History Down the Danube
(Nuremberg)
Triumph of Will
A German remarked today to some of us that he found it odd that, given all the graffiti one sees, there is never any defacement on the great stone stage at Nuremberg (patterned by Albert Speer after the Pergamon altar) that is immortalized in so many film clips of Hitler screaming to the masses in the 1930s.
The German government has done a wonderful job in creating a museum inside the uncompleted Speer-design coliseum not far away from the parade ground. One leaves Nuremberg with the reminder that the fantastic and impossible are just a blink away when the planets line up.
Had I suggested a year ago that the euro would be in freefall and the entire union on the verge of implosion, one would have suggested I was unhinged. Today such an assessment is mainstream to conservative. I think the European debt crisis is far worse than let on, Iran far more likely to get the bomb than we think, and a North Korea far closer to trying something stupid. If we are not careful, there is going to be a Mideast nuclear arms race that will spill into Europe itself. (I take nothing back from the last posting on a seething Germany, and still insist that should an Iran go nuclear, and after it, an Egypt and Saudi Arabia, and should there be real doubt about the reliability of the United States [and I think there is already], then a great nation like Germany amid a financial meltdown in southern Europe would quite quickly dispense with its utopian UN rhetoric and take measures to defend itself from third-rate thugs with missiles that could hit Berlin.)
Europe and immigration
If we revised immigration policy and predicated legal entry on education and skill, ten million Europeans would arrive tomorrow, replete with degrees, expertise, and capital. There is a great unease over here, mostly in worry that no one knows the extent of aggregate debt, only that it is larger than let on and will result in higher taxes and fewer benefits without resulting in budget surpluses. It is always difficult for a government to ask its citizens to pay more than ever, receive less than ever, and end up nevertheless with greater debt than ever. We’re next.
Here and there a few Germans seem to wonder what Obama is doing, but they are torn: “We are flattered the U.S. wants to emulate our system” versus “Why would you wish to get yourself into the jam we are in?”
World War II (near Regensburg)
We are heading down the Main-Danube canal to meet the Danube with stops and lectures in Regensburg and Vienna, today and tomorrow. There is much discussion in the group on World War II and especially Operation Barbarossa, a lunatic gambit that ensured a war largely won (by May 1941, Europe from the Atlantic to the Russian border was mostly subdued, allied, or neutral) would be largely lost. But one must not fall into the fallacy of hindsight: to us it seems ridiculous for the Wehrmacht to have sent 190 of its divisions into Russia when Stalin was granting all of Hitler’s requests for strategic materials, when a far easier and smarter route (with implications for hampering the British fleet in the Pacific), would have been to send 100 divisions into Egypt, take Suez, and go into the Middle East — Russia and Turkey remaining quasi-allies eager for a share of the spoils.
“If we revised immigration policy and predicated legal entry on education and skill, ten million Europeans would arrive tomorrow, replete with degrees, expertise, and capital…”
America really should welcome Human Capital from all over the world. (We’re going to need a lot more doctors and nurses, that’s for sure) But the same people who fight to admit the illiterate, the ignorant and the criminal from Mexico would try to block the Engineer from India or Israel.
As a nurse in Australia with many years experience and post graduage degrees, who finally gave up in exhaustian aftre struggling for legal entry for over 18 months and being assured that entry was at least another 2 yrs away – I agree. USA doesnt want skilled migrants with the same values who assimilate and contribute. Mexican thugs are fine.
However, after learning of your civil asset forfeiture laws, and the mess in your border states, I’m beginning to be glad. For I complain of Australian socialism, it’s a better place I think
Well said, alas. :-(
Remember how Missus Zero said during the 2008 campaign, “For the first time in my life I am proud of my country”? Well, the first time I ever had to deal with the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service (helping a foreign visiting scholar on an H-1 visa) was the first time I ever felt ashamed of my country. The INS is a disgrace and a scandal.
Indeed, if His Zero-ness wins or steals re-election, the shoe may be on the other foot, as some of us may be showing up on your shores as refugees. In that case, please vet us with just as much stringency as our INS *should* be using to keep out the thugs to whom you alluded — though I think I can promise that a 2012 wave of Seppo boat people would be members of the productive class who are tired of being taxed to death to support American socialism. We’ll earn our keep! :-)
That truly saddens me to hear of the bureaucratic nonsense you ran into in attempting to come here. And Nursing is one of those professions that we are constant need of as well!
I thought Australia wasn’t socialist… or at least not as socialist as Europe. Am I wrong in that?
Either the US govt is playing favorites, or you don’t know how “the game is played.” As a New Yorker, I see large numbers of Filipino and some Thai nurses. The Philipines’ largest export is nurses.
Pamela, we’re working hard to change things here, so I hope you won’t give up on the idea of moving here. We need you–your skills, your heart, your spirit, your belief that by hard work and diligence you can make a better life for yourself and those around you. That’s America, still! But, the INS is a rock bottom disgusting shame.
But not forever!
This is a travesty. I, like most Americans, am in favour of a sensible immigration law; unfortunately, we don’t really have one at the moment.
The legal method is long, bureaucratic, messy, and expensive. A former housemate of mine told me about all the ins and outs of the process. He was a Columbian medical doctor who moved to the US legally to avoid the FARC’s kidnapping and murder spree in the mid-90′s. First he moved to Texas to work with violent youth offenders who also had psychological problems such as borderline personality disorder etc. This is truly a job for which there is a lack of trained professionals and therefore a need. Then, he moved to NC to attend a special training programme in dealing with elderly patients. In order to stay, he had to accept restrictions such as working in “under-serviced” areas for a number of years; additionally, he had to hire a lawyer to process the paperwork. Without an American spouse, the how ordeal was a decade long slog. The horrible iron was that he would have had a much easier time if he had entered illegally and worked in a low-skilled position until he gained the defacto right to stay. All without much legal wrangling.
On a horrible side note, he received word once that a family member had had a stroke and might not make it 24 hours. The only flight that could reach him in that time had a connection in Mexico city where he would need a Visa. (Ostensibly this visa is to limit drug trafficking, but he said it had much more to do with their animosity vis à vis other Latin American countries.) Getting the Visa would take time he didn’t have, so he called in a special favour. The Ambassador from Columbia to Mexico was a personal family friend who lodged an official request to issue him a special transit Visa. (That’s right. Not a consular worker, but THE Columbian ambassador to Mexico.) He wasn’t even going to leave the aircraft. The Mexican government turned down the official request and he had to fly out the next day. Thankfully, the family member survived the stroke and he didn’t miss a chance to say goodbye. I couldn’t help but think of this as Calderon lectured Arizona from DC on the prospect that someone would be asked to prove their right to be in the country.
Well, Pamela, if you were willing to pay up about 4,000 USD to a Mexican coyote (smuggler of illegals into the US) I would say you could be here in a month or so. Wish you would consider it, there is no such thing as having too many Aussies here as far as I’m concerned. Nurses we always need here, too.
Hell of note isn’t it?
With all due respect, the major reasons why we are short of doctors and nurses is due to goverment regulation and/or the medical schools themselves, who limit the number of candidates in order to keep salaries high. It is pretty difficult for newly graduated nurses to find positions at this time-believe it or not.
Victor makes a very good case here. I hadn’t thought about Barbarossa this way before. It does seem though that the artistic Corporal didn’t give proper weight in his considerations to the vast space that was the USSR. Corporals have little cause to be concerned about supply lines and points of no return for fighters and bombers.
There were several reasons Herr Schickelgruber ordered Barbarossa launched. Most of them were based on a grand strategy worked out by OKW (Oberkommando Wehrmacht, the German equivalent of the JCS). At least one was based on his personal derangements.
First of all, all of the above wanted to follow the example of the German “Knights of the Holy Vehm”, who had invaded Russia (along with the Swedes, Mongols, and the Livonian Order) in the 1240s. (To see how that worked out, watch Sergei Eisenstein’s “Alexander Nevsky”; while made as a wartime propaganda piece along the lines of Olivier’s version of “Henry V”, it’s pretty accurate overall.)
The objective of the Teutonic Knights was the same as the Nazis’; land and potential subject peoples. Both lots intended to be feudal overlords ruling populations held in permanent servitude. It never occurred to either one that those potential “subjects” might not be interested in being under the boot of foreign rulers, even when they had their own disagreements with their home-grown ones.
Second, the attack on Russia was, in fact, part of a “grand strategy” to seize the MidEast oil producing areas. At the time, Germany was already allied with Persia (to the point that its ruler officially changed the name of the country from Persia to Iran- which means “land of the Aryans”), and was supporting insurrections against British rule in Mesopotamia (Iraq), India, the Arabian peninsula (Saudi Arabia), and elsewhere in the Muslim world. Plus, of course, they already “owned” Lebanon, due to it being a French possession, controlled by Vichy, along with Morocco and Algeria. (Remember, this was June of 1941- a year before Operation Torch.)
Their plan was that after the insurrections had weakened the British in their rear areas, and the Wehrmacht had crushed the Red Army (which they came closer to doing than most Westerners realize, even today), with Persia (Iran) as a “firm base”, and a neutral Turkey as a buffer on their flank- about two-thirds of those 190 divisions would take Egypt from the east. Ending British rule in the MidEast, forever, and replacing it with German hegemony from the English Channel to the Afghan frontier. Or even further- they were debating with the Japanese as to who would get to rule India. (This was also before the Battle of Imphal, when the Imperial Japanese Army found out the hard way that the British Indian Army was tougher than their intel assets had estimated.)
If they had succeeded in totally destroying the Soviet forces, taking Moscow, etc.- it probably would have worked.
Finally, there was the reason that was based on the Little Corporal’s personal derangements. Simply put, he hated Slavs, gypsies, and most of all Jews. And there were a lot of all three in the Balkans, eastern Europe- and especially in Russia. He saw Barbarossa as a way to render Europe “Jew-free” once and for all. Which is why the four SS “Einsatzgruppen”, essentially corps-sized extermination units, were right behind the first wave in the invasion. They weren’t conducting a “hearts and minds” campaign- they were acting as mobile death camps.
Barbarossa was a classic example of the sort of plan that works if everything goes perfectly. That’s why it is still studied today by military officer candidates, at West Point and elsewhere. The purpose being to understand why plans that can only work if nothing goes wrong are easily created by political leaders, but difficult to achieve victory with on the ground. And should be avoided for that exact reason.
clear ether
eon
Thanks, eon, your explanation was very enlightening. I am thinking that Hitler still could have linked up with Iran had he just invaded the Ukraine and southern Russia and had avoided bogging himself down in the snow, but as you point out, he was deranged. One cannot expect rational action from a madman.
It’s tough to declare victory over a country the size of Russia that will not cry “uncle” on the way to 20,000,000 deaths and howsoever many casualties. That’s twice the carnage of everybody in WW1. Who would’ve thought? But one insane maniac didn’t count on being up against another insane maniac, who considered 20 mill. of his subjects as just one big statistic, including the son of his blood. God, What a Horror to live under Stalin during those years.
For some people, living under Stalin was less of a horror than living under the rest of Europe in 1939-45, because at least they had a chance to live. Comprende?
Try to keep an open mind, Edmund.
Cheers.
Eon, didn’t the invasion of Crete also throw off the timetable of the invasion of the USSR. I understand that one of the proritie of that operation was to NOT let it interfere with the major plan operaton Barbarrosa.
Somewhat, but in the end not enough to matter.
The major effect that Crete had on Barbarossa was that the intended limited use of the Fallschirmjager (paratroop) units, originally tasked with neutralizing forward-area Russian HQs and airfields, was scaled back even more due to the losses the “paras” had suffered at Crete. Simply put, Hitler and OKW didn’t believe that the paratroops, who they regarded as light infantry (which indeed they were) could be effective in such roles’. The targets were mainly taken out by the Luftwaffe’s tactical bombers, instead. Goering was happy, either way (remember, the German paratroops were Luftwaffe units, not Werhmacht).
As for the German command’s doubts about paratroop effectiveness, they were later to receive some profound shocks as to what paratroops and glider troops could do; at the hands of Allied airborne units on D-Day, and at the Rhine.
By comparison, the German paratroops spent the rest of the war acting mainly as ground-transported special operations troops. Due not only to Crete, but also due to Allied air dominance after about the middle of 1943. Put simply, Ju-52/3m’s full of paratroops had little chance of surviving to reach their assigned drop points. Me-321 Gigant gliders-full towed by He-111Zs, even less.
sincerely,
eon
Overall very accurate, save for one thing: the Teutonic knights would have been at least content with Catholicizing and subjugating Eastern Europe. The Nazis wanted to not subjugate save in the short run but to exterminat. A rather drastic difference to say the least.
According to Wikipedia and several of its linked references, the Einsatzgruppen consisted of 4 battalion sized units with a total of about 3000 men. They were not corps sized. A corps has about 20,000-45,000 men.
True, but I was also counting the “line” Waffen SS divisions that they were co-located with. Under Himmler’s and Hitler’s orders, they had first call on any and all Waffen SS units for their operations, which was how they came up with enough manpower for their “scorched earth” operations. Figure in the Panzergrenadier divisions, who did most of the actual “work”, and you are in fact looking at corps-sized units. It was a typical application of the German “Kampfgruppe” procedure, in this case applied to the Nazis’ plans for genocide.
sincerely,
eon
Does the US still have 100,000 troops in Germany or Europe? If so, that has always been a guarentor of peace and should the US pull them out, that might be the last nail in the coffin. Have our troops there always had it as easy as the soldiers in Hawaii just before Pearl Harbor?
“Have our troops there always had it as easy as the soldiers in Hawaii just before Pearl Harbor?”
If by easy you mean waking up when it’s still dark, doing calisthenics, going for a run, policing up the barracks, eating mess hall meals, and spending the day at the rifle range or doing field exercises practicing The Rifle Platoon in the Assault over and over and over again (with lunch from a field kitchen if you’re lucky, and a C-rat or MRE, depending on the year, if you’re not) . . . in a place that isn’t Fort Sill or Fort Hood, yes.
“I think we will be once again right in the middle”
Really in world war II the Americans had NO strategic impact on the outcome. They arrived at quarter to midnight after the Russians had destroyed Hitlers armies – same as WWI.
This is not to say that the American soldiers did not fight bravely and well – I am talking here about strategic influences.
What do you say a “strategic impact on the outcome” means?
That is not so. Allied troops caused the Germans to send many divisions to the West that could have been used in Russia. It is true that the Russians, as Churchill put it, ‘tore the guts’ out of the German army but it was a near thing at times.
Nine out of ten German soldiers killed in the war died at the hands of Russians. Nobody knows how many Russians were killed by NKVD troops trailing after advances with orders to shoot those who hesitated or retreated.
What a huge over simplification. Russia destroyed much of Hitler’s armies – with American supplied equipment. No allied pressure in Africa, Italy and France would have bought the Germans how many years in the east? Maybe a senior German would have finally killed Hitler or at least locked him out of military decisions. Then the Russians would have been in real trouble as new German weapons reached the front and sane leadership took over.
Nonsense. That has always been Soviet Propaganda which the Russians continue to parrot. The United States fought a world wide interconnected campaign against all three axis powers on land, sea and in the air. The USSR only fought in one theater on one Front. Events in the Pacific had far reaching consequences in other theaters. It can be argued the Battle of Midway was the strategic turning point not just for Pacific but for the entire war. Had we lost at Midway which would have neutralized the US, Japan would have attacked the Soviet Union in 1942 just as the Soviets were transfering troops to the west for the Battle of Stalingrad. Germany would have won the battle and probably the war.
Total hokum. Without the US England would most likely have made an accommodation with Germany. If they did manage to persevere their ability to tie down German manpower would have been minimal, the bombing campaign would have been irritating at worst for the Germans.
Without supplies from the US the Russians would have been as mobile as they were in WW I. The Russian people were on the verge of starvation for most of the war, without US aide the Russians would have had to disband scores of divisions to go back and grow food.
There is no doubt that Russia did the heavy lifting. They could not have done it without American aide however. The tying down of a nearly a million of Germany’s troops and half of their aircraft was crucial.
The most likely outcome of the war would have been Germany in control from the Atlantic to the Dnepr.
All of the Allies were crucial to the outcome so enough with the revisionism.
To John the Moron,
The around the clock bombing of Germany, the shipments of supplies and intelligence to Russia, lend lease to Great Britain, the battles in the Pacific against Germany’s ally Japan, had no significant impact on the war. WWII veterans and I thank you for your brilliant piece of historical revisionism.
Oh, by the way, the atomic bomb was intended for Germany not Japan. So if the Soviets had lost, the US still would have won.
You’re also overlooking the tremendous gift Pearl Harbor was to Stalin- having nothing any longer to fear on the Manchurian front, he was able to transfer tens of thousands of soldiers to the west. The arrival of the Siberian divisions was decisive in the defense of Moscow.
BTW, your “nine out of ten” figure is an exaggeration- more like sixty percent. You also fail to mention that Stalin spent two years badgering Churchill and Roosevelt to open the Second Front; and further don’t mention the air superiority the Luftwaffe lost in the east due to the need to keep fighters defending Germany from the US/UK bombers offensive.
Bohemond:
As noted above it wasn’t Pearl Harbor but Midway that ended the threat. Imperial Army war planners were already working plans to invade the Soviet Far East when the defeat at Midway. Now they had to fight the US to the death. Even so, very little of Imperial Army was engaged against the US. To this day the Japanese Land Defense Forces proudly point out that they were never defeated and the defeat Japan was result of the Navy’s failure.
“To this day the Japanese Land Defense Forces proudly point out that they were never defeated.”
I call BS. The Japanese land army was in fact brought to its knees by the end of the war by China, Southeast Asia, and the Soviet Manchurian offensive, particularly by the first two.
By the end of the war, the Japanese army lost almost a third of its number in the land campaigns on the Asian mainland, and was already well on its way to collapse.
And this is without calculating the fact that most of the garrisons in the South Pacific were in fact IJA rather than IJN, and the debunking is complete.
Have you ever looked an EFFING HISTORY BOOK IN YOUR LIFE? And I mean an ACTUAL history book, not the tripe that is passed off as such by the Kremlin.
For one, that you claim the Russian Army destroyed the Germans in WWI should forever discredit you as sane, much less a valid commenter on history. By 1917 Russia had utterly COLLAPSED. When Kerensky launched his final attack in 1917, the OHL regarded it as such a JOKE that they didn’t even bother to postpone the general offensive THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO TAKE PLACE IN THE EXACT SAME SECTOR AS THE RUSSIANS WERE ATTACING. And what is more, it WORKED because the Germans and their Austrian allies literally ran over the first waves of Kerensky’s infantry and didn’t stop until they had finished the conquest of the Ukraine and Belarus. That very same year Trotsky came to Brest-Litovik to kowtow before the Germans and cede everything they asked for just for fear that Berlin would advance further Eastward. Eastern Europe was saved from enslavement and eventual Germanification in WWI not by Russia but by the Western Allies, who in rapid succession broke the back of the Bulgarian, Turkish, Austro-Hungarian, and German militaries and thus prevented Berlin from consolidating its conquests. Had they failed, you and I might yet be living under the Prussian Eagle.
And secondly, even if we accept that absolutely everything you say regarding Europe was true, perhaps you forgot something? You know, the little dot in Asia called THE EMPIRE OF JAPAN that not a SINGLE Soviet soldier fought against from November 1941 to August 1945? And yet Japan was defeated. How? Do you think that Stalin’s week-long land grab after the atomic bombings magically crushed the Rising Sun all on its lonesome?
And this is before we get into Europe. For one, it was not 9 or even 8 out of all Germans killed who were killed by the Soviets, but given the updated records and the increasing number of “Italians” and “Vichy French” Hitler “volunteered” straight from the Wehrmacht’s training camps, it is closer to 7 or 6 out of 10. And this is not counting things like the Syrians, the Iraqis, the ACTUAL Italians and Vichy French, and of course our dear friends Hitler’s Latin American proxies.
Also consider the fact that the US provided the Soviet Union with a vast amount of its war materials while it was still reeling from the conquest of the European USSR in 1941. And the around-the-clock-bombing that decimated industrial centers from Berlin to Belgrade. And the almost-entirely Western Allied Naval war. And the vital role the West had in tying up and neutralizing German forces in Africa and later Italy before opening the THIRD front in France 1944. And the Western-supported espionage and sabotage that spread Hitler’s forces thin throughout Europe.
The bottom line, Guv’nver, is that the West could CONCIEVABLY have triumphed without the USSR, albiet at a vastly higher cost and longer duration. Without the West, however, the Soviets were doomed. All it would have taken would have been the Japanese knocking the Siberian door down as Hitler kicked the European one in. Or a few German spearheads advancing a few more miles at the crucial points of the war, like Typhoon.
So get over yourself.
I wouldn’t underestimate the strategic impact of the Battle of Normandy, either. It completely destroyed Army Group West as a strategic fighting force, and inflicted as much or more material damage on the Germans as any single campaign on the Eastern Front. John Keegan’s Six Armies in Normandy makes a strong case that it was the single most important (land) battle in WWII.
“Americans must appreciate its achievement in lessening European tensions after the fall of the Cold War”
Perhaps, but that “lessening” of tensions, as you put it, appears today more like a papering over. Worse, the elites of Europe have crammed their lunatic multicultural socialistic ideas down the throats of common Europeans from Brussels to Berlin, and now those common folk are beginning to gag. The people of Europe have been raped by their Left, a Left which has invited upwards of 30,000,000 MUSLIMS into the very heart of every major European metropolis. The Left controls the media, academia, and has parasitized the governments and bent them to their Marxist goals of wealth redistribution and shackling of capital.
No, it appears to me that the EU has done little more than set the stage for something titanic and horrific – either the suicide of the Western Civilization is at hand, or a rear-guard civil War is in the offing, one which must now rely on viscous race based Nationalism in order to simply survive the Muslim tsunami, and which appears to this reader as possibly the only alternative for oppressed and mutilated peoples to regain some semblance of control over the culture and territory which their ancestors bequeathed them. That is some accomplishment…
Ah, it’s always fun to mull over, AGAIN, WW II, especially for those of us who are old enough to have experienced such “eternal returns”.
I’ll be 68 tomorrow. When I was a teen, TV thrilled us all with “Victory at Sea” for naval buffs, “Air Power” (I think that was its title—narrated by bad old Walter Cronkite), and later, PBS and the History Channel regularly took old movie footage and combined it with deeper information gleaned from hidden records to go back and fill our knowledge and understanding of the whole shebang.
What I wanted to note comes from what William Shirer concluded in his book, “Rise and Fall of the Third Reich” (I think that’s the title).
As I remember it—I read this over 20 years ago!—Hitler pushed back the invasion date of Barbarossa because of the unexpected resistance of his enemies in Greece; or was it Turkey? Anyway, unwilling to allow this minor “skirmish” to linger, Der Fuhrer borrowed some troops meant to invade Russia, and wasted a couple of weeks or a month bringing this action to an end.
The big picture net result is that Barbarossa started too late, in that if Hitler had kept to his earlier start date, the German army wouldn’t have bogged down in the dastardly winter weather, before managing to capture Moscow, and all the other major cities in their path.
Perhaps this is one of the greatest blunders in inflection point history, made by the old Corporal Adolf. From my arm chair reading and thinking about WW II, it seems to me that without a Hitler, Germany would not have gone gangbusters to find Lebensraum, especially in the East, and try to eliminate Jews and Gypsies, but WITH Hitler always micromanaging the war, and mostly ignoring his generals, Deutschland was constantly doing the WRONG thing, and subconsciously (perhaps?) trying to lose the war.
Yes, imagine if Hitler had listened to his war experts, all along the way. I believe Germany should have been able to conquer Soviet Russia, as intended, and afterwards, what a tough nut the Nazi empire would have been to defeat!
We are happy, here in the USA, to keep in mind our blessed luck in being bound by two huge oceans, and friendly Canada and Mexico, but just picture a German Reich covering much larger terrain and containing many more people than America, likewise protected by massive areas of ocean AND land.
History would have been wildly different if Communism had been crushed in 1941, n’est pas? What would have happened in China? Instead of a super power USSR, maybe there is an alternative universe within which a Third Reich DID come to be the other super power against which America and the rest of the free world had to defend.
Also, just think what could have been the outcome if Japan and Italy had been empowered by a Russia-Germany, et al, empire, with supply lines stretched all across the East!
Finally, wrt Japan, never forget how lucky or graced America was to so radically win the battle at Midway, against incredible odds. If Japan had prevailed by taking out our carriers, it would have been many more years before we could have reversed the tide of the war in the Pacific, let alone have beaten Japan.
In short, the actual outcomes of history on the ground, in the air and on or under the sea of WWII exhibit, to me anyway, that America has been very lucky, in oh so many cases. And, thus, facing the most dangerous future brought to us by the naïve fool, Obama and his enablers—including, most despicably, the voters who put him in power—TODAY, one can only marvel at how much more luck we may have: or DESERVE.
My respects. A very good analysis.
Leyte Gulf, like Midway was another turning point granted to our Navy by Lady Luck, not by competence.
That’s turned, however.
Think of the performance of the Nimitz in attempting to “rescue” Carter’s Embassy people in Iran. Think of the flagship’s admiral who said aferward, “Well, (wee-wee-wee) if the CIA had only told us those helicopters were going to fight, we would have been combat ready and had sand screens on their intakes (wee-wee-wee).” Think of John MacCain climbing over the fence at Annapolis to get booze for the upperclassmen so he could get their crib sheets to make it through one more year. Think of the admiral Dem running for the Senate from Pennsylvania whose stouthearted bravery and honor code wilt in front of the cameras when asked WHO said WHAT when and where (“I gave an honest answer when I said ‘yes’”)
Yeah. We’re ready to “project power”. Yeah.
Can you more fully explain the John McCain incident to which you alluded? I’m unfamiliar with it. But more to the point, I’m not entirely sure what you’re implying? That had McCain not graduated, he wouldn’t have eventually become a war hero and thus not run for presidency and thus not lost to Obama?
If so, that’s putting a hell of a lot of blame on McCain — and even though one can argue he did not run the best campaign, my G-d, look at how easily the “rock star” Obama smothered Hillary Clinton (and the whole, feared “Clinton Machine”). In other words, without a Reagan-like candidate, I do not think there was any stopping Obama — especially given the complete prostitution of the Press… one reason this very web site exists today(!)
I mean really, who could the Republicans have run that would have beaten Obama: Rock-Star status with the total collusion of the press? I’m not sure anyone could have overcome the fact that the press simply ignored the huge negatives they could have reported on wrt Obama.
Sure. McCain himself during the campaign verified a report by classmates.
You want to source it, go do the press search thing. Not my game.
McCain did his ‘hee-hee-hee’ good ol’ boy and added that he was 5th from the bottom at Annapolis (you remember Annapolis, don’t you? the academy with all the cheating scandals?).
Spoiled, never had a job, son of an admiral who was son of an admiral, but he married a billion-heiress and has daddy’s and grampa’s friends. Not the kind of guy to stand in Barry Goldwater’s shoes, let alone Ross Perot’s. Go JD!
Hero? Sure. So were 58,000 dead and 280,000 permanently maimed in Vietnam, and them not by accident.
Just imagine. All your evals of McCain are quite accurate, but if he had been just a 10% better candidate, he’d a won in a landslide.
48% + 4.8% = 53.6%
Instead of outing his opponent by simply unleashing the truth and standing on principle occasionally when he had an near-endless number of opportunities, he chose to reach-across-the-aisle to be seen as weak and a compromiser, and one who was actually willing to help the Left achieve their goals on many occasions. His hero-worship quotient wasn’t up to the assault from the Left.
Is that 10% better not available to US?
I think you are thinking of Yugoslavia as the source of the delay
Actually it was Italy getting a spanking by the Greeks that started the ball rolling. Germany rescueing her ally.
Being under the US nuclear umbrella has been very helpful to the budgets of
many European nations, including Germany. However, their actions are premised on the idea that the umbrella is a deterrent. And that is premised on potential enemies believing that the US has the will to retaliate, something that is entirely unclear with the current administration. So Germany going nuclear doesn’t seem so unlikely if events are as you describe and US policy doesn’t (believably) change.
Europeans are like kids nowadays – politically. Raging at their parents (= USA), but deeply believing that their parents will always love and protect them.
On the other hand, (northern) European countries behave(d) like grown up’s economically.
Unfortunately anglosaxons (= USA, GB) behave like teenage gamblers, economically, eventually causing economic crash and subsequent wars that might force grown up political America to defend it’s pacifistic kids.
Professor,
let it also be acknowledged that 2 out of the 3 army groups had secured their ’41 objectives: Leningrad was surrounded and the Ukraine was overrun, with much of the local population jubilant. Only when the SS einsatzgruppen began their dirty work did that change. Had Hitler not intervened and meddled with AG Center, split them up, diverted them, reassembled them, then they might very well have made it to Moscow when there was two good months of travel before the rains. No, when one really ponders the Russian invasion, Hitler was not as delusional as we like to think he was in invading.
In fact, I’d argue that is decision to invade the balkans set his Russian plans back two months and that was the error. Had he invaded in APril, or even May, then I think the story would be much different. Hitler narrowed the window and shortened his margin for error. He overplayed not his hand, but his own self-defined military genius. For all the problems, it was entirely doable and very seemed such. Had he scrapped the operation until ’42, then no doubt, Russia would have been little better prepared, the Wehrmacht much more so. Perhaps it was not that Germany couldn’t, but that Hitler couldn’t. Couldn’t wait, couldn’t not micromanage, etc.
Even in ’42, his myopic focus on Stalingrad took away from what otherwise could have been further advance. And Kursk, then the two-front war, and it was over. But had Hitler been Hitler of ’39-’41, less overbearing, less meddling, more decisive, allowing the generals to run the war, then the outcome would very well have been different But he couldn’t be the earlier leader, as Hitler of ’41 was of a different mindset. His early successes, like ’36-’38 made him more bold and reckless, doomed him. He knew Germany wasn’t ready for full war in ’39 but went ahead anyways, despite Mussolini’s pleas.
We’ll never know the what if’s, but I don’t think that the invasion of Russia was the mistake it’s always made to be. And that’s the scariest part of all. It very well could have succeeded.
Prof. Hanson,
I wonder if You got time to read the very famous (among Russian-speakers) work by Viktor Suvorov, “Ledokol” (“Ice-Breaker”).
The author is a former KGB staffer, who defected to London.
His main thesis – supported by extensive work in Soviet archives – is that Hitler’s sudden attack on Stalin was far from “madness”. Actually, it was a very rational preemptive strike: Stalin was planning his own massive invasion of Europe.
That’s why Wehrmacht was able to cross Soviet borders so easily: all barriers (mine fields, etc.) were removed to let the Red Army pass. That’s why Stalin amassed, in pre-war years, an incredibly large industrial force – by enslaving his population, and selling it’s farm production (leaving millions to starve and die in Holodomor) to cover the expenses of hiring the best industrial architect and planner: an american Albert Kahn.
Suvorov’s analysis is entirely coherent with Stalin’s invasion of Poland and the “winter war” with Finland, for which Soviet Union was expelled from the League of Nations.
So, maybe Hitler wasn’t some nut-case as we like to picture him. He was calculating – and absolutely immoral – shrewd politician and strategist, as he proved by conquering all Europe, after getting all he could peacefully through Munich betrayal.
Attacking Stalin first might have been be his only chance against the looming Soviet aggression, on Stalin’s terms.
Suvorov was GRU – military intelligence,supposedly a much more efficiently run outfit than KGB – and a much more secret one.
Apart from that, your post is correct, and I think Suvorov’s analysis struck me as quite credible.
Suvorov wrote a lot of books, and he is quite popular among history buffs in Russia.
Follower,
I ran across that explanation before, and in rings so true in so many ways. I understand that the supporting records have been “disappeared” again, with suspicion being that the Left would like to rehabilitate Stalin’s legacy, and would not countenance such records being part of the history. I dunno, how would an additional record of megalomania and duplicity tarnish Stalin any more than the current view?
Suvorov has zero credibility. He is popular amongst Nazi apologists though. “We had to strike Mordor to defend Europe from the Asiatic Bolshevik Jew Barbarian horde”. Those kinds of people.
The possibility that Hitler expected the Russians to simply fall apart under military assault as they did in World War One could account for the invasion of Russia by Germany. In Germany, one man’s ideas carried all and Hitler was well aware of the events in Russia only 25 years later. There was never any question, even at the time, of Germany being able to carry an invasion into the interior of Russia. Of the many miscalculation’s credited to Hitler and the invasion of Russia, this is an idea that has had little credit. It would explain a lot about the goals of the German army in that campaign.
The U.S.back the wrong side 70 years ago,I can’t wait for my German cousins to take over the planet!!!Death Ray anyone???
icetrout, shouldn’t you be under a bridge somewhere scaring goats?
John robert’s contention that “the Americans had NO strategic impact on the outcome” is absolute nonsense. It sounds like the drivel coming out of the Soviet Union after V-J Day. Stalin needed American war materiel and never stopped pressing for a second front when the British would clearly wanted to do little more than secure the Suez Canal.
Beyond that, doc makes some very salient points about presentism, judging history by hindsight and current standards. Even though Hitler’s generals were aghast at the idea of Barbarossa, it had a chance to succeed. What did it in was Hitler’s inability to make a decision and stick to it. If he had stuck to the goal of taking Moscow, instead of sending armies thither and yon, they just might have gotten there in October, instead of December.
Victor, from the first time I read your work, I knew that you had a small vision of the future because of your understanding and knowledge of History. In many small things, you may not be right but I HAVE NO DOUBT THAT YOU WILL BE RIGHT IN THE LARGE THINGS!
We are about to be hit by a tsunami of economic and fateful mistakes, happenings and intentional struggles for control and power. Each of us will have to find our way. America in flyover country and we great unwashed in Middle America are saving money, preparing mentally to possibly lose most or all of our assets, saving and growing food, arming ourselves and doing everything we can to keep what we have or be in the situation to be prepared to weather whatever comes until we can start over.
I can’t believe that I am writing these things but I know I am right. I pray that Nov. 2, 2010 will be our chance for America and individual freedom. We, in the hinterlands, will never give up. the elites and the something for nothing crowd are not preparing and don’t get it. There will be a lot of pain. God bless.
By all means: NOVEMBER must be a rallying call to all Americans! We have the legal power, given to us by the founding fathers, to severely limit our current President by voting both houses Republican. It will be tough, but it must be done! It’ll be the first election I will probably personally involve myself in, in an active way as I’ve never seen a president, even Jimmy Carter, do this much damage, this quickly to the country in my entire lifetime of 45 years.
And whoever above said he thought that Obama might resign or not run again — he’s no LBJ. “Resign” isn’t in his vocabulary.
Elections. For the last fifty years, Americans who worked hard, kept their noses to the grindstone, paid their way and their taxes. But they also had a major failing.
Most times, Over half of them didn’t even bother to vote.
It had better be different this time. NO, we will not pay “Street Money” like the democrats will – in order to get votes. But we had better be out making sure those of our ilk are properly registered and have transportation to vote and vote at the right place. We should be manning the phone banks and doing everything we personally can to counter the paid for democrat votes.
We should personally try and bring the truth to the minorities that traditionally vote for the democrats. We must convince them that the free ride is over and that the democrats will no longer be able to support them.
We should also make sure to volunteer to help the election officials to make sure that there is an honest vote and honest counting of ballots. We must be watchful because the democrats intend to win, by hook, crook and bribery.
If we can’t win by using our votes or those votes don’t count…then the other way, the way nobody wants, will be the only way.
Papa Ray
The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed – where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.
2009 Judge Alex Kozinski
For some reason, my biggest fear is Turkey. What surprised me big time was the deal both Turkey and Brazil recently cut with Iran.
Think about that, a NATO ally, Turkey, went behind our backs and cut a deal with one of the most dangerous countries on the planet. What does that really mean? Does Turkey think this is a sign of things to come, that both NATO and the United States are both paper tigers, and that it thinks it should make a deal with Iran now while the getting is good? Or does it mean that Turkey, first and foremost a Muslim state, wants to support another Muslim state in getting nuclear weapons? What did Iran promise to Turkey in return for its support? Will Iran eventually share its nuclear weapons technology with its friends that support it now, such as Turkey? Does Turkey see the handwriting on the wall, that Muslims will eventually dominate the region, so it had better make the best deal possible before Iran becomes the dominant power in the Middle East and becomes the biggest nuclear threat to Europe?
Turkey may be making its move right now. And, I think they’re laughing right now at all of Greece’s economic problems, waiting for their chance for a little payback to settle their age-old scores with that country.
Also, the European Union has fought for years to prevent Turkey from joining the EU. Why do you think that is? It’s because they don’t want another giant influx of Muslims into the Western part of Europe. If Turkey was an EU member, its citizens could travel anywhere in the EU to work and the thought of a couple of million more poor Muslims “invading” countries like France and Germany always had western Europe on edge. Even Chirac in France vehemently fought against Turkey’s entry into the EU. So the Europeans alawys hated Turkey and they made no bones about it.
So the big question is, if the EU falls apart and the Turks know that there will be no possibility in joining the EU, will Turkey try to make its own deals to try and dominate western Europe? I really, really, hope this is not the case. Because, if it is, always remember that the Europeans, if pushed far enough, will do what they do best and lash out against any ethnic race they think is causing it major problems. Don’t believe me? Well, it wasn’t too safe to be a jew in Germany during World War II and the Muslims in Bosnia, Kosovo, and Serbia were also killed when they were blamed for all sorts of problems. If the EU crumbles, I feel Europe will regress to the way it was prior to World War I, creating any alliance possible to fight a new Ottoman Empire. It’s looking bad, people.
And not only has Turkey completely (but not yet formerly) cut its former long and strong ties with Israel, but now has also decided to play a dangerous game by using that flotilla of ships heading towards the Gaza strip. About a day or so ago they allowed the ships to fly under the Turkish Flag! I’m not clear if they also added a ship of their own as well or merely sent the flotilla their flag to hoist. But the point is — and Turkey even said this — (paraphrasing) that “an action against a ship flying a Turkish flag is an action against Turkey!”
I mean, talk about desperately looking for a way to find any excuse for an incident that could lead to potential hostilities or at least the formal cessation of ties with Israel! Sheesh. I thought they were more “professional” than that.
But I should distinguish between Turkey’s military, who is/was very professional and always believed in having strong ties with Israel, and their Islamist leader, Erdogan — who is conducting a major witch hunt using trumped up trials of conspiracy and confessions obtained through torture to wipe out half the leadership of the Military (which has always served as the traditional stabilizing force in Turkey, ensuring that Ataturk’s secularism would always prevail). But if the Military is hobbled, Turkey will end up going completely Islamist — forget the EU — I don’t see how either side takes potential admission seriously anymore.
And frankly, I don’t see how they will be able to stay in NATO — their refusal to allow out troops to use their country in the last Iran war was a test which they failed miserably. I mean, what’s even the point of being a NATO country if you don’t allow almost complete military cooperation? But I suppose if they remain a “bulwark” against Russia, then we will still think them “too critical to loose.”
To the Turks, the most important outcome with respect to Iran is the avoidance of an unpredictable regime change in Iran. Like what would result should Iran be invaded (or possibly even attacked). The inevitable result of such an event would be a huge push by the Kurds to form a greater Kurdistan. There’s no love lost between the Turks and the Iranians, but to the Turks, the current Iranian regime is far preferable to a Kurdish state on their border.
Second, the Turks would really like to be the region’s power broker. They want to be seen as the peacemaker and/or the people to come to when something needs resolving in their neighborhood.
I wonder if Obama understands how fragile the current world order is. If the U.S. withdraws from the scene abruptly, we are looking at a nuclear version of 1913.
South Korea, Japan, Germany, Denmark, and Italy could all build nuclear weapons over a long weekend and develop real high-yield fusion weapons and delivery systems with a year. Brazil and Argentina could even take South America nuclear.
If we look the other way while Iran goes nuclear, the logical choice for all their likely targets is to develop the ability to respond in kind.
Iran, for all practical purposes, is a test case. If we allow them to go nuclear, then without question, the entire world goes nuclear. And for damn good reason too.
This is why Iran is so much more important than “just” as a threat to Israel and the remaining Middle East.. and the entire world economy when they double the price of oil given that they will have, in effect, complete control over all oil producing countries, both Sunni and Shia.
With the weapons that exist today, global war, as opposed to terror or proxy war, is unthinkable to any sane person or ruler. Plenty of nations can get the Bomb, but then what? A suicide terrorist taking out a city is always the real threat, but a sovereign nation ultimately has to think what possible gain can come from using the bomb, except as a deterrent if threatened first. No, bombs may be detonated by the Gavril Princeps of the world, but any state that goes nuclear will face the same conundrum that the Nuclear Five all have faced for half a century. Now that I’m well-hung, what happens next? How do I intimidate someone who has the bomb too?
In short the bright side is that chasing the nuclear bauble will distract no-account countries from going after the arms that really mean something — the armed ships and subs that control the sea lanes. As soon as we lose the oceans, well then, there goes our moat.
In my opinion, Hitler had no option but to invade Russia. Russians and Germans had never been the best of friends, the Russians were already too close, there were a lot of Russians to make into an army, and who on his right mind would trust a pact with Stalin. Hitler decided to sucker punch before he was sucker punched himself.
The invasion would have worked without a doubt because the Germans had all the advantages. But the essence of Nazism itself doomed them to defeat: SS and Gestapo abuses in occupied lands, Hitler’s inept interference in every detail of the operations, and everybody’s strict obedience to even the most absurd orders from Der Fuehrer.
Suppose the Nazis had won, we would have had a prolonged war but against an enemy with a lot of occupied territory to defend and with very bothersome resistance groups everywhere. We won, and instead we had a prolonged and dangerous cold war against an enemy who we made into a super power and who we had let occupy half of Europe.
Sooner or later Germany and Russia were going to come to blows. But Hitler launched WAY too soon. He had unfinished business in the west. Let Franco protest, even go to war, but Gibraltar should have been next. Then he and Mussolini could have secured the Mediterranean before looking in other directions.
Another good point, Old Soldier. Gibralter was definitely the cork in the Middle-Sea bottle. How history would have been different had some of our commentators here had the ear of the leaders of the militaries back in the 1940s! My Dad would have never made it to Corsica and on to Italy. His Army-Air-Corps outfit (58th, I believe) would have never sent its B-25s over the Balkin oilfields.
Whoa! The commentators here, including me, have the benefit of knowing what happened. People acting then were in the fog of the present/unknown, so the whispering in someone’s ear meme is clearly science fiction material.
It is a darn good thing for the free world
that _both_ Hitler and Tojo were clueless;
If Rommel and Yamamoto had been in charge,
President Patton would have had a hard time
defending CONUS.
George Herter started a mail order company
after WWII, and travelled to Germany to buy
some of his products; He mentioned in the
editorial section of his catalog that the
Germans were stockpiling arms and ammunition
against the next round of war with Russia,
which they planned to win.
Anybody who assumes the Germans have to
_start_planning_, future tense, for the
breakup of the EU and their rearmament
is unclear on the concept; Remember those
‘Sewing Machine Factories’ they had hidden
in the Black Forest last time ? :)
Always an interesting topic, especially Prof. Hanson’s thoughts about invading the Middle East in force rather than the Soviet Union. But the problem with the what if’s is that there are endless permutations.
A lot of the commenters hinge on Hitler’s delay and failure to take Moscow. What if Moscow had fallen, would that really have spelled victory? See Napoleon.
Sounds good to me; let the wealth-creators in. Let’s send Europe our SIEU thugs and ACORN nuts in exchange. Lawless non-producers seem to thrive over there (at least they have until recently). While we are at it, let’s funnel the illegals over that way and have the “president” (cough, cough) of Mexico spew his nonsense in the Brussels parliament.
The key for Hitler and Germany in Russia was the Caucasus oil fields.
Diversion to Lenningrad of the force (Paulus’ 6th Army included) intended to get there virtually ensured the Soviet win at Leningrad and later, Kursk. Had the Germans gotten the Caucasus fields, the Soviets would have been starved for fuel stocks themselves.
Think about what the Germans had on the ground at the end of the war. Technology that took us 5 more years to perfect and the only thing keeping them (the jets, in particular) on the ground was a lack of fuel.
As I remember it—I read this over 20 years ago!—Hitler pushed back the invasion date of Barbarossa because of the unexpected resistance of his enemies in Greece; or was it Turkey?
Yugoslavia first, then Greece.
The Biggest German Miscalculation during the war as one old german soldier put it,
We ran out of bullets before the Soviets ran out of soldiers.
And now America ought to no longer send its warriors to the battlefield. Despite their valor, know-how, weapons, and air cover, the rules of engagement dictated by our historic first Islamic apostate CinC lay waste their warrior ethic.
#18-Steve.
Look at a map of Russia in 1941, or if you can’t find one, a map of Russia today. Even today, the rail system all runs through Moscow, much like the spokes of a wheel. In 1941, if you wanted to take a train from point A to point B, you had to go through Moscow. All the Lend Lease supplies we shipped went to Murmansk and Archangel in the north. For these supplies to be distributed, they HAD to go through Moscow.
Taking Moscow would have likely destroyed the USSR’s ability to effectively resist. First would be the symbolic and psychological value of taking the capital city. The average Russian was fighting for the Rodina, the motherland. The fall of Moscow would have had a huge negative impact on the national morale. Second, the political and civic control structure would have been torn apart. Stalin and the upper level would have evacuated, but the whole infastructure of control was in Moscow. It was the center for the whole governmental bureaucracy, not to mention all the records and documents. Most importantly, none of the major cities were independently connected by the railroads. Anything we shipped wouldn’t be able to be moved to where it was needed. It would have shut down the rail system for the entire country. Even today, the road system in Russia is totally inadequate as a primary means of moving goods. In 1941, it was virtually nonexistent. I think it would have been a decisive change in the course of the war.
Stalin had moved a lot of the manufacturing across the Urals, but again, there would have been no transportation system. There wouldn’t be any way to move the raw materials to the factories, and no way to move the finished products to the front. It would have taken years to build a new rail system on the other side of the Urals. Meanwhile, Germany has not only secured their Eastern front, they now have access to the oil and other raw materials they need, plus they have a natural defense line at the Ural Mountains.
Yes, I think if the Germans had taken Moscow, it would have meant victory on the Eastern Front.
1941 operation Barbaraso defeated – at christmas nearly led to the collapse of the entire german front.
1942 operation Blue – led to the destruction of the entire the army the jewel in the crown
1943 operation Citadel – a distrous defeat for the german army and ended with them racing back westwards
1944 operation Bagration – destroyed the last of the great german armies – army group centre
80% of the wermacht were on the Russian front
1944 America enters the war – I rest my case – all the above argument are just smokescreens – accept it WE OWE THE RUSSIAN PEOPLE not the commies the normal russians
And where were all the Russian forces in the fight against Japan in the Pacific?
1941 operation Barbaraso defeated – at Christmas nearly led to the collapse of the entire German front.
1942 operation Blue – led to the destruction of the entire 6th the army the jewel in the crown
1943 operation Citadel – a disastrous defeat for the German army and ended with them racing back westwards
1944 operation Bagration – destroyed the last of the great German armies – army group center
80% of the Wermacht were on the Russian front
1944 America enters the war – I rest my case – all the above argument are just smokescreens – accept it WE OWE THE RUSSIAN PEOPLE not the commies the normal russians
Excuse me but the United States entered the War in 1942 and began fighting the Battle of the Atlantic and the Japanese. Defeat at Midway means the Japanese invade the Soviet Far East in the Fall of 1942. The Germans take Stalingrad. In 1943 the 8th AF began to bomb Germany in earnest. This caused the Germans to withdraw fighter squadrons and anti-aircraft units to defend the Homeland. As a result Germany lost air superiority on the Eastern Front and lacked the anti-tank assets to defeat Soviet Armor.
One more thing. Operation Bagration was timed to coincide with Operation Cobra on the Western Front.
1942, 1943, 1944 depended on supplies and equipment from the US. No supplies then the offensives go 5 miles and stall. Stalemate.
The Russian soldies are due extreme thanks. Not so much the commisars.
I know, America sucks, USSR is great, blah, blah, blah.
American bombers and fighters in 1942 along with ships in the Atlantic and Med.
Americans in North Africa and Italy in 1943. As many Germans lost in Tunisia to Americans and British as the Germans lost at Stalingrad. German cities being pummeled.
And then we get to 1944 when things realy ramp up.
WE OWE THE RUSSIAN PEOPLE NOTHING. Because, see, after “they defeated the Nazis,” THEY BECAME THE NAZIS. Meet the old boss, same as the new boss. The Russians/Soviets turned all of Eastern Europe into a squalid prison camp. They dragged the rest of the world into a 44-year-long nightmare that ultimately accomplished nothing.
The Russians were/are killers, rapists, bullies and thieves. And they’re going to keep proving it to you, again and again.
Oh puhleaze. The West entered the war at the BEGINNING OF THE WAR while the Russians/Soviets were dancing in the streets of Warsaw alongside the Germans and were conveniently parceling out Eastern Europe amongst them. The actual amount of the Wehrmacht destroyed on the Russian Front was more to the tune of 60&-70&. And during this time the West provided crucial support without which the USSR would have been doomed by breaking the back of the Japanese Empire in the Pacific while simultaneously fighting Hitler’s armies from Ethiopia to France while simultaneously waging the naval war almost alone and providing the Red Army with most of its crucial war materials (particularly oil).
Yes, we own the Russian People. But that does not change the fact that they also owe us.
That is mean to say Turtler
I think there may be true hope for Europe. I have been working closely with the Dutch and Italian Tea Party coordinators, and have a summary post — including the fact they plan to target the EU capital building in Brussels for an event:
http://www.sdnn.com/sandiego/2010-05-27/blog/a-more-perfect-union/eastman-the-tea-party-is-going-international-baby
“Besides all these poisoning taxes, Dutch business owners are also confronted with rules, rules and rules,” Hofkamp said. “The bureaucracy is immense and the main problem is that Brussels tells us all how to do it.
It seems these Europeans view Brussels as toxic to the free market. Another quote from the piece you might enjoy:
While liberty and capitalism are the keystones of many American Tea Party events, there is a significant difference to the European rallies. Mazzerelli said, “In America, you fight against big government, government spending, Obamacare and other social issues.”
But in Europe, they are already fighting “against a society that is already socialized,” he said. “We are fighting for our present, because the situation is not sustainable.”
A summary of the Dutch and Italian Tea Party events is there, and key links. If you can, please spread the word. I think it is very interesting, in light of Joe Biden’s comments that Brussels is the Capital of the “Free World”.
I think there may be cause to hope for Europe. I have been working closely with the DUTCH AND ITALIAN TEA PARTY coordinators.
The following is a summary post — including the fact they plan to target the EU capital building in Brussels for an event:
http://www.sdnn.com/sandiego/2010-05-27/blog/a-more-perfect-union/eastman-the-tea-party-is-going-international-baby
“Besides all these poisoning taxes, Dutch business owners are also confronted with rules, rules and rules,” Hofkamp said. “The bureaucracy is immense and the main problem is that Brussels tells us all how to do it.
It seems these Europeans view Brussels as toxic to the free market. Another quote from the piece you might enjoy:
While liberty and capitalism are the keystones of many American Tea Party events, there is a significant difference to the European rallies. Mazzerelli said, “In America, you fight against big government, government spending, Obamacare and other social issues.”
But in Europe, they are already fighting “against a society that is already socialized,” he said. “We are fighting for our present, because the situation is not sustainable.”
A summary of the Dutch and Italian Tea Party events is there, and key links. If you can, please spread the word. I think it is very interesting, in light of Joe Biden’s comments that Brussels is the Capital of the “Free World”.
#25 Johnn Robert
1944 America enters the war???? Please tell that to all the American soldiers buried in N. Africa and Italy. How about the Merchant Marine? A lot of them died in the Atlantic well before 1944. No one is trying to minimise the Russian contribution, but you seem to be saying the Russians won it all by themselves. FWIW, why were the SS Pnazer divisions withdrawn while Citidel was still a running battle? To be redeployed to Italy to counter the US and British invasion of Italy in 1943. Like they say, you’re entitled to your opinion, but not your own facts.
If only Germany would be as capable as described in this article. Of course, the economic power of Germany still has the same cultural roots as it’s former military power.
However, it’s political class is completely degenerated nowadays, and it is more than doubtful that this country will ever again defend itself against some threat.
Sometimes it even seems unclear if it’s political class is defending or attacking this country, since almost all disastrous political decisions and trends of the last decades (Immigration, EU, Euro, Bail Out ….) have been pushed through against a 70 to 80% majority of the population.
And all of those decision breath the spirit of the German “Gutmenschentum”:
- destroy national identity
- force redistribution from the Germans towards {Immigrants, PIIGS, …}
The old Germans tribes did not have the organizational level to create their own state, but they were able to conquer the Roman empire and use it’s organisational structure for many centuries after it’s official vanishing out. That’s quite similar to whats happening in Europe today. I don’t think a powerful Germany will defend itself against islamic threat, but rather the Muslims will use the powerfull structures of Germany against the free world.
We owe it to the Russian people to admit that they
won the war on the Eastern Front; We do not owe them
thanks, or repayment, because they did it for themselves;
Here is the German post-war education plan for Russians:
‘They should be taught to write their names, and to count
to 1000; I see no reason to teach them to read.’ H. Himmler
“Operation Barbarossa (Hitler could not have invented a more give-away codename for the invasion)”
Sorry, Mr. Hanson, but I must disagree with you: pick a Teutonic Knight, any Teutonic Knight, or even some of the WWI “let’s Germanize Eastern Europe” crackpots like Von Der Goltz or even Hindenburg or Ludendorff. And if all else fails, there is of couse “Operation Go And Invade The Soviet Union.”
Oh dear here come the “Russians defeated Germany on their own” crowd out of the woodwork. They are just as bad as the “United States defeated Germany on their own” crowd.
The Soviets took on the majority of the German land forces and smashed them. That is an incontrovertible fact. They did not take on the majority of the German air forces or the majority of the German naval forces. Only during 1941 and 1942 was the Luftwaffe’s main strength deployed against the Soviets. After that it was busy trying to stop the RAF and USAAF from flattening German cities. It was the Royal Navy which dealt with the vast majority of the Kriegsmarine. It is also important to note what allowed the Soviets to smash the majority of German land forces. There were three factors:
1. The sheer size of the Soviet Union meant that the Soviets could trade land for time and that the Germans had significant logistical problems.
2. Lend-lease allowed the Soviets to mechanise their forces to a much higher degree than would otherwise have happened.
3. A very bloody numbers game where incompetent butchers threw men against the Germans and had units destroyed over and over and over again.
There were competent Soviet commanders, with Zhukov being the most famous example. However even they threw lives away in a manner which a US or British commander never would have done.
The Germans were also far from the only part of the Axis. The Finns, Hungarians, Romanians and Bulgarians were almost completely beaten by the Soviets but they were minor components of the Axis. The Italians had their land forces chewed up in the Soviet Union but they never made a significant effort there with their largest force being an army-sized formation. The other Italian ground forces were beaten by the British Empire and United States and the proportion of Italian ground forces that the western allies beat was far higher than the proportion of German ground forces that the western allies beat. The Italian navy never made contact with Soviet forces outside of the possibility of a few submarine-surface unit clashes and was, like the Kriegsmarine, almost entirely beaten by the Royal Navy. The story with the Italian air force was similar with some units operating in the Soviet Union but with the majority staying out of that area.
That does not even mention Japan. The Soviet contribution to the defeat of Japan was inconsequential. There were a few days of clashes in Manchuria and Korea but the Japanese were beaten before the Soviets even entered the war, the Japanese had simply not realised that yet. The vast majority of the effort against Japan was conducted by US forces with the British Empire a very distant second. The Soviets could never have decisively beaten Japan since Japan was a very significant naval power and the Soviets were not.
There were only two powers in WWII which made significant efforts against all three of the largest Axis nations: the United Kingdom and the United States. Only the US and the UK deployed large armies, significant strategic bombing air forces and could sustain powerful carrier task forces at sea for weeks at a time. No other powers did all three at once. No other powers waged war across the entire face of the globe. The US effort considerably eclipsed that the of the UK and it had the resources to create two strategic bomber forces (three if those operating from north Africa are counted as separate from those operating out of the UK) in different parts of the world, operate at army group level in vastly disparate theatres at the same time, conduct two sets of major amphibious operations at the same time on opposite sides of the world (Normandy and the Marianas Islands) and operate the most powerful naval fleet ever assembled. On top of that the US produced vast quantities of lend-lease supplies and ran the Manhattan Project.
The Soviets chewed up German ground forces and that was a very significant contribution to the defeat of the Axis in WWII. However do not make the mistake of assuming that the Axis could not have been beaten without Soviet help. The war would have dragged on for longer and the consequences for Germany would have been far more terrible than in real life, but they would still have been beaten.
What would have happened is that Germany would have been nuked. It would not have been on the receiving end of two devices but dozens. The results for the German population would have been horrific, but the war would have been over. That is worth thinking long and hard about.
One thing: the Finns were never really beaten at all. Sure, they were driven back after a period of inaction, but they otherwise bled the Red Army out until Stalin decided to bypass them and go after more promising prey on the mainland continent itself.
Other than that, you are 100% right.
There is simply too much history, too much memory, too many players over here to think a post-EU continent is going to always look like the Netherlands rather than from time to time the former Yugoslavia.
There is no fundamental law of the universe which says that America won’t end up looking like the former Yugoslavia. The belief that the normal rules don’t apply here is glorified with the name “American exceptionalism”.
Great discussion.
I would mention the Eisenhower Roosevelt allied model that kept an Anglo sphere alliance joined with Russia until the war was won.
I have a hard time believing this was possible even in hindsight. Uncle Joe’s crimes and ambitions were very great. This was a tremendous accomplishment. It makes Obama blowing off our allies all the more sad and dangerous.
You get the feeling that Obama is enabling a coming chaos. Maybe like Gorbi.
1944 America enters the war…
Except for those 8th-Air Force bombers in England, and the invasion of North Africa, and the invasion of Sicily, and the invasion of Italy, and the bombing of Ploesti from bases in North Africa and Italy, and the neutralization of the German sub fleet by the U.S.Navy convoys in the North Atlantic…
Not to mention the preoccupation of the Japanese with defeating the American/Allied forces in the Pacific, and not being able to divert their forces on the mainland of Asia northward into the Soviet Union…
Yeah, the American’s were just a minor footnote to the efforts of the Glorious Soviet Army in the Great Patriotic War…
Why are Fellow Travelors all such fools?
johnn…spoken like a good little Fellow Travelor. Miss the STASI do you?
“If we revised immigration policy and predicated legal entry on education and skill, ten million Europeans would arrive tomorrow, replete with degrees, expertise, and capital.”
Ten million Europeans who would bring with them their Socialism, their anti-Israelism, their anti-Semitism, their pacifism, and swell the Democratic Party ranks to the point where WE would become just like Europe.
No thanks, Mr. Hanson. We can let European Jews come here as refugees. As for other Europeans — let them sleep (and die) in the bed they have made for themselves.
Some observations from someone who lived and worked in Germany for many years and more importantly was accepted and invited into the German circle, which is quite rare.
firstly this thing about the Germans being different now in that they don’t work as hard misses the point entirely.
The germans are the most focused people on the planet and consequently are the most efficient workers in the world. this means that 1 hour of german work does not equate to one hour of another race.
Also the germans are the most logical people on the planet and they can change their point of view and actions in a heart beat if they understand that the situation has changed.
I personally do not fear any of these national traits as I have great hope that this time it will be the Germans who revolt and blow away all the relativistic PC lies and illusions and see it for what it really is – Cultural Marxism , Wir Mussen!!
“The germans are the most focused people on the planet and consequently are the most efficient workers in the world. this means that 1 hour of german work does not equate to one hour of another race.”
I don’t know what Germans you were around but I worked with them too and never had so many coffee and cigarette breaks in my life.
I too read “Icebreaker”. It is the only thing that makes sense to me. Nobody here mentions that the date of Stalin’s attack on Germany was meant to be one week after Barbarossa launched. Is it beyond possibility that German intel knew about Stalin’s plans and so Hitler and co. made plans to counter them?
There is some independent evidence for this in the biographies of German fighter pilots who took part in the attack on Russia. In “I Flew for the Fuhrer” Heinz Knoke mentions that the Russian airplanes were lined up wingtip to wingtip on forward airfields. Others also say this is what they found. If you are in a defensive posture you keep them in rear areas dispersed in revetments. What is the best time to strike an enemy planning to attack you? Just before he does, as his forces are arranged for attack not defense. Ask the Israelis and Egyptians in 1967.
Then consider the “defection” of Rudolf Hess(#3 in the heirarchy then)in May 1941. Hitler knows Stalin is planning to attack him. Germany cannot trade territory for time to organize a defense so must strike the Russians before they do him over. The war in the west isn’t settled so Hess goes on his mission to make peace with the Brits. If Churchill buys it Hess is a hero and an official emissary of the German government. If not, he went mad, stole an airplane and there’s plausible deniability on the part of the Germans. Why else was Hess kept isolated and incommunicado until he died in Spandau?
I like the idea that shear hard work can pull Germany out of their death spiral. If so, maybe there is hope for the United States. We often work hard.
The question is can they release themselves from the lure and poison of socialism?
And the unelected Brussels EU fever dream?
Can they rediscover democracy?
Can we?
Why people think that Europe is totally populated with weak-kneed pacifists after thousands of years of incessant brutal wars amazes me.
A few decades of standing down doesn’t change the genome.
And although I agree with much of Marc Steyn’s premise, it won’t take millions of verile 20 year-olds to get Europe’s blood up when the people there finally tune into the fact that they are either going to have to stand up some other country or some other people are going to roll over them. And modern technology now means that angry 60 year-olds will be able to a lot more damage than the angries mobs.
Failed welfare statism may end up being what saves Europe.
But it might be very ugly indeed.
“Excuse me but the United States entered the War in 1942 ” and did nothing of strategic significance until summer off 44. Operation Bagration coincided with the western offensive because Churchil begged Stalin to start early – see the official telegram – It was the Russians helping the west Not the other way around.
I agree we owe the communists NOTHING – I said the ordinary Russian people who are tough as nails .
Um, NOTHING of strategic importance? Um, what the BLOODY FREEL do you think happened to the IJN at the very least between Pearl Harbor and 1944?
And how does the capture of more Germans than were captured at Stalingrad coupled with the Liberation of North Africa and Sicility and the opening of the second front in Italy NOT count? To say nothing of around the clock bombing?
Oh yeah, and what about the fact that the West supplied most of the resources the Soviets were living off of for over two years?
Face it and let us stop this stupidity: Russia needed the West more than vice versa.
“A very bloody numbers game where incompetent butchers threw men against the Germans and had units destroyed over and over and over again.”
Another false rumor put about by people who have not really studied the war
Study operation Citadel 1943 the Russian, the best chess players in the world out thought and out played the Germans – what is war if not a giant chess board. After this in 1943 the germans WERE finished 200km from the west. Where were the allies?
The started to attack Sicily and Hitler used it as an excuse to pull out of Kursk as he risked losing the war that summer.
This is just getting ludicrous. Operation Citadel was ANYTHING but a tactical and strategic masterpiece. The Soviets had spent months preparing for the attack, and even THEN they lost most of the defensive lines they had been preparing to hold back the enemy and they only escaped disaster by tossing in more reinforcements to be decimated until the Germans finally had nothing left to throw at them. It was a bloody fiasco marked mainly by mutual misjudgements on both sides and the failure of the Soviets to adaquately prepare. Had the Germans had a thousand or so additional heavy armor, Operation Citadel would have devastated the Red Army. It came close enough to doing so in nay event.
2000km
“en million Europeans who would bring with them their Socialism, their anti-Israelism, their anti-Semitism, their pacifism, and swell the Democratic Party ranks to the point where WE would become just like Europe.”
Wrong again – the 10 million that would leave would be like myself who are sickened on what the socialists have done to Europe and see the same seeds in America – the last bastion.
Your statement “Germany was not at war with the U.S. in June 1941, and had no idea that it would be in the immediate future” is not true. Roosevelt, the body politic in Washington, American capital and American industry entered the war in March of 1941 with the enactment of Lend-Lease. Hitler knew it and so did those who opposed it in Congress. The main argument against Lend-Lease in Congress was that it was an entry into the war. Roosevelt’s entry into the war left Hitler no choice but to invade Russia and attempt to deliver a knock-out blow to the Soviets. Since, in Hitler’s opinion, this was all the work of Jews he felt obliged to put some casualties on them.
Of course, the principle criterion for the telling of history is that it must be flattering, so it must be propagated that the invasion of Russia and the mass killings of Jews were all for no reason, and had nothing to do with American policy.
Firstly, you are once again blaming the wrong nation for WWII.
While it is correct that the US entered the war in Europe at least as a supporting role in mid-early 1941, you forget that that was largely in response to Germany’s entry into war with us in 1933 as per Hitler’s reactivation of the Cuba memorandum which spread German agents to the four corners with the sole intention of attacking American interests and American strategic security. To say nothing of naval attacks on American shipping dating back to the very first days of the war.
Secondly, the Killing of Jews DID have NOTHING to do with the US response. Kristalnacht had already happened in 1934 and the Germans and their allies had already been organizing mass killings since 1938. The industrialized death camps were not up and running until after Wansee, but the principle was still in existance.
And the invasion of Russia had already been a part of Hitler’s agenda well before he scribed in in Mein Kampf. If anything, lack of American support to the Allies would have only seen it happen earlier.
So stop being an apologist for the Nazi German reigime. If you had actually done your bloody research, you would be blaming Berlin rather than Washington DC and tracing the conflict between us to 1933 rather than June 1941.
Turtler,
Kristalnacht happened in ’38. The mass killings began in June ’41 in the wake of Operation Barbarossa.
Turtler,
The “mass killings” in the previous response refers to those committed by the Nazis.
In the two decades between WWI and WWII, Stalin and his Bolsheviks, our allies in WWII, had mass murdered 30,000,000. They had eradicated Christianity from the Soviet Union. This is omitted from the history lessons in America, because it isn’t flattering to show the kinds of friends Roosevelt and Churchill palled around with. It would tarnish their halos a bit.
Ah, I mistook the NotLN for Kristalnacht again. My apologies to you and those who perished in the later.
But the bottom line is that the Nazis hit the ground running in the mass killing department. Within DAYS after the conquests in Poland, organized pogroms and executions of dissidents were already ongoing, with victims often being in the thousands or tens of thousands at a time. Lodz and Danzig/Gdansk were particularly infamous. The bottom line is that pretty much from the day of the onset of the war, the Germans had already made a policy of mass slaughter.
And yes, we do in fact cover the true nature of the Soviet Empire- albiet rather briefly- in this era.
“However even they threw lives away in a manner which a US or British commander never would have done.” That isn’t true.
Churchill was known to have thrown lives away like pawns on a chess board. Gallipoli is a prime example.
And if it had become necessary, there is no reason to think that Roosevelt wouldn’t have done the same. He had no objections to Wilson throwing away 100,000+ lives in WWI.
True, but considering the fact that there is throwing away and then there is throwing away, and the nature of WWI warfare (no nice, rapid, romanticized wars of manuever there, just savage long slogging matches) coupled with the statistics shows that even then they were far more apathetic to throwing lives away than, say, the Russian, Austro-Hungarian, Turkish, and POSSIBLY the German high commands were.
And it is still worth noting that the Russians lost more men in one year of WWII (1943) than we did in all of WWI. Which says quite a bit about the matter.
“Had the Germans had a thousand or so additional heavy armor, Operation Citadel would have devastated the Red Army. It came close enough to doing so in nay event.”
Ye ye ye and If I had a million or 2 more everything would be perfect. Listen , Mr expert , every war is a meat grinder – that is what war is and the only thing that counts in the end is STRATEGIC VICTORY.
The Germans FAILED in all their strategic objectives in Op CITADEL .
The Russians collapsed the salient forcing the German to race back westwards to avoid a total collapse of the front.
that is what is called STRATEGIC VICTORY – how it was achieved is IRRELEVANT – you sound like a school boy crying – “thats not fair ” get real!!
“Had the Germans had a thousand or so additional heavy armor, Operation Citadel would have devastated the Red Army. It came close enough to doing so in nay event.”
Ye ye ye and If I had a million or 2 more everything would be perfect. Listen , Mr expert , every war is a meat grinder – that is what war is and the only thing that counts in the end is STRATEGIC VICTORY.
The Germans FAILED in all their strategic objectives in Op CITADEL .
The Russians collapsed the salient forcing the German to race back westwards to avoid a total collapse of the front.
that is what is called STRATEGIC VICTORY – how it was achieved is IRRELEVANT – you sound like a school boy crying – “thats not fair ” get real!!
“Operation Citadel was ANYTHING but a tactical and strategic masterpiece.”
Really – the blitzkrieg had NEVER been stopped before. No army had an answer to the Germans who were undoubtedly the best army the world has ever seen – yet the Russiand not only stopped it in its tracks for the first time ever but counter attacked on the run and turned the field of battle – you really should do some proper studying of events before making these sweeping statement . I suggest you read Glantz’s analysis of the Kursk “skirmish”.