Comments on: Operation Bagration

By: Sean

Sean — Wed, 16 Jun 2004 05:38:24 +0000

Is Mike Davis a tool? If he was really interested to know “What American has ever heard of Operation Bagration?” he might have tried asking a few! But that would risk his “Stupid American” bias. While it’s true that the Russians bore the brunt against Germany we shouldn’t forget that they had allies to take off some of (maybe critical) the pressure. Contrast this to the British postion from mid’40 to mid’41. All alone – and not bleating about it. In the end, America would have won anyway – “the bomb” would have have done the job eventually.

By: johnnya

johnnya — Tue, 15 Jun 2004 22:43:01 +0000

From the many history books of the Second World War that I have read, I recall in one of them that when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbour in December 1941 their economy was one-sixth the size of America’s. US President Roosevelt and his advisors knew they could defeat Japan in time. Roosevelt was more interested in getting America involved in the European theatre of conflicts. Secondly, in one of the books on the Manhatten Project on the development of the atomic bomb, the objective was to drop the bomb on Berlin and not Hiroshima or Nagasaki.After the collapse of the German Army in March and April of 1945, the American military tested the atomic bomb successfully for the first time in the second half of July 1945 and President Truman had a list of about 10 Japanese cities to choose from. Tokyo had already been firebombed with a huge loss of life and was not on that list. Thirdly,for the American soldiers who were advancing inland from the beaches of Normandy, I believe they were happy that they were facing only nine German divisions and not fourty. Another advantage for the Western Allies was the virtually complete air superiorty they had over the skies of Western Europe. Reichmarschall Hermann Goering made all kind of empty promises to Hitler that the Luftwaffe could defend Nazi Germany from the American and British bomber and fighter attacks. Long before the invasion of Poland on September 1st, 1939, Hitler knew he could not win a war on two fronts. The German economy was simply not large or strong enough. Instead,for a variety of reasons, he ended up with a war on five fronts: Eastern, Western, North Africa, Italy and Norway.

By: David Tiley

David Tiley — Mon, 14 Jun 2004 04:53:46 +0000

Interesting to speculate about the use of the A-bomb on Germany. It was used in Japan I think because there was no risk of shooting the bombers down; in Germany the Lufwaffe would have been more active if the Russian effort had been less. Mind you, if the war in the West had stalled longer – if the second front had not happened in ‘44 – then the Germans might have seen Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I wonder what they would have done then?

By: v

Sun, 13 Jun 2004 22:42:44 +0000

Not to forget that the British used troops from their colonies (India) to do a lot of their fighting from Burma to El Alamein. There are graves of Indian soldiers in Greece even. It is churlish and insulting also to claim that the Soviets do not really deserve credit because “they fought to colonize”. I guess they had their country raped and pillaged for the same reason. The simple fact is that Hitler got as far as he did because the British and the French let him, by making compromises with his government. Munich Anyone? Stalin did not do very differently with the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. I don’t even want to go into the way that all the western bastions of freedom used to barter territories and peoples in their colonies earlier in the century. I guess that when the same sort of bartering began in Europe, people like Churchill began to kick up a fuss about it. Hitler was the extreme form of an imperialist, and he got away with things like Munich because he dealt with other imperialists who were used to bartering lands and peoples.

By: ru

ru — Sun, 13 Jun 2004 18:47:05 +0000

LOL people. Most of you love to harp about the Molotov-Ribentrop pact, while conveniently trying to ommit earlier pact of non-agression and cooperation between Poland and Germany. Somehow you also forget to mention the USSR and Japan had signed pact for non-agression too, after the USSR crushed the japs Kwantung army in 1939 in Halkin Gol, because the Japan were trying to invade the USSR. The USSR defeatet “the undefeatable” japs in a week of intence fighting twice, 1939 and 1945, a good consitency record :D But most of all, you brits forget that it’s you who give Hitler substantial bust to his war production, by selling your Czeks “allies” “to pacify” him, and all the neighbourin countries including Poland participated in the grab of the Czeks lands. Shame. Many here love to overestimate the significance of the Land-Lease. The funny thing, it works bad to the brave brits, because the UK got THREE TIMES more help from the US, than the USSR (33 billion vs 13 billion) and did virtually nothing to fight the nazi. Even the D-Day had been posponded many times due to the permanent Churchil whine that the allied soldiers are too “green”, till Rosebelt finally thup his crippled leg and Churchil caved :p Regarding the Italy, the allies were unable to take it for TWO YEARS after the Sicily dessant. The Italians surrendered Sep.6.1943 but the strategicly significant industrial part of North Italy had been under German control till Aug.08.1945. To add an insult to the pain, the nazi even succeeded to liberate Mussoliny from the allied custody and put him to rule the North Italy at the time.

By: Donald Johnson

Donald Johnson — Sun, 13 Jun 2004 03:31:40 +0000

Anybody know if the Soviet casualty figures are firmly nailed down? The NYT carried a piece by Benjamin Schwarz a few weeks ago which made the extraordinary claim that 50 million Soviet citizens died (military and civilian), which is about twice the usual figure. I have a bit of trouble believing this—it sounds to me like the not uncommon tendency to take already huge death statistics and inflate them might be at work. But maybe I’m wrong.

By: J. Michael Neal

J. Michael Neal — Sat, 12 Jun 2004 23:13:11 +0000

Look up Operation: Saturn, some time — this is the previously-unknown major operation during December 1942 up north; it got whitewashed due to the severe losses and the success of Stalingrad. This is Operation: Mars. Saturn was the stillborn followup to Uranus (the encirclement of Stalingrad) in the south.

By: Nicholas Weininger

Nicholas Weininger — Sat, 12 Jun 2004 20:38:50 +0000

Those interested in WWII mythology in Russia, and its use by the Soviet government, really should read Nina Tumarkin’s excellent The Living and the Dead. A fascinating and deeply moving book.

By: derrida derider

derrida derider — Sat, 12 Jun 2004 14:35:22 +0000

Nuclear weapons were used in Japan only because of the fear of national suicide. Nothing so extreme obtained in Germany. There was no case for using them. – guessedworker Do you really think Truman would have preferred a huge land invasion against an unweakened Wehrmacht rather than let Curtis LeMay unleash nukes on Germany? And anyway I always understood it was the fear of half a millon US casualties from invading Japan, rather than fear of Japanese suicides, that (along with the useful demonstration effect on Stalin) led Truman to use them. Oppenheimer had it right – give the generals a shiny new weapon and they’ll generally find a reason to use them.

By: Hektor Bim

Hektor Bim — Fri, 11 Jun 2004 20:59:28 +0000

The Soviet Union did fight to enslave Finland, the Baltic states, and Poland, while an ally of Nazi Germany. (How many Polish officers were killed at Katyn, for example?) There is strong evidence to suggest that Stalin planned to invade German-occupied Poland, but Hitler invaded before he got a chance to. The fact that large numbers of people died on both sides does not automatically make the cause just, nor does the defeat of a loathsome regime by one slightly less loathsome that went on to forcibly oppress the people it claimed to liberate mean that we should be pleased. One can delight in the defeat of Nazi Germany without celebrating the victory of the Soviet Union. I thank Ivan for not preventing the collapse of the Soviet Union.

By: Scott

Scott — Fri, 11 Jun 2004 19:29:29 +0000

“The USSR doesn’t get any credit, in my opinion, because, first, they fought to enslave Europe, not free it, and second, because they started the war on Hitler’s side, and only switched when he betrayed them.” “Bzzzt! Wrong answer, but we have a lovely parting gift for you. Tell him what he’s won, Don Pardo!” “He’s won a year’s supply of Rice-a-roni, the San Francisco Treat!” They did not fight the war to enslave Europe. It was a war of desperation for two years, until 1943, and even then, they had their head’s handed to them on a platter, even at Kursk. Hell, Zhukov lost millions of men due to his simple strategy of throwing thousands of unarmed, drunken peasants into the withering German fire. Look up Operation: Saturn, some time—this is the previously-unknown major operation during December 1942 up north; it got whitewashed due to the severe losses and the success of Stalingrad. The USSR won the European war, with Wallied (Western Allied) assistance. There were no grand plans on enslaving Europe, at least not until the 1943 meetings with his allies.

By: Sebastian Holsclaw

Sebastian Holsclaw — Fri, 11 Jun 2004 19:15:36 +0000

I haven’t been present in the torture threads? Sure I have, and there are all sorts of references too it on my site as well. I’m a bit confused about the rhetoric around here. How can people label the non-colony holding U.S. an empire which has to expand to increase its economic wealth while they also say that if the Soviet Union (an actual empire) had taken over the rest of Europe it would have been economically worse off? I know I’m not as subtle as some in the misuse of the word “empire”, but couldn’t we keep obvious contradictions to a minimum?

By: Guessedworker

Guessedworker — Fri, 11 Jun 2004 18:47:48 +0000

Mario, Nuclear weapons were used in Japan only because of the fear of national suicide. Nothing so extreme obtained in Germany. There was no case for using them. Anarch, I recall a passage (I think) in Aiden Crawley’s history of West Germany in which he reported a conversation between senior a British Army a Red Army officer. The British officer asked why the lower ranks of the invading Red Army had behaved with such complete bestiality towards German women and young girls. “This is not the Red Army,” the Soviet officer replied, “The Red Army Army died at Leningrad. These are the the hordes of the East whom we have whipped into battle.”

By: Anarch

Anarch — Fri, 11 Jun 2004 18:03:18 +0000

Given that the US had nuclear weapons by 1945, I think the the Soviet Union should be given credit for saving German lives. Oh, I really really really doubt that. Read up on the Soviet march to Berlin some time; summarized, they were exacting revenge for the 20+ million dead over the previous four years. It’s one of the most gruesome military campaigns I know in modern times.

By: Anarch

Anarch — Fri, 11 Jun 2004 17:54:41 +0000

The Russians have not yet really come to grips with their WWII history. Heh. Take it up with the Japanese while you’re at it… “There we were, peacefully minding our own business, when all of a sudden these Big Bad Americans came and dropped an atomic bomb on our heads! Oh, the war crimes! Oh, the humanity!” Sticks in my craw like almost nothing else.