    Either way, it is irrelevant whether anyone has done it in the past. Indo-Aryans, Romans and English did not – and there are no more Indo-Aryans, no more Romans, no more English; all mingled their blood with the lesser races and disappeared. Heed the warning of history or perish!

  41. The Russian Army has three of the best generals that ever lived. Generals December, January, and February. Aside from that, Allied (American) supplies and money and the millions of Russian soldiers used as fodder.

    • Agree: Hibernian
  42. anon[230] • Disclaimer says:
    @Sulu

    “Allied bombing didn’t have as large effect as initially thought.” you might have a leg to stand on. But to claim the effect was “Nothing” is no less than shear buffoonery.

    The two possible ways the the Allied Bombing could have impacted the German war machine is through bombing troops and supply depots and/or crippling factories so their production goals were not met.

    Did Allied Bombing even target German troops or supply depots? No. In the 1944 book Bombing Vindicated, J. M. Spaight states that the British Bombers were designed to bomb cities and the goal of the bombing was to demoralize the German population. Let that sink in, hitting military targets wasn’t even the goal of the British bombing!

    Were German factories unable to meet the Wehrmacht’s needs? No. In, fact German factories increased production during every year of the war except 1945 when they surrendered.

    Remember, weapons don’t do you any good if you don’t have soldiers to wield them and it was the Red Army that killed the German soldiers while the RAF wasn’t even targeting them.

    So in short, I stand by my original statement that the Allied Bombing effect on the German war machine was nothing.

  43. Sulu says:

    You have the historical insight of a turnip. A boiled turnip at that. This isn’t about history. What it’s about is the obvious fact that you have no ability at all to admit that you are wrong. You overstated your case and you simply can’t admit that your statement is utter rubbish.

    Please tell me you are trolling me. It’s difficult to believe anyone could be so utterly clueless about WWII history.

    My father was part of the American occupation after the end of the war. He said in Berlin there was hardly one brick on top of another.

    You can stand behind your original statement all you want. It will not make it any less false. All it does is reveal you as the fool you obviously are.

    I suppose the next thing you are going to tell me is the strategic bombing of Japan during WWII did nothing to hinder its war effort. That wouldn’t be any less ridiculous.

    I’m done with you. You are an obvious idiot.

    Sulu

    • Replies: @anon
  44. MarkinLA says:

    Were German factories unable to meet the Wehrmacht’s needs? No. In, fact German factories increased production during every year of the war except 1945 when they surrendered.

    Actually, they DIDN’T meet the Wehrmacht’s demands. They emphasized high function over production ease that resulted in not having enough to overcome the numerical advantage both the Soviets and the US had.

    Stalins old: Quantity has a quality all it’s own.

    Just because you increase production doesn’t mean much since what did America do as far as ramping up production? I remember seeing somewhere that the British even outproduced the Germans in things like fighter planes.

    The Germans didn’t “run out of soldiers”. They were never going to have enough soldiers to overcome the numerical superiority of the USSR , USA, and UK. The only way to win was have a modern mechanized army, which like the Soviets, was not completely mechanized. How many soldiers surrendered on the western front? It wasn’t soldiers that limited their capabilities, it was their inability to keep up armored equipment and aircraft production compared to the Allies.

    • Replies: @anon
    , @donvonburg
  45. vbnnnnnn says:

    Stalin was being warned by Great Britain and the United States that Hitler was getting ready to invade. Hitler believed that the Soviet Union was preparing to invade Germany. “Yet I remained silent. I took a decision only when I saw that Russia had reached the hour to advance against us at a moment when we had only a bare three divisions in East Prussia, when twenty-two Soviet divisions were assembled there. We gradually received proof that on our frontiers one airdrome after another was set up, and one division after another from the gigantic Soviet Army was being assembled there.”
    Covert operations by the allies were attempting to draw the Soviet Union into conflict with Germany or visa versa. It really didn’t matter. Hitler attacks Russia June 41. The allies then refuse to invade Europe. Stalin is insisting they invade and Churchill making promises. When it looked like Germany was going to quickly overrun Russia, “Army Group Centre’s two panzer groups (the 2nd and 3rd), advanced to the north and south of Brest-Litovsk and converged east of Minsk, followed by the 2nd, 4th, and 9th Armies. The combined panzer force reached the Beresina River in just six days, 650 km (400 mi) from their start lines. The next objective was to cross the Dnieper river, which was accomplished by 11 July. Their next target was Smolensk, which fell on 16 July.” We begin to provide Soviets with aide starting Aug 1941. Not enough to win but hopefully enough not to lose. “Lend-Lease matériel was welcomed by the Soviet Union, and President Roosevelt attached the highest priority to using it to keep the Soviet Union in the war against Germany. Nevertheless, the program did not prevent friction from developing between the Soviet Union and the other members of the anti-Hitler alliance. The Soviet Union was annoyed at what seemed a long delay by the allies in opening a “second front” against Germany.” When Stalin informed Churchill and Roosevelt in late 1943 that he was preparing a major counter offensive in June of 44 Britain and the United States became concerned the Soviets would roll right through Europe and so in early June of 1944 the allies invaded France. Stalin’s plan to pull them into Europe relieving pressure on the Eastern front mid June Soviet counter attached and the German retreat began. As the Soviets beat a path to Berlin Great Britain and the United States needed to give them pause about our strength and decided they would annihilate Dresden by firebombing it and totally destroying it. When the allies got done with Dresden there remained nothing but death. More people died then in Nagasaki and Hiroshima combined. This impressed the Soviets and to counter they decided they could do a show of force. The race to Berlin at great cost but they tore the city down. This show of force impressed the United States and Great Britain and any thoughts they had of carrying the war on towards Moscow was scrapped. General Patton still though with his mobility and fluid tactics he felt he could win. When Eisenhower refused to allow him to implement his plan he proclaimed he was going back to the United States and expose the whole war and the corruption and that we had fought on the wrong side. They murdered Patton, they murdered Roosevelt and Truman recognized Israel and this is pretty much how it all happened.

  46. anon[230] • Disclaimer says:
    @Sulu

    My father was part of the American occupation after the end of the war. He said in Berlin there was hardly one brick on top of another.

    I am sorry to see that you are so steeped in cognitive dissonance that you don’t even realize that your father’s observation proves my point – that the allies targeted civilians who had no impact on Germany’s war machine. As bomber Harris reportedly stated in 1975 – It’s a good thing the Germans lost the war otherwise we would have been convicted as war criminals.

    I suppose the next thing you are going to tell me is the strategic bombing of Japan during WWII did nothing to hinder its war effort.

    Besides the strategic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I doubt it. Unlike the British, the US had a strategy and aircraft specifically designed for tactical bombing which definitely hindered the Japanese war effort and played a major role in defeating the Japanese. Perhaps your lack of understanding between strategic and tactical bombing has led to some of your outbursts.

    For a start, try reading the books I suggested. Then perhaps in the future you can argue with facts instead of ad hominem attacks..

    • Replies: @Sulu
  47. anon[230] • Disclaimer says:
    @MarkinLA

    Actually, they DIDN’T meet the Wehrmacht’s demands. They emphasized high function over production ease that resulted in not having enough to overcome the numerical advantage both the Soviets and the US had.

    You make it sound like the German military suppliers decided themselves what to produce which is ridiculous. The Wehrmacht and Hitler decided what the military suppliers should produce and they got exactly what they wanted.

    Just because you increase production doesn’t mean much

    It means you are not running out of military equipment.

    The Germans didn’t “run out of soldiers”.

    Although there is disagreement among historians , up to 90% of German WWII casualties occurred on the Eastern front which means they ran out of soldiers. Just like the US Civil war, this was a war of attrition.

    The only way to win was have a modern mechanized army,

    Germany didn’t have enough oil to field a modern mechanized army which is why they used horses and invaded the USSR in the first place.

    Even so, the Germans almost won. The two things that saved the Soviet Union was the arrival of General Zhukov and the T-34 tank on the battlefield.

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
  48. Suuure, the Soviets defeated the German devils. If Zion did not go around killing kings and Tsars and everyone that is not a jewish bolshevik, Hitler would never need lift his hand against Russia. I especially like how the Bolshevics “liberated” Auschwitz. From whom, exactly? The Germans over the horiseon marching their scared wards off to the promise of safety from the marauding commies shouting revenge at Social Nationalism and their unwillingness to borrow more money from Zion?
    Go research the torture methods the Bolshevics used against the heathens, the perverted, sick, barbaric ritualistic murders of civilians during and after their so-called revolution, then come tell me how upset you are that Hitler called the Bolshevics Untermenschen. Today, those same Untermenschen are shooting, poisoning and starving women and children in Palestine, Yemen, Jordan, Syria, Los Angeles….
    The Russian of today is not the Russian of WW2, in exactly the same sense as the Israeli of today is no Israelite at all.
    Fokman!

  49. Sulu says:
    @anon

    You have no facts. Only an asinine opinion totally unsupported by history. Your pretentious attempts at intellectual superiority would be laughable if it were not so pathetic, and predictable. Referring to authority does nothing to help your credibility.

    To believe your original assertion that bombing did nothing to hinder the Nazi War machine I would have to believe that every General that directed thousands of planes to their targets were completely wrong in their belief that bombing would slow the German war machine. More that that I would have to believe that every military mind that contributed in any way to the bombing of Germany was mistaken in their opinion that it would shorten the war. For bombing to have done “nothing” I would have to believe that bombing did not displace one atom. That it quite literally changed nothing. So your argument is false by reductio ad absurdum.

    If none of the bombers had dropped a single bomb you would still be wrong because any German plane that was shot down by Allied forces on their way to the target would obviously serve to hinder the German war effort. But you are so steeped in the notion of your own infallibility that you cannot see that saying the Allied bombings did nothing is an absolute, and therefor absurd.

    I am hardly engaged in ad hominem attacks by pointing out that only a historically ignorant fool would be capable of believing such a notion. You label yourself as such with every ridiculous statement you make. Please feel free to continue to spout your uninformed opinion. Keep telling yourself that you are an intellectual and your opinion is sacrosanct. That you know better than every allied military mind of WWII because you are smarter than them and therefor you cannot be wrong. I would wager there are few on this board that thinks you are correct in your opinion. Only someone completely ignorant of history could believe you.

    that the allies targeted civilians who had no impact on Germany’s war machine

    The above statement, made by you, is also erroneous. Yes, the allies did indeed target civilians. But some civilians were engaged in activities that furthered Germany’s war effort. And, by killing them, the war effort was hindered. So you are wrong yet again! So my father’s observations proves my point as opposed to proving yours. If your ego wasn’t so huge and your emotions weren’t so involved you would be able to see the truth.

    If you need a little help, and you obviously do, please look up the meaning of “nothing.” If you had said instead “little” it would be a point for debate. But by saying nothing you are essentially saying that it was if the bombing had never happened. That the effect was the same whether the bombing happened or not. And that is an impossibility.

    Once again I will state that none of this is about historical accuracy. This is so obviously about you having zero ability at admitting that you are wrong. You overstated your case and now you are just digging your heels in by continuing to maintain that you are correct. Your over inflated ego coupled with your belief in your own intellectual superiority is keeping you from admitting that you are wrong. Obviously being right is the most important thing in your life. And since no one can be right 100% of the time your only recourse is to simply claim you are right regardless of the situation.

    If you want a little historical lesson I would like to point out that part of the reason Germany lost WWII is the fact that Hitler himself was just such a personality. His belief in his own intellectual superiority and infallibility kept him from taking the good advise of his Generals. And that too hastened Germany’s defeat.

    Your opinion and your attitude is beyond rational comprehension. I can only conclude you are trolling me. Or perhaps you have Asperger’s. But your belief has no basis in fact.

    Oh, by the way, I am quite cognizant of the difference between strategic and tactical bombing. Your presumption in trying to lecture me on the subject is beyond arrogance. Especially when you consider how utterly wrong you have been in your posts.

    Sulu

    • Replies: @showmethereal
  50. MarkinLA says:
    @anon

    You make it sound like the German military suppliers decided themselves what to produce which is ridiculous. The Wehrmacht and Hitler decided what the military suppliers should produce and they got exactly what they wanted.

    The military suppliers never supplied ENOUGH of what the generals wanted. Your claim was that the bombing did nothing. Because of the bombing campaign Germany lost air superiority over first France and then Germany BECAUSE they could not produce enough fighters.

    up to 90% of German WWII casualties occurred on the Eastern front which means they ran out of soldiers.

    No, it means they ran out of tanks and support aircraft as soldiers attacking each other across a field without armor and air support ended in WWI.

    • Agree: Sulu
    • Replies: @anon
    , @Sulu
  51. anon[230] • Disclaimer says:
    @MarkinLA

    The military suppliers never supplied ENOUGH of what the generals wanted. Your claim was that the bombing did nothing. Because of the bombing campaign Germany lost air superiority over first France and then Germany BECAUSE they could not produce enough fighters

    According to his 1944 book Bombing Vindicated, J. M. Spaight states that the British Bombers were designed to bomb cities and the goal of the bombing was to demoralize the German population. Hitting military targets wasn’t even the goal of the British bombing. The Germans lost their fighters by AA and combat with British fighters – not Allied Bombing.

    up to 90% of German WWII casualties occurred on the Eastern front which means they ran out of soldiers.

    No, it means they ran out of tanks and support aircraft as soldiers attacking each other across a field without armor and air support ended in WWI.

    Absolutely untrue. The German advance was stopped with the introduction of the Soviet T-34 and KV tanks which even the German command admitted were the best tanks of WWII. It wasn’t that the Germans didn’t have enough weaponry, the Germans didn’t have anything that could stop the T-34s and KVs until the war was already lost.

  52. Let’s answer by playing “What if”

    If the UK had come to terms with Germany after the fall of France (The most likely scenario that leaves the Soviet Union on their own),
    -And
    If Germany had not jumped in when Japan attacked the US (and seized British Far East colonies).

    -Then
    Germany doesn’t have to look over their shoulder when attacking the Soviet Union.
    The garrison in France can be significantly smaller.
    The attack against the Soviet Union goes off something closer to “on schedule” because no British troops are sent to Greece (big maybe here).
    Thus Operation Barbarossa happens earlier in the year, and has more troops, supply & support,
    and
    No aid is coming from the UK as it did historically,
    the Germans might take Moscow & Leningrad before the worst of the winter weather sets in.

    Does that actually win Germany the war ?

    Historically, Stalin asked for terms late in 1941. (Hitler, in yet another blunder, wouldn’t entertain the idea.)

    To be sure, the Soviets did most of the fighting against Nazi Germany. The Soviet Union lost more people than any other country. (Poland lost a larger percentage of their population.)

    Maybe the better way to look at it is to ask,
    If Hitler and Stalin had come to terms late in 1941, would the Western Allies have been able to defeat Germany without the Soviet Union ?
    I say yes. (cough, cough, Manhattan Project cough, cough) but only just.

  53. Who is this “Eric Margolis”?

    wikipedia lists an Eric Margolis:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Margolis_(journalist)

    Margolis was born in New York City in 1943 to Henry M. Margolis and Nexhmie Zaimi, an American-Albanian

    on the odd chance that Mr. Margolis is jewish what is he doing judging American and British efforts in WWII?

    Jews declared war on Germany in 1933 and let stupid Brits and Yanks fight their battle for them

  54. Technomad says:

    If Allied Lend-Lease was so unimportant, why was Stalin always screaming for more of it? For that matter, if the studly Soviets had the Wehrmacht in hand, why was Stalin screaming for a “Second Front” as far back as 1942?

  55. @Begemot

    That’s right. The remaining months of the war in Europe showed the German Army at its hard-fighting best–Metz, “Market Garden,” Aachen, Hurtgen Forest, the Ardennes counteroffensive. It was slow going for the Allies.

    Not bad for an army that didn’t have air support, that was critically starved of supplies. The
    Wehrmacht had plenty of fight right until the end.

  56. anon[230] • Disclaimer says:

    If Allied Lend-Lease was so unimportant, why was Stalin always screaming for more of it?

    Free weapons.

    if the studly Soviets had the Wehrmacht in hand, why was Stalin screaming for a “Second Front” as far back as 1942?

    Hitler was making Germany fight to the last man. A second front would have reduced Soviet causalities and expenditure of resources. Of course like hyenas, the allies didn’t invade until 1944 after the Soviet bear had completely mauled its prey. 90% of all German causalities were on the eastern front.

  57. mc203 says:

    According to Albert Speer, Minister of Armaments and War Production, the Allied bombing caused major problems with production and allocation of war material, while Lend-Lease supplies equipped hundreds of thousands of Russian troops.

    The Russians ended up winning decisively on the eastern front but an unhindered Germany may have been able to fight them to standstill.

    • Agree: Sulu
    • Replies: @anon
  58. anon[230] • Disclaimer says:
    @mc203

    According to Albert Speer, Minister of Armaments and War Production, the Allied bombing caused major problems with production and allocation of war material,

    And yet Germany increased war production every year except 1945.

    while Lend-Lease supplies equipped hundreds of thousands of Russian troops.

    These supplies didn’t even arrive until after the Soviets stopped the German offensive.

    • Replies: @Sulu
  59. LondonBob says:
    @Begemot

    Supply lines, fuel still had to come from the beaches of Normandy, as well as Eisenhower’s deeply flawed decision for a broad front advance.

    • Replies: @Begemot
  60. The RAF broke the Luftwaffe in 1940. Th eLuftwaffee went in all their pilot trainers. They took several years to rebuild capability. Their Soviet allies withdrew the use of trianing sites in Russia after 1941. Live firing only after that.

  61. @Sulu

    A third of the tanks defending Moscow in 1941 were British or Canadian made. In June and July 1941, supply ships in Mid dAtlantic were diverted from the UK to Murmansk. Russia received 3000 Hurricaines early on.

    • Replies: @Oikeamielinen
  62. @CK

    Revisionist tosh from a professor who wanted to generate controversy to sell a boook. The Soviets would have run out of supplies in days eve if the couuuld have found ships and harbours to make the landings.

    • Replies: @anon
    , @CK
  63. @Philip Owen

    That is a valid observation. Rosie the Riveter was working for the Soviet Union.
    The amount of materiel supplied to the Soviet Union was massive.

    • Replies: @Begemot
  64. anon[230] • Disclaimer says:
    @Philip Owen

    Revisionist tosh from a professor who wanted to generate controversy to sell a boook. The Soviets would have run out of supplies in days eve if the couuuld have found ships and harbours to make the landings.

    It is actually you who is posting revisionist tosh from the likes of Professor Alexander Hill and Jeremy Clarkson by repeating their ridiculous lend-lease tank and supply statistics. When you look at the differences between the numbers delivered (even items lost at sea were counted as delivered), received, deployed and operational (only 50% of lend-lease tanks were operational at any one time due to quality issues) do you begin to see how insignificant lend-lease was to the USSR victory over Germany.

    • Troll: GazaPlanet
    • Replies: @GazaPlanet
  65. Begemot says:
    @Oikeamielinen

    According to these data from this Wikipedia article ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease ) the US provided Great Britain $31,387.1 million and to the Soviet Union $10,982.1 million in Lend-Lease. The total in lend-Lease is shown as $48,395.4 million. Looks like Rosie did three times as much work for Churchill as Stalin. It’s curious that ‘patriotic’ Americans don’t rag the Brits about this as much as they do the Soviets. Guess it’s that ‘special relationship’ thing.

    • Replies: @Oikeamielinen
  66. Begemot says:
    @LondonBob

    Supply lines and fuel: are you suggesting the American and British supply lines never caught up with their armies from September ’44 into early ’45? This wasn’t a problem for the whole time, was it? Not after Antwerp was secured?

    The Broad Front: a problem with this criticism is that a focus on one part of the Anglo-American offensive, say favoring Montgomery (boo!) or Patton (yeah!) would produce a salient that would require increasing numbers of forces devoted to securing the salients flanks the deeper the advance progressed. Then when the advance stalled (as they all reach a culmination point) Patton gets cut off by the German counter attack. Will Monty be able to save Georgie?

  67. @Begemot

    It seems that it is still the custom in some circles to berate Americans for having been obstinate “isolationists” in joining the Happy Triad so late. I have noticed that even some Communist-trained Finns know that an isolationist is a bad American.

    The British did a fair amount of work to bend the American mind to war.

    The Man Called Intrepid
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Stephenson

    Sir William Samuel Stephenson CC MC DFC, (23 January 1897 – 31 January 1989) was a Canadian soldier, airman, businessman, inventor, spymaster, and the senior representative of British Security Coordination (BSC) for the entire western hemisphere during World War II. He is best known by his wartime intelligence codename Intrepid. Many people consider him to be one of the real-life inspirations for James Bond.[2] Ian Fleming himself once wrote, “James Bond is a highly romanticized version of a true spy. The real thing is … William Stephenson.”[3]
    As head of the British Security Coordination, Stephenson handed over British scientific secrets to Franklin D. Roosevelt and relayed American secrets to Winston Churchill.[4] In addition, Stephenson has been credited with changing American public opinion from an isolationist stance to a supportive tendency regarding America’s entry into World War II.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease

    During December 1940, President Roosevelt proclaimed the United States would be the “Arsenal of Democracy” and proposed selling munitions to Britain and Canada.[11] Isolationists were strongly opposed, warning it would result in American involvement with what was considered by most Americans as an essentially European conflict.

  68. The article is both limited and simplistic. The majority of the German effort in the air and sea was directed against the West. This amounted to a fantastic proportion of Germany’s industrial output. Does the author bother to mention over a million Germans were engaged in anti aircaft defense and labor units engaged against the strategicbombing campaign? Apparently these matter not, nor the hundreds of aircraft and 90% of the German electronics industry.

    Never was more than 67% of the German army engaged against the Russians. The rest guarded against the allies and this number increased from 1943 on. I do not deny the Russian contribution to trying down vast numbers of the German Army but once the Allies landed it is a fact that the numbers of German motorized troops were shifted to meet the Western threat. Yes the allies outnumbered the Germans in the West, so. The Russians outnumbered the Germans from the very start of the German invasion, even if you include their approximately million allied forces.

    The author neglects to mention that the Germans were able to draw on over a million Russian volunteers during the war. Further Allied Lend lease motorized the Russian military, which made them far more effective then they might have been. Entire Russian Tank Corps were equipped with Western tanks. Western equipment was simply more robust and reliable than Russian produced vehicles and therefore highly prized. The West fed the Russian Army, it clothed them, it moved them. Over 13,000 locomotives were sent to the Russians. Telephone cable, radios, electronics of every sort was sent. American and British aircraft were highly prized because they possessed both radios and gunsights, items using crude or lacking in Russian aircraft. The P-39 which was regarded as a poor aircraft in the West was highly regarded by the Russians.

    The casualities inflicted on the Germans are “Soviet” claims, nuff said. Most German losses occurred in 1944 when the Germans were so stretched that they could not respond to Soviet attacks due to a combination of Hitler’s directives, exhaustion, and cumulative losses on all fronts. The Balkans in 1944 consumed 25 plus German divisions plus the Armies of Bulgaria and Croatia. Italy consumed 30 divisions including various motozized formations needed in Russia. 60 divisions stood in the west. Another 20 stood guard in the Arctic. Perhaps 200 divisions opposed the Russians. These had little airpower to support them. When the summer 1944 offensive hit AG Center, the Germans had perhaps 400 aircraft to oppose 3-4000 Russian aircraft. This wouldn’t have been possible but for the allies.

    Had the Russians sought peace in 1942 the Germans would not have beat the West. Had the West sought peace with the Germans in 1942 Russia would have been destroyed.

    • Replies: @anon
  69. Sulu says:
    @anon

    Yes, no one knows better than you, right anon? Even Albert Speer didn’t know what he was talking about when he admitted that Allied bombing interfered with German war production. I mean he was just the Minister of Armaments and War production for the Third Reich in the latter part of the war. How could his opinion on the subject possibly carry any weight in comparison to your vastly greater knowledge?

    You like to throw around book recommendations. Here is one you obviously need to read.

    Inside The Third Reich by Albert Speer.

    You just can’t quit beating that dead horse can you anon? You simply can’t admit that you are completely wrong when you claim that Allied bombing did nothing to slow the German war machine.

    I don’t know what you have. I can hardly diagnose you at a distance. But more and more I suspect that you are pathological.

    And I might add that I have zero intellectual respect for some one that has no ability to admit when they are wrong. None of us like to do it. That’s human nature. But we learn more from our mistakes than we do our easy successes. But of course the first step in learning from ones mistakes are being man enough to admit that we made them. You don’t strike me as much of a man, anon. More like an autistic basement dweller.

    Sulu

    • Replies: @anon
  70. CK says:
    @Philip Owen

    Use the same transports that they used in the Kurile island hopping and the Karafuto ( South Sakhlin ) invasions. There were no Japanese military anywhere on Hokkaido to oppose the Russian invasion.
    Russian supply lines were stretched by their advances but they were not empty and the supplies kept coming.

  71. anon[230] • Disclaimer says:
    @Sulu

    Yes, no one knows better than you, right anon? Even Albert Speer didn’t know what he was talking about when he admitted that Allied bombing interfered with German war production.

    Your cognitive dissonance has not let you process that the word interfere is not the same as reduce. Remember, Germany increased war material production every year except 1945, the year that Hitler committed suicide and Germany surrendered.

    • Replies: @Sulu
    , @Sulu
  72. Sulu says:
    @anon

    I think you are having a little problem remembering your own words anon. This is the statement you made that I disagree with.

    Other than kill women and children, what effect did Allied bombing have on the German war machine? Nothing, The factories went underground and actual increased production.

    You might also notice that up till now I have been charitable in not pointing out that you made yet another mistake when you used the word “actual.” I think the word you intended to use would be “actually.” I have let that go until now but since it is so obvious you hate being called out for making mistakes I though I should point it out for you.

    Cognitive dissonance seems to be a buzzword for you. I think you are suffering from it.

    You know what I suspect? You know damn well that your statement is false. You merely overstated your case by using the word “nothing.” But now your ego just refuses to allow you to admit that you are wrong. I mean never in my life have I met anyone that tried to claim that the Allied bombing had no effect on the German war machine. You might as well tell me you have never taken a piss in your life. That is just as believable.

    And I also suspect you may be a narcissist. You need everyone around you affirming that you are always the smartest guy in the room. You made a mistake by overstating your case. And now you absolutely refuse to acknowledge it because a narcissist has no ability to admit their mistakes.

    On the other hand, if I happen to be mistaken about you being a narcissist, then you are simply a person that has been wrong way too many times in life. You are tired of being wrong but since you can’t stop being wrong the only way you have to deal with it is to simply never admit when you are wrong. In either case you are a real piece of work.

    In a way there is an element of comedy in all this. Your statement is just so obviously false. And yet you doggedly hang on to the assertions that you are not wrong. I mean you could have made a dozen different statements on the subject with varying degrees of outrageousness that still might have been somewhat defendable. But no, you used an absolute. And now you just can’t walk it back.

    Remember anon, denial is not just a river in Egypt.

    Sulu

  73. Sulu says:
    @anon

    Here is a definition of, and a list of synonyms for the word interfere since you don’t seem to know the meaning.

    (interfere with)
    prevent (a process or activity) from continuing or being carried out properly.
    “a job would interfere with his studies”
    synonyms:
    impede · obstruct · get in the way of · stand in the way of · hinder · be a hindrance to · inhibit · restrict · restrain · constrain · hamper · handicap · cramp · check · block · frustrate · thwart · balk · hold back · hold up · disturb · disrupt · influence · affect · confuse · throw a spanner in the works of · throw a monkey wrench in the works of · trammel · cumber

    Sulu

    • Replies: @anon
  74. anon[230] • Disclaimer says:
    @Sulu

    (interfere with)

    Let me try to help you by using interfere in a sentence for you.

    The temporary power blackout interfered with our factory production so we worked overtime when power was restored and still met our production quotas.

    If you had actually read anything by Albert Speer, you would know that he claimed credit for and was quite proud of overcoming all interference and still increasing German war production.

    • Replies: @Sulu
  75. anon[230] • Disclaimer says:
    @Obama's boyfriend

    Apparently these matter not, nor the hundreds of aircraft and 90% of the German electronics industry.

    Since most ground troop weapons were purely mechanical, this statistic, even if true is completely meaningless.

    The USSR defeated Germany. The USSR had their unstoppable T-34 tank which even the German command agreed was the best tank in WWII. The Allied D-Day invasion only occurred after the Germans were in retreat.

    Some may argue that even so, the Allies by opening another ground front against Germany helped reduce Soviet causalities and expenditure of treasure. This is debatable as well. Roosevelt’s insistence on Germany’s unconditional surrender discouraged the German high command from taking out Hitler. As a result, Germany continued to fight even after the war was hopelessly lost causing enormous unnecessary Soviet causalities and expenditure of treasure which countered any benefit the Allies brought by opening another ground front. Therefore, on balance, the Allies hindered, not helped the Soviet war effort against Germany.

    The only country that unequivocally helped the Soviets defeat Germany was Japan by sitting on their behinds and allowing the Soviets to move their eastern troops west re-enforcing their western front against Germany.

    • Replies: @Docta Kang
  76. trickster says:
    @anon

    And here among all the Unz Field MArshals and military experts comes your astute observation. You are absolutely right.

    First of all the Murmansk convoys could never deliver the tonnage to sustain a war fought in the immensity of Russia.

    Second, it could not satisfy the logistical requirements of the Soviet Army given
    —-The huge forces deployed , some 3 million plus men by the end of the war
    —-The huge battlefield losses
    —-The logistics required for the Partisan War
    —–The population which for the most part had run out of basic living supplies
    —–The material needs required to rebuild a totally shattered country

    We can see proof of this when the US outran their supply chain after Normandy and had to have convoys of trucks running 24/7 to supply STALLED divisions. If this became a problem from Normandy to eastern France, how much more difficult from the UK to Murmansk without even factoring in the Russian winter ?

    And finally, Equipment and supplies provided by the US/ UK was unsuitable for Russian winter war. Neither the US/UK had ever fought in the extreme conditions of the East and certainly were not going to retool their manufacturing resources to supply the Russians with modified equipment.

    Russia was also outproducing the Germans very early in the war and their weapons (like the T34 and Katyusha rocket system) was superior to the end of the war to similar supplies from the US/ Britain

    As you quite correctly stated this was a drop in the bucket. I would say almost sheer propaganda and finally Stalin took what he could get and what was offered. Who would not do the same. If my pantry is full of food and a neighbour offers to buy some of my groceries for 5 years would I refuse ??

  77. Truth3 says:

    … and disapprove of Vladimir Putin’s machination in Ukraine and Crimea …

    Only a Jew could write those words.

    Lost respect for you in the recent past, Mr. M.

    Confirmed it today.

    Proves again… taking the WHOLE Jew out of the Human is damn near impossible.

  78. Sulu says:
    @anon

    You just can’t admit you are wrong can you anon? It’s quite telling that you chose to reply to this post that to the one immediately previous to this one. You know the one where I pointed out that you also made a spelling mistake in your ridiculous assertion about Allied bombing doing nothing to hinder German war production. Can you at least admit that you made a spelling mistake? Or is admitting a mistake as minor as that impossible for you too? The only reason I pointed it out was to see how pathological you are. To see if you are capable of admitting even that. And right on cue you simply ignored it. Your typical course of action in response to some one pointing out one of your errors is to ignore even the most blatant mistakes and plow on ahead with irrelevant amphigory meant to obfuscate the reader. This is typical Narcissist behavior, anon.

    You claim that Allied bombing did nothing to effect the German war machine and point out that German war production went up. As if they are not two separate things. I don’t argue with your assertion that German war production went up. I argue with the ridiculous notion that Allied bombing did nothing to effect the German war machine. Has it never occurred to you that if the Allied bombing had not happened that production would have been even higher that it ultimately was?

    As I indicated before trying to diagnose someone from a distance is fraught with danger. But judging from your posts you appear to be a Narcissist. Being unable to admit a mistake is typical for people with that mental disorder. And I bet I’m not the first person that has accused you of being a Narcissist. I would wager that there are people close to you that have used that word to describe you.

    So tell me anon. Do you have any ability at all to admit a mistake? Will you admit that you made a spelling mistake? It’s minor thing really. I do it all too frequently. But it is a mistake. Can you admit to even that? Or will you do what you have been doing from day one and simply ignore my question?

    Sulu

    • Replies: @anon
  79. @Sulu

    Was not Montgomery turned down on his desire to make the rail system the primary bombing target?

    • Replies: @Sulu
    , @Sulu
  80. Sulu says:
    @statemachine

    Off the top of my head? I don’t recall. I would have to research it. And I come from the generation that finds bound books more credible than what can be found on the web. Probably foolish of me because there are plenty of lies on the written page.

    My interest in WWII stems mainly from the fact that when I was a kid I was surrounded by the men that fought in it. Most of them wouldn’t talk about it but if I kept quiet and kept my ears open occasional I would get a juicy war story. Some of the things I heard chill me to this day.

    My father was at Schofield barracks shortly before the attach on Pearl Harbor and was also part of the American occupation of Berlin after the war. He is long gone know and I wish I had gotten more stories from him. But when you are a kid whatever is going on around you is considered normal. I realize now how special those people were.

    A friend of mines father who was in the Navy died in 08. My friend looked up his war record and found out he was at Okinawa. His helped fight off a Kamikaze attack on his ship. He never even mentioned it. The guy was small in stature. I would guess about 5ft.7. But he was a bigger man than me.

    Sulu

  81. Sulu says:
    @statemachine

    Sorry for the spelling mistakes in my first post to you. I wrote it without reading it through for accuracy. That’s what tends to happen when you are your own editor.

    Sulu

  82. anon[230] • Disclaimer says:
    @Sulu

    You claim that Allied bombing did nothing to effect the German war machine and point out that German war production went up. As if they are not two separate things. I don’t argue with your assertion that German war production went up. I argue with the ridiculous notion that Allied bombing did nothing to effect the German war machine. Has it never occurred to you that if the Allied bombing had not happened that production would have been even higher that it ultimately was?

    I apologize for not being more clear in my analogy.

    The temporary power blackout interfered with our factory production output so we worked overtime when power was restored and still met our production quotas.

    Was the blackout an annoyance? Yes.

    Would we have produced more if the the blackout hadn’t interfered with production? No.

    What was the effect of the blackout on our factory production output? Nothing.

    There are things that interfere with factory production all the times – machines break down, workers get sick etc. Bombing was one more interference to overcome. Good factory production managers, and the Germans were good factory production managers, overcome interference and still meet their production quotas. When you have good factory production managers who overcome interference, the lack of interference does not result in higher factory output.

    In addition, the British were targeting cities not military targets. Many of the factories were outside cities and many cities had no factories at all.

    Since you refuse to read J.M. Spaight’s Bombing Vindicated, I have provided a link below to the summary which shows what terrible war criminals Churchill and the RAF bombers actually were.

    https://barnesreview.org/who-started-the-bombing-of-civilians-in-wwii/

    As J.M. Spaight detailed in his book, it was the British who were to “realise the full potential” of saturation civilian bombing, and that the British bombers were designed to bomb cities, he said, while the “Teutonic mind” never even considered such a policy, and instead viewed an air force merely as a tool to “blast open” a path for attacking armies.

    • Replies: @Sulu
  83. It’s not as if Stalin did it for our sake or for the sake of any admirable goal. He and his lieutenants were monsters. I tend to think Europe would be better off if Germany had won. We could then take the Jews in and Hitler would settle down to rounding up communists.

  84. Sulu says:
    @anon

    As J.M. Spaight detailed in his book, it was the British who were to “realise the full potential” of saturation civilian bombing, and that the British bombers were designed to bomb cities, he said, while the “Teutonic mind” never even considered such a policy, and instead viewed an air force merely as a tool to “blast open” a path for attacking armies.

    I guess the thousands of V2 rockets falling at random spots on the London civilian population were just part of the British imaginations? It couldn’t be real since the Teutonic mind never even considered such a policy as the bombing of civilians.

    The sad thing is if Goering had understood the importance of radar and hadn’t been such a fool as to discontinue his tactical bombing of English radar installations and airfields the battle of Briton might have turned out differently. And if anyone besides Hitler had been in charge of the Third Reich things might have gone Germany’s way.

    Since you refuse to read J.M. Spaight’s Bombing Vindicated, I have provided a link below to the summary which shows what terrible war criminals Churchill and the RAF bombers actually were.

    Who is the war criminal and who are the patriots is defined by who loses and who wins anon. Only the winning side gets to name members of the other side “war criminals.” No doubt if Germany had won the war Churchill and others would have been tried as war criminals. But since Germany lost, Churchill is remembered by history as the man that saved Briton.

    You are sounding more and more Teutonic every post anon. And, as I predicted, you completely ignored my question as to whether or not you can even admit to a minor spelling mistake. Obviously you can’t which lends more weight to my hypothesis of you being a Narcissist.

    If you do happen to be German here is something you may find hard to believe considering the fact that I’m American. I am of the opinion that the White race would have been much better off if Germany had won the war. Germany is being flooded with genetic trash from the Middle East and Africa. England is much the same. London looks more like downtown Baghdad than the London of old. America, a country that was once about 85% White when I was born in now around 60% White. The Jews and other politicians are flooding the country with brown people of every description. The prevailing notion seems to be any thing but Whites may come in.

    America and England was on the wrong side of that war. Certainly we had to destroy the Japanese Empire. One only has to look at the Bataan Death March and the rape of Nanking to realize what savage barbarians the Japanese were. They could not be reasoned with. Only destroyed.

    But Germany was a different matter. England and America should have joined with Germany and taken the World. We would have a White Europe now and the blacks and other genetic trash would not be in our midst. And America would be a mostly White country. Hell we might even have fledgling colonies on Mars by now. And not a Jew in sight. I suppose it might have been a worse World than the one we have now but I’m willing to bet it would have been better.

    Sulu

    • Replies: @anon
  85. anon[230] • Disclaimer says:
    @Sulu

    I guess the thousands of V2 rockets falling at random spots on the London civilian population were just part of the British imaginations? It couldn’t be real since the Teutonic mind never even considered such a policy as the bombing of civilians.

    No, the Teutonic mind never considered bombing civilians until the British did it to them. As is stated in J.M. Spaight’s Bombing Vindicated, Hitler didn’t start bombing British civilians until the British, as part of a deliberate terror campaign, did it them. Note that I am not excusing Hitler’s war crimes who eventually bombed British civilians as well.

    Churchill is remembered by history as the man that saved Briton

    Opinion is slowly changing. Churchill, along with Chamberlain who guaranteed Poland’s security, will be remembered for losing the British empire and turning Britain into America’s poodle. Certainly many Britains after the war didn’t feel they had won. Britain had food rationing until the 1950s. In India, Churchill will be remembered for starving 4 million Bengalis to death.

    Roosevelt and Truman will be remembered for losing the republic and turning the USA into a security state. At least Truman finally realized some of his errors by stating that the creation of the CIA was the greatest mistake of his life. To the best of my knowledge, he never repudiated his war crimes of dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki,

    Unlike in Hollywood movies, there is rarely a good side and bad side in a war. At best, there is an evil side and a lesser evil side. If you want to read a more balanced view of WWII, I suggest Human Smoke and The Good War That Wasn’t.

    I am of the opinion that the White race would have been much better off if Germany had won the war.

    The White Race would have been better off if there was no WWII. The White Race controlled most of the world and had an abundant population until it committed collective suicide in WWII and before that in WWI.

    Certainly we had to destroy the Japanese Empire. One only has to look at the Bataan Death March. and the rape of Nanking to realize what savage barbarians the Japanese were

    One only need look at the 1.5 million Filipinos murdered out of a population of 6 million to see what savage barbarians the American’s were.

    An example is General Smith’s orders to General Waller in 1901.

    I want no prisoners. I wish you to kill and burn: the more you kill and burn, the better you will please me,’ and, further, that he wanted all persons killed who were capable of bearing arms against the United States, and did, in reply to a question by Major Waller asking for an age limit, designate the limit as ten years of age.”

    Just as the America incorrectly portrayed itself as a beacon of liberty, the Japanese portrayed themselves as liberating Asians from US and European oppression and exploitation.

    • Replies: @Sulu
  86. Sulu says:

    The biggest tragedy to come out of WWII, besides the obvious fact that Whites were bombing other Whites, is that it allowed ascendance of the Jews which now control policy in America and much of Europe, as well as establishing the State of Israel. They are now quite obviously implementing policy that is designed to destroy what is left of the White race. A couple million black cocks will destroy the White race more surely than a million bombs. And it’s quieter too. Unless you count the orgasmic groans of our stupid women.

    Sulu

  87. Sulu says:
    @anon

    Just as an aside, I never claimed that America or the Allies were the good guys in WWII. It’s pretty hard to distinguish between good and evil when they use the same methods.

    I will give you a quote from British Historian Richard Overy with respect to bombing during war.

    The fundamental idea behind bombing is that in modern total war, societies, their economic structure, their communications systems and so on, their industrial cities, that these are legitimate targets of war because these are what sustain a countries war effort.

    So, in effect, strategic bombing is vital in that it destroys a countries means to make war. Which is what I have been claiming all along. And you have been trying to refute.

    But I don’t ever expect to get any admission of error out of you anon. You wouldn’t even admit to a spelling mistake you made. So it is quite obvious to me that you are a pathological personality of some type. Probably a Narcissist. And you are quite obviously incapable of admitting even the most insignificant mistake. Much less a major mistake like claiming that the Allied bombing did nothing to slow the German war effort.

    As I write this I am looking at video of what Hamburg and Berlin looked like at the end of the war. A blind man with a cane could easily see that Allied bombing not only slowed the German war effort but was no doubt decisive in the outcome of the war. The Allies dropped more than 1.3 million bombs during the war. Only a fool could truly believe that it did nothing.

    Sulu

    • Replies: @Anon
  88. Augustus says:

    Did Stalin’s army fight on two fronts? Did he fight the Japanese at his flank?

    How much aid did Stalin receive from other allies. Anyone have any idea how costly all that DAYLIGHT bombing of German industry was to America?

    It seems to be popular across the world to depend on American soldiers or support for any measure of freedom to this day, and all the while denigrate America and it’s military personnel at the same time. Seems this article fits the pattern.

  89. The Russians and their stupid WW2 victory cult are completely ridiculous, but there’s no question that the Soviet war effort dwarfed that of the Anglo-Americans.

  90. nebulafox says:

    I wouldn’t go as far as to say they did it alone-grinding Germany into dust from the air wasn’t exactly nothing, you know-but I am willing to grant that the Western Front was truly child’s play compared to the Eastern in terms of scale, intensity, and viciousness. When Hitler invaded the Soviet Union, it was really *his* war, in every sense of the word: that was the war he wanted and dedicated his whole thinking toward, and that was the war which took on his own innately militant, self-radicalizing nature.

    Proud American nationalist that I am, whenever other Americans talk about WWII, I always try to slip just what the USSR went through into the conversation. People truly have no idea.

  91. Anonymous[278] • Disclaimer says:
    @Dutch Boy

    US/British neutrality would have led to some interesting consequences, depending on when it would have been exercised. This discussion will assume that Suvorov’s assertions are correct. If you disagree, please at least look at Viktor Suvorov’s address to the US Naval Academy (see youtube, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLc53JhyFcU and others)

    Prior to the partition of Poland:
    Germany does not annex Poland, but does make it a neutral buffer state. Germany becomes dominant industrial power in Europe (as it is now). USSR does not invade Europe, fails as the arms produced by the USSR’s wartime economy (see Suvorov, _The Chief Culprit_) cannot be used. British Empire is probably not shared with Germany, but does fail as UK economy is displaced by German and US production and UK social revolution destroys UK aristocracy and manufacturing. We get something like the modern world.

    After the partition of Poland:
    After France falls, either (a) Germany attacks USSR first (actual history) or (b) USSR attacks Germany first (a three week advance in the USSR’s planned invasion date in our history would have made (b) true (see Suvorov, above).
    In either (a) or (b), the USSR advances to the English Channel.
    In case (a) the USSR is exhausted, the more so as attrition would have been far worse if German forces had not been diverted to the Allied front in Western Europe. the US controls all of Korea, and the KMT quite likely wins in China.
    In case (b), USSR casualties are minimal. It is unclear what Stalin planned should his invasion have succeeded as was planned — in practice, Western Europe would probably have been treated as Eastern Europe was in our history, and the USSR would have been belicose but not expansionary while absorbing Western Europe. The US wins its war with Japan, but the USSR and the PRC get the East Asia mainland.
    We get the power blocs of Orwell’s _1984_, possibly without EastAsia, about like we have today (with a very weak Eurasia, the EU, and a very strong EastAsia, the PRC, and a dominant Ociania (US), and a Third World dominated by economics rather than military force).

    Difficult to say what happens after that. The West might have avoided its current fall, but probably not. 30 years of mechanized warfare including one long truce (1914-1945) had killed off most of those who wanted to continue fighting, and the surviving bellicose leadership was (in our history and probably the alternate histories above) not replaced by another bellicose leadership. We’d probably have had an interval much like in our history — exhausted low level conflict while it became obvious how much damage and injury the World Wars had inflicted to the industrialized nations, and how little Imperial government (US, UK, USSR, China’s government of either PRC or KMT) could do to repair it.

    And we end up about where we are today. Interesting conclusion to the thought exercise. I’m essentially assuming that the damage done, the casualties, and the effect of damage and casualties on generally received truth among coherent populations,throughout the world is the important part of WW II. Nobody wanted to start another central war. The rest was apparently window dressing.

  92. @anon

    The USSR had their unstoppable T-34 tank

    you keep saying this but i seem to recall reading about Tiger tank commanders knocking out 5-10 T-34s each in various battles. Maybe someone else can chime in but the impression i had was that the Tiger was an equal or slightly superior tank.

    also, looks like some 33,000 T-34 were produced vs only about 2,000 Tiger I and Tiger II so if the T-34 were as great as you claim it wouldn’t have even been close on the Eastern Front.

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
  93. further, according to this page:

    https://militaryhistorynow.com/2015/03/20/tank-clash-the-german-panther-vs-the-soviet-t-34-85/

    apparently 6,000 German Panther tanks were produced between Spring of 1943 and the end of the war, during which time the Soviets produced just under 30,000 T-34s.

    Consequently, an engagement in which a Panther destroyed four or five T-34-85s before being disabled could still be considered, from a strategic point of view, a Soviet victory. Over the course of the war, the Soviets manufactured 57,000 T-34s (both 76mm and 85mm variants). Of these, around 45,000 were destroyed in battle – a loss rate of almost 80 percent.

    so much for “unstoppable”

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @Quebecer
  94. Anon[230] • Disclaimer says:
    @Docta Kang

    apparently 6,000 German Panther tanks were produced between Spring of 1943 and the end of the war, during which time the Soviets produced just under 30,000 T-34s.

    You are neglecting to point out that the Germans still had to produce the Panzer series due to the Panther’s reliability issues and its unsuitability as a ground support weapon. You are also neglecting to point out that the invulnerability of the T-34 forced Germany into multiple tank redesigns which causes production delays and lengthy ramp up times. Why do you think the Germans wasted time, resources and production delays to design the Panther in the first place? Because the T-34 was kicking the snot out of all the other German tanks.

    so much for “unstoppable

    World War II German Field Marshall Ewald Von Kleist described the T-34 as “The finest tank in the world,” Do you have a more knowledgable source?

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    , @Docta Kang
  95. Anon[230] • Disclaimer says:
    @Sulu

    So, in effect, strategic bombing is vital in that it destroys a countries means to make war. Which is what I have been claiming all along. And you have been trying to refute.

    And where is the data to back up this assertion? Again and again and again, Germany increased war material production every year of the war. Your British historian is desperately trying to justify British war crimes like J. M. Spaight attempted in his book Bombing Vindicated.

    • Replies: @Sulu
  96. Quebecer says:
    @Docta Kang

    But then it could be said that the final loss rate for Panthers was 100 %

    • Replies: @Docta Kang
  97. MarkinLA says:
    @Docta Kang

    http://www.militarian.com/threads/one-german-tiger-versus-50-soviet-t-34.9312/

    The T-34, just like the even more inferior Sherman, used their numbers, speed and nimbleness to attack in packs and get tanks to the flanks and the rear where the Tiger was much more vulnerable. One on one there was no match for the Tiger until the end of the war.

    • Replies: @Wielgus
  98. MarkinLA says:
    @Anon

    The “finest” tank has a lot packed into it. The T-34 was faster and more nimble. It was easier to produce, and probably easier to put back into service after it was damaged. It had an adequate gun but nothing special. It was much better than German tanks as a infantry support vehicle in an offensive.

    I read a book about Dr. Porsche. I think he was in charge of building the Maus.

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

    The book indicated he was always in conflict with the German command because they wanted more easier to produce tanks not the exotic designs Porsche wanted.

    • Replies: @anon
  99. @Quebecer

    but the kill ratio appears to have 3-4 to 1 in favor of the Germans even under the worst conditions, sometimes 10 to 1 or higher

  100. @Anon

    Why do you think the Germans wasted time, resources and production delays to design the Panther in the first place? Because the T-34 was kicking the snot out of all the other German tanks.

    since 80% of them were destroyed, who was kicking the snot out of the T-34?

    World War II German Field Marshall Ewald Von Kleist described the T-34 as “The finest tank in the world,” Do you have a more knowledgable source?

    did they crush his testicles to get him to say that?

    btw i dont have a dog in this hunt but you appear to be a soviet fanboy

    • Replies: @Begemot
    , @anon
  101. Wielgus says:
    @anon

    About 15 years ago a British newspaper reacted to a survey showing a high proportion of British schoolchildren thought Britain had fought Russia in two world wars. The newspaper complained about the state of history teaching. My own reaction was that it showed the success of Cold War cultural conditioning. Russia was the enemy, even when it wasn’t.

  102. Begemot says:
    @Docta Kang

    The T-34 died in large numbers. The Tigers were few and the T-34s were many. The war flowed around the Tigers and the war was decided elsewhere and by other means, where the Tigers weren’t.

    Apropos this “discussion” I’m reminded of what a North Vietnamese official told an American military officer who declared that the US never lost a battle in Vietnam. Said the North Vietnamese: “That may be true, but it is also irrelevant.”

    The Soviets ended their war in Berlin, standing over the corpse of Nazi Germany. That is what counted.

    • Replies: @ssorkcir555
  103. Wielgus says:
    @MarkinLA

    Perhaps, but it was slow, broke down easily and was far better suited to a war of defence and slow retreat than to the Blitzkrieg, which was the work of smaller German tanks.
    In 1941 there was at least one case of a solitary Soviet heavy tank, the KV-1, wreaking rather similar havoc on German troops until being knocked out at last. These solitary stands upped the cost for the attackers considerably but ultimately did not stop enemy advances.

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
  104. anon[230] • Disclaimer says:
    @MarkinLA

    The “finest” tank has a lot packed into it. The T-34 was faster and more nimble.

    The T-34 also had a lightweight aluminum block V-12 diesel engine with plenty of torque.

    It was easier to produce, and probably easier to put back into service after it was damaged.

    And since the Soviets were able to stick with the T-34 throughout the war, they were able to ramp up production and keep a massive quantity of common spare parts.

  105. MarkinLA says:
    @Wielgus

    The issue was comparing the T-34 with the Tiger. If you asked a tanker what tank he would rather be in, my guess is that it would be the Tiger.

    • Replies: @Wielgus
  106. anon[230] • Disclaimer says:
    @Docta Kang

    since 80% of them were destroyed, who was kicking the snot out of the T-34?

    Eventually the Germans had anti-tank weapons that could knock out the T-34s, but by then it was too late.

    Imagine the German point of view. You are 20 miles outside Moscow. You have kicked the crap out of the French and British army and the Soviet army as well. You expect to be in Moscow soon. All of a sudden, you encounter the T-34. Your tanks fire at it and their shells just bounce off its armor not even making a dent. The same goes for your anti-tank guns. In desperation, you try to re-aim your anti-aircraft guns against it and you suddenly realize that your entire tank force has become obsolete. You desperately undertake tank re-designs causing massive re-tooling, massive production delays and the new tanks are either ineffective or have quality and design issues. You finally come up with ant-tank guns and tanks that can disable the T-34, but it is too late. The Soviets have not had to do re-designs which allows them to ramp up production and build up a massive spare parts inventory. You are now outnumbered and it is over.

    World War II German Field Marshall Ewald Von Kleist described the T-34 as “The finest tank in the world,” Do you have a more knowledgable source?

    did they crush his testicles to get him to say that?

    No, he said that after encountering the T-34 during the war.

    German General Heinz Guderian wanted to copy the T-34. However, this was impossible because the Germans didn’t have enough steel alloy.

    In 1942, a careworn Adolf Hitler lamented to his military intimates at his Wolf’s Lair headquarters near Rastenburg in East Prussia, “If I had known that there were so many of them (T-34s), I would have had second thoughts about invading!”

    btw i dont have a dog in this hunt but you appear to be a soviet fanboy

    No, I am just tired of all lies that get told about WWII. The French are surrender monkeys, the US and Britain defeated Germany etc.

    • Replies: @Docta Kang
    , @Wielgus
  107. Sulu says:
    @Anon

    You quote me one historian that you present as fact that Allied bombing did nothing but when I present you with another historian, that of course, means nothing.

    Can’t you get it through your thick head that what ever the German War production was with bombing it would have been even more without it? Yes, war production went up. That just speaks to the fact that the Germans are an industrious and efficient people. It is no proof whatsoever that Allied bombing did nothing. If they hadn’t had to endure bombing, production would have gone up that much more. I guess that’s too adult a line of reasoning for you to assimilate.

    I think it was Twain that said, “Never argue with an idiot in public because a bystander might not be able to tell the difference.” I have wasted enough of my time with you.

    I will say I have been discussing WWII with various people for more that 50 years and you are the only person I have ever encountered that tried to make the ridiculous assertion that Allied bombing did nothing to slow the war effort.

    My advise to you would be to go visit a psychiatrist. It is brutally obvious that you are a mental case. You have absolutely no ability to admit any mistake, no matter how small and you continue to defend a totally indefensible viewpoint using completely flawed reasoning. You’re probably a Narcissist or something on the autistic spectrum. Or as the British would say, “A complete nutter.”

    Auf Wiedersehen anon.

    Sulu

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  108. @anon

    You expect to be in Moscow soon. All of a sudden, you encounter the T-34. Your tanks fire at it and their shells just bounce off its armor not even making a dent.

    which tanks had their shells bounce off – the Tiger? or just run of the mill lighter tanks?

    again, someone was knocking out the T-34 in large numbers

    No, I am just tired of all lies that get told about WWII. The French are surrender monkeys, the US and Britain defeated Germany etc.

    yeah i dont say these things either. the Soviets inflicted the majority of the damage on the German military. The French suffered over 5 million casualties in WWI so i dont blame them if they’d had enough already

    • Replies: @anon
  109. SBaker says:
    @Sulu

    Interesting comment. Germany, of course was fighting a war on two fronts and substantial aid from the allies went to Russia. As you made clear, the day and night bombing by UK and US followed the destruction of the Luftwaffe by same. The bombing was unhindered and stopped only in very bad weather. Germany’s other, and probably most important problem rests with Hitler taking complete command of the military. Had Hitler listened to his general’s the outcome on the eastern front would have been very different. As General Patton said with no one listening. Stalin was every bit the same psychopathic cutthroat as was Hitler, maybe worse.

  110. SBaker says:
    @Ahem

    Perhaps you forgot the little Plutonium bomb thing. How many would have gone pop over a few German cities?

  111. from this site:

    https://blog.tiger-tank.com/incombat/soviet-tanks-kursk/

    The T-34

    By far the most common, and most capable, Soviet tank at Kursk was the T-34. The original version was armed with a 76.2mm gun in a two man turret. By 1943 combat experience had shown both were increasingly inadequate, but the upgunned T-34/85 with its three man turret was not yet ready.

    The gun struggled against uparmoured Panzer IVs, and the frontal armour of Tigers and Panthers was essentially impenetrable. Soviet tankers had to brave their formidable firepower in order to get close enough to have any chance of knocking out these tanks. However these new vehicles were in short supply, and the T-34 was still more than capable against most German tanks.

    the T-34/85 with the better gun apparently wasnt produced in larger numbers until 1943.

    keep in mind, acc to wiki these are Germany’s tank production numbers in WWII:

    medium tanks:
    ====================
    Panzer III and IV – 14,500
    Panther – 6,000

    heavy tanks:
    ==========
    Tiger I – 1,347
    Tiger II – 492

    so your 65,000 T-34s were mostly going up against non-Tiger tanks

    good overview here:

    https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/soviet/soviet_T34-85.php

  112. anon[230] • Disclaimer says:
    @Docta Kang

    You expect to be in Moscow soon. All of a sudden, you encounter the T-34. Your tanks fire at it and their shells just bounce off its armor not even making a dent.

    which tanks had their shells bounce off – the Tiger? or just run of the mill lighter tanks?

    The Tiger was not available during the Battle of Moscow. It was the Panzer shells that bounced of the T-34.

    again, someone was knocking out the T-34 in large numbers

    Yes, later the Germans had developed guns and tanks that could take out the T-34. However, by then, it was too late. The Soviets has ramped up their production which gave them numerical superiorities while the Germans were struggling with their new models.

    The French suffered over 5 million casualties in WWI so i dont blame them if they’d had enough already

    What bothers me about this is the British retreated as well and no one calls them cowardly lions. The British were lucky Hitler misjudged Churchill and let them go. Also, nobody ever mentions that the Italians attacked the French as well. How far did the Italians get into French territory? Maybe a hundred yards. My point is no one was able to stop the Wehrmacht until the Soviets at the Battle of Moscow with their T-34s. Singling out the French, who were abandoned by the British is the height of ignorance.

  113. Anonymous[265] • Disclaimer says:
    @Sulu

    You’d probably be interested in the discussion “pilpul for beginners”,
    https://www.unz.com/gatzmon/pilpul-for-beginners/

    The technique you find distressing is fairly widespread, and you’ll encounter it again. The above referenced discussion should be enough for you to avoid the distress next time.

    Good luck.

  114. Wielgus says:
    @MarkinLA

    The T-34 was easier to repair if it broke down. Anyway it is not comparing like with like. The T-34 was a medium tank, the Tiger a heavy one. Different combat roles. Medium tanks tended to be more agile than heavies and could go to more places but had thinner armour. A more direct comparison would be the JS-2 with the Tiger.

  115. Wielgus says:
    @anon

    What bothered the Germans in particular in December 1941 was that their own tanks had stopped moving. The fuel in their tanks was frozen solid and could even be chipped out with a bayonet. The Soviet tanks, especially the T-34, were moving and not just moving, they were attacking.

    • Replies: @anon
    , @Wielgus
  116. anon[230] • Disclaimer says:
    @Wielgus

    What bothered the Germans in particular in December 1941 was that their own tanks had stopped moving. The fuel in their tanks was frozen solid and could even be chipped out with a bayonet. The Soviet tanks, especially the T-34, were moving and not just moving, they were attacking.

    This is hard to believe. The T-34s ran on Diesel where the Germans tanks ran on gasoline. Diesel has a much higher freezing temperature than gasoline. This looks like another attempt to denigrate the Soviet military by saying the only reason the Soviets won was because they were better prepared for winter. The truth is that winter hurt both sides.

    • Replies: @Awash
    , @Orville H. Larson
  117. Awash says:
    @anon

    Not sure about tanks and their fuels. But the winter cannot hurt both sides equally. It is Russian winter, it discriminates!

    • Replies: @Wielgus
  118. Wielgus says:
    @Wielgus

    A German soldier in a documentary I watched actually described trying to deal with frozen fuel in a tank by chipping at it with a bayonet, perhaps 20 miles from Moscow.
    If you want to see it as denigrating the Red Army to point out that the Germans could not keep their tanks running in winter, feel free. The winter hurt both sides, sure. However the Soviets seem to have acted like winter existed, while the Germans thought the colossus in the east would be finished before the first snowfall.
    War is to a large extent about logistics, and so deep in the USSR the Germans could no longer supply their troops, while Soviet supply lines were greatly shortened, although letting the Germans so deep into the country was the result of defeats rather than a master plan.

    • Replies: @anon
  119. Wielgus says:
    @Awash

    Red Army troops in the winter of 1941/2 frequently had quilted tunics and trousers issued, which both gave valuable protection against the cold and allowed troops freedom to move. In contrast Panzer crews that winter were forced to wear greatcoats while in their tanks, which not only gave inadequate warmth but were difficult to wear in the cramped interiors of armoured vehicles. Many Red Army infantry also wore greatcoats, however.
    In subsequent winters the Germans had improved clothing. They also adopted quilted clothing although so as not to resemble Soviet troops these tended to have a criss-cross stitching pattern as opposed to the ribbed stitching on Red Army uniforms.
    Red Army soldiers were not immune from the effects of cold but they were generally better-clothed for it, especially in the first winter.

  120. anon[230] • Disclaimer says:
    @Wielgus

    A German soldier in a documentary I watched actually described trying to deal with frozen fuel in a tank by chipping at it with a bayonet, perhaps 20 miles from Moscow.

    I am not questioning the possibility that fuel froze in the German tanks. What I am questioning is that when fuel froze in the gasoline powered German tanks that the fuel in the diesel powered Soviet T-34 tanks did not freeze as well – especially since diesel has a much higher freezing temperature than gasoline.

    Thus my argument that winter hurt both sides and did not favor Soviet forces.

  121. @anon

    I didn’t know that German tanks were gasoline-fueled–I thought they were Diesel. The Sherman was gasoline-fueled (the British called them “Tommy-cookers” from the way they “brewed up” after being hit. . . .).

    Regarding the T-34: Great fighting tank though it was, it was uncomfortable–even dangerous–to its crew.

    • Replies: @anon
  122. anon[230] • Disclaimer says:
    @Orville H. Larson

    A good summary which blows up accepted myths about great German design, German industry competence and Hitlers negative influence on armaments design is here.

    Why did the Germans not use Diesel engines instead of Petrol engines? (during World War 2) from AskHistorians

    An excerpt follows:

    The decision to stick to gasoline engines was a consequence of Germany’s hasty rearmament and chronic bureaucratic inefficiency. Gasoline engines were initially the logical choice for the German panzer arm because such engines were both cheaper and easier for German industry to produce. Among the designers at the German army procurement office (Heereswaffenamt) the dominant thought was that the range penalties of gasoline would not hinder operations. Few military planners outside of armor specialists like Guderian foresaw the scale of armored operations and the free-ranging distances that they would cover. Fall Gelb illustrated the shortcomings of Germany’s poor logistical tail and the limited range of the panzers. Several times in the French campaign the panzers had to be airdropped fuel to continue operations. Barbarossa made the range problem even more apparent. Despite this, the Heereswaffenamt still favored a conservative approach to tank design. The Tiger was born in this mentality as a breakthrough tank (a design that first started kicking around in 1937) in which performance was more important than fuel economy.

    Hitler, for all his shortcomings, actually had some smart ideas on tank design and directed that the next generation of medium tanks to have diesel engines. German industry though was not up to the task of retooling production lines. Speer ignored Hitler’s directives to expand diesel production as unnecessarily disruptive to existing German industry.

    • Replies: @anon
  123. anon[230] • Disclaimer says:
    @anon

    And here is another excerpt from that same thread that blows of myths about Stalin’s negative influence on the Soviet army:

    Perhaps surprisingly, Stalin’s purges helped the Red Army out, at least with regards to the adaptation of the V-2 diesel engine. The execution of Marshal Tukhachevsky which led to Dmitry Pavlov becoming the new director of armored forces. Pavlov had combat experience in Spain and appreciated the need for a modern tank and knew first-hand about the flammability issues of gasoline engines. This led him to sponsor Mikhail Koshkin and Alexsander Morozov’s efforts to perfect the V-2 diesel engine. Both Koshkin and Morozov were two mid-level engineers who also benefited from the purges and the Stalinist Terror also gave them an incentive to get the design “right”

    • Replies: @ssorkcir555
  124. Eric Margolis makes some salient and salutary points re the Soviet contribution to WW2 victory, but his spiel is overstated on a number of fronts (pahdon the pun):

    Margolis says:
    When American, British and Canadian troops landed at Normandy in June, 1944, they met Germany forces that had been shattered on the Eastern Front and bled white. Under strength German units had almost no gasoline and were low on ammunition, tanks and artillery.

    This is exaggerated. In fact there were several strong and credible German formations and leaders in the Normandy battle, including 21st Panzer, and Panzer Lehr. Yes they suffered shortages but they were not at all the broken down wrecks Margolis portrays. In fact, his argument can be turned around and applied on the Eastern front, where the massive Red Army forces not only vastly outnumbered the Germans but inflicted such casualties that many German formations in the East HAD been “shattered .. and bled white. Under strength .. almost no gasoline and were low on ammunition, tanks and artillery.” Margolis actually describes the sorry state of many German formations on the Russian front with his phrasing, as they cobbled together ad hoc battle groups to stem (hopelessly) the crushing weight of the Big Red Steamroller.

    ——————————————-

    Equally important, the Allies had absolute air superiority over the Western European battlefields. Under strength 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 move, and warships were forced to stay in port.

    But this is exactly the weak state in the East that could well describe many German formations. Things were tough all over. And the Russians gained local air superiority on many sectors using the excelled Sturmovik, ground attack plane, as Luftwaffe aircraft were grounded for lack of spare parts, fuel, machines and yes, pilots. In the last days of the Reich many German airmen without planes and sailors without ships were corralled into the ad hoc battle groups desperately and hopelessly fighting on the ground against the enormous Red Tide.

    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.

    Hardly. Even a moderately strong Luftwaffe would have been bludgeoned to death by vastly superior Allied air forces and resources. This is proved by the combing offensives over the Reich with the coming of long range escorts like the Mustang in 1944. The Germans were defeated over their own homeland skies. How they gonna win in the air over Normandy? In any event, Margolis forgets that it was not merely Russians that cut German airpower, but 3 years of savage Allied bombing over Germany that knocked out key factories supporting the aircraft industry, as well as the oil resources needed to keep planes flying. What would have pushed the Allies into the Channel even with their air superiority is a sufficiently strong panzer force. And the allies knew it. Which is why the British were desperate to keep the bulk of the Panzer forces pinned down around Caen in the east, facilitating the great American breakout in the West.

    By the time the Allies established themselves in France, they outnumbered degraded German forces by 2:1.

    True, but the massive Soviet advantage in manpower, tanks, artillery etc often far outnumbered anything the Germans could put together in the last 2 years of the war.

    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 saved many of our men from death

    Indeed. Margolis is right here.

  125. @anon

    Actually almost every credible history of the EaSTERN FRONT shows that Stalin’s purges did have a deleterious effect. Stalin had to work hard to correct his mistakes and rebuild the leadership. All you list is a coupla engineers who got their chances and the example is limited to V2 engine design. See for example Stalin’s Folly: The Tragic First Ten Days of World War II bu Constantine Pleshakov – 2006.

    • Replies: @anon
  126. @Begemot

    Good point but keep in mind that the Tiger met defeat on several occasions, due to, like you say, superior numbers of enemy tanks. The Soviet JS1 with its 120/122mm gun could and did take out Tigers. The T-34s with their wide tracks and speed could maneuver better off road and given superior number could position themselves for ambushes and flank shots that sometimes drove back or destroyed Tigers. The up-gunned late model T-34s had even better results given superior numbers and/or maneuvering.

  127. anon[230] • Disclaimer says:
    @ssorkcir555

    Actually almost every credible history of the EaSTERN FRONT shows that Stalin’s purges did have a deleterious effect.

    I’m not saying that they didn’t. No one is infallible except supposedly the pope when he sits in the Chair of St Peter. Everyone makes good and bad decisions. However, in the case of the T-34 and its diesel engines, Stalin’s purges were a positive.

    All you list is a coupla engineers who got their chances and the example is limited to V2 engine design.

    I think you underestimate the importance of this decision.

    Diesel is more fuel efficient giving the Soviet tanks greater range and the need for less frequent supplies of fuel.

    Diesel engines provide more torque.

    Diesel is much easier to produce. There are people who go around collecting waste cooking oil from KFC, Popeys etc, filtering and titrating it and using it for fuel in their Diesel trucks. Note that Dr. Diesel’s original engine was designed to run on peanut oil.

    Diesel is much less flammable than gasoline. Diesel will put out a match unless you hold the match for a long time over the diesel. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7soVqyGq4i4. This means that Diesel is much safer to handle and less likely to explode when hit.

    Just imagine if Hitler had been as ruthless as Stalin and gotten the sloped armor diesel engine tanks he wanted and the Soviets had the German gasoline powered poorly armored tanks. The Soviets would have been overrun at the battle of Moscow and the war would have been effectively over.

  128. @Sulu

    Mostly agree… Though if Hitler wasn’t such an ego maniac in the first place he wouldn’t have attacked the Soviets in the first place. My guess is the Allies would have sued for peace in the west. The Germans were governed by a maniac… But they were a very very very potent fighting force.

    • Replies: @anon
  129. anon[230] • Disclaimer says:
    @showmethereal

    Though if Hitler wasn’t such an ego maniac in the first place he wouldn’t have attacked the Soviets in the first place. My guess is the Allies would have sued for peace in the west. The Germans were governed by a maniac…

    Another BS myth of WWII. The British Naval Blockade was quite effective. Germany needed the oil and food of the USSR otherwise Germany would starve and grind to a halt. After Churchill refused to negotiate a truce, Hitler had no choice but to invade the USSR.

    • Replies: @showmethereal
  130. @anon

    “had no choice but to invade the USSR”…. No that’s a myth. He was a mad man. He actually had some competent military leaders…

    • Replies: @anon
  131. @anon

    Could Germany had been defeated with conventional arms if those lend lease supplies had gone to them instead of the Soviets? The Soviet Union, for its entire existence, depended on Western sympathizers to function.

    • Replies: @anon
  132. anon[230] • Disclaimer says:
    @showmethereal

    “had no choice but to invade the USSR”…. No that’s a myth. He was a mad man. He actually had some competent military leaders…

    Albert Speer, and Hitler himself stated that the reason he invaded the USSR was for oil. Are you saying Hitler was lying? Are you saying Germany was self sufficient in oil? Are you saying the British blockade of Germany was ineffective? Do you have any rational arguments at all?

    • Replies: @showmethereal
    , @MarkinLA
  133. anon[230] • Disclaimer says:
    @GazaPlanet

    Could Germany had been defeated with conventional arms if those lend lease supplies had gone to them instead of the Soviets?

    What does this mean????

    The Soviet Union, for its entire existence, depended on Western sympathizers to function.

    Actually, quite the opposite. The Soviet Union, from its very inception was attacked by the west.

    https://www.warhistoryonline.com/world-war-i/the-day-that-the-usa-invaded-russia-and-fought-with-the-red-army-x.html

    • Replies: @GazaPlanet
  134. @anon

    It’s very simple. Suppose that the lend-lease supplies had gone to Germany. Magically. Suspend your disbelief. Like a war game. Suppose Germany had those supplies, and the Soviet Union never received them. Could the Germans have lost the war with those supplies?

    Arguments that lend-lease only contributed a relatively small proportion to Soviet armaments are impossible to take seriously for several reasons. The Soviets were often on the verge of running out of things they needed. Even food. Avoiding shortfalls is essential. A significant proportion of American war output went to the Soviet Union. And there is simply no doubt the United States economy was far more productive than the Soviet Union’s during WWII. You can’t transfer a significant proportion of America’s war production and consider that irrelevant. It is absurd.

    • Replies: @anon
  135. Wielgus says:

    The Germans were never going to get lend-lease supplies from the USA. Their closest approach to it was that they looted much of occupied Europe.

  136. @anon

    Japan bombed Pearl Harbor because the US decided to stop feeding their war machine… If you don’t get that there are multiple steps that lead up to these happening then never mind. Japan needed so much from the US because it chose to invade all of China – which many generals said was a good idea. Germany similarly got to where it got by missteps. It didn’t need to invade the Soviet Union. And it could have taken different steps to avoid it. It was the act of a mad man.
    In any event – I’m glad he did – so the Nazi’s lost.

    • Replies: @anon
  137. anon[230] • Disclaimer says:
    @showmethereal

    Germany similarly got to where it got by missteps. It didn’t need to invade the Soviet Union. And it could have taken different steps to avoid it. It was the act of a mad man.

    What different steps could Germany have taken that didn’t lead to Germany running out of oil and food once the war already started?

    The madmen were Chamberlain and Churchill who decided to sacrifice a half a million Britains and the British Empire over Poland.

  138. anon[230] • Disclaimer says:
    @GazaPlanet

    It’s very simple. Suppose that the lend-lease supplies had gone to Germany. Magically. Suspend your disbelief. Like a war game. Suppose Germany had those supplies, and the Soviet Union never received them. Could the Germans have lost the war with those supplies?

    Of course. Did the Germans lose the battle of Moscow due to insufficient supplies? No. In fact, Germany increased war production every year of the war.

    Arguments that lend-lease only contributed a relatively small proportion to Soviet armaments are impossible to take seriously for several reasons.

    You need to show that any of the lend-lease items had any impact at all on the Soviet battlefield. Do you have any such evidence? Remember, the US counted war materials delivered even if they were lost at sea. Also, even when items were delivered, they sat at ports far away and were difficult to deliver to the battlefield. In addition, much of the arms delivered were of extremely poor quality. For example, less than half the tanks delivered to USSR were operational due to quality issues.

    Your argument is invalid.

  139. theMann says:

    So many commenters getting things so obviously wrong I hardly know where to begin.

    1. Considering US lend lease efforts included: Britain, Holland, France, Canada, Australia, China, The Free Polish forces, and just about every country in South America, the Red Army was lucky they got a damned thing from the USA.
    But what they did get included:

    14,00 Aircraft
    44,00 Jeeps
    375, 000 Trucks, plus tires, oil filters and replacement parts
    8,000 tractors
    2.6 millions tons of petroleum products
    5 million tons of foodstuffs.

    Plus huge amounts of smokeless powder, Rifle Primers, RR equipment and so forth.
    Lend Lease did not include advanced aircraft, especially four engine bombers, and Naval vessels. This was a choice of the American government. But what was sent to the Soviets was a choice of their government, the US sent logistical supply while they concentrated their industry on teeth arms.

    The main US to Russia supply line ran through present day Iran to the Caspian, and averaged 120,000 tons of supplies a month at the height of the war.

    Stalin has stated on the record that the Soviet Union would have lost the war without US Lend/Lease. The importance of US aid is lost on most people, because that aid was overwhelmingly not military arms, but infrastructure/transport/food and medical aid. Note: soldiers win battles, Logistics win wars.

    2. The ultimate assessment of Allied bombing is impossible to make. One obvious negative was the Effect on German Resolve – the indiscriminate destruction of Germany greatly strengthened German Soldiers to fight on, no matter what. One extremely inobvious effect was the demand German civilians had for anti-aircraft defenses of their homes and cities, even though the German High Command KNEW that the amount of guns, gun crews, and shells expended to bring one Allied bomber down was cost-ineffective. One thing for sure, the tens of thousands AA guns, trained crews, and millions of shells expended punching holes in the air over Germany could have been used elsewhere the day Operation Bagration was launched.

    3. The USA had over 3.5 million recruits go into the Navy during WW II, almost everyone of whom needed a high degree of specialized training. The amount of material needed to build several thousand Naval vessels, oh, AND several thousand MM vessels, isn’t just measured in steel, copper and other raw inputs, but also the massive amount of precisely machined parts and advanced electrical equipment. One battleship with its 3500 man complement is at least the equivalent of an entire armored brigade in terms of materiel and training. Objectively speaking, far harder to produce as well. And the US war machine did this while supplying numerous Allies.

    4. The USA, Britain, Japan, and Germany spent most of WW II fighting on multiple fronts, straining logistics to the limit, Russia spent the entire war fighting on only one Front at a time, with their entire Army supplied on a continuous short front, compared to every other combatant.

    5. Frankly, I remain extremely unimpressed with the Red Army’s performance against the Wehrmacht. Fighting a defensive war on their own terrain, they took something like 7 times as many casualties as the Wehrmacht/SS/German Ally armies.

    In all fairness, I am extremely impressed with the Red Army destruction of the Kwantung Army in Manchuria. That operation was both Strategically and Tactically brilliant and backed by first rate logistics. I conclude that everybody does better with thorough preparation.

    For WW II as a whole, there was only one major Assistor Power for the Allied side in the conflict, and a whole lot of Assistee powers. In any case, the only two countries whose soldiers truly impressed as fighting machines were Germany and Finland, good thing for the rest of us they were so heavily outnumbered. (Add a nod to the US Navy, which did, on the whole, amazing things, and technically weren’t soldiers.)

    • Replies: @anon
    , @Orville H. Larson
    , @Sulu
  140. anon[230] • Disclaimer says:
    @theMann

    Stalin has stated on the record that the Soviet Union would have lost the war without US Lend/Lease.

    Do you have any Soviet source, other than Khrushchev after he was disgraced, that Stalin actually said this?

    One thing for sure, the tens of thousands AA guns, trained crews, and millions of shells expended punching holes in the air over Germany could have been used elsewhere the day Operation Bagration was launched.

    The outcome of the war was already determined by then. How many AA guns did Germany have protecting Dresden when the Allies firebombed it to the ground?

    Frankly, I remain extremely unimpressed with the Red Army’s performance against the Wehrmacht. Fighting a defensive war on their own terrain,

    First of all, the Soviets had only offensive and no defensive military doctrine when the Germans were advancing. It took time for the Soviets to develop a defensive strategy. Second, who did impress you with their performance against Germany? France when they surrendered? Britain when they fled?

    Add a nod to the US Navy, which did, on the whole, amazing things, and technically weren’t soldiers.

    The US marines, who are part of the Navy may be disappointed to hear you say that you don’t consider them soldiers – especially on Memorial Day.

  141. MarkinLA says:
    @anon

    The Romanians were his allies and the oil fields at Ploesti provided all his oil. He didn’t need to attack the USSR.

    • Replies: @anon
  142. Idiotic and pointless.

    Stalin and his dutiful people did not liberate Europe. They simply exchanged one brutal overlord for another. The Western Allies had their sins, but none that compared in scale or degree the two totalitarian twins.

    Moreover, the Russian butcher readily admitted the Soviets could not have done what they did without American Lend Lease trucks, aviation fuel and other vital supplies. The massive Red Army would have been immobilized. You can laud the valor of the Russian people if you’d like, and I’d be with you. But don’t laud the evil (yes, rankly evil) Soviet Union for offering its oppression in place of Nazi oppression.

    • Replies: @anon
  143. anon[230] • Disclaimer says:
    @MarkinLA

    The Romanians were his allies and the oil fields at Ploesti provided all his oil. He didn’t need to attack the USSR.

    Not even close. Not even with all the synthetic oil that Germany was producing. Less than 3.8 million barrels of the 38 million barrels Germany imported before the war started came from Romania. The rest was imported from overseas including the US. Obviously Germany’s need for oil increased once the war started. The British blockade was very effective which meant that once Churchill refused a truce, Hitler had to attack the Soviet Union and win before Germany’s oil stockpiles ran out.

  144. anon[230] • Disclaimer says:
    @Brian DeFrancesco

    Stalin and his dutiful people did not liberate Europe. They simply exchanged one brutal overlord for another.

    Yes. Ironic and disgusting, isn’t it? Churchill caused over 30 million deaths over Poland and then gave it to the USSR after the war.

    Moreover, the Russian butcher readily admitted the Soviets could not have done what they did without American Lend Lease trucks, aviation fuel and other vital supplies.

    Do you have any Soviet source, other than Khrushchev after he was disgraced, that Stalin actually said this?

  145. @theMann

    ” . . . (And a nod to the US Navy, which did, on the whole, amazing things, and technically weren’t soldiers.)”

    The USN was a hard-fighting navy from the beginning. To be sure, it suffered initial reverses against the Imperial Japanese Navy, beginning with the Guadalcanal campaign in August 1942.

    Japanese naval doctrine emphasized night fighting and torpedo tactics–and they were damned good at it. The IJN lacked radar, but they had the best night binoculars in the world, and only men with the keenest eyesight served as lookouts. And the Japanese had the best torpedo in the world–the Type 93 (“Long Lance”). Oxygen-fueled, wakeless, long-range, and with a 1,000-pound warhead. The USN’s Mark 14 was bargain basement crap by comparison. It wouldn’t explode when and if it hit the target–which it often didn’t because it ran too deep.

    Savo Island, Naval Battle of Guadalcanal, Tassafaronga, Kula Gulf, Kolombangara et al. showed the IJN at its night-fighting best. But the IJN stopped getting better, while the USN never stopped getting better.

  146. @Wielgus

    Russia was the enemy, whatever blind hatred St. Winston was nurturing at the time.

    But what insightful analysis do you expect from people who depict the pirate’s empire loss of India as a success of nonviolent resistance?

  147. Sulu says:
    @theMann

    The ultimate assessment of Allied bombing is impossible to make.

    It sounds to me like you are trying to walk a tight rope with that one. I assume you are saying that it’s impossible to say with any mathematical certainty how much allied bombing slowed the German war machine. Not that it had no effect at all as anon is trying to claim.

    Sulu

  148. The real issue was why side with Russia against Germany? Let these two fight it out alone. This sensible strategy was ruined by the insane pledge to Poland. The most idiotic thing the British ever did. Without the pledge which turned Hitler west, WW2 would have been just a Russo-German war.

  149. Michel95 says:

    For once, I can’t completely agree with Eric Margolis, for whom I have enormous respect. Measured in the number of combatants and dead, he’s absolutely right that the Soviet Union did the heavy lifting in defeating nazi Germany. But that’s far more the only crucial metric. sending an infantryman to the front requires a gun, some grenades, a uniform and a few weeks of training. The US and Great Britain fought an air war and a sea war, where every man sent into combat required a hugely expensive fighter or bomber airplane or a warship, and huge industrial capacity to make them. And on the German side, huge investments in airplanes and air defenses, warships and coastal defenses.

    Measured in terms of industrial capacity devoted to war, and the industrial capacity Nazi germany had to expend to slow them down,, the USA and UK far out lifted the USSR.

  150. ruralguy says:

    Armchair historians can look back on wars and battles with an intellectual distance, to judge victories, but for many of the soldiers who fought and for many families who incurred loses, it just seemed a senseless waste. One of my uncles died in the war. Another was wounded. My grandparents, uncles, and aunts never pondered or mentioned the war. They only reflected on memories of my uncles. If you talked with affected families on both sides, you’d likely hear the same. It’s never clear who wins wars, neither personally, economically, or with any other perspective.

  151. @Big Daddy

    Zhukov gave a great deal of credit to US supplies. The British and US tanks were not fit for combat but were used for training. There were other US supplies that were extremely useful particularly trucks. I remember other references to radio communications between ground attack planes and those directing them on the ground. The Western armed forces after D-day also drew a third of the remaining German Army strength to that front and their fighter planes drew enough German planes to give the USSR air superiority.

    Of course, it was mainly due to the Soviet Union that 3,000 Axis soldiers died per day on the Eastern Front from the initial invasion up to the end of the war. That cost the Soviet Union 4,500 soldiers a day. How Germany maintained that kill ratio of 3 to 2 against the USA, UK and France on the Western Front, I can’t understand. An outnumbered, mainly marching German Army with horse-drawn supplies and little air cover doesn’t seem much of a threat, yet it obviously was. The Germans had better tanks but they were so heavily outnumbered and short of fuel. Horses can’t pull tanks. Well trained, veteran troops and good artillery? Efficient use of self-propelled guns? Better officers? More motivated troops? It all seems so insufficient against the Allied hordes.

    The third of German strength to the West is based on the estimates of the Western Allies often repeated in the sixties but, if it was an over-estimate, the performance of the Germans on that front becomes even more extraordinary, surely too extraordinary to be true. [email protected]

    • Replies: @Glinka
    , @foolisholdman
  152. @Anonymous

    Hitler did not delay the development. He was told by the designers it could be used as a fighter bomber, which was wrong, but it still came out of the assembly as a fighter as soon as it was ready.

    The reason he wanted a fighter bomber was because Germany was in no position to match the air forces of the enemy, but with the speed of a jet fighter it could be used as tactical bombing support despite being vastly outnumbered. The Me-262 was generally too fast to be used as an effective fighter plane against slower machines.

  153. anon[606] • Disclaimer says:
    @Sulu

    The Normandy bombing killed tenth of thousands of French civilians in their sleep. These bombings served no purposed whatsoever, as was well known beforehand. Add many times as much wounded, displaced and other victims of what some refer to as a war crime.

    It was one of the first instances of mass civilians slaughter via aerial bombing. Fore some reason, an occupied, demilitarized country, supposedly in the same camp, was used for the experiment.

    I put this in the same book as the Pearl Harbor rehearsal, when the brits sunk the disarmed French navy, killing 2000 in one of the most horrific instances of friendly fire in history.

    With friends like the anglo-american, who needs ennemies.

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
  154. sheepdog says:

    You are either delusional, drunk, high, stupid or a combination of all four.
    Read the history from a 60 year old book, written before progressive revisionism.

  155. MarkinLA says:
    @anon

    The French had the option of turning their navy over to the British and the admiral in charge refused. The French were no longer their allies. The only thing standing in the way between Britain and a possible German invasion was the Royal Air Force and the Royal Navy. Britain was not going to allow Hitler to consolidate the French, Italian, Dutch, and German navies into a force capable of supporting an amphibious landing.

    They also destroyed the Italian navy while it was anchored.

  156. Glinka says:
    @Dutch Boy

    Remember Finland was an axis ally of Hitler during his attack of the SU. The Finns were especially useful during the siege of Leningrad. A siege that caused the death of at least one million soviet civilians. And Finland was supposedly a parliamentary democracy.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    , @anonymous1963
  157. Glinka says:
    @Donald A Thomson

    The SU had defeated the axis powers at Stalingrad and Kursk before appreciable amounts of allied equipment reached the Soviets. In otherwords, the Wehrmacht was already im retreat when large amounts of allied supplies arrived. These supplies were useful for the Soviets to push back the Wehrmacht into central and Eastern Europe…and eventually into Germany itself.

    The Soviets possessed top of the line tanks, planes, artillery…remember the T-34 tank, the Yak fighters and Kyusha rockets

  158. @anon

    Ignorance is too much for some people to shallow up bot for this scholar. 11,000 vehicles were not provided but more like 500,000, more than the Russians produced. In fact so many vehicles were provided to the Reds for years the terms Wiilis and Studebaker were Russian terms for jeep and truck. With this mechanization the Russian’s would have been able to build their tank armies which were the heart of their ability to encircle the Germans. The 13,000 locomotives also allowed Russia to supply its troops.

    The Russian Army was clothed and fed by its allies. Its aces prefer Western aircraft because of the options like radios and gunsights rather than crosses painted on windshields. Entire Russian Tanks brigades were equipped with Shermans in 1944 and 1945 because of their superior performance and reliability.

    Yes the Russians were vital to the victory but had the West not absorbed the entire attention of the German electronic industry, its navy, 40% of its army and 65% of its air force we all know what would have happened to the Russians. The Germans devoted a million troops to air defense and repair in 1944, equal to two army groups. One wonders what the Russians would have done if these troops were available on the Eastern Front not to mention the 60 divisions ties down facing England. This doesn’t even count the 30 German divisions in Italy nor the 20 odd German divisions in the Blaknas.

    Yeah the Russians won the war.

  159. @LondonBob

    Sir: You are sadly misinformed. The British may have defeated the Germans in the Battle of Britain but they did not break the LW. In fact the statistical chances of an American bomber crew completing 30 missions in 1943 was zero, a pretty impressive performance for a broken air force were facing an incredibly more formidable foe as the Americans. At Scweinfurt and Regensburg the LW defeated the American AF causing it to suspend operations for two months, again it does challenge your assertions.

    The Germany Navy never sought to gain control of the seas from the British to assert such a thing is baloney. It sought to deny the sealanes to the British and came within a hair of doing so. As Churchill himself admitted the only thing that caused him to worry was the sub war and it was not defeated till the summer of 1943.

    Yes the Italians were defeated but their contribution can be sumed up as Churchill said, its only fair that they are Germany’s allies this time, we had them in the last war.” A sentiment that clearly does not reflect well on Italy’s military contributions as an ally as compared to say the Finns or Japanese.

    Finally the German army was defeated in the West. By 1944 the German Army was a shadow of its former self reduced to filling ts ranks with Volksdeutsch, Poles, Russians, other exoctic POWs and volunteers. Its equipment was a mix of everything it could obtain including war booty because in a war of attrition Germany could not meet the industrial strength of the USA, the British Empire and Russia. Even so its army held the West in a stalemate for six weeks and might have done better had it not been for Hitler.

    The loss of these troops signalled the end of Germany and everyone knew it except Hitler.

  160. They defeated Nazi Germany and saved many of our men from death.

    You just made the (valid) point that US involvement in Europe was unnecessary and optional. In that case, we’d have saved many more of our men from death had Charles Lindbergh been in the White House.

    The Eastern Front was Гавно vs. Scheiße.

  161. @Glinka

    And Finland was supposedly a parliamentary democracy.

    With a long history of beefs with their imperialist eastern neighbor. Who can blame them for joining with Germany? The mustached poofter was still far behind Stalin and Lenin in the mass murder tables. Especially in 1940.

  162. If not for the manufacturing output of the American industrial base, Germany would have won.

    Hitler’s mistake was that he wasn’t vicious enough and racist enough. He could have wiped out the British at Dunkirk and deliberately did not do so. He declared war on the United States out of loyalty to his agreement with Japan, which, as I remember, was white neither then or now.(Without that declaration the America Firsters might have kept the US out long enough to have made the difference.) And he failed to roll into Red Square, shoot Stalin down as a rabid dog, and slice the throat of Lazar Kaganovich. Instead he got caught up in the quagmire of Stalingrad.

    He also failed to pick up on the Allies’ having compromised all the German naval ciphers which led to th U-boat service becoming a death trap, and he failed to use the Me-262 to anything like its full potential. They also had the Junkers Jumo opposed piston diesel engine which could be turbocharged effectively with the hot section materials they had to work with and produce an aircraft capable of flying above Allied fighter cover, while burning kerosene or diesel oil.

    They poured massive resources into ridiculous things like the Komet rockst fighter, and they were unable to develop the radar proximity fuze, which would when combined with the superior 88mm antiaircraft gun would have made Allied bombing campaigns largely ineffective.

    Hitler was a fool in many ways, but that the Germans could have in essense beat the rest of the planet single handedly had better decisions been made still says a great deal.

  163. @MarkinLA

    The Germans had a taste for Wunderwaffen whereas the US was good at cranking out huge numbers of serviceable but decidedly unoptimized materiel. They made twin engine aircraft with slow to feather electric propellers while putting the hydraulic props on single or four engine aircraft.

    The P-38 Lightning, for example, was a good basic aircraft as long as you didn’t lose either engine on takeoff, which usually resulted in the crash of the aircraft and death of the pilot. The vaunted B-17 could have been aerodynamically modified to give it another 20 to 30 knots on the same power, which would have provided a better combat radius. And the WWII pilot training syllabus was a bloodbath, combining aircraft designed with poor handling (try getting insured today to fly any WWII primary or basic trainer without way more hours than most WWII pilots logged in their careers!) and a a basic lack of understanding of how airplanes actually flew and the “superman pilot mentality”. Much of this changed when after Korea airplanes got too expensive to crash in training any more.

    • Replies: @RichardTaylor
  164. @Dutch Boy

    In occupied France food was scarce and tended to be dull. Groceries sold little cardboard packs containing various synthetic flavours in six small glass phials.

    The Germans constructed a railway that ran all along the coast facing Britain. The mechanics who maintained this railway were mostly French. The resistance bought packs of flavours and substituted the phials with phials of aqua regia, (a mixture of concentrated sulphuric acid and concentrated nitric acid). These they gave to the mechanics maintaining the coastal railway. The mechanics broke one phial into one of the grease cups on the axles of many of the railway trucks. Came D-Day and none of the trains was able to move.

  165. @Donald A Thomson

    The British and US tanks were not fit for combat but were used for training.

    This chimes with what I was told by a Col. West I met in the course of my work, who had taken part in the D-Day landings as a tank man. He said that they had been fed the “most awful lying propaganda about how inferior German tanks were compared to British and American ones”. “What a surprise we got when we actually met them head on!” “You could shoot at them and hit them and the shells bounced off!” “You could only damage them when they were running away, the fuel tank was in the rear and it was not as well armoured as the rest of it, but the problem was, they did not usually run away.” “When we got hit that was that, they had better ammo and we had armour that did not keep their shells out.”

  166. @donvonburg

    Great writing, really appreciate it. You need your own blog.

  167. @Glinka

    You do understand that just one year before the USSR launched an unprovoked attack on Finland and annexed 12% of her territory right?

  168. So this is what we’re doing now? We’re gonna jerk off the Soviet Union? No. The Soviets “won” because of western aid to build weapons, tanks, guns etc.

    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.

    Am I supposed to feel joyous about this? The idea that the Soviet Union “defeated” the National Socialists SO THEY (and Communism as a whole) could “be alive and well” TODAY is a much less comforting thought, as it is reality, than National Socialist Germany being alive and well today. It’s funny how even in a conflict between two totalitarian dictatorships, the principle being that totalitarianism is a bad thing, the victory of one dictatorship over the other is supposed to somehow signify “victory” for anything other than totalitarian dictatorship.

    This is why I have to laugh at all the Germanophobic goblins who love to suck down Soviet semen, presumably, while they offer their wives and daughters to be raped by the Red Army.

    One could come to the totally opposite conclusion. That if the National Socialists had not tried to wipe the Communist filth of the face of the earth, we might be ruled by Communists and the Soviet Union “might be alive and well today”. This, obviously, taking place in an alternative reality where Germany had triumphed over the Russia. Would this not be JUST AS valid as it is when spouted by someone like “Margolis” or the countless others who fawn over the Soviets? To claim this would not be valid, is to make some kind of stand, decided by some criteria, as to which dictatorship is preferable to the other in terms of it’s content, thus which one should really have won. There seems to be no side in which a person can be happy both of them are dead and gone. The west has this tendency to allot a special place for Soviet Communists, ho is to say WHICH dictatorship is preferable and should thus have more right than any other to “still exist today”? Moreover, WHY is the default position is that it’s the Soviets and NOT the National Socialists? There’s no reason, unless said person literally believes that Jewish lives matter more than the lives of gentiles, in which the Holocaust is all the reason they need. Yet, the Holocaust, even if you accept the orthodox narrative wouldn’t have occured whatsoever unless under certain circumstances which were met during the Second World War. If one or two things had been entirely different, the narrative goes, the Holocaust might not have occurred at all. The same cannot be said for Soviet collectivisation.

  169. Anonymous[959] • Disclaimer says:

    Good article , totally ruined by the obligatory blaming of evil Stalin.
    Stalin was a great statesman, essential to Russian victory over the nazies.
    Without his industrialisation, without his order 227, and without his leadership, the Germans would most likely win.
    Stalin saved the whole Eastern Europe from decimation and slavery by the nazi Germans.

    Holodomor was caused by draught, kulaks, and West demanding to trade with Soviets only for Soviet grain.
    Your sources on gulags are liars like Khrushchev and Solzenicin.
    Americans should care more about the victims of the Great Depression and of your current gulag

  170. @Sulu

    It’s not Marxism they’ll need to ‘get over’. It’s a new Dark Age. The last took a thousand years to overcome. Many, like ruralguy, seem to think we are menaced by a resurgent left wing, but it’s deeper, more pervasive than that. Look at our new-minted revolutionaries: with their chanting, espousal of tenets contrary to reason and a style of argumentation that relies solely on shouting down the opposition. Whatever else one may say about the 19th Century Communards and Anarchists, they were well armed with compelling arguments and stood on a firm intellectual base, likewise their 20th Century heirs in the Communist International. But the pygmies assembling today in the streets are actually uncivilized. Just look at them: how many are obese, covered in tattoos, with no sartorial judgment, incapable even of cutting or combing their hair! Dancing about and waving ill-constructed totems or childish signs, they are the merest savages. The conclusion is ineluctable, our future appears increasingly dark — and it’s anybody’s guess how long it will be before a new dawn comes.

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.