Operation Bagration

In perspective. D-Day was the beginning of saving Western Europe. Crushing the NAZIs? A huge portion of that was done by Russia. But without D-Day and the like, the Iron Curtain would have been at the water’s edge. It is wrong to forget that enormous part Russia played in defeating Nazi Germany. Also wrong to forget what France would have looked like under Russian rule–just ask Austria.

“Just ask Austria?”

Why Austria? [since it was never under Soviet rule…]

Or is this some kind of reference to the Anschluss? One might argue what the hypothetical Soviet occupation of France might have been like but presumably nothing much like the Anschluss….

The Soviet Union didn’t just take control of German assets in Austria during its time as occupying power; it carted a great deal of industrial equipment and anything else back East.

Also, it’s worth noting that the disproportionate ratio of Ivans to Ryans who died is partly due to the differing capital to labour ratios of the two armies. Indeed, much of the Soviet capital stock was supplied by the other allies – not the T34s obviously, but Chrysler trucks etc.

It’s a bit invidious to apportion credit for what was, after all, an allied victory. The Soviets should get their due for sheer determination and courage; the Americans supplied a vast amount of equipment and manpower at the right moment; the Commonwealth troops were great fighters; the quality of the British army was never great (except under Richard O’Connor in the Libyan desert) but the army and navy fought solidly throughout the war. Finally, there couldn’t have been a victory without Fighter Command under Dowding, and the British contribution in terms of heavy bombing was massive (albeit controversial).

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.

You can call them allies if you like stretching the meaning of the word, but in truth it was more like two gang leaders getting into a turf war at the same time the police arrive.

The Russian and British empires have not generally been great allies. I would not expect the British to glorify the Russians. Whether or not the rivalry should feed into an education system with a distorted view of history … that is another matter.

I also don’t think the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact can count as “being on Hitler’s side”. However, the Soviet did take part in the dismemberment of Poland, the invasion of which by the Germans was the cassus belli for WWII after all. It was realpolitik that prevented the Allies from declaring war on the Soviets at that point (after all, they’d have to fight their way through Germany to get to the Soviets anyway!).

And in November 1939, the Soviet Union attacked Finland, and the Allies did seriously consider intervening there and might have done so had the Narvik landings gone differently. However, Britain’s intention was that Narvik was more of a way of drawing Germany into violating Swedish neutrality and controlling the Swedish ore fields than defending Finland. No-one is quite so sure about the French. It’s not inconceivable that they could have ended up fighting the Soviets over Finland if the dreadful Daladier government had had its way.

I lived in Russia for a few years a few years ago- it was quite interesting to talk w/ people about their different views on the “great patriotic war”. They are quite justified in being annoyed that the US thinks it won the war in Europe when pretty clearly it was mostly won by the Red Army. If the German Army could have reversed the distribution of troop- had as many on the western front as they did on the eastern, it’s very unlikely that the invasion would have worked. I expect there would have been a peace treaty w/ England and No US involvement in Europe w/o the Red Army’s fighting. That said, current Russian knowledge of the US (and Britan’s) role in the war is also pretty bad- few know about the invasion of Italy in ’43, and very few even know that a very significant portion of our forces were fighting in the pacific. But, I’ve met quite a few veterns of the great patriotic war, and to claim that _they_ (as opposed to their government) were fighting “to enslave Europe” is shameful in the extreme

Mike Davis’ fundamental point is, of course, entirely correct, but to claim the Red Army as a hotbed of revolutionary sentiment? I raised an eyebrow at that one…

I don’t understand how the Soviets can be understood *not* to have been on Hitler’s side after the signing of the Nazi-Soviet Pact. Aside from military cooperation (in the invasion and dismemberment of Poland) the Pact provided for greater economic ties, particularly the transfer of oil to Germany in exchange for heavy machinery, and also entailed some diplomatic concessions by both sides. When two countries cooperate in invading another country, and swap essential war materiel, surely they are on “the same side” at least at that point.

I’ve met quite a few veterns of the great patriotic war, and to claim that they (as opposed to their government) were fighting “to enslave Europe” is shameful in the extreme

Well, I’ve met a couple of veterans of the German side of that war. While it is undenialbe that they were “fighting to enslave Europe” in a strategic sense, that’s not the same as saying that individual soldiers were all motivated by a wish to exterminate Jews.

It’s worth dividing soldiers from their leadership here. The Red Army was fighting, in part, to “extend the sphere of influence,” and made strategic decisions (such as the storming of Berlin) which were nonsensical except for their propaganda/sphere of influence value (and which were part of the huge loss of Russian life). That doesn’t mean we should heap scorn on the privates and seargents who did as they were ordered.

Ditto for German soldiers, or for Confederate soldiers in the US Civil War.

“The fact that the Soviet Union killed about 75% of the German troops who died in the war certainly made the invasion from the West easier, and might well have been what made it possible in the first place.”

The invasion would have been delayed, nothing more, until such time as its prospects were suitably encouraging.

It is fashionable to write off the heavy bomber offensive in toto because Area Bombing failed, at great cost in life and treasure, to achieve its two broadcast initiatives: the weakening of the German capacity to wage war and the disillusionment of the German public with its government. But the return to the oil offensive by Spaatz, the establishment of Allied air supremacy and the development by Bomber Command of techniques of genuine precision bombing and blind bombing set a course for the German war machine from which it could not hope to recover.

By 1945 Bomber Command and the 8th USAAF had the basic tools to achieve what it set out to with the Air Ministry order of 14th February 1942 that originated the Area offensive. That it came too late for Harris and Bomber Command to redeem themselves in the eyes of their post-war detractors is in no small measure due to the great Soviet offensive. Had there never been a war in the East Bomber Command might be remembered with unequivocal pride now and the veterans would have their Campaign Medals.

I have no problem with thanking Ivan.

The fact that Red Army soldiers were fighting under a loathsome tyranny doesn’t negate their courage and sacrifice. And in the end, they were fighting to end a regime that was even more horrible and dangerous. To give just the most obvious example, the Red Army freed far more concentration camp survivors than the western Allies did.

That said, there are some interesting points to be made about the differences in remembrance.

The Russians have not yet really come to grips with their WWII history. The combination of nationalist mythology, the tradition of secrecy, and reluctance on the part of historians and journalists to be seen as “unpatriotic” has made it very difficult to build a coherent picture of what actually happened. There are honorable exceptions to this, but they’re just that — exceptions.

Soviet commemorative ceremonies tended to be highly stylized, and altogether unaccompanied by any substantive discussion of — say — what mistakes were made, and what might be learned from them. Post-Soviet Russian commemorations have seamlessly carried on this tradition. In fact, in recent years, the ceremonies have become even less about history, and even more about Russian nationalism and a constructed glorious past.

This raises a number of interesting issues. Unfortunately, a blog comment thread is probably not a good place to discuss them.

So, thanks Ivan — and let’s hope your great-grandchildren never have to face anything like.

Doug M.

So what’s stopping the Russians and the Poles from throwing a celebration in honor of Operation Bagration? Is there something wrong with us honoring our war dead or is there some kind of equal time law?

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.

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.”

“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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.