Article

2005-05-09 Home Front: Culture Wars

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by tipper 2005-05-09 11:32|| || Front Page|| [4 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Summary: Boston Globe publishes article by English journalist Geoffrey Wheatcroft who says OK we had to fight Hitler, but did we really have to be so nasty about it? And as for the Pacific war, the Marines were truly upleasant chaps: Still, the Marines scarcely pretended to take prisoners (even when the Japanese wanted to surrender), while the score for Pearl Harbor was more than settled at Hiroshima. And it all shows that Bush is bad, QED.

Posted by Matt 2005-05-09 11:59|| 2005-05-09 11:59|| Front Page Top

#2 "The power to cause pain is the only power that matters, the power to kill and destroy, because if you can't kill then you are always subject to those who can, and nothing and no one will ever save you." - Ender Wiggin

Posted by BH 2005-05-09 12:41|| 2005-05-09 12:41|| Front Page Top

#3 The Marines stopped taking prisoners when the Japs would "surrender" and then blow themselves up after they were near our troops. They would also play dead, then blow themselves up or shoot the Marines in the back (Austrailians too) after they passed by. The Marines then started shooting and bayonetting every corpse they came across. They would also force the few Japs that surrendered to strip to make sure they didn't have any explosives. If the Japs wouldn't do it, they got shot. Kinda like what the Marines faced in Iraq.

Posted by mmurray821 2005-05-09 12:42|| 2005-05-09 12:42|| Front Page Top

#4 I didn't even see the "Bush is bad" concept, except by a long stretch of the imagination. Maybe he made the same mistake as others - about the war starting the day of a sneak attack.

I did see a lot of "for a good war, it was pretty nasty", and we were a lot nastier to the Japanese than the Germans, and the Soviets took the most casualties - and - oh by the way - the most territory.

He noted Studs Terkel called it "The Good War", which would've been in comparison to Vietnam, meaning that the achievements of WWII were more clear 25 years after the end of WW II than the causes and effects of the Vietnam war were when Terkel said it - I'm guessing 1970.

So there is no such thing as a good war, and not finding WMD's in Iraq doesn't make it a bad war, either. This one's better executed than Vietnam, or WW II. More "bang for the buck", so to speak.

Posted by Bobby 2005-05-09 12:49|| 2005-05-09 12:49|| Front Page Top

#5 It's not astonishing that such an idiotic article with sweeping historical distortions linked to modern political potshots is publishable in Boston's Globe. The author and editors would do well to get some remedial education. Perhaps they might want to look into personal accounts of combat vets from Tarawa or Saipan.

Posted by Tkat 2005-05-09 12:50|| 2005-05-09 12:50|| Front Page Top

#6 Just another leftist exposition bemoaning the lack of dead Americans. Nothing new here.

Posted by badanov">badanov 2005-05-09 13:08|| http://www.rkka.org]">[http://www.rkka.org] 2005-05-09 13:08|| Front Page Top

#7 I don't see it as such a bad article--he brings up some good points from different perspectives. The Soviets do deserve a lot of credit for absorbing the most casualties and occupying the bulk of the German army while we got our footholds established in Africa, Italy, and France.

However it should be noted that the Soviet style of fighting certainly led to more casualties than necessary. There was no widespread use of human wave-style attacks with political commissars trailing behind to shoot shirkers by the Western Allies.

I don't care for this statement, however:
Not only did it take the Western Allies nearly three years after the German attack on Russia seriously to engage the German army in Normandy, but even then most of the fighting was still on the other side of Europe.

To that I say: Egypt, Libya, Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, Malta, Sicily, Italy, the Mediterranean, the Atlantic, the bombing campaign... any of that ring a bell?

If we're supposed to feel that our contribution is somehow lesser because we didn't incur as many casualties as the Soviets, I say that's crap. We had different styles of fighting and a material advantage to exploit to keep our casualty numbers lower--and we DID--all the while supplying our forces from across an ocean. I think we should be even prouder for those reasons.

Posted by Dar">Dar 2005-05-09 13:45|| 2005-05-09 13:45|| Front Page Top

#8 Oh, and one more beef--what's the big deal about when the war started? For us, it was Dec. 7, '41. For most of Europe, Sept. 1, '39. For the Chinese, it was years earlier. It's a matter of perspective, and that's our perspective! Deal with it!

Posted by Dar">Dar 2005-05-09 13:52|| 2005-05-09 13:52|| Front Page Top

#9 more here

Posted by rkb 2005-05-09 13:56|| 2005-05-09 13:56|| Front Page Top

#10 Begging to differ, Dar:

Soviet incurred casualties of around 11.5 million. On the Eastern Front the Germans lost 9.5 million.

The remainder can be explained by losses to other Axis partners.

So, losses were about equal between the combants on the Eastern Front, but you can't explain high Axis casualties from 'human wave' attacks.

Human wave infantry attacks did happen from the Red Army, but they were not widespread and routine, and they do not account for the huge number of casualties for the Red Army.

The proximate cause of casualties are, in my opinion and from what I read are:

1) Artillery strikes. Especially heinous when you consider that many Red Army soldiers did not wear helmets to protect themselves from head injuries.

2) Captivity and starvation/exposure in captivity.

3) Poor tactics and interference by the political element of the Red Army (commissars)

Much of the above losses can explained by the dearth of professional officers during the war. Stalin didn't just decapitate the Red Army officer corps. He immolated it.

Posted by badanov">badanov 2005-05-09 14:03|| http://www.rkka.org]">[http://www.rkka.org] 2005-05-09 14:03|| Front Page Top

#11 A good example of US power is this; When Hitler launched the Ardennes Offensive he and his Generals calculated it would take at least a week for Eisenhower to regroup and get reserve troops commited. They calculated that Patton would not be able to attack for at least a week, either. Within 2 days of the German attack Eisenhower had moved 250,000 troops, guns, ammunition et al to positions where they stopped the German advance and in addition Patton was able to attack almost immediatly. They Germans didn't count on the 82 and 101 Airborne being able to stop them, either.

Posted by Deacon Blues">Deacon Blues 2005-05-09 14:12|| 2005-05-09 14:12|| Front Page Top

#12 It's just another 9/10 maunder from the politically correct. All wars, even those for self-preservation, are bad.

Having been there and done that, I can agree that all war is bad. All surgery's unpleasant, too. I put crap like this down to background noise and ignore it.

Posted by Fred 2005-05-09 14:16|| 2005-05-09 14:16|| Front Page Top

#13 badanov -- May I ask where you got those figures? Everything I have seen has stated the Soviets had much higher casualties than the Germans, at 10 million vs. 4 million respectively.

One site went through several sources, accumulated their totals, and found median figures of 10 million Soviet military casualties vs. 3.5 million German military casualties.

Posted by Dar">Dar 2005-05-09 14:38|| 2005-05-09 14:38|| Front Page Top

#14 I am recalling the German figures from memory. Now that I see the compendium, I retract that claim on the German side. The Russian figures from the Rusisan MOD is here.

The 9.5 million I recall from a news group but now that I see those numbers, well I was wrong. but when you add the Axis allies you come up with a total of around 5 million for the Axis side for all nations on the Eastern front, and since I use the numbers from the link you provided I use amedian number as well. Could be higher and could be lower.

Posted by badanov">badanov 2005-05-09 14:50|| http://www.rkka.org]">[http://www.rkka.org] 2005-05-09 14:50|| Front Page Top

#15 Dar: The Soviets do deserve a lot of credit for absorbing the most casualties and occupying the bulk of the German army while we got our footholds established in Africa, Italy, and France.

The Soviets made WWII (in both Europe and Asia) possible, by making a separate peace with Germany to divide up Poland. Hitler mounted an invasion of the West, secure in the knowledge that his eastern flanks were secure, due to the Molotov-Ribbentrop non-aggression pact. Once Western Europe was conquered, the Japanese were able to launch their invasion of Southeast Asia, secure in the knowledge that the European powers that ran the region would not be able to respond, given that their industrial heartlands were under German control. As far as I'm concerned, the Soviets got no more than they deserved - without their deal with Hitler, WWII might never have happened.

Posted by Zhang Fei">Zhang Fei 2005-05-09 15:09|| timurileng.blogspot.com]">[timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-05-09 15:09|| Front Page Top

#16 Dar, badanov:

You guys are one of the reasons I love this site. Civilized discussion with a good debate of the facts. No name calling or other liberal crap. Well done guys!

Posted by mmurray821 2005-05-09 15:09|| 2005-05-09 15:09|| Front Page Top

#17 A few notes about USSR's role in WWII.

We should never, never, never forget that if at one point the Allies had beeen expelled from the continent and were not in contact with Axis ground forces it was due to Soviet Union cooperation with the Nazis.

Remember Poland? Germany attacked Septemeber, 1st. That was dangerously close to the dates, were weather worsens significatively (thus grounding the Luftwaffe). In addition in aa country who was not so developped, and the road network not so good, the coming of the bad weather would have meant the German ammo and fuel trucks having to struggle with the mud. That means the campaign could have dragged into the winter thus letting the Wehrmacht too exhausted for a serious Western campaign in 1940. But the Germans needed a quick knockout of Poland since their Westen border was nearly unmanned and the more time they spent in Poland, the greater the danger for the French government overcomming the pusillanimous Gamelin and the French invading Germany and taking the Ruhr virtually unopposed. And the German bluff was close to being exposed when the Poles counterattacked around the 12 Septemeber and forced several German divisions to withdraw but just when the Poles began to believe the worst had passed and that they could survive until the French attack they were stabbed in the back by Soviet Union.

I will also mention the material help given by Soviet Union to Germany in winter 39 thus allowing the Wehrmacht to be much stronger in Spring 1940. I will also mention the work of demoralization, sabotage (some of them tresulting in the death of French soldiers) and interference on military operations (like civilians not allowing the Frenchy Army to make a stand in their towns) performed by the French Communist Party under direct orders of Moscow. If France, had not fallen, thanks in no small part, to Soviet Union efforst and those of its minions then it would have been far easier for the Allies (German submarines having to deaprt from Germany instead of France, no need for D-Day

Also, when you consider the war effort of Soviet Union don't forget that: -the Soviets didn't built a single locomotive after the invasion: the plants were converted to tank production. It was the Allies who kept the railroad-dependent Soviet economy working through sending locomotives. It was also massive imports of Allied trucks who allowed the Red Army to advance west: look carefully at the pictures and you will notice many of them were GMCs (don't doubt Soviet photographers tried to hide them). I will pass upon the clothing, boots or machine tools sent by the Allies and who played a crucial role. I will of course pass upon the effects of Allied naval blackade, or in those of the bombings both direct and indirect (by forcing Germany to muscle its air defence instead of its troops in the eastern front).

So, let's not ourselves be impressed by Soviet/leftist propaganda: Soviet Union had a major responsability on WWII being as bloody and hard fought as it was, Soviet Union had a major responsability in it being very close to end in disaster, Soviet Union had a major responsability in the woes who fell upon it. And Soviet Union would have not have survived without Allied help.

Posted by JFM">JFM 2005-05-09 15:13|| 2005-05-09 15:13|| Front Page Top

#18 So true, JFM. And one more: from the time the Germans invaded Poland to the moment they invaded the Soviet Union, the Soviets were also Germany's best trading partner, providing vital oil, coal and steel to the Germans at bargain prices. For many reasons it was idiotic for Hitler to invade the USSR, and one of the reasons it was idiotic was that Stalin was giving him a lot of what he wanted anyway in trade and assistance.

Posted by Steve White">Steve White 2005-05-09 15:22|| 2005-05-09 15:22|| Front Page Top

#19 These guys are making academic arguments. To anyone with relatives or friends in combat, the issues are not so academic. To me, what it boils down to is who gets to live and who has to die. Call me callous, but the Axis powers had shown by their wartime atrocities against the defeated powers that this wasn't a joust, fought by chivalric rules. Losing to them would have meant mass death. Against such a possibility, I would kill 1,000 of their innocent to save 1 of my own.

Posted by Zhang Fei">Zhang Fei 2005-05-09 15:22|| timurileng.blogspot.com]">[timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-05-09 15:22|| Front Page Top

#20 I failed to mention that Soviet Union didn't care at all for the fate of those of its Soldiers who had fallen in German hands (1) meaning that its soldiers never got food or medicines from their countryland and died as fleas in the German prisoner camps (of course, there were also many cases of downright assassination: it was Russian prisoners who were used in the demo of gas chambers given at Treblinka for the commander of Auschwitz). Then, in 1945, the surviving Russian prisonners went directly from Nazi camps to Gulag, according to Solzienitzin

(1) And in 1941, millions of them were captured both due to Stalin's criminal tactics and, until it was clear that the German invasion meant genocide, due to a lack of combativity of Soviet troops who thought Germans could be better than Stalin.

Posted by JFM">JFM 2005-05-09 15:33|| 2005-05-09 15:33|| Front Page Top

#21 JFM: And in 1941, millions of them were captured both due to Stalin's criminal tactics and, until it was clear that the German invasion meant genocide, due to a lack of combativity of Soviet troops who thought Germans could be better than Stalin.

Hitler may have been a good tactician, but he must be one of the dumbest strategists ever to achieve major battlefield successes. Since possibly the beginning of time, captured soldiers have been pressed into service so as to utilize their valuable military skills. Many don't really care who they're fighting for, as long he treats them well and he wins. Hitler treated them like dirt and tried to wipe them out, despite the fact that many hated Stalin. What a bozo.

Posted by Zhang Fei">Zhang Fei 2005-05-09 15:39|| timurileng.blogspot.com]">[timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-05-09 15:39|| Front Page Top

#22 You're callous, ZF. ;o)

This diminuation of the Soviet role in WWII from the standpoint of the idealogue is all well and good but consider this:

1) The Red Army was the first Army to conduct a successful offsensive against the Wehrmacht and it happened in JULY of 1941.

2) The Red Army was the first army to decisively defeat the Wehrmacht in December 1941, in the battle of Moscow. Neither the Frogs nor the Tommys can make that claim, only the Red Army.

Yes, the treatment of the Red Army soldiers was criminal, but I do not believe that should in any diminish the sacrifice those brave men and woman made WWII. They are part of the brotherhood of all soldiers and they as well as all others deserve our respect and thanks for what it took to defeat the German Army.

Posted by badanov">badanov 2005-05-09 15:40|| http://www.rkka.org]">[http://www.rkka.org] 2005-05-09 15:40|| Front Page Top

#23 "Apart from the way it was fought, that war was pretty much a traditional contest for imperial hegemony. The Philippines did not belong to Japan by right, nor to America."

When the war in the Pacific began, the United States had already agreed to grant the Philippines its independence. The scheduled year for the handover was 1946. After the war, we kept the schedule. When do you suppose the Japanese Empire would have granted the Philippines their independence?

"...the Third Reich practiced a kind of evil different in kind even from Japanese atrocities."

Japanese occupation policy in China was killing ca. 100,000 Chinese a month by 1945. It would have taken longer for the Japanese to reach the kind of mass-murder numbers that the Nazis acheived, but it was just a matter of time. And Mr. Wheatcraft really ought to read up about a place called Nanking.

Oh, and this business about how the US was more pissed at the Japanese than the Germans? News flash: the British were more angry at the Germans than they were at the Japanese. As any buffoon who can read a basic history book could tell you, there are reasons for both attitudes.

Posted by Pat Phillips 2005-05-09 15:40|| 2005-05-09 15:40|| Front Page Top

#24 "Behind this lies an awkward truth, one we didnât learn in the cheerful war comics and books of my boyhood in the 1950s, but on which all serious military historians are now agreed. From the beginning to the end of that war, whenever the British Army met the Wehrmacht on anything like equal terms, the Germans always prevailed. And that pretty much goes for the US Army too, from their first disastrous encounter with the Germans, at Kasserine Pass in North Africa, in early 1943. American and British commanders always took good care thereafter that they had an overwhelming superiority in men and especially in weaponry before engaging the enemy."

Sigh. Wehrmacht Worship, the strangest affliction of amateur strategists. It's certainly true that the learning curve against the Germans was pretty step for every army that faced them, but I'm hard-pressed to see how anyone could think the US and British armies by 1944 weren't perfectly capable of winning one-on-one fights with the supposed German super-soldiers. Oh, and here's another note for Mr. Wheatcraft: making sure that you have "overwhelming superiority" over the enemy is indicitive of good strategy and tactics -- not of of a failure of nerve or skill.

Okay, I'm going to stop now. There's no point in elevating my blood pressure any further because of this BS.

Posted by Pat Phillips 2005-05-09 15:44|| 2005-05-09 15:44|| Front Page Top

#25 ZF -- Let's not forget how many Soviets welcomed the German invaders in the first few weeks as well, seeing them as liberators instead of oppressors. That changed once the SS and Einsatztruppen came in and let them know they went from the frying pan to the fire. The Germans converted a good source of willing manpower from their own cause to the partisan cause with their brutality.

Posted by Dar">Dar 2005-05-09 15:49|| 2005-05-09 15:49|| Front Page Top

#26 Oh, and here's another note for Mr. Wheatcraft: making sure that you have "overwhelming superiority" over the enemy is indicitive of good strategy and tactics -- not of of a failure of nerve or skill.

Well put, Pat, but I would add that the Wehrmacht did the same thing as well. And it is indeed considered good operational art if you can catch your enemy with a local superiority.

The Russians routinely did attack with massive local superiority, but the Germans used mobile tactics to diminish that advantage. I think Gen. Walton Walker took a page from German defensive tactics during the Korean War in fighting the NorKs.

Posted by badanov">badanov 2005-05-09 15:50|| http://www.rkka.org]">[http://www.rkka.org] 2005-05-09 15:50|| Front Page Top

#27 Pat -- Actually the Japanese did promise the Filipinos independence, and it was to be granted earlier than the original '46 target date set by the Americans. However, by and large the brutality of the Japanese and their installation of a non-elected puppet government subservient to Japan made it a sham, and many (most?) Filipinos welcomed the Allies back in '44.

Posted by Dar">Dar 2005-05-09 15:53|| 2005-05-09 15:53|| Front Page Top

#28 Yes, the treatment of the Red Army soldiers was criminal, but I do not believe that should in any diminish the sacrifice those brave men and woman made WWII. They are part of the brotherhood of all soldiers and they as well as all others deserve our respect and thanks for what it took to defeat the German Army.

Badanov -- Well put. I have nothing but respect for the typical Soviet soldier for what he endured and accomplished. His leaders and his government were almost as hostile to him as the Germans he faced and he still persevered.

My contention is the author's apparent viewpoint that because the Western Allies didn't suffer as much we shouldn't be as proud of our own fighting men and women, as if there were nobility in suffering. I can't agree.

Posted by Dar">Dar 2005-05-09 16:02|| 2005-05-09 16:02|| Front Page Top

#29 Interesting thread guys. One point about the Soviets being the first to defeat a German army. The winter of 1941/42 was the coldest in more than a century. Arguably General Winter inflicted the first defeat on a German army in WW2. That was certainly the view of Germans who fought there based on first hand accounts I have read.

Posted by phil_b 2005-05-09 16:03|| 2005-05-09 16:03|| Front Page Top

#30 It's as I wrote earlier in this thread:

Just another leftist exposition bemoaning the lack of dead Americans.

Posted by badanov">badanov 2005-05-09 16:04|| http://www.rkka.org]">[http://www.rkka.org] 2005-05-09 16:04|| Front Page Top

#31 badanov: This diminuation of the Soviet role in WWII from the standpoint of the idealogue is all well and good but consider this:

1) The Red Army was the first Army to conduct a successful offsensive against the Wehrmacht and it happened in JULY of 1941.

2) The Red Army was the first army to decisively defeat the Wehrmacht in December 1941, in the battle of Moscow. Neither the Frogs nor the Tommys can make that claim, only the Red Army.

None of what I have written detracts from the Soviet role in defeating the Germans. They were instrumental in the German defeat, because for them, it was a war of survival in a way that it wasn't for either Britain (once the Battle of Britain was won) or for the United States. What I said was that the Soviets made Hitler's invasion of Western Europe possible and WWII necessary. If the Soviets had not made a separate peace with Hitler, the Nazis might have continued ruling Czechoslovakia and Austria, but they would not have been able to mount a successful invasion of Western Europe. And the Japanese would not have had the confidence to invade Southeast Asia, including the Philippines. Next to the Nazis and the Japanese, the Soviets were the major villains of WWII.

Posted by Zhang Fei">Zhang Fei 2005-05-09 16:05|| timurileng.blogspot.com]">[timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-05-09 16:05|| Front Page Top

#32 Pat -- "Wehrmacht Worship"--LOL! That's the first time I've heard that description, but not the concept. I think a lot of amateurs look at the German weapons, especially the monster tanks, and wonder how they managed to lose. I've also heard plenty describe that the outcome would have been different in a 1:1 "fair" fight--as if there is such a thing.

Posted by Dar">Dar 2005-05-09 16:09|| 2005-05-09 16:09|| Front Page Top

#33 I've also heard plenty describe that the outcome would have been different in a 1:1 "fair" fight--as if there is such a thing.

Fair fight? LOL! Imagine greater Germany attempting to cross the Atlantic... :) Upper-Middle sized Euro power with weak enemies.

Posted by Shipman 2005-05-09 16:19|| 2005-05-09 16:19|| Front Page Top

#34 I will say that the Wehrmacht was vastly superior in animal husbandry and modern wagon design.

Posted by Shipman 2005-05-09 16:20|| 2005-05-09 16:20|| Front Page Top

#35 Dar: Pat -- "Wehrmacht Worship"--LOL! That's the first time I've heard that description, but not the concept.

I don't have a real problem with saying that the Germans, on a man-for-man basis, were probably the best soldiers of the war. They fought all the major powers simultaneously in land wars and came pretty close to winning, despite being inferior in quantities of both material and men. Much of this had to do with the number of years they had to prepare. Middle school kids had elementary military training that was supplemented later on by a full-scale draft that involved no-nonsense training. All prior to any wars being fought. The US military adopted a lot of the concepts used by the German military, which is partly the reason why Uncle Sam has such a formidable military machine today. The Germans weren't a superior race, but they did know how to put together a war machine. (By contrast, the entire US standing army was 100,000 in 1941, and there were no draftees or provisions for a draft. Uncle Sam geared up fast, but quality-wise, he relied on firepower to make up the difference in training - a level of firepower made possible by superior industrial capacity and the fact that his plants were safe from German attack).

Posted by Zhang Fei">Zhang Fei 2005-05-09 16:26|| timurileng.blogspot.com]">[timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-05-09 16:26|| Front Page Top

#36 Part of the problem was that the British spent most of the war catching up in the tank and anti-tank gun domain. It goes like this: the British Army had to let behind all of its equipment at Dunkirk. The British had to rearm and fast, that meant stopping development of newer guns (the 6 pounder, ie 57 mm, ie 2.2 inches) and concentrate on weapons already in production: the 2 pounder, ie 40 mm, ie 1.6 inches. The 2 pounder was quite adequate for operating in France against the thinly armored German tanks of 1940 but in the desert its short range allowed the Germans to pound it from a distance. In 1942 the British began equipping their troops with limited numbers of 6 pounders (who would have been devastating in 1941) but by then Rommel was receiving the Mark III special (and its equivalent for Mark IV) who had a new armor technology who broke the anti-tank shell and was not easily defeated by the 6 pounder. Of course the 6 pounder was out of its league when Tigers arrived to North Africa after Torch. But by mid 1943, the British produced the very powerful 17 pounders (76 mmm but it was much more powerful than the American 76 mm), but they had no carriages so they mounted it on carriages for the 25 pounder (88 mm) field gun. But the recoil of the 17 pounder was so much stronger than the one of the 25 pounder that it frequently broke the carriage or exited from it (in addition field guns need to fire with a high degree of elevation thus their carriages have to be tall while AT guns need low carriages to make them harder to spot). It was only in 1944 that the Brits began getting "full" 17 pounders (with the anti-tank carriage) and were for the first time since Dunkirk, really able to deal with any German tank. The mounting of the 17 pounder on the Sherman gave the Sherman Firefly, the one allied tank who was feared by the crews of Tigers and Panthers. But the one allied tank some criminal idiot in the American army refused on the basis of Not Invented Here so Americans continued to die when their weaker 76 mm gun failed to deal with the "cats".

We also have to remember that until El Alamein when they got the Sherman (I omit the Lee-Grant) the British had no tank able to fire a decent high explosive shell so British armor was virtually powerless against anti-tank guns.

Other problems for the British in the early years were inferior infantry tactics and the lack of cooperation from the RAF who was more interested in grandiose plans of strategic bombardment than in providing ground support. Cf the near zero damage inflicted by the RAF to the Afrika Korps when it had to witdraw from El Alamein.

Posted by JFM">JFM 2005-05-09 16:50|| 2005-05-09 16:50|| Front Page Top

#37 ZF -- It is, to me, a real paradox that a rigid, controlled, and totalitarian society as Nazi Germany could field such a flexible army. Despite the army's rigid discipline, they really allowed their junior officers and senior NCOs an incredible degree of flexibility that was unheard of at the time even in the armies of the democracies. I think that ability to change the plan based on the evolving situation without having to wait for permission gave them a significant edge in most tactical situations.

I can't say they were the best soldiers, but they probably had the best training and tactical doctrine.

Posted by Dar">Dar 2005-05-09 17:03|| 2005-05-09 17:03|| Front Page Top

#38 Pat, if you want to see some serious Wehrmacht worship (great expression, by the way) read Overlord by Sir Max Hastings (whose father was actually in the war, IIRC.) Normally Sir Max sticks to bashing us ignorant colonial types, but if someone from Mars (or a Columbia journalism student) who didn't know the outcome of the war read Overlord, he'd be solidly convinced that Germany won.

Posted by Matt 2005-05-09 17:10|| 2005-05-09 17:10|| Front Page Top

#39 The German soldiars were good in that they "borrowed" best prctices from the Romans.

Posted by Capsu78 2005-05-09 17:11|| 2005-05-09 17:11|| Front Page Top

#40 And then there is a graet T shirt for sale somewhere on the web that is appropriate to this thread:

In a perfect world,
The Police are all English,
The Engineers all German,
The Lovers are French
The Chefs Italian
and they are all organized by the Swiss.

In Hell, The Police are all German,
The Engineers French
The Lovers are all Swiss
and the Chefs English.
And they are all organized by the Italians.

Posted by Capsu78 2005-05-09 17:16|| 2005-05-09 17:16|| Front Page Top

#41 dar: I can't say they were the best soldiers, but they probably had the best training and tactical doctrine.

To me, that's just another way of saying they had the best soldiers, by which I mean people who actually fight. We had better logistics and more of everything else, which is why we beat them. Even their limitations were understandable - Germany's geographical location was exposed on every side, and wasn't particularly rich in mineral resources. Uncle Sam was bounded by oceans on both sides and the Saudi Arabia of oil. Russia had a huge empire with massive resources inherited from Czarist times. Britain had the English Channel and an empire upon which the sun never set, including India, the Jewel of the Crown. It took Uncle Sam and every European power to beat Germany. We crushed the Japanese fighting pretty much alone with 20-25% of our national resources. If the Germans had stopped to consolidate their holdings instead of attacking the Soviet Union and then unnecessarily declaring war upon Uncle Sam, the Third Reich might still be around today. Unfortunately for them, Hitler decided upon both Operation Barbarossa and a declaration of war upon Uncle Sam, and the rest is history.

Posted by Zhang Fei">Zhang Fei 2005-05-09 17:19|| timurileng.blogspot.com]">[timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-05-09 17:19|| Front Page Top

#42 Matt: Pat, if you want to see some serious Wehrmacht worship (great expression, by the way) read Overlord by Sir Max Hastings (whose father was actually in the war, IIRC.)

I don't think the English have any particular affection for the Germans - a good number think not enough Germans died. But they recognize a worthy opponent when they see one. My ROTC buddies in college thought the Germans were really something, even though they had no affection for them - they thought the Germans did not pay a high enough price in the postwar period. If Germany had anything like manpower or material parity, most of Europe would be speaking German today.

Posted by Zhang Fei">Zhang Fei 2005-05-09 17:25|| timurileng.blogspot.com]">[timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-05-09 17:25|| Front Page Top

#43 This one, Capsu?

Posted by .com 2005-05-09 17:32|| 2005-05-09 17:32|| Front Page Top

#44 .com, LOL.

ZF, I have no doubt that the Germans fought hard and in fact I led off the other WWII thread today with a remark to that effect. But some writers take it to the extreme and remind me of Grant's remark, IIRC, that his generals should stop imagining that General Lee was going to do a double-somersault and wind up on both their flanks and in their rear.

Posted by Matt 2005-05-09 17:41|| 2005-05-09 17:41|| Front Page Top

#45 WOW. Is this a classic yet?

Posted by Bobby 2005-05-09 17:47|| 2005-05-09 17:47|| Front Page Top

#46 Yeah the Soviets took many more casualites but they were the ones that carved up the buffer zone between them and the NAZIs instead of propping up the buffer zone (with UK help hopefully).

Posted by rjschwarz">rjschwarz 2005-05-09 17:56|| rjschwarz.com]">[rjschwarz.com] 2005-05-09 17:56|| Front Page Top

#47 bobby: I did see a lot of "for a good war, it was pretty nasty", and we were a lot nastier to the Japanese than the Germans, and the Soviets took the most casualties - and - oh by the way - the most territory.

Actually, we were a lot nastier to the Germans - we burnt their cities down with 1000 bomber raids and killed just over a million city-dwellers. Japan had civilian deaths of just a few hundred thousand, and we spared the old imperial capital of Kyoto, whereas we burned Dresden to the ground using napalm bombs, killing an estimated 100,000 people, more than Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined. As to battle casualties, the Japanese were renowned for committing suicide (by shooting themselves or charging with fixed bayonets or sabers when their ammo ran out) rather than surrendering. Dozens of bitter-enders were discovered alive in the jungles of the Central and South Pacific decades after the war's end. Nothing comparable happened with German troops.

Posted by Zhang Fei">Zhang Fei 2005-05-09 18:30|| timurileng.blogspot.com]">[timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-05-09 18:30|| Front Page Top

#48 This repeats the standard leftist dogma about the Pacific War, there is nothing new here. It emphasizes the lefty strawman that "Hiroshima was revenge for Pearl Harbor." This is repeated so often on college campuses, and with so little elaboration, that many undergrads take it literally. The idea is to invite the assumption that we beastly Americans nuked a whole city full of innocents as a reprisal for an attack on a military target. Lefty-liars usually also invite the conclusion that these events happened in a direct sequence over a relatively short period, meaning a matter of weeks rather than years. At least that is what many undergrads conclude, just ask some. In that context, this statement is rather interesting:
"Still, the Marines scarcely pretended to take prisoners (even when the Japanese wanted to surrender), while the score for Pearl Harbor was more than settled at Hiroshima."
The sentence order, and the obvious conclusion, at least invite the inference that Hiroshima occurred before the Marines were so mean and nasty to innocent Japanese ~~jihadis~~ conscripts, reinforcing the implied but widely believed lie that Pearl Harbor and Hiroshima were close together in time. If this is not the case, why is Hiroshima counterposed with the Marines' alleged misconduct? What is the point if Hiroshima didn't happen first (that is, what is the consequent conclusion)? In fact, the sentence makes sense if we assume that Hiroshima happened first, it is pointless otherwise.
The unvarying purpose, as with most academi-lies, the unvarying purpose is to demonize the United States, undermine the confidence of its people, and indulge the urge to demonstrate absolute power by destroying the truth itself.

The writer of this piece is not mistaken, he is not naive, he is not confused, he is not someone with a different and fresh perspective. He is a monster, a nihilist conciously seeking our destruction as an expression of his own will.

Posted by Atomic Conspiracy 2005-05-09 19:07|| 2005-05-09 19:07|| Front Page Top

#49 AC, interesting observation about the juxaposing in time of Pearl Harbour and Hiroshima.

Posted by phil_b 2005-05-09 19:14|| 2005-05-09 19:14|| Front Page Top

#50 in honor of a 49 comment thread that makes sense, allows opposing views and treats everyone equally knowledgeable, let me add a somber note: Aris reports for military duty on Wednesday the 11th. Wish him good luck and a learning experience. Maybe the result will be a better man

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2005-05-09 19:17|| 2005-05-09 19:17|| Front Page Top

#51 I could write so much here...

To start with the subject of the piece, it's your standard revisionist crap. It's impossible to understand Hiroshima unless you know what happened at Okinawa and Iwo Jima. The Japanese in effect said "to take ground from us, you will have to fight inch-by-inch, losing people every one." We said "OK, we won't invade then." Hiroshima was more a response to the Kamikazes than Pearl.

As for the "dirty" fighting the Marines and Army did, well, that's what happens when a dishonorable enemy attacks you. The Japanese violated nearly every concept of the honorable war: attack during peacetime, faking death then attacking, mistreating POWs, personal brutality towards civilians... If you are going to fight the US, it's a very bad idea to piss off the Jackonians in that manner. They tend to take the gloves off and follow LeMay's advice:

"War is about killing people, and when you kill enough, they stop fighting."

If a US submarine torpedoes your ship and tries to rescue you from the water, you probably should not hide weapons and kill them after being hauled out. This tends to result in the next sub that sinks a transport surfacing and machine-gunning the lifeboats. Expect the Captain to receive, not a court martial, but a medal, too.

Compare that to the way Germany formally declared war, generally treated the American POWs acceptably (not well, but acceptably), didn't use "treacherous" tactics (clever, yes. sneaky, yes.) Note that after Malmedy, the SS was in the same boat as the Japs. Very few black-uniformed men captured at the front made it back to the POW camps.

Posted by Jackal">Jackal 2005-05-09 19:41|| home.earthlink.net/~sleepyjackal/index.html]">[home.earthlink.net/~sleepyjackal/index.html] 2005-05-09 19:41|| Front Page Top

#52 Going on the Germans, they showed a strong graduation over the levels.

Tactically, they were best, even towards the very end, though in '45, all the green troops did degrade quality somewhat.

Operationally, they were pretty good, but not great. It's just that intially their opponents were downright inept. After late 1943, the Russians were at least as good as the Germans in the operational art (Kiev comes to mind), and I would say were actually superior in 1944-45. The Western Allies caught up and were superior later, fall 1944 or so.

Strategically, the Germans were idiots. I'm sorry, but getting in a war with the British Empire, the USSR, and the USA simultaneously shows complete incompetence. Their one danger to the Brits was the U-boat arm, which was starved of funds and men until it was too late. If the effort spend on the Bismarck and Tirpitz had gone into U-boats...

They were very good at combined arms, and even AirLand battle. Air-Sea was a whole 'nother matter, culminating in the Luftwaffe sinking two DDs. German DDs.

Technologically, they were pretty poor. Oh, sure, jet airplanes and ballistic missile look impressive, but they were unable to make enough to make a difference, and those they did build were too unreliable. Meanwhile, their mass-produced front line weapons, which were world class in 1939, became obsolete by 1944. They never came up with a long-range fighter. Most of the second-generation airplanes (Me-210, He-177) were complete flops. Their tanks were very powerful, but very expensive (their yearly production was about equal to the monthly production of the US or USSR), highly unreliable, and hard to repair. The Sherman was the Honda Civic of its day. Not all that impressive, but cheap and highly reliable. (The tracks on a Sherman lasted longer than the engine of a Panther or T-34.)

To sum it up, I'll quote Maxwell Smart:
"If you're so smart, how come you lost two World Wars?"

Posted by Jackal">Jackal 2005-05-09 20:01|| home.earthlink.net/~sleepyjackal/index.html]">[home.earthlink.net/~sleepyjackal/index.html] 2005-05-09 20:01|| Front Page Top

#53 "If you're so smart, how come you lost two World Wars?"

because they were a small country that crushed their acquisitions so harshly they alienated the populations....the world-conquering army has to smash, then absorb their opponents....IMHO

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2005-05-09 20:18|| 2005-05-09 20:18|| Front Page Top

#54 Ah, the Russians. Quite complicated.

The Red Army killed more German ground troops than all the other allies combined. That's why they usually get the credit for being "the" country to defeat Germany. And if they had fallen, the Allies would have had a devil of a time trying to get back onto the continent; perhaps they simply would have waited for the B-36 to nuke Berlin.

The Germany Navy was 99% engaged with the Western Allies. Far fewer people killed, but lots of time, equipment, and expense (labor, materials).

The Allies engaged over 50% (I think around 65%) of the German air force. They did over 99% of the bombing (yes, the Russians did a little strategic bombing very early and very late in the war). One of the reasons the Germans were handicapped at mobile defense on the eastern front was that the Allies had destroyed their fuel reserves. And, every 88mm and 105mm on Flak duty in Germany was one fewer in Russia blowing up T-34s.

That's all for now. Hope this wasn't too short.

Without lend-lease, the USSR would have fallen. It wasn't so much actual weapons, since those were only about 10% of the Russian native production, but all the parts and raw materials, plus the unglamorous items that are essential.

Food. Russia would have starved without American preserved food.

Aluminum. The Germans held Tikvin long enough to destroy all native production. 100% was lend-lease, and went to their most advanced fighters (Yak-9, etc.).

Fuel. The Allies supplied 100 octane fuel to allow high-performance airplane engines. Germans used 87 and the native Russian stuff was worse. With the high-power engines, Russian airplanes were actually faster than German airplanes by late 1942.

Telephone wire. The Russians were very big on land lines for communications (radios can be intercepted, wires can't without physically digging them up). Russian telephone wire wasn't waterproof (99.9% isn't good enough; it has to be 100%).

Trucks. Count how many tanks were in a Mechanized Corps. Now count how many trucks there were. 95% of those were from the USA. In fact "Studebaker" became the term for military truck well into the 50s.

Oh, and for the quality of the weapons? The Russians thought of the P-39 as better than any of their ground-attack planes (even the IL-2). I'd have to dig out My sources, but a Guards Mechanized Corps (the elite) converted from T-34/85s to Shermans in 1944. The T-34 was better in battle, but the Sherman was better at getting to the battle, or racing through a gap without wearing out and breaking down. The Tank Corps and Breakthrough Regiments kept the T-34s and JS-IIs, though.

As I mentioned, the Red Army wasn't just a huge pile of inept barbarians (after 1941, anyway). They were operationally and strategically at least as good as the Germans after Kursk.

While the Ukranians and Baltics greeted the Germans with flowers, over 1,000,000 men volunteered for the Red Army in the first 6 weeks of the war. They may not have liked Stalin, but they loved Mother Russia.

Posted by Jackal">Jackal 2005-05-09 20:24|| home.earthlink.net/~sleepyjackal/index.html]">[home.earthlink.net/~sleepyjackal/index.html] 2005-05-09 20:24|| Front Page Top

#55 "The Allies engaged over 50% (I think around 65%) of the German air force."

According to Heinz Magenheimer in HITLER'S WAR: GERMANY'S KEY STRATEGIC DECISIONS 1940-45, only 45.2 percent of the Luftwaffe (LF 1, LF 4, and Luftwaffen Command East) was concentrated against the Soviets as early as June of 1943. (p. 192)

The requirements of AA defense alone required 500,000 men at the start of the German Blitz and found 1.1 million in that role at war's end. (p.230)

Granted that many of them were schoolboys and war prisoners, that is still an enormous drain of manpower that could have been used elsewhere in infrastructure repair and manufacturing.

Magenheimer also argues that Stalin was angling to go after Hitler, and that the "bad defense

(BTW, you can get the book from BARNES & NOBLE for $7.99 as a bargain book ISBN: 076073531x. It is dry but extremely detailed, in the Teutonic tradition)

Posted by Ernest Brown 2005-05-09 20:55|| saturninretrograde.blogspot.com]">[saturninretrograde.blogspot.com] 2005-05-09 20:55|| Front Page Top

#56 Oops, I hit the submit button too quickly:

Magenheimer also argues that Stalin was angling to go after Hitler, and that the "bad defense" setup familiar to all of us who have wargamed or read about Barbarossa was actually his preparation to offensively attack Hitler via a "left hook" against Warsaw to the Baltic Sea. Hitler just beat him to it.

Posted by Ernest Brown 2005-05-09 20:59|| saturninretrograde.blogspot.com]">[saturninretrograde.blogspot.com] 2005-05-09 20:59|| Front Page Top

#57 May I recommend "Hitler's Mistakes," by (Ronald?) Lewin?

Posted by mom 2005-05-09 22:30|| 2005-05-09 22:30|| Front Page Top

#58 Heh--I love this site! Everybody has some historical knowledge, their own opinion, and respect for counter-opinions. Beautiful job, gang!

Posted by Dar">Dar 2005-05-09 23:25|| 2005-05-09 23:25|| Front Page Top

23:48 Sherry
23:46 DMFD
23:25 Dar
23:07 3dc
23:04 CrazyFool
23:03 muck4doo
22:57 Angie Schultz
22:49 Glenmore
22:47 Frank G
22:36 3dc
22:32 mom
22:30 mom
22:29 SC88
22:18 crazyhorse
22:08 Pappy
22:01 mojo
21:55 Seafarious
21:45 Barbara Skolaut
21:17 trailing wife
21:16 Frank G
21:13 trailing wife
21:11 .com
21:11 Mike Kozlowski
21:09 Cyber Sarge