IN JUNE 1984 the resurgent arms race and the fostering of a resumed cold war characterised the way the West marked the 40th anniversary of the D-Day landings. 

In response several Soviet newspapers and journals carried articles rehearsing the true background to June 6 1944. 

One of these was written by the author, James Aldridge, who, as a well-known Australian war correspondent, had been based in Moscow in 1944 and 1945. He had already reported from many of the fronts of the war, including Finland during the winter war, northern Iraq and Egypt. 

Unlike many correspondents at the time, Aldridge did his reporting from the front, not from official statements. In February 1944 he had reported from Kherson on the Nazi use of suicide “forfeit troops” to attempt to rescue 10 trapped German divisions; from Odessa in April he told Evening Standard readers how 10,000 resistance fighters had operated from catacombs 30 feet below ground; he described the “decaying streets and echoing buildings” of a deserted and devastated Sebastopol at the end of May. 

June 6 found him back in Moscow when news of the opening of the second front came through. It was greeted with pleasure, he reported to English readers, but excitement was muted. 

“I think they [the Russians] are all saying the same thing: ‘It has come.’ But it is being said with a sigh not a shout.” They had waited so long for the relief that a second front would bring.

Aldridge continued to follow the Red Army through Poland, Hungary and Romania. He was among the first group of journalists to be taken round the recently liberated death camp, Majdanek, an experience he later described as the worst day of his life. 

His reports in the Sun or Evening Standard of the end of August 1944 still have the power to shock, to sicken. What he witnessed during this period remained with him for the rest of his life and his reaction to the rewriting of the history of June 1944 was at once anguished and weary. 

Today, the West debates whether to allow the Ukrainians to use the newly supplied long-range and nuclear-capable missiles to strike targets inside Russian territory (inside the pre-2014 borders that is). Forty years ago, Aldridge’s piece, itself written 40 years after the actual D-Day in 1944, contains a serious warning. 

Excerpts from his article are printed below. It was published in Russian in Izvestia on May 24 1984 and titled: “Pages from History: ‘Overlord’ Today and in 1944.”

The article was translated into English rather awkwardly shortly after it was published, but the message is clear.

“The battle for the east, when judged on the basis of its scope and its ferocity, has absolutely no comparison with what we in Egypt called the war … As a person who had arrived from a small theatre of military actions in the African desert, I was dumbfounded … by the scope of the combat engagements…

“The Soviet Union cannot forget the cost of that victory, victory achieved without that all-encompassing aid that the West had promised … The difficult situation could have been eased by the combat actions of the Allies in the West. But where would the second front be opened? When? Why were the Allies constantly delaying the beginning of the combat actions? And when would the Red Army finally receive any real help? …

“Nevertheless the long-awaited day finally arrived — the Allied armies landed on the coast of Normandy … Many soldiers laid down their lives on the sandy beaches and in the subsequent engagements on the territory of France and Germany. British and American soldiers entered the war in the West, and that was done despite the resistance put up by certain political figures. Young Englishmen and Americans went to their death convinced that the evil that they were destroying would never be reborn.

“However, we learn now from documents that the opening of the second front was caused partially by fear. In the political circles of the West there was a realisation that the Red Army, in its victorious offensive, was far from exhausted and could independently defeat the enemy. What, then, would be the share to go to the West?…

“The combat engagements in the west of Europe were completely incomparable with the battles that the Red Army had been waging. Taking that into consideration does not mean attempting to belittle the heroism and personal valour of the American and British soldiers who participated in them. It is simply stating a fact. Their sacrifices and their glory are betrayed when people forget the ideals for which they fought and died…

“…But they were betrayed … Truman brought from Potsdam Chuchill’s plan concerning the need to preserve the captured weaponry which, in his opinion, like the Wehrmacht itself, might be needed in a new war — a war against Soviet Russia. Is that really the reason why the English and American lads laid down their lives on the sandy shores of Normandy?

“This year will commemorate the 40th anniversary of the landing of the Allies in Normandy. US President Reagan and other leaders of the West will come to the French shore of the English Channel … Let us hope that they will remember the Red Army, that was able, practically speaking, to destroy the Wehrmacht before the Allied forces had landed on the shores of France.

“And let us hope that they will remember Hitler, who once found for himself an opponent whom he hoped to conquer through intimidations, insults, false propaganda, and, finally, military strength. True, Hitler did not have any cruise missiles. But he himself possessed the ‘awareness of a cruise missile’ — the perverted awareness of a killer-maniac. And it would be a genuine tragedy, the complete consigning to oblivion of the memory of those who perished on the beaches of Normandy in 1944, it would be treason to all subsequent generations, if any modern cruise missiles were ever allowed to rush toward the east, following Hitler’s trail.”