Thinking Right

By Mid-South Philosopher

November 14, 2006 08:08 AM | Link to this

Good morning, Jim,

In large measure, the morass in Iraq must be due to the fact that “Georgie” and “Donnie” were absent on that day (back in the 10th grade) when their World History teacher covered Islam and the middle eastern mind set…that is, if the teacher covered those subjects at all.

I don’t believe the current situation can be salvaged. I don’t think the fledgling Iraqi government can cut it. If we stay there another 10 years, I don’t think the Iraqi will be any closer to effective self-government. The notion that Iraq will become a strong ally in the war against Islamist fanaticism is about as likely as the Pope establishing a birth control clinic in the Vatican.

Iraq is, at best, three countries…Kurdland, Shi ‘aville, and Sunnitown. It was put together by the British as a convenience, but it “bloody well” has become an “inconvenience!”

The United States should push for a division of Iraq into three separate states…not a federation or a confederation…but three separate and distinct countries. Likely the Shi’as will unite with Iran…but so what…they already are! The Sunni, with our help, could possibly emerge as a moderate buffer in the area. A great deal of diplomacy would have to be exerted by the Bush Administration to deal with the tensions between the Kurds and the Turks. However, I think it would provide us with time to disengage our forces in the area and prepare for the coming nuclear war with Iran and North Korea.

By jbmlaw

November 14, 2006 08:16 AM | Link to this

Good morning all. I suspect Sen. Levin’s comments initially gave Jim the same odd chill we conservatives felt after the 1974 elections. That was when the Leftists seized control of congress, thereafter to abandon Vietnam over the objections of President Ford and the powerless Republicans, which party was also then controlled by moderates. Hearing formerly reliable Tony Blair start to sound wobbly yesterday, on the same day that Iran declared that Israel must cease to exist, certainly does not give any comfort. And just to underline the nature of evil we face, we all read the stories of kidnappings at the Iraqi research facility this morning – not a torture research facility, but a true academic-type facility (more like Georgia Tech than Georgia? That was uncalled for…)

Although I am not particularly a fan of Sen. McCain, I was gratified to hear him raise the possibility that we need to expand our presence in Iraq. Maybe the more important note is that people are talking about strategies, different ideas. We may well come back around to Bush’s stay the course strategy, with a potential ramp-up in both Afghanistan and Iraq, thus surrounding Iran. I cannot wait to read what our Leftist friends say about “cut and run” this morning.

By jbmlaw

November 14, 2006 08:21 AM | Link to this

Mid-South, I’m shocked, you sound like Chairman Ann in your discussion of the “religion of peace!” Just joking, “mindset” is an amusing choice of terms, though.

By @@

November 14, 2006 08:38 AM | Link to this

Jim:

The enemy’s strategical advantage has been to engage the coalition forces by remaining unpredictable. It would be reckless to set a timetable. It would be as if we were sending them an invitation listing the time, the place, and the party favors that will be offered.

The shame is in the fact that the, now Democratic, party favors such an irresponsible approach. I would have to ask the anti-war group…”If it’s not a party that they, themselves, would want to attend, then why should they expect the Iraqi people to do so?”

When the community hall of Iraq becomes too small for the enemy, they’ll be calling in search of bigger accomodations.

The Democrats are manning the phones now. Will they answer that call?

Who will be hosting the party? Iran is pushing for pro-Iranian al Qaeda member Saif al-Adel, an ex-Egyptian soldier, to become al Qaeda’s third in command. Al-Adel has been living in Tehran since 2001, and the sources said the Iranians want senior officials promoted in the jihadist network who are known to be friendly to Tehran.

The party of power…….scarey, huh?

By Political Foreskin

November 14, 2006 08:39 AM | Link to this

I think we should stay the course.

By Broken Record

November 14, 2006 08:40 AM | Link to this

I think it is grand that the Dems are in control of Congress now. Instead of criticizing, whining and calling names, they now have to show some leadership. I await their plans and actions with anticipation. However, I am not expecting much to change. Mid South Philopsopher has it right; the middle eastern (tribal) mindset is very different from the western mind. Their word is not their permanent bond, more like a five minute pledge. There’s always a series of secret deals behind any public agreement, and no consensus within the ranks. Leadership is emotional and prone to outbursts. BUT, they do understand and respect naked power, and that is the only way to leverage any talks. Tthe Dems may want to walk softly, but they better have the big stick ready.

By getalife

November 14, 2006 08:41 AM | Link to this

Iraq Winners Allied With Iran Are the Opposite of U.S. Vision

By Robin Wright Washington Post Staff Writer Monday, February 14, 2005; Page A08

“When the Bush administration decided to invade Iraq two years ago, it envisioned a quick handover to handpicked allies in a secular government that would be the antithesis of Iran’s theocracy — potentially even a foil to Tehran’s regional ambitions.

But, in one of the greatest ironies of the U.S. intervention, Iraqis instead went to the polls and elected a government with a strong religious base — and very close ties to the Islamic republic next door. It is the last thing the administration expected from its costly Iraq policy.”

This war was lost when Iraq allied with Iran.

They are dying for nothing.

Olmert and w both lost their wars and both have no respect in their countries and throughout the rest of the world.

Do not ignore the American people who voted to get out of Iraq.

By getalife

November 14, 2006 08:47 AM | Link to this

The Dems should do the same as Newt and the gop did when they got the majority

Spend the next two years for accountabilty of the worst President ever.

By YouMakeMeSICK

November 14, 2006 09:02 AM | Link to this

So, since we shouldn’t have a time table according to JIM WOOTEN. Why don’t we just do what you FOOLS want and declare Iraq under control of the UNITED STATES for LIFE. Maybe 50 years from today, they can buy their FREEDOM for 300 Billion dollars. Or give us their OIL fields and the debt will be settled.

Are you prepared to stay in Iraq for a LIFETIME, if that is what it takes? If not, then you are on a timetable.

They only way to say we’re NOT going to SET A TIMETABLE, is to say we are prepared to stay for LIFE.

Anything LESS, means you are on a TIMETABLE.

With Love,

YouMakeMeSICK

By time for the truth

November 14, 2006 09:05 AM | Link to this

Mid South

Actually there is not too much preparation needed for “the coming nuclear war with N. Korea and Iran”. Although I agree we’d clearly need to get American and British troops out of the immediate area. Then we simply target Korean and Iranian nuclear and military installations and decapitate their leadership with our nuclear weapons. The Iranians (thus far) have NO nukes and cannot meaningfully target the USA anyway - the N Koreans have NO reliable nukes that can reach here. Their giant impoverished rice field of a country would be in chaos anyway and incapable of doing much in reponse.

So its a superb win win situation for us. We get to wipe out the nastier elements of two of the most evil repressive states on the planet. No one will retaliate against us on their behalf and the sullen cowardly mohammedan world will cower for years. Shiites are hated by sunnis. The Chi-coms will not risk starting a nuclear war they cannot win and have no reason to intervene. If they get nasty then we very swiftly load up the Japs with a few intermediate range Peking/Shanghai capable nukes - just enough to make the Chi-coms choke on their sweet and sour chicken. If we don’t act soon we will perhaps lose the current major nuke advantage as the backward third world begins to catch up.

A one off retaliatory strike on NYC or perhaps LA would hardly be much of a loss in the greater scheme of things. It would be bye bye Mets and Yankees and/or bye bye limousine Hollywood liberals which ALL true Americans would be eternally grateful for anyway.

The added bonus is that after nuking these human scum we’d need to absolutely immediately secure the border and target ALL illegals and especially aggressively target ALL suspicious mohammedans already here for proper investigation/deportation - as needed.

Problem solved by pressing a few buttons - and just think of the cable news ratings for such a mushroom cloud party! Its popcorn time!!

By Dave

November 14, 2006 09:06 AM | Link to this

If we are to “stay the course” or stay as long as needed to bring democracy to an area that, in recorded history, has no inkling of what it means, does taht mean we will still be there when our grandchildren or great-grandchildren are adults? Read and understand history before you act. This comes from someone who has been a Rpublican since 1962 but also someone who cannot tolerate folks who refuse to look at all sides of a topic, all options for courses of action, and results with a non-jaundiced outlook. As Jack Webb used to say, “Just the facts” are what should be looked at to determine a course of action. Forget sloganering, idealogy, personal preferences and prejudices and other non-essential faults and make sane, rational decisions based solely upon THE FACTS.

By Joe

November 14, 2006 09:12 AM | Link to this

Two realities…..#1: The newly formed gov’t in Iraq that Bush refers to as a “democracy” never has been and never will be a democracy. It is a theocracy heavily loaded with religious mandates.#2. Many, if not most of Israel’s middle eastern neighbors have always and will always , either overtly or covertly want and try to facilitate the destruction of Israel. Unfortunately, the there are some things in the world that the U.S. cannot control.Troops, bombs, diplomacy will not change this fact. These conflicts are the “nature of the beast”, rather than what we see as the “beast in the nature” that we believe can be conquered.

By getalife

November 14, 2006 09:13 AM | Link to this

Investigate.

Indict.

Impeach.

Incarcerate.

By Redneck Convert

November 14, 2006 09:19 AM | Link to this

Well, I finished my cement vault in the ground next to my trailer. That’s where I’ll put my money. When that Pelousy woman takes over Congress and starts raising taxes next year, she won’t be able to find mine.

I think we should nuke all of Iraq, then give what’s left back to anybody that’s still alive. That’s my idea, and it’s backed by my buddy Jim Earl and even old Joe Bill, who lost his race for county commissioner because he only handed out 5 bucks per vote when his opponent was giving 20. We was talking about it all at Billy Bob’s last night.

The mess in Iraq is all the fault of the libruls. If it wasn’t for them raising such a fuss, we would have wiped out Iraq by now and be outta there. Now, all we got to show for it is 3,000 dead, 20,000 wounded, and a hanging to come, which I’d pay to see, because us rednecks like executions. Once they’s dead, they don’t commit no more crimes.

I say we send in about a million troops and flatten most of the buildings over there. Then we can take the troops out and finish the job with A-bombs. We can let the country cool down awhile and then say to the people that’s still living, “Here you are, a free Iraq.” That way, we’d have a lot of friends over there. And them other countrys would think twicet before they raised any stink.

So tell the libruls to keep their panty-waist ideas to theirselves. Us conservatives can take care of Iraq. We done it so far, and we can keep doing it.

By General General

November 14, 2006 09:24 AM | Link to this

The third and final act in the U.S. national tragedy that is the Bush administration may soon play itself out.

Sources indicate increasing indications of “something big” happening between now and Christmas. That could be the long-planned attack on Iran.

An attack on Iran will not be an invasion with ground troops. We don’t have enough of those left to invade Ruritania. It will be a “package” of air and missile strikes, by U.S. forces or Israel.

That this would constitute folly piled on top of folly is no deterrent to the Bush administration. Like the French Bourbons, it forgets nothing and it learns nothing. It takes pride in not adapting. Or did you somehow miss President George W. Bush’s declaration of Presidential Infallibility? It followed shortly after his May 1, 2003 visit to the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln with the “Mission Accomplished” sign.

The Democrat’s taking will not make any difference. They would rather have the Republicans start and lose another war than prevent a national disaster. Politics comes first and the country second.

Many of the consequences of a war with Iran are easy to imagine. Oil would soar to at least $200 per barrel if we could get it. Gas shortages would bring back the gas lines of 1973 and 1979. Our European alliances would be stretched to the breaking point if not beyond it. Most people outside the Bush bubble can see all this coming.

What I fear no one forsees is a substantial danger that we could lose the American army now deployed in Iraq.

The structure of our position in Iraq could lead to that greatest of military disasters, encirclement. That is precisely the danger if we go to war with Iran.

The danger arises because almost all of the vast quantities of supplies American armies need come into Iraq from one direction, up from Kuwait and other Gulf ports in the south. If that supply line is cut, our forces may not have enough stuff, especially fuel, to get out of Iraq. American armies are incredibly fuel-thirsty, and though Iraq has vast oil reserves, it is short of refined oil products. Unlike German World War Gen. Heinz Guderian’s army on its way to the Channel coast in 1940, we could not just fuel up at local gas stations.

There are two ways our supply lines from the south could be cut if we attack Iran. The first is by Shiite militias including the Mahdi Army and the Badr Brigades, possibly supported by a general Shiite uprising and, of course, Iran’s Revolutionary Guards — The same guys who trained Hezbollah so well.

The second danger is that regular Iranian Army divisions will roll into Iraq, cut our supply lines and attempt to pocket us in and around Baghdad. Washington relies on American air power to prevent this, but bad weather can shut most of that air power down.

Unfortunately, no one in Washington and few people in the U.S. military will even consider this possibility. Why? Because we have fallen victim to our own propaganda. Over and over the U.S. military tells itself, “We’re the greatest! We’re number one! No one can defeat us. No one can even fight us. We’re the greatest military in all of history!”

It’s wrong. The U.S. armed forces are technically well-trained, lavishly resourced Second Generation militaries. They are being fought and defeated by Fourth Generation opponents in both Iraq and Afghanistan. They can also be defeated by Third Generation enemies who can observe, orient, decide and act more quickly than can America’s vast, process-ridden, Powerpoint-enslaved military headquarters. They can be defeated by strategy, by stratagem, by surprise and by preemption. Unbeatable militaries are like unsinkable ships. They are unsinkable until someone or something sinks them.

If the United States were to lose the army it has in Iraq, to Iraqi militias, Iranian regular forces, or a combination of both (the most likely event), the world would change. It would be our Adrianople, our Rocroi, our Stalingrad. American power and prestige would never recover.

One of the few people who does see this danger is the doyenne of American foreign policy columnists, Georgie Anne Geyer. In her column of Oct. 28 in The Washington Times, she wrote, “The worst has not, by any means, yet happened. When I think of abandoning a battleground, I think of (the 1840s), when thousands of Brits were trying to leave Afghanistan through the Khyber Pass and all were killed by tribesmen except one man, left to tell the story.”

Our men and women in Iraq are in isolated compounds, not easy even to retreat from, were that decision made. Time is truly running out. Remember, the purpose of encirclement is total destruction of the enemy. Can you handle that?

By Dr. Freedman

November 14, 2006 09:24 AM | Link to this

Power may corrupt, but it shouldn’t make you sick from radiation poisoning.

Take two & go to bed.

By Pope rednecks - Amerikkka's Al Qaeda I

November 14, 2006 09:38 AM | Link to this

America sold her soul and now its selling her children to the Middle East so that dumb Bubbas can drive their pickemup trucks to tailgate in the parking lots at Alabama football games and NASCAR races and get drunk and eat Chitos until the only pants that fit are the size 6X sweats.

Every day American men and women die over there, every day we send billions of dollars to the enemy and its allies. Every day we put Arab gas in our cars and send them money that they put in their madrassahs (Arab versions of Reverend Ted’s church), buy bullets and bombs for their boys in Iraq and around the world, and of course, reproduce, since they might not have jobs, they do have cash, and tons of it. And recruit new Moslems.

Every day we go more and more bankrupt - financially, culturally, morally, and intellectually.

Why are we so stupid to continue fighting this war, seeing that it was only greed, paranoia, and stupidity that put us there?

We need to get WMDs away from people that might use them, but no one can tell me how this abortion in Iraq has anything to do with that.

And none of you warmongering idjits can explain to me that if this enemy is so insidious, why do we mortgage our future with them? Our dependence on their oil is like a huge War Bond drive - for them.

Since what we resist - in this case, chaos in Iraq and the Middle East - tends to persist, we leave, quickly. The situation there cannot get much worse, and there is no immediate threat to us. We find new and better ways to defuse the threat of WMDs, since this obviously ain’t working ladies. We get our financial house in order which makes us stronger again as a world player, for starts - a national economic plan to drastically reduce our oil consumption would generate American jobs and keep our dollars here instead of in China and the Middle East.

By RetiredLTC

November 14, 2006 09:39 AM | Link to this

That we are even discussing this issue is tragic. Once the decision to invade was made, overwhelming force should have been used to roll up, hold, and secure not only Baghdad, but Fallujah, Tikrit, et al rather than treating Baghdad like the holy grail. The Rumsfeld way is exactly why an insurgency was born so easily. Until there is security in each and every troublesome spot, there can be no vital services restored. No jobs created. No infrastructure restoration. No viable government created. The Powell doctrine was the only sensible course to take. The Rumsfeld way not only gave birth to the insurgency, but also allowed the situation to deteriorate into the civil war that is raging today. If you can’t provide a secure environment, it is absolutely impossible to accomplish any of the administration’s stated goals for Iraq. The fact that the president allowed the Cheney/Rumsfeld cabal to create this disaster to begin with is beyond belief. To continue on that course in the face of such glaring failure is almost criminal. These guys violated every principle of warfare. Attack with overwhelming force, hold, and secure. Until those three things are accomplished, everything else is impossible. To begin an occupation before security has been establihed was moronic.

By Jim's a Distractor

November 14, 2006 09:51 AM | Link to this

Funny thing is Jim, that you continue to overlook the obvious as a means of distracting your sheep.

The problem is that we’re there in the first place.

If a Democrat had rushed to start a war with politically generated faulty intelligence, then wasted billions of dollars of taxpayer money on an effort with no real plan for success, but still driven by thousands of no-bid contracts to his vice-president’s former company, how would that go over? Oh, and that’s not to mention that actual people are dying.

Would the GOP be happy about that scenario?

Me thinks not, but here’s the beauty part…Bush, Rummy, Wolfie and Cheney don’t care. All they wanted to do was start the war. Now they can walk away, cash in their options and let yourself and Rush distract everyone while they go quail hunting in Texas.

Are you happy about being a pawn in their game?

And it’s not like the Democrats are going to do any better in getting us out…them taking Congress was symbolic, not practical. This is a friggin mess, and you’re not holding those responsible for it accountable?

Terrorists in Iraq? Those are just people defending their country…their homes, their families, ther friends. We made them, and now we’re using them as a last-ditch excuse to wage a war that is a crime in and of itself.

You can’t hold a gun to someone’s head and expect them to behave the way you want them to. And you better expect that person’s brother to come at you in some way to get revenge.

We’re a bunch of idiots.

By getalife

November 14, 2006 09:54 AM | Link to this

Investigate.

Indict.

Impeach.

Incarcerate.

By JK

November 14, 2006 09:58 AM | Link to this

RetiredLTC, Happy belated Veterans’ Day to you, Sir. Thank you for your service, and for offering the benefit of your much-needed perspective to the civilian folks now.

By Rich

November 14, 2006 09:59 AM | Link to this

The tragedy is Retired LTC, that politics pander to their bases. Anti-war activists would have been screaming at the top of the lungs along with the international community if we had done what you suggest.

The religious right were under suspicion by the liberals for nothing more than having faith. It makes them look harmless by comparison, now doesn’t it?

By Bemused Humanist

November 14, 2006 10:00 AM | Link to this

Dear Mr. Wooten,

Once again I feel compelled to offer a dissent from the continuing right-wing rewrite of U.S. history, in this case jmblaw @ 8:16. “… (in 1974) … Leftists seized control of congress” (fascinating, revealing capitalization.) Yes, they did, in fair elections, largely due to abject Republican corruption – financial and political. Sound familiar? But most of all, his idea that Gerald Ford would have “saved” South Vietnam except for Democratic obstruction is ridiculous. If you remember, the ARVN collapsed under a large scaled NVA offensive. Ford and some (few) die-hard GOP politicians made some noise about emergency funding (as if more money would have helped), but only the re-introduction of massive numbers of US ground forces (impossible given the speed of the NVA advance) could have made a difference and there was zero public support for that. Nixon and Kissinger knew when they negotiated the US withdrawal that we were only providing a “decent interval” before Thieu and his government fell to the North. Our involvement in Vietnam and no one wanted it to begin anew.

I understand the right-wingers posting here admire Ann Coulter, I suppose for her vulgar, immature name-calling and penchant for demonization of others for the sin of not agreeing with her political point of view. Be that as it may — there is no accounting for taste. But rewriting history to suit one’s politics is intellectual fraud. Surely there is one conservative here with the intellectual rigor to be factual and accurate in their historical analysis.

By Political Foreskin

November 14, 2006 10:05 AM | Link to this

Wrong, Retired TLC. You dont get it. There are several ancient fronts of war in Iraq: Intersecting tribal/sectarian rifts that go back centuries. We didn’t cause any of it. It lives by itself. We are merely collateral damage now.

Read what Cheney himself said about the wisdom of invading Iraq after Desert Storm, in defense of 41’s reluctance and ultimate refusal to continue on to Baghdad. He got it.

We are now forced to conclude that Bush/Cheney were lobbied into this war by unwanted and unwarranted influences upon our government.

The discussion here is about a cancer on our future. This cancer is Saudi Arabia, my fine friend: BP OIL.

BP OIL. We let the Oil Companies get too big. We have to make them irrelevant. The thing we have to fear is not foreign oil; but oil itself.

In Iraq, the evolved mission is now, “Stay until a self governing, self sustaining Iraq is able to defend itself and secure it’s own destiny and freedom.”

That’s not a military mission. That’s some utopian wetdream about civics that has never existed anywhere in the middle east, nor could it ever exist.

We Americans couldn’t secure freedom without a civil war. How can we expect Iraqis to?

By Dusty

November 14, 2006 10:06 AM | Link to this

Well,

We have so many people here this morning that know how to run the government. Just collect the facts, remove the troops, blow up half the world, and everything will be fine and dandy.

While our President does collect the facts, study panels and generals, and try to improve on what is not working, he is repeatedly “stabbed in the back” by those who never read a intelligence report in their lives.

United support for American efforts would worry our enemies much more than having an America that has more divisions than Iraq. Shame on those who are blessed in this country but still try to break it. I have no patience with those who cannot go through hardship to save their country. We were not established by people like that. Now we are disgracing them and ourselves.

By Joe

November 14, 2006 10:06 AM | Link to this

@Jim’s a Distractor Terrorists in Iraq? Those are just people defending their country…their homes, their families, their friends..WE NEED TO ADD : “AND MOST VIGOROUSLY, PERSISTENTLY AND IN PERPETUUM, THEIR RELIGION[S].!!!! To believe otherwise ignores religious history and borders on Madness!!

By Political Foreskin

November 14, 2006 10:07 AM | Link to this

I SAID STAY THE COURSE

By Diogenes

November 14, 2006 10:10 AM | Link to this

There is a certain irony to it of course, after pressuring the British so hard to break-up the British empire following WWII, but what I am hearing in the blogs of the “stay the course” advocates (stay the course or some variation of it) is empire building. It may take a steady, stable military force for an extended period of time, as some others are saying. It might require that Iraq become part of the American Empire to achieve peace and stability in that part of the world. We’re not saying it, but we sure are implying something that sounds like empire. Halliburton as the East India Company

By deegee

November 14, 2006 10:14 AM | Link to this

The problem with the Pentagon is that they keep thinking that the new government in Iraq is unsuccessful. From Iraq’s perspective the new government is having great success in executing their strategy which is to avenge the minority Sunnis and align with Iraq. How do you get a regime to change their behavior if they don’t consider they have a problem?

Free and democratic elections in Iraq are a great thing as long as you are in the majority. While we were celebrating the Iraqi’s while they were celebrating their new found democracy we never gave a thought to how ugly majority rule could be in Iraq.

Iraq is having a long overdue civil war. I really don’t see how the U.S. presence in Iraq is going to make a difference when the Iraqi security forces are used as by the government as a weapon in the war. I don’t see how the U.S. presence in Iraq is showing Iran, N Korea, China nor anyone else in the world that we are a force to be reckoned with. Let’s cut our losses and move on.

By Middle America

November 14, 2006 10:17 AM | Link to this

So in other words Wooten: it is okay for more American soldiers to die, so that you can feel better about how we deal with Iran? I think Wooten has lost his mind. Guess what happened when North Korea obtained and tested a nuclear weapon. NOTHING. What will happen with Iran when they develop a nuclear weapon? The same f*cking thing. NOTHING. There has never been a war between nuclear powers, and there never will be. Pakistan (while still a dangerous situation) was viewed as a rogue state before they developed nuclear weapons. Since that time, the government has moderated and become a nation that can be engaged in talks with. Why do you think these countries desire nuclear weapons? So they can destroy the world? Not every non-American is a psychopath, as neocons would have us believe. They want a seat at the table. So we have to ask ourselves, is the Bush administration opposed to nuclear weapons, or do they oppose having to engage Iran directly? I think it’s the latter, because only one country in the world has ever used nuclear weapons against another nation. Sadly it was us. But I was watching a History Channel program about the Manhatten Project last night. One of the people said if you graph the amount of deaths from war, the number gradually increased all the way until 1945, and then it falls off dramatically. As horrific as these weapons are, they have been a mechanism for peace ever since. The only way to diffuse the type of rhetoric that has been thrown about between Bush, Iran and North Korea, is to talk directly to them, as Jim Baker has suggested. It isn’t weak to talk to your enemies. Just talking to them does not mean you have given away the bank. Not talking to them is just childish. What if Kennedy had not been willing to talk to Kruschev, or Reagan to Gorbechev? Where would we be? Stop beating the war drums, get out of Iraq and let’s try to become civil again.

By Political Foreskin

November 14, 2006 10:18 AM | Link to this

Dusty, you’re the disgrace. Your understanding of geo-politics is surpassed only by your syntactical languish.

Why dont you pick out some nice drapes for your office and stfu.

Beeyayatch!

By Diogenes

November 14, 2006 10:21 AM | Link to this

Political F-skin,

Your comment, We Americans couldn’t secure freedom without a civil war. How can we expect Iraqis to?” brings up a question. When did we secure freedom? Following the American Civil Way or during and following WWII when every man and woman, regardless of race, was needed in the war effort, at home or abroad? The Civil Rights Movement, realistically, started during WWII.

By Middle America

November 14, 2006 10:25 AM | Link to this

I don’t know why people want to keep arguing over Vietnam. Communism was never going to be defeated by force. The only place that our war on communism salvaged was South Korea. And still having 30,000 troops and a huge barrier between them and 1 million North Korean troops, hardly seems like a victory to me. And I’m sure all you GOP fools will want to point to Reagan and say he defeated communism. WRONG. Capitalism beat communism in an economic battle. And capitalism is still winning the war in places like China. Cuba will fall when Castro dies, as long as our government drops their ridiculous embargo, which if dropped 20 years ago would have ended communism in Cuba. So my point is, all this arguing about Vietnam is mute, because we should have minded our own business from the beginning, and 0 Americans would have died there in stead of thousands. That’s the same lesson that we ignore today. Only when we have been wronged, should we react with force. That’s the only war the American public will sustain, like WWII. Anyone who thinks Vietnam could have been won, I pray you never get to make US foreign policy.

By CJ

November 14, 2006 10:27 AM | Link to this

Jim,

President Bush doesn’t care if Iran has nuclear weapons. If he did, he’d be pushing Congress to take significant steps towards energy independence (as opposed to insignificant steps like more drilling in the Alaskan Refuge). He’s not. He’d also be having direct, high-level talks with Iran. He’s not.

Bush’s calls for isolation won’t be any more effective than his six-party talks on North Korea. Of course, he knows that. As always, his policy is precisely what’s in the best interest of the Business Roundtable (a committee of overly-paid CEOs who, effectively, run the White House). This policy is to do absolutely nothing about instability throughout the world (or worse, increase instability). Then, he uses such instability to justify growing the military industrial complex and growing worldwide markets for American weaponry. Peace dividends are bad for business.

Regarding your comment that the new Congress has two years to sell its plan (withdraw from Iraq) to the American people, the American people bought that plan last week.

Bush’s foreign policy is working exactly as he intended. That’s why he always has a smirk on his face.

By RetiredLTC

November 14, 2006 10:27 AM | Link to this

Don’t think for one minute that the Republican defeat in the mid-terms is attributable to just Iraq. That election was a loud volley across the bow of a party that has forsaken mainstream America in order to pander to the right wing fringes of the party. Look at the demographics of this election. Look at the number of independents that threw the republicans overboard. Look at the Hispanics that had previously voted Republican that changed sides. Do you think for one minute that the anti-immigrant rhetoric didn’t hurt the Republicans? Look at all the anti-immigrant congressmen that were sent packing, to include the loudmouth J.D. Hayworth, in a supposedly safe district in Arizona, who days before his stunning defeat was crowing about how the American people would overwhelmingly validate that stance. Well, ole J.D. got validated all the way back to a real job. And until the Republicans redefine their “base” to include true conservatives once again, they will continue to lose elections. The best thing that Republicans can do at this time to repair the party is to run as far and fast as they can from the fringe elements in their party. This election was not only a smackdown on Iraq, but a refutation of the far right agenda as well.

By Dusty

November 14, 2006 10:29 AM | Link to this

Diogenes,

Would you mind describing the world empire of the United States of America? You talk so freely about it. I would like to know where it is.

Halliburton is one of the few companies that is large enough to handle contracts around the world. Would you like to suggest some others? Maybe a nice French company to supply our troops? Please give us names so we can correct the error of our ways.

By Political Foreskin

November 14, 2006 10:32 AM | Link to this

If 95% of Iraqis want peace/freedom that still leaves over a million combatants to fight the civil war or overthrow the Iraqi government, and enforce radical Islam with prayers like this: “Little Arab, with your nose pressed up against freedom’s window, there is no democracy for you today….only death”. (snaps for Allah).

Cheney estimated the insurgency at 400 thousand. He didn’t include the rival factions against the insurgency, for the insurgency, or dont know about the insurgency, (but simply hate their neighbor’s guts).

There is no purpose or mission for any foreign troops in Iraq. None. Any spin about a mission is delay tactics for the Right to try to salvage something as congress convenes for the last time before the Uber-congress of Democrats taken over der verld.

(das ist right, Hans)

By getalife

November 14, 2006 10:34 AM | Link to this

Supporting the worst President ever who had to call Daddy to learn how to cut and run is pathetic, disgusting and just plain ignorant.

Investigate.

Indict.

Impeach.

Incarcerate.

By Frank Warner

November 14, 2006 10:34 AM | Link to this

Wooten, eat your crow and live with it. The boogey man scare tactics only work when you are in power. The President does not need you any more so go back to covering traffic.

By WishfulThinking

November 14, 2006 10:40 AM | Link to this

If the President keeps with the same of rhetoric of NO Time Table and using a VETO for any measures put forth by the Democrats to withdraw the troops over the next two years, I think the republicans can KISS the 2008 Presidency good bye.

If you want to win this war, we are going to have to use other measures to make it happen. A time table will be necessary to do this, you can call it whatever you want - but there will be a scheduled time for lowering the number of troops in the area. We will have to keep some troops in place for at least the next 5 - 10 years and possibly longer. Having a time table does not mean you are cutting and running, but you are thoughtful of the significance of various opinions.

The first order of business for Iraq should be to SECURE it completely. We’re going to need more troops to do it. No question about it, the US will have to do the securing. The Iraq police is NOT ready to handle the task and that is a proven fact. I wish our government would stop telling us that they are ready. It’s just another BIG LIE. Most are probabaly afraid for their life and the others have family and friends participating in the insurgency. The US love to say it’s outside forces, keeping up the insurgency. I think that if it were true, the Iraqis would have started their own insurgency to Kick out those OUTSIDERS.

The republicans were given away out of this mess, so that whatever happens in the future, they can lay the blame upon someone else. However, they are too stupid to realize a blessing in disguise.

I’m positive, that in the next year, the Iraqis will establish their own timetable to KICK us OUT. But, the republicans will only call them ungreatful.

By Chazman

November 14, 2006 10:41 AM | Link to this

Dusty, You state “Shame on those who are blessed in this country but still try to break it.” I was wondering what you thought of the Clinton impeachment. Did you agree with it? Did you support it? If you look back at that, I feel many in the Republican party - not all, were trying to “break it”, as you say. Just wondering how you stood on that.

By Curious Observer

November 14, 2006 10:43 AM | Link to this

Even if we ignore the spurious basis for entering the war in Iraq, we have to acknowledge startling similarities between our approach there and the tack we took in Vietnam. The most compelling of these is a highly defensive posture, essentially ruling out winning as a goal.

We ceded the offensive to the enemy, demonstrating an unwillingness to exercise the military principle of mass. In Vietnam, we essentially ruled North Vietnam, the sponsor of the insurgency, as off-limits to attack, except for sporadic and highly unpopular bombing initiatives. We fed troops in slowly, while the insurgency was gaining strength more rapidly.

In Iraq, we failed to commit the overwhelming force necessary to subdue the country, with the result that major portions outside Baghdad have become fertile ground for insurgent attack preparations, while Iran and Syria are essentially exempt from retaliation for supporting the insurgents.

Without the will to win by the exercise of overwhelming force, the US political structure should never install our troops as sitting ducks. It is too late now to alter the strategy. The huge stockpiles of weaponry we failed to secure during the invasion are now in the hands of the insurgents. The country’s popular will has turned against us. It is very telling that a poll of Iraqis has revealed that 60% want our troops gone or dead.

We now have the makings of a Shiite theocracy in Iraq, to be allied with Iran. A powerless prime minister, without even a single supporting militia, lacks any control or respect. Without the US troop presence, the Iraqi government would fall in less than a week. So much for bringing democracy to a region that has known nothing but autocracy for more than three millenia.

It is time to acknowledge the inevitable. Give the Iraqis an unpublicized time line for assuming control over their own security. Over the next year, begin withdrawing military units to Kuwait or home, insisting that the Iraqi army replace them. If there is really popular support for the Iraqi government, then the Iraqi army ought to be willing to defend it.

I find it ludicrous that while we turn out first-rate infantry in our US training camps and bases in less than a year, the Iraqi troops can’t be combat-ready in three years, even with US-supervised training. It tells us something about the resolve of the Iraqis.

Chalk up another lost war to our own stupidity.

By Dusty

November 14, 2006 10:43 AM | Link to this

PoFo,

Why don’t you run over to Little Five Points and have another one? Maybe it would perk you up a bit this morning.

You couldn’t judge a grammar school debate on lollipops. Your own syntax is not as cute as you think it is. We know because we see so MUCH of it.

By Howard

November 14, 2006 10:46 AM | Link to this

Jim…first of all I voted for Bush both times and would not and could not vote for anyone with a (D) behind their name. But with regards to Iraq…here are my main points: 1-Bush listened to Rumsfeld et.al. who told him I am sure that going into Iraq would be just like when his daddy went into Kuwait. It would be quick, a big victory, the people would love him, and his approval ratings would be just like daddy’s…90 percent. 2-Bush’s advisors evidently didn’t tell him that in Iraq there were three distinct peoples…Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds that hated each other guts worse than they hate Israel…and that once Saddam, as evil as he was, was gone, then all these mad dogs would be let loose to go after each other’s throats. So after we got rid of Saddam, guess who was the sheriff in town separating these idiots? The USA! No wonder they want us to leave. 3-After we got Saddam and his henchmen, we should have gone to the S** and said…OK, here’s your country back and the Sunnis are gone. We won’t be back if you keep terrorist out and don’t support any against us. But we didn’t. 4-Those people over there can hardly spell democracy, much less want it. That was a lame reason to stay. 5-I do believe WMDs were in Iraq but got shipped out before we struck…check the statements of both Dems and GOP…they have agreed. 6-we should have stayed in Afghanistan and stablized the hell outta of that area and got Bin Laden and others. Democrats and their leftist allies could have hardly built the coalition of hate towards Bush and the USA if we had stayed there with our efforts and money. 7-Bush should have fired Rumsfeld two years ago. 8-Finally…war is big money Jim. All the billions we are spending on Iraq is not going anywhere except back in this country. Who do people think makes all the guns, planes, Hummers, uniforms, MREs, etc? Not China or India or Korea or Russia…nope! The companies in the good old USA. Jim, we need to stay in Iraq until the situation is stablized. We have won the war…it’s winning the peace that I think is a stretch. We also need to tell the damn Iraqis we aren’t gonna tote their water forever! I would not give a definite timetable, but let them know that one day soon we’re gonna take our ball and head home and that they had better be ready to get in the damn ballgame!!

By Diogenes

November 14, 2006 10:54 AM | Link to this

Dusty,

Your question, “Would you mind describing the world empire of the United States of America? You talk so freely about it. I would like to know where it is” is, of course, moot. We style outselves as the American do-gooders to whom “empire” is odious. Empire, however, is the logical extension of the “stay the course” advocates. We created a mess in Vietnam; we’ve created a mess in Iraq. We have failed to sell democracy as a form of government because we do not comprehend wars of ideology. I suggest that empire might make more sense as a plan of action than whatever we currently substitute for a plan. The deplorable reality is that we currently lack the heart for a logical conclusion to the mess in Iraq, whatever might present itself as the best plan.

By Political Foreskin

November 14, 2006 10:55 AM | Link to this

The point about Iraq is that it could be too late to heed the Eisenhower warning. Those “unwanted” influences may already be in total control. We may never get out of Iraq because those “unwanted” influences wont let us out of Iraq.

Maybe if we say, “Mullah, may I”. (if it is indeed the Saudis. i think so. I think the Saudis are the majority owner of all the oil companies by proxy corps and we’ll never find out how involved they are in our foreign policy.)

All the Saudis would have to do, is threaten to kill the Bush Twins and W would be on a leash. Ditto Cheney’s gay daughter. Think about it. It may be that the worst Suprano’s script cliche ever written is our reality.

By Political Foreskin

November 14, 2006 10:57 AM | Link to this

Dusty, that one hurt, sir. You’re a bad man. You’re a VERY bad man.

By Wit and Wisdom of Dusty

November 14, 2006 11:03 AM | Link to this

We get it Dusty. You love President Bush. You love the troops. You love the South. Criticizing the Commander-in-Chief is sedition.

Congratulations. You’re a caricature.

By Diogenes

November 14, 2006 11:04 AM | Link to this

Dusty,

Look at Curious Observer’s comments (1043). He makes the same case I do until his last two paragraphs. He calls pull out “inevitable,” as if that were the logical conclusion to his remarks. I think the logical conclusion to his remarks is that we develop the will to win. The will to win is empire, or should be. Otherwise, we’ve created, from our zeal to sell democracy to the world, another theocracy, allied with Iran, just as Curious Observer points out.

By getalife

November 14, 2006 11:06 AM | Link to this

Crusty,

Supporting the worst President ever who had to call Daddy to learn how to cut and run is pathetic, disgusting and just plain ignorant.

Investigate.

Indict.

Impeach.

Incarcerate.

By deegee

November 14, 2006 11:12 AM | Link to this

Crusty, Please go out and play for a while and leave the grown ups alone for a while.

By Rod

November 14, 2006 11:13 AM | Link to this

For tftt’s 9:05 post - what an @ss.

We obliterate countries - causing terrorists to be created and rain down on the U.S. for decades to come. The loss of LA or NY to tftt ain’t much.

We’d all be better off if we just killed tftt instead.

By getalife

November 14, 2006 11:16 AM | Link to this

Crusty,

Your boy Lott, who you thought was out of politics is running for minority leader.

Your ignorance is outstanding.

By Dusty

November 14, 2006 11:27 AM | Link to this

Chazman,

Clinton had charisma. He also had sex acts in the White House office, lied under oath, and got what was coming. OK?

PoFo,little sweetheart,

I see that my heartfelt advice has not inhibited you in the least. Too bad.

Diogenes,

While you are stacking books, why don’t you look up the definition of EMPIRE? Only a liberal would define this country’s efforts to win a war and leave, as empire building. Read a book sometimes, one about the principles of America.

Wit & Non-Wisdom Concerning Dusty,

As to supporting our country, you might be right. I’d rather be your suggested caricature than a cut-n-runner any day. Raise your white flag, fellow. They’re waiting for you.

By Dusty

November 14, 2006 11:41 AM | Link to this

Deegee.

Are you one of Getalife’s other personalities? As to adults, when are you going to grow up?

Getalife,

I am not Trent Lott’s manager. If he wants to change his mind and run for something, it’s a free country.

Lott does not represent Georgia in Congress. Had you noticed that? I’m from Georgia.

By Wit and Wisdom of Dusty

November 14, 2006 11:43 AM | Link to this

Your 11:27 implies that you support our country. You don’t. You support Dusty, even when doing so is at the expense of our country.

By Stay The Course

November 14, 2006 11:45 AM | Link to this

America is fighting in Iraq to clean up the mess we made of Iraq! Point Blank Period! Get my fellow veterans out of Iraq for there is No Mission To Accomplish!

By Dusty

November 14, 2006 11:54 AM | Link to this

W & W of Dusty,

I don’t IMPLY that I support this country. I DO SUPPORT this country. No doubt about it.

That seems to bother you. I wonder why.

By M. Moore

November 14, 2006 11:54 AM | Link to this

To My Conservative Brothers and Sisters,

I know you are dismayed and disheartened at the results of last week’s election. You’re worried that the country is heading toward a very bad place you don’t want it to go. Your 12-year Republican Revolution has ended with so much yet to do, so many promises left unfulfilled. You are in a funk, and I understand.

Well, cheer up, my friends! Do not despair. I have good news for you. I, and the millions of others who are now in charge with our Democratic Congress, have a pledge we would like to make to you, a list of promises that we offer you because we value you as our fellow Americans. You deserve to know what we plan to do with our newfound power — and, to be specific, what we will do to you and for you.

Thus, here is our Liberal’s Pledge to Disheartened Conservatives:

Dear Conservatives and Republicans,

I, and my fellow signatories, hereby make these promises to you:

I promise all of the above to you because this is your country, too. You are every bit as American as we are. We are all in this together. We sink or swim as one. Thank you for your years of service to this country and for giving us the opportunity to see if we can make things a bit better for our 300 million fellow Americans — and for the rest of the world.

By Diogenes

November 14, 2006 11:56 AM | Link to this

Dusty,

Calm down. You’re misinterpreting. I’m merely trying to be ironic and indeed started out above by calling it an irony. Do I think we should form empire? No. I’m well enough inculcated into the ethos of our history to know the implications. What I am saying, however, is that we’ve got ourselves into a mess, and no answer seems quite right to me at this time. Why not try a totally new approach? (Irony) Reductio ad absurdum. ergo Empire.

I warned you when you commented on my use of multiple voices that I would not always be consistent. On the war in Iraq, I am currently indecisive and an enjoying all the sound arguments from both sides. This would, as I suggested, more properly be the voice of Democritus.

By Sabrina

November 14, 2006 12:08 PM | Link to this

M. Moore - that was OUTSTANDING and I love it.

Great Job!!!!!

By Dusty

November 14, 2006 12:10 PM | Link to this

M. Moore, (from Hollywood?)

That is the best disguised obituary I’ve read in a long time.

Conservatives may be disheartened but they aren’t dead.

Too bad you didn’t feel this way about fellow “travelers” before the last election. If you did, it wasn’t noticeable.

It is time for lunch and my departure. Bye now.

By Chazman

November 14, 2006 12:11 PM | Link to this

Dusty,

By saying Clinton “got what was coming”, I take it that you did agree with the impeachment and what it put this country through. You didn’t answer it directly so I take it you did support it. If I am wrong, you can correct me. Many feel that putting the country through that (and let me say that what Clinton did was wrong), that being one party bringing the country basically to a stop for political gain, also was wrong.

As for Lott, “If he wants to change his mind and run for something, it’s a free country.” The point is he changed his mind in February and announced he was running again at that time. You stated 3 weeks ago he was out of politics, obviously not realizing he was running. You have seemed in the past to chastize others for making a mistake, but I have yet to see you ever admit to one.

And I guess it all goes back that you seem to feel if anyone critisizes Bush, they are bashing the country, but I would bet you didn’t feel that same way from ‘92 - ‘00.

But, hey, I could be wrong.

By Dusty

November 14, 2006 12:15 PM | Link to this

Diogenes,

Unlike you, I am not a puppet with many voices. What you see is what you get. Switch and swap is not my way of doing things.

Do you have a mind of your own or several?

I’m gone now.

By Pope rednecks - Amerikkka's Al Qaeda I

November 14, 2006 12:17 PM | Link to this

America finally begins to wakeup from the GOP nightmare, and finds that a drunken poor little rich kid and his soulless ruthless criminal cohorts have trashed the place and raped and killed the family dog and stolen their credit cards, their cash, mortgaged their future, and let their fellow gang members walk off with everything that wasn’t tied down.

And in their name slaughtered hundreds of thousands of innocents halfway around the world in some kind of gangland style of revenge…

I’m with getalife - investigate, impeach, incarcerate.

And one more - impale.

Some pasty faced tyrant heads on sticks on the WH lawn could be an important gift from us to future generations.

I like what Samuel Doe did in Liberia - take them all down to the beach, tie them to stakes, shoot them then let the tide rot them away.

Let Dick and George watch from their cages.

You know, the Tree of Liberty and the blood of tyrants - you know me, folks - an old timey Jeffersonian Democrat.

I like black women too, perhaps not as much as TJ but nevertheless… (The Pope’s church does not require celibacy, or even monogamy, ladies - The Pope is all about fun!)

Anyhow - yours for a New America.

Lord, deliver us from the strident, the shrill, the lying, those who would copulate with young boys while preaching hate and intolerance, deliver us from criminality and gang violence, deliver us from thieves and liars and conmen in government, deliver us from warmongers and war profiteers. Deliver us from the stupidity and arrogance of the uneducated and unwashed amongst us. And deliver swift and sure justice to our pResident and the criminals that surround him, in Your Son’s Name (praise be unto Him) we pray. Amen.

Pope

By Pope rednecks - Amerikkka's Al Qaeda I

November 14, 2006 12:18 PM | Link to this

I have another idea on the war in Iraq - hand Bush and Cheney over to the Iraqis, apologize and call it a day.

That’s a strategery that would work!

By Markus

November 14, 2006 12:20 PM | Link to this

aRod the aHole-

“We’d all be better off if we just killed tftt instead.”

You’d better check up on those death threats there sport, you might just get a knock on the door someday if you keep it up. It’s nice to see the true colors of the RAT pack come out.

By getalife

November 14, 2006 12:20 PM | Link to this

Crusty,

Never admitting you are wrong makes you look ridiculous with no credibility.

It does make for excellent satire so you are a joke on a con blog.

I will enjoy the comic stylings of crusty the clown.

By Pope rednecks - Amerikkka's Al Qaeda I

November 14, 2006 12:21 PM | Link to this

Actually, Clinton didn’t get what was coming. Monica did.

A woman after the Pope’s heart.

By Pope rednecks - Amerikkka's Al Qaeda I

November 14, 2006 12:26 PM | Link to this

Good idee, GOPers, to have Trent “Little Strom” Lott as minority leader -

Time to rally ‘round the flag, GOPers - the GOP is in retreat - quick, someone - get us one of them rebel rags!

Race baiting and hate - strategery for a better Amerikkka!

By getalife

November 14, 2006 12:27 PM | Link to this

Lets just laugh at idiots like crusty the clown and Jim Wooten.

No point in arguing with these folks. They never admit they are wrong and have no credibilty.

It is so pathetic, you just have to laugh at them.

By Pope rednecks - Amerikkka's Al Qaeda I

November 14, 2006 12:33 PM | Link to this

Getalife, The Pope at times is a jolly old soul. Always remember - there are two kinds of people in the world - those you can laugh with, and those you can laugh at.

Why do you think I have so much fun here - this is better than Springer!

By Pope rednecks - Amerikkka's Al Qaeda I

November 14, 2006 12:33 PM | Link to this

Getalife, The Pope at times is a jolly old soul. Always remember - there are two kinds of people in the world - those you can laugh with, and those you can laugh at.

Why do you think I have so much fun here - this is better than Springer!

By Pope rednecks - Amerikkka's Al Qaeda I

November 14, 2006 12:40 PM | Link to this

Trent Lott - a masterful choice - he has such broad national appeal!

YOU SILLY KKKONS NEVER CEASE TO HUMOR ME

And at the same time disgust me - it’s like watching Jackarse, The Movie

By Who's gonna pay?

November 14, 2006 12:40 PM | Link to this

When we raise the minimum wage, we will pay you — and your employees — that new wage, too. When women are finally paid what men make, we will pay conservative women that wage, too.

The government has taken over payroll for all companies? When did this start? Do I call Pelosi to make sure I start getting my check every month? I think I am going to like this new socialist regime.

By time for the truth

November 14, 2006 12:43 PM | Link to this

“We’d all be better off if we just killed tftt instead.”

snivelling homo wanker child molestor moron rod

I sincerely hope that heartfelt greeting was warm and chummy enough and not too forward for you!

thanks so much for suggesting I should be killed

a liberal death threat - emanating from yet another hilarious, blatant, lets wind up the lefties post from this morning. ONLY a knuckle dragging retarded sewer rat leftist thug like moron rod would take my biting humour seriously enough to post a death threat!!

… clearly your mother should have aborted you immediately after she found out the bad news. LEFTIES NOTE: (this is merely mirroring back rednekkks’ literal abuse to me from yesterday which NO lefty has yet managed to condemn - even though various piles of lefty afterbirth constantly screech about my beastly tone). Thus this is NOT any kind of a death threat against snivelling moron child molestor rod - just another fun way to goad the resident f@ckpig!

I JUST LOVE LEFTY COWARDICE AND HYPOCRISY!!

By CJ

November 14, 2006 12:43 PM | Link to this

Markus, card-carryng member of the PlutocRAT Party — right on time.

By getalife

November 14, 2006 12:43 PM | Link to this

Pope,

So true.

It is funnier than Springer.

This blog should should be a tv show.

Wacky Wooten’s!

By Markus

November 14, 2006 12:44 PM | Link to this

My what a Motley Bunch we have in the RAT pack now. Dirty Harry Reid with his Sin City shenanigans that largely went ignored, Dick “Turban” Durbin and his nasty troop-hating comments on muderers like Nazis, and of course Jack “The Running Man II” Murtha who got caught up in some RAT shenanigans in the late 1970s where a pseudo-camel Shiek got some RAT pack congressmen and leaders involved in shady investment deals (but we never heard about that in the media much, did we?).

No, I’m looking forward to what these assclowns on the left can do. First, I’ll just sit back and watch these yahoos fight amongst each other for jackass-left or hard-left, and who will get control. It’s nice to be on the offensive for a change.

Oh, and these folks isa gonna be exposed.

http://www.answers.com/topic/abscam

By jbmlaw

November 14, 2006 12:44 PM | Link to this

Dear Bemused @ 10:00, we understand your combination of angst and guilt over the millions who died the last time the leftists decided to cut and run. I hope you learned your lesson; I certainly did.

Dear Diogenes @ 10:10, the model is Japan, Inc.

Dear Middle America, @ 10:17, so it is ok for terrorists to grow and roam the earth unimpeded, just so long as our soldiers don’t have to pursue the evil ones. I think you don’t understand the mission, and that our soldiers are there to kill, not to be killed; this is not like Bosnia. You have greater confidence in the power of talk than I; the last time the civilized world negotiated with a madman, Neville Chamberlain emerged with an agreement. You need to talk with my friend Philosopher about the middle-east mindset; you seemingly identified the lunatic leaders of NK and Iran, then walked away from the logic that derives your apt analysis. As to you 10:25 analysis, you overlook the fact that communism, as developed by the Soviets, was a classic land-grabbing empire. Only when forbidden to grab more – by your arch-enemy Ronaldus Maximus - did their economics catch up with them. And more specifically, “cut and run” did not defeat the communists, either. You leftists need to come up with a real strategy.

Dear RetiredLTC @ 10:27, you deceptively ignore the fact that, of five republicans who opposed the war in Iraq, three were defeated in November 2006. The Democrats elected in 2006 are at least 50/50 on prosecuting the war. I grant your competence in analyzing battlefield strategy, but you have serious holes in your political analysis. True conservatives (by which I mean libertarian-conservatives like me) did ok, but isolationists did poorly; Michael Steel and Rick Santorum are my only losses last week, but Casey is anti-abortion, so even one of those two is a push.

Dear Chazman @ 10:41, I don’t know why you leftists are so supportive of those who lie under oath, but I’ll affirm that the top officer of the law under our system ought to be removed for lying under oath.

Dear Curious @ 10:43, I think you are right about “playing defense” when one needs to play offense. Our friend Bemused does not understand that was how we won the war against the communists, we switched from pure defense to an offensive game. It is not too late, and the detested John McCain realizes that, to his credit.

Dear Howard @ 10:46, you voted for W one more time than I, but your arguments are silly. E.g., if we were still in Afghanistan and only there, leftists would be decrying the quagmire in Afghanistan. The question W put to his staff was, where are the most evil leaders who would harm the US? He got an answer, then a ranking, then went to work. Why is that so hard to embrace? That approach strikes me as intelligent.

Dear Dusty @ various times, you are smarter than all of your critics combined. Hold to the obvious truth.

By Pope rednecks - Amerikkka's Al Qaeda I

November 14, 2006 12:48 PM | Link to this

Senator Levin thinks we’re in a hole in Iraq - well, let’s send the Woo-ten Klan Blog Warriors (affectionately known to each other as Markus’s Cyberspace Rump Rangers) over there to give those Iraqis the what for!

In the shining example of our Fearless Leader, yours truly will get in a Naval ariman jumpsuit to lead the cheers.

I won’t need the codpiece though.

By getalife

November 14, 2006 12:52 PM | Link to this

Speaking of funny

They should put Whacky Wooten’s on after the Colbert Report starring “crusty the clown”,”macaca” and “fakelaw”.

By RetiredLTC

November 14, 2006 12:53 PM | Link to this

Dear jbmlaw@12:44. It is pretty obvious that many voters in the last election stated with there ballots, that not only do they not want a right wing theocracy, but that they do not support a party that panders to racists, bigots, nativists, xenophobes, homophobes, etc. It is pretty clear that mainstream Americans spoke out loudly and clearly on those issues.

By Janine

November 14, 2006 12:56 PM | Link to this

Mr. W.Heed M.Moore’s 11:54 post! I regard myself as a conservative, but am disappointed in the bitter division that is now prevalent. Let’s hope that the atmosphere that has nurtured the destructive divisiveness in our country will soon dissipate. Remember I mentioned to you the book WAVES OF RANCOR,by Hilliard and Keith which chronicles the rise of hate radio in the past 12 years. These commentators labeling Americans who disagree as unpatriotic moved us toward this great divide. Media does have its influence, like it or not.

By Diogenes

November 14, 2006 12:57 PM | Link to this

Dusty,

Interesting comment you’ve made, “Unlike you, I am not a puppet with many voices. What you see is what you get. Switch and swap is not my way of doing things. Do you have a mind of your own or several?(1251).”

If I recall correctly, you’ve also questioned me about my open-mindedness because you are impatient with my claim to be a moderate, one who would find bipartisanship a desirable goal, one trying to find the best course in a welter of arguments. Having no firm opinion is usually defined as being open-minded. Are you saying that I must have an fully formed opinion, most probably one which conforms to your own, before I am worthwhile as a debater? You claim “What you see is what you get,” which I presume means that your ideas are already firmly in place. That, of course, is what makes you a worthy debater for someone whose opinions are open to new information and strongly reasoned argument. You are indeed so skilled as a debater that I chose to use an old debater’s strategem to see the argument I would get. I am of many minds (or open-minded or indecisive or uncertain, however you wish to style it), but I was always taught that a willingness to hear one’s opponent fully is what made compromise possible so that a foundation could be laid for effective conclusions to be drawn therefore. I want good to come from this alliance of Democrats and Republicans, if at all possible. The best way to achieve that is for there to be as few fixed, e.g., rigid positions as possible so that compromise is possible. It will take a Democritus or two, no doubt, to untangle the deadlock.

By Diogenes

November 14, 2006 01:02 PM | Link to this

jbmlaw,

Yur comment, “Dear Diogenes @ 10:10, the model is Japan, Inc.” is of course quite accurate. That is exactly the answer to those who argue that we “stay the course” and form Empire. Thanks.

By RetiredLTC

November 14, 2006 01:17 PM | Link to this

And while we’re at it, maybe another thing that the last election illustrated is that TRUE conservatives have finally figured out the difference between themselves and those with a neo-conservative worldview. And it’s about time too.

By CJ

November 14, 2006 01:34 PM | Link to this

jbmlaw: @12:44 “Dear RetiredLTC @ 10:27, you deceptively ignore the fact that, of five republicans who opposed the war in Iraq, three were defeated in November 2006…True conservatives (by which I mean libertarian-conservatives like me) did ok…”

jbmlaw,

You deceptively ignore the fact that the defeated Republicans who opposed the war in Iraq were defeated by Democrats who opposed the war…demonstrating, once again, that you’re a hack.

But really, again with your “true conservative” nonsense? I’m liberal, and I’m more of libertarian-conservative than you’ll ever be. There’s nothing conservative about your nation-building, budget-busting, homeland insecurity, saber rattling, constitution trashing, environmentally destructive, cherry-picked positions to support of the President who promises you the biggest tax cuts. Regardless of the topic, your positions are tailored to one end only – fattening your own wallet.

You’re only fooling yourself jbm.

By BellBottoms R Back!

November 14, 2006 01:35 PM | Link to this

Can’t we all just get along?

By Chazman

November 14, 2006 01:42 PM | Link to this

BellBottoms R Back!,

No

By general

November 14, 2006 02:04 PM | Link to this

This pamphlet supersedes MS T-12, “Operations of Encircled Forces,” which was given a limited distribution by the Office of the Chief of Military History, Special Staff, U.S. Army.

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION

Pockets are formed as the result of operations in which the attacker entirely surrounds a large number of the opposing forces. Such encirclement is usually followed by a battle of annihilation, the classic goal of all types of ground combat. The principles involved in carrying out penetrations and envelopments, and in closing the ring around an enemy force are well established in tactical doctrine. In the following study, however, the problem is approached exclusively from the defender’s point of view. German pockets in Russia—often the result of peremptory orders to hold out in the face of certain encirclement—are used as examples to illustrate the tactical principles applied by the encircled units and the measures taken in each instance to permit a breakout in the direction of the German lines.

The experiences of World War II demonstrate that under conditions of modern, mobile warfare such pockets are more easily created than in military operations of the past. Their tactical significance has changed considerably. The encirclement of military forces by the enemy no longer signals the end of their usefulness. Pockets have become frequent occurrences in modern combat and must be countered by appropriate tactical measures designed to tie down large numbers of the enemy and, eventually, to rescue the encircled troops.

Generally, encirclements are effected by an opponent with considerable superiority in men and materiel. Without these prerequisites, only superior planning can lead to the entrapment of substantial military forces. Such cases are extremely rare.

The maneuver of deliberately allowing one’s forces to be encircled by the enemy so as to tie up his troops in sufficient numbers to even the odds, rarely achieves the desired result. Should the total opposing forces be approximately equal, such a maneuver can be of value, but only if the number of enemy troops engaged in maintaining the encirclement is large enough to affect the outcome of other operations. Even in this case, however, the deliberate creation of a pocket

Page 2

is a costly enterprise which will hardly justify the probable loss of the entire encircled force.

Success or failure of the encircled troops in fighting their way back to the German lines depended almost entirely on the tactical situation in and around the pocket. Whereas a discussion of strategic decisions is normally outside the scope of tactical studies, the situations described in the following chapters are the direct result of decisions by higher headquarters and can only be understood against the background of these decisions.

In addition to minor German pockets in Russia, the battles of encirclement near Cherkassy and Kamenets-Podolskiy (Chs. 4 and 5) have been selected as typical examples of large-scale pocket engagements and breakout attempts. In Chapter 4, furthermore, the report on developments inside the pocket is contrasted with impressions gained of the same operation by an officer at a higher headquarters outside the ring of encirclement. Excerpts from the diary of a German pocket commander show the increasing psychological pressure exerted by the enemy on encircled troops, especially the attempt at persuasion by the so-called Committee for a Free Germany, which was organized by the Russians and composed of captured German officers.

By generals

November 14, 2006 02:09 PM | Link to this

CHAPTER 6 ENCIRCLEMENT OF A PANZER ARMY NEAR KAMENETS-PODOLSKIY

Section 1. THE ENCIRCLEMENT In mid-February 1944 the front of the First Panzer Army extended across the western Ukraine along a general line north of Vinnitsa and Shepetovka, northeast of Ternopol. To the right, north of Uman, was the Eighth Army; to the left, the Second Army. After the two corps encircled west of Cherkassy had made their way out of the pocket (Ch. 4), the front remained quiet until the beginning of March, while the Russians were reorganizing and regrouping their units. Then strong concentrations of Soviet tanks indicated that the enemy was getting ready to resume his attempts at forcing a decision.

The first large-scale Russian attacks, on 4 and 5 March, were directed primarily against the Shepetovka and Uman areas. Because of their great numerical superiority, the Russians succeeded in denting the overextended German lines in many places. While timely German counterattacks on the left flank eliminated the threat of a breakthrough aimed at Proskurov, the enemy was rapidly gaining ground in the Uman area and succeeded, by mid-March, in pushing across the Ukrainian Bug River. Having driven a deep wedge into the German front, the Russians were in a position to threaten the right flank of First Panzer Army. Since there were no German reserves available to close the gap, First Panzer Army was forced to withdraw its entire right wing and establish a new defense line facing east. Under the pressure of continued Russian attacks, planned withdrawals were also carried out on the central sector until the right flank of First Panzer Army was finally anchored on the northern bank of the Dnestr River east of Mogilev-Podolskiy.

On the left boundary of First Panzer Army, west of Proskurov, strong Russian armored units soon accomplished another breakthrough. On 22 March five armored corps followed by infantry poured south between the Zbruch and Seret Rivers, and two days later crossed the Dnestr in the direction of Chernovtsy. Since the enemy had also pushed across the river farther east, in the area of Yampol

Page 45

and Mogilev-Podolskiy, First Panzer Army was now contained in a large semicircle north of the Dnestr. Hitler’s explicit orders prohibited any further withdrawal and eliminated the possibility of a more flexible defense which might have established contact with other German forces to the east or the west. As could be expected, the two Russian forces, after crossing the Dnestr, linked up under the protection of the river line in the rear of First Panzer Army. By 25 March the encirclement was complete.

As in all similar situations, the first threat to make itself felt came when the last supply lines into the German salient were cut. Until 25 March First Panzer Army still had one supply route open, which led south across the Dnestr bridge at Knotin and was protected by a strong bridgehead on the southern bank of the river. Over this route all staffs and units that could be dispensed with were moved to the rear, and every nonessential user of supplies and equipment was taken out of the pocket before the ring was actually closed. As soon as it became evident that no more supplies could be brought up, stock was taken inside the pocket. While ammunition and rations were sufficient to last for about another two weeks, fuel reserves were found to be critically low. First Panzer Army therefore immediately requested supply by air and restricted the use of motor vehicles to a minimum.

All measures taken inside the pocket were made extremely difficult by unfavorable weather. At first snowstorms and snowdrifts hampered the air supply operation and obstructed movements on the ground. Then, practically over night, the snow began to melt, and the roads quickly turned into bottomless morasses. The supply of motor fuel, which was flown in over a distance of 125 miles from the nearest German airfield, fell far short of requirements. Time and again vehicles had to be destroyed when they blocked the roads in long, immobilized columns. Finally, only combat vehicles, prime movers, and a few messenger vehicles were left intact.

Having completed the encirclement the Russians, as expected, decreased the intensity of their attacks. Only on the eastern sector enemy pressure remained strong; there was no more than moderate activity in the north; and from the west no attacks were launched against the defense perimeter of First Panzer Army. Apparently the continuous movements of German service units southward across the Dnestr had led the enemy to believe that the First Panzer Army was in full retreat toward the south. The Russians, in an effort that turned out to be a serious mistake, moved more and more units in the same direction on both sides of the pocket. Their lines of communication grew longer and longer, and they began to face difficulties of supply similar to those of the encircled German force.

Page 46

In response to enemy pressure from the east and north, First Panzer Army deliberately shortened its front until it ran along a much smaller perimeter north of Kamenets-Podolskiy, assuring a greater concentration of the defending forces and a more efficient use of the limited ammunition supply. Local enemy penetrations were sealed off more easily and break-throughs could be prevented altogether. At the same time First Panzer Army deceived the enemy into believing that by day and by night large-scale evacuations across the river were taking place.

Even before it was completely cut off, First Panzer Army had requested authority to conduct a defense along mobile lines. When this request was turned down and the encirclement became a fact, a breakout remained the only possible course of action short of helplessly facing certain annihilation. Because of unfavorable weather conditions, the quantities of supplies that could be flown in were entirely insufficient to maintain the fighting power of the encircled troops. Relief of the pocket by fresh forces from the outside could not be expected. In this situation the enemy sent a terse demand for surrender, threatening that otherwise all soldiers of the encircled German army would be shot.

The reaction of First Panzer Army was to immediately make all necessary preparations to enable its total force of eight divisions to break out. Once more, in a systematic culling process, the divisions were relieved of all unfit personnel and superfluous equipment, while special arrangements were made with the Luftwaffe to assure that the transport planes bringing in supplies were used to evacuate casualties on their return flights.

Section II. THE BREAKOUT PLAN The question of the direction in which the breakout should be launched played an important part in all considerations. Was it more advisable to strike toward the west, along the Dnestr, or toward the south, across the Khotin bridgehead an attack in the latter direction would involve the least difficulties, be opposed by the weakest enemy forces, and perhaps permit the withdrawal of the entire German force into Romania. In this case, however, there would be one less panzer army fighting the Russians, at least for some time. West of the pocket several successive river lines constituted natural obstacles in the path of an advance. There, too, the Germans had to expect the strongest concentration of enemy forces along the ring of encirclement. Breaking out in several directions at once was another possibility under consideration; this would have forced the enemy to split his strength in numerous local countermeasures and

Page 48

might have enabled some small German groups to make their way back to the nearest friendly lines with the least fighting.

The final decision was to break out to the west, in the direction involving the greatest difficulties, yet assuring a maximum of surprise. Simultaneously, on the outside, another German force was to attack from an area southwest of Ternopol (over 125 miles from the scene) in the direction of First Panzer Army.

Another highly important question was the formation to be adopted for the breakout. Desirable as it might have been to lead off with a strong concentration of armor, it was to be feared that these armored units, intent on making rapid progress, might outrun the infantry and thus break up the unity of the command. The plan of attack, therefore, provided for a northern and a southern force, each consisting of two corps and specifically ordered to form an advance guard of tank-supported infantry and combat engineers, while the main body and the rear guard were to be composed of mobile units. This meant that the entire panzer army would be committed in two parallel formations attacking abreast, with units in column. Control over the operation, of course, could only be exercised from inside the pocket; evacuation of an operations staff via Khotin to the south, in order to direct the breakout from the outside, was out of the question.

Section III. THE POCKET MOVES WEST On 27 March, having regrouped its forces according to plan and completed all preparations for the thrust across the Zbruch River, First Panzer Army launched its breakout toward the west. Simultaneously, the rear guards on the eastern and northern sectors of the pocket switched to delaying tactics.

In the zone of the northern attack force, the enemy along the Zbruch River was overrun with surprising speed, and three undamaged bridges fell into German hands. The advance of the southern attack force met greater resistance, and considerable difficulties arose as the enemy launched a counterthrust from the west across the Zbruch and was able to force his way into Kamenets-Podolskiy. The loss of this important road hub made it necessary to reroute all German movements in a wide detour around the city, an effort that required painstaking reconnaissance and careful traffic regulation. It was not long, however, until the enemy penetration was sealed on, and in this instance the Germans, themselves surrounded, were able in turn to encircle a smaller Russian force which was not dependent upon air supply and could no longer interfere with subsequent operations. As soon as several strong bridgeheads had been established across the Zbruch River, new spearheads were formed which attacked the Seret

Page 50

River line. Thus the panzer army maintained the initiative and kept moving by day and night.

Apparently the enemy was still uncertain about German intentions. Instead of combining all his forces from the eastern and northern sectors in an attempt to pursue and overtake the Germans pushing west, he persisted in attacking the pocket from the east and north, in some instances striking at positions already vacated by the German rear guards. His units southwest of the pocket actually continued to move farther south. Meanwhile, First Panzer Army kept up its westward advance; on 28 March the southern force was able to cut the road leading to Chortkov, severing enemy communication lines in that area; one day later German spearheads reached the Seret River, which they crossed during the following night.

The Russians then began to react. They recalled elements of their Fourth Tank Army from south of the Dnestr and, by 31 March, launched a strong armored thrust toward the north from the area of Gorodenka. As a countermeasure, the southern attack force of First Panzer Army, deployed mainly between the Zbruch and Seret Rivers, assumed the defensive and was able to break up the Russian armored attack. Thereafter, since their supply lines had meanwhile been cut, these Russian units no longer constituted a menace to the German left flank.

A more serious threat existed in the north where Russian forces moving west could have overtaken and blocked the entire right wing of First Panzer Army. However, the enemy did not choose to do so, and the northern attack force continued to advance and was able to cross the Seret without major difficulty.

Section IV. THE ESCAPE The last week in March was marked by heavy snowstorms. A rapid thaw followed early in April, with the effect of seriously hampering all movements. Supply during this period continued to be the greatest problem. As the German force kept moving, the planes bringing in supplies had to use different airstrips every night. In the final phase of the operation supplies could only be dropped by air, a procedure that proved wholly inadequate to satisfy the requirements of an entire army. Despite the daily moves of the pocket force, the maintenance of adequate signal communications was assured at all times, primarily by the use of conventional and microwave radio sets.

Since the troops were constantly on the move, launching successive attacks toward the west, they never developed the feeling of being trapped in the slowly tightening grip of an encircling enemy force. Consequently, there were no signs of disintegration or panic, and the number of missing during the entire operation remained unusually

Page 51

low. By 5 April the leading elements of both the northern and the southern attack forces reached the Strypa River. On the following day, near Buczacz, they were able to link up with other German units coming from the west.

In two weeks of heavy fighting, but without suffering severe casualties, First Panzer Army had freed itself from enemy encirclement. Rear guard actions continued for a few days and then the Germans succeeded in establishing a new, continuous defense line running from the Dnestr to the town of Brody, which prevented any further advance of the enemy. Moreover, despite their considerable losses in materiel, elements of First Panzer Army were still able to launch an attack southeast across the Dnestr to break up an enemy force which had appeared in the Stanislav area. Enemy equipment captured and destroyed during the entire breakout operation amounted to 357 tanks, 42 assault guns, and 280 artillery pieces.

Section V. EVALUATION In its encirclement and breakout, First Panzer Army gained a number of experiences that may be applicable to many similar situations. Whereas in previous wars the double envelopment and encirclement of a unit was tantamount to its annihilation, this is no longer true today. The progressive motorization of ground forces, combined with the possibility of supply by air, tends to do away with this hitherto characteristic aspect of a pocket.

While it is true that the decision to break out from encirclement should not be needlessly delayed, it is equally important to realize that definite plans for the breakout should not be made too early, at a stage when the enemy is still moving and therefore capable of making rapid changes in his dispositions. Once the encirclement is completed, the enemy, since he is now operating along exterior lines, encounters difficulties of supply and communication and has lost much of his initial flexibility.

In an operation of this type surprise is the most important factor, particularly the surprise achieved by choosing an unexpected direction for the breakout. In the example described all movement prior to the encirclement of First Panzer Army had been from north to south. A breakout in the same direction was definitely expected by the enemy, and therefore this would have been the least favorable choice. The direction selected for the German thrust—practically perpendicular to the enemy’s lines of advance—offered the best chance of success; the element of surprise actually proved of greater importance than considerations of enemy strength, terrain conditions, and the distance to the nearest German lines.

By Failure to Breakout of Encirclement

November 14, 2006 02:11 PM | Link to this

The Eastern Front of World War II was the theatre of war covering the conflict in eastern Europe, notorious for its unprecedented ferocity, destruction, and immense loss of life. Many sources include the German-Polish War of 1939 in this World War II theatre but this article concentrates on the much larger conflict which was fought from June 1941 to May 1945 in which the two principal belligerent nations were Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. It resulted in the rise of the Soviet Union as a military and industrial superpower, the Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe, and the partition of Germany.

Image:Red army soldiers raising the soviet flag on the roof of the reichstag berlin germany.jpg A Soviet soldier raises the hammer and sickle over the Reichstag after the Battle of Berlin, May 1945In Russian, the conflict is referred to as the Great Patriotic War (Великая Отечественная Война, Velikaya Otechestvennaya Voyna), a name which alludes to the Russo–Napoleonic Patriotic War on Russian soil in 1812. The Russo-Finnish Continuation War may be considered the northern flank of the Eastern Front. Some scholars of the conflict use the term Russo-German War, while others use Soviet-German War or German-Soviet War.

Contents 1 Overview 2 Background 3 Operations 3.1 Invasion: Summer 1941 3.2 Moscow and Rostov: Autumn 1941 3.3 Soviet counter-offensive: Winter 1941 3.4 Don, Volga, and Caucasus: Summer 1942 3.5 Stalingrad: Winter 1942 3.6 Kursk: Summer 1943 3.7 Eastern Front in Fall and Winter 1943 3.8 Eastern Front in Summer 1944 3.9 Eastern Europe: January–March 1945 3.10 End of War: April–May 1945 4 Leadership 5 Occupation and repression 6 Industrial output 7 Casualties 8 See also 9 References 10 External links

[edit]Overview

A 1941 poster Mother Russia Is Calling You to the Front.The war between Germany and the Soviet Union began on 22 June 1941, when Germany invaded the Soviet-occupied portion of Poland, and ended on 8 May 1945, when Germany’s armed forces surrendered unconditionally following the Battle of Berlin. Germany was able to call on the manpower of three other Axis Powers - Italy, Hungary and Romania - to support them at the front and the subsequently occupied territories, with some assistance from anti-communist partisans as well as a Spanish division. The Soviet Union had help from partisans in many countries in Eastern Europe, notably those in Poland and Yugoslavia. In addition the 1st and 2nd Polish armies, armed and trained by the Soviets, fought alongside the Red Army at the front.

Image:Stop hand.svg The factual accuracy of this section is disputed. Please view the article’s talk page. The Eastern Front was by far the largest and bloodiest theatre of World War II, and generally accepted as the most costly conflict in human history at anywhere from 25-30 million dead as a result. It involved more land combat than all other World War II theatres combined. The Red Army and other forces of the USSR inflicted about 75% of losses - around 2,415,690 men on the German military. The Germans would lose 4.5 million men as POW to the Soviets and out of those 500,000 would die in captivity. Atleast 2 million Soviet citizens joined the axis in the war, most of those who joined were from the baltic states or Soviet POW. Almost all Soviet turncoats would join Vlasov army. Germany’s allies (including Japan) lost at least 2,700,000 soldiers fighting the USSR with a further 1.4 million taken prisoner. The USSR, for its part, lost at least 8.7 million soldiers, 4.7 million would die in combat and 4 million would die in German POW camps. The Soviet Union were to lose 6 million POW and out of those 6 million, 4 million would be killed. All Soviet POW were used as forced labour. Most Germans who were taken prisoner were interned for forced labor, the last of whom were freed in 1956 after lengthy negotiations, though half a million POWs died in captivity.

The Eastern front resulted in such staggering losses and disregard for human life almost entirely on the ideological premise for the war. To hardline Nazis in Berlin, the war against the Soviet Union was one of a struggle of Fascism against Communism, and the Aryan race against the “inferior” Slavic race. From the beginning of the conflict, Hitler referred it as a “war of annihliation”. Aside from the ideological conflict, the sheer mindframe of Germany and the Soviet Union’s leaders, Hitler and Stalin respectively, helped attribute to the escalation of terror and murder on an unprecedented scale. Hitler sought to enslave the Slavic race and wipe out the large Judeo population of Eastern Europe. Stalin disregarded human life in order to achieve his goal of victory. This included terrorization of his own people, as well as mass deportation of entire races. All these factors resulted in tremendous brutality both to combatants and civilians, which was not paralleled on the Western Front.

The war inflicted huge losses and suffering onto the civilian populations of the affected countries. Behind the front lines, atrocities against civilians in German-occupied areas were routine, including the Holocaust. German and German-allied forces treated civilian populations with exceptional brutality, massacring villages and routinely killing civilian hostages. Both sides practiced widespread scorched earth tactics. Once the war shifted to ethnic German territory, rape of German women was commonplace After the war, following the Yalta conference agreements between the Allies, the German populations of East Prussia and Silesia were displaced to the west of the Oder-Neisse Line, in what became one of the largest forced migrations of people in world history.

Much of the combat took place in or close by populated areas, and the actions of both sides contributed to massive loss of civilian life.

[edit]Background The Molotov-Ribbentrop Non-Aggression Pact of August 1939 had established a non-aggression agreement between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, and a secret protocol described how Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Romania would be divided between them. In the Polish September Campaign of 1939 the two powers invaded and partitioned Poland, and in June 1940 the Soviet Union, threatening to use force if her demands are not fulfilled, won the diplomatic wars against Romania and three Baltic states which de jure allowed it to peacefully occupy Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania de facto, and to return the Ukrainian, Belorussian, and Moldavian territories in the North and North-Eastern regions of Romania (Northern Bucovina and Basarabia).

For nearly two years the border was quiet while Germany conquered Denmark, Norway, France, and the Balkans.

Adolf Hitler had always intended to renege on the pact with the Soviet Union and invade. He had argued in Mein Kampf of the necessity of acquiring new territory for German settlement (Lebensraum) in Eastern Europe. He envisaged settling Germans as a master race in western Russia, while deporting most of the Russians to Siberia and using the remainder as slave labour. After the great purge of the 1930s, Hitler saw the Soviet Union as militarily weak and ripe for conquest: “We have only to kick in the door and the whole rotten structure will come crashing down.”

Joseph Stalin was fearful of war with Germany, thereby being reluctant to do anything to provoke Hitler. Even though Germany had been assembling very large numbers of troops in eastern Poland and making clandestine reconnaissance flights over the border, Stalin ignored the warnings of his own as well as foreign intelligence. Moreover, on the very night of the invasion, Soviet troops received a directive undersigned by Marshal Semyon Timoshenko and General of the Army Georgy Zhukov that commanded (as it was demanded by Stalin): “do not answer to any provocations” and “do not undertake any actions without specific orders”. The German invasion therefore caught the Soviet military and leadership largely by surprise.

[edit]Operations [edit]Invasion: Summer 1941

Operation Barbarossa: the German invasion of the Soviet Union, 21 June 1941 to 5 December 1941 ██ to 9 July 1941

██ to 1 September 1941

██ to 9 September 1941

██ to 5 December 1941 Main article: Operation Barbarossa

At 04:45 on 22 June 1941, four million German, Italian, Romanian and other Axis troops burst over the borders and stormed into the Soviet Union. For a month the three-pronged offensive was completely unstoppable as the Panzer forces encircled hundreds of thousands of Soviet troops in huge pockets that were then reduced by slower-moving infantry divisions while the panzers charged on, following the Blitzkrieg doctrine.

Army Group North’s objective was Leningrad via the Baltic States. Comprising the 16th and 18th Armies and 4th Panzer Group, this formation drove through Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and the Russian cities of Pskov and Novgorod.

Army Group Centre comprised two Panzer groups (2nd and 3rd), which rolled east from either side of Brest-Litovsk and converged ahead of Minsk, followed by 2nd, 4th and 9th Armies. The combined Panzer force reached the Beresina River in just six days, 650 km (400 miles) from their start lines. The next objective was to cross the Dnieper river, which was accomplished by 11 July. Following that, their next target was Smolensk, which fell on 16 July, but the engagement in the Smolensk area blocked the German advance until mid-September, effectively disrupting the blitzkrieg.

Army Group South, with 1st Panzer Group, 6th, 11th and 17th Armies, was tasked with advancing through Galicia and into Ukraine. Their progress, however, was rather slow, with only the corridor towards Kiev secure by mid-July. 11th Army, aided by two Romanian armies, fought its way through Bessarabia towards Odessa. The 1st Panzer Group turned away from Kiev for the moment, advancing into the Dnieper bend. When it joined up with the southern elements of Army Group South at Uman, the group captured 100,000 Soviet prisoners in a huge pocket.

As the Red Army withdrew behind the Dnieper and Dvina rivers, the Soviet hierarchy turned its attention to moving as much of the region’s heavy industry as it could, dismantled and packed onto flatcars, away from the front line, re-establishing it in more remote areas behind the Urals and in Central Asia. Most civilians could not be evacuated along with the equipment and were left behind to the mercy of the invading forces.

With the capture of Smolensk and the advance to the Luga river, Army Groups Centre and North had completed their first major objective: to get across and hold the “land bridge” between the Dvina and Dnieper. The route to Moscow, now only 400 km (250 miles) away, was wide open.

The German generals argued for an immediate drive towards Moscow, but Hitler overruled them, citing the importance of Ukrainian grain and heavy industry if under German possession, not to mention the massing of Soviet reserves in the Gomel area between Army Group Centre’s southern flanks and the bogged-down Army Group South to the south. The order was issued to 2nd Panzer Group to turn south and advance towards Kiev. This took the whole of August and into September, but when 2nd Panzer Group joined up with 1st Panzer Group at Lokhvitsa on 5 September 665,000 Soviet prisoners were taken and Kiev fell on 19 September.

[edit]Moscow and Rostov: Autumn 1941 Main articles: Operation Typhoon and Battle of Rostov
A 1941 poster reminding Russians about the traditions of Alexander Nevsky, Alexander Suvorov, and Vasily Chapayev.Hitler then decided to resume the advance to Moscow, renaming the Panzer Groups to Panzer Armies for the occasion. Operation Typhoon, which was set in motion on 30 September, saw 2nd Panzer Army rush along the paved road from Orel (captured 7 October) to the Oka river at Plavskoye, while the 4th Panzer Army (transferred from Army Group North to Centre) and 3rd Panzer Armies surrounded the Soviet forces in two huge pockets at Vyazma and Bryansk. Army Group North positioned itself in front of Leningrad and attempted to cut the rail link at Tikhvin to the east. Thus began the 900-day Siege of Leningrad. North of the Arctic Circle, a German-Finnish force set out for Murmansk but could get no further than the Litsa river, where they settled down.

Army Group South pushed down from the Dnieper to the Sea of Azov coast, also advancing through Kharkov, Kursk and Stalino. The 11th Army moved into the Crimea and had taken control of all of the peninsula by autumn (except Sevastopol, which held out until 3 July 1942). On 21 November the Germans took Rostov, the gateway to the Caucasus. However, the German lines were over-extended and the Soviet defenders counterattacked the 1st Panzer Army’s spearhead from the north, forcing them to pull out of the city and behind the Mius River; the first significant German withdrawal of the war.

Just as Operation Typhoon got going, the Russian weather struck. For the second half of October it rained solidly, turning what few roads there were into endless mud that trapped German vehicles, horses and men alike. With 160 km (100 miles) still to go to Moscow, there was worse to come when the temperature plunged and snow started falling. The vehicles could move again, but the men could not, freezing with no winter clothing. The German leadership, expecting the campaign to be over in a few months, had not equipped their armies for winter fighting.

One last lunge on 15 November saw the Germans attempting to throw a ring around Moscow. On 27 November the 4th Panzer Army got within 30 km (19 miles) of the Kremlin when it reached the last tramstop of the Moscow line at Khimki, while the 2nd Panzer Army, try as it might, could not take Tula, the last Russian city that stood in its way of the capital. After a meeting held in Orsha between the head of the Army General Staff, General Halder, and the heads of three Army Groups and armies, it was decided to push forward to Moscow since it was better, as argued by head of Army Group Center, Field Marshal Fedor von Bock, for them to try their luck on the battlefield rather than just sit and wait while their opponent gathered more strength.

However, by 6 December it became clear that Wehrmacht was too weak to capture Moscow and the attack was put on hold. General Zhukov thus began his counter-attack, employing fresh, well-trained Siberian reserves transfered from the east following the guarantee of neutrality from Japan.

[edit]Soviet counter-offensive: Winter 1941

The Soviet winter counter-offensive, 5 December 1941 to 7 May 1942Main article: Battle of Moscow, Second Battle of Kharkov

During the autumn, Zhukov had been transferring fresh and well-equipped Soviet forces from Siberia and the far east to Moscow (these troops had been stationed there in expectation of a Japanese attack, but Stalin’s master spy Richard Sorge indicated that the Japanese had decided to attack Southeast Asia and the Pacific instead). On 5 December 1941, these reinforcements attacked the German lines around Moscow, supported by new T-34 tanks and Katyusha rocket launchers. The new Soviet troops were prepared for winter warfare, and they included several ski battalions. The exhausted and freezing Germans were routed and driven back between 100 and 250 km (60 to 150 miles) by 7 January 1942.

Soviet troops in winter camouflage advancing during the Battle of Moscow, December 1941A further Soviet attack was mounted in late January, focusing on the junction between Army Groups North and Centre between Lake Seliger and Rzhev, and drove a gap between the two German army groups. In concert with the advance from Kaluga to the south-west of Moscow, it was intended that the two offensives converge on Smolensk, but the Germans rallied and managed to hold them apart, retaining a salient at Rzhev. A Soviet parachute drop on German-held Dorogobuzh was spectacularly unsuccessful, and those paratroopers who survived had to escape to the partisan-held areas beginning to swell behind German lines. To the north, the Soviets surrounded a German garrison in Demyansk, which held out with air supply for four months, and established themselves in front of Kholm, Velizh and Velikie Luki.

In the south the Red Army crashed over the Donets River at Izyum and drove a 100-km (60-mile) deep salient. The intent was to pin Army Group South against the Sea of Azov, but as the winter eased the Germans were able to counter-attack and cut off the over-extended Soviet troops in the Second Battle of Kharkov.

[edit]Don, Volga, and Caucasus: Summer 1942

Operation Blue: German advances from 7 May 1942 to 18 November 1942 ██ to 7 July 1942

██ to 22 July 1942

██ to 1 August 1942

██ to 18 November 1942 Main articles: Battle of Voronezh, Battle of the Caucasus, Battle of Stalingrad

Although plans were made to attack Moscow again, on 28 June 1942, the offensive re-opened in a different direction. Army Group South took the initiative, anchoring the front with the Battle of Voronezh and then following the Don river southeastwards. The grand plan was to secure the Don and Volga first and then drive into the Caucasus towards the oilfields, but operational considerations and Hitler’s vanity made him order both objectives to be attempted simultaneously. Rostov was recaptured on 24 July when 1st Panzer Army joined in, and then that group drove south towards Maikop. As part of this, Operation Shamil was executed, a plan whereby a group of Brandenburger commandos dressed up as Soviet NKVD troops to destabilise Maikop’s defenses and allow the 1st Panzer Army to enter the oil town with little opposition.

German troops in the CaucasusMeanwhile, 6th Army was driving towards Stalingrad, for a long period unsupported by 4th Panzer Army who had been diverted to help 1st Panzer Army cross the Don. By the time 4th Panzer Army had rejoined the Stalingrad offensive, Soviet resistance (comprising the 62nd Army under Vasily Chuikov) had stiffened. A leap across the Don brought German troops to the Volga on 23 August but for the next three months the Wehrmacht would be fighting the Battle of Stalingrad street-by-street.

Towards the south 1st Panzer Army had reached the Caucasian foothills and the Malka river. At the end of August Romanian mountain troops joined the Caucasian spearhead, while the Romanian 3rd and 4th Armies were redeployed from their successful task of clearing the Azov littoral. They took up position either side of Stalingrad to free German troops for the proper fighting. Mindful of the continuing antagonism between Axis allies Romania and Hungary over Transylvania, the Romanian army in the Don bend was separated from the Hungarian 2nd army by the Italian 8th Army. Thus all of Hitler’s allies were in it — including a Slovakian contingent with 1st Panzer Army and a Croatian regiment attached to 6th Army.

The advance into the Caucasus bogged down, with the Germans unable to fight their way past Malgobek and to the main prize of Grozny. Instead they switched the direction of their advance to come at it from the south, crossing the Malka at the end of October and entering North Ossetia. In the first week of November, on the outskirts of Ordzhonikidze, the 13th Panzer Division’s spearhead was snipped off and the Panzer troops had to fall back. The offensive into Russia was over.

[edit]Stalingrad: Winter 1942

Operations Uranus, Saturn and Mars: Soviet advances on the Eastern Front, 18 November 1942 to March 1943Main articles: Battle of Stalingrad, Operation Saturn, Second Rzhev-Sychevka offensive, Third Battle of Kharkov, Battle of Velikiye Luki

While the German 6th Army and 4th Panzer Army had been fighting their way into Stalingrad, Soviet armies had congregated on either side of the city, specifically into the Don bridgeheads that the Romanians had been unable to reduce, and it was from these that they struck on 19 November 1942. In Operation Uranus, two Soviet fronts punched through the Romanians and converged at Kalach on 23 November, trapping 300,000 Axis troops behind them. A simultaneous offensive on the Rzhev sector known as Operation Mars was supposed to advance to Smolensk, but was a failure, with German tactical flair winning the day.

German soldiers at StalingradThe Germans rushed to transfer troops to Russia for a desperate attempt to relieve Stalingrad, but the offensive could not get going until 12 December, by which time the 6th Army in Stalingrad was starving and too weak to break out towards it. Operation Winter Storm, with three transferred Panzer divisions, got going briskly from Kotelnikovo towards the Aksai river but bogged down 65 km (40 miles) short of its goal. To divert the rescue attempt the Soviets decided to smash the Italians and come down behind the relief attempt if they could, that operation starting on 16 December. What it did accomplish was to destroy many of the aircraft that had been transporting relief supplies to Stalingrad. The fairly limited scope of the Soviet offensive, although still eventually targeted on Rostov, also allowed Hitler time to see sense and pull Army Group A out of the Caucasus and back over the Don.

On 31 January 1943, the 90,000 survivors of the 300,000-man 6th Army surrendered. By that time the Hungarian contingent had also been wiped out. The Soviets advanced from the Don 500 km (300 miles) to the west of Stalingrad, marching through Kursk (retaken on 8 February 1943) and Kharkov (retaken 16 February 1943). In order to save the position in the south, the decision was taken in February to abandon the Rzhev salient, freeing enough German troops to make a successful riposte in eastern Ukraine. Manstein’s counteroffensive, strengthened by a specially trained SS Panzer Corps equipped with Tiger tanks, opened on 20 February 1943, and fought its way from Poltava back into Kharkov in the third week of March, upon which the spring thaw intervened. This had left a glaring bulge in the front centered on Kursk.

[edit]Kursk: Summer 1943

German advances at Kharkov and Kursk, 19 February 1943 to 1 August 1943Main article: Battle of Kursk

After the failure of the attempt to capture Stalingrad, Hitler had deferred planning authority for the upcoming campaign season to the German Army High Command and reinstated Guderian to a prominent role, this time as Inspector of Panzer Troops. Debate among the general staff was polarised, with even Hitler nervous about any attempt to pinch off the Kursk salient. He knew that in the intervening six months the Russian position at Kursk had been reinforced heavily with anti tank guns, tank traps, landmines, barbed wire, trenches, pillboxes, artillery and mortars. But if one last great blitzkrieg offensive could be mounted, just maybe the Soviets would ease off and attention could then be turned to the Allied threat to the Western Front. The advance would be executed from the Orel salient to the north of Kursk and from Belgorod to the south. Both wings would converge on Tim, and by that means restore the lines of Army Group South to the exact points that it held over the winter of 1941–1942.

Although the Germans knew that the Red Army’s massive reserves of manpower had been bled dry in the summer of 1941 and 1942, the Soviets were still re-equipping, simply by drafting the men from the regions recaptured.

Under pressure from his generals, Hitler bit the bullet and agreed to the attack on Kursk, little realising that the Abwehr’s intelligence on the Soviet position there had been undermined by a concerted Stavka misinformation and counter-intelligence campaign mounted by the Lucy spy ring in Switzerland. When the Germans began the operation, it was after months of delays waiting for new tanks and equipment, by which time the Soviets had reinforced the Kursk salient with more anti-tank firepower than had ever been assembled in one place before or since.

In the north, the entire 9th Army had been redeployed from the Rzhev salient into the Orel salient and was to advance from Maloarkhangelsk to Kursk. But its forces could not even get past the first objective at Olkhovatka, just 8 km (5 miles) into the advance. The 9th Army blunted its spearhead against the Soviet minefields, frustratingly so considering that the high ground there was the only natural barrier between them and flat tank country all the way to Kursk. The direction of advance was then switched to Ponyri, to the west of Olkhovatka, but the 9th Army could not break through here either and went over to the defensive. The Soviets simply soaked up the German punishment and then struck back. On 12 July the Red Army ploughed through the demarcation line between the 211th and 293rd Divisions on the Zhizdra river and steamed towards Karachev, right behind them and behind Orel.

Waffen-SS Panzergrenadiers of the 3rd SS-Panzer-Division Totenkopf at the start of the Battle of KurskThe southern offensive, spearheaded by 4.Panzer-Armee, led by Gen. Col. Hoth, with three Tank Corps made more headway. Advancing on either side of the upper Donets on a narrow corridor, the SS Panzer Corps and the Großdeutschland Panzergrenadier Divisions battled its way through minefields and over comparatively high ground towards Oboyan. Stiff resistance caused a change of direction from east to west of the front, but the tanks got 25 km (15 miles) before encountering the reserves of the Soviet 5th Tank Army outside Prokhorovka. Battle was joined on 12 July, with about one thousand tanks doing battle. After the war, the battle near Prochorovka was idealized from the soviet historians as the biggest tank battle of all time. Newer investigations show a different picture. The “tank battle” of Prochorovka was an unsuccessful and chaotic attack from parts of the soviet 5. Guards Tank Army, appr. 250 tanks, against the defensive positions of the II. SS corps. The fierce frontal attack was unexpected, but lacked a good plan and was smashed by the german defenders. Nearly all attacking soviet tanks - appr. 400 on the whole southern sector on the 12. - were destroyed. The germans lost only a handful of tanks, but personal losses in the infantery units, battling in furious infights against the attacking T-34, were noticeable. At the end of the day both sides had fought each other to a standstill, but regardless of the standstill in the north Manstein intended to continue the attack with the 4. tank army. But all in all the Soviets could absorb the fearful losses of men and equipment that they did, and even though German casualties were much lower their strategic advance in Operation Citadel had been halted. Under the impression of the unsuccesful counter-attack operations in the south the Red Army started the strong offensive operation in the northern Oriel salient and achieved a breaktrough in the back of the german 9. army. Also worried by the Allies’ landing in Sicily on 10 July, Hitler took fright and withdrew the II. SS Panzer Corps from the southern face of the Kursk salient, and that was the end of the Germans’ final attack in Russia.

The Battle of Kursk represented a scaled-up version of the battles of World War I — infantry advancing under machine gun fire, and tanks advancing on batteries of anti-tank guns. Much of the German equipment was new and untested, with undertrained crews. The new tank hunter units, though sporting a highly effective 88 cannon, had no hull mounted machine gun to protect against infantry, and were quickly targeted by the Soviet anti tank guns, which were positioned in hemispherical concave bulges, forming semicircles of high velocity crossfire. Moreover, these positions were protected by small two-man foxholes armed with limpet tank mines, machine gun nests, and mortar fire, ensuring than the Wehrmacht infantry could not effectively defend the tanks. The Kursk offensive was the last on the scale of 1940 and 1941 the Wehrmacht was able to launch, and subsequent offensives would represent only a shadow of previous German offensive might. Following the defeat, Hitler would not trust his generals to the same extent again, and as his own mental condition deteriorated the quality of German strategic decision fell correspondingly.

[edit]Eastern Front in Fall and Winter 1943 Main articles: Korsun-Cherkassy Pocket, Battle of Narva (1944)

Soviet advances from 1 August 1943 to 31 December 1944 ██ to 1 December 1943

██ to 30 April 1944

██ to 19 August 1944

██ to 31 December 1944 The Soviet juggernaut got rolling in earnest with the advance into the Germans’ Orel salient. The diversion of Hitler’s favourite Grossdeutschland Division from Belgorod to Karachev could not halt the tide, and a strategic decision was made to abandon Orel (retaken by the Red Army on 5 August 1943) and fall back to the Hagen line in front of Bryansk. To the south, the Soviets blasted through Army Group South’s Belgorod positions and headed for Kharkov once again. Though intense battles of movement throughout late July and into August 1943 saw the Tigers blunting Soviet tanks on one axis, they were soon outflanked on another line to the west as the Soviets advanced down the Psel, and Kharkov had to be evacuated for the final time on 22 August.

The German forces on the Mius, now constituting the 1st Panzer Army and a reconstituted 6th Army, were by August too weak to sustain a Soviet onslaught on their own front, and when the Soviets hit them they had to fall back all the way through the Donbass industrial region to the Dnieper, losing the industrial resources and half the farmland that Germany had invaded the Soviet Union to exploit. At this time Hitler agreed to a general withdrawal to the Dnieper line, along which was meant to be the Ostwall, a line of defence similar to the Westwall of fortifications along the West German frontier. Trouble was, it hadn’t been built yet, and by the time Army Group South had evacuated eastern Ukraine and begun withdrawing across the Dnieper during September, the Soviets were hard behind them. Tenaciously, small units paddled their way across the 3-km (2-mile) wide river and established bridgeheads. A second attempt by the Soviets to gain land using parachutists, mounted at Kanev on 24 September, proved as luckless as at Dorogobuzh eighteen months previously, and the paratroopers were soon repelled — but not before still more Red Army troops had used the cover they provided to get themselves over the Dnieper and securely dug in. As September proceeded into October, the Germans found the Dnieper line impossible to hold as the Soviet bridgeheads grew and grew, and important Dnieper towns started to fall, with Zaporozhye the first to go, followed by Dnepropetrovsk. Finally, early in November the Soviets broke out of their bridgeheads on either side of Kiev and captured the Ukrainian capital, at that time the third largest city in the Soviet Union.

Eighty miles west of Kiev, the 4th Panzer Army, still convinced that the Red Army was a spent force, was able to mount a successful riposte at Zhitomir during the middle of November, blunting the Soviet bridgehead via a daring outflanking strike mounted by the SS Panzer Corps along the river Teterev. This battle enabled Army Group South also to recapture Korosten and just gain some time to rest - but on Christmas Eve the retreat began anew when First Ukrainian Front (renamed from Voronezh Front) struck them in the same place. The Soviet advance continued along the railway line until the 1939 Polish-Soviet border was reached on 3 January 1944. To the south, Second Ukrainian Front (ex Steppe Front) had crossed the Dnieper at Kremenchug and continued westwards. In the second week of January 1944 they swung north, meeting Vatutin’s tank forces who had swung south from their penetration into Poland and surrounding ten German divisions at Korsun-Shevenkovsky, west of Cherkassy. Hitler’s insistence on holding the Dnieper line was now, even when facing the prospect of catastrophic defeat, was compounded by his conviction that the Cherkassy pocket could break out and even advance to Kiev, but Manstein was more concerned about being able to advance to the edge of the pocket and then implore the surrounded forces to break out. By 16 February the first stage was complete, with panzers separated from the contracting Cherkassy pocket only by the swollen Gniloy Tikich river. Under furious shellfire and pursued by Soviet tanks and cavalry, the surrounded German troops, among whom were the SS Division Wiking, fought their way across the river to safety, losing half their number and all their equipment. Surely the Russians would not attack again, with the spring approaching - but in March 3rd Ukrainian Front went over to the offensive. Having already isolated the Crimea by severing the neck of the Perekop isthmus, Malinovsky’s forces advanced across the mud to the Romanian border, not stopping on the river Prut.

One final move in the south completed the 1943-44 campaigning season, which had wrapped up an advance of over 500 miles. In March, 20 German divisions of Generaloberst Hans-Valentin Hube’s 1st Panzer Army were encircled in what was to be known as Hube’s Pocket near Kamenets-Podolskiy. After two weeks hard fighting, the 1st Panzer managed to escape the pocket, suffering only light to moderate casualties. At this point, Hitler sacked several prominent generals, Manstein included. April saw the capture of Odessa in April 1944, followed by 4th Ukrainian Front’s campaign to recapture the Crimea, which culminated with the recapture of Sevastopol on 10 May.

Along Army Group Centre’s front, August 1943 saw this force pushed back from the Hagen line slowly, ceding comparatively little territory, but the loss of Bryansk and more importantly, Smolensk, on 25 September cost the Wehrmacht the keystone of the entire German defensive system. The 4th and 9th Armies and 3rd Panzer Armies still held their own east of the upper Dnieper, stifling Soviet attempts to reach Vitebsk. On Army Group North’s front, there was barely any fighting at all until January 1944, when out of nowhere Volkhov and Second Baltic Fronts struck. In a lightning campaign, Leningrad was liberated and Novgorod was recaptured; by February the Red Army had reached the borders of Estonia after a 75-mile advance.

[edit]Eastern Front in Summer 1944 Main articles: Operation Bagration, Lvov-Sandomir Offensive, Warsaw Uprising, Slovak National Uprising

Wehrmacht planning was convinced that the Soviets would attack again in the south, where the front was fifty miles from Lvov and offered the most direct route to Berlin. Accordingly they denuded of troops Army Group Centre, whose front still protruded deep into the Soviet Union. Starting on June 22 1944, a massive Soviet attack, Operation Bagration, consisting of four Soviet army groups totaling over 120 divisions smashed into the thinly-held German line. The Germans had transferred units to France to counter the invasion of Normandy two weeks before. The Red Army achieved a ratio of ten to one in tanks and seven to one in aircraft over the enemy. At the points of attack, the numerical and quality advantages of the Soviets were overwhelming. More than 2.5 million Soviet troops went into action against the German Army Group Centre, which could boast a strength of less than 800,000 men. The Germans crumbled. The capital of Belarus, Minsk, was taken on July 3, trapping 50,000 Germans. Ten days later the Red Army reached the prewar Polish border. The rapid progress cut off and isolated the German units of Army Group North fighting in Courland. Bagration was by any measure one of the largest single operations of the war. It cost the Red Army 765,815 dead, missing, wounded and sick, as well as 2,957 tanks and assault guns. The Germans lost approximately 445,000 casualties, a large part of whom were captured.

The neighbouring Lvov-Sandomierz operation was launched on 17 July 1944, rapidly routing the German forces in the western Ukraine. The Soviet advance in the south continued into Romania and following a coup against Axis-allied government of Romania on August 23, the Red army occupied Bucharest on August 31. In Moscow on September 12, Romania and the Soviet Union signed an armistice on terms Moscow virtually dictated. The Romanian surrender tore a hole in the southern German Eastern Front causing the loss of the whole of the Balkans.

In Poland, as the Red Army approached the Polish Home Army launched the Operation Tempest. During the Warsaw Uprising, the Soviet Army halted at the Vistula River, unable or unwilling to come to the aid of the Polish resistance. An attempt by the communist controlled 1st Polish Army to relieve the city was unsupported by Red Army and thrown back in September with heavy losses. Despite assistance from Polish Home Army towards USSR, in territories taken over by the Soviet NKVD, Polish units who followed behind would either be shot or sent to gulags. Most Polish officers and Polish soldiers who could not or would not join the Red Army were executed.

In Slovakia, the Slovak National Uprising started as an armed struggle between German Wehrmacht forces and rebel Slovak troops in August to October 1944. It was centered at Banská Bystrica.

On 8 September 1944 the Red Army begun an attack on the Dukla Pass on the Slovak-Polish border. Two months later, the Russians won the battle and entered Slovakia. The toll was high: 85,000 Red Army soldiers lay dead, plus several thousand Germans, Slovaks and Czechs.

[edit]Eastern Europe: January–March 1945

Soviet advances from 1 January 1945 to 7 May 1945Main article: Vistula-Oder Offensive

The Soviet Union finally entered Warsaw in January 1945, after it was destroyed and abandoned by the Germans. Over three days, on a broad front incorporating four army fronts, the Red Army began an offensive across the Narew River and from Warsaw. The Soviets outnumbered the Germans on average by nine to one in troops, ten to one in artillery, and ten to one in tanks and self-propelled artillery. After four days the Red Army broke out and started moving thirty to forty kilometres a day, taking the Baltic states, Danzig, East Prussia, Poznan, and drawing up on a line sixty kilometres east of Berlin along the Oder River. During the full course of the Vistula-Oder operation (23 days), the Red Army forces sustained 194,000 casualties and lost 1,267 tanks and assault guns.

On 25 January 1945, Hitler renamed three army groups. Army Group North became Army Group Courland; Army Group Centre became Army Group North and Army Group A became Army Group Centre. Army Group North (old Army Group Centre) was driven into an ever smaller pocket around Königsberg in East Prussia.

A counter-attack by the newly created Army Group Vistula, under the command of Reichsführer-SS Heinrich Himmler, had failed by February 24, and the Soviets drove on to Pomerania and cleared the right bank of the Oder River. In the south, three German attempts to relieve the encircled Budapest failed and the city fell on February 13 to the Soviets. Again the Germans counter-attacked, Hitler insisting on the impossible task of regaining the Danube River. By March 16 the attack had failed and the Red Army counterattacked the same day. On March 30 they entered Austria and captured Vienna on April 13.

On April 9, 1945, Königsberg finally fell to the Red Army, although the shattered remnants of Army Group North continued to resist on the Heiligenbeil and Danzig beachheads until the end of the war in Europe. The East Prussian operation, though often overshadowed by the Vistula-Oder operation and the later battle for Berlin, was in fact one of the largest and costliest operations fought by the Red army through the war. During the period it lasted (13 January - 25 April), it cost the Red Army 584,788 casualties, and 3,525 tanks and assault guns.

By early April, the Stavka freed up General Konstantin Rokossovsky’s 2nd Belorussian Front (2BF) to move west to the east bank of the Oder river. During the first two weeks of April the Soviets performed their fastest front redeployment of the war. General Georgy Zhukov concentrated his 1st Belorussian Front (1BF) which had been deployed along the Oder river from Frankfurt in the south to the Baltic, into an area in front of the Seelow Heights. The 2BF moved into the positions being vacated by the 1BF north of the Seelow Heights. While this redeployment was in progress gaps were left in the lines and the remnants of the German 2nd Army which had been bottled up in a pocket near Danzig managed to escape across the Oder. To the south General Ivan Konev shifted the main weight of the 1st Ukrainian Front (1UF) out of Upper Silesia north-west to the Neisse River. The three Soviet fronts had altogether 2.5 million men (including 78,556 soldiers of the 1st Polish Army); 6,250 tanks; 7,500 aircraft; 41,600 artillery pieces and mortars; 3,255 truck-mounted Katyushas rockets, (nicknamed “Stalin Organs”); and 95,383 motor vehicles, many manufactured in the USA.

[edit]End of War: April–May 1945 Main articles: Battle of Berlin, Prague Offensive

All that was left for the Soviets to do was to launch an offensive to capture what was to become East Germany. The Soviet offensive had two objectives. Because of Stalin’s suspicions about the intentions of the Western Allies to hand over territory occupied by them in the post war Soviet zone of occupation, the offensive was to be on a broad front and was to move as rapidly as possible to the west, to meet the Western Allies as far west as possible. But the overriding objective was to capture Berlin. The two were complementary because possession of the zone could not be won quickly unless Berlin was taken. Another consideration was that Berlin itself held strategic assets, including Adolf Hitler and the German atomic bomb program.
Lidiya Ruslanova performed for Soviet soldiers on the doorsteps of the smouldering Reichstag.The offensive to capture East Germany and Berlin started on April 16 with an assault on the German front lines on the Oder and Neisse rivers. After several days of heavy fighting the Soviet 1BF and 1UF had punched holes through the German front line and were fanning out across East Germany. By the April 24 elements of the 1BF and 1UF had completed the encirclement of Berlin and the Battle of Berlin entered its final stages. On April 25 the 2BF broke through the German 3rd Panzer Army’s line south of Stettin. They were now free to move west towards the British 21st Army Group and north towards the Baltic port of Stralsund. The Soviet 58th Guards Division of the 5th Guards Army made contact with the US 69th Infantry Division of the First Army near Torgau, Germany at the Elbe river.

On April 30, as the Soviet forces fought their way into the centre of Berlin, Adolf Hitler married Eva Braun and then committed suicide by taking cyanide and shooting himself. Helmuth Weidling, defence commandant of Berlin, surrendered the city to the Soviets on May 2. Altogether, the Berlin operation (16 April - 8 May) cost the Red Army 361,367 casualties (dead, missing, wounded and sick) and 1,997 tanks and assault guns. German losses in this period of the war remain impossible to determine with any reliability.

At 02:41 on the morning of May 7, 1945, at the SHAEF headquarters, German Chief-of-Staff General Alfred Jodl signed the unconditional surrender documents for all German forces to the Allies. It included the phrase All forces under German control to cease active operations at 2301 hours Central European time on 8 May 1945. The next day shortly before midnight, Jodl repeated the signing in Berlin at Zhukov’s headquarters. The war in Europe was over.

In the Soviet Union the end of war is considered to be 9 May, when the surrender took effect Moscow time. This date is celebrated as a national holiday, Victory Day, or День Победы in the Russian Federation and some other post-Soviet countries.

Some German armies initially refused to surrender and continued to fight in Czechoslovakia until about 11 May.

[edit]Leadership The Soviet Union and Nazi Germany were ideologically driven totalitarian states in which the leader had near-absolute power. The character of the war was thus determined by the leaders and their ideology to a much greater extent than in any other theatre of World War II.

Image:Adolf Hitler.jpg Adolf Hitler led the armed forces of Germany during World War IIAdolf Hitler exercised a tight control over the war, spending much of his time in his command bunkers (most notably at Rastenburg in East Prussia, at Vinnitsa in Ukraine, and under the garden of the Reich Chancellery in Berlin). At crucial periods in the war he held daily situation conferences, at which he used his remarkable talent for public speaking to overwhelm opposition from his generals and the OKW staff with rhetoric.

He believed himself a military genius, with a grasp of the total war effort that eluded his generals. In August 1941 when Walther von Brauchitsch (commander-in-chief of the Wehrmacht) and Fedor von Bock were appealing for an attack on Moscow, Hitler instead ordered the encirclement and capture of Ukraine, in order to acquire the farmland, industry, and natural resources of that country. Some historians believe that this decision was a missed opportunity to win the war.

In the winter of 1941–1942 Hitler believed that his obstinate refusal to allow the German armies to retreat had saved Army Group Centre from collapse. He later told Erhard Milch,

I had to act ruthlessly. I had to send even my closest generals packing, two army generals, for example … I could only tell these gentlemen, “Get yourself back to Germany as rapidly as you can — but leave the army in my charge. And the army is staying at the front.” The success of this hedgehog defence outside Moscow led Hitler to insist on the holding of territory when it made no military sense, and to sack generals who retreated without orders. Officers with initiative were replaced with yes-men or fanatical Nazis. The disastrous encirclements later in the war — at Stalingrad, Korsun and many other places — were the direct result of Hitler’s orders. Many divisions became cut off in “fortress” cities, or wasted uselessly in secondary theatres, because Hitler would not sanction retreat or abandon voluntarily any of his conquests.

Frustration at Hitler’s leadership of the war was one of the factors in the attempted coup d’etat of 1944, but after the failure of the July 20 Plot Hitler considered the army and its officer corps suspect and came to rely on the Schutzstaffel and Nazi party members to prosecute the war. His many disastrous appointments included that of Heinrich Himmler to command Army Group Vistula in the defence of Berlin in 1945 — Himmler suffered a mental breakdown under the stress of the command and was quickly replaced by Gotthard Heinrici.

Hitler’s direction of the war was disastrous for the German army, though the skill, loyalty, professionalism and endurance of officers and soldiers enabled him to keep Germany fighting to the end. However, the Allied commanders who read the decrypted German command signals were always happier when Hitler was in charge. F. W. Winterbotham wrote of Hitler’s signal to Gerd von Rundstedt to continue the attack to the west during the Battle of the Bulge:

From experience we had learned that when Hitler started refusing to do what the generals recommended, things started to go wrong, and this was to be no exception.

Joseph Stalin led the Soviet Union during World War IIJoseph Stalin bore the greatest responsibility for the disasters of the first two years of the war.

The Great Purge of the Red Army in the 1930s on Stalin’s orders had killed or imprisoned the majority of the senior command, including Mikhail Tukhachevsky, the brilliant proponent of armoured blitzkrieg. Stalin promoted obscurantists like Grigory Kulik, who opposed the mechanization of the army and the production of tanks. Distrust of the military led to a system of “dual command”, in which every high-ranking officer was paired with a political commissar, a member of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union who ensured that the officer was loyal and implemented Party orders.

Following the Soviet occupation of eastern Poland, the Baltic states and Bessarabia in 1939–1940, Stalin insisted that every fold of the new territories should be occupied: this move westward left troops far from their depots in salients that left them vulnerable to encirclement. There was an assumption that the coming war would be fought outside the borders of the Soviet Union and few plans were made for defence. As tension heightened in Spring 1941, Stalin was desperate not to give Hitler any provocation that could be used as an excuse for an attack; this caused him to refuse to allow the military to go onto the alert even as German troops gathered on the borders and German reconnaissance planes overflew installations. This refusal to take the necessary action was instrumental in the destruction of the Soviet air force, lined up on its airfields, in the first days of the war.

Stalin’s insistence on repeated counterattacks without preparation led to the loss of almost the whole of the Red Army’s tank corps in 1941 — many tanks simply ran out of fuel on their way to the battlefield through faulty planning or ignorance of the location of fuel dumps.

Georgy Zhukov, considered by many as one of the most successful field commandersUnlike Hitler, Stalin was able to learn lessons and improve his conduct of the war. He gradually came to realise the dangers of inadequate preparation and built up a competent command and control organization — the Stavka — under Semyon Timoshenko, Georgy Zhukov and Kliment Voroshilov.

At the crisis of the war, in autumn 1942, Stalin made many concessions to the army: unitary command was restored, as were insignia such as shoulderboards — stripped from tsarist officers after the Russian Revolution of 1917. Elite divisions were given the traditional “Guards” title. But these concessions were combined with ruthless discipline: Order No. 227, issued on 28 July 1942, threatened commanders who retreated without orders with punishment by court-martial. Infractions by military and politruks were punished with transferal to penal battalions and penal companies, and the NKVD’s barrier troops would shoot soldiers who fled.

As it became clear that the Soviet Union would win the war Stalin ensured that propaganda always mentioned his leadership of the war; the victorious generals were sidelined and never allowed to develop into political rivals. After the war the Red Army was once again purged: many successful officers were demoted to unimportant positions (including Zhukov, Malinovsky and Koniev); a few were tortured into confessions of treason and sent to the Gulag. No-one was allowed to detract from Stalin’s cult of personality. An exception being the appointment of Zhukov to the post of Deputy Defence Minister.

[edit]Occupation and repression

A member of Einsatzgruppe D executes a Jew kneeling before a filled mass grave in Vinnitsa, Ukraine, in 1942.The enormous territorial gains of 1941 presented Germany with vast areas to pacify and administer. Some Soviet citizens, especially in the non-Russian republics, greeted their conquerors as liberators from Stalinist repression. But they were soon to learn that their new masters were every bit as repressive and brutal as the old. Nascent national liberation movements among Ukrainians and Cossacks, and other were viewed by Hitler with suspicion; some were co-opted into the Axis armies and others brutally suppressed. None of the conquered territories gained any measure of self-rule. Instead, the racist Nazi ideologues saw the future of the East as one of settlement by German colonists, with the natives killed, expelled, or reduced to slave labour.

Some captured regions, like the Baltic states, were incorporated into Greater Germany; in others Commissariats were established to extract the maximum in loot. In September 1941, Erich Koch was appointed to the Ukrainian Commissariat. His opening speech was clear about German policy: “I am known as a brutal dog … Our job is to suck from Ukraine all the goods we can get hold of … I am expecting from you the utmost severity towards the native population.”

Atrocities against the Jewish population in the conquered areas began almost immediately, with the dispatch of Einsatzgruppen (task groups) to round up Jews and shoot them. Local anti-semites were encouraged to carry out their own pogroms. In July 1941 Erich von dem Bach-Zalewski’s SS unit began to carry out more systematic killings, including the massacre of 30,000 at Babi Yar. By the end of 1941 there were more than 50,000 troops devoted to rounding up and killing Jews. The gradual industrialization of killing led to adoption of the Final Solution and the establishment of the Operation Reinhard extermination camps: the machinery of the Holocaust. In three years of occupation, between one and two million Soviet Jews were killed. Other ethnic groups were targeted for extermination, including the Roma and Sinti; see Porajmos.

The massacres of Jews and other ethnic minorities were only a part of the deaths from the Nazi occupation. Many thousands of Soviet civilians were executed, but millions died from starvation as the Germans requisitioned food for their armies and fodder for their draft horses. As they retreated from Ukraine and Belarus in 1943–1944, the German occupiers systematically applied a scorched earth policy, burning towns and cities, destroying infrastructure, and leaving civilians to starve or die of exposure. Estimates of total civilian dead in the Soviet Union in the war range from seven million (Encyclopedia Britannica) to seventeen million (Overy).

The Nazi ideology and the maltreatment of the local population and Soviet POWs encouraged partisans fighting behind the front, motivated even anti-communists or non-Russian nationalists to ally with the Soviets, and greatly delayed the formation of German allied divisions consisting of Soviet POWs (see Vlasov army). These results and missed opportunities contributed to the defeat of the Wehrmacht.

[edit]Industrial output Image:T34 1.jpg A T-34 tank rolls off the line at the Krasnoye Sormovo Factory No. 112 in Gorki. The Soviet Union manufactured 58,000 T-34s during the war.The Soviet victory owed a great deal to the ability of her war industry to outperform the German economy, despite the enormous loss of population and land. The Stalinist five year plans of the 1930s had resulted in the industrialization of the Urals and central Asia. In 1941, the trains that shipped troops to the front were used to evacuate thousands of factories from Belarus and Ukraine to safe areas far from the front lines.

The Germans could also call upon huge masses of slave labour from the population of the conquered countries and from Soviet POW

As the Soviet Union’s manpower reserves ran low from 1943 onwards, the great Soviet offensives had to depend more on equipment and less on the expenditure of lives. The increases in production of war materiel were achieved at the expense of civilian living standards — the most thorough application of the principle of total war — and with the help of Lend-Lease supplies from the United Kingdom and the United States. The Germans, on the other hand, could rely on a large slave workforce from the conquered countires.

Germany’s raw material production was higher than the Soviets’, but the Soviets were more efficient at using what resources they had and chose to build low cost, low maintenance vehicles whilst the Germans built high cost, high maintenance vehicles.

Germany chose to build very expensive and very complicated vehicles and even though Germany produced many times more raw materials she could not compete with Soviets on quantity of military production (in 1943, the Soviet Union manufactured 24,089 tanks to Germany’s 19,800). The Soviets incrementally upgraded existing designs, and simplified and refined manufacturing processes to increase production. Meanwhile, German industry was forced to engineer more advanced but complex designs such as the Panther tank, the King Tiger or the Elefant.

Summary of German and Soviet raw material production during the war.1 Year Coal (million tonnes) Steel (million tonnes) Aluminium (thousand tonnes) Oil (million tonnes)
German Soviet German Soviet German Soviet German Soviet Italian Hungarian Romanian Japanese
1941 315.5 151.4 28.2 17.9 233.6 – 5.7 33.0 0.12 0.4 5.5 -
1942 317.9 75.5 28.7 8.1 264.0 51.7 6.6 22.0 0.01 0.7 5.7 1.8
1943 340.4 93.1 30.6 8.5 250.0 62.3 7.6 18.0 0.01 0.8 5.3 2.3
1944 347.6 121.5 25.8 10.9 245.3 82.7 5.5 18.2 - 1 3.5 1
19452 – 149.3 – 12.3 – 86.3 1.3 19.4 - - - 0.1
Summary of Axis and Soviet tank and self- propelled gun production during the war.1 Year Tanks and self- propelled guns
Soviet German Italian Hungarian Japanese
1941 6,590 5,2003 595 - 595
1942 24,446 9,3003 1,252 500 557
1943 24,089 19,800 336 558
1944 28,963 27,300 - 353
19452 15,400 – - - 137
Summary of Axis and Soviet aircraft production during the war.1 Year Aircraft
Soviet German Italian Hungarian Romanian Japanese
1941 15,735 11,776 3,503 - 1,000 5,088
1942 25,436 15,556 2,818 6 8,861
1943 34,845 25,527 967 267 16,693
1944 40,246 39,807 - 773 28,180
19452 20,052 7,544 - - 8,263

Notes:

Figures from Richard Overy, Russia’s War, page 155. And from “Campaigns of World War II : Day By Day” written by Chris Bishop and Chris Mcnab, page If numbers are not stated then they are unknown . Soviet numbers for 1945 are for the whole of 1945 even after the war was over. German figures for 1941 and 1942 includes tanks only. (Self-propelled guns cost 2/3 of a tank (mainly because they have no turret), and they more appropriate in a defensive role. Therefore the Germans favored their production in the second half of the war.) It should be noted that the Axis allies Italy, Romania, Hungary and Bulgaria added to the German numbers. Iron ore, much needed for German military production, was provided in 2/3 by Sweden. Soviet production and upkeep was assisted by the Lend-Lease program from the United States and Britain. After the defeat at Stalingrad, Germany geared completely towards a war economy, as expounded in Goebbels’ Sportpalast speech, increasing production in subsequent years, despite the intensifying Allied bombing campaign.

[edit]Casualties Image:Stop hand.svg The factual accuracy of this section is disputed. Please view the article’s talk page. (source) The Eastern Front was unparalleled for its high intensity, ferocity, and brutality. The fighting involved millions of German and Soviet troops along a broad front. It was by far the deadliest single theatre of war in World War II, with over 5 million deaths on the Axis Forces, Soviet military deaths were about 8.7 million (another 4 million Soviets died in German captivity), and civilian deaths were about 14 to 17 million. The genocidal death toll was attributed to several factors, including brutal mistreatment of POWs and captured partisans by both sides, multiple atrocities by the Germans and the Soviets against the civilian population and each other, the wholesale use of weaponry on the battlefield against huge masses of infantry, and Joseph Stalin’s draconian policies against supposed enemies. The multiple battles, and most of all, the use of scorched earth tactics destroyed agricultural land, infrastructure, and whole towns, leaving much of the population homeless and without food.

Military Losses On The Eastern Front During World War 2.1 Forces Fighting FOR the Soviet Union
Total Dead POW Taken By The Axis POW That Died In Captivity
Soviet 8,668,000 6,000,000 4,000,000
Poland2 40,000 Unknown Unknown
Romania3 17,000 Unknown Unknown
Total 8,725,000 Unknown Unknown

Image:Stop hand.svg The factual accuracy of this section is disputed. Please view the article’s talk page. Military Losses On The Eastern Front During World War 2.1 Forces Fighting FOR the Axis
Total Dead POW Taken By The Soviets POW That Died In Captivity
Greater Germany 2,415,960 4,500,000 500,000
Soviet Turncoats4 2,000,000 Unknown Unknown
Romania 381,000 Unknown Unknown
Hungary 136,000 Unknown Unknown
Italy 84,830 Unknown Unknown
Bulgaria 32,000 Unknown Unknown
Total 5,049,790 Unknown Unknown

1 All nummbers are taken from A: The Swedish Translation of “Campaigns of World War II : Day by Day” which is written by Chris Bishop and Chris Mcnab, pages 244-252 B: Russia’s War by Prof. Richard Overy , page 238

2 Polish Forces Joined with The Soviets after Poland was liberated in Januari 1945

3 When the eastern european countries were liberated by the Soviets they were forced to change sides and declare war on the Germans

4 Some Soviets would side with the Germans and join Vlasov army Russian Liberation Army. Most of those who joined were from the Baltic countries or from the Ukraine but some POW also joined in Vlasov army. Most who joined hated communism and actually saw the Nazies as liberators who hade come to free them from communism. Some were even placed on the beaches of Normadie and to the suprise of the Americans who found men running of of fox holes shouting “Russki “Russki”

By Diogenes

November 14, 2006 02:14 PM | Link to this

General (204),

Are you recommending a course of action for Bush and the Republican minority?

By Bemused Humanist

November 14, 2006 02:24 PM | Link to this

Dear Mr. Wooten,

If it is now conservative “truth” that Ronald Reagan won the Cold War all by himself despite 40 years of evidence to the contrary; and the Democrats’ failure to send Thieu and his corrupt, ineffective government a few extra billion as the NVA was about enter Saigon that lost the Vietnam War (for Gerald Ford!), then the conservative intellectials have lost and the right-wing pundit-vulgarians (Rush, Ann, Michelle, et. al.) have triumphed.

I fear for our great republic …

By time for the truth

November 14, 2006 02:35 PM | Link to this

@ bewildered humanscum

that was freaking hilarious - got any more gems like that bubbaturd??!!

Sir Ronald Reagan PBUH didn’t win the Cold War “by himself” he was very ably assisted by Baroness Thatcher. Both leaders stood firm in resolutely facing down the evil empire and ensuring the AmeriKan cowardly cut and run nuclear freeze appeasers and unwashed stinking yellow Euro peaceniks didn’t undermine the European missile chess game with the imperialist Soviet killers.

with brain dead liberal twonks like you around I fear for our republic too!!

By time for the truth

November 14, 2006 02:42 PM | Link to this

would this general bloody nuisance please stop obsessively pasting half a military history book on the forum, otherwise I’ll have to effortlessly goad moron rod into yet another pathetic death threat.

thank you so much!!

By ARTC

November 14, 2006 02:46 PM | Link to this

Just like Eden “stared down” Nasser during the Suez confrontation, huh Troof.

By Wizard of Truth

November 14, 2006 02:48 PM | Link to this

Pay no attention to the TFTT behind the curtain. Too many insults to warrant wading through the swamp to find the point of the 2:35 post.

By Curious Observer

November 14, 2006 02:53 PM | Link to this

Ain’t this blog great?

You can view assorted political comments and read an unredacted dissertation on World War II military tactics at the same time.

By HARDLY

November 14, 2006 03:05 PM | Link to this

Getalife (847am) you’re correct but you miss on a subtlety: It should NOT be done out of revenge, but rather because investigations are good for the cause.

Ultimately, what’s going to happen if Democratic investigations turn out as we should all (regardless of party) expect, which is that nothing illegal happened? Support for the cause would be enhanced.

Investigations aren’t accusations; at this point no-one can accuse because Bush inc. has refused to provide enough info to make a legitimate accusation. Let’s stop acting like they are bad for us—would it not be prudent to spend a bit more time documenting the case and ensuring more broad-based support, as arguably should have been done in the first place?

By getalife

November 14, 2006 03:05 PM | Link to this

Yep, the universities are shut down in Iraq.

Too dangerous to go to school.

I just keeps getting better and better everyday.

How many more will die to try to save w’s legacy?

Pathetic.

By Ike

November 14, 2006 03:09 PM | Link to this

Sure is boring in this blog now that all the right wing idealogues have crawled back under their rocks after the can of kickazz that was opened on them in the elections of 06.

By General

November 14, 2006 03:12 PM | Link to this

Withdraw now, or face encirclement. Hitler refused to withdraw from Stalingrad, and lost the entire sixth army (1.2 million men). The neocons refuse to withdraw from Iraq, despite the warnings of possible encirclement of our 148 thousand men. The forces in Iraq cannot be resupplied via air, and soon the dust storms will begin that ground aircraft. History will repeat itself if we are not careful.

By Pope rednecks - Amerikkka's Al Qaeda If

November 14, 2006 03:23 PM | Link to this

Posters today talking about true conservatism, LTColonel was one…

A true conservative believes in the rule of law, and the order that follows from that law, not the rule of the redneck mob that we have here in the US, especially in the southron states.

The administration of Dumbya is the most cynical in the history of this country; rule not by law but by people who want to get around the law. They are thugs and mobsters, pure and simple. This slime makes Nixon and his CREEPs look like choirboys.

By Red Tide

November 14, 2006 03:24 PM | Link to this

General,

My word, have you notified the President about this state of affairs? I’m sure he will want to withdraw at once.

By getalife

November 14, 2006 03:25 PM | Link to this

Hardly,

There are so many investigations to choose from, the Dems do not know where to start.

It will take more than 2 years to get to all of them.

What good cause are you talking about?

By Van

November 14, 2006 03:41 PM | Link to this

Pope rednecks - Amerikkka’s Al Qaeda

“…not by law but by people who want to get around the law.”

Careful, this is getting mighty close to “It all depends on what the definition of “is” is”?

By Darrel

November 14, 2006 03:42 PM | Link to this

Iraq will most likely never have a “Democratic” government simply because the belief of the peoples’ religion IS the basis for their governing rules & body. Therefore, asking them to accept “Democracy” is akin to asking them to give up their religious beliefs: they will NEVER do that!!!! Yes, if “bullhead” George has his way our great-great-grandchildren will be dying over there for nothing!!!!

By Van

November 14, 2006 03:47 PM | Link to this

HARDLY,

Regardless, it would bring the government to a halt and nothing would progress, except the investigations. Just like the “cooporation” the President got on his nominations, during the first term, the democrats will accomplish nothing but remaining obstructionists.

If the lefties are in that frame of mind - we will see a cleansing of the House and Senate in 2 years.

By getalife

November 14, 2006 03:49 PM | Link to this

Van,

We are not talking about a blow job, we are talking about Americans being killed for nothing.

Get real.

By BellBottoms R Back!

November 14, 2006 03:50 PM | Link to this

can’t we all just get along? try a little tenderness one pill makes you sleep while the other makes u weep me and bobbie mcgee ball and chain put your hands in the hand of the man that stilled the waters one love in my lifetime is this the end?

By Janine

November 14, 2006 04:09 PM | Link to this

It’s religion that will keep Iraq from everh having a democracy. You will sooner see Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson embrace free for all abortion and expanded stem cell research!!! They WANT a theocracy and they will have one….til he!! freezes over. Wake up….

By Janine

November 14, 2006 04:23 PM | Link to this

The issue of whose religious practices and beliefs will come out on top in the theocracy that is and always will be Iraq is another matter. Will it be the Shia, the Sunni….the Kurds…???? Who knows! the fact is unless Mr. Bush et al are going to choose a side and blow the losers off the planet, [and even then more will rise up] we need to get out. It won’t happen, I know. I am beginning to think that it really is all about the oil….no one can be that dense!!!

By Flounder

November 14, 2006 04:37 PM | Link to this

BP Oil was there in the British Occupation of Iraq from 1920-1932. Winston Churchill wanted to switch his navy from coal to oil. He thought Iraq had enough oil to die for. He put the Sunnis in charge then, and they’ve been persecuting the Shia ever since.

Of course the Shia want to get even.

Quiz: Is Saddam Hussein a Shia or a Sunni, or a Kurd?

By DebbieDoRight

November 14, 2006 04:41 PM | Link to this

Regardless, it would bring the government to a halt and nothing would progress, except the investigations. Just like the “cooporation” the President got on his nominations, during the first term, the democrats will accomplish nothing but remaining obstructionists

Van, have you forgotten oh so soon the republican blockade of the 90’s on ALL clinton nominees for federal court positions? Have you forgotten the “nanny gate” the republicans started when clinton was trying to nominate the first FEMALE Attorney general and his first two got slapped down with questions about “childcare”? Reno got picked because she was a single, female with NO children and therefore they, (republicans), had nothing to nitpick about. Come one, it wasn’t that long ago!!!

By General

November 14, 2006 05:12 PM | Link to this

Like Adolf, George and his pals fail to learn from history, or from competent experts in the field. Since he was freely elected twice, my fellow Americans deserve what is about to befall them.

By Janine

November 14, 2006 05:27 PM | Link to this

I think Saddam is Sunni…

By Janine

November 14, 2006 05:29 PM | Link to this

I have heard the opinion that Iraq had to have a ruler like Saddam in order to control the violence between religious groups…ie.He did what he had to do. I thought at the time it was a crazy notion..however, now I am not so sure…

By Van

November 14, 2006 05:30 PM | Link to this

getalife,

No, that is not what we are talking about, Pope rednecks - Amerikkka’s Al Qaeda had a comment about this administration.

“…not by law but by people who want to get around the law.”

If lying to a federal judge is trying to get around the law, I don’t know what is.

By getalife

November 14, 2006 05:32 PM | Link to this

The Shia are the majority in Iraq’s government and like here the majority rules. They are allied with Iran.

We may have to redeploy to help the Kurds.

The Sunni-Shia civil war is raging and our troops should not be there.

By Van

November 14, 2006 05:34 PM | Link to this

DebbieDoRight,

And look at what happened, do you remember the split in the Senate when it was 50-49-1 - the independant, Jeffords, was aligned with the democrats.

They paid the price for that, the democrats paid the price in G.W.’s first term - Do we want to continue the t**-for-tat games played by litte kids on the big playground?

By Janine

November 14, 2006 05:36 PM | Link to this

Mr. W. so you ever actually give serious thought/consideration to and/or research any of the ideas/notions [not talking about the rantings] that appear here? When I think about what some of the bloggers here post….Mid South, jbmlaw, the generals, Retired LTC, even Van sometimes, I feel that I have been in one of my master’s classes in which the professor challenges the students to actually think;

By general

November 14, 2006 05:45 PM | Link to this

Tell me again why we should protect the kurds? So they can sell oil to israel? Let the Iraqi’s sort out their own problems, and let the izraeli’s seek profits at their own expense.

By Bemused Humanist

November 14, 2006 05:50 PM | Link to this

Mr. Curious Observer,

Not to mention that this blog affords Humanists an opportunity to observe ill-mannered, poorly-reared, shockingly ignorant sociopaths with acute esteem problems act out as if they were writing obscene insults about the popular kids in their 6th grade class on the school bathroom wall.

Fascinating …

By getalife

November 14, 2006 05:51 PM | Link to this

Van,

If lying to a federal judge is trying to get around the law, I don’t know what is.

Well, you will find out who broke the law when the investigations begin.

Newt used his two years to investigate Clinton so fair is fair.

By Markus

November 14, 2006 05:54 PM | Link to this

Time after time here I post how many of our youth and others in this nation are becoming lazy and don’t want to learn a skill, and just expect the government to take care of them one way or the other.

In the wake of Katrina and reconstruction for example, I have mentioned the shortage of plumbers, welders, framers, drywallers, painters, and especially truck drivers. I have stated that Mexicans are predominately taking those jobs in the Gulf Coast region. There are little to no Katrina evacs doing those jobs. Well, someone finally woke up and paid attention to what I’ve known for years now.

So next time you hear a jackal liberal Democrite talk about the “only job growth” has been at Wal Mart, just point them in this direction.

http://today.reuters.com/misc/PrinterFriendlyPopup.aspx?type=bondsNews&storyID=2006-11-13T164731Z01N13425989RTRIDST0_ECONOMY-FED-FISHER-UPDATE-2.XML

By Pope rednecks - Amerikkka's Al Qaeda I

November 14, 2006 06:04 PM | Link to this

Look at the hovels rednecks live in Markanus - it’s obvious that they can’t do construction work - they are too lazy and stupid.

By Markus

November 14, 2006 06:09 PM | Link to this

The poor serpent liberal al Qaeda can’t come back with anything substantial to my very factual post[s] and has to fork-tongue itself into some mindless, unoriginal comment.

Here’s a thought oh Great Satan One:

not all those folks that live down there, especially in New Orleans, are rednecks. Your move, snake.

By Markus

November 14, 2006 06:15 PM | Link to this

One more thing al Qaeda liberal snake…

…exactly what part of this comment do you NOT understand?

In the wake of Katrina and reconstruction for example, I have mentioned the shortage of plumbers, welders, framers, drywallers, painters, and especially truck drivers.

“Fisher specifically mentioned welders, plumbers, truck drivers, and workers in the hospitality industry as jobs which are going begging nationwide.” ^^^^^^^^^^

Yeah that’s right you oh-so smart libotroll. NATIONWIDE. But I have to keep reminding myself of trolling sea serpent demoncats like you that dwell on this blog, and remember to not overload your brains with f-a-c-t-s too much.

By Middle America

November 15, 2006 08:23 AM | Link to this

jbmlaw @ 12:44 PM,

YOU CONTINUE TO FACILITATE THE FALLACY THAT TERRORISTS WERE IN IRAQ PRIOR TO THE WAR. THAT IS NOT THE TRUTH. TRYING TO MAKE AN ARGUMENT THAT OUR SOLDIERS NEED TO STAY IN IRAQ TO FIGHT TERRORISM IS THE BIGGEST LIE EVER TOLD TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. THE VIOLENCE IN IRAQ IS BETWEEN SUNNIS (WHO WERE IN POWER UNDER SADDAM) AND THE SHIITES (WHO WERE BRUTALIZED BY SADDAM) AND HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH TERRORISTS.

I GENERALLY RESPECT THAT YOU ARE A REASONABLE, THOUGH SOMEWHAT MISGUIDED, PERSON. HOWEVER, THIS RIDICULOUS PREMISE THAT YOU CONTINUE TO USE SHOWS YOU AREN’T AS INTELLIGENT AS YOU THINK YOU ARE.

(YES I AM YELLING BECAUSE THIS ARGUMENT MAKES ME SO ANGRY. SO MANY SOLDIERS HAVE DIED BECAUSE BUSH HAS TRIED TO MAKE IRAQ A FRONT IN THE WAR ON TERROR AND IT JUST ISN’T SO.)

By Broken Record

November 15, 2006 08:43 AM | Link to this

Middle America, What is your expertise or source of information? Are you in the intelligence community? Are you a high ranking military officer in Iraq or in the Pentagon? Or do you just read the ajc and listen to CNN and public radio? You scream, you are angry, yet you offered no facts to support your rant.