This is a great post: I had thought of putting a post on my own blog for Barbarossa, or for Operation Bagration, the Soviet revenge for Barbarossa in June of 1944, but work got in the way. I'm going to try to work up a Barbarossa post in August, on the anniversary of Hitler's decision to go for the encirclement at Kiev instead of moving at once on Moscow.

It is too bad that more Americans don't have some knowledge of the Russian front, and the sacrifices of the Soviet Union. David M. Glantz's books on the Russian front are really excellent, as are John Erickson's. Albert Seaton's "The Russo-German War" is also worth a look.

"Be the change you wanna see in the world" -Gandhi

'In popular memory, most Americans probably don't know very much about the Eastern Front.'

You're quite right on this score. Most Russians probably don't know very much (or would rather forget) about their Western front during the period 1939-1942 either, for example this.

http://www.wajszczuk.v.pl/english/drzewo/czytelnia/michael_hope.htm

A period of brutal co-occupation by 'Red Fascists and Black (ie shirted) Communists' as those that were at the blunt receiving end ironically dubbed them. I hazard there will be little will to acknowledge, reflect on, or remember this in some quarters.

Russian deserved a Nazi invasion. After massacreing the Poles at Katyn and invading Poland 2 weeks after the Nazis, they thought they were sitting pretty. We can only fault the Nazis for not destroying more of the former Soviet Union cowards which were brought to their knees by a trade union, Solidarity.

loser pictures

It is too bad that more Americans don't have some knowledge of the Russian front, and the sacrifices of the Soviet Union. David M. Glantz's books on the Russian front are really excellent, as are John Erickson's. Albert Seaton's "The Russo-German War" is also worth a look.

Agreed

The soviet did do some bad things, but the Nazis are no better at all. The massacures they did are unspeakable. We can thank the soviets for helping trumendously on stopping the evil nazi empire.

your figures are exaggerated. possibly to exaggerate the struggle.
the figure of germans and their allies is closer to 1 million. still a massive force,and a tough well trained army. but as we know,it was the natural defense of the russian winter that defeated the germans and french before. not to downpay the victorys of stalingrad,and kursk. but don't lie.it ruins your credibility.

Hopefully, all nameless young allied soldier-heroes who fought against the fascist hordes will always be remembered. No one may be forgotten. Nothing may be forgotten!

I have no idea what you guys are talking about. The Russians were one of the worst armies in WWII. The Eastern front until 1943 was just an endless string of Russian mistakes. The only reason why the USSR won the war was because of the German's foolish decision to remain in Stalingrad after it was cut off. Even then Russia would have lost at Kursk, but some of the necessary panzer divisions were needed to help defend the Italian mainland.

Uh..mike.

The Soviet Union had the strongest army in WORLD, their amount of soldiers during World war two's eastern front numbering 34 million men that drove the Germans all the way to Berlin, where they waved the Soviet flag over Reichstag.

They maintained their title of the largest army up until 1991, when it dissolved.

Yes, part of the credit goes to the Russian winter for halting the 3.5 million mechanized Nazis that marched towards Russia. But really most of it Russian pride and nationalism, for without it, the Reich surely would've won World War two.

Kudos to America for providing 375,000 trucks to aid in the Red-Blitzkrieg towards Berlin.

First... scotty
The Germans were nothing if not meticulous, and they recorded and documented virtually everything. The Wehrmacht initial invasion force at the beginning of Barbarossa was 3 million plus. Documented! Do the math dude! X number of divisions = X number of soldiers. Do your homework! Otherwise you reveal your own credibility to be equal to your intelligence. NOT MUCH!!!

Second... Anonymous
Strongest Army in the world, or Largest? Neither! By 1944 the US Army had fielded 90+ Infantry divisions, and each division had enough motor transport and tanks to make it the equivalent of a German Panzer Grenadier Division. If you take the numbered US Armored Divisions and factor in the amount of armor, artillery, and motorization held in the Corps level pools, it amounts to 40+ Panzer Divisions. The Germans nearly overran the Soviets with 20 Panzer and 10 Panzergrenadier Divisions! Add to this the fact that by 1944 the US was producing 100,000+ aircraft per year that were superior to anything that the Germans or Russians had (P-51, P-47, B-24, B-29), that my friend was the strongest force!
The largest force? Wrong again. Reserves are one thing. Fielding a force is a function of logistics. At it's high point in 1944, the Soviets had 8 million people in uniform conducting operations. That was the limit that they could support. In the same year, the US had 14.5 million in uniform! THAT is the largest force ever fielded in history. Don't fight on two fronts. The US fought on two fronts, successfully. History cautions... amphibious campaigns are risky, and prone to failure. The US conducted campaigns on two fronts, across two major oceans! Dude! Get real!

Lastly... Mike
You're the only guy on here who's even in the ball park. But it wasn't just one strategic error (Stalingarad), it was five, in a row!

First, in the summer of '41, the Wehrmacht had defeated the Red Army, period! While the battle of encirclement was raging at Smolensk in July, Gen. Guderian dispatched an Armored recce group from Roslavl heading east on the highway to Moscow. On that day, the Soviets had nothing, NOTHING, between the Germans, and Moscow. It was theirs for the taking. This is when Hitler issued his first stand fast and consolidate order. Subsequently, the move to support Army Group South in the encirclement of Kiev was ordered. Time was lost. The Russians were given a second chance, which they utilized to throw anything they could into the defenses before Moscow.

Second, General Winter did not defeat the Germans before Moscow. Whatever the Germans had to deal with, the Russians had to deal with also. In the face of the Russian counter offensive, the German Generals advised an immediate withdrawal to prepared defensive positions to A) take the wind out of the sails of the Russian offensive, and B) ride out the winter. Hitler denied this, instead issuing his "stand fast, every man a fortress" order. This caused unnessesary losses in men and material that could have been utilized in a renewed offensive to take Moscow in the spring.

Third, Stalingrad. The Germnans did'nt need to take it. Surround it, pound it with artillery and arial bombardment, reduce it to rubble, and neutralize it. That's all that needed to be done. Instead, Hitler allowed himself to sucked into a battle for the City of Stalin. Huge mistake #3.

Fourth, the summer of '43. The German Generals advised going on the defensive, awaiting the inevitable Russian offensive, after which they could resume the offensive by launching a backhand blow with a renewed assault to take Moscow. Hitler said no, and thus Zitadelle, the prepared attack against a hugely prepared defense. Big, and last mistake! From this point on, the Russian Steamroller went all the way to Berlin.

Now, what I just said was basically... Moscow, Moscow, Moscow, Moscow. Hitler continuously avoided attacking the Soviet center of gravity. By doing this, Hitler never neutralized the Soviet ability to husband and marshall their forces. This is a sum of the previous four strategic errors, or in effect, error number (magnitude) ten.

It it sounds like I'm Russian bashing, I'm not. Just merely stating facts. Throughout the war, the Germans were tactically and operationally superior. Tactics and operations wins battles, but Strategy is what wins wars, and the Russians were superlative in strategy from beginning to end. Chess is a game of strategy, and the Russians are the traditional acknowledged masters.

First of all, I'm Finnish, so I have no real reason to admire Russian military conquests, but I also am willing to give credit where it is due, and this is for some reason really difficult for Americans who want to hang on to the fantasy that they single-handedly won WW2 in Europe.

It's not just the manpower we're talking about. The Germans were just simply materially worn down on the Eastern Front in everything. The Russians defended in depth, and had productive capacity the Germans couldn't destroy. In addition, the Soviet tanks may have been crude but they were huge -- T-34 and KV-1 and KV-2 were nearly impenetrable to the PzKwIV gun. And the Soviets had a LOT of them -- just look at some of the production statistics. Stalin just had so much stuff to throw at the Germans by Stalingrad that it was no contest.

The Barbarossa really was doomed to fizzling out from the start, although it looked good in the early days. If you can Blitz your way to an early victory, it's a great strategy, otherwise you're screwed.

Greetings and thank you for this interesting post.Most people who know history know that fascism was defeated in Eastern Europe. The western allies could not have defeated 300 German Divisions as the Red Army did, nor could they pay the blood price of victory. What a pity then that for 50 years the USSR did not offer people the freedom they fought for but just another police state. My Country went to war to help Poland and then the USSR stabbed Poland in the back. In 1945 Churchill had no choice but to let the USSR dominate Eastern Europe. Might was Right in Stalin's eyes. Interesting times.