Russian Foreign Policy

[cremeegg]

Ye are all strong on the past. The thread started off talking about the present and the future.

 

[Firefly]

By 1943 they were producing 1300 T34 Tanks a month and in two years they halved the production cost. That's the equivalent of 3 full strength Panzer Divisions a month. It was, by far, the best Tank of the war in that it was the best value and gave the best return on investment.

You'd wonder how the Russians went from that to this:

 

[Purple]

You'd wonder how the Russians went from that to this:

View attachment 5945

That's Communism for you. If they made a bags of the Tanks they all died. If they made rubbish cars they all kelp their job. That's what happens when there's no competition and you can't be sacked. The Germans were the competition during the War.

 

[Baby boomer]

Yes, as previously noted;

Yes, I hadn't noticed that, sorry.

America gave the same level of support to the British. It was American planes that won the Battle of Britain and the best piolets during that battle were Polish. The British also ignored that.

To a point, that's true. I think there was a lot of embarrassment on the UK side about how badly the Poles were treated after their heroics in the Battle of Britain, in Italy and elsewhere. The "Free Poles" were quitely abandoned to Communist tryanny for half a century - particularly ironic when Britain ostensibly went to war for Polish freedom in the first place!

The British and the Americans massively downplay the Eastern Front,...

Not really, it's just they weren't involved in it. So there's no folk memory of it, no relatives who were veterans of it, no casualties to be commemorated and so on. Nations will commemorate what they were involved in - hence the British emphasis on, eg, the desert war in North Africa, which was tiny in the overall context, but which generated a huge British trove of memories, legends and fallen heroes to be treasured. Nothing unusual about that.

Likewise, for the Americans, WW2 happened mostly in the Pacific, that's where they did most fighting, so that gets remembered and honoured. Again, nothing unusual or dishonest about that.

instead creating the narrative that D-Day was the definitive event that led to the defeat of the Germans and their allies which is, of course, complete nonsense.

D-Day was a massive event, not decisive perhaps, but an essential element in the defeat of Nazism. I'm not so sure it's importance is overstated for jingoistic effect but it remains the largest seaborne invasion ever undertaken. No mean feat.

That's not to say it wasn't important but D-Day was as much about stopping the Russians swallowing Europe as it was about defeating the Germans.

Hmmm? Why then was Stalin pushing so eagerly for D-Day to be brought forward. He was demanding a "second front" from 1942 onwards and was pushing hard for D-Day to happen in 1943.

And if stopping the Russians swallowing Europe was foremost in the war aims, then why did the Western Allies not push eastwards much faster in 1944/5? Had they done so, much of Central and Eastern Europe might have been saved from the Soviets.

They'd lost by then.

True. Reality is they'd lost once the US entered the war. From that point on, they were always going to be out-manufactured. It was only going to be a matter of time. (Unless they could force a stalemate by developing nuclear weaponry.)

Pointing out the facts does not make one a sympathiser.

Not you, true! But many on the left, particularly, still retain romantic notions about communism. They also have a hostility towards the US and this leads to a mythologizing of the Soviet contribution, a downplaying of the US assistance received, and a complete whitewashing of Soviet atrocities, which were exceeded only by the Nazis themselves.

That sort of emotive language is also nonsensical.
The realpolitik of post-war Europe and the world meant that truth was sacrificed quite quickly.

Even during the war, Russian propaganda was downplaying the assistance from the US. Capitalism was evil, you see, and the truth that it worked had to be hidden from the unfortunate Russians themselves. Meanwhile, America held its nose, ignored awkward stuff like the Russian invasions of Poland and Finland, the Katyn massacre and huge mass deportations to Central Asia, while presenting Stalin as a cuddly "Uncle Joe" ally. Needs must, I suppose.

Gratitude was in short supply from people who were pointing Nukes at each other. With the benefit of 75 years of hindsight we should be able to take a less emotional and jingoistic view of history.

Jingoistic is saying it was the Russians wot won it. "Less emotional" is saying the Nazi defeat couldn't have happened without Western industry. They western Allies could have defeated Nazi Germany without Russia. It would have taken much longer and cost more US and European lives but it would have happened unless Germany developed nuclear weaponry.

 

[Purple]

Yes, I hadn't noticed that, sorry.

To a point, that's true. I think there was a lot of embarrassment on the UK side about how badly the Poles were treated after their heroics in the Battle of Britain, in Italy and elsewhere. The "Free Poles" were quitely abandoned to Communist tryanny for half a century - particularly ironic when Britain ostensibly went to war for Polish freedom in the first place!

Very true. We are brilliant at ignoring the bits of our history we don't like and creating villains and bogymen 9Cromwell being aa prime example).

Not really, it's just they weren't involved in it. So there's no folk memory of it, no relatives who were veterans of it, no casualties to be commemorated and so on. Nations will commemorate what they were involved in - hence the British emphasis on, eg, the desert war in North Africa, which was tiny in the overall context, but which generated a huge British trove of memories, legends and fallen heroes to be treasured. Nothing unusual about that.

Likewise, for the Americans, WW2 happened mostly in the Pacific, that's where they did most fighting, so that gets remembered and honoured. Again, nothing unusual or dishonest about that.

I think there was more to it than that. History books ignored the fact that the Russians did most of the bleeding and dying and, importantly, most of the winning. That was due to the cold war and it was very understandable but there was more to it than just concentrating on "our lads".

D-Day was a massive event, not decisive perhaps, but an essential element in the defeat of Nazism. I'm not so sure it's importance is overstated for jingoistic effect but it remains the largest seaborne invasion ever undertaken. No mean feat.

Indeed, the only amphibious invasion that came close was 600 years earlier when the Mongols attempted to invade Japan. In a nice Second World War link their fleet was destroyed by a massive typhoon which the Japanese called the 'Divine Wind' or kamikaze.

Hmmm? Why then was Stalin pushing so eagerly for D-Day to be brought forward. He was demanding a "second front" from 1942 onwards and was pushing hard for D-Day to happen in 1943.

And if stopping the Russians swallowing Europe was foremost in the war aims, then why did the Western Allies not push eastwards much faster in 1944/5? Had they done so, much of Central and Eastern Europe might have been saved from the Soviets.

The Americans were happy to let Stalin and Hitler fight it out, that's part of the reason they didn't invade sooner. That and they just weren't ready. Once the writing was on the wall they had to get a move on. They pushed East as fast as they could, hence the race for Berlin, but the Germans fought back hard (the battle of the Bulge etc).

True. Reality is they'd lost once the US entered the war. From that point on, they were always going to be out-manufactured. It was only going to be a matter of time. (Unless they could force a stalemate by developing nuclear weaponry.)

True, the same can be said about their invasion of Russia; once that happened they'd lost. The German's just couldn't do logistics. The American's could. There's an argument to be made that their 2-1/2 ton truck was the most important vehicle of the war (they send tens of thousands of them to Russia).

Not you, true! But many on the left, particularly, still retain romantic notions about communism. They also have a hostility towards the US and this leads to a mythologizing of the Soviet contribution, a downplaying of the US assistance received, and a complete whitewashing of Soviet atrocities, which were exceeded only by the Nazis themselves.


Even during the war, Russian propaganda was downplaying the assistance from the US. Capitalism was evil, you see, and the truth that it worked had to be hidden from the unfortunate Russians themselves. Meanwhile, America held its nose, ignored awkward stuff like the Russian invasions of Poland and Finland, the Katyn massacre and huge mass deportations to Central Asia, while presenting Stalin as a cuddly "Uncle Joe" ally. Needs must, I suppose.

Yep.

Jingoistic is saying it was the Russians wot won it. "Less emotional" is saying the Nazi defeat couldn't have happened without Western industry.

I don't think they could have held Russia one way or the other. They were always going to run out of oil and probably going to run out of steel (and men).

They western Allies could have defeated Nazi Germany without Russia. It would have taken much longer and cost more US and European lives but it would have happened unless Germany developed nuclear weaponry.

True, assuming that the Americans entered the war at all and when they did they entered on the right side. I'm not sure the American Public would have had the stomach to fight in a Europe against a Germany army fully resourced with what was on the Eastern Front.
Much and all that D-Day was a remarkable event the Germans only had 58 divisions in the Western Theatre and only 11 of them faced the Allied on D-Day. At the same time the Russians were fighting 228 Divisions.
The real D-Day was June 22, 1944 when the Russians invaded Belarus. On D-Day 175,000 Allied soldiers fought 80,000 Germans (and their allies). Operation Bagration involved 2.4 million Soviet troops and 900,000 Germans. link

 

[odyssey06]

Great post @Baby boomer

Just on the Mediterranean \ North African campaign, it did have two serendipitous impacts...

There was a delay in launching Barbarossa as German forces were diverted to assist the Italians in the Balkans and Greece.

In 1943, Hitler sent significant reinforcements to North Africa - had they been sent earlier they may have changed the course of the campaign. But by 1943 they were too little too late and 200,000 German troops were captured by the Allies in Tunisia alone.

 

[odyssey06]

True, assuming that the Americans entered the war at all and when they did they entered on the right side. I'm not sure the American Public would have had the stomach to fight in a Europe against a Germany army fully resourced with what was on the Eastern Front.
Much and all that D-Day was a remarkable event the Germans only had 58 divisions in the Western Theatre and only 11 of them faced the Allied on D-Day. At the same time the Russians were fighting 228 Divisions.
The real D-Day was June 22, 1944 when the Russians invaded Belarus. On D-Day 175,000 Allied soldiers fought 80,000 Germans (and their allies). Operation Bagration involved 2.4 million Soviet troops and 900,000 Germans.

I agree with the general assumption.

But I think you're getting a distorted view of it by looking only at infantry \ raw numbers of troops.

For aircraft, anti aircraft, radar and similar technological resources the ratios would be reversed between the two. When Operation Bagration was launched, where was the Luftwaffe?

For equipment, you're not considering e.g. tanks that the Western Allies destroyed \ prevented from being built with their air campaign and blockade.

 

[Purple]

I agree with the general assumption.

But I think you're getting a distorted view of it by looking only at infantry \ raw numbers of troops.

For aircraft, anti aircraft, radar and similar technological resources the ratios would be reversed between the two. When Operation Bagration was launched, where was the Luftwaffe?

Read the link, it's very informative.

The initial D-Day landings were made with approximately 175,000 Allied troops against about 80,000 Wehrmacht soldiers. These figures were dwarfed by the strengths on the eastern front, where Operation Bagration, which was launched on June 22, 1944, pitted 2.4 million Russian troops, supported by 36,400 artillery pieces, 5,200 tanks and 5,300 aircraft, against the Germans’ Army Group Centre, which numbered 700,000 men, 900 tanks and 1,350 aircraft.
The Soviets aimed to retake Byelorussia (now Belarus), and in the process, destroy Army Group Centre.

Within a month of launching, Bagration had succeeded. In relentless lightning attacks, Soviet forces annihilated 17 German divisions and reduced another 50 to half-strength, which translated into a net German loss of 42 divisions. Army Group Centre was no more. Moreover, the Soviets had punched a hole 400 kilometres wide and 160 kilometres long in the German front. By September, they would be knocking on German-occupied Warsaw’s door.
Meanwhile, the western Allies, wedded to Montgomery’s unimaginative tactics, were still mired on the Normandy beachhead. Only on July 26, 1944, did their attempts to break out succeed, under Patton’s — not Montgomery’s — leadership.

Their breakout was aided by the fact that Bagration had forced the Wehrmacht to redeploy 46 divisions, including some from France, to the eastern front. Even then, the western Allies’ failure to close the Falaise pocket in August allowed the retreating Germans to escape. The Soviet juggernaut made no such mistake. Indeed, as Bagration showed, by the time the western Allies got around to launching their second front, which Stalin had been clamouring for since 1941, the Red Army almost didn’t need it.

The reality is that the Russians took the heat off the Western Allies in Normandy, not the other way around.

I'm not suggesting that the American air campaign and their other actions (supported by their French, British etc allies) didn't play a major role in the war. I'm just pointing out that the Russians did the heavy lifting.

 

[odyssey06]

Read the link, it's very informative.

The reality is that the Russians took the heat off the Western Allies in Normandy, not the other way around.

I'm not suggesting that the American air campaign and their other actions (supported by their French, British etc allies) didn't play a major role in the war. I'm just pointing out that the Russians did the heavy lifting.

Well they both took the heat off each other to a certain extent. How much 'heat' is air superiority worth?
Although hard to see how, short of nuclear weapons or willingness to take big casualties, the Western Allies could have invaded 'fortress Europe' if most German troops weren't occupied in the East.

For sure they did the heavy lifting in terms of boots on the ground \ blood shed... but one of the main reasons the weight they had to lift was so heavy was because they
(a) made Germany stronger via the non-aggression pact which meant they were supplying Germany
(b) occupying Baltic States and eastern Poland was meant to give Russia a buffer against German attack, but instead made them more vulnerable as they moved their forces forwards away from their fixed defences.

And interesting counter-factual would be how would a war have played out where Britain seeing the 'Bolsheviks' as the greater threat, sides with the Axis or at least signs a non-aggression pact... steering Germany and Japan towards the Soviets and Italy towards French North Africa. Would Germany have been able to defeat Russia if it had access to supplies from the rest of the world, and wasn't fighting a war on two fronts. Hmm.

 

[Baby boomer]

Agree re the significance of Bagration. But, and it's a huge but, could it have even happened without US/UK assistance to the Soviets? Three points are significant. Much of the materiel used in Bagration was supplied by the West. Particularly aircraft. Secondly the Luftwaffe had been defanged by then and that gave a huge advantage to the Russians.
Thirdly, without the US/UK assistance in 1941/42, when it was desparately needed and before the Russians had geared up their own industry, chances are the front line would have stabilised somewhere around the Urals. Stalingrad couldn't have been won without Western materiel, nor could Leningrad have been defended, and Moscow might well have fallen in December 1941 without British tanks, artillery and aircraft.

 

[Purple]

Agree re the significance of Bagration. But, and it's a huge but, could it have even happened without US/UK assistance to the Soviets? Three points are significant. Much of the materiel used in Bagration was supplied by the West. Particularly aircraft. Secondly the Luftwaffe had been defanged by then and that gave a huge advantage to the Russians.
Thirdly, without the US/UK assistance in 1941/42, when it was desparately needed and before the Russians had geared up their own industry, chances are the front line would have stabilised somewhere around the Urals. Stalingrad couldn't have been won without Western materiel, nor could Leningrad have been defended, and Moscow might well have fallen in December 1941 without British tanks, artillery and aircraft.

It was US assistance. The UK assistance was tiny. The UK did act as a vital stopping off point for the Americans but the UK was also a massive recipient of US support. In fact the British got almost twice as many Aircraft from the US as the Russians.

It's worth noting that 65% of the German air force was deployed to the East and was never touched by US forces or their allies. The US bombing campaign over Germany, supported by the RAF (often flying American planes) did deal a massive blow to German war production but even by 1941 they were running out of steel and oil and that of course was one of the main reasons for Operation Barbarossa in the first place.
In fact the Luftwaffe argued against the Russian campaign as it diverted resources away from Britain which they believed (rightly) was on the brink of collapse (up until the last minute they were unaware of the plan to invade Russia and so had not ramped up production).
No matter what way you look at it the Russians took the pressure off the UK defensively and from the US once it had invaded from Britain in June 1944.

 

[odyssey06]

It was US assistance. The UK assistance was tiny. The UK did act as a vital stopping off point for the Americans but the UK was also a massive recipient of US support. In fact the British got almost twice as many Aircraft from the US as the Russians.

It's worth noting that 65% of the German air force was deployed to the East and was never touched by US forces or their allies. The US bombing campaign over Germany, supported by the RAF (often flying American planes) did deal a massive blow to German war production but even by 1941 they were running out of steel and oil and that of course was one of the main reasons for Operation Barbarossa in the first place.
In fact the Luftwaffe argued against the Russian campaign as it diverted resources away from Britain which they believed (rightly) was on the brink of collapse (up until the last minute they were unaware of the plan to invade Russia and so had not ramped up production).
No matter what way you look at it the Russians took the pressure off the UK defensively and from the US once it had invaded from Britain in June 1944.

Russia took the pressure off, but as I said, the UK and then US took the pressure off Russia also, at a time when Germany was threatening a knockout blow. And then basically, held one arm behind Germany's back (and punches to the kidneys) for Russia to land knockout blows.

The UK assistance was small in the overall numbers, bearing in mind the huge increases in production as the war went on, but needs to be looked at in terms of how crucial that assistance was in 1941 in tipping the scales one way or another.

While 65% of Luftwaffe sorties were carried out in the East, it was the Western Allies who were inflicting the main damage on the Luftwaffe, so in a sense they were hitting the Luftwaffe on the eastern front as pilots were being lost and a pilot lost from theatre A was lost to their overall strength. The '65%' isn't static.

The estimates I have seen are that for German air losses 60-70% were in theatres versus Western Allies.
From September 1943, 75% - 80% of Luftwaffe day fighters were deployed in the West.
Without day fighters you don't have air superiority, or a way to stop attacks on your own forces and bases and transport links.
Especially with anti aircraft weapon production needed for defence of the Reich from air attack.
By 1944, an airplane flying a combat mission in the West was 7.66 times more likely to be destroyed than one on a similar mission in the East.

 

[Baby boomer]

It was US assistance. The UK assistance was tiny.

Overall, yes, it was mostly the US. But, in the critical period of June - December 1941, British assistance was very significant and may have been decisive in halting the German advance on Moscow. And if Moscow fell, it's probably all over and there never gets to be a Bagration.

The UK did act as a vital stopping off point for the Americans but the UK was also a massive recipient of US support. In fact the British got almost twice as many Aircraft from the US as the Russians.

True.

It's worth noting that 65% of the German air force was deployed to the East and was never touched by US forces or their allies. The US bombing campaign over Germany, supported by the RAF (often flying American planes) did deal a massive blow to German war production but even by 1941 they were running out of steel and oil...

Not really. Germany had huge reserves of coal and could manufacture synthetic oil. It also had access to Romanian oil fields. Despite massive bombing of refineries, distribution and synthetic production facilities, Germany didn't start running out of oil until after the Romanian oil fields were first bombed and then captured in 1944.

and that of course was one of the main reasons for Operation Barbarossa in the first place.

I'd say more an atavistic hatred of Slavic peoples and Jews. Plus a conviction that Nazism and Bolshevikism were destined to fight to the death with only one system surviving.

In fact the Luftwaffe argued against the Russian campaign as it diverted resources away from Britain which they believed (rightly) was on the brink of collapse (up until the last minute they were unaware of the plan to invade Russia and so had not ramped up production).

True.

No matter what way you look at it the Russians took the pressure off the UK defensively and from the US once it had invaded from Britain in June 1944.

If the UK and US hadn't taken the pressure off Russia in the first place, June 1944 would have been a different kettle of fish entirely! There probably wouldn't have been a Russian army left to take the pressure off the US/UK.

 

[Purple]

@Baby boomer , yes, the US and it's allies in the West certainly had a material impact on German resources. That's without doubt. I'm just pointing out that the just majority of the War in Europe was fought on the Eastern Front. In fact as previously pointed out it was bigger than every other theatre of the War in the rest of the world combined.

 

[odyssey06]

The US and it's allies in the West certainly had a material impact on German resources. That's without doubt. I'm just pointing out that the just majority of the War in Europe was fought on the Eastern Front. In fact as previously pointed out it was bigger than every other theatre of the War in the rest of the world combined.

Biggest in terms of troops committed and combat casualties, but is that the only consideration?
What about 'Fighting Power', for want of a better word.

When it comes to naval and aerial warfare (e.g. submarine warfare, air night fighting, strategic bombing) the number of front line personnel is tiny relative to the 'long tail'.

How many men (I don't mean to crew the vessel) is a U-boat 'worth'?
Or a V-2 rocket?
Or an escort carrier?
They are force multipliers.

Two airfleets fighting it out over Berlin, of long range bombers and escort fighters versus defending fighters, flak guns... and the technical battle of radar \ guidance \ navigation versus jamming that goes with it... It seems like a tiny number of men compared to an infantry battle. But not in terms of fighting power and the number of people needed to put them there in position to fight.

Similarly for two carrier fleets in the Pacific, or the contest between U-boats and convoys in the Atlantic.

Is one tank in North Africa the same as one tank in Ukraine?
Considering the resources that went into getting that tank to North Africa, and keeping it operational, and that for every 10 tanks sent there, X number didn't arrive and ended up at the bottom of the ocean.

Every Sherman tank that made it to Normandy in the D-Day invasion had to run the gauntlet of the Battle of the Atlantic.

 

[Baby boomer]

Biggest in terms of troops committed and combat casualties, but is that the only consideration?
What about 'Fighting Power', for want of a better word.

When it comes to naval and aerial warfare (e.g. submarine warfare, air night fighting, strategic bombing) the number of front line personnel is tiny relative to the 'long tail'.

How many men (I don't mean to crew the vessel) is a U-boat 'worth'?
Or a V-2 rocket?
Or an escort carrier?
They are force multipliers.

Two airfleets fighting it out over Berlin, of long range bombers and escort fighters versus defending fighters, flak guns... and the technical battle of radar \ guidance \ navigation versus jamming that goes with it... It seems like a tiny number of men compared to an infantry battle. But not in terms of fighting power and the number of people needed to put them there in position to fight.

Similarly for two carrier fleets in the Pacific, or the contest between U-boats and convoys in the Atlantic.

Is one tank in North Africa the same as one tank in Ukraine?
Considering the resources that went into getting that tank to North Africa, and keeping it operational, and that for every 10 tanks sent there, X number didn't arrive and ended up at the bottom of the ocean.

Every Sherman tank that made it to Normandy in the D-Day invasion had to run the gauntlet of the Battle of the Atlantic.

Good points. Also the logistics that went into the Pacific War were amazing. To land and sustain a division on a remote island is far more complicated than doing the same on a continental landmass.

 

[Baby boomer]

@Baby boomer , yes, the US and it's allies in the West certainly had a material impact on German resources. That's without doubt. I'm just pointing out that the just majority of the War in Europe was fought on the Eastern Front. In fact as previously pointed out it was bigger than every other theatre of the War in the rest of the world combined.

Depends on how you define "bigger" doesn't it? More people died in the Pacific Theatre than in Europe (including the USSR.) Most of them were Chinese civilians. But we don't tend to hear about that either.

 

[Purple]

Depends on how you define "bigger" doesn't it? More people died in the Pacific Theatre than in Europe (including the USSR.) Most of them were Chinese civilians. But we don't tend to hear about that either.

True, if we ignore the Russians killed by Stalin.
Bigger in terms of fighting men and materials.

All the points about logistics stand, though both sides had the same issues in North Africa and in much of the Pacific.
We are so used to our perspective on the war but there’s no avoiding the fact that militarily Russia were the main players. In terms of industrial output the US were even bigger players as they made a massive contribution to the Russians and, in effect, the armed forces of every other country fighting in the Western European theatre were folded into the US army .

 

[Purple]

Biggest in terms of troops committed and combat casualties, but is that the only consideration?
What about 'Fighting Power', for want of a better word.

When it comes to naval and aerial warfare (e.g. submarine warfare, air night fighting, strategic bombing) the number of front line personnel is tiny relative to the 'long tail'.

How many men (I don't mean to crew the vessel) is a U-boat 'worth'?
Or a V-2 rocket?
Or an escort carrier?
They are force multipliers.

I was with you until V2’s. They were a monumental waste of resources (like so much the Germans built).

Two airfleets fighting it out over Berlin, of long range bombers and escort fighters versus defending fighters, flak guns... and the technical battle of radar \ guidance \ navigation versus jamming that goes with it... It seems like a tiny number of men compared to an infantry battle. But not in terms of fighting power and the number of people needed to put them there in position to fight.

Similarly for two carrier fleets in the Pacific, or the contest between U-boats and convoys in the Atlantic.

I see and that and raise you 2500 factories and 11-12 million people moved over a thousand miles to supply the red army.

Is one tank in North Africa the same as one tank in Ukraine?

No, Tank in North Africa was worth far less.

Considering the resources that went into getting that tank to North Africa, and keeping it operational, and that for every 10 tanks sent there, X number didn't arrive and ended up at the bottom of the ocean.

Every Sherman tank that made it to Normandy in the D-Day invasion had to run the gauntlet of the Battle of the Atlantic.

The vastness of Russia and the harshness of the winter can’t be overstated. The fact that so much of what Russia used also came from America means they also faced the North Atlantic.

 

[cremeegg]

D-Day was a massive event, not decisive perhaps, but an essential element in the defeat of Nazism. I'm not so sure it's importance is overstated for jingoistic effect but it remains the largest seaborne invasion ever undertaken. No mean feat.

Indeed, the only amphibious invasion that came close was 600 years earlier when the Mongols attempted to invade Japan. In a nice Second World War link their fleet was destroyed by a massive typhoon which the Japanese called the 'Divine Wind' or kamikaze.

D Day

156,000 Allied troops by sea and air on five beachheads in Normandy, France.

2nd Mongol Invasion of Japan

Kublai Khan's second invasion fleet was a whole lot bigger than the first one. This time, thanks to his recent defeat of the Song and acquisition of their navy, there were 4,400 ships and around 100,000 men, again a mix of Mongol, Chinese, and Korean warriors.

2nd Persian invasion of Greece

Herodotus, a contemporary writer, put the Persian army strength as one million and went to great pains to describe how they were counted in groups of ten thousand at a review of the troops. Simonides went as far as to put the Persian number at three million. Today, it is considered to have been much smaller. Scholars report various figures ranging between about 100,000 and 150,000 soldiers. (How modern estimates are considered as reliable as Herodotus' count I do not understand)