This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Guest Post: Russia’s World War II Experience Needs To Be Better Understood
Submitted by Brad Shaeffer
Russia’s World War II Experience Needs To Be Better Understood
I’m not sure what prompted me to consider this subject on my commute this morning, but it probably has to do with my reflecting on Memorial Day just passed. That and the fact that crude oil continues to trade around $100/bbl and the implications for energy prices going forward—for the consumer and the countries who supply them. One of those countries is Russia which produces 12% of the world’s oil. As one whose company sometimes does business with Russian firms, I’ve found it helpful to understand their mind-set as I do any foreign customer whose worldview originates from a different vantage point than my own. And one thing I have learned is that the Russian historical narrative of World War II is far different than ours. I must say that when it comes to what they once referred to as “The Great Patriotic War” their memories are more accurate in my view.
It has been an article of faith among many Americans, young and old, that the United States “won” World War II. And clearly our contribution in men and materiel was indispensable to the Allied victory…especially in the Pacific of course. But because of Cold War tensions immediately following the end of the conflict, Americans were never really given an accurate portrayal of how the victory in Europe against Nazi Germany went down. This is by no means a shot at our brave veterans who fought and suffered and left behind their heroic comrades in the deserts of Africa, the mountains of Italy, the fields of France, the canals of Holland, or the snows of the Ardennes. But the simple fact is that eight out of ten Wehrmacht personnel were killed by the Red Army. And the Russians in turn suffered an astounding 23 million dead in just four years repelling the German invaders who launched what would result in, by far, the largest and bloodiest land battles in human history. That is just under 14% of their total population. Every family in that country was impacted by the war in some way. It is the equivalent of us suffering an unexpected invasion by a massive army hell bent on our annihilation and being forced to fight in a war in which almost 42 million Americans lose their lives. When you consider the national trauma we felt at the murder of 3,000 of our fellow citizens on 9/11, the psychological impact of our absorbing such a blow as did Russia in the 1940s would be unimaginable.
The costliest battle the US fought in the war, the Battle of the Bulge, resulted in 90,000 American casualties (19,000 KIA) in fighting throughout the winter of 1944-45. This is a noble and ghastly sacrifice no doubt. However, in just the first twenty days of “Operation Barbarossa,” the German code-word for the 3.9 million man, 3,600 tank, 2,900 aircraft blitzkrieg across 600 miles of the Russian frontier launched on June 22, 1941, the Red Army suffered over two million killed…that is 100,000 deaths every day for just the first three weeks of the war.
The ferocity and cold blooded brutality of the Ostheer (Germany’s Eastern Front army) attack on Russia was unlike anything our armed forces would ever face on a mass scale, save perhaps the American experience against the vicious Japanese onslaught in the Philippines. The general order passed down just prior to the invasion by the German High Command Chief of Staff, General Halder, echoing the words of Hitler at a pre-invasion meeting of some 200 senior officers, best sums up the tone of the war in the East. “We must forget the concept of comradeship between soldiers…This is a war of annihilation. The war will be very different than that in the West. In the East, harshness today means lenience in the future. Commanders must make the sacrifice of overcoming their personal scruples.” [My emphasis added].
By 1945 when their soldiers stood upon a conquered pile of smoking rubble and corpses that was once the Nazi capital of Berlin – the taking of which would cost the Russians yet another 300,000 lives – the Soviet Union could count their dead at over fifty-five times those of their US allies. In that time the Red Army had pushed the Ostheerback 1,300 miles from the Volga River and engaged and destroyed over 600 German divisions as compared to 175 on the Western Front…formations that Hitler could not commit to repel the Western Allies in Normandy. One wonders how the war in Europe would have played out had the Soviet-German Non-aggression Pact remained in place. But with two of the world’s most brutal and megalomaniacal dictators with two of the world’s most powerful armies facing each other, the war in the East was a fait accompli—which though a catastrophe for both nations, was a blessing to the American, British, and Canadian troops who landed against a much weaker opponent on D-Day than would have otherwise been the case.
It is an old axiom that the war in Europe was won with British brains, American brawn, and Russian blood. A lot of Russian blood. The names of Smolensk, Minks, Kiev, Leningrad, Stalingrad, Kursk, Sevastopol. and a thousand other lesser known locales are written in the blood of their people. This very real history to them is what drove what we in the U.S. often viewed during the Cold War as manic Soviet paranoia. Unfortunately it was Stalin’s cynical excuse for drawing his iron curtain around the satellite states of the Warsaw Pact to provide a buffer should any nation cast its coveting eyes towards Russia again.
By no means am I excusing communist barbarism and have written many times about my unwavering conviction that communism was the single worst evil of the 20th Century. Indeed Josef Stalin needs to be remembered in our schools and universities for what he was: the greatest mass murderer in human history. But one can both put Soviet communism in its proper place while at the same time honor the very real heroism and sacrifice of the millions of Russians who fought not for the Georgian butcher, but to repel the brutal invaders from their motherland. To deny this history is to place one at a disadvantage when dealing with those with whom we must share this world. Especially in this age of globalization and ever growing energy inter-dependence.
As is the case throughout the Allied world, the Russian veterans of the war are dying off at an accelerated rate. Still, the scars left by that conflict remain and indeed are much deeper to that nation than we can possibly fathom. Given the immensity of their suffering and their over-weighted responsibility for crushing Hitler and his legions at the cost of tens of millions of their own citizens, it is understandable that the Russians may still be wary of certain segments of the West that brought them so much misery in the past.
»
- 16949 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
http://Here is the book Icebreaker in its entirety:
www.jrbooksonline.com/PDF_Books/icebreaker.pdf
http://thefinalphaseforum.invisionzone.com/index.php?showtopic=44
great piece of revisionist propaganda...this Suvorov looks like a weasel and is not the real count Suvorov, his namesake who fought ...and never lost a battle...
For a more un-biast view of history read here
Institute for Historical Review - http://www.ihr.org/
"The IHR is the only history research and publishing center in America that boldly and conscientiously identifies the enemies of freedom and peace, educating the thoughtful public with solidly referenced books, articles, and video and audio recordings."
No doubt that Russias' people and land swallowed up a good part of the German army at great cost to the Russians. 2 million Russian soldiers in 4 months trying to halt the German Blitzkrieg until the winter set in.
The real question to me is what does Russia do now? If I were them I would be afraid of China who has been breeding a great many people and is now flush with money from the west for building weapons and weapon systems.
Why would Russia be afraid of its own ally, Communist China, which is itself a Russian creation and has operated as its junior partner in crime since 1949?
The Chinese field perhaps 400 nuclear weapons. Russia has no less than several tens of thousands.
China has no oil. Russia is the largest producer and exporter of crude oil in the world.
With these two facts exposed, there is no need to go on. Both countries operate according to the Shelepin Plan. Both share the same goal, the destruction of the main enemy of Communism. When this is accomplished by them, if they like they can fight between themselves. Then we will not be here to ask such foolish questions asyou have.
http://thefinalphaseforum.invisionzone.com/index.php?showtopic=44
You aren't aware that the PRC and the USSR had a major falling out after the Korean War? That they almost went to war several times along the Amur River and other places? They were bitter enemies for most of the the last half od the 20th century. The USSR WAS the country the Chinese were building their nuclear deterrent against (initially it was a pride thing. They built it up to forestall Soviet shenanigans.) Precisely BECAUSE China has not enough oil (certainly not NO oil, they are not Japan) and Russia has a glut sitting within reaching distance of China's teeming cities, that Russia should be afraid. They are in termial demographic decline.
And, I don't know if anyone's told you this or not, but Russia is no longer Communist and China long ago abandoned Marxist policy focus on national socialism (small-case letters).
What can I do but chuckle at your response and tell you that everything within it is wrong?
http://thefinalphaseforum.invisionzone.com/index.php?showtopic=44
+1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_is0ipgd6k
Are you delusional? What is wrong? Did they not have a falling out? Were there not war scares along the Amur River? Does China not have oil? (They were net exporters until a few years ago!) Has China not diverged from Marxism (who the hell do you think Deng Xiaoping was?). Did the Soviet Union not collapse? As I type, I'm beginning to realize that you aren't actually a serious poster or someone who has any idea what they're talking about. I apologize for taking you time, Mr. Mumbling Hobo HL Shancken. You almost had me there for a minute. Damn, I still haven't gotten used to this trolling...
So easy to brainwash dupes like you. Oh wait, you don't need to be brainwashed, because you choose to be a retard yourself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino%E2%80%93Soviet_border_conflict
That two communist nations which follow a strategy of deception and carry out a coordinated long-range plan to defeat the United States would seek to give that enemy the impression that they are at odds would not be inconceivable to you if your preconceived notions of how the world works were not ingrained in you by the communists themselves.
Not least as a result of deceptive border clashes which cost no more than several hundred lives, lives which, incidentally, were and are considered to be without souls, "matter in motion," as Lenin said, the Soviets and Chinese were successful in convincing, just a year later, the United States to open up to China as a means of combatting the USSR. This is what is known as a "scissors" strategy.
Now, more than 40 years on, China, which in 1970 was a military threat to virtually no country, has, thanks to the success of this scissors strategy, militarily equipped itself to the maximum extent possible, and has thus fulfilled its obligations which it agreed to when it, along with Communist parties from 80 nations, agreed to by signing onto the Shelepin Plan at the 81 Party Congress held in Moscow in December 1960.
Threat to no country, huh? I think you've got historical amnesia or something. 20 years before that they beat the UN to a standstill at the 38th parallell and in 1970 were arming the North Koreans AND the North Vietnamese during an active hot war in Indo-China. You...don't...remember that?
So all the border tensions were a BIG conspiracy that only you and the attendees of ComIntern plenary sessions half a century ago are privy to. (And maybe some guy with a YouTube channel.Spare me the link) Cool! So why did Nixon and Kissenger et al think that there was a massive Sino-Soviet split that could be used to American advantage in the Cold War and make it the centerpiece of US foreign policy for the decade? Wait, I'll answer it myself...they were in on it too!
"So why did Nixon and Kissenger et al think that there was a massive Sino-Soviet split that could be used to American advantage in the Cold War and make it the centerpiece of US foreign policy for the decade?"
Given that you said this in response to the post in which I very clearly explained the answer to this question, the question is bizarre.
No, I'm still waiting. Let me give you a synopsis of what I readin your post:
Coordinated plan against the US; I was educated by communists; the border clashes we false flag "play dates;" an aphorism by Lenin; the Soviets convinced the US to open to China to fulfill a political strategy that was actually aimed at the Americans; China had no military presence in 1970; now they havemodernized their military to fulfill an obligation to80 Third World countries 50 years ago.
Did I leave anything out? So to be clear, the Soviets tricked Kissenger into getting the most populated country in the world with whom they share a titanic land border with to side with America against them, the Soviets.
Otto von Bismarck had NOTHING on the Soviets! <sarc> If the Soviets were that stupid, I'm surprised they didn't collapse sooner.
I would not be too quick to write off this alleged long-term strategy ... it makes a lot of sense and too many falsifiable predictions have come true since the original publications (see here).
Those who seek to destroy the US were the same ones who initially financed Lenin and Mao and they work to very long (multigenerational) time scales, so this "feinting strategy" is certainly within the realms of possibility. I'm certainly going to look further into it.
However, I don't believe that China will initiate an offensive war against anyone, and I don't believe a Russo-Chinese "communist" domination of the West is the end objective, rather that it is just one more step towards the globalist end-game under the direction of TPTB.
Google Anatoliy Golitsyn, and read New Lies for Old. The book is on the web as a pdf:
http://www.spiritoftruth.org/newlies4old.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatoliy_Golitsyn
Open your mind a little to possibilities. Think of how the Russian state currently operates, who is in charge, how the economy (esp. strategic/commodity part of it) is structured.
Thinking down that path is unthinkable in the West since it means we've been had by our own predictable self-centeredness and outright arrogance. Obviously grand masters at chess would exploit such weaknesses in an opponent.
I would also recommend reading Golitysn's The Perestroika Deception, found at:
http://www.usa-anti-communist.net/Communist_Long_Range_Takeover/
"War to the hilt between communism and capitalism is inevitable. Today, of course, we are not strong enough to attack. Our time will come in 30 to 40 years. To win, we shall need the element of surprise. The bourgeoisie will have to be put to sleep. So we shall begin by launching the most spectacular peace movement on record. There will be electrifying overtures and unheard of concessions. The capitalist countries, stupid and decadent, will rejoice to cooperate in their own destruction. They will leap at another chance to be friends. As soon as their guard is down, we will smash them with our clenched fist." - Dimitri Manuilski, Lenin School for Political Warfare
Many thanks to 'HL Shanken', 'CD' and 'Spirit of Truth' for those links to the works of Suvorov and Golitsyn. They open up a whole new perspective on the events of the last 50 years!!
I have previously said here that many of the current globalist 'end-game' strategies appeared to have been initiated in the US "around 1960", and these writings would indeed confirm a close relationship to the development by the Communist Bloc of a revised long-range strategy in 1958-1960 and the adoption of the Shelepin Plan by 80 countries in 1960.
It explains a LOT (and should place the future actions of Russia and China into a more predictable and comprehensible context).
What I found most interesting is that Brzezinski - one of the main globalist strategists in the US and in Bilderberg/CFR - was highly dismissive of Golitsyn's analysis. First they deny it..........
+2
Chuckle like a man who thinks he is in the promised land and then wakes up in dystopia...go read Aldous Huxley and Orwell; then go read "a moveable feast" by Hemingway to take the bitter taste away!
Beaujolais wine is fine if you have a muse to amuse and light her candle in the wind...
Great discussion - thanks for your thoughts.
A Sino-Russian alliance makes sense when you look at their pasts, their communist leanings, and the geographical advantages of being unified on land and sea.
There is, however, the racial and cultural divide, and Western Russia is more racially and culturally tied to Europe and the west (i.e. - the people in charge).
Without being allied with Europe and or the U.S. against China, Russia would be in immediate danger of the billions of Chinese invading geographically for land, water, oil directly accessible.
An initial Sino-Russian alliance would be beneficial yet sooner or later they would be at each other's throats and I'm sure the Russians can see this (they remember how well the alliance with Germany went and Hitler decided he needed more land for his master race). Southeastern Russia would be valuable land for China - a fight over Kazahkstan perhaps?
Throw in the "Muslim problem" and the waters become muddier.
I just see a big probelm brewing - I see China needing more land for food and water and definitely more oil - and going across the Pacific Ocean to the U.S. or fighting us to get it will be a lot harder than moving into Russia or other adjacent areas.
""It has been an article of faith among many Americans, young and old, that the United States “won” World War II."
They most probably have been brain-washed by that crap of a movie titled "Save Pvt Ryan". Nowadays in our advanced Western societies, culture is what you gain from seeing fiction on TV not what you collect from reading books.
You're mocking "Saving Pvt Ryan," when Yen Cross was up there singing the praises of "Pearl Harbor?" You got your priorities wrong, buddy! Specifically, what didn't you like about that movie. I'm usually quite critical of Hollywood and couldn't find anything substantive to complain about. Good solid plot and characters, light on the jingoism (as war movies go), as historically accurate as Hollywood cares to get. What gives?
double post
The Russians are a war-hardened, nationalist people, and they consider America and the West a laughably arrogant lot who are to be "dealt with" aggressively at the proper time in pursuit of their Real Politik global victory.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vi9p2S4eYzU
Of course, this is all utter madness, but it is what it is and I'm sorry I was born into such collective insanity.
Russians may be hardened, but the majority have no interest in taking over the world nor do they have a sense of collective purpose. They have no faith in a government that has shown a callous indifference to their lives and deaths.
You should talk to more Russians. Sure they want what's good for Russia but world conquest? They don't give a fuck.
Russians don't like a lot of people but that doesn't mean they want them dead. They just want a good material life, money and mistresses (for the men).
Oh and the women want a decent man, good cosmetics, skin care products and Coach/LV purses. ;-)
I have a lot of Russian and Eastern European friends. They are great people. Much like for America and most other nations, the problem is their misleaders. Mix that with nukes and the world is in grave danger.
If you think Russia and China simply forfeited the Cold War and decided world conquest wasn't their strategic objective anymore, then you've drunk the cool-aid IMHO:
http://thespiritoftruth.blogspot.com/2010/03/quick-review-of-history.html
Problem is....almost every Westerner has had more than their lethal drink at this point.
before lets define meaning of word 'VICTORY'
if that means winning war and losing biggest of number of people, yes RUSSIA did.. so is it good ? i'm not sure , read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrrhic_War, same kind of winning
#2
only reason Russians lost so many people is Stalin /Russians by themselves. Stalin purged all decent russian officers before war in 37-38 yy, or put rest of in jail ( Zukov, Rokkosovsky etc were in jail),
#3 another reason is Stalin put all russian armies v.v. close to Russian/Polishborder so there were under direct attack from start of war (jun 22 1941 ), so within 3 month 5 mlns russian soldiers were killed or captured and died because of lack food .
its v..v.v. complex question who won..
alx
If you are willing to expend half a million soldiers on the drive to berlin then victory is guaranteed, but this brings up another part of the russian psyche that ultimately lead to their ruin and current weakness.
The russian people know the state does not care about them and will allow millions of their own citizens to die for an abstract objective such as getting to berlin the fastest or to achieve internal power consolidation. This is why the common russian has no loyalty, does not trust the government and has to be forced at gunpoint to fight. The.government cares nothing about them about the people and the people have great national malaise and cynicism.
A pyrrhic victory in berlin indeed.
You really think any government gives two shits about their citizens? How many soldiers lives did we throw away in Vietnam or any of our other pointless wars? If you think they care about you then you're nuts.
We dont expend them for cannonfodder with the zeal of a russian general. Minimizing casualties is a greater priority of american military thinking.
The state doesn't care about the Russian people? - tell that to the US war veterans lining the streets begging for money.
You're a real idiot - have you considered that the Russian people might have actually been quite happy to commit themselves to their nations cause because they were patriots simply because at that time they actually believed Communism was going to succeed and they were all working towards a common goal?
The Russian army had a vast number of volunteers - more citizens volunteered for the army after the revolution than in all the time of the Czar. The people worked for their country, they fought for their country and unlike individualist Westerners - they all worked towards the common good - without requiring additional incentive.
...but simply supposing they were all forced into such patriotism is classic American mentality - brought on by Government propoganda about Communism. You caould never believe that maybe they were the good guys and the American industrialists - were the bad guys.
....and now you can see clearly what the consequences of siding with industrialists are....jobless, homeless and recoveryless depression.
All that russian zeal and national spirit is past tense.
Our veterans begging on the streets? Few and far between.
If you want to see mean street try russia where active duty troops have been fed dogfood. Their veterans were in far worse shape after afghanistan. Most of those who couldnt.cope died homeless, alone and drunk. Their government did nothing at all. Our veteran benefits cant possibly be compared to that.
You need some facts before you start spouting your nonsense on here. Most people in the Societ Union got shelter, most of them got food - even of they had to queue for it. bread, milk and other neccessities were subsidised by the state so the claim of mass hunger and poverty in the USSR was simply US propaganda. Don't forget you got your information from the same Government who engaged in McArthyism - where no evidence was required to accuse people of being traitors - a 'red terror' of western making wiht incarceration replacing murder (which I agree is a step up the civilised ladder)
There were many more US VeTs in the last 50 years than Russian vets - simply because the US has fought more wars.
...and I'd like to know what our government is doing for vets - the last time I checked they weren't even preventing the illegal reposession of the houses of the poor buggers in Iraq and Afghanistan. At least the Soviet army had a state provided house to return to!
True.
If you define 'who won' by who caused the most German casualties, then yes the Soviets won.
If you define 'who won' by who was left standing with the most resources, most industry still intact and the most influence globally five years after the conclusion of that horrible war, then plainly the US won.
The russians clearly bore the brunt of the war, but the hundreds of thousands of tons of food and war material donated by the usa helped them.
I have never seen historical accounts beyond high school fail to acknowledge the tremendous effort of the russians.
Undoubtedly, Zhukov actually acknowledged this very clearly:
For whatever reason, but mostly because of the Cold War and propaganda war, both sides claimed the opposite: US that without lend-lease USSR wouldn't stand a chance, USSR that it played only a marginal role in the victory.
Great post, Tyler. This is why I love ZeroHedge. Not only economics, but also international politics and history. Good job :)
I have never cheated on a w``````````````````````````````````````o`man
You clowns amaze me. I have had more than you could ever wish for. I'm busy
SEE:
War of the Century
When Hitler Fought Stalin
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVo-2jfeoMM
A most excellent BBC documentary
SYNOPSIS (from Netflix): "More than 30 million people were killed in the conflict in Eastern Europe during World War II; the battle between Nazism and Stalinism is examined in this four-part series filmed in Germany, Hungary, Poland, Russia, the Ukraine and Belorussia. Leading historians, eyewitness accounts and rare film archives help chronicle the battle for Moscow, from Hitler's early plans to the Red Army's 1942 victory and the final, brutal days of the conflict."
"unwavering conviction that communism was the single worst evil of the 20th Century"
..and yet Capitalism has killed more, starved more and has been the root cause of vastly greater number of wars.
...but of course nobody talks about that - because we're still using Capitalism and people don't like to shit on their own doorstep and point out how corrupted the current system is or the damage it does.
In the Soviet union there were accusations of faceless beaurocrats ruining lives - now we have faceless private oligarths who have even less accountability - seems like a worse position.
As for the brutality - well things are a lot more subtle these days. In the USSR Stalin took out his objectors and shot them - whereas now we simply incarerate them on trumped up charges (bradley, Assange etc.) or try to discredit them through the biased MSM. Stalin used to murder his population surpluses - now we simply allow the market to raise living standards so those people quietly die on the street, starving and cold.
It's interesting to compare the 'most brutal regime in the 20th century' against what we have today. I know there was some poverty in the USSR, there were hard times for all - but they never had 40 Million people (1 in 5) people on foodstamps - despite having to pay for their part in the war and suffering great economic strife after 1945.
...and another interetsing comparison is the Russian superpower declined as it fought an unwinnable war in Afghanistan - which eventually led it to bankruptcy. The consequences of which led to the world being flooded with ex-soviet arms as the great russian selloff occurred - leading to the rise of terrorism and small state brutality.
Now what are the chances of history repeating itself? - it's the same play, only the characters are changing. Too bad that people are so hung up on 'isms' that they cannot see the similarities....oh and their lack of knowledge which betrays them to think that Stalinism is anything like Marxist Communism.
Russian and chinese communists never had millions on food stamps, prefering to allow millions to starve to death instead, with history sadly repeating itself in the last hardcore totalitarian state in asia run by a clown in a jumpsuit.
You try running a country when the rest of the world decides that they don't want to trade with you. Sanctions were used against any country which turned to Marxism - and if they were small enough then the west would invade and do some murdering of their own (Vietnam, Korea, Cambodia etc.)
You see most people forget the very real fact that the west feared communism - and not for the reasons they gave you. They did everything they could to prevent it's development - which was not always reciprical.
There was a conflict - true Marxists believe only world communism can be successful - and the west knew that 'all men having equal' wouldn't fit into their design of "we the rich run things, the poor can fuck off" - which is coincidently why we're in such shit today.
Of course the west painted themselves as the good guys - whereas history seems to show that they were more concerned with destroying communism than the Russian were intent on destroying capitalism. If that doesn't set alarm bells ringing then you shoudl watch out.....whoops! - it's too late - capitalism has developed into fascism and you were too busy thinking you were on the 'right' side.
As you're a troll - you can't see the damage Capitalism has done because your capitalist owned news doesn't want to report it. Instead it just reports how bad communism is, I have met many people from the soviet union and the eastern bloc - and while they do not call for it's return - they don't think the system was as bad as it's portrayed in the west.
I think you've been suckered - the classic "come this way because that way is dangerous" - and now you're on a path to fascism - and best of all we volunteered because we confused 'capitalism' with 'freedom' and 'rights' with 'priviliges'
...but you're a troll - what do you know?
Nikita Kruschev, Soviet Premier during the 50s-60s and at the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis, the event that was, by way of analogy, the "Stalingrad of the Cold War," was also the People's Commisar of Stalingrad, and thus led the Russians through the decisive battle of the Great Patriotic War. He was given that assignment by Stalin with the expectation he would fail and would then be executed.
Those are no small responsibilities to have undertaken. Yet, in the West, Kruschev is largely remembered as a baffoon and treated lightly.
History may require he be treated differently.
Whether or not it is taught in Western schools, the most significant, and tide-turning, battles during WWII were fought between Russia and Germany.
Here's a top-shelf documentary series on the horrific eastern front: http://www.planbeconomics.com/2010/12/18/ghosts-of-the-ostfront-wwii-his...
Anyone interested in this subject (which i have studied quite a bit) should read:
The Russo-German War 1941-45: http://www.amazon.com/Russo-German-War-1941-45-Albert-Seaton/dp/0891414916
Another good one, those less extensive in scope, is Fighting In Hell: The German Ordeal in the Eastern Front: http://www.amazon.com/Fighting-Hell-German-Ordeal-Eastern/dp/0804116989/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1307532521&sr=1-1
These are military texts, and do not delve into the Rusian national psyche extensively. That said, it is very dificult to find material on the Russian perspectiv which is not wildly propagandized
Why do you think that is? Do Western scholars have a hard time accessing the archives? There seemsto be a real dearth of scholarship out there on this topic from the Russian homefront view. That "national mindset" idea was what piqued my interest for the main article above.
Unfortunately, most accounts written soon after the war were "edited" by Soviet minders. So when you read something about Zhukov, the purges of the officer corps or the early Russian defeats, there is no real analysis of the faults and/or problems faced interally, only praise for the things deemed appropriate for Soviet public consumption.
It is unfortunate, but there is little source material written soon after the war on the Russian side which did not feel the "Iron Pen" descend across its pages.
The German writings (Achtung Panzer!, Soldat, Panzer Battles, Etc...) on the other hand do a good job (with exceptions of course) of covering the conflict with Russia in a more objective manner.
In fact, you will even find pieces written by German Generals which are very critical of the Nazi regime, something you will not find on the Russian side concerning Stalin and crew.
Gotta be careful of the first person memoirs penned by members of the German general staff in the aftermath... Lost Victories and Achtung Panzer were very good but you have to be aware where they are self-serving.
Some of the best stuff is coming out now, most of the archives are open. Try reading the uncensored memoirs of Lord Alanbrooke. Col. David Glantz has done some great work that is changing the intepretation of the Ostfront which hitherto has been dominated by German and very biased Soviet work...
I understand the bias of the German Generals. I was simply
"my unwavering conviction that communism was the single worst evil of the 20th Century"
You what, guv ? How does a naive ideology compare to "the final solution" ?
In terms of body counts, the ratio of those killed in the drive establish the worldwide dictatorship of the proletariat (communism) to Hitler's effort to eradicate Jewry and other so-called undesirables (Final Solution) is roughly 25:1.
In terms of all deaths caused by the Nazis from the beginning of that regime until its complete, total, and utter defeat in 1945, the number is around 21 million, including enemy military casualties. The number killed by various communist regimes from 1917 to today is roughly 150 million. And the meter is still running.
http://thefinalphaseforum.invisionzone.com/index.php?showtopic=44
Body counts are one thing and how those bodies are racked up is another...
The Final Solution was perhaps the systematically evil act ever committed. Industrial Genocide was a new low in the history of H. Sapiens...
There's no safer topic about which to moralize, nor one about which the moralizer comes across as needlesslly and annoyingly pedantic.
In other words: Duh!
Brad: I really enjoyed your WW2 novel "Hummel's Cross"
Looking forward to your new novel.
Interesting... from threads like this it is easy to figure out who has a clue and who is merely a tin-foil hat wearing paranoid...
Two most interesting battles, at least from my perpective: Manstien's counterstroke in early '43 and the Korsun Pocket....
Russia benefitted from ~660,000 trucks and ~2000 locomotives, 11,000 rail cars and 540,000 tonnes of rail that was shipped from the US. The war would have been somewhat different without these as the Soviet logistics would have been inadequate...
heading for Koursk?...post koursk and pro Konev!
If you are referring to Zitadelle, no, I was referring to the retaking of Kharkov.
Good point. However, it is that Russia is much closer to Eurpoe than we are. Indeed it was a sacrifice by the Russians for sure as well as everyone.
The Russians LEARNED from history because....yes....Napoleon tried to take Russian the same way!! Now with the French and Germans coming east into St. Pete, the Russians fled the city and then came around the back of the Germans/French (depends on the year) and they are toast.
The Germans lost so many people in the Russian episode of the war it was a big mistake. Hence the elimination of entire towns....it was "payback" for the German people who died trying to take over Russia.
IT was a community effort to say the least since we started so late and the Germans had such a head-start.
I love Russian history....so interesting....only 1 out of 100 were Bolsheviks....who took over the country. 1 out of 100.
minority?
Ah, the irony, the word Bolshevik is a derivation of majority
While it is certainly true that 90% of WWII was fought on the Eastern Front, what most people don't realize is that Stalin had 20,000 tanks ready to roll from the borders of Russia all the way to the English Channel on the eve of WWII. It was the Germans who preempted the Iron Curtain from being fixed at the English Channel.
They weren't going to roll anywhere... this is revisionist crap.
It is indeed revisionism, but it is revisionism in favor of the truth and dispensing with the "crap" that passes for accepted knowledge. It is, in other words, the truth.
http://thefinalphaseforum.invisionzone.com/index.php?showtopic=44
When truth is so blatant to some, even when it defies fact, they are in a class of their own... like saint bernard of Clairvaux who said... 'god wills it'... so we'll never lose out there in holy land...just go! As god be with you!..They did... and got the shit beaten out of them...Templars and all those soldier monks...So, Shancken is to truth what Kraken is to sea monster! Believe it or not!
Just as long... God wills it! Then it be truth!
You believe what you want to believe... I am leery of any thesis that the Nazi apologists latch on to. A little too convienient for my liking.
Stalin was benefitting greatly from the Non-Aggression pact. You overlook the role of Britain in this.
All that being said, it was very clear that Nazi Germany and the USSR would come to blows eventually.
History is written by the winners, always. That is why they are being revised constantly. Case in point, the Gulf of Tonkin "incident" that precipitated the Vietnam War which never even happened. What you understand as history is probably taken from Hollywood movies that are sold as facts but in reality are the slickest propaganda ever that even Goebbels couldn't dream up of.
If you are going to refute me on the History of WWII, you had better come up with a better line "...(my) history is taken from Hollywood movies"...
I'll run circles around you and beat your head in...
Do you even know who David Glantz is?
Edit: A bonus question, what is the origin of my avatar?
come on flakey, i pointed out your avatar months ago. shocked all teh WWII scholars have noticed.
again, i am confused with your avatar and your nazi bashing.
The avatar question was directed elsewhere...
Why the confusion? The Nazi regime was perhaps the most evil that has ever cursed the planet... I also find anti-semitism to be a tasteless ignorant expression of bigotry. However, as an amatuer military historian (and former operational level wargamer) one cannot help but admire some aspects of the German military...Recall, Col. Dupuy concluded that the Wehrmacht was exceptional and man-for-man the most effective fighting force in WW II until the inevitable collapse....
i am no longer confused. thx.
The US never should have entered either world war in Europe. We should have let the Russians and Germans beat each other into another Dark Age. Then there would have been no Cold War.
In the 19th Century, the US stayed out of the European wars because they remembered George Washington's warning to stay out of European alliances. We should not have forgotten.
The Russians were always mad at us over D-Day. They said we were a year late. I call that good strategy.
Joe Stalin and Hitler divided Poland
Two socialists out to make things better for the world
Not socialist...socialites! From the Oligarchs brigade! You know...wolves in sheep's clothing...their social skills being "final solution"...that is dark basement type socialism...and uber-klaas socialite behavior...herd thinning! For American Ideologues it is stated as "Manifest Destiny!" Now that is a magnificent way to put it this socialite behavior of herd thinning...
Nuance! The only true socialist was Jesus...and maybe...Mohammed and Gandhi...each in his way...they made social rules like Pericles did democracy...but he was for hegemony as well and spoilt it all...he was in fact the original social democrat who went hegemonist herd thinner! It back fired badly then...as it always does since...that's history!
You are correct that much of this dynamic is misunderstood by many Americans, but in putting forward your thesis, one I've heard quite a lot over the years, you ignore some very important facts as well.
To begin with, you completely discount the role US and British airpower played in crippling German manufacturing and production; at a time when they could have sorely used the replacement equipment on the eastern front.
And it's just as easy to turn another part of the dynamic you mentioned on it's head; were it not for the UK and Americans keeping the Germans honest on the Atlantic wall, there would have been another 175 or so divisions available for the Eastern front.
You also choose to ignore the vital intelligence, gleaned from ULTRA, that was forwarded to the Soviets; intelligence that made it possible for them to know the precise details of the German offensive on the Kursk salient, for instance, so as to mass their own forces and prepare their defences accordingly.
Also you make no mention of the vast amount of material and supplies sent to the Soviets via the Murmansk convoys in the north and via Iran in the south. This equipment was vital, and flowed regardless.
Which brings me to my last point; that the allies chose to stick with the Soviets despite the fact that Stalin had made a tacit peace agreement with the Japanese, who the other allies were still at war with. Without this understanding, he could have never transferred so many troops from Siberia to the German front and would have lost even more territory than he had; definitely Stalingrad would have fallen. Certainly the 600 divisions that were tied up/defeated that you spoke of would have been free to maraud elsewhere...
You're correct that we should honor the Soviet contributions to victory in WWII. But it should also be understood that without the crippling of German industry, via strategic bombing, and the assistance the Soviets recieved from ULTRA and material transfers-despite Soviet duplicity vis-a-vis the Japanese, that the outcome on the "Eastern Front" would have been far different.
And indeed, so too would have been the war itself, and the world today...
I commend your earnestness, but vis-a-vis the allied bombing, German production figures actually increased (counterintuitively) throughout the bombing campaign from '42 into late '44 when they figured out (and got within range of) the oil infrastructure. This had some to do with Albert Speer's "economic miracle" and someto dowith Albert's Speer's miracle in paperwork fudgery and looting of the civilian economic infrastructure, but the bombings did far less that most realize. It did kill a lot of civilians though. Neither ally could have won without the other, but lobbing water balloons at the enemy when your friend is in knife-fight with him seemed to the Soviets somewhat lacking in sincerity, I think.
I would not call the Soviets duplicitous regarding their treaty with the Japanese. It was a non-agression pact they the mutually and unilaterally signed in 1941 after the Germans sold out the Anti-Soviet Tripartite Pact for Molotov-von Ribbentrop. As it was mutually beneficial to both sides, it seems unfair to fault either party. It was negotiated before the US or the Soviets werein the war and wassimply the maintenance of the staus quo.
Thanks for your reply to my comment. Your analogy, "lobbing water ballons at the enemy when your friend is in a knife fight with him" is provacative indeed.
Though it was a little more than water balloons really. German GDP was fairly constant from 1941 to 1944, varying less than 5%. So while you are correct that airpower did not drastically reduce production as I implied, it certainly kept the Germans from making the drastic increases you would think a nation at war would institute; especially one as technologically advanced and possessing an good industrial infrastructure would. As with most things, the truth lies muddled in between :)
I'm less convinced about the non-aggression pact. It would seem to me that after the Germans attacked the Soviets, and threw in their lot with the Japanese via declaring war on the US in December 1941, that the Soviets would be bound to at least keep the Japanese honest in the far east, if not outright attacking them!
But, the "what ifs!" are easy, in retrospect. The Soviets were fighting for their lives, for sure, and did what they had to do. As mentioned, the allies all needed each other to defeat the Nazis-in spite of Hitler's meddling and narcissistic sabotage of his own war efforts-and to diminish one in favor of another is really an empty exercise; aside from academic discussion.
My Regards for your excellent commentary
My intent was to be provocative! :) I visualize things in stark pictures and this what popped into my mind. Certainly, I hope you and other readers don't take my water balloons comment as a slight against US and British airmen. The air war was brutal with obscene casualties ont he Allied side for the forces committed. I know several participants and they were deeply scarred. My intention was to present the reality as the Soviets viewed it, being bled white on the Eastern Front. Each water balloon distracted the Nazis enough to let the Russians get in an extra stab and every bit helped.
One of Albert Speer's frustrations and complaints, and this is traced in detail in the exhaustive "Wages of Destruction," is that unlike Britain, the US, Russia, and Japan, Germany did not engage in economic total war until late '43 and '44. They were more keyed for war than other peacetime countries but had trouble making the full-switch once a total war was upon them.
To fully understand the non-aggression treaty, you'd have to read the collected life work of Alvin Coox, who painstakingly detailed the military clashes between the USSR and Japan in the '30s. Both sides were deeply traumatized by by what they both felt were tactical victories but strategic defeats and were concerned that the relative strengths of the other would overwhelm them in that remote part of the world (The Soviets being at the trailing edge of an insanely long logistics line and the Japanese their pronounced weakness in mechanized warfare). They lept at the chance to agree to disagree when larger events overtook them. (Though both army leaders wanted the chance for revenge.) Only with the Reichstag occupied and Hiroshima flat under an atomic bomb did the Soviets feel safe venturing back into Manchuria.
Academic discussion is what this is all about my friend! Thanks for the thoughts and words! (Sorry for the belated reply)
Ultra and "Lucy" were instrumental in the defeat of Nazi Germany. The case for strategic bombing is very weak. It was only in late '44 when the concentrated efforts on the Nazi synthetic fuel production could strategic bombing be termed a success. Now by any measure, in late '44 the war was a done deal. You can argue that the most effective use of the strategic bombing assets was tactical, e.g Cobra.
Beat me to it flak.
Call it a stereophonic counterthrust...
It is clear you have done some reading on this, Cheers!
vlad and flak,
don't forget that as of late 1943 our bombers had p5-1 escorts. we used the bombing runs to draw out the luftwaffe and have the mustangs attack. in this way were were able to establish air superiority in time for D-day.
the allied commanders were well aware the strategic bombing was having little effect on industrial production. railroads and factories were rebuilt quickly. then the germans started using impenetrable slave labor facilities deep underground.
Yes, the P-51 changed things, operationally they were not a factor until '44 and by then the materiel war was all but over...
That's a good point. The most important effect of the air campaign, prior to bombing the oil industry, were the fighter sweeps which decimated what was left of the Luftwaffe after the Battle of Britain. And the P-51 played a major role in that. But the obliteration of enemy industry from the air is a fallacy that I think needs to be refuted to spare civilian lives in future wars, if at all possible.
Don't feel too sorry for our Soviet allies. They made deals with the devil (the Molotov pact and earlier commercial agreements with the Axis) and supplied much of the war materiel that would have ended up on the Western Front had it not been ironically returned to Mother Russia, with love, in a sheer fit of strategic insanity.
edit: what rocketman sayeth
As if Soviets were the only ones to shake hands with 'the devil': http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQIJkgpP1hg
http://www.amazon.com/Wall-Street-Hitler-Antony-Sutton/dp/0945001533
WWII history is something not far from my heart. My father grew up in Serbia during WWII (he was 12 when the Nazis invaded), and he frequently told stories of those times. At one point the Nazis caught a man in the village who they believed was a Chetnik sympathizer. They shot him and hung him up at the crossroads, with orders that the man's body not be cut down on pain of death. So like a modern day gibbet, the man's corpse rotted in the center of the village through the summer months. My father and his friends also enjoyed robbing German supply trucks, who had to shift into low gear to make it up the hill past the village in the winter. They stole all sorts of things until my grandfather caught my father with a pair of German boot (my father never had proper shoes growing up) and beat the daylights out of him, reminding him that if the Germans found out they would kill (and rape, my father had four sisters) the entire family. My brother even got his name because one of my father's best childhood friends accidentally killed himself playing with a stolen German hand grenade, and my father promised his parents he would name a son after the boy.
My grandfather fought in the Serbian Army in WWI (which if I remember right, suffered the highest percentage losses of any combant in WWI- something like 30% of the male population), as well as the First and Second Balkan Wars. His experience repelling the Austro-Hungarian invasions and then surviving the retreat across Albania during the winter of 1915-16 made what happened during WWII seem tame by comparison.
When a U-boat was caught, my father and others would relieve the crew of their magnificent and superior winter clothing - leather coats and trousers, waterproofs, etc.
WWII like all other wars was a war between psychopathic leaders fought by people who would rather just stay home. Pray that the Internet will open the eyes of the populace to the insanity at the top. Keep the libertarian message alive.
"..Needs To Be Better Understood.."
Sure. Unfortunately you understood nothing. No surprise.
how so? I saw no errors in the man's article.
great article. for a recommended follow-up read, check out Catherine Merridale's Ivan's War
it's an excellent book.
Yes, I have heard very good things about Ivan's War.... on the list.
Without doubt, the sacrifice of the Soviet people is beyond question (could have been better if Stalin was not his own worst enemy).
As regards the British contribution, this is questionable: it was not until the US arrived that overall allied command approached near-coherence (Churchill was a wanker). The contribution of British bomber command was inefficient and a mis-direction of resources – they lacked the reach and accuracy to sustain a viable impact on German industry.
For those interested, my favouite books, here, are AJP Taylor – English History 1914-1945;
John Erickson’s two volume work (1,500 pages) covering the the German attack and Russian counter-attack: The Road to Stalingrad and The Road to Berlin. The sacrifice, dedication and courage – of both sides – shown in these two books is truly inspiring (they didn’t give a fuck of what the Kardashian’s were up to).
As an aside, my late father served in the British navy’s convoys (survival rate at 20%). After the war, the Soviet government wished to honour all convoy participants with a medal; this was blocked by the British government. My father – and others – received the medal ten years ago.
Erickson's works are remarkable for their time... Godawful dry reads though. Somehow he got pretty good access to the archives as a lot of his stuff has stood the test of time...
Flak,
I think "dry" might be an understatement. However, for the persistent it pays off; I've read both three or four times. Maybe I'm just sad.
You should find yourself a copy of "Hell's Gate" by D. Nash... without a doubt, one of the finest histories I have read, admittedly, it is confined to the Korsun pocket but it shines in its readable objective scholorship and it a great compendium of rare photos...
Another superb read is "Decision in the Ukraine, Summer 1943" by G. Nipe.
Flak, don't miss "The Retreat", lots of new first person detailed accounts previously not translated.
Lots of good books out there... One I really enjoyed (but never bought for the library) was a 1st person about Stalingrad written by a Italian 8th army Lt... very interesting.
Hans Von Luck's memoirs were also a good read, helped put a new perspective on Goodwood..
Two godless totalitarian states fight to the death and the worst of mankind is revealed? What a surprise.
sschu
The lesson for all is what the worst of mankind can be....
Excellent article, and precisely why I love Zerohedge and it's contributors and commenters more than any other site on the web. I've been fascinated by the Eastern Front for a long time and have read several books written on the matter. I always try to find ones written by the soldier's themselves. I've had great difficulty finding any books written by Soviet soldiers on the front. I've only been able to find those written by the Germans. Regardless, it's quite clear that Mother Russia bore the entire brunt of the German Wehrmacht. By early 1943 Soviet forces were cutting off and surrounding German units deep in Russian territory and there was never much doubt of how the war would end after Stalingrad. By the time the U.S. entered, the Wehrmacht was a shell of its former glory.
There are a couple first person narratives from the Russian perspective, the titles slip my memory..
how cute.... it's like baby's first history lesson. Now go read Settlers to understand how the world really has worked.
At war's end Churchill asked one of his military what it would take for the Russian Army to reach the English Channel. The simple one word answer he received was, "Shoes"
The Americans beat the Japanese, and the Russians beat the Germans. That's in short the story of WW2.
The Americans beat the Japanese, and the Russians beat the Germans. That's in short the story of WW2.
And THAT is the simple truth most Americans refuse to acknoledge. The Soviets defeated the Nazis, and we helped. Sorry that offends the land of the fat, and the home of the arrogant.