Ronald Reagon - 1984

[Rick Nebiolo]

A speech by Ronald Reagon (http://tinyurl.com/2yqgu)

[Chris Alger]

On June 6, 1944, according to Reagan, “the Allied armies joined in battle.” “Here, in Normandy, the rescue began. Here, the Allies stood and fought against tyranny, in a giant undertaking unparalleled in human history.” Reagan praises the U.S. allies of Great Britain, Canada and Poland but never mentions the one that actually defeated the bulk of the Nazi war machine.

Before the rescue “began” the Red Army had suffered more than 20 million casualties marching into Poland, launching offensives in the Ukraine and Belorussia, and recapturing Kiev, Kharkov, Khursk, Leningrad, Sevastopol and Stalingrad. Our Soviet allies were nowhere near “here” on “this day,” being busy driving Hitler from the locus of his worst crimes. D-Day would have been unthinkable without Russian efforts, but Reagan’s historical myopia prevents him from even mentioning that the Red Army fought the same fight.

He can’t acknowledge the Soviet army’s success because it contradicts the premise of his retrograde worldview, basically the patriotic assumptions of religion-addled 1950's adolescents: we always fight for God and good and always win; they always fights for evil and always lose. You can’t find moral ambiguity, irony or awareness of contradiction in Reagan. Like Bonanza and Star Trek, Reagan spun sophomoric fantasies about America that were wildly popular at the time but soon remembered with a tinge of embarrassment. Hence "the allies" are the countries that fought at Normandy, period. Without that assumption, the speech is gibberish.

Consider Reagan’s answers to the questions “Why? Why did you do it?” They did it because of their “faith that a just God would grant them mercy on this beachhead, or on the next.” And this worked: “Something else helped the men of D-day; their rock-hard belief that Providence would have a great hand in the events that would unfold here; that God was an ally in this great cause.”

But the enemy were also Christians, with “God is with us” engraved on their belt buckles. Was it not just as likely that they asked God to help them pour lead and shells onto the beach? If faith in God had anything to do with it, how could Germany’s Christians be losing to atheist eastern hordes?

Shifting to secular platitudes, Reagan then says “All of you loved liberty. All of you were willing to fight tyranny . . . .” Accurately, Reagan could have said “many of you loved liberty and hated tyranny, but probably most of you from the one-party racial supremacist states of the American South probably weren’t any more keen on it than the Brits who hoped to salvage their empire. God knows our Soviet allies weren’t.” Yet he trudges on: “These are the things that impelled them; these are the things that shaped the unity of the Allies.” So either the Soviets weren’t our allies or we were united with them by our mutual faith in God.

Reagan sums up with straightforward fantasizing. “The Allies . . . rebuilt a new Europe together.” We rebuilt Europe together with Russia? “There was first a great reconciliation among those who had been enemies, all of whom had suffered so greatly. The United States did its part, creating the Marshall Plan to help rebuild our allies and our former enemies.” But the Marshall Plan didn’t “help rebuild” the Soviet Union and the eastern half of Europe – totalitarian, atheistic, liberty-hating and centrally planned communism did.

The rest of the speech is the usual Reagan comedy of ignorance and error, in this case etched into sharp relief by subsequent history. “Soviet troops that came to the center of this continent did not leave when peace came. They're still there, uninvited, unwanted, unyielding, almost forty years after the war. Because of this, allied forces still stand on this continent. Today, as forty years ago, our armies are here for only one purpose: to protect and defend democracy.” This is a half-truth: the Soviets did pull out of several countries they helped liberate, namely Austria, Romania and Yugoslavia. More importantly, Reagan's message is this: the Soviets didn't help win the war, they only ruined the peace for "the allies." Of course, this is more than a little embarrassing now that the Soviet troops and the Soviet Union are gone but the U.S. troops are still there, their purported "one purpose" having vanished.

“The only territories we hold are memorials like this one and graveyards where our heroes rest.” This is more than slightly incomprehensible, given the territories on which "we hold" 700 U.S. overseas military installations with half a million troops and dependents, to say nothing of wherever it is we keep the 9,000 estimated inmates of our foreign prison system, all of whom have “no conventional legal rights” like “access to a lawyer” or “chance for an impartial hearing.” Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A15981-2004May10.html)

“We want to wipe from the face of the earth the terrible weapons that man now has in his hands. And I tell you, we are ready to seize that beachhead. We look for some sign from the Soviet Union that they are willing to move forward, that they share our desire and love for peace, and that they will give up the ways of conquest. There must be a changing there that will allow us to turn our hope into action. We will pray forever that someday that changing will come.”

Although that prayer was answered it’s clear that we have no intention of even considering eliminating nuclear weapons. Instead, with no country capable of deterring us, we must have a first strike nuclear capability; a larger military based in more foreign countries; a half dozen new military interventions (including three full-scale wars); an expanded hegemony over the Middle East and Central Asia; a doctrine of preemptive war; a “war on terror” that by definition can never end; new limits on domestic dissent; unilateralism everywhere; a Pax Americana for the world.

All thanks to Hitler. When American elites claim the owe more to WWII vets than they can say, its not because the words don’t exist but because the consequences have become unspeakable.

[SinCityGuy]

Ronald Reagan had some extremely gifted speechwriters in Peggy Noonan, Ben Elliot, Josh Gilder and Clark Judge (just to name a few).

His years of working as a Hollywood actor were instrumental in perfecting his delivery of the speeches.

[GWB]

Picking good people who can run the country is the most important thing a President can do. This is where Reagan and myself have excelled, where Clinton muddled.

[Chris Alger]

Your idea of "excellence" must be tied with criminality: more Reagan administration officials were indicted than any President in history. At least two of those convicted were then reappointed by you.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
D-Day would have been unthinkable without Russian efforts, ....

[/ QUOTE ]


Your right given the following:

Soviet Union's conduct before being invaded by the Nazis.
Nazi-Soviet Non-aggression Pact Signed August 23, 1939 (http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/timeline/pact.htm)

Paved the way for the invasion of Poland by the Nazis.

Sept 17, 1939 - Soviets invade Poland.

Sept 29, 1939 - Nazis and Soviets divide up Poland

Nov 30, 1939 - Soviets attack Finland.

Dec 14, 1939 - Soviet Union expelled from the League of Nations.

March 12, 1940 - Finland signs a peace treaty with Soviets.

No coercion there.

June 18, 1940 - Soviets begin occupation of the Baltic States.

July 23, 1940 - Soviets take Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia.


Signing the non agression pact with the Soviets allowed the Nazi's free reign to do the following prior to the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union.

Sept 1, 1939 - Nazis invade Poland.

Sept 27, 1939 - Warsaw surrenders to Nazis

Sept 29, 1939 - Nazis and Soviets divide up Poland.

March 16, 1940 - Germans bomb Scapa Flow naval base near Scotland.

April 9, 1940 - Nazis invade Denmark and Norway.

May 10, 1940 - Nazis invade France, Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands

May 15, 1940 - Holland surrenders to the Nazis.

May 28, 1940 - Belgium surrenders to the Nazis.

June 3, 1940 - Germans bomb Paris

June 10, 1940 - Norway surrenders to the Nazis; Italy declares war on Britain and France.

June 14, 1940 - Germans enter Paris.

July 1, 1940 - German U-boats attack merchant ships in the Atlantic.

July 5, 1940 - French Vichy government breaks off relations with Britain.

July 10, 1940 - Battle of Britain begins.

Aug 13, 1940 - German bombing offensive against airfields and factories in England.

Aug 15, 1940 - Air battles and daylight raids over Britain.

Aug 17, 1940 - Hitler declares a blockade of the British Isles.

Aug 23/24 1940 - First German air raids on Central London.

Sept 15, 1940 - Massive German air raids on London, Southampton, Bristol, Cardiff, Liverpool and Manchester.

Oct 7, 1940 - German troops enter Romania.

Nov 14/15 1940 - Germans bomb Coventry, England.

Dec 29/30 1940 - Massive German air raid on London.

April 3, 1941 - Pro-Axis regime set up in Iraq.

April 6, 1941 - Nazis invade Greece and Yugoslavia.

April 17, 1941 - Yugoslavia surrenders to the Nazis.

May 10/11 1941 - Heavy German bombing of London.

All during this time the Nazis were guilty of unspeakable atrocities against humanity. The Soviets were no slouch when it came to atrocities against humanity either. Our Soviet "allies" sowed the seeds of their own devastation and were instrumental in creating the environment that made D-Day necessary. With friends like the Soviets, who needs enemies.

[andyfox]

Without denying the brutality of Stalin's regime, isn't it still true that the Rusiians bore the brunt of the war against the Nazis and that Stalin had repeatedly pleaded with Roosevelt and Churchill for a second front?

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
Without denying the brutality of Stalin's regime, isn't it still true that the Rusiians bore the brunt of the war against the Nazis and that Stalin had repeatedly pleaded with Roosevelt and Churchill for a second front?

[/ QUOTE ]

So? The point is that Stalin was instrumental in creating the situation he had to deal with. To acknowledge the Soviets for their help in D-Day is tantamount to thanking the Soviets for the opportunity to lose millions of people unnecessarliy. The Soviets were instrumental in creating the situation that made D-Day necessary.

[Chris Alger]

I understand you believe the Soviets, ostensiby more than the other powers, "allowed" the Nazis to invade Poland and western Europe and ultimately "made D-Day necessary." The Stalin-Hitler pact either (1) instigated WWII by relieving Hitler of the burden of fighting a ruinous war with Russia or (2) made the Soviets more responsible than the other world powers for containing Hitler. The first, given Hitler's determination and invasion of Russia, is a bad prediction discredited by actual events. As for the second, consider that Soviet Union eventually lost more lives to Germany in WWII than any other country in the history of warfare. The suggestion that Russia had a special responsibility to risk suicide to protect the West from Hitler is silly.

[andyfox]

D-Day was the prelude to victory in Europe. That victory by the allies would not have been possible without the Russians' efforts in fighting the Nazis. One can also argue that America's isolationism and Britain's appeasement also led to the conditions that made D-Day necessary. The Russians were our allies.

[andyfox]

On the Vietnam War, at a press conference:

"If I recall correctly, when France gave up Indochina as a colony, the leading nations of the world met in Geneva in regard to helping those colonies become independent nations. And since North and South Vietnam had been previous to colonization two separate countries, provisions were made that these two countries could by a vote of all their people together decide whether they wanted to be one country or not....
"And there wasn't anything surreptitious about it, but when Ho Chi Minh refused to participate in such an election and there was provision that the peoples of both countries could cross the border and live in the other country if they wanted to, and when they began leaving by the thousands and thousands from North Vietnam to live in South Vietnam, Ho Chi Minh closed the border and again violated that part of the agreement . . . .
"And openly, our country sent military advisors there to help a country which had been a colony have such things as a national security force, an army you might say, or a military, to defend itself. And they were doing this, if I recall correctly, also in civilian clothes, no weapons, until they began being blown up where they lived, in walking down the street by people riding by on bicycles and throwing pipe bombs at them. and then they were permitted to carry side arms or wear uniforms . . .
"But it was totally a program until John F. Kennedy, when these attacks and forays became so great that John F. Kennedy authorized the sending in of a division of marines. That was the first move toward combat moves in Vietnam."


Incredible, even for Reagan. Not one sentence correct.

[CORed]

It is certainly undeniable that the Soviets took the worst casualties in WWII. However, you seem to be conveniently forgetting the fact that they were allied with Hitler at the beginning of the war, and divided up Poland with Germany. Only after Hitler betrayed Stalin and invaded did the Soviets come over to the allied side. Our alliance with the Soviet Union in WWII was a necessity, given our common enemy, but Stalin, in his own way, was every bit as evil as Hitler. Also, The Soviets did a pretty poor job of "rebuilding" eastern Europe, compared to the U.S. job of rebuilding West Germany and Japan.

[CORed]

Sorry, dubbaya. Reagan, on balance picked some pretty good people, aside from James Watt and Alexander Haig, whom he had sense enough to get rid of, and I think he was a good, but probably not great, President. You on the other hand have given us Rumsfeld, Ashcroft and Ridge: All clowns. Your one good appointment, Powell, hasn't been listened to or allowed to do his job. The only things you have in common with Reagan are your party afilliation and your cowboy hat. Reagan was the Great Communicator. You have trouble forming a complete sentence without a script, and had to have Cheney with you when you testified berore the 9/11 commission to make sure you didn't say anything really stupid.

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
One can also argue that America's isolationism and Britain's appeasement also led to the conditions that made D-Day necessary.

[/ QUOTE ]

……or the treaty of Versailles, or the fact the British decided to enter WWI, thus prolonging the war to a point that the Russian Revolution happened, or the continuous friction between France and Germany over the Alsace-Lorraine provinces, the Franco-Prussian war of 1870...... I think the regression is infinite if you want to keep going.

Indeed Stalin 'pleaded' for a second front. And the Russian people bore the brunt of the Nazis fury. But this was a very multi- front war. The allies had to drive the German's (the axis powers) out of North Africa first before a European invasion would be feasible; fighting was fierce in Burma and Asia (an almost forgotten part of this war, one of my Uncles fought in Burma). The Americas (with British and Aussie help) were fighting a huge sea and island war with Japan - it was indeed a World War. The Russian’s [Stalin] were duplicitous at the outset and this is a fact that stands. When some Poles rose up against the Nazis during the later stages of the war, the Russian army stopped it’s advance and allowed the Germanys to butchery up the Poles (mostly civilian milita). Then they restarted their offensive. But there is plenty of blame and butchery for all sides and on all parties - Such is war.

American Cemetery in France (http://www.abmc.gov/lo.htm)

-Zeno

PS Perhaps there is a link to the war memorial near Stalingrad that can be posted also.

[SinCityGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
You on the other hand have given us Rumsfeld, Ashcroft and Ridge: All clowns.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, Uncle Ronnie had Rumsfeld in his cabinet, also. Here's a shot of Rumsfeld and his buddy Saddam Hussein.

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2004-1/603949/Rumsfeld-vs-Saddam.jpg

[Zeno]

Post a photo of Stalin shaking hands with Hitler.

-Zeno

[ThaSaltCracka]

Chris,
I don't quite understand you.
/images/graemlins/confused.gif

[Izverg04]

Did Stalin ever meet with Hitler? I am sure I've never seen pictures of them together. The 1939 pact was signed by Molotov and Ribbentrop(sp?) -- respective Foreign Secretaries.

In any case -- I've never found the photos of Rumsfeld with Saddam (as well as Chirac with Saddam) that tainted. One time allies of circumstance become later enemies of circumstance or enemies of principle. Pictures of Roosevelt with Stalin in Teheran and Yalta are never brought up to tarnish Roosevelt's name in this fashion.

[Zeno]

Your point stands and is what I was intending to illustrate - just in a more off-hand manner. One of my MO's.

There are probably thousands of photos of people with Hitler, everyone from prominent church leaders, politicians, business people, celebrities, to athletes, (Berlin hosted the 1936 Olympics) - Or with any number of other famous or infamous people. So to with Saddam or just about any other ‘important person’.

I must plead ignorance on whether Hitler and Stalin ever met eye to eye. Perhaps someone else knows?


As a funny aside one of the most requested photos of Nixon is the one with Elvis.

-Zeno

[SinCityGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
There are probably thousands of photos of people with Hitler, everyone from prominent church leaders, politicians, business people, celebrities, to athletes, (Berlin hosted the 1936 Olympics) - Or with any number of other famous or infamous people. So to with Saddam or just about any other ‘important person’.

[/ QUOTE ]

You may be right, but I don't think those people were complicit with Hitler exterminating 6,000,000 Jews. The Reagan administration "looked the other way" while Saddam used chemical weapons to exterminate 1,000,000 Iranians. I

[Chris Alger]

I hadn't forgotten and I generally don't disagree with this (although I don't believe "ally" isn't the right word to describe the USSR's relationship with Nazi Germany, even before the German invasion).

My only point was that Reagan's speech is a crude, sentimental and stupid attempt to manufacture myths about the "allies" and the aftermath of WWII.

[Chris Alger]

I should try topic sentences.

Reagan's main points were: (1) the Western allies defeated the German army after a liberation that began on D-Day; (2) the effort to defeat Germany was motivated by religious faith and dedication to principles of democracy and freedom; (3) "Europe" recovered from the war as a result of the U.S. and the Marshall Plan; (4) Soviet aggression is sole reason for U.S. military presence in Europe (and presumably elsewhere); (5) foreign domination by the U.S. is non-existent or negligible; (6) the U.S. seeks to eradicate nuclear weapons and would pursue this if only the Soviets cooperated.

None of these assertions were true when Reagan made them.

[ThaSaltCracka]

no, I understood what you were saying, I don't understand you.

[Cyrus]

"[The Soviets] were allied with Hitler at the beginning of the war, and divided up Poland with Germany. Only after Hitler betrayed Stalin and invaded did the Soviets come over to the allied side. Our alliance with the Soviet Union in WWII was a necessity, given our common enemy, but Stalin, in his own way, was every bit as evil as Hitler."

It is generally accepted that the Western Powers were allowing Germany tremendous leeway before WWII - and not just because of remorse over the injustices of the Versailles Treaty. But because Germany was conveniently anti-bolshevik (the Western Powers had invaded Russia in the 1920s trying to suppress the bolshevik revolution, without success, themselves) and was conveniently anti-Jewish and conveniently poised to the East.

Or so they thought...

Stalin simply tried to defend the Soviet Union and made a pact with the Devil. Why should Staling have been hostile to Germany when it was clear that the western powers were egging Hitler Eastward? I could recite to you the European leaders' statements praising Hitler, admiring Germany, and recognizing the Germans' "right to expand" (where?).

I would not dispute the criminal nature of Stalin's regime but this should not detract from the historical facts; the main fact (beyond the carving of Poland, the persecution of Jews in Russia, etc etc) is that Stalin's Russia tried to make peace with the Devil, because the Devil was being geared to attack it.

[ThaSaltCracka]

so what your saying is the allies actually wanted Hitler to invade other countries. I guess Hitlers obsession with purifying Europe and returning Germany to it past glory had nothing to do with it either. Looking back its easy to say what if such and such had done this things could have been different, but the bottom line is, Hitler and his Nazi henchmen are solely to blame for the war in Europe and N. Africa. Just as Japan is to solely to blame for the war in the east. Appeasement and isolationism may have added fuel to the fire, but the axis' greed and hatred were plenty hot to begin with.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
I would not dispute the criminal nature of Stalin's regime but this should not detract from the historical facts; the main fact (beyond the carving of Poland, the persecution of Jews in Russia, etc etc) is that Stalin's Russia tried to make peace with the Devil, because the Devil was being geared to attack it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Two Devils, trying to make temporary peace with one another:


One Devil the more apparent to outside observers, more immediately rapacious, and more hideous in aspect; the other Devil larger, and committing horrors too on yet more massive internal scale, but far more stealthily.

The smaller, more impulsive Devil bit off more than he could chew, and died sooner than the larger, more established Devil. A fine tale of Two Devils.

[adios]

.....

[jcx]

[ QUOTE ]
Before the rescue “began” the Red Army had suffered more than 20 million casualties marching into Poland, launching offensives in the Ukraine and Belorussia, and recapturing Kiev, Kharkov, Khursk, Leningrad, Sevastopol and Stalingrad. Our Soviet allies were nowhere near “here” on “this day,” being busy driving Hitler from the locus of his worst crimes. D-Day would have been unthinkable without Russian efforts, but Reagan’s historical myopia prevents him from even mentioning that the Red Army fought the same fight.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no doubt the USSR, both Red Army and civilian, suffered unthinkable loss of life. However this can as much be attributed to the Soviet way of doing things as to the Nazis. Communism represents the complete and utter disregard of individual human life for the good of the state. This philosphy was shared by the Red Army, which relied on brute force to win battles, not cunning or technology.

Most people with a halfway decent knowledge of history can name famous generals/admirals from the US, UK, Germany and Japan (Patton, Ike, McArthur, Montgomery, Rommel, Goering, Tojo to name a few). Quick, name me a Soviet general. What was he famous for? What bold masterstroke did he engineer to lead his troops to victory?

The Soviet battle plan was victory at all costs. The loss of a few million peasants on the battlefield meant nothing to Stalin as long as he got his ultimate result, even if he lost 10 men for every German.

[Zeno]

How timely some things are. In the recent Atlantic Monthly (July/August) a review of a recent book is of interest. Called 'Stalin: The Court of the Red Tiger' it is a biography of Stalin by Simon Montefiore. Using better documentary evidence available since the downfall of the Soviet Union the book paints a more historically accurate portrait of Stalin. Anyway, as to the points outlined in your post, I quote from the review (AM, p. 166):

'...Montefiore is at his best when writing about the dramatic days just before and after Hitler's invasion of the Soviet Union - a story whose details come almost entirely from new records and from the memories of crucial people in Moscow. The Nazi attack, in June of 1941, surprised and shook Stalin. After recovering from the shock, he again manifested his dictatorial strength. Some half million Soviet soldiers had left the front. They were rounded up, and more than 10,000 were shot; the rest were formed into new units. This ruthlessness, which had the desired disciplinary effect, was accompanied by the execution of a group of experienced officers- and of wives of the previously executed officers.'

************************************************

A rather brutal way for Stalin to instill discipline but perhaps the only way to get his soldiers to fight for him and his cruel regime.

-Zeno

[Cyrus]

"The USSR, both Red Army and civilian, suffered unthinkable loss of life. However this can as much be attributed to the Soviet way of doing things as to the Nazis."

No, assigning equal weight to the two factors is incorrect. The disregard for individual life in the Soviet Union versus Nazi brutality? It's not even close as far as reasons for the loss of human lives are concerned.

"Communism represents the complete and utter disregard of individual human life for the good of the state."

So does Nazism. But the Soviet people suffered much more in the hands of the Nazis than the German people suffered in the hands of the Soviets. (Soviet atrocities of a grand scale did occur. The advancing Red Army did extract revenge for the atrocities their compatriots had suffered, at the expense of German civilians. There were rapes, killings, looting, destruction. But the scale of atrocities is not close by any means! The Soviets did not shoot up villages wholesale as the Nazis did, for instance.)

"This philosophy was shared by the Red Army, which relied on brute force to win battles, not cunning or technology."

This is not a correct assessment.

There was indeed less worrying for human losses in the Red side than the Black side. The reason was the standard way of thinking of any general worth his murderous stars - numbers! numbers! The Soviets had more people!

In World War I, the generals of all sides showed total disregard for human life and were trying to win the war through sheer, brutal massacre, without worrying about their own army's casualties. As long as they had fodder for the cannons, they were throwing the fodder in, without a second's hesitation.

The Soviet generals were not doing anything different in WWII. The British and French generals in WW1 were far more ruthless than the Soviet generals ever were in WW2 !..

"Not cunning or technology" ? This is quite false. I could cite the technological advances achieved by the Soviet military designers and planners in the armoured vehicles department alone, such as tanks, and make the case right there. The T-34, for christ's sakes!

"Most people with a halfway decent knowledge of history can name famous generals/admirals from the US, UK, Germany and Japan (Patton, Ike, McArthur, Montgomery, Rommel, Goering, Tojo to name a few). Quick, name me a Soviet general."

I will give you just some Marshals, off the top of my head : Zhukov; Konev; Bagramyan; Rokossovsky; Vassilevsky; Timoshenko; and that's without opening a book. There are many more, and greater is the number of justly famous Soviet Generals.

"What was [a Soviet general] famous for? What bold masterstroke did he engineer to lead his troops to victory?"

Obviously you are not aware of the specifics of the war's conduct in the East. What about the entrapment of the 6th Army, the pincer counter-attack and the Army's encirclement in the Stalingrad front? The Kursk salient push and the greatest tank battle ever fought in History? The relief of Leningrad? The recapture of Kharkov? There were hundreds of military operations conducted in the East by the Soviets and you can bet that they did include "cunning" and "technology" and occasionally "masterstrokes of brilliance".

I would recommend, as a good starting point, the book "Stalingrad to Berlin" by Earl Ziemke, of the U.S. Center of Military History, in case anyone is interested to learn more about the second and final phase of the war in the East.

NOTE : Individual life may have been held at relatively low esteem by Nazi and Soviet leaders but individual heroism was quite evident throughout the war. There was no "grand plan" indeed behind the crucial defense of Stalingrad, just relying on good old heroism and the inner strength of any patriot defending his homeland. The Soviet generals were perceptive enough to know that, although on paper the battle for Stalingrad was practically over and lost, there was a lot of life in the "position" still, because they knew that their men would fight. And they didn't need any disciplinary measures to throw them to the fire! (viz. "Stalingrad" by Antony Beevor.)

NOTE : The important difference between Hitler and Stalin, as Masters of War was that the former did not listen enough to his generals, while the latter did. Stalin had criminally decimated the ranks of the Red Army just before the war started, through mass executions of high ranking officers he suspected (as always) of "treason", "espionage" and other crap, BUT, as soon as the war got going, he allowed his top men a very great deal of leeway. Stalin kept up appearances, of course, politically, so that it appeared he was leading the Red Army to the battle, but, behind the facade, he was letting the professionals do the work. And they were happy to do it, because, like the military men they were, they did not care for political glory but for victory.

--Cyrus

[Chris Alger]

My understanding is that most if not all of the best military leaders in the Red Army were purged by Stalin in the 1930's. I don't disagree with any of this; if anything it's understated. The Red Army's role in WWII, however, was significant and crucial to defeating Germany. Reagan was the kind of President who would cynically exploit a D-Day rememberance celebration to eradicate this historic fact from the public mind.

[andyfox]

"I know all the bad things that happened in that war. I was in uniform for four years myself." So said Reagan, who spent his time during World War Two in Hollywood, making training films