Why Obama Needs to Pretend the Taliban Aren’t Terrorists

Why Obama Needs to Pretend the Taliban Aren’t Terrorists 
The administration makes a desperate and indefensible claim. 
By Andrew C. McCarthy

No doubt because of my background investigating, prosecuting, and studying terrorism, the cynical claim by White House spokesmen that the Taliban is not a terrorist organization has annoyed me even more than the Obama administration’s nonstop lying usually does. No surprise then that I could be found railing about it on The Kelly File Thursday night.
In that spirit, ten thoughts for the weekend:

1. Under federal law, there are only three requirements for a group to qualify as a “foreign terrorist organization”: It has to be (a) foreign, (b) engaged in “terrorist activity” (bombings, assassinations, etc., carried out to intimidate people and change policy), and (c) a national-security threat to the United States. The law that covers this is Sec. 1189(a) of Title 8, U.S. Code, from the federal Immigration and Nationality Act. It’s here, and it’s just the first few lines — even a president who routinely ignores the laws he is sworn to execute faithfully should be able to make some time for it, maybe on the plane ride between the golf course and the Saudi palace.

2. Obviously, even if it were true, as posited by Messrs. Schultz and Earnest (speaking for President Obama), that the Taliban is concerned only with Afghanistan, not with the global jihad, that would be irrelevant. They easily fit the definition of a foreign terrorist organization. 

3. Of course, it is not true that the Taliban is concerned only with Afghanistan. The administration’s risible claim to the contrary is part of its campaign to bleach the Islam out of radical Islam. Islamic supremacism, the ideology that fuels jihadist terror, is a global conquest ideology. Obama wants you to believe that there is just a dizzying array of small, disconnected, strange-sounding, indigenous “insurgent” groups that are not joined by any unifying ideology — the Afghan Taliban (not to be confused with the Pakistani Taliban), Hamas, Hezbollah, the Haqqani Network, Boko Haram, al-Nusra, Ansar al-Sharia, the sundry jihadist franchises that invoke al-Qaeda’s name (in the Arabian Peninsula, in the Islamic Maghreb, in the Indian subcontinent . . . ), and so on. You are not to see them as a united front against the West, but instead as animated by strictly parochial political and territorial disputes. The strategy, a disingenuous elevation of semantics over substance, is designed to minimize the global jihadist threat to the West that has intensified on Obama’s watch and has undeniable roots in a supremacist interpretation of Islam.

4. You need not take my word for it when it comes to the Taliban’s ideological connection to the global jihad. Instead, just look at what they do. What did the Taliban do when they ruled Afghanistan? They willfully allowed their territory to be used as a launch pad for attacks against the United States (the 1998 embassy bombings in eastern Africa, the 2000 bombing of the Cole, and the 9/11 atrocities). And after 9/11, when, by simply handing bin Laden & Co. over to the United States, they could have stayed in power and avoided an invasion of the Afghanistan they are said to be preoccupied with, what did they do? At enormous cost to themselves, they tried to shelter al-Qaeda. In the 14 years since, they have continued to abet the global jihadist campaign, and have reveled in making war against the United States — a war they now understandably think they will win.

5. The Taliban’s continued alliance with al-Qaeda’s global jihad is of a piece with Hamas’s self-proclaimed incorporation in the Muslim Brotherhood’s global ambitions, and with the forward-militia role Hezbollah plays for Iran, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini’s revolutionary state that exports its Shiite version of jihad. All of these actors perceive themselves as enmeshed in a civilizational struggle against the West. We can’t erase that by pretending there is no animating ideology, pretending that they can be pacified if we satisfy their local grievances.

6. This business of distinguishing “insurgents” from “terrorists” is nonsense. An insurgency is just a domestic uprising (in the sense that the insurgent is from the country in which he is rebelling). When insurgents use terrorist tactics they are domestic terrorists. It may make Obama feel better to say that his pal Bill Ayers was an “insurgent,” but that doesn’t mean he wasn’t a terrorist.

7. The most disturbing facet of the “insurgent” canard is that Obama is buying the logic of such Islamic supremacists as the Muslim Brotherhood and Turkey’s president Recep Tayyip Erdogan. They claim that Hamas and Hezbollah are not terrorist organizations (as American law designates them to be) but domestic political organizations that engage not in terrorism but in “resistance” — a righteous fight against “injustice” and “occupation” in their homelands.

8. Obama, of course, is not approving of the Taliban’s tactics and goals. But he wants you to see them as domestic insurgents because progressives believe insurgents should be negotiated with and brought into a political settlement — and to the extent insurgents go overboard in their aggression, progressives believe they should be prosecuted in the civilian justice system, not fought militarily like wartime enemies.

9. In the United States, Obama is operating in a political environment where the public — based on longstanding prudential American policy — believes we should not negotiate with terrorists because that encourages and legitimizes their savage methods. Similarly, the public strongly believes international terrorists are enemies who must be defeated, not defendants who must be indicted. Obama knows he is negotiating with, intends to settle with, and eventually will leave Afghanistan to the tender mercies of, the Taliban. Therefore, the administration is desperate that you not look at the Taliban as terrorists.

10. But they are terrorists.

— Andrew C. McCarthy is a policy fellow at the National Review Institute. His latest book is Faithless Execution: Building the Political Case for Obama’s Impeachment.

Expanded International Economics Riddles

From the riddler, Col Walker...

Q: How do Venezuela and Cuba increase their national wealth?

A: They don’t.

Q: How do liberal democrats in the United States increase revenues?

A: Find people who know how to grow the American economy and tax them to death.

Q. How do you deal with a stagnant or falling standard of living in Russia?

A. Invade a neighbor.

Q: How do you increase national wealth in Greece?

A: Demand that the Germans and French work harder.

O Cruel Fate

Wanna dance?

O Cruel Fate

Mike Walker, Col USMC (retired)

All,

Well, my how the mighty have fallen. I have long witnessed the emasculation of the American male and sometimes for the better, but this week proved we have gone off the deep end.

The French undergo a terrible attack and find their spine. Our response?

The senior American leadership passed on attending an international display of strength and solidarity because of …well…security concerns.

Our guys were a bit more afraid than, say, fifty other world leaders and a million unarmed civilians. 

Gee.

And then to add injury to insult, our Secretary of State goes hat-in-hand and with hugs and kisses (literally) to apologize. To make amends, he brings a symbol of American resolve.

A new weapons system to kill terrorists? No. A military leader to coordinate efforts against violent Islamic extremists? Not quite. A proposed military pact of mutual support? Sorry!

He brought James Taylor to sing, "You've Got A Friend."

It is pretty had to look like total wimps (and in France of all places) but we accomplished the near impossible.

Profiles in Courage? I think not.  Jack Kennedy, we really miss you. 

Ich bin ein "stay at home man."

Semper Fi,

Mike

BEDFORD FALLS OR POTTERSVILLE?

BEDFORD FALLS OR POTTERSVILLE?
Paul Mirengoff, Powerline

Novelist Anne Morse has written a sequel to Frank Capra’s “It’s a Wonderful Life.” Her novel is called Bedford Falls.

NRO has posted an interview with Morse. Like the classic film, her novel, she says, reminds us of our obligations to family and community — the “little platoons,” to borrow Edmund Burke’s phrase.

The Morse interview reminds me that nine years ago, I wrote a Weekly Standard column called “Bedford Falls or Pottersville? What kind of a country you think you live in can affect your eagerness to defend it.”

Since we’re in the midst of the “It’s a Wonderful Life” season, I thought I would republish the piece:

In his end-of-the-year column, Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne included this message from an irate conservative reader: “Most liberals and some Democrats hate this president and will do anything to bring him down, including siding with terrorists against the president.” Noting that the same sentiment was expressed in different forms by many readers, Dionne lamented that “when big chunks of the country begin to view their political adversaries as something close to traitors, we have arrived at a very dangerous time.”

But is it baseless to suspect that the left-liberal ethos impels some adherents towards ambivalence about the struggle against terrorism? History suggests that the issue is worth investigating. After all, the old American left felt ambivalent–or worse–when it came to the foreign policy struggles of its day. 

Chunks of the left opposed American involvement in the struggle against fascism until Hitler attacked the Soviet Union. And even after becoming disillusioned with Communism, elements of the old left failed to buy into the Cold War.

Many adopted the posture of the influential literary critic Edmund Wilson. As Joseph Epstein has pointed out, Wilson described our conduct towards the Soviet Union as “panicky pugnacity” borne not of our virtue but of “the irrational instinct of an active power organism in the presence of another such organism.”

The “new left” of the 1960s and 1970s rejected such world-weary moral equivalency and rooted openly for Communists. The standard chant of that era’s student left was “Ho, Ho, Ho Chi Minh, NLF is going to win.”

These leftists now have a stake in our society, and neither they nor their children have to worry about being drafted. Moreover, bin Laden and Zarqawi may cut less appealing figures, both personally and ideologically, than Uncle Ho, Chairman Mao, and Fidel Castro.

Thus, there’s no reason to believe that very many leftists root for, or sympathize deeply with, the enemy. But we shouldn’t summarily dismiss the possibility that some leftists today feel ambivalent about the country they once considered criminal and that, always craving sophistication, they may have adopted something like Edmund Wilson’s cynical view of America’s latest conflict.

Consider the statements and actions of some of today’s left-liberals. The most obvious example is Michael Moore. As Michael Barone reminds us, Moore has hailed the Iraqi terrorist insurgents as “Minute Men” who deserve to win, and on his website has called Americans the stupidest people in the world.

By hitting the daily double of anti-Americanism–cheering for the enemy and denigrating his countrymen–Moore became a hero to the left and an ally of liberal Democratic politicians. According to Barone, about half of the Democratic senators attended the Washington premiere of Fahrenheit 9/11, Moore’s popular distillation of his views on the war against terror. And at their national convention, the Democrats honored Moore with a seat next to former president, and kindred spirit, Jimmy Carter.

But it is not just their fondness for Moore that suggests a deep ambivalence about this country on the part of many liberals. Isolated incidents of prisoner abuse caused Senate minority whip Richard Durbin to compare the United States to Hitler’s Germany, Stalin’s Russia, and Pol Pot’s Cambodia. Recent revelations about warrant-less electronic surveillance of calls from foreign al Qaeda operatives to the United States have spurred comparisons to King George III.

Those who perceive America as being one New York Times story away from deserving comparison to some of history’s most odious regimes must believe that the country is teetering on the brink of evil. 

What if one were to take the left’s moral worldview seriously? If the country is on such tenuous moral ground, as they proclaim it to be, then the highest priority–more urgent than dealing with an enemy that successfully attacks us only once every several years–is to make sure that the country doesn’t spiral into something truly evil. 

Thus, while most Americans find it unobjectionable that we use water boarding, or electronic surveillance of calls to the United States, to obtain information about al Qaeda plans, those who consider America morally ambiguous cannot accept such tactics. To do so, the familiar protest goes, makes us too much like the enemy. This incarnation of moral-equivalency-think is as potentially debilitating in the war on terror as Edmund Wilson’s version was during the Cold War.

The other imperative for this crowd–also more urgent than the war on terror–is to move the country away from the brink of evil to higher moral ground. This means enacting the left-liberal agenda–government guaranteed healthcare for all, higher taxes on the rich, gay marriage, and so forth. 

But to advance down that road, Republicans must be vanquished. For some liberals, E.J. Dionne notwithstanding, it follows that they must do nearly anything to bring the Republicans and their president down, and that accomplishing this constitutes a higher priority than combating terrorism.

Many modern liberals seem unable to say what kind of country they live in. Most of the time, they speak as if they inhabit Frank Capra’s Bedford Falls–a dull, nosy, and somewhat puritanical, but basically decent place where George Bailey and the forces of good fight to a stalemate with Mr. Potter and the forces of evil.

Deep down, though, they fear they live in Pottersville, minus the fun. The defense of Bedford Falls, for all of its flaws, would be a top priority; the primacy of defending Pottersville is less apparent.

Nine years later, my only amendment to the column is that, disillusioned by the failed Obama presidency, many more liberals now think they live in Pottersville.

Cuba No-Gooding

Cuba No-Gooding

Col Mike Walker, USMC (retired)

All,

Recognizing the radical socialist dictatorship in Cuba is not a big deal. After all, we recognized Adolf Hitler's Nazi Germany and Josef Stalin's Communist Russia. Hitler, Stalin and Castro. Big whoop!  Maybe the Administration can retroactively recognize Pol Pots' Khmer Rouge regime as well? 

Is this a shameful decision? Yes, but that's reality. 

Will things get better in Cuba? Not a chance. Before the President leaves office, this thing will stink so bad that it will make the Putin "reset" that resulted in the invasions of Crimea and Ukraine look not all that bad.

As for human rights, this United States Marine will not forget nor forgive Castro's butchers. I will neither forget nor forgive what happened to Marine Captain Jeb Seagle. 

Who is Jeb Seagle, you ask? 

It is name you will never hear uttered by the "Hate America First" leftists but it is a name with an important story.

In 1983, as Fidel's minions moved to enslave Grenada and his local puppets ineptly and recklessly grabbed half a dozen American medical students as hostages, a rescue mission was launched and Captain Jeb Seagle was in the thick of it.

Below is part of the story, told in his citation for the Navy Cross, a medal for valor in combat second only to the Medal of Honor:

SEAGLE, JEB F. Captain, U.S. Marine Corps (Reserve) Marine Medium Helicopter Squadron 261 (HMM-261), 22nd Marine Amphibious Unit Date of Action: October 25, 1983 Citation: The Navy Cross is presented to Jeb F. Seagle, Captain, U.S. Marine Corps (Reserve), for extraordinary heroism while serving as an AH-IT (TOW) Cobra Attack Helicopter Pilot with Marine Medium Helicopter Squadron TWO HUNDRED SIXTY-ONE (HMM-261), Twenty-Second Marine Amphibious Unit, conducting combat operations on the Island of Grenada on 25 October 1983. While conducting an armed reconnaissance mission in support of ground forces, Captain Seagle's aircraft was hit by multiple anti-aircraft artillery projectiles and forced down behind enemy lines. Having been knocked out by the blast, Captain Seagle regained consciousness after his fellow pilot had flown the aircraft to impact and found that his aircraft was on fire and burning out of control. As Captain Seagle exited the front cockpit of the Cobra, he saw that the other pilot had been critically wounded and remained helplessly trapped in the aircraft. With complete disregard for his own safety, Captain Seagle courageously returned to the aircraft which was now engulfed in flames and pulled him out. As unexpended ordnance began to cook off all around them, Captain Seagle carried the severely wounded pilot well clear of the danger. Now exposed to heavy enemy small arms and machinegun fire and faced with certain death or capture, Captain Seagle ignored the danger and remained to attend the wounds of the injured pilot by wrapping a tourniquet around his severely bleeding arm. Realizing that enemy soldiers were approaching, Captain Seagle fearlessly distracted them away from the helpless pilot and ultimately sacrificed his own life in an effort to buy time for the rescue helicopter to arrive. By his extraordinary courage, uncommon valor, and loyal devotion to duty in the face of danger, Captain Seagle ensured his brother-in-arms was rescued; thereby reflecting great credit upon himself and upholding the highest traditions of the Marine Corps and the United States Naval Service. 

Here is the tragic rest: Shortly after saving the life of gravely wounded Captain Tim Howard (who subsequently lost arm), Captain Seagle was captured by Cuban soldiers.

Since the mid-1970s when Communist Cuban soldiers began serving in Africa, their savagery became a thing of horror stories. 

Captain Seagle fared no better. Within minutes after his capture, he was dragged down a dirt road, pushed down on his knees and executed by the Cubans.

We are now dubiously reproaching ourselves over the Geneva Convention* edicts regarding the treatment of prisoners but that does not matter south of Florida. There is no such uncertainty in Cuba as that document only has a purpose when it is set afire to light a cigar -- POW rights be damned.

Now we will recognize these bums. So be it. 

The "Hate America First" Club will celebrate but as for this Marine: To hell with the Castro dictatorship.

Semper Fi,

Mike

* News flash: KMZ and his fellow monsters have no legal Geneva Convention rights, those rights are reserved for combatants in war -- not terrorists who intentionally target the innocent for death.

Let a Hundred Coburns Bloom

Let a Hundred Coburns Bloom 

The retiring Oklahoma senator knew how to fix what’s wrong with America.

Mike Brake, NRO

Here in Oklahoma, the news that Senator Tom Coburn will be retiring early from his second term has still not entirely settled in with most folks. For ten years we awoke each day knowing that our state’s voice in Washington would be one of principled reason and absolute integrity.

It’s not that our other senator, Jim Inhofe, or our House members, like Tom Cole and Frank Lucas, are lacking. They are all solid conservatives, as is former congressman James Lankford, whom we elected in November to replace Coburn in the Senate. But as conservatives across the nation have recognized for years, there’s only one Tom Coburn.

Which raises the question: What would America look like if the United States Senate had contained 100 Tom Coburns for the past decade?

Well, none of them would be running for president. One of the most endearing things about Senator Coburn was and is his total lack of personal ambition. From his first election to the House in the GOP sweep of 1994 until the day he announced his retirement, he’s been about one thing: service.

A hundred Coburns, or even 51, would have long since passed a balanced-budget amendment and enforced it. The pork flowing out of Washington would have dried up years ago. The deficit, which mushroomed to some $16 trillion under the first Obama administration, would be closer to $10 trillion and falling.

Canadian oil would already be flowing south through the Keystone pipeline. That, coupled with more sensible federal regulatory policies, would probably have dropped gasoline prices to around a dollar a gallon. We could have told the OPEC thugs to go pound sand.

A Coburn Senate would have sustained and even expanded needed defense spending. And any report on the CIA’s work in the War on Terror would have said “Thank you!”

Taxes? They’d almost certainly be lower and much simpler. We might even have achieved that eternal dream of most Americans, a tax return on a postcard.

Russia would be less belligerent. Vladimir Putin would know not to mess with a strong and confident America, and so would the other bad actors, from North Korea to Iran. Yes, presidents set foreign policy, but a Coburn Senate would have added some spine to even a weak-kneed Obama administration.

The federal judiciary would be much more inclined to make rulings based on law and constitutional principle. It is unlikely that we’d have a “wise Latina” grinding liberal ideological axes.

A Senate of Coburn clones would waste a lot less time on resolutions designating Thursday as Earle T. Woonsocket Day and spend more time debating the issues that matter. The dead air on C-SPAN would be filled with substantive debates, with minimal grandstanding. Imagine what it was like for some senators to follow Tom Coburn on the floor for the past decade!

In short, a Coburn Senate for the past ten years would have made us a stronger, safer, more prosperous people.

I have been privileged to know Tom Coburn casually and to respect him entirely since he first blossomed as a new congressman two decades ago. When he was still undecided about seeking a second Senate term in 2010, I stood in line at a political function to tell him what everyone else there was clamoring to say: “We need you in Washington!”

Alas, we won’t have him there in 2015. Oklahoma, the Senate, and the nation will be poorer for his absence, as we were and are richer for his ennobling service.

— Mike Brake is a longtime journalist, writer, and editor in Oklahoma. He was a speechwriter for Governor Frank Keating.

“White Privilege” and the Destruction of the Democratic Majority

“White Privilege” and the Destruction of the Democratic Majority

Col Mike walker, USMC (retired)

All,

Not all that long ago, the Democratic Party looked to have cobbled together a near permanent majority coalition (“near” as bad governance will do in anyone). 

Not so anymore.

Today there is not a single Democratic Senator, Governor or Democratically controlled legislature from Texas to North Carolina, the fastest growing region in the United States.

The respected and likeable two-term Democratic Senator from Louisiana just became the latest candidate to get shellacked in the 2014 Mid-Term Elections.

Why?

Like the Republican Party that shifted right with the rise of the Tea Party in 2009, the Democrats are now shifting further left as seen in Elizabethan populism but perhaps best captured by the destructive extremism known as “White Privilege,” a reckless position held to not by truth but by a religious-like belief that is impervious to reason. 

The result is middle class flight from the Democrat establishment the likes of which has never been witnessed.

To understand just how out of touch the "Party of special interests" has become, read the 1995 editorial by former-Democratic Senator Jim Webb:

http://www.jameswebb.com/articles/economic-fairness-social-justice/in-defense-of-joe-six-pack

The Bill Clinton-Jim Webb mainstream wing of the Democratic Party is on life support and too many Democrat Party elites are more than willing to pull the plug.

Happy Holidays,

Mike

A Denver Doofus Political Dance

A reasonable kind of guy... education, a whole industry based on hate...

Col. Mike Walker, USMC (retired)

All,

Professor Charles Angeletti of Denver’s Metropolitan State University forced his class to take a “satirical” pledge demeaning the United States.

See: http://collegeinsurrection.com/2014/12/colorado-college-prof-forces-students-to-recite-anti-american-pledge-of-allegiance/

“Satirical” implies a sense of tolerant humor. Yeah Right. OK, Charlie, here’s a similar little chuckle:

“I refuse to pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America but only to the left-wing “Hate America First” ideology for which it really stands and what needs to be one statist authoritarian Nation under anti-religious know-it-all elites, endlessly divisible, with politically correct group-think and tolerance for all. *

*Except white males or individuals who believe that America has done right by them or anyone else – ever – and (in the immortal words of Professor Gruber), especially ignorant and too stupid to understand YOU!”

 

Can anyone imagine the Good Professor using that “satirical” version of the Pledge? 

Of course not! 

His "pledge" is not intended to be funny and thought provoking; it was done to shock and insult with the goal of proselyting his students.

Regards,

White Male Mike

Why I hate Obamacare

Why I hate Obamacare

Mike Walker, Col USMC (retired)

It has nothing to do with Gruber or bad websites or false statements like: “If you like your health plan, you can keep your plan.” Those are correctable irritants.

I hate Obamacare on two counts.

The first was just addressed by Senator Schumer: Some 85% of Americans had health care from either their employer or the government BEFORE Obamacare.

The creators of Obamacare decided that it was time for BIG GOVERNMENT to fix what was not broken and tinker with EVERYONE’s health care.

That has proven a colossal failure.

It is the second failure, however, that really makes me hate Obamacare. 

What about the uncovered 15%?

While BIG GOVERNMENT in Washington was failing badly at “playing God” with the 85% that were covered, the 15% who needed health care got shoved under the bus.

Just to show how terribly misguided the Obamacare zealots are, many are now cheering and patting themselves on the back after announcing that only 4% got covered while 11% got nothing.

Really? You maroons goofed up 100% of the system in order to leave 11% uncovered. That is failure writ large.

The Republicans just took control of both chambers in the Capitol. They claim to have the answers to Obamacare's problems. Really?

Here is some sage advice: Help the 11% first and then save the rest of us.

Mike

Soviets Won the Second World War?

Soviets Won the Second World War?

Col Mike Walker, USMC, retired

All,

The “Soviets Won the Second World War” mythology is running around again.

We will put aside the cogent point that there never would have been a Second World War if Stalin had not allied himself with Hitler to invade Poland in September 1939 and move on the argument at hand.

Historian Norman Davies once wrote: 

“The Soviet war effort was so overwhelming that impartial historians of the future are unlikely to rate the British and American contribution to the European theatre as much more than a sound supporting role.”

That is over-the-top silliness. 

Indisputably, the Eastern Front was not just the largest and most dominant land campaign of the Second World War but in recorded history and was essential to the Allied victory.

However, the case is not at all clear that the war can be characterized as a “400 division clash” in the East versus a “15 to 15 division” fight in the West as Davies further argued. That claim crumbles before serious and objective analysis.

A. The critic’s numbers do not add up

First, the war was global for the United States (US) and the British Commonwealth (UK) troops who made up of the bulk of the remaining anti-Axis combatants, save China.
  

The Soviets never had to build, equip, man and train the vast naval forces needed to defeat the U-boat threat in the Atlantic, battle the Imperial Japanese Navy in the Pacific and simultaneously deploy and sustain large ground and air forces worldwide.
  

To put this in perspective, the U.S. Army comprised only 8.5 million of the 16 million Americans who served in uniform during the war.

Second, the “400 division clash in the east versus a “15 to 15 division” fight in the west” argument is hard to follow.  The 400 division number is true enough when counting the total forces on the front but when the Nazi armies peaked in the east during the 1942-1943 period, their 200 plus divisions included approximately:

10 Italian divisions

18 Romanian divisions

9 Hungarian, divisions

15 Finnish divisions

Not an insignificant portion of the Nazi order of battle.

The Allied ground campaign in the West was more extensive than the critics are willing to admit.

On the Nazi side, the rough disposition of their forces (to include other Axis armies) in mid-1944 (before D-Day) shows that the Eastern Front was still dominant:

Approximately 200 divisions on the Eastern Front

28 divisions in the Balkans

17 divisions in Italy

8 divisions in Norway

61 divisions in the West

As the war progressed after D-Day, the number of Nazi divisions sent to the West continually increased and the number in the East continually declined.

By January 1945, the numbers were:

Approximately 145 divisions on the Eastern Front

15 divisions in the Balkans

28 divisions in Italy

15 divisions in Norway

79 divisions in the West

There was net decrease in the number of Nazi divisions during this period due to losses suffered on the war fronts. 

It would be wrong to down play the importance of the Western Allied onslaught during this period. Consider this statistic: After D-Day, the US Army alone captured on average the equivalent of one German division per week, every week throughout 1944. As the war on the Eastern front progressed, prisoners were often not taken which attributed to disparity in deaths and POWs taken.

When the Allies began the final 1945 offensive following the Battle of Bulge, Eisenhower had three Army Groups involved:

US 6th Army Group under Devers with 22 divisions

US 12th Army Group (main effort) under Bradley with 48 divisions

British 21st Army Group under Montgomery with 17 divisions

The 1^st Allied Airborne Army with 1 division was in strategic reserve

The US/UK forces also had the British 8th Army and US 5th Army in Italy that together totaled another 16 divisions. 

All in all, Eisenhower had 104 divisions in Europe by late 1944/early 1945. The “15 on 15” statement is nonsensical.

Fighting Japan, the US/UK ground forces had another 38 divisions deployed:

Six divisions with the British 14th Army in Burma plus 21 US Army, 6 US Marine and 5 Australian Divisions in the Pacific

B. Size Matters

Significantly, a US infantry division was manned at 13,700 soldiers compared with 10,400 for the Soviets and similar size difference existed for armored units (which had both more tanks and troops per unit) and Commonwealth units were larger still.

If we adjust for those differences, the Western Allies had the equivalent of 232 “Soviet size” divisions on the front lines by late 1944, extending from the Dutch-Belgian-French front to Italy to Burma and on to the Pacific.

C. Lend-Lease was vital to Red Army Success

Subtract out Lend-Lease and the power of the Red Army was significantly degraded.

The US provided over 7,000 tanks and the British another 5,000 as well as 11,000 US and 9,000 British aircraft. The overall amount of fuel and food supplies shipped to the Red Army was enough to keep 80 Russian divisions in the field.

Not surprisingly, putting in place the global logistics chain represented a major Allied commitment of resources and many Allied sailors lost their lives sailing through enemy laden artic waters to “deliver the goods.” 

D. The role of the USAAF-RAF strategic bombing campaign on the Soviet war effort has been undervalued 

After the failed German 1943 Kursk offensive, the Luftwaffe shifted the overwhelming majority of its fighter squadrons to Germany and other parts of Western Europe to battle RAF Bomber Command the emerging US Eighth Air Force. This eliminated the Luftwaffe as a major threat to the Red Army. 

Between 1939 and 1945, the Luftwaffe added slightly more than 13,000 88-mm flak guns for air defense duty. The army only received 3,500 such guns in the same period, but they were effective anti-tank guns of the war. 

Had those weapons been deployed in numbers to the Eastern Front, they would have turned Wehrmacht anti-tank defenses into vast killing fields for the Red Army’s armored forces. 

Finally, the strategic bombing of German oil production largely grounded the Luftwaffe and went far in making the Soviet 1945 breakout at the Baranov bridgehead on the Vistula River a success when the 1,200 German panzers massed there were rendered useless for lack of fuel.

There was never a case where a Red Army offensive defeated a mobile panzer force of that size while operating on ideal tank terrain. Allied strategic bombers first forced the removal of the Luftwaffe fighters, then removed thousands of deadly tank-killer "88s" from the battlefield and finally turned a huge panzer army into a mass of expensive and largely static pillboxes. Those factors were arguably decisive.

Western air power indirectly played a major role on the Eastern Front in 1944 and 1945.

E. Conclusions

The Eastern Front surely dominated the ground war, but when looking at the combined size and scope of the Western Allies ground, sea, air and material efforts, it could be argued that the West’s aggregate commitment of people, machines and resources was greater. 

Measuring war solely by buckets of blood spilt, however tragic, is a crude and misleading metric. No one played a “supporting role” in gaining the Allied victory. The real truth is that the Allies needed each other. All proved indispensable.

Semper Fi,

Mike