Midway

[sagegrouse]

This is not to denigrate the efforts of the thousands upon thousands who fought at Normandy and beyond, but the reality is that this vastly shaped postwar Europe, but didn't affect the war nearly as much. The reality, often forgotten, is that had the UK simply held out, and required any expenditure of resources whatsoever, the USSR was defeating Germany by itself. The end was more swift, but the Russians were marching on Berlin without a western front.

I believe this is a wrong-headed notion. The allied invasion of Western Europe, both in Normandy and on the Rhone, led to the Western Powers controlling all of France, Italy, the Low Countries, Italy plus the majority of Germany. Thatthe USSR defeating Germany all by itself, without any invasions by the U.S. and Britain, is a strange statement to read. Without British and American and Free French forces, the Germans would have overwhelmed the Soviets. Substantial German forces were on the Western front because of the threat and later reality of an allied invasion.

Moreover, you say that the allied effort was so important only in that the map was different. Uh, "war is politics by other means." The political objectives of WW II were not only to free the democracies (Britain, France and the others) from Nazi conquest but also to occupy the territory of Germany and its allies to prevent them from threatening Europe again. Full allied commitment through invasion of the continent was essential to achieving these ends. "Vastly shaping postwar Europe" was the essence of the conquest. Germany was defeated in World War I, but the peace was fragile, and they returned as an even stronger power. The objectives among all the allies was to ensure that didn't happen again. And we achieved a political solution in Germany, where many Germans were equally determined never to have another war. Thus, NATO. Therefore, the Marshall Plan,. Then the meeting of the minds between French and German leaders to integrate their economies to hamper any efforts for military conflict.

[Deslok]

I believe this is a wrong-headed notion. The allied invasion of Western Europe, both in Normandy and on the Rhone, led to the Western Powers controlling all of France, Italy, the Low Countries, Italy plus the majority of Germany. Thatthe USSR defeating Germany all by itself, without any invasions by the U.S. and Britain, is a strange statement to read. Without British and American and Free French forces, the Germans would have overwhelmed the Soviets. Substantial German forces were on the Western front because of the threat and later reality of an allied invasion.

Moreover, you say that the allied effort was so important only in that the map was different. Uh, "war is politics by other means." The political objectives of WW II were not only to free the democracies (Britain, France and the others) from Nazi conquest but also to occupy the territory of Germany and its allies to prevent them from threatening Europe again. Full allied commitment through invasion of the continent was essential to achieving these ends. "Vastly shaping postwar Europe" was the essence of the conquest. Germany was defeated in World War I, but the peace was fragile, and they returned as an even stronger power. The objectives among all the allies was to ensure that didn't happen again. And we achieved a political solution in Germany, where many Germans were equally determined never to have another war. Thus, NATO. Therefore, the Marshall Plan,. Then the meeting of the minds between French and German leaders to integrate their economies to hamper any efforts for military conflict.

First, I'm not disagreeing with any of the post war territoriality and spheres of influence. I am glad that our forces fought as they did and helped to retore Western Europe. But quite simply the Germans suffered 5 million military deaths in WWII, and 4 million of them were on the Eastern Front. The Germans were overwhelmed in the east. We were, for the part, the only force to stop and defeat Japan in the Pacific, but the reality is, we were more of a side note in WWII. Midway was the turning point of the Pacific campaign, and Stalingrad was the turning point of the European campaign. There really isn't much question about this. D-day occurred nearly a year and a half later. Germany was already reeling in the east. I did mention in my post, that so long as the UK/Usa were holding down any forces in the west, the USSR was marching to Berlin. Had the UK capitulated when France did, it is a debatable point as to who would have won in the East. But it is a debatable point had the entire German military headed east what the outcome would be.. It is generally estimated that more than two thirds of the German army was on the eastern front and perhaps more like three quarters were there. And, the simple fact is, Germany had huge difficulties with supply trains as it was, trying to add more troops to a mobile army and retain logistics is pretty much impossible.
We like to pat ourselves on the back, but the overwhelming force that defeated Hitler was the USSR.

[BD80]

First, I'm not disagreeing with any of the post war territoriality and spheres of influence. I am glad that our forces fought as they did and helped to retore Western Europe. But quite simply the Germans suffered 5 million military deaths in WWII, and 4 million of them were on the Eastern Front. The Germans were overwhelmed in the east. We were, for the part, the only force to stop and defeat Japan in the Pacific, but the reality is, we were more of a side note in WWII. Midway was the turning point of the Pacific campaign, and Stalingrad was the turning point of the European campaign. There really isn't much question about this. D-day occurred nearly a year and a half later. Germany was already reeling in the east. I did mention in my post, that so long as the UK/Usa were holding down any forces in the west, the USSR was marching to Berlin. Had the UK capitulated when France did, it is a debatable point as to who would have won in the East. But it is a debatable point had the entire German military headed east what the outcome would be.. It is generally estimated that more than two thirds of the German army was on the eastern front and perhaps more like three quarters were there. And, the simple fact is, Germany had huge difficulties with supply trains as it was, trying to add more troops to a mobile army and retain logistics is pretty much impossible.
We like to pat ourselves on the back, but the overwhelming force that defeated Hitler was the USSR.

And Indiana Jones played no significant role in the outcome of the Ark of the Covenant in "The Raiders of the Lost Ark"

Sigh

[ncexnyc]

I guess I shouldn't be all that surprised my the very Eurocentric narrative that the Allies saved Western Civilization. The Allies had no problem interfering in Greece, Iran, and the rest of the Middle East after the war. With the death of FDR, it was the status quo for millions of people in Southeast Asia as the Truman administration decided to prop up the decaying colonial empires of the Europeans.

[Indoor66]

This thread appears to be imbued with significant ideological rewrites of history.

[budwom]

Without arguing the relative merits of each country's contribution to the war effort, I think it is safe to say that the vast majority of Americans are not aware that the Russkis had, at the very least, 20 million deaths in the war (and quite possibly many many more) vs approximately 400,000 for the U.S. This is not to diminish in any way the efforts and sacrifices of the U.S, but the way American history is taught at most high schools, I think you'd find very few people aware of this inarguable fact.

Rodric Braithwaite (former British ambassador to Moscow) wrote an excellent book called Moscow 1941. Among his major points was that the slaughter on the eastern front was so horrific that the Russians simply don't have very precise figures on how many died. He cites one broad estimate that nine million Russian soldiers, and 17 million civilians, died in the war...though perhaps that is accurate to only plus or minus five million. Even after D-Day, 2/3 of the fighting was still on the Eastern Front (overall, 80% of the fighting took place on the Eastern Front). Meanwhile the Germans (not surprisingly) kept more precise records: they lost roughly five million soldiers (not counting civilians), with 80% killed by the Russians.

The precise figures can be disputed, but as Braithwaite concludes, the order of magnitude cannot. Again, none of this is meant to diminish anyone's contribution.

[dudog84]

This thread appears to be imbued with significant ideological rewrites of history.

That adds a lot to the discussion. Care to enlighten us with your wisdom?

[Olympic Fan]

I'm not sure how a tribute to the men who won the amazing victory at the Battle of Midway turned into a debate over the role of the Western Allies in winning the war.

But since this is the 73rd anniversary of D-Day (today), let me say that nobody is trying to denigrate the Russian contribution to defeating the Nazis in WWII.

Of course, maybe we don't have a WWII if Stalin doesn't sign his non-aggression pact in August of 1939 -- a move that allowed Hitler to invade Poland. And nothing Hitler did was any worse than the Russian unprovoked invasion of Finland in 1940 or the mass murder of Polish officers in the Katyn Forest.

Stalin only turned against Hitler when the Germans invaded in June of 1941. From that point, Russia suffered more casualties -- and inflicted more casualties -- than any Allied nation. Of course, whatever Russian success were helped by the supplies that the US and Britain shipped at great cost (both through the horrific Arctic run to Murmansk and the safer, but longer route through Teheran).

We don't know what role the D-Day invasion played in bringing Hitler down. Certainly the threat of the invasion tied down a significant number of German troops in 1942 and increasingly in 1943 when the issue in the East was decided. And most certainly, the Russians thought the opening of the Second Front was vital -- Stalin never stopped haranguing FDR and Churchill about it.

But WAS the Russian contribution that overwhelming?

In terms of casualties suffered -- yes. Far more Russians died -- both in combat and civilian casualties -- than the Western Allies suffered. But a large part of that was the overwhelming ineptitude of Stalin's army. Unarmed and poorly armed troops were uselessly sacrificed in a futile attempt to stop the Germans (the opening scenes of the film Enemy at the Gates does a great job illustrating this).

Is measuring SACRIFICE the true measure of who beat the Nazis?

Isn't who inflicted the most casualties a better gauge?

And in that measure, it's much, MUCH closer.

Numbers vary widely, but generally, the Russians inflicted 10.8 million German casualties (killed, missing and captured). The Western Allies inflicted 8.2 million casualties (again, counting killed, missing and captured). The great majority of Russian-inflicted casualties were killed ... the great majority of casualties on the Western front were captured -- does it matter how the Nazi troops were killed or captured -- both removed the enemy from the battlefield.

That still means that (helped by Allied supplies), the Russians inflicted more casualties, but not by a significantly wider margin. Just one comparison -- the Germans suffered an estimated 800,000 casualties at Stalingrad, considered one of the key battles in history. But at almost the same time, the Axis suffered 620,000 casualties in Tunisa. Not quite as much, but close ... and purchased at a much smaller cost.

I guess my point is that while there are ignorant Americans who do diminish the Russian role in defeating the Germans, there appear to be some who go too far the other way -- diminishing the Allied role in the victory.

As for D-Day, it shaped the postwar world, saved a large part of Europe from postwar domination and played a significant role in the defeat of Nazi Germany.

I would also argue that it was the moment where America emerged as a world superpower. Even though almost half the troops and ships at Normandy were British, D-D was an American endeavor -- forced down the British throats (Churchill resisted the idea until a few months before the invasion). And most of the equipment used by the British/Canadians was supplied by the Americans. That was clearly the moment when the US emerged as the senior partner in the Western alliance.

PS There is a new movie out -- "Churchill" starring Brian Cox. It focuses (and apparently exaggerates) his opposition to the D-Day attack, There are reviews that suggest it's the worst historical movie ever made. That I have to see.

[Tom B.]

PS There is a new movie out -- "Churchill" starring Brian Cox. It focuses (and apparently exaggerates) his opposition to the D-Day attack, There are reviews that suggest it's the worst historical movie ever made. That I have to see.

Well, here's one review from Godfrey Cheshire at rogerebert.com. It's a little hard to tell, but I don't think he cares for the film.

In the annals of historical biopics, Jonathan Teplitzsky’s “Churchill” stands out as a uniquely awful and tedious caricature of a fascinating subject. The film, which imagines British prime minister Winston S. Churchill as wracked with misgivings and opposing the Allied Forces’ D-Day invasion until the very last minute, strikes this reviewer as a load of utter rubbish from first frame to last.

. . . .

That the D-Day invasion could have gotten off the ground—much less succeeded—with this kind of last-minute schoolboy squabbling at the top is worthy of a Monty Python send-up, not a movie that wants to be taken seriously.

. . . .

The tale reaches a pinnacle of ludicrousness in a scene that suggests a grade-school parody of King Lear. After the invasion is delayed for a day due to bad weather, Churchill goes into his bedroom, gets on his knees, whirls his arms, and prays for more bad weather. “Please, please, please let pour tomorrow!” he bellows. “Let the sea churn in peaks and troughs and tidal waves!”

. . . .

Actually, von Tunzelmann’s script has one aspect of genuine value: it could be taught in schools as an example of the mistakes that can be made in screenwriting, from the terrible dialogue and hackneyed characters to the trashing of interesting history.

Andrew Roberts, a prominent Churchill historian, wrote, “The only problem with the movie … is that it gets absolutely everything wrong. Never in the course of movie-making have so many specious errors been made in so long a movie by so few writers.”

It really is that bad.

And Roger Sterling as Dwight Eisenhower?

Think I'll get my WWII fix this summer from Dunkirk.


(And now we are completely off the original topic. Sorry for the digression.)

[chris13]

Without arguing the relative merits of each country's contribution to the war effort, I think it is safe to say that the vast majority of Americans are not aware that the Russkis had, at the very least, 20 million deaths in the war (and quite possibly many many more) vs approximately 400,000 for the U.S. This is not to diminish in any way the efforts and sacrifices of the U.S, but the way American history is taught at most high schools, I think you'd find very few people aware of this inarguable fact.

Rodric Braithwaite (former British ambassador to Moscow) wrote an excellent book called Moscow 1941. Among his major points was that the slaughter on the eastern front was so horrific that the Russians simply don't have very precise figures on how many died. He cites one broad estimate that nine million Russian soldiers, and 17 million civilians, died in the war...though perhaps that is accurate to only plus or minus five million. Even after D-Day, 2/3 of the fighting was still on the Eastern Front (overall, 80% of the fighting took place on the Eastern Front). Meanwhile the Germans (not surprisingly) kept more precise records: they lost roughly five million soldiers (not counting civilians), with 80% killed by the Russians.

The precise figures can be disputed, but as Braithwaite concludes, the order of magnitude cannot. Again, none of this is meant to diminish anyone's contribution.

That is amazing. I had an office mate in DC in the early 1990s whose father had been a German tanker on the Eastern front during WW2. The most amazing part of the story is that he lived to tell the story. Here's a link to the Wikipedia article which seems well sourced. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_...e_Soviet_Union

WW2 seems like two separate wars...the US and allies vs Japan in the Pacific and Germany vs Russia (with some Allied help) in Europe. That's too simple but it's good to remember how much action in WW2 happened on the Eastern Front.

[Olympic Fan]

WW2 seems like two separate wars...the US and allies vs Japan in the Pacific and Germany vs Russia (with some Allied help) in Europe.

This is exactly what I'm talking about in my previous post -- it's true that too many Americans don't understand the Russian contribution to victory over Germany. but Chris, your characterization of the war in Europe -- "Germany vs. Russia (with some Allied help)" -- is just as ridiculous in the other way.

[budwom]

This is exactly what I'm talking about in my previous post -- it's true that too many Americans don't understand the Russian contribution to victory over Germany. but Chris, your characterization of the war in Europe -- "Germany vs. Russia (with some Allied help)" -- is just as ridiculous in the other way.

his analysis is MUCH closer to the truth than your previous post was, which distorted the data to a tremendous extent...

[Olympic Fan]

his analysis is MUCH closer to the truth than your previous post was, which distorted the data to a tremendous extent...

Really?

So the war was Germany vs. Russia (with some Allied help)?

So what about the first 22 months of the war, when Russia was Germany's ally? How does that jibe with your Germany vs. Russia narrative?

I guess you can describe the supplies that the Allies sent (and that Stalin screamed for so loudly and so persistently) as "some Allied Help." Same for the Allied blockade, which prevented German from importing vital supplies (especially oil). The lack of oil imports had a MAJOR impact on German operations as Hitler scrambled to conquer a major source of oil.

But what about the British/American strategic bombing campaign, which either destroyed or tied down in Germany the GREAT majority of the Luftwaffe, which was designed as a ground support weapon. Allowed to commit the majority of its air force to the Eastern front, Germany very likely could have won.

I know that the statistics for casualties vary widely -- even the official German OKW statistics, captured in 1946, are believed to be distorted. But when most people talk about East vs. West, they talk about killed -- and in those terms, the Russians killed many more Germans than the Western allies. But the Allies CAPTURED many more Germans than the Russians did, so in terms of casualties, the disparity between the Eastern and Western fronts is much smaller.

I remain disappointed that in an effort to make sure the Russian contribution is recognized, that some posters continue to try and diminish the very significant role that the Western allies played in the defeat of Nazi Germany. I'm not a red-baiter (I might be the lost liberal poster on this board), but it sometimes feels like I'm reading the history of WWII straight from a Russian textbook.

[dudog84]

Really?

So the war was Germany vs. Russia (with some Allied help)?

So what about the first 22 months of the war, when Russia was Germany's ally? How does that jibe with your Germany vs. Russia narrative?

I guess you can describe the supplies that the Allies sent (and that Stalin screamed for so loudly and so persistently) as "some Allied Help." Same for the Allied blockade, which prevented German from importing vital supplies (especially oil). The lack of oil imports had a MAJOR impact on German operations as Hitler scrambled to conquer a major source of oil.

But what about the British/American strategic bombing campaign, which either destroyed or tied down in Germany the GREAT majority of the Luftwaffe, which was designed as a ground support weapon. Allowed to commit the majority of its air force to the Eastern front, Germany very likely could have won.

I know that the statistics for casualties vary widely -- even the official German OKW statistics, captured in 1946, are believed to be distorted. But when most people talk about East vs. West, they talk about killed -- and in those terms, the Russians killed many more Germans than the Western allies. But the Allies CAPTURED many more Germans than the Russians did, so in terms of casualties, the disparity between the Eastern and Western fronts is much smaller.

I remain disappointed that in an effort to make sure the Russian contribution is recognized, that some posters continue to try and diminish the very significant role that the Western allies played in the defeat of Nazi Germany. I'm not a red-baiter (I might be the lost liberal poster on this board), but it sometimes feels like I'm reading the history of WWII straight from a Russian textbook.

Ah, but how many Nazis did the Russian WINTER kill?

From my cloudy memories of Hogan's Heroes, whenever Major Hochstetter threatened to send Klink or Schultz to the Russian front, they were more concerned about the weather than the Russkies.

But then again, I know nothing.

[swood1000]

One of my favorite Midway stories is the one about how we broke the Japanese code enough to know that they were planning an attack on “AF” but we didn’t know what AF represented so we transmitted openly the report that Midway’s desalinization plant had broken down. Shortly after that we intercepted a Japanese message saying that AF’s desalinization plant was out of order.

A few years ago I read the recently published book The Battle of Midway by Craig L. Symonds. He said that the Japanese didn’t have radar. However this Wikipedia page says that Japan had radar but that their technology was 3 to 5 years behind ours. Anybody have any information about this?

[Deslok]

Really?

So the war was Germany vs. Russia (with some Allied help)?

So what about the first 22 months of the war, when Russia was Germany's ally? How does that jibe with your Germany vs. Russia narrative?

I guess you can describe the supplies that the Allies sent (and that Stalin screamed for so loudly and so persistently) as "some Allied Help." Same for the Allied blockade, which prevented German from importing vital supplies (especially oil). The lack of oil imports had a MAJOR impact on German operations as Hitler scrambled to conquer a major source of oil.

But what about the British/American strategic bombing campaign, which either destroyed or tied down in Germany the GREAT majority of the Luftwaffe, which was designed as a ground support weapon. Allowed to commit the majority of its air force to the Eastern front, Germany very likely could have won.

I know that the statistics for casualties vary widely -- even the official German OKW statistics, captured in 1946, are believed to be distorted. But when most people talk about East vs. West, they talk about killed -- and in those terms, the Russians killed many more Germans than the Western allies. But the Allies CAPTURED many more Germans than the Russians did, so in terms of casualties, the disparity between the Eastern and Western fronts is much smaller.

I remain disappointed that in an effort to make sure the Russian contribution is recognized, that some posters continue to try and diminish the very significant role that the Western allies played in the defeat of Nazi Germany. I'm not a red-baiter (I might be the lost liberal poster on this board), but it sometimes feels like I'm reading the history of WWII straight from a Russian textbook.

Ok, first regarding an earlier post, you are the one bringing up Soviet casualties, before that post, nary a word about them had been mentioned. Budwom and I pointed out the numerical losses caused by the Red Army, not their losses, so well done fighting a straw man of your own creation. Second, nobody is saying Stalin was a good guy. Often overlooked in history(and this discussion) is that Ribbentrop and Molotov entered into discussions about formalizing matters between the Four powers, the signatories of the Tripartite Pact(Germany, Italy, and Japan) and acknowledging their respective spheres of influence. Basically, Stalin sought to formally ally himself with Hitler. There were tensions and strains(Germany owed a large debt to the USSR for various supplies negotiated with the pact to split Poland). I think everyone shudders to think what may have resulted if such a pact were made and kept. But the USSR ws generally friendly with the Germans until they invaded. Those relations say little about the results from that day onward. Regarding Stalin's insistance of the Normandy landing, of course they made his life easier and lessened the horrific price they paid, but did Roosevelt's insistance of the Soviet Union's declaration of war on Japan mean that Soviet forces were instrumental in the takedown of Japan? Hardly. A final note on the casualties. The numbers killed are in fact a more true representation of the fighting. Pre 1945, the number of prisoners on the Eastern front exceeded the Western front. But in the last months of the Third Reich, the Germans surrendered readily to the Western powers, not nearly so much to the east. Why? Well the(and these are figures from memory so not necessarily 100% accurate) approximately 5% of US/UK POWs didn't survive, whereas 60% of USSR prisoners died. Now, its not difficult to figure out which countries were more accommodating of their prisoners. In addition to respecting the humane treatment they got, the simple fact is a German fight the US/UK was much more apt to throw up the white flag, because he was far less afraid of getting killed anyway(with all there losses, the Red army really was out for blood).

And as someone who is both the son and husband of history teachers, I can pretty much say that an American textbook depiction of European WW II is
1. Invasion of Poland
2. Phony war
3. Fall of France
4. Battle of Britain
5. Battle of Stalingrad
6. D-day
7. Battle of the Bulge
8. Hitler's suicide/German surrender

And its hardly a wonder that most Aericans don't really have any sense of the magnitude of the Eastern front fighting.

[Olympic Fan]

Ok, first regarding an earlier post, you are the one bringing up Soviet casualties, before that post, nary a word about them had been mentioned. Budwom and I pointed out the numerical losses caused by the Red Army, not their losses, so well done fighting a straw man of your own creation. Second, nobody is saying Stalin was a good guy. Often overlooked in history(and this discussion) is that Ribbentrop and Molotov entered into discussions about formalizing matters between the Four powers, the signatories of the Tripartite Pact(Germany, Italy, and Japan) and acknowledging their respective spheres of influence. Basically, Stalin sought to formally ally himself with Hitler. There were tensions and strains(Germany owed a large debt to the USSR for various supplies negotiated with the pact to split Poland). I think everyone shudders to think what may have resulted if such a pact were made and kept. But the USSR ws generally friendly with the Germans until they invaded. Those relations say little about the results from that day onward. Regarding Stalin's insistance of the Normandy landing, of course they made his life easier and lessened the horrific price they paid, but did Roosevelt's insistance of the Soviet Union's declaration of war on Japan mean that Soviet forces were instrumental in the takedown of Japan? Hardly. A final note on the casualties. The numbers killed are in fact a more true representation of the fighting. Pre 1945, the number of prisoners on the Eastern front exceeded the Western front. But in the last months of the Third Reich, the Germans surrendered readily to the Western powers, not nearly so much to the east. Why? Well the(and these are figures from memory so not necessarily 100% accurate) approximately 5% of US/UK POWs didn't survive, whereas 60% of USSR prisoners died. Now, its not difficult to figure out which countries were more accommodating of their prisoners. In addition to respecting the humane treatment they got, the simple fact is a German fight the US/UK was much more apt to throw up the white flag, because he was far less afraid of getting killed anyway(with all there losses, the Red army really was out for blood).

And as someone who is both the son and husband of history teachers, I can pretty much say that an American textbook depiction of European WW II is
1. Invasion of Poland
2. Phony war
3. Fall of France
4. Battle of Britain
5. Battle of Stalingrad
6. D-day
7. Battle of the Bulge
8. Hitler's suicide/German surrender

And its hardly a wonder that most Americans don't really have any sense of the magnitude of the Eastern front fighting.

As a very committed history buff (with one published book on the war in Europe), I think your depiction of the way the war is taught is way off. You leave out a lot. Between 4 and 5, our schools do cover (1) the war in North Africa (from El Alamein to Torch) and (2) The invasion of the Soviet Union on June 22, 1941 -- which is taught as a major event in our schools. Between 5 and 6, I would add categories for the air war over Germany and for the Battle of Kursk (German's last real chance to beat the Russians in the field). I was taught (and I'm sure most kids are taught today) that the Russians closed in from the East as the Western allies closed in from the West in the final days.

And even if our textbooks and schools do underplay the Russian contribution, the remedy for that is NOT to dismiss or diminish the American/British contribution -- as some have had to do in this thread.

Stalin was obsessed with a second front and obviously thought that it was a vital operation in the war (he also was one of two world leaders to understand the true impact of Torch). At the same time, the US leaders (both FDR and Truman) were obsessed with getting the Russians to join the war against Japan. FDR at Yalta and Truman at Potsdam both made getting Stalin's promise to fight Japan as their top priorities in those late conferences.

That was at a time when we didn't know if the a-bomb was a viable weapon or not. In the end, the a-bomb was a decisive weapon. In hindsight, it would have been better if we had not pushed the Soviets to fight Japan. But that's hindsight -- without the a-bomb, Russian participation in the war against Japan would have saved tens and maybe hundreds of thousands of American lives ... it could have shortened the war for years,

My point is that D-Day DID have a huge impact on the German defeat, while the Russian declaration against Japan might have had a huge impact, but didn't (although the Russian declaration of war and the attack in Manchuria did have some impact on the Japanese decision to surrender).

And deslok, it's true that Germans preferred to surrender to the Western allies in 1945 -- they knew how brutal the war against Russia was -- but part of it was the realization by the German high command that when the Western allies successfully landed in France, the war was over. That understanding was shared by thousands and thousands of German troops, who began surrendering at an increasing high rate as the Western armies moved East.

[ncexnyc]

As a very committed history buff (with one published book on the war in Europe)

And deslok, it's true that Germans preferred to surrender to the Western allies in 1945 -- they knew how brutal the war against Russia was -- but part of it was the realization by the German high command that when the Western allies successfully landed in France, the war was over. That understanding was shared by thousands and thousands of German troops, who began surrendering at an increasing high rate as the Western armies moved East.

Congratulations on having a book published about WWII, however I spent the night at a Holiday Inn Express. As one of this forums more esteemed members that was a really cheap ploy on your part to play that card.

I'm also not sure how you could admit that the Germans knew how brutal the war against the Russians was in one sentence and then turn right around and say that the Germans surrended in droves to the Western allies because they knew the war was over. Were the Germans on the Eastern front stupid?

[Deslok]

As a very committed history buff (with one published book on the war in Europe), I think your depiction of the way the war is taught is way off. You leave out a lot. Between 4 and 5, our schools do cover (1) the war in North Africa (from El Alamein to Torch) and (2) The invasion of the Soviet Union on June 22, 1941 -- which is taught as a major event in our schools. Between 5 and 6, I would add categories for the air war over Germany and for the Battle of Kursk (German's last real chance to beat the Russians in the field). I was taught (and I'm sure most kids are taught today) that the Russians closed in from the East as the Western allies closed in from the West in the final days.

I'm not going to go into further depth on the substance of our disagreement. You think I'm wrong, I think you are, we disagree and that's fine. But this area is in fact a sore spot, and as mentioned previously having had a mother and wife teach the subject, I just went not 5 minutes ago to check the text my wife teaches out of(sidenote and would be a long diatribe, my wife generally hates teaching out of texts, and its depiction of WWII is one of the reasons). The book has
1. A page on the German/Soviet invasion of Poland.
2. Half a page on the phony war
3. A page on the fall of France.
4. A page on the Battle of Britain.
5. One page on North Africa and Hitlers entry into the Balkans
6. Half a page on the invasion of the Soviet Union
7. A half page on Lend-Lease(surprisingly no mention of the Murmansk convoys though a sentence or two about sending supplies to the USSR
8. A dozen or so pages about the Holocaust and the Pacific campaign and the "home front"
9. A half page on the African campaign
10. A half page on Stalingrad
11. A full page on D-Day
12. A half page on the Battle of the Bulge
13. A half page on Hitler's Suicide and the German Surrender

And this is not an atypical text for US schools, every school I've been at previously has been, more or less, analogous(did surprise me to note this book doesn't even mention Kursk at all). But that is the norm of American education today, and I think we can agree that this is not right.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

/checks his calendar... five more months of offseason to go

//makes more popcorn

I am very much enjoying the intelligent banter and passionate discussion here. Carry on.