Among the diploma-decorated dick-heads of western "academia,"
the "consensus" is that it was the Soviet Union which defeated Germany in World War II -- with the contributions
of the United States and the United Kingdom being minimal. Here are a few typical headlines demonstrating this typical ignorance
of our esteemed "historians":
- The Washington Post: (May 8, 2015): The Soviet Union Saved the World From Hitler
- The Independent (UK, May 10, 2015): Never Forget - The Soviets Won World II in EuropeNewsweek:
Defeat of Germany in World War II Was Possible Without U.S
Of course, from our perspective, with the crushing defeats of both
peaceful Germany and Japan, decent humanity actually lost World War II -- and (((they))) won. That aside, we'd like
to clean up this duplicitious dung about "the Soviet Union won the war" --- and that they did so almost single-handedly.
To quote one misinformed writer, the argument goes something like this:
"The German Wehrmacht, which in a few days overran France
and drove the British off the continent, was destroyed in Russia by the Red Army. The allied invasion of Normandy encountered
only a few under-strength German units deprived of fuel. The German army and all available resources were on the Russian front.
Americans played a small role in the war against
Hitler. Eisenhower cleverly waited until the Red Army had defeated Hitler, and then invaded long after the tide had turned
against Germany. Today Washington claims credit for winning a war in which Washington’s role was small."
(palm to face, shaking head, sighing)
Get ready, boys & girls -- It's time for some serious academic ass-kicking --- as only yours
truly can mete out.
Professor Pointyhead and the Russian myth-makers
are talking nonsense. The Soviets absolutely could NOT have won without the US & UK.
Let's begin with:
"The German Wehrmacht, which in a few days overran France
and drove the British off the continent, was destroyed in Russia by the Red Army."
When the Germans launched the preemptive Operation
Barbarossa in June,1941, the Wehrmacht, partly due to skill and tactics; and mostly due to surprise, overran the
Red Army just as easily and just as thoroughly as they had routed the British and French. The numbers of Soviet prisoners
taken and the sheer amount of war material destroyed or confiscated were staggering. It was only the onset of the Russian
winter that stalled - not reversed - the rapid German advance into Russia.
If the German-Soviet War were a boxing match, Round 1 (1941) was clearly dominated
by Germany. Round 2 (1942) could be considered a draw. It wasn't until Round 3 (1943) that the Soviets
could begin to claim that they had won a round (and even 1943 was a very close round). As for 1944 & 1945,
those years clearly belonged to Stalin.
are a few little details that the ass-clowns of academia seem to have forgotten. Just to cite three:
1: FDR's massive, and I mean massive, infusion of Lend-Lease
armaments and other essential supplies to the depleted Soviet war machine
2: The diversion of German troops to Africa, Italy, France, the Low Countries, Scandinavia,
Greece and Yugoslavia - all necessary to block the Anglo-American Alliance from advancing from fronts throughout Europe
3: FDR's manufactured
war against Japan precluded any possibility of anti-Communist Japan helping its German ally by way of an attack on the Soviet
Union from the Far East.
Just how massive was the free arsenal of state-of-the art goodies which FDR shipped to "Uncle
Joe" via never-ending Arctic convoys? Chew on these numbers, Professor Pointyhead:
Tanks and Combat Vehicles: 13,303
Anti-Aircraft Cannons: 8,000
Ordnance Service Vehicles: 2,328
Radar Systems: 400
Petroleum Products (gasoline and oil): 2,670,371 tons
Explosives: 300,000 tons
meats, sugar, flour, salt, etc.): 4,478,116 tons
Locomotives & Railway cars: 13,000.
Tommy Guns (fully automatic machine guns): 135,000
Metal Cutting Machine Tools: 400,000
An entire tire plant was actually lifted bodily from the
Ford Company's River Rouge Plant and transferred to the USSR. There were also secondary Lend-Lease deliveries from the UK
to the USSR, most of which were just re-transfers of US aid given to the UK. More essential goodies: aircraft engines, battleships, destroyers, submarines, mine sweepers, sonar
sets, anti-submarine batteries, naval guns, rocket batteries,
gear-cutting machines, drilling machines, cast-iron pipes, X-ray tubes, electric furnaces and even essential items such
as socks, boots, razors, clothes.
The complete list
of Lend-Lease aid, both for the Soviet military and the besieged home-front population, was published by Major
George Racey Jordan in 1952. It is indeed a jaw-dropper (here). As conceded even by Russian military historians, the augmentation of
Soviet fire-power due to Lend Lease was as much as 30%. That's akin to a 150 pound street-fighter packing
on 50 more pounds of muscle - American muscle! And it wasn't only about numbers; the state-of-the-art quality of
items such as radar systems, fighter aircraft and tommy-guns was beyond what the Soviets could produce at the time.
Just a minor detail, eh professor?
A German reader from Canada informs us:
remember when a few years after World War II, an older friend of mine who was a Panzer guy at the east front told me
a story: When they got hold of stuff that the Russian Soldiers who had fled left behind , they discovered US canned corned
beef and other American food stuffs. The Germans looked at each other and agreed: "This is the beginning of the end!"
Russia's Lifeline, by Albert Weeks, expands
upon Major Jordan's revelations of the significance of US Lend Lease to the USSR.
The next myth:
"The allied invasion of Normandy encountered only a few
under-strength German units deprived of fuel."
Only "a few under-strength German units"? Over 425,000 Allied and German troops
were killed, wounded or went missing during the Battle of Normandy and its aftermath. The Allied casualties (killed
or wounded) for D-Day alone (June 6, 1944) amounted to 10,000 killed or wounded - a number
that would have been many times higher were it not for the massive pre-invasion bombing of Normandy. For the entire
Battle of Normandy: 83,000 killed or wounded from 21st Army Group (UK & Canada), 126,000 from the US ground
forces. The casualties of the German forces during the Battle of Normandy are estimated at 200,000 killed or wounded.
We'll talk about that bit of bull-sugar regarding "a few"
German units again, momentarily, but as for the fuel shortages that the Germans had to overcome, the obvious insinuation that
the eastern front was depriving the Germans of fuel in the west is only half-true. Since 1940, the British Royal Air Force
had been attacking facilities supplying Germany with petroleum, oil, and lubrication products. The Americans later joined the "Oil Campaign"
by bombing the Ploesti Oil fields of Romania - Germany's main supplier. Refineries in Norway were also attacked. Though unable
to cripple Germany's supply to the extent they had hoped for, the damage was certainly enough to contribute to the shortage
that some seem to think was all due to the Soviet campaign. He is wrong.
1- The US / UK Bombing of the Ploesti
Oil Fields (1943)
2- From Scandinavia to the Mediterranean Sea,
the "Bomber Boys" of the US & UK wreaked havoc and devastation.
The errors continue:
The German army and all available resources were on the Russian front. Americans played a small role in the war against Hitler"
Arrrrgh! Again, the Germans sustained MASSIVE casualties on the various fronts in
which they were compelled to engage the Americans. You see, there was this fellow named General George Patton
- you may have heard of him - whose genius and aggressive tactics gave the German high command many nightmares. Not only did
the Germans have to contend with Patton, but America's presence meant that Germany's own greatest General, Erwin Rommel,
and millions of his tenacious fighting forces were tied up in Africa and later Italy and France. Had it not been for Roosevelt's
treasonous entry into the war, Britain would have been out of the picture as well. Rommel's armies would thus have
been fighting - and
tipping the balance - against what would have been an under-supplied Red Army on the eastern front.
Though not nearly as bloody and as large as the Eastern front, to suggest that the Western
and Southern theatres were undefended American cake-walks displays an ignorance about a subject which
Roberts should refrain from commenting upon any further. Again, the numbers don't lie:
German Casualties sustained fighting US / UK:
North Africa / Italy: 50,000 Dead and 194,000 MIA or POW, 160,000 Wounded
France / Belgium: 107,000 Dead and 410,000 MIA
or POW, 400,000 Wounded
Write off most of the MIA's as dead, add in the numbers of German airmen and sailors killed
by the US & UK Air Force and Navy; plus those killed by US-trained and US-equipped guerrilla Partisans (the "Resistance");
and German casualties in the West approach numbers comparable to those killed in America's Civil War. Yet Roberts makes it seem like there was only token opposition in Western Europe. Nuts!
Oh, and by the way, dear pinko professors, need we remind "youse guys" of
the utter devastation wreaked upon German industry and German civilians by the "Bomber Boys" of the US &
UK Air Forces? Wave upon wave upon wave of Allied heavy bombers mercilessly banged Germany throughout 1943 and 1944. 'Ya think'
all of that urban destruction, railroad-bombing, refinery bombing, factory bombing, deliberate dam-busting and straight-up
mass genocide might have hindered the German war effort, just a tad? Maybe? Eh?
And then there were the legendary code-breakers of the UK and US. So much of what Germany
planned was known in advance by the Anglo assassins, and duly shared with their Soviet buddies. This "open book"
was catastrophic for Germany (and Japan) -- and they didn't even realize it!
1. "A small role?" Vicious and dirty
Anglo-American attacks such as the infamous fire-bombing of industrial Hamburg killed 40,000 Germans in one night. // 2. The
busting of German dams also took a heavy toll on Germany's infrastructure. // 3. The findings of US & UK code-breakers
helped the Soviets greatly..
Oh, and "one more ting," as Lt. Colombo used to say. What these fools describe as "a small role"
in undefended Western Europe cost the lives of 250,000 Americans and an even greater number of badly wounded. That
equates to about FIVE Vietnam wars. For their part, the British also lost about 250,000 military personnel in the European theatre of World
War II. That's a total of about a half-million dead Allied fighting men and at least as many POW's; not a bad take for
"a few under-strength German units" which you claim were "without resources."
"The German army and all available resources were on the Russian front."
Really??? Then how the heck did all of those MILLIONS of soldiers end up in Eisenhower's notorious "death camps"
(above)? Not to mention the Germans which Patton, to Eisenhower's dismay, set free. Did they not get the memo saying that
the war was only in Russia?
America's "small role" in Europe? THREE NFL football stadiums full
of dead Americans, and many more stadiums full of injured and POW's. Was it German housewives armed with broomsticks that
inflicted such heavy casualties?
The British also lost about three soccer
stadiums full of young fighting men in the war that Roberts believes the USSR won all by itself.
errors to correct:
waited until the Red Army had defeated Hitler, and then invaded long after the tide had turned against Germany."
Again, this opinion ignores, or is oblivious to, the reason
that "the tide had turned," can be attributed to FDR's Lend-Lease lifeline to the Soviets, the dispersion
of German forces required to defend multiple fronts, the vicious Partisan warfare being waged under the guidance of the US
secret services, and the merciless terror bombing of German cities.
And as for this business of Eisenhower "cleverly waiting," the delay had NOTHING to do with
'Ike's' desire to spare American lives. The reason for delaying the invasion of Normandy until June 6, 1944, as
well as for Ike's subsequent fuel restrictions and halt orders which prevented Patton from taking Eastern Europe, was that
FDR and the gang of Communist Stalin-lovers around him were intending to gift Berlin and Eastern Europe to Stalin all along.
Had Eisenhower invaded in 1943, it would have been politically impossible to gift Berlin and the east to "Uncle Joe"
- who FDR believed he could work with at the time to build a "New World Order". Yes, Uncle Joe wanted Berlin
and he wanted it bad. And FDR and Ike were only too happy to hand it too him. Hence, the the "clever" delay.
Here it is -- read it and weep -- from the then influential and
well-connected Time Magazine, 1942 - the Stalin "Man of the Year" issue:
"There is also a story in high places
that, in keeping with the 'tough-guy' tradition, credits Stalin with one other desire: permission from his allies
to raze Berlin, as a lesson in psychology to the Germans and as a burnt offering to his own heroic people."
You see, contrary
to the official delusion, Eisenhower's calculated "delay" was not for the purpose
of minimizing US casualties by letting the Soviets do the heavy lifting. Not at all! It was Stalin, with FDR's blessing, who
wanted and who benefited from the cunning stalling tactics. Even so, the great Patton with his lightning advances was still
on track to take Berlin; until Eisenhower cut off his fuel supply in 1944, and finally ordered Patton to halt at the Elbe
River (near Berlin) in 1945. Have a look at line # 3 of the New York Times headline from "Roosevelt Is Dead"
issue of April 13, 1945, accompanied by an actual quote from General Patton.
1- 3rd Line: "9th
Crosses Elbe, Nears Berlin" - Why did Eisenhower issue a stop order?
2- The soon-to-be assassinated Patton - in letter to his wife: "Berlin gave
me the blues. ... It's said that for the first week after they took it (Berlin), all women who ran were shot and those
who did not were raped. I could have taken it (instead of the Soviets) had I been allowed."
Though it cost them the lives of many
troops and civilians (but no where near the ridiculous "20,000,000" claimed), the Soviets actually appreciated
Eisenhower's delaying tactics so much that they invited Ike to party atop Lenin's tomb, with General Zhukov and Stalin himself!
In gratitude for handing all of Eastern Europe to Stalin,
"Ike" was awarded the "Order of Victory" from the Soviets. .
"Washington’s role was small."
Well, we hate to rain on the new and greatly improved Russia's "Victory Day"
Parade; but facts are facts. Though it is indeed true that the US and UK could not have won the war in Europe without
the diversion of 60-65% of Germany's might needed to fight the Soviet hordes in the east; the same holds true the
other way. You see, without the massive Lend Lease Lifeline; without the bloody southern front (Africa, Italy,
Yugoslavia, Greece); without the bloody western front; (Normandy, Battle of the Bulge); without the OSS (pre
CIA) terrorist Partisans (in France, Holland, Greece, Italy, Yugoslavia); without the US propping up of the
UK; without the relentless US / UK bombings and fire-bombings of German cities, railways, factories, and oil refineries;
and without the great Patton; Stalin's Evil Empire would have been wiped out by the end of 1942, or 1943 at the latest
To put it in terms of a
wrestling analogy; Imagine three cheating wrestlers ganging-up on a single honorable wrestler. After a full hour in which
the out-numbered grappler gives "The Big 3" all they can handle, the lone fighter finally succumbs. Don't you think
it would be ridiculous, Professor Pointyhead, for any one of the "winning" wrestlers to claim credit for
the victory? Russian President Putin has no choice but to go along with the deeply entrenched mythology of the great Soviet
victory; but for western academics, there is simply no excuse for such a distortion of the historical record.
World War II in Europe was a 3
Super-Powers Against 1 fight, with the 3 fighting very dirty while using non-uniformed terrorist Partisans
as a deadly "4th man" against the Germany.
*Italy should not be considered a factor in the West because Mussolini's blunders created nothing
but problems for Germany.
be any lingering doubt as to the Soviet Union's need of and appreciation for western material, following is some testimony
from the ultimate source himself -- Joe Stalin.
Tell it, evil Joe. Tell it!
Just days before the Allied invasion of North Africa (Operation Torch):
is often asked: But will there be a second front in Europe after all? Yes, there will be; sooner or later, there will be
one. And it will be not only because we need it, but above
all because our Allies need it no less than we do. Our Allies cannot fail to realize that since France has been put out
of action, the absence of a second front against fascist Germany may end badly for all freedom-loving countries,
including the Allies themselves." (here)
And then, just
days after the Allied invasion of North Africa (Operation Torch):
"The Soviet view of this campaign
is that it represents an outstanding fact of major importance, demonstrating the growing might of the armed
forces of the Allies and opening the prospect of the disintegration of the Italy-German coalition in the nearest future.
The campaign in Africa refutes
once more the sceptics who affirm that the Anglo-American leaders are not capable of organizing a serious military campaign.
There can be no doubt that only first-rate organizers could carry out such important military operations as the successful
landings in North Africa ... and the smashing of the Italy-German armies in the Western Desert, effected with such mastery.
It is yet too soon to say to what extent
this campaign has been effective in relieving immediate pressure on the Soviet Union, but it may confidently be said that
the effect will not be a small one, and that a certain relief in pressure on the Soviet Union will result in the
This campaign radically changes the military and political situation in Europe in favour
of the Anglo-Soviet-American coalition. It undermines the prestige of Hitlerite Germany as the leading force in the system
of Axis powers and demoralizes Hitler’s allies in Europe. It mobilizes the anti-Hitler forces of France and provides
a basis for the organization of an anti-Hitler French army. It creates conditions for putting Italy out of commission
and for isolating Hitlerite Germany. Finally, it creates the prerequisites for the organization of a second front in Europe
nearer to Germany’s vital centres, which will be of decisive importance
for organizing victory over the Hitlerite tyranny." (here)
in speeches dating back to the desperate days and weeks following the initial German invasion (Operation Barbarossa),
Stalin referred to the importance of military aid from "friends" in the West:
July, 1941: "The historic utterance
of the British Prime Minister, Mr. Churchill, regarding aid to the Soviet Union, and the declaration of the United States
Government signifying readiness to render aid to our country, which can only evoke a feeling of gratitude in the hearts of
the peoples of the Soviet Union." (here)
And in a telegram to FDR, dated November 4, 1941:
Your decision, Mr President, to grant the Soviet Union an interest-free loan to the value of $1,000,000,000
to meet deliveries of munitions and raw materials to the Soviet Union is accepted by the Soviet Government with heartfelt
gratitude as vital aid to the Soviet Union in its tremendous and onerous struggle against
our common enemy — bloody Hitlerism.
And another telegram to FDR, sent in February of 1942:
"I have received your message about U.S. arms deliveries in January and February.
I stress that it is now, when the peoples of the Soviet Union and their Army are bending their energies to throw the Hitler
troops back by a tenacious offensive, that U.S. deliveries, including tanks and aircraft,
are essential for our common cause and our further success." (here)
decision, Mr President, to grant the Government of the U.S.S.R. another $1,000,000,000 under the Lend-Lease Act on the same
terms as the first $1,000,000,000, is accepted by the Soviet Government with sincere gratitude."
And also in 1942: "As regards the international connections of our Motherland, .... Great Britain and the United
States of America, with which we are bound by ties of friendship and alliance, and who are rendering our country
ever-increasing military assistance against the German-fascist invaders." (here)
And there are many other such telegrams and speeches in which Stalin -- in almost deferential
tones -- gushed with gratitude to FDR for all the planes, tanks, trucks and equipment that were being shipped to the the Soviet
Union. And so, thank you, Mr. Stalin (you vile murderous monster) for setting the record straight about just how
much the "second front" and the "Lend Lease" aid meant to the survival of your wicked regime.
1. Daily Mirror, 1941, Front Page: Stalin demands
a badly-needed "second front" in Europe. He got much need relief with the 1942 Allied invasion of Africa and the
threat of an Allied landing in northern France -- which, although D-Day was not until 1944 -- drew vital German manpower and
material away from the Russian front. // 2. Communist Party USA poster demands "second front." // 3. Statue in Alaska
commemorates the Lend Lease routes through which enormous amounts of military aid was shipped from the USA to the Soviet Union.