Porridge, Tea, and a Goat's Fur Coat: The Red Army Through the Eyes of the US Military

45 056 16
Porridge, Tea, and a Goat's Fur Coat: The Red Army Through the Eyes of the US Military


In the spring of 1945, an American soldier carried a red pamphlet with a hammer and sickle in his pocket. It explained how to hail a sentry in Russian and avoid getting shot when meeting Allied troops.



An American infantryman walked across German soil in the spring of 1945 with a rifle, a canteen, and a thin red book in his pocket. On the cover was a hammer and sickle. Inside, among other things, was a phonetic notation: STOY! Ktaw ee-DYAWT! The translation was immediately: "Stop! Who goes there!" Then came the answer, which was supposed to be memorized: A-mee-ree-KAHN-skee bo-YETSThe brochure was called "Our Red Army Ally" and was distributed to units advancing to meet the Red Army. Whether the circulation was distributed before Torgau is unknown.

The book and its addressee


"Our Red Army Ally" is a 1945 pocket-sized publication from the US War Department: seventy-seven pages, with a scarlet cover. The book was published as part of a personnel information program. It was part of a series of pocket guides the War Department had been printing since the beginning of the war for soldiers heading overseas: to Britain, France, North Africa, and Australia. Each guide explained how to behave with the locals, what not to say, and what gestures to avoid. The guide about the Red Army was the last in the series and the only one to feature an armed and advancing ally.

The publishers were spurred on by the approaching meeting. On April 25, 1945, near the town of Torgau on the Elbe, a patrol of the US 69th Infantry Division encountered soldiers of the Red Army's 58th Guards Rifle Division. The two armies, advancing from opposite ends of the continent, had converged in the heart of Germany. By this moment, the American soldier would have already had a booklet in his breast pocket explaining who the man across from him was.

The preface read:

This booklet will introduce you to a Red Army soldier you've heard and read so much about. It's time to meet him in person. He is your friend and ally, who fought in this war just like you.

The preface, in general, was such a presentation: one soldier to another.

How to avoid getting shot


The most practical section began with the sentry's shouts, printed in phonetic transcription:

  • STOY! Ktaw ee-DYAWT! - "Stop! Who goes there!"
  • STOY! Strel YAHT BOO doo! - "Stop, or I'll shoot!"

Answer - A-mee-ree-KAHN-skee bo-YETS, "American fighter." Further instructions followed: stop, make sure the sentry has heard and understood, and obey the command, "One to me, the rest stay!" The manual warned: a Soviet sentry is trained to shoot when in doubt. While on duty, he does not eat, drink, or smoke, and speaks only on business.

Identification worked both ways. To be sure the man in front of you was truly a Red Army soldier, you had to ask for his ID: a small gray-green booklet with a red star on the cover. The gray-green cover was more reliable than any words.

A separate section was dedicated to the Cossacks: burkas, fur hats, mounted units, a recognizable bearing. The Cossack looks unusual, but he's one of them.






Porridge, tea and goat fur coat


After the military formalities, the book moved on to everyday life. The section on the daily life of a Red Army soldier read like an ethnographic field report, written, as if, by someone other than an eyewitness.

Toilet paper, the compiler warned, was practically nonexistent. The main food was porridge with fatty meat and cabbage soup. Lots of tea. Sometimes vodka with herring on black bread. In their spare time, they played cards and, when possible, football. Movies were shown even in the frontline zone. Over tea, they talked for hours, sometimes all night: about families, about fallen friends, about returning home, to their farms and factories.

Next came the visual catalogue: four pages of colour illustrations with form elements marked out.

The first page: a full-length portrait of a private Red Army soldier. The figure is labeled: cap with a red star, stand-up collar, shoulder straps, wound stripes, "Guards" badge, campaign medals, tunic, riding breeches, boots. Essentially, the soldier had before him a reference book on rank insignia, all labeled.

The next page showed officer variants: a general's tunic, a dress uniform for a line officer and private, and a field officer's uniform. The compiler noted practical markers of difference: the number of cuff stripes, the cut of the tunic. One caption stated: soldiers' tunics have no pockets. The compiler was mistaken: the tunic did have pockets, quite noticeable ones—chest patches, introduced with the transition to the 1943 uniform. Apparently, they were drawn from memory or a random photograph.

The third page showed a field uniform with puttees, a double-breasted officer's greatcoat, a quilted jacket for armored and artillery units, and a goat fur coat for extreme cold.

A reminder to meet you


In its content, "Our Red Army Ally" continued an earlier book in the same series, "A Pocket Guide to the USSR" (1943), a travel guide for American soldiers, primarily pilots and participants in the Arctic convoys. It articulated a general view of the Soviet people:

Like the American, the Russian is eager to be friendly; he does not make a hero of his solitude and does not consider personal questions taboo.

From this premise grew a set of "Do's and Don'ts," of what is and isn't allowed. Don't boast about America's superiority. Don't criticize the Soviet system, and historyDon't swear in front of women, otherwise you'll be considered "lowlife." Value sincerity and equality. Give a thumbs-up sign of agreement. Learn basic words like "Comrade" and "Thank you." The brochure promised that such words, when spoken by an American, would elicit wild delight from Russians.

The Red Army issued a mirror document. The Main Political Directorate of the Red Army issued a "Memo to the Soviet Soldier on Meeting Allied Troops." Of the seven sections of the American booklet, three are devoted, in one way or another, to avoiding the first shot: shouting at the guard, checking documents, and reviewing uniforms. The Soviet memo devotes less space to this: the main focus is hospitality, sharing tobacco and dry rations, and a separate warning about provocations by fleeing Nazis. The emphasis suggests that the Soviet soldier was expected not so much to fear an accidental shot as to be wary of deliberate provocation.

Epilogue


The brochure was produced in haste, tailored to a specific moment. After May 1945, the genre didn't last long: army manuals of the late 1940s depicted the Soviet soldier in a different light, leaving no room for the previous tone.

Today, both brochures are stored in library scans, complete with typos, crude phonetics, and naive illustrations. They reveal how, in April 1945, one army tried to explain itself to the other, just days before the meeting on the Elbe.
16 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +9
    31 May 2026 09: 44
    Thank you for the material, a very interesting layer of history. hi
  2. +7
    31 May 2026 10: 21
    One caption read: "Soldier's tunics have no pockets." The author was mistaken: the tunic did have pockets, and quite noticeable ones, chest patches, introduced with the transition to the 1943 uniform. Apparently, they drew it from memory or a random photograph.

    The 1943 model soldier's tunic had no breast pockets. Here is a photograph of Sergeant M.A. Egorov wearing a soldier's tunic.
    1. +2
      31 May 2026 11: 45
      The 1943 model soldier's tunic had no breast pockets. Here is a photograph of Sergeant M.A. Egorov wearing a soldier's tunic.

      Yes, this is Order No. 25 from January 15, 1943. Shoulder straps, etc.

      Gymnasterkas for rank and file personnel - no pockets. The tunics for command personnel, instead of patch pockets, have slit (internal) pockets covered with flaps.

      But judging by the frontline photos, the soldiers could have had anything. Apparently, they had whatever they had in the warehouses. wink
  3. +8
    31 May 2026 10: 34
    The brochure for Americans contained quite a lot of everyday and other details about the Soviet military.
    A Red Army soldier may not eat sweets at all, but he must have a little sugar with his tea, which he clamps between his teeth as he drinks. Tea serves as both a beverage and a dessert.

    Americans were prepared to expect to encounter many different anthropological types among Soviet people—"dark Caucasians," "slant-eyed Kazakhs," and others. They were warned that Russians wore medals on their field uniforms (Americans wore them only on their dress uniforms, on their field stripes).
    Among the favorite games of Russians are dominoes, card games and chess.
    They warned, just in case, that Russians have practically no toilet paper.
    There were more general comments.
    Talking to Red Army soldiers, you'll realize you share many common interests. These people also want to return to their homes, work in factories and farms, and build a comfortable and happy life. A justified hatred of the Germans and a grim determination to punish the enemy were the driving force of the Red Army throughout the four years of war.

    There were serious concerns that armed conflicts could arise during the encounter due to misidentification (and they did occur, for example, when Kozhedub misjudged the situation and shot down two American aircraft. This also happened during the war, when our forces fired at Lend-Lease tanks with unfamiliar silhouettes).
    There were such episodes at the end of the war.
    Therefore, the Americans proposed in advance to designate a meeting place for the troops in order to avoid such accidents.
    On April 21, U.S. Army Chief of Staff David Eisenhower contacted General A.I. Antonov, Chief of the Red Army General Staff, and proposed establishing a line between the Elbe and Mulde rivers to connect Soviet and Allied forces. General Aleksei Antonov approved the plan, as such a possibility had been considered at Soviet headquarters the day before, and Marshals G.K. Zhukov, I.S. Konev, and K.K. Rokossovsky had been warned in advance of the possibility of a meeting of the armies.

    But still, problems did occur, although not very serious ones.
    "On the afternoon of April 25, an American soldier, waving flags, shouted something incomprehensible to our soldiers from the watchtower of a church in the town of Torgau," reads a report to the chief of the political department of the 1st Ukrainian Front. Our troops mistook the alien speech for German and fired several shots at the watchtower. Only when a non-Russian soldier came down and said, "Moscow—America," was the misunderstanding cleared up.
    1. +3
      31 May 2026 12: 58
      when Kozhedub made a mistake in the situation and shot down two American planes.

      Was Kozhedub mistaken or did the Yankees fly where they weren't supposed to?
      The Air Battle over Niš was a combat engagement between American and Soviet forces over Niš on November 7, 1944, one of several dozen documented friendly fire incidents in World War II. American forces mistakenly attacked a Soviet transport column, killing 34 soldiers and officers (according to a report by General Aleksei Antonov, Deputy Chief of the General Staff of the Red Army). During the retaliatory air attack, Soviet pilots led by Aleksandr Koldunov shot down between two and seven enemy aircraft. The US and Soviet leaderships decided not to publicize the incident, and the US Army command apologized to the Soviet forces for the mistake.
      1. +1
        31 May 2026 13: 41
        "Friendly fire" by mistake is not an uncommon occurrence on the front lines, even among one's own troops, much less among friendly forces from other countries. Nothing surprising.
        The Niš Incident was a friendly fire incident during World War II involving American and Soviet forces. On November 7, 1944, U.S. Army Air Forces fighters strafed a Red Army convoy and airbase near Niš, Yugoslavia, leading to an aerial battle between American and Soviet fighters. More than thirty Red Army soldiers were killed on the ground. Two American P-38 Lightning fighters and two Soviet Yak-9 fighters were shot down in the air battle, and a third Yak-9 came under fire from Soviet anti-aircraft artillery.

        (This is the confirmed downed figure. Yugoslavs observing the battle from the ground reported seven downed aircraft. Everyone involved in the situation reports different numbers of downed aircraft.)
        Among those killed on our side was the commander of the 6th Guards Rifle Corps, Lieutenant General Kotov.
        The incident caused diplomatic tensions, which were resolved when Soviet officials accepted the American explanation that the attack was a mistake caused by navigational inaccuracy.
        On our side, they decided that the Germans were attacking, confusing the American P-38 Lightning with a German "frame" - a Focke-Wulf Fw 189 spotter-reconnaissance aircraft, which surprised our side - spotters usually did not fly in groups.
        1. +3
          31 May 2026 15: 19
          Kozhedub was not mistaken
          On April 7 (or, according to other sources, April 22), 1945, in the skies over Germany, top Soviet ace Ivan Kozhedub was unjustifiably attacked by American P-51 Mustang fighters. In the ensuing dogfight, he shot down two American aircraft. The circumstances of this incident:
          Reason for the attack: American planes mistook Kozhedub's Soviet La-7 fighter for a German one.
          The outcome of the battle: Kozhedub demonstrated his outstanding skill. One American Mustang exploded in mid-air after his return fire, and the pilot of the second managed to bail out.
          Consequences: The incident was hushed up at the highest level to avoid a diplomatic scandal between the allies, so these victories were not included in the ace's official combat score.
          1. +1
            31 May 2026 20: 25
            Kozhedub was not mistaken

            Do you think Kozhedub deliberately shot down two Allied aircraft instead of disengaging when he saw their mistake? Yes, the Americans mistook Kozhedub's plane for a German one and fired from a distance to drive it away from their bombers.
            The circumstances of the battle are well known; Kozhedub himself wrote about them; now they're making up all sorts of tall tales. None of our men would have deliberately fired on their allies, least of all Kozhedub.
            The American escort fighters misunderstood the Soviet pilot's intentions and opened barrage fire from a distance. Almost half a century later, Kozhedub recounted: "The bursts were long, fired from a distance of a kilometer, with bright tracer shells, unlike ours and the Germans. Because of the distance, you could see the end of the burst curve downward. I rolled over and, quickly closing in, attacked the last American. Something exploded in his fuselage, he became very hot, and began to descend toward our troops. Performing a half-loop, from an inverted position, I attacked the next one. My shells landed very well—the plane exploded in mid-air. When the tension of the battle subsided, my mood was far from victorious—after all, I had already managed to spot white stars on the wings and fuselages."
        2. +3
          31 May 2026 17: 30
          The Yankees' navigational "inaccuracy" was between 400 km and 150 km.
          They were very inaccurate.
          The Yankees generally liked to shoot first and then ask who they were shooting at.
          One Yankee hero foiled an attack by Skorzeny's saboteurs.
          Shot at a Panther tank camouflaged as an American self-propelled gun with US Army insignia applied.
          First he fired a bazooka, then added rifle grenades, thereby raising the alarm.
          1. 0
            31 May 2026 17: 51
            The Americans had these "inaccuracies" in mass production since 45. More than one train was bombed in Switzerland, although the Swiss shot down dozens of them there.
            1. 0
              31 May 2026 20: 45
              More than one train was bombed in Switzerland, although the Swiss shot down dozens of them there.

              Not dozens, but one dozen, to be more precise. The United States paid compensation to Switzerland both during and after the war for erroneous air raids—there were no navigators back then, and navigation was difficult.
              In 1944, the US authorities paid compensation in the amount of 4 million dollars. On October 21, 1949, Switzerland received final compensation in the amount of 62,176,433.06 Swiss francs for all material damage and personal injuries caused by the US in Switzerland.
              1. 0
                31 May 2026 22: 21
                There were no navigators, but were there navigators and navigation charts?
                Or did they fly along the White Sea Canal packs?
                And these were not navigators from accelerated courses!
                1. 0
                  31 May 2026 23: 31
                  A map is a map, but the terrain is the terrain. Especially if it looks the same on both sides of the border.
  4. +1
    31 May 2026 11: 08
    form analysis

    Most likely, due to time pressure, they didn't involve specialists in the compilation and made do with their own resources. That's why their sheepskin coat mutated into a "goat's coat."
    A professional tailor, shoemaker, fashion designer, textile worker, or army uniform historian can create a correct drawing and even general patterns even from a simple verbal description from eyewitnesses.
  5. +4
    31 May 2026 11: 57
    Answer – A-mee-ree-KAHN-skee bo-YETS

    With such a transcription, I would have shot...
  6. -2
    31 May 2026 12: 44
    Value sincerity and equality.

    A remarkable detail good That is, such things were already considered false and devalued by them back then?
    Learn basic words: “Comrade”, “Thank you”.
    The brochure promised that such words, spoken by an American, would cause wild delight among Russians.

    That is, it was proposed to use it in a purely American way, like a recipe, like a button.