Interesting article. I find I do not agree with the author's perspective (a Canadian university professor).
Feels to me to be rather unbalanced towards the Russian view. Just as I don't much care for overbalance towards the "'Murrica won the war!" perspective, I also wonder at any reference to the Red Army "Liberating Europe" all the way to the Normandy beaches. It seems like more recent history shows that the people of Poland, and the Baltic states, the Czech Republic and Slovakia, did not feel quite so "liberated" as the people of France or Holland.
MSM will tell you that the Red Army could not have defeated the Wehrmacht without US Lend Lease worth billions of dollars. What MSM will not say is that most Lend Lease arrived only after Stalingrad where Hitler's fate had been sealed. They won't tell you either that already in 1942 Soviet industry was out-producing Nazi Germany in various categories of armaments, long before Lend Lease supplies began to make a difference.
This, followed by:
In July the battle of Kursk marked the beginning of a great counter-offensive which led to the liberation of Kiev and further north Smolensk in the autumn of 1943. The Wehrmacht was kaiuk, finished, a year before the Normandy landings. The Red Army became an unstoppable juggernaut.
First, I find any reference to the MSM (Mainstream Media) to be a red flag -- it is an undefined term used as a modern expansion of "they say". Authors, particularly those who claim academic credentials, fail the first test of credibility for me when they start attributing strawman positions to "the MSM".
But then, the author seems to see no contradiction in these two passages. First he writes how the whole lend lease thing didn't even get going until after Stalingrad*, casting doubt on it's importance at all. And then writes about how the Russians became an unstoppable juggernaut only in the second half of 1943, without ever examining the question of whether lend lease contributed to the Red Army's abilities to become an "unstoppable juggernaut", and what would have happened if the Red Army was not quite so unstoppable after mid-1943.
And I also take some strong exception to overt criticism of the British for having an operational planning exercise to examine how a fight against the Red Army might go in late 1945.
This kind of thing is pandering to public ignorance. Take some plan out of a drawer somewhere and wave it around decrying the war mongers who were actually planning to attack their allies! 
, the US had war plans for fighting the British, and for fighting Canada! It's what military planners do -- they make plans, and explore contingencies! Having a plan doesn't mean anything about intention, it just means something about being ready in case events change the course you are already on.
I've read the major operational sections of the "Operation Unthinkable" plan. They seem to be entirely level headed and rational. I can't find a single thing to criticize, and I CERTAINLY would not find fault for actually exploring the what-if case.
Yeah, OK, the article offers some useful expansion of typical American history texts on the war, filling in a greater narrative about the Eastern Front. But please, can't we do that kind of thing without all the propagandizing?
* This statement is, by the way, not true -- Lend Lease, even at the relatively low levels it started at in 1942, made a CRITICAL difference in defeating the German drive to take out Soviet petroleum production.
-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)
shows an easy and quick technique for British tanks in North Africa.
