GETTING TO THE TRUTH ABOUT WORLD WAR II
METZ, FRANCE June 08, 2009
President Barack Obama’s visit to Normandy to commemorate the 65th anniversary of D-Day makes us think about the entire course of World War II, and the lingering propaganda or myths that still becloud it.
 
As a former instructor of military history and lover of history, let me address four of these myths that are particularly annoying and misleading:  
 
First, France’s army did not simply surrender or run away in 1940, as ignorant American Know-Nothing conservatives claim. 
 
The German Blitz that smote France on May-June,  1940, scattering its armies like leaves before a storm, was a historical revolution in warfare. Blitzkrieg combined rapidly-moving armor and mobile infantry, precision dive bombing, flexible logistical support, and new high technologies in C3 – command, control and communications. In 1940, Germany led the world in technology: 75% of all technical books were then written in German. 
 
France’s armies and generals, trained to re-fight World War I, were overwhelmed by lightening warfare. France was then still a largely agricultural society. Blitzkrieg – now adopted by all major modern armed forces - was designed to strike an enemy’s brain rather than body, paralyzing his  ability to manage large forces or to fight. The Germans called it their `silver bullet.’
 
Indeed it was. France still relied on couriers to deliver vital information. Germany was the world’s leader in mobile radio communications. Amazingly, the French commander in chief, Gen. Gamelin, did not even have a telephone in his HQ outside Paris.
 
Britain’s well-trained expeditionary force in France was beaten just as quickly and thoroughly as the French, and saved itself only by abandoning its French allies and fleeing across the Channel. 
 
No army in the world at that time could have withstood Germany’s blitzkrieg,  planned by the brilliant Erich von Manstein, and led by the audacious Heinz Guderian, and Erwin Rommel –three of modern history’s greatest generals. 
 
They were also incredibly lucky. Just one bomb on a German bridge over the Meuse, or one impassable traffic jam in the Ardennes forest could have meant the difference between victory and defeat. The French had temporarily moved some of their weakest reserve units just into the sector the Germans struck. It was, as Wellington said after Waterloo, a damned close run thing.  
 
Germany’s new, fluid tactics shattered France’s armies. They were unable to reform their lines in spite of often fierce resistance. The fast-moving German panzers were constantly behind them. Retreat under fire is the most difficult and perilous of all military operations. After six weeks, and a stab in the back by Mussolini’s Italy, France’s armies had disintegrated.  
 
France lost 217,000 dead and 400,000 wounded.  Compare that to America’s loss of 416,000 dead during four years of war in the Pacific and Europe. At least France did not suffer the 2 million dead it lost in World War I. Germany losses: 46,000 killed in action, 121,000 wounded, and 1,000 aircraft. By comparison, the US, British and Canadians lost some 10,000 dead and wounded at D-Day. 
 
Second, the forts of France’s Maginot Line were not tactically outflanked, as myth has it. The Germans struck NW of the Line’s end,  through the Belgian/French Ardennes Forest, a route anticipated by the French Army which held war games there in 1939. The immobile French field army failed, not the Maginot Line. It may have been too costly, tied down too many men, and came to symbolize France’s defensive attitude, but the Great Wall of France fulfilled its designated mission.
 
The Line was intended to only defend the coal and steel industries of Alsace and Lorraine, which it did.  
The Germans concluded an attack on the Line would be too costly, and opted for a different route – through Belgium.
 
But the high water table of Flanders and France’s aversion to building forts behind its Belgian ally left the Franco-Belgian border with only scanty fixed defenses. 
 
Ironically, after the German breakthrough at Sedan on the Meuse, a French corps held in reserve to
cover this vital sector moved east to the Stenay Gap to protect the Maginot Line’s left flank,
opening the way for Guderian’s panzers to fan out to the NW behind French lines. 
 
The second largest amphibious operation in Western Europe during WWII was the totally forgotten German crossing under fire of the Rhine in June,1940. 
 
The crews of the unconquered Maginot forts held out until the armistice. Those who mock France for building forts that were supposedly `outflanked’ should know  the `impregnable’ modern US fortifications at Manila, and Britain’s Fortress Singapore, were both taken from the rear by the Imperial Japanese Army. Germany’s much vaunted `Westwall’ and coastal defenses fared no better.
 
Third – Germany’s Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe were crushed well before D-Day. In commemorating the war, we must remember to salute the courage and valor of Russia’s dauntless soldiers and pilots who, like German soldiers, fought magnificently albeit for criminal regimes.   World War II in Europe was not won just at D-Day, as popular myth has it. Germany’s army and air force were broken on the Eastern Front’s titanic battles.
 
The numbers speak for themselves. The Soviets destroyed 75-80% of all German divisions – 4 million soldiers - and most of the Luftwaffe. Russia lost  at least 14 million soldiers and a similar number of civilians. The Red Army destroyed 507 Axis divisions. On the Western Front after D-Day, the Allies destroyed 176 badly under-strength German divisions.
 
When the Allies landed in Normandy, they met battered German forces with no air cover, crippled by lack of fuel and supplies, unable to move in daytime. Even so, the Germans fought like tigers.   Had the invading US, British and Canadians encountered the 1940’s Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe, the outcome may well have been different.
 
Fourth – World War II was not a good and evil struggle between `western democracies’ and `totalitarian powers,’ as we are still wrongly taught.
 
It was a world conflict  over land and resources pitting the British Empire which controlled 25% of the entire globe, the French Empire, Dutch Empire, and Belgian Empire, and, later, the US imperium(Philippines, Pacific possessions, Cuba, Central America),  against the Italian and Japanese empires.  The Soviet Union was an empire unto itself.  
 
In 1939, the only major powers without colonies - that were not imperial powers -  were Germany(who lost her few colonies in World War I) and China. Once the war ended, Britain and Holland, who complained mightily about the evils of Nazi occupation, scrambled to reoccupy their former colonies, some of which had declared independence. 
 
One can hardly call this a crusade for freedom. Liberation for the white people of German-occupied Europe, certainly. But not for the peoples of Africa and Asia. However, in the end, the war did set in motion forces that would eventually spell the end of colonialism. The collapse of the British Empire, which Winston Churchill had vowed to defend at all costs, opened the way to worldwide decolonization.
 
We should not forget all this. 
 
 
copyright Eric S. Margolis 2009  
Harpfool
Monday, June 08, 2009 11:48 AM
"The collapse of the British Empire...opened the way to worldwide decolonization."
I'd suggest it opened the way to 'recolonization' by the American Empire which continues to this day.
jackmisfit
Friday, July 10, 2009 10:29 AM
Ummm.... yeah. I love when people talk about an "American Empire". When has the US, (at least in the 20/21st century), actually ruled a country other than it's own and established it's citizens in the said country? I can't think of one... Go spew your anti american babble elsewhere. If America was interested in creating colonies, they would have made Iraq the 51st state. Then we could have had discounted "American" oil, but the fact is that we would still prefer to buy it from a "free" Iraq than a colonized one.

I'm not a gung ho, "USA...USA..." chanting activist, but from where I sit, the American ideal is democratic self rule, not tyranny, not colonization. Yeah, the previous republican regime strong armed/bullied American allies into an unjust war, but the ship seems to be righting itself. That's how democracy works.
John Roberts
Tuesday, October 13, 2009 11:13 AM
Jackmisfit I think you are confusing imperialism (the conquest and physical control of other countries) with colonialism (the emigration and settlement of large numbers of the conqueror's people in the land of the conquered). The two are, of course, closely related and almost always can be found to some degree together, but, that not withstanding, their are certain key differences.
The whole point of imperialism/colonialism is to secure the resources of the country being controlled. To facilitate this it is may be necessary to transplant some of ones own people to the conquered country to set up the resource extraction processes in the first place (such as coffee, tea, sugar and cotton plantations). This is colonialism. However, if a country is so dominated by another and it already has the extractive technologies in place this is not necessary - the countries own people can extract the resources on behalf of the conquerors. This is imperialism.
fuferito
Monday, June 08, 2009 1:17 PM
Great columnn as usual, Eric. I've been following your uniquely refreshing perspective since my early twenties in the Sunday Sun and I am never disappointed even in this graduated medium.
Your list of WWII myths to dispel is worth forwarding; so... I believe I will.
Market Socialist
Monday, June 08, 2009 3:35 PM
Very accurate article and as per usual to the point. Mr. Margolis is one of the few journalists who writes about true history and not HIS-STORY.
philmar
Monday, June 08, 2009 4:15 PM
"One can hardly call this a crusade for freedom. Liberation for the white people of German-occupied Europe, certainly. But not for the peoples of Africa and Asia."

Wonderful way to end the article. Analagous to the current Western imperial war against 'terrorists' which is a war against ethnic groups seeking self-determination against political systems created by Western powers and governed in the interests of Western powers and backed by millions of dollars of 'aid'.
chatman
Monday, June 08, 2009 10:17 PM
I really enjoyed your discussion of the war as motivated by economic rather than moral concerns. While one can hardly doubt that the war had its share of unique atrocities and crimes against humanity, particularly on the Eastern Front, it's easy to get caught up in all of this "good war" romanticism. I also appreciate your shout out to the many Russians who gave their lives to break the back of the German war machine. One can hardly doubt that no Allied landing at normandy could've held its ground against the full might of the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe; the Brits and Americans owe the Russians a debt of gratitude for disemboweling Germany's great armies well before D-Day.
jackmisfit
Friday, July 10, 2009 10:31 AM
One could also argue that without a lend/lease agreement, Russia probably would have had a bit more of a challenge "single handedly" beating the Germans.
Shazam
Tuesday, June 09, 2009 9:50 AM
Let us not forget another benefit from WW!!, aside from lifting North America out of a severe economic depression. The result of WW2 put Britain in its place, namely being 2nd runner-up to world domination and current toady to the Americans (a relationship quintessentially captured in the relationship between lap-dog Tony and top-dog George). It also delivered much needed perspective to that meglomaniac Churchill. Eric did not go into the cause of the war - the onerous terms of the Treaty Of versailles imposed on the Germans by the Allies, especially by the French general leading the negotiations, Clemenceau. May the afterworld keep snipping at his heels for his utter vindictiveness and imperiousness. If you want to read a revealing short book on the seeds sown for WW2, read John Maynard Keynes (he was part of the British delegation). The famous economist wrote The Economic Consequences of Peace, his 1919 critique of the Versailles Peace Conference. He asserted the harsh reparations exacted by France in particular on Germany would lead to economic instability (e.g. Germany's hyper-inflation and unemployment) and another war. All came to pass. This lesson was learned by the Americans at least as they chose to rebuild Germany via the Marshall Plan rather than humiliate it as an old-style conqueror.
Louis
Monday, June 15, 2009 10:40 AM
All this is true. But maybe a little bit incomplete. We have to judge history with the "eyes" of time.
harsh reparations exacted by France…". Yes. Although. Before even Versailles, a myth had been born "l’Allemagne paiera! (Germany will pay)". For the people, it was above all psychological. To pay can mean also paying his faults, his crimes.
Imagine the state of mind of the French people at that time. The defeat of 1871 stays on all the hearts. The primary school teachers of this young laic republic invent a new religion: the patriotism
And how feed it, otherwise with "la haine du boche (hatred of the krauts)", remind yourselves that the statue of Strasbourg (place de la Concorde, Paris) was veiled by black. The Dreyfus affair had divided the country but also strengthened and anchored the Republic
The war was going to be the ultimate anchoring.
Now, France of 1919 wakes up after a nightmare: 9000000 mobilized, 1500000 deaths, 3000000 wounded, hundreds of thousand widows and orphans, more than 400000 destroyed buildings
France is still agricultural, now, more than 400000 farmers died, hundreds of thousands are unfit or invalidate. A whole generation disappeared. The northern and eastern countries are ravaged. Thus, Germany has to pay!
In 1918, for the politicians, it is necessary to crush Germany. She never has to represent a threat. These men did not understand what had taken place. The "victory" ennobled and arranged everything.
Europe had committed suicide in 1914 in a dreadful civil war. Nothing more exists, four empires disappeared (Germany, Autro-Hungary, Russia, Ottoman), millions of persons changed regime, country, brutally.
Certain peoples are fragmented, moved. In East, all the promises will be (or was) scoffed (agreement Sikes-Picod). We still fight (and already) against the Soviets, in particular in Poland until 1920
Because of Foch largely, the governments - pressed to finish the war - did not figth directly on the German ground. The multiple revolutionary attempts in Germany until 1919 will eventually oblige a German government unstable, too weak and abandoned to sign the treaty of Versailles. From there will ensue the myth maintained of the "stab in the back » ("Dolchstoßlegende").
Furthermore, Clémenceau is not alone (he is not general, but Prime Minister), all the countries having taken part in the war are present. Each wants to see his war purposes (although unconfessed) realized. France indeed on, but also, Italy (cutting up of Autro-Hungarian empire), Greece (cutting up of the Ottoman Empire), Arab countries (which have no knowledge of the agreements of 1916) want to see recognizing their rights. And indeed on all
And Wilson, who imposes his Société des Nations, of which nobody wants, and whom the USA will never ratify, emptying it of any substance.
And Great Britain which, from 1919, began secret negotiations with Germany, wishing everything without France becomes (again) an European major power, without anything to prevent its expansion.
What were the errors of any and the others between 1919 and 1939? The historians still discuss about! A rumour does not tell that one of the participants in Versailles would have said to Clémenceau: "if Germany signed this treaty, you will have the war in twenty years’
A matter is true: Germany was humbled, the treaty of Versailles was discussed without her, the occupation of the Saar was a supplementary and useless humiliation. And anything nor anybody wanted to support the Republic of Weimar which was nevertheless a desperate attempt to install the democracy in Germany.
We hatched the egg of the snake
As for the French defeat of 1940, many was said, and especially a lot of untruth. And I produce thanks to Eric Margolis to make justice of some.
Below, the motto of the book « 100000 morts oubliés » de JP Richardot (le Cherche Midi éditeur).
« En mai-juin 1940, plus de 100000 hommes se sont fait tuer sur place pour défendre la France et l'Angleterre, dont ils ont sauvé le corps expéditionnaire à Dunkerque.
Ce livre est leur histoire. Au cours des 47 jours de la bataille, à maintes reprises, en Ardennes, Argonne, Flandre, Picardie, Normandie (Saint-Valery-en-Caux), à Dunkerque, et devant Lyon, la proportion de soldats français tués en résistant à l'invasion a atteint 90 % des effectifs engagés.
Les Allemands ont eu par jour plus de 2000 soldats mis hors de combat, dont une moitié de tués. Nos pères et grand-pères se sont aussi bien battus que les Américains quatre ans plus tard à Omaha Beach. En 1940, nos soldats voulaient poursuivre les hostilités. Jamais le peuple français n'a appelé Pétain au pouvoir.
C'est un coup d'État, avec faux et usage de faux, qui a permis aux généraux français antirépublicains de livrer nos soldats à l'ennemi, de les menacer du conseil de guerre s'ils continuaient à se battre.
Ce sont nos généraux, parfaitement incompétents et dépassés, qui ont rompu avec l'Angleterre et placé notre pays sous la tutelle nazie. »
As for the the Marshall plan, it had especially vocation to prevent the western, ruined, destroyed European countries, in the grip of a terrible food and economic crisis, from falling in the communism. The cold war was already very there !
And excuse me once again for my English!
Dik
Tuesday, June 09, 2009 10:52 PM
It would be nice to know the real reasons for WW2 and also the reason the Americans finally joined in.

Dik
Masood Ahmad
Wednesday, June 10, 2009 4:46 AM
An exquisite article imbued with lot of information! But history is always written by the victors.
BAK
Thursday, June 11, 2009 4:42 AM
A thoroughly excellent read. Though I disagree about decolonization. It continues to this day with the US (e.g. Iraq, Afghanistan etc.), China (e.g. Tibet etc.), and Russia (e.g. Chechnya etc.) as the leading imperial powers. The more things change the more they remain the same.

Regards
tornman
Saturday, June 13, 2009 3:00 PM
I'm sorry, but your mention of Chechnya ticked me off a bit. It has been a part of Russian Empire since late-18th century. I don't think it's correct to equate separatism with colonialism. Perhaps if you mentioned South Ossetia and Abkhazia as an example of a soft form of colonialism perpetrated by Russia, it would have been more on the spot.
Louis
Thursday, June 11, 2009 6:46 AM
Thanks for that article. And please excuse the "poverty" of my English language, I'm French!
Since 2001, having read so much insults about France and French in american newspapers about that,
discover your paper is a pleasure. (to me)
As a frenchman, I grew with an history marked by two wars (and subsequent destruction),
great economic crisis, decolonization... and so more.
My Grand-grand father, grand father, father... are soldiers, partisans, POW... in WWI and/or WWII.
We know the debt towards you, all the Allies, but, please, American people, don't forget...
Don't forget citizens (hostages, Jews, foreigners...) partisans, soldiers of then "French empire"...arrested,
tortured, shot or vanished in KZ.
Don't forget those fighter-pilots, bomber-crews and others allied soldiers who were rescued and secured by french citizens. Some of them was killed for that, and family or hostages, sometimes, whith them.
Don't forget many people in 1939, had already fought in 1914-1918.
Don't forget despair, fear.
Don't forget Bir Hakeim, Cassino, Provence...
And don't forget President Roosevelt supported Pétain, not de Gaulle until 1944 (after D.Day).

And about reasons and responsabilities about WWI and WWII... So much to say! My english is too poor!!!

Thanks again, for learning, understanding and knowing rather than judging.
Shazam
Thursday, June 11, 2009 10:32 PM
Louise,
Your English is fine - completement comprehensible. Si vous plait, continuez a faire des commentaires.
Louis
Friday, June 12, 2009 10:37 AM
Merci infiniment. I'll try, but it is for me (really) hard to write in english. I'll come back about your post (june 9) something to say...
jeff
Sunday, June 28, 2009 9:46 PM
Careful Lois, with English like that, you too may become President of the United States
Niceguy
Thursday, June 11, 2009 10:02 AM
"Liberation for the white people of German-occupied Europe,"

Not quite. The liberation of Europe from the Nazis was immediately followed by the brutal occupation of central and eastern Europe by the Russian Communists with Western acquiescence. So much for the guarantee to insure Poland's independence over which France and Britain declared war on Germany in the first place in 1939.
Neil Turner
Thursday, June 11, 2009 7:18 PM
Might be worth noting that Germany allowed Britain to evacuate the troops at Dunkirk as a gesture of goodwill. Germany wanted Britain to join in a war against Bolshevik Russia.

WW2 was not so much about land more about Germany creating a new financial system that did not rely on borrowing from the international bankers. The bankers ran scared lest Germany's neighbours realise that you did not have to hock your country to the bankers to achieve a stable economy.

Looking at our present and still unfolding financial crisis, maybe we should look to what kind of financial system resulted in a basket case like 1933 Germany achieving full employment by 35 and being looked upon as a world power by 1936. Whatever it was, it worked.

Looks like the "celebrations" in Normandy were not as smooth this year with French discontent surfacing over the destruction of Caen by the allies during the "liberation". 20,000 French civilians died needlessly during this liberation. Not long after the troops came ashore the US troops were confined to barracks due to their criminal activities, including rape of local women. It seems these traditions are being continued in Iraq and Afghanistan.

When it comes to the truth about WW2 the surface has not even been scratched. A good place to start would be the 1,000,000 German pows who died in American captivity after the end of WW2. See James Bacque's Other Losses.

erasmus
Friday, June 12, 2009 12:07 PM
Eric, thanks for another good article. I think you are on a good track with 'revising' overly simplistic narratives about WW II. But to get the picture I believe more is called for. I don't pretend to understand it all but for example:
The Germans via Frederick and so-called 'secret societies' were heavily involved in the French Revolution. Meanwhile, through the 'Hanoverians' being installed as rulers over Britain, they managed to rake in huge fortunes billing Britain for their considerable mercenary services in the Napoleonic wars, the American revolution etc.
However, at some point Germany and England became enemies even though the Hanoverian dynasty was still on the throne (later to be called 'Windsors' for publicity reasons no doubt). How and why did that switch happen?

Another sub-plot: there was huge, concerted German support for Lenin et alia to overthrow the Russian regime followed by massive shipments of gold from Russia to these backers, via their banking cartels in Switzerland, London and NYC, all of whom appear to have been working in concert despite being on opposing sides in the WW I. What is the story there?

Furthermore, I read somewhere a while ago that Stalin refused to celebrate the victory of WW II because he regarded the Russian campaign as essentially a failure since the intention was to take over all of continental Europe through to Lisbon and instead he got preempted by Hitler, beat the Germans with huge allied support in money, equipment etc. but then failed to grab all of Europe as intended. So first Germans help get Lenin et alia in, then in only a few decades they are trying to eradicate each other. Meanwhile the same international banking cartels that helped Britain rule the international roost for a while assist in her being taken down as a functioning Empire after WW II.

What we see here is an unending pattern of elite-level conspiracy leading to large scale conflict for reasons that are only given in infantile morality play format, the result of which is continual regime change, huge loss of life, and swirling, unstable international political situation that goes through major paradigm shifts every second generation or so. The same story can be told going back into medieval Europe and earlier. (I don't know so much about Asia but get the impression that it has been relatively more stable.)

So what has been going on in the West since, say, the 1750's in terms of these continual build-ups and take-downs? I believe THAT is the story which, when told factually and thoroughly, will reveal what was going on with WW II and also today. Indeed, if history is any guide, it is increasingly beginning to look like the unthinkable (for most contemporaries) is about to unfold: America is the next one in line to be 'taken down', as happened with France, Germany, Russia, Britain (though arguably less so without loss of life from internal revolution) and so on.

Again, thanks for your contributions. Much appreciated.
Misha Shauli
Friday, June 12, 2009 5:55 PM
Dear Erasmus,

FYI, Stalin's unwillingness to celebrate the victory in the WW2 was discussed in Viktor Suvorov's "The Last Republic". The secondary title of that book is "Why Stalin lost the WW2".
Mordrelle
Saturday, June 13, 2009 4:48 AM
Dear Mr Margolis,

I read you from time to time and I am always surprised by the quality of your analysis.
It's refreshing to read, in English, some hard fact that are usually overlooked by most conservative Americans (and not to mention Eurosceptics Brits).
Let me redress a few details.
The figures you publish for French losses during the 1940 disaster are not accurate.
I suppose that you published the losses for the entire war.
The French army official killed in action for this tragic campaign rounds 85 000 dead (men killed before 1st July 1940) and nobody can estimate accurately the figure of wounded, somewhere between 120 000 ands 250 000.
You fail to mention the other killed : 7500 Belgians, 2890 Hollanders and 3457 British.
The best guess about the German killed in action is 45 000.

For the technological side, the French relied on courier to deliver vital information in some areas of the front line just like the others armies, but otherwise it used excellent radio and telephone systems.

Gamelin never lacked a telephone line. Alas !

For the rest, you are excellent as usual !
si
Saturday, June 13, 2009 11:54 AM
A crusade for freedom is not determined by success or universality. Germany was categorically totalitarian and invading neighbours before Britain moved.
GérardF
Sunday, June 14, 2009 4:18 AM
Cher Éric,
Si vous êtes toujours à Metz vous pourrez facilement vous procurer le dernier numéro de la revue HISTORIA qui est consacré à Byzance. L'important, ici, est la photo de Rommel en vignette sur la 1ère de couverture avec ces quelques mots : "Rommel adulé à Berlin...et à Londres!". "Adulé" me paraissait un peu fort... à l'auteur aussi sans doute puisque "adulé" est devenu "glorifié dans les 6 pages de son article". Le vôtre m'aide à mieux saisir le "cas Rommel".

Merci, cher Éric, et mes compliments.

As ever,

Gérard

Per
Sunday, June 14, 2009 9:59 AM
Dear Eric,

I just learned about your work via antiwar.com and I must say it is the best I ever read anywere. Very good work indeed. Thank you.


LaFlannelle
Sunday, June 14, 2009 8:21 PM
I've only had the pleasure of going to France once in my life, but I've always known my history. It was an honour meeting the residents of the coastal towns and cities, who upon learning that I'm Canadian would hug and kiss me and thank me to no end. I was profoundly moved when I visited the landing beaches and cemeteries. The USA needs to teach from something other than 'history for dummies'...
Curt Hasselbacher
Thursday, June 18, 2009 11:58 PM
Brilliant article, I've often said myself that what we hear in our classrooms today (not being so far from those times myself) is wrong, just the big picture, "The Allies Win, Hooray!" Seldom if ever a word about the Russian contribution, and always how the Poles and the French, and the BEF were crushed. Nothing more. I like hearing when someone gives those countries... Men their due. General F. W. von Mellenthin's Panzer Battles is a very interesting look into the early history of German armored warfare. General Heinz Guderian's Panzer Leader is also a very good read, if one can find a copy, and as the "Father" of the German Panzer Armies, his insight into it is fascinating. Once again, very good article.
WHITEHUNTER
Tuesday, July 07, 2009 2:31 PM
Quite right Eric. Germany's nightmare was the Russian front which ate up most of the german army's power. Blitzkrieg worked well in smaller countries but the vastness of Russia eventually bogged down the greatest fighting force the world had ever seen. Still one cannot but wonder. If Hitler had listened to his best generals the Dunkirk mistake would not have happened. Also, the battle of Britain was not won by the RAF but rather it was lost by Hitler. Hitler;s stubborn refusal to allow Von Paulus to retreat at Stalingrad cost him the sixth army and his interference at Kursk cost Germany that battle as well. Then came his interference with the ME 262, the world's first jet fighter. Rather than allowing it to be used for what it was intended he had it converted into a bomber. That's like converting a race car into a dump truck. The allies like to say they triumphed over evil, no, they triumphed over an idiot.
justAkid
Wednesday, July 08, 2009 5:45 PM
Good points, Hitler's personal failures are too often overlooked, particularly those in Russia. that invasion was brilliantly planned and fairly well executed. They would have pulled it off is Gudderian wasn't forced to turn south. As for dunkirk, the failure to destroy the BEF was a General's fault. Hitler beleived Goering's claims that the luftwaffe would smash the british. After all, they were both sensationalists. A characteristically Nazi but remarkeably un-German trait.
skulbuss
Thursday, August 13, 2009 5:34 AM
One big battle in WW2 wass Dukla Pass. Even if it's called american empire, most likely is European Empire.They just use americans as sorce for military.They got two hands, mother and fother principle.One is for punishment another for treatment.
skulbuss
Thursday, August 13, 2009 5:39 AM
Here is link for Battle of Dukla Pass
http://www.iabsi.com/gen/public/Military_dukla_pass.htm
Compare with it,D-day was vacation-except nonsense bloodbath.
Xavier Kreiss
Tuesday, August 18, 2009 8:48 PM
I have only discovered this piece today.

Thank you for this blow against prejudice and vulgar French-bashing. Facts are powerful weapons and you use them to great effect.

Merci, cher confrère.

I am a French journalist, based in London.
Anthony Turco
Sunday, November 01, 2009 3:00 PM
I Stumbled on this sight and may I say that this is a fascinating article. I personally have a love of history and am always eager to learn new information. That being said, I consider my self a Conservative and also knew that the myths which you have mentioned were, in fact, just that, myths. Thank you for a fascinating read.
frank r.
Thursday, December 03, 2009 12:25 AM
I have never been able to get over a story told by a merchant marine 3rd mate about the night a spotter saw a periscope/breather tube riding between ships as they headed across the Atlantic to England. All convoy ships turned out and the navy laced the area with depth charges bringing up a German u-boat. He was in a boarding party that took prisoners. When these prisoners had their pockets turned out one of them had ticket stubs for a theater in Montreal dated three nights prior before the convoy had sailed.
That boggled my mind about how much is simply left out of history and is lost soon after never to be examined except by accredited scholars 30 to 50 years after the fact.
There are currently 35 comments
Comments Commentaries
Currently Ordered By:
Commentaries by Category