In the category of pretty damn cool: American troops march in Red Square
Saturday, May 15, 2010 at 12:06AM 
NYT piece by way of Jeff Jennings.
Basics:
Never before in history have active-duty American troops been invited to march in the Victory Day parade, according to the United States military. The occasion is the 65th anniversary of the defeat of Nazi Germany in World War II, a date that carries an almost sacred meaning in Russia. Russian leaders have taken pains to explain that the Americans — along with contingents from Britain, France and Poland — were invited as representatives of the “anti-Hitler coalition.”
Not for nothing are they explaining. While more than half of Russians greeted the invitation with approval or enthusiasm, according to an April poll by the independent Levada Center, the sentiment was not universal. In a country that still regards NATO as its primary security threat, 20 percent of respondents said they disapproved and 8 percent were dead set against it. Communist and nationalist leaders have latched onto it as a rallying cry, organizing rallies on the theme, “No NATO boots on Red Square!”
There is ambivalence, even for those in the first category. Most Russians say they believe that the Red Army would have defeated Hitler without any assistance from Western allies, Levada’s research shows. Many say the Allies held back until it was clear which side would win.
You know the old bit: British minds, U.S. money and Russian blood are what won WWII, so some truth in that suspicion.
Still, nice sign.
Reader Comments (4)
The US could attempt to assuage those Russian nationalist fears by reciprocating with an invitation for Russian troops to join in next an anniverary march held in Washington DC.
"Most Russians say they believe that the Red Army would have defeated Hitler without any assistance from Western allies, Levada’s research shows."
Not just Russians. Dave Glantz says it too, in "When Titans Clashed - How the Red Army Stopped Hitler"
I think there's a difference between -stopping- the Nazis and then -winning- that war. That's not to denigrate the Soviet forces, but if an Army marches on its stomach, that stomach for hundreds of miles through Ukraine, Poland, etc, was carried on American trucks. This allowed Soviet factories to concentrate on weapon systems. Without that ability to take their war westwards, it's possible that the Soviets and Germans would have stalemated (particularly without the threat of the 2nd front.)
Glantz says that, left to their own devices, Stalin and his commanders would have taken 12-18 months longer and ended with the Soviet Army on France's Atlantic beaches (pg 285).
Its pretty clear that he means that the USSR had a sufficiently superior organizational and industrial capacity over Nazi Germany and occupied Europe to make, or the economic capacity to buy, whatever it took. And considering that he's the English-speaking world's finest historian of the Eastern Front, I'd say his point is worth taking seriously.