"It belongs to the very nature of a totalitarian system of the Fascist type that it is restless, dynamic, wanting action for its own sake and constantly devising imperatives."
Goebbels & National Socialist Propaganda
2. jexster - 3/2/2000 12:53:35 PM
Well the new computer is almost here. Should be set up either today or tommorrow so I decided to get started and see how this thread goes.
WWII, often characterized as a continuation of WWI after a 20 year cease fire, is a vast subject encompassing most of what forms the basis of modern war fighting strategy and incredible death and destruction born of the greatest ideological clashes in human history.
So it is that the scope of the Thread will be vast - from Hegelian dialectic to the Holocaust, from guerilla war to the massive battles of the Eastern Front; from Hitler to Tojo to Mussolini to Stalin, Churchill and FDR.
I will be setting up several links in the "butter bar".
Here is a bibliography, annotated courtesy Amazon.com. The ratings (***, **, etc) are mine.
1. Rise and Fall of the Third Reich : A History of Nazi Germany ***
by William L. Shirer
Before the Nazis could destroy the files, famed foreign correspondent and historian William L. Shirer sifted through the massive self-documentation of the Third Reich, to create a monumental study that has been widely acclaimed as the definitive record of one of the most frightening chapters in the history of mankind--now in a special 30th anniversary edition.
"One of the most important works of history of our time."
THE NEW YORK TIMES
3. jexster - 3/2/2000 12:53:52 PM
2. Inside the Third Reich : Memoirs **
by Albert Speer, Eugene Davidson (Introduction), Richard Winston (Translator)
From 1946 to 1966, while serving the prison sentence handed down from the Nuremburg War Crimes tribunal, Albert Speer penned 1,200 manuscript pages of personal memoirs. Titled Erinnerungen ("Recollections") upon their 1969 publication in German, Speer's critically acclaimed personal history was translated into English and published one year later as Inside the Third Reich. Long after their initial publication, Speer's memoir continues to provide one of the most detailed and fascinating portrayals of life within Hitler's inner circles, the rise and fall of the third German empire, and of Hitler himself.
Speer chronicles his entire life, but the majority of Inside the Third Reich focuses on the years between 1933 and 1945, when Speer figured prominently in Hitler's government and the German war effort as Inspector General of Buildings for the Renovation of the Federal Capital and later as Minister of Arms and Munitions. Speer's recollections of both duties foreground the impossibility of reconciling Hitler's idealistic, imperialistic ambitions with both architectural and military reality. Throughout, Inside the Third Reich remains true to its author's intentions. With compelling insight, Speer reveals many of the "premises which almost inevitably led to the disasters" of the Third Reich as well as "what comes from one man's holding unrestricted power in his hands." -- Bertina Loeffler
3. Hitler: A Study in Tyranny **
by Alan Bullock
Bullock describes with chilling specificity how through adroit manipulation of popular discontent, the control of information, and the politics of terror, a madman and a monster inspired Germany to perpetrate the defining horror of this century.
4. jexster - 3/2/2000 12:58:26 PM
4. Hitler's Vienna : A Dictator's Apprenticeship **
by Brigitte Hamann, Thomas Thornton (Translator)
Michael White, The New Yorker, August 2, 1999
Hitler's Vienna tries to penetrate the myths of the dictator's formative years as a frustrated painter in Vienna. Hitler, she says, detested the city's cosmopolitanism and restless avant-garde and took great pleasure in relocating its art reasures to other cities when he took power.
Meir Ronnen, Jerusalem Post, August 13, 1999
Hamann claims that the Hitler of Linz and pre-war Vienna was not yet an antisemite. She believes that antisemitism became a central issue for him when he decided to become a politician and first began addressing audiences in Munich in 1919 in aggresively antisemetic terms. It was then that Hitler, the once weak eccentric who, in his own eyes at least, had become a somebody during the war...began reinventing himself.
Stanley, Hoffmann, Foreign Affairs, September/October 1999
Hamann combines a careful, well-documented account of Hitler's life as a young man in Vienna before World War I with a sociopolitical history of the Hapsburg capital during those years....Hamann must be congratulated on her critical and discriminating approach to her sources and the fascinating double story she tells.
5. 1933 **
by Philip Metcalfe
If you can find it, do so! Fascinating account, almost an historical novel of 1933, the year Hitler came to power, from the standpoint of the US ambassador and other German liberals who witnessed events in Berlin.
6. Churchill, Roosevelt, Stalin : The War They Waged and the
Peace They Sought
by Herbert Feis (out of print)**
5. jexster - 3/2/2000 1:02:23 PM
7. Second World War
by Winston Churchill, John Keegan (Editor) ***
"After the end of the World War of 1914 there was a deep
conviction and almost universal hope that peace would reign in
the world. This heart's desire of all the peoples could easily
have been gained by steadfastness in righteous convictions, and
by reasonable common sense and prudence."
But we all know that's not what happened. As Britain's prime minister for most of the Second World War, Winston Churchill--whose career had to that point already encompassed the roles of military historian and civil servant with a proficiency in both that few others could claim--had a unique perspective on the conflict, and as soon as he left office in 1945, he began to set that perspective down on paper. To measure the importance of The Second World War, it is worth remembering that there are no parallel accounts from either of the other Allied leaders, Roosevelt and Stalin. We have in this multivolume work an account that contains both comprehensive sweep and intimate detail. Almost anybody who compiles a list of such works ranks it highly among the nonfiction books of the 20th century.
6. jexster - 3/2/2000 1:03:32 PM
8. The Second World War
by John Keegan **
The best one-volume treatment available, The Second World War by John
Keegan is an outstanding synthesis of an enormous amount of material on "the largest single event in human history." The book proceeds chronologically through the war, but chapters appearing at appropriate moments focus on particular themes, such as war production, occupation, bombing, resistance, and espionage. Keegan's ability to translate the war's grand strategies is impressive, and the battle descriptions are superb. Generals obviously play a key role in this narrative, but ordinary soldiers also receive proper credit, as do the often-overlooked merchant marines whose heroic efforts to supply Great Britain made the Allied victory possible. Keegan, author of the landmark book The Face of Battle, is without doubt one of our greatest military historians, and here his analytical powers and skilled writing are on full display.
9. The Road to Pearl Harbor; The Coming of the War Between the
United States and Japan.
by Herbert Feis (out of print)***
10. The Hollow Years : France in the 1930's
by Eugen Weber *
7. jexster - 3/2/2000 1:08:35 PM
From Kirkus Reviews , September 15, 1994
Weber (European History/UCLA; France, Fin de SiŠcle, 1986; etc.) skillfully paints a somber portrait of France in decline. War and the threat of war shaped France in the 1930s. Though the nominal victor of WW I, France never recovered from losing over a million dead and over three million wounded. About the inert Depression-era French economy, Weber reflects that ``the spirit of Thomas Malthus ruled over the land.'' With a less dynamic economy and a significantly lower rate of postwar population growth than Germany, Italy, or Britain, France produced a succession of leaders, such as Edouard Daladier and L‚on Blum, who reflected the country itself: conservative, backward-looking, irresolute, and determined to avoid another war with Germany at all costs. Weber notes the familiar diplomatic, economic, and political indicators of France's decline in the 1930s--its fractured politics, its failure to oppose a resurgent Germany, the repudiation of its American debt from WW I, its fatal pacifism in the face of German aggression. But he focuses primarily on social and cultural history. A significant drop in the servant population, greater urbanization of what had been a predominantly agrarian economy, the falling value of the franc, and labor legislation all had transformative effects. Nonetheless, some things changed very slowly. The emancipation of women, Weber notes, was ``slow, patchy, and indirect,'' with women receiving the ability to take legal action without their husbands' consent only in 1938, and the vote in 1945. With France's decline as a great power, people became preoccupied with sports, films, and religion (Weber describes the religious revival of the period as the ``Indian Summer'' of French Catholicism); xenophobia and anti-Semitism became more pronounced as economic conditions worsened.
8. jexster - 3/2/2000 1:11:50 PM
11. Hitler's Willing Executioners : Ordinary Germans and the
Holocaust ***
by Daniel Jonah Goldhagen
In a work that is as authoritative as it is explosive, Goldhagen forces us to revisit and reconsider our understanding of the Holocaust and its perpetrators, demanding a fundamental revision in our thinking of the years between 1933-1945. Drawing principally on materials either unexplored or neglected by previous scholars, Goldhagen marshals new, disquieting primary evidence that explains why, when Hitler conceived of the "final solution" he was able to enlist vast numbers of willing Germans to carry it out. A book sure to provoke new discussion and intense debate.
12. Goebbels & National Socialist Propaganda
by Ernest K. Bramstead (out of print) *
13. Goebbels
By Helmut Heider (out of print) *
9. jexster - 3/2/2000 1:12:43 PM
14. The 900 Days : The Siege of Leningrad (A Da Capo Paperback)
by Harrison Evans Salisbury ***
Reading this epic account of the Leningrad siege (written by an American journalist who lived in Russia for many years), I was stunned again and again by the horrors that the city endured. It is mind-boggling to realize that some of the siege's survivors are still around, almost sixty years after their ordeal. How long, I wonder, could an American city's populace hold out against such an onslaught? Salisbury makes his narrative compelling by tracking the lives of several citizens, utilizing their diary entries and letters. Their micro-histories allow the reader to imagine, briefly, the hell that Hitler and his minions created. Which is not to say that the Soviet leadership comes off much better-- Salisbury is absolutely blistering in his report on Stalin's incompetence and paranoid lunacy. Stalin was quite willing to sacrifice Leningrad to the German Army if it meant protecting his own position in Moscow. And many of the leaders and heroes of the Leningrad community were executed after the war on bogus charges of treason.
If you're curious about the Eastern Front, get this book.
10. jexster - 3/2/2000 1:15:49 PM
15. Kharkov 1942 : Anatomy of a Military Disaster
by David M. Glantz *
Examines the huge Russian offensive in May 1942 whereby Stalin hoped to split and destroy the German Army. The Germans, however, had planned to launch an offensive of their own and attacked at the root of the Soviet penetration, cutting it off and inflicting over 270,000 casualties on the Red Army. This is the most detailed work on the subject yet published.
About the Author
Colonel David M. Glantz is widely considered to be America's foremost effort on Soviet military studies.
16. When Titans Clashed: How the Red Army Stopped Hitler (Modern War Studies)
by David M. Glantz, Jonathan M. House ***
A full account of the Soviet army's triumph over the German army, from the Soviet perspective. Draws on formerly classified Soviet sources to place the war within its wider political, economic, and social contexts, and recounts the offensives and counteroffensives sweeping across a half-million square miles.
11. jexster - 3/2/2000 1:20:19 PM
17 Thunder on the Dnepr : Zhukov-Stalin and the Defeat of Hitler's
Blitzkrieg
by Bryan I. Fugate, Lev Dvoretsky (Contributor), L. S. Dvoretskii
The authors claim that the failure of the Wehrmacht to conquer Russia during the campaign of 1941 was due to the brilliant planning of Marshals Zhukov and Timoshenko.
Synopsis
The failure of the Wehrmacht to conquer Russia during the campaign of 1941 is commonly thought to be due to interference in the plans and operations of the German armed forces by Adolf Hitler. The truth, according to military historians Bryan Fugate and Lev Dvoretsky, is that the Soviets outfoxed both Hitler and the vaunted German General Staff.
18. Panzer Leader
by Heinz, General Guderian, Heinz Guuderian, Kenneth Macksey (Introduction) **
This is a great book by a brilliant strategist and soldier of WWII. Guderian tells his military life with straight forward bluntness that is typical of Generals who have seen the face of war and combat first hand. His tactics of "Achtung Panzer!" and of defeating and defending against the Soviet Army during WWII is rivoting. A loyal soldier to Germany Guderian makes no apology for fighting for the "Fatherland" yet you can tell that he was no "loyal Nazi" either. He was just a soldier doing his duty as he saw best. But overall this is the type of General and Panzer leader that the allies feared, especially the Soviets. As a final comment, it would of been very interesting to see how the allies would of done at Normandy, if Guderian was there and if he would of had full authority to let the tanks and Panzergrenadiers loose at the allies after DDay. The allies are indeed fortunate they never had to go against Guderian or the soldiers under his command.
12. jexster - 3/2/2000 1:22:28 PM
19. Barbarossa : The Russian-German Conflict, 1941-45
by Alan Clark ***
Many histories of the Second World War written by American and English
authors downplay Russia's critical role in the Allied triumph over Germany. Some of this has to do with the Cold War rivalry that emerged after 1945, and perhaps more of it comes from a lack of Russian source material and unfamiliarity with the Russian language. In any event, Alan Clark's classic study of the Eastern Front remains the best book on the subject, "the greatest and longest land battle which mankind has ever fought." These pages concentrate on four major events: Moscow in the winter of 1941, Stalingrad, the Kursk offensive in 1943, and the battles on the Oder at the start of 1945. The author, first a historian and later Margaret Thatcher's secretary of state, suggests that the Russians might very well have won the war on their own, or at least fought the Germans to a standstill, without American intervention. He also makes the provocative point that Hitler's military instincts were often quite good, and usually better than his generals'--contrary to received wisdom. Barbarossa is a reliable and readable account.
13. jexster - 3/2/2000 1:27:06 PM
20. The Longest Day : June 6, 1944
by Cornelius Ryan ***
A true classic of World War II history, The Longest Day tells the story of the massive Allied invasion of Normandy on June 6, 1944. Not only is The Longest Day a pleasure to read, but subsequent historians, dutifully noting its accuracy, have relied heavily on Ryan's research for their own accounts. In short, the book is a "must read" for anyone interested in the D-day invasion. --Robert McNamara
21. Citizen Soldiers : The U.S. Army from the Normandy Beaches to
the Bulge to the Surrender of Germany, June 7, 1944 to May 7, 1945
by Stephen E. Ambrose **
Stephen E. Ambrose combines history and journalism to describe how
American GIs battled their way to the Rhineland. He focuses on the combat experiences of ordinary soldiers, as opposed to the generals who led them, and offers a series of compelling vignettes that read like an enterprising reporter's dispatches from the front lines. The book presents just enough contextual material to help readers understand the big picture, and includes memorable accounts of the Battle of the Bulge and other events as seen through the weary eyes of the men who fought in the foxholes. Highly recommended for fans of Ambrose, as well as all readers interested in understanding the life of a 1940s army grunt. A sort of sequel to Ambrose's bestselling 1994 book D-Day, Citizen Soldiers is more than capable of standing on its own.
14. jexster - 3/2/2000 1:29:52 PM
22. The Two-Ocean War : A Short History of the United States Navy
in the Second World War
by Samuel Eliot Morison ***
A paper edition of Morison's rewrite (not a condensation) of his classic 15-volume History of the United States operations in World War II . A fine scholar, Morison possesses a good deal of poet: of the glorious 4th of June, 1942 at the Battle of Midway he writes that the carrier Kaga "sank hissing into a 2600-fathom deep".
Morison's concise history of U.S. naval operations in World war II is an outstanding contribution to military history. The author served on eleven different ships during the war, emerging as a captain with seven battle stars on his service ribbons. Illustrated with photos, maps and charts.
23. The Battle of the Atlantic, 1939-1943 : History of the United
States Naval Operations in World War Two
by Samuel Eliot Morison *
24. American Caesar
by William Manchester ***
15. jexster - 3/2/2000 1:30:57 PM
25. Marshal of the Soviet Union G. Zhukov : Reminiscences and
Reflections
by Georgi Zhukov **
26. The Waffen Ss : Hitler's Elite Guard at War, 1939-45
by George H. Stein *
27. Beyond 'Monsters and 'Clowns' : The Combat Ss. : De-Mythologizing Five Decades of German Elite Formations by Karl H. Theile
16. jexster - 3/2/2000 1:34:20 PM
Though not exclusively related I love:
The Arms of Krupp, 1587-1968
by William Raymond Manchester *** (out of print)
and for jollies:
The Neibelungenlied
17. CalGal - 3/2/2000 2:08:47 PM
Stephen Ambrose also wrote Band of Brothers, which follows the E Company in the 101st Airborne. If you have kids interested in WWII, the Ambrose books are all entirely suitable.
I watched A Bridge Too Far last weekend, and ordered Ryan's book as a result. Operation Market Garden strikes me as one of those classic cases of lousy decision making.
18. jexster - 3/2/2000 2:13:08 PM
Maybe someone will stand up for FM Montgomery. Maybe someone other than me!
19. jexster - 3/2/2000 2:19:16 PM
Recently read a book on WWII intel - Magic & Ultra - the title of which now totally escapes me.
One of the interesting things I learned, however, was that Market Garden was of a piece with a long history of heated dispute between the US and Brits on zones of occupation ending in the race for Berlin.
Monty's ego came into the picture rather late as a consideration. There were larger political disputes that gave rise to the ill-fated & misbegotten operation.
20. Wombat - 3/2/2000 2:26:23 PM
There are some newer histories of World War II that contribute a great deal that is new..if I could remember their authors/titles.
Other "popular" histories:
Shirer's Rise and Fall of the Thrid Republic. Does for France what he did for Germany.
Ambrose also wrote a book on D-Day. Drove home the role of close-in naval bombardment in a way no other studies have.
Ryan's Last Battle, the fall of Berlin.
Gordon Prange on Pearl Harbor.
21. Cellar Door - 3/2/2000 2:30:39 PM
Man -- what a reading list!
I can't say I'm a "war buff" on any level. I have, however, recently become aware from research I've been doing in other areas, of the enormous social and cultural impact the war had on American citizens on almost every level. So much so as to lead to a general unloosening of what Bill Bennett and similar pinheads would call "moral restraints." In fact I'm starting to believe that the immediate post-war period is shaping up as an "age" not at all that dissimilar from the "Roaring 20's." This is an undertone of several books I've been reading, including "Original Story By," the Arthur Laurents memoir I'm reviewing for the L.A. Times, Fred Kaplan's "Gore Vidal" bio, James Merrill's memoir "A Different Person," Paul Bowles' collected letters "In Touch," and several other things.
Ordinarily we see the McCarthy era, as bringing about its end. But the spirit of the late 40's gave birth to the Beats, and also by extreme contrast, the "Man in the Gray Flannel Suit" -- a "mainstream" culutral manifestation which was criticized the very moment it was first identified.
I hope this thread gets around to dealing with this area at some point.
22. jexster - 3/2/2000 2:44:08 PM
In fact I'm starting to believe that the immediate post-war period is shaping up as an "age" not at all that dissimilar from the "Roaring 20's."
I think so too.
23. Wombat - 3/2/2000 2:47:36 PM
The roaring twenties saw a loosening of some social mores through mass lawbreaking (because of prohibition). World War II's impact on US society was much more profound and far-reaching.
24. cigarlaw - 3/2/2000 3:03:30 PM
market garden was brilliant in concepton. alas, we left it to monty to impliment it.
25. Wombat - 3/2/2000 3:21:12 PM
Any plan that calls for a ground advance along one road to relieve advanced forces is not brilliant (unless there is no resistance). Monty didn't just implement it, he conceived it as well.
26. PincherMartin - 3/2/2000 3:26:49 PM
Jexter --
I appreciate the extended and detailed bibliography.
27. CalGal - 3/2/2000 4:18:22 PM
The third Shirer book I'd recommend is Berlin Diary.
28. cazart - 3/2/2000 4:30:25 PM
Goddamn it.
How can you Moteheads fuck up a WWII thread? Well, one way is to post a listing of an Amazon.com search of 'WWII.'
Jexster, get one the stick. Do an outline.
I. Genesis of War
II. War in Europe
III. War in the Pacific.....etc, etc.
You gotta get these cats to march, Jexster, or they'll be all over the landscape with favorite movies, books, and TV series.
29. cazart - 3/2/2000 4:37:46 PM
In the interest of moving this discussion in a coherent way, this might assist in developing a framework or outline for the discussion.
30. Angel-Five - 3/2/2000 4:46:19 PM
Well, Monty does get shorter shrift than he deserves -- and that's a hard thing to accomplish.
A lof of people don't realize that Churchill had charged Monty with keeping his army intact at all costs. It was Britain's last real field army and the Brits needed to have one of those when it came time to determine the balance of post-war power. The Brits also couldn't afford to be marginalized out of the effective balance of power DURING the war -- so you have Monty trying to walk a tightrope between demanding equal billing and not having the men and materiel available to press the attack.
Of course, this doesn't excuse Monty for Market-Garden. The attack required more than he was willing to give for it, and he wasn't willing to relinquish the full British end of the planning and execution. The result was the debacle that most people know about because they've seen A Bridge Too Far.
To be honest, I don't know how Monty ever got to be regarded as a master tactician. The man who beat Rommel? Hardly. The man who beat Rommel was a jumped-up quartermaster in the German high command -- I for the life of me cannot remember his name -- who for reasons that were strongly related to internal politics refused to support the Afrika Korps with men and materiel. And, I suppose, Rommel himself, who pressed the attack without sufficient supplies and backing from his superiors against a larger and better-supplied foe.
But Monty, wrongly, was a hero for 'outfoxing the Desert Fox'. And Britain had borne the lion's share of stopping Hitler early in the war, so Monty remained somewhat untouchable despite his sub-par generalship and the Brit inability to match the American pace.
31. Wombat - 3/2/2000 5:06:49 PM
Montgomery was exactly what the 8th Army needed after the disastrous Gazala campaign. He had been a highly competent division and corps commander in Britain, and was a master at raising troop morale, and implementing rigorous physical conditioning and training programs. He also did not subscribe to the languid "there's a good chap, why don't you go biff Jerry before tea" mind set that the British Army suffered from. He terrorized his subordinates, and demanded a great deal from them (often more than they were capable of giving). He was also able to stand up to Churchill, which was more than most British commanders could do.
Montgomery was the master of planning and organizing massive set-piece battles. El Alamein was superbly planned and supplied. Montgomery's subordinates, all holdovers from the previous 8th Army commanders, let him down badly.
32. cigarlaw - 3/2/2000 5:14:35 PM
i like rommel's discription of monty. 'he makes war like this...' stamps rt foot 6 inches in front of left and grinds it as if putting out a cigarette. 'i make war like this...' takes several long strides.
33. cigarlaw - 3/2/2000 5:18:30 PM
market garden needed a rommel it had montgomery.
btw, anyone read monty's history off wwii? hell, according to him he won the war and would have done it quicker if we had followed his advice.
34. Wombat - 3/2/2000 5:19:31 PM
Would Rommel's strides be forward or backward?
35. Wombat - 3/2/2000 5:22:20 PM
No one could have salvaged Market Garden. It was Monty trying outflash Patton.
36. spudboy - 3/2/2000 5:34:05 PM
Jex:
Nice start. I'll be mostly lurking, but hoping to chip in once in awhile. I'm not much of a goosestepper, so I'd urge you to ignore Cazart.
I note that your bibliography includes several books on Hitler. I'd also recommend the best survey of the various Hitler tomes, Ron Rosenbaum's Explaining Hitler.
Also, it'd be worth your while to check out what seems to be the best analysis of fascism, Roger Griffin's The Nature of Fascism.
37. jexster - 3/2/2000 5:56:53 PM
Cazart's an a--hole I know but that's OK. She'll never = Ace whom I've been missing BTW.
Buttholes notwithstanding, its probably a good idea to break the War into more manageable portions. Unfortunately, that's not really feasible with this set up as one huge subject thread. Readers would never know which part we were in.
And BTW asswipe, Cazart...the bibliography is no Amazon search. I've read each listed and welcome others to post their favorites so I can read more!
38. jexster - 3/2/2000 5:59:17 PM
Cigar -
I've seen Montgomery's book. From the sound of it I've made an excellent decision in passing it up. What a turd!
39. RustlerPike - 3/2/2000 6:24:50 PM
I remember a course in Tel Aviv U. by Shaul Friedlander, in which he said the Shirer book was unprofessional popular-reading and looked down upon in the academe.
40. jexster - 3/2/2000 6:48:07 PM
I know it has a poor reputation but its accuracy is unquestioned; its scope all you need, and its highly readable.
41. CalGal - 3/2/2000 6:54:10 PM
Shirer caught shit from historians for most of his career. I think that was due in large part to his popularity.
42. cigarlaw - 3/2/2000 7:18:35 PM
jex, yep. we all know it was john wayne won wwii. not some effette brit. my father-in-law was under monty's command for the battle of the bulge. he had some choice epithets for the brits.
i could have made margwt gard4en work. speed was of the essence. i'd have ordered anyone seen drinking tea would be summarily executed. of course, i am more concerned with killing the enemy than my own casualties. just so long as more of them die and i take real estate.
43. Angel-Five - 3/2/2000 9:24:36 PM
Market garden required more mobilization, more speed, more men, a more realistic timetable, and less Monty.
I disagree about El Alamein being a superbly planned battle. He had more force in better repair and better supplies. All he did was use them.
The effect Monty had on the Brits is much more akin to the effect a new coach will often have on a team with a streak of bad luck -- the change itself is much more efficacious than any abilities of the leader. And Britain at that time desperately needed a morale boost. 'Monty the war hero' is much more of a Hearst-like invention of the Brit press than anything remotely grounded in reality.
44. SnowOwl - 3/2/2000 9:34:38 PM
I disagree about El Alamein being a superbly planned battle. He had more force in better repair and better supplies. All he did was use them.
Isn't this what good planning's all about?
45. Angel-Five - 3/2/2000 9:35:48 PM
As to whether Rommel's strides were forward or backward:
There can be little doubt that Erwin Rommel had initiative, genius, and elan when it came to warfare. Those are generally the qualities that make or break a war leader and Rommel had all three in spades. I believe that he, MacArthur, Yamamoto, Patton, Guderian and possibly von Manstein were the only military leaders of true genius who achieved any stature during WWII, and I believe that order best reflects their abilities. (A caveat: I know comparatively little of the Soviet generals and even less of the Italians).
46. SnowOwl - 3/2/2000 9:37:33 PM
If you want to see what happens when you send ill-planned, badly supplied attacks against the German African forces, look westward to where Patton had his butt kicked at Kasserine Pass.
47. Angel-Five - 3/2/2000 9:38:44 PM
Isn't this what good planning's all about?
That would be a part of it but certainly not the majority. Examine any one of Lee's campaigns in the American Civil War, or examine the blitzkrieg into France against superior numbers with more and better armor.
48. SnowOwl - 3/2/2000 9:42:22 PM
Wavell and Slim are both notable by their absence on your list, Angel.
Zhukov's incredible skill as an organisational general is undeniable, and of the Americans I think Bradley ranks higher than Patton or MacArthur. And surely the most effective military leader in the entire war must be Eisenhower. I admit his skills were mainly in being a political general but war is an extension of politics as Clauswitz so rightly points out.
49. ScottLoar - 3/2/2000 9:45:41 PM
Or, look to Jackson's feints, rapid marches, and use of rail to gain a march on the enemy in the US Civil War, all to place the maximum force to bear upon his opposition's weakest or most critical point as badly outnumbered Jackson may have been. Or look to the Japanese race down the Malaysian peninsula - some of it through jungle and all of it fast and on short rations.
50. ScottLoar - 3/2/2000 9:47:03 PM
My comment was intended to support Message # 47.
51. ScottLoar - 3/2/2000 9:49:11 PM
Zhukov clobbered the Japanese in Asia, giving them such heavy losses that they never again took on the Russians, which allowed Stalin to later shift Zhukov and the Asian forces to the eastern front, much to the German's surprise when the massive counterattack by the Soviets was launched.
52. ScottLoar - 3/2/2000 9:49:34 PM
Rather, Germans'.
53. Angel-Five - 3/2/2000 9:51:41 PM
Bradley was beloved by his troops, undoubtedly. That was his charm. But he wasn't as much of a battle leader or a tactician as he was a leader of men, and that's not quite what I'm after.
Wavell is a good choice, but as for stature? Slim?
Eisenhower wasn't that effective of a leader. Sure, he juggled efficiently but his insistence on not doing anything to show up Monty prevented the AEF from achieving some major early victories in the ground war in Europe. Whole divisions escaped carefully planned pincer movements because Eisenhower insisted that US troops not move into areas that Brit troops were slated to occupy (and ended up occupying days late). We aren't talking about things that would have fractured the British/American alliance by any means.
Moreover, confusion as to where Monty stood and whether Monty took orders from SHAEF caused a lot of trouble for the Allies; given that the overall chain of command was Ike's purview, that too reflects badly on him.
54. SnowOwl - 3/2/2000 9:59:50 PM
w.r.t. the points made by ScottLoar and AngelFive on Monty's efforts in the Alamein, one has to remember that the African campaign was his to lose. As long as he could deny Rommel decisive victories, then Rommel's supply problems were going to defeat him. Thus by denying Rommel the opportunity to have the mighty breakthroughs and local superiority of forces that the outnumbered force needs to display, he demonstrated his analytical skills.
Conversely, Patton consistently risked his force for tactical benefit, but little or no strategic gain. With the situation on the Western Front in '44-'45 as it was, the preferable approach was the methodical genius of a Grant or a Bradley.
55. Angel-Five - 3/2/2000 10:02:19 PM
As far as Bradley versus Patton;
I think that the two of them needed each other -- the one to rein in the other, the other to spur on the one. Bradley was certainly cognizant of more political concerns than Patton was. But I think that if Patton had got his way more than Bradley the war would have been over more quickly and with fewer casualties. I think Patton was the only general on the Allied side who was truly feared by his enemies, much as Rommel was feared by the Allies.
AS for MacArthur -- well, it's much harder to draw a comparison between him and Bradley because the two fought in separate theaters in entirely different kinds of campaign. But Mac was clearly a master of where and when to strike and as such the Pacific theater was his chance to shine.
56. SnowOwl - 3/2/2000 10:08:34 PM
I always find it hard to judge MacArthur purely as a WWII tactical leader, he is overshadowed so heavily by Nimitz, and by his own later career.
57. Angel-Five - 3/2/2000 10:11:16 PM
Re: Monty -- I think that time was more of a pressing requirement to both sides than you credit it to be. The longer Rommel went on, the likelier he could convince his superiors to reinforce his victories. The longer the British went in Africa without a decisive victory, the more likely they would have found a replacement to give them one.
Re: Patton/Bradley:
Let's also keep in mind how important the postwar balance of power between East and West turned out to be, and that a quicker advance in Europe by Allied ground forces might have pushed back the Iron Curtain considerably... not to mention served to deny the Soviets the access to German research which propelled their space and armament research programs so far forward.
58. Angel-Five - 3/2/2000 10:12:40 PM
Re: Message # 56 Definitely.
59. Angel-Five - 3/2/2000 10:16:44 PM
I also wanted to add to Snowowl's Message # 54:
This may be true, but then again, such a realization on the part of Monty hardly proves him anything more than an officer of average military aptitude. And some hindsight is involved in this statement as well. Monty and the Brits couldn't know that Rommel wasn't going to be reinforced. In fact, as I recall, they were sort of incredulous that he hadn't been, and were expecting it.
60. Angel-Five - 3/2/2000 10:38:03 PM
There are a whole host of terrible WWII military blunders to be discussed in this thread. The US assault on Peleiu. The lack of decisive action at Anzio. Dieppe. Kursk. The reliance upon the Maginot Line. Market Garden. Kasserine Pass.
But I believe that the strong majority of blunders were committed by the Axis powers, an even greater number than one might deduce existed simply because the Axis lost. Most of these can be directly attributed to idiots like Hitler and Goering, but some of them -- such as the German failure to project enough power in the Mediterranean to enable the resupply of Rommel -- reduce to incompetence and petty politics, pure and simple.
Rommel's offensive wasn't in the overall plan -- Africa was sort of an exile for him arranged by his superiors who feared that while Rommel was around they no longer had Hitler's ear. He gained a clear tactical advantage right off the bat in Africa, despite the protests of his superiors, and with support he could have taken the Suez and beyond. He never got that resupply; while the Med wasn't exactly an Axis body of water at that time, the Germans still could have forced supplies to Rommel instead of sending trickles, much of which was sunk in transit.
While the German failure to resupply Rommel certainly ranks lower than their more colossal blunders (such as the timing of their attack in Russia, their lack of winter preparedness, Hitler's disastrous unwillingness to disengage at Stalingrad, the shifting of Luftwaffe targetings away from radar and fighter bases to centers of population and their subsequent failure to follow through on Sealion) one can't help but notice that it helped change the course of the war to the detriment of the Nazis.
61. Angel-Five - 3/2/2000 10:38:28 PM
Peleliu.
62. jexster - 3/3/2000 1:47:58 AM
WRT links, I highly recommend the Virtual Library one for those at all interested in the Eastern Front.
For the truly hardcore, checkout the section on books by David Glantz which includes declassified Soviet documents galore.
His When Titans Clashed is truly outstanding.
63. cazart - 3/3/2000 8:36:48 AM
The circle jerk continues.
It's a pity, this thread had some promise but has devolved into the usual look at me and the book I once read navel gazing exercise.
Also, let's get into the stereotypes--Monty was a bad, prissy Brit and Patton saved his ass--and the like.
Congratulations. This thread is to WWII history what People magazine is to journalism.
Wabbit, rename this thread to WWII Lite.
64. Indiana Jones - 3/3/2000 8:53:24 AM
Any of you WWII buffs into simulations of the war? Any favorites?
I used to enjoy Avalon Hill's "Rise and Decline of the Third Reich" and "Squad Leader."
65. Dusty - 3/3/2000 9:20:38 AM
cazart
Some have the capacity to lead by example, others are only able to whine.
66. cazart - 3/3/2000 9:25:17 AM
dusty:
There's no leadership here in 'WWII Lite.' I think you realize this.
To just throw out a book title really doesn't constitute a meaningful discussion. Additionally, with a topic as broad and rich as WWII, it is really meaningless if one pursues it without some kind of framework. Look at the posts to date--very, very little substance.
67. Dusty - 3/3/2000 9:31:06 AM
I've read all the posts. Many are fascinating. I'm learning a lot. True, some have very little substance, but they often have your name attached. If you can do better, show us.
68. cazart - 3/3/2000 9:34:24 AM
Not my thread, dusty. It is the responsibility of the moderator to set the framework and keep it moving in the same direction.
As to your learning 'a lot,' it's probably true given your general lack of knowledge on any subject.
69. Wombat - 3/3/2000 10:33:41 AM
Add Yamashita to your list of great WWII generals. Also take Slim over Wavell.
Any criticisms of Monty as 8th army commander must be taken in comparison to his peers in the British Army at the time. What an uninspired bunch! The British at Gazala outnumbered the Axis forces, were better equipped and supplied, and were routed by Rommel. There was a leadership deficit that Monty filled.
Most memoirs are self serving, particularly Churchill's, Zhukov's, and Speer's.
For those of you who like reading dense, academic books, there is a superb and highly detailed study of Khalkin Gol campaign (Nomohan to the Japanese) from the Japanese perspective.
70. jexster - 3/3/2000 12:27:00 PM
Cazart is as free as anyone to whine or to contribute something of substance or, indeed to fuck off and die if she would like.
Perhaps Cazart would favor us with her opinion of the dynamic of fascism as it found expression in pre-war Italy, Japan & Germany.
Was it in the nature of these fascist systems to bring on the conflagration it eventually did? Could these systems have survived with more limited aims? What impact did the imperialist legacies of the Western democracies have on the "have-not" fascist states' behavior? Was the subsequent overreaching of Germany, Italy and Japan a natural consequence of their systems? What of the coup d'etat in Japan circa 1936? Was rapprochement with China possible? Did the US contribute to the Asian War by its confrontational policies with Japan both before WWI and its immigration policies?
There's your assignment for the weekend Cazart!
71. jexster - 3/3/2000 12:33:20 PM
Wombat:
Not only are most memoirs self-serving but I can think of none that isn't. Zhukov's is worse because it had the additional constraint of the Soviet censors. Best to get the last edition - less censorship.
Still memoirs are useful for that very reason. The bias may be irritating but its revealing as well on some very important issues. Churchill in particular for if you read between the lines you learn a good deal about the politics going on in the UK.
Because of bias, however, I make it a practice to read memoirs only after reading 3d party historians so I can place the writer's comments in perspective.
Even then watch out. Most of the early histories of the Eastern Front are slanted because they are based in some measure on the recollections, testimony or memoirs of Germans.
That's why I recommend anything written by David Glantz. He relies heavily on his knowledge of Soviet strategic and tactical doctrine as well as recently declassified stuff to balance the earlier renditions.
72. jexster - 3/3/2000 12:34:13 PM
Cazart -
The fee for your Seminar on WWII is $50 per post. Please remit to Wabbit.
73. cazart - 3/3/2000 12:53:55 PM
Jexster:
Your answers in keeping with the best traditions of 'WWII Lite:'
1) It contributed but was part of a number of other factors.
2) A qualified 'yes.'
3) Again, a minor factor (with differing views)among many other factors.
4) Not necessarily a function of their systems. Depends.
5)Gave rise to dominance of 'total mobilization' faction.
6)Probably not, given the inconsistencies and irrationality of the Japanese Govt.
7)Prior to WWI? Or WWII? Both?
7)
74. Wombat - 3/3/2000 3:42:43 PM
A British professor named Erickson wrote a very good two-volume history of the war on the Eastern Front.
I tried rereading Morison's history of the US Navy in World War II and found it unbearable. So much cheerleading. Stephen Roskill did a much better job on the Royal Navy in WWII. Arthur Marder is another excellent naval historian. His book on the Mers-el-Kebir incident is an unbiased look at an apalling action.
75. jexster - 3/3/2000 4:42:43 PM
Cazart gets a "lite" grade = D-
Wemember to wemit to Wabbit. You should put more effort in if you wish to get the most of your $50
76. Angel-Five - 3/4/2000 7:43:12 PM
World War II has always been a fascinating subject for me, for reasons both personal and general. Preparations for it, and attempts to avoid it, and the fighting and denoument of it took over two decades; the outcome of WWII has exerted an unmatched influence on world history this century. The sheer human drama of the war and the clash of ideologies is fascinating and horrifying, but I suppose one of the things that I find so fascinating about WWII is not only its importance but the fact that we understand so many different ways it might have come out had there been a small change here or there.
IT is such a well-documented war that these 'what-if' guesses can have a great deal of legitimacy to them, because we can see what would have happened if one thing had gone differently here or there.
77. Angel-Five - 3/4/2000 8:13:06 PM
From today's Independent:
'Queen Mum wanted peace with Hitler'
78. jexster - 3/4/2000 10:29:54 PM
Thanks for the post A5. And how quickly she turned around! She and George were quite inspiring during the Battle of Britain.
Have to agree also that WWII what-if's are not only fun but fun because there were so many which are so realistic to play with.
If Japan had attacked Russia?
If Hitler had not gone to Mussolini's rescue?
If Hitler had supported Rommel and cut down his eastern ambitions?
If Goring were such a fat disgusting pig with power?
If GB had been able to re-arm circa 35-36?
79. ilyavinarsky - 3/4/2000 11:26:53 PM
Re the Siege of Leningrad. A novel translation that is gathering dust on my hard drive has this fragment:
Some ripples…. Yeah. Depends on how lucky. This depends on us not. We only have to think of what depends on us…. In Leningrad, we didn’t have any ripples, there was the cold, ghastly, savage, and the freezing ones would scream on icy stairwells – quieter and quieter, for many hours…. He would go to sleep hearing someone scream, and wake up to the same hopeless screams, and when in the morning he descended the stairs, slippery from frozen excrement, for water, wrapped up to the eyes, holding mother, who was pulling the sled with the bucket, by her hand, the screaming one would be lying downstairs by the elevator shaft, probably right where he fell yesterday, certainly right there – could not get up by himself, nor crawl, and no one must’ve come to his aid…. And no ripples were necessary. We only survived because mother was used to buying firewood not in the summer, but in the early spring. The firewood saved us. And the cats. Twelve grown cats, and a small kitten, so hungry that when I wanted to stroke it, it jumped at my hand and greedily gnawed and bit my fingers…. Wish you’d been there, bastards, Andrei thought about the soldiers, suddenly bitter. This ain’t the Experiment…. And that city was scarier than this one. I would’ve gone insane there, no doubt. What saved me was that I was little. The little ones simply died.
80. ilyavinarsky - 3/4/2000 11:27:00 PM
And the city, by the way, wasn’t surrendered, he thought. Those who remained were dying off. They were being piled up in wood warehouses, the living ones they tried to get out – the administration was functioning nevertheless, and life went on – horrible, delirium life. Some simply died, some made heroic feats and died anyway, some worked their asses off until the very end, and when the time came, died too…. Some would get fat on all this, would trade bits of bread for jewelry, gold, pearls, earrings, and then died too – were led down towards Neva and shot, and then the soldiers walked up, looking at no one, throwing rifles behind the flat backs…. Some would hunt with an axe in narrow alleys, ate human meat, even tried to sell it, but died anyway too…. That city had nothing more common than death. And the authority remained, and as long as the authority remained, the city stood fast.
I wonder whether they had any pity for us? Or did they simply not think about us? Simply obeyed the order, and the order spoke about the city, and nothing about us. That is, there was something about us too, of course, but in paragraph G…. On Finland Station, under the clear, white from the cold, sky, echelons of boxcars stood. Our boxcar was full of little ‘uns like me, aged twelve or so – some orphanage. Remember almost nothing. Remember the sun in the windows, and the steam of breath, and a child’s voice that kept repeating the same utterance over and over again, in the same helpless?vicious squealing pitch, “Get the fuck off ‘ere!” And again, “Get the fuck off ‘ere!” And again….
81. ilyavinarsky - 3/4/2000 11:29:27 PM
Has anyone read Total War by Wint, Pritchard and Calvocoressi?
82. jexster - 3/4/2000 11:52:54 PM
Thanks Ilya. I want to visit St. Petersberg more than just about any place on the planet.
And no I've not read Total War but will check it out.
83. jexster - 3/5/2000 12:19:31 AM
Total War 1989 edition is 1300 pages long.
84. Angel-Five - 3/5/2000 12:25:41 AM
I have read some about the siege of Leningrad; that is very moving, Ilya. Though I don't imagine any words can capture the enormity of what the citizens of Leningrad endured, those are very evocative.
It is amazing and heartbreaking to contemplate that a city of nearly three million, with food reserves of less than two months at the onset, survived a German siege that lasted 900 days; most of that time was endured without heat, running water, and any real amount of electricity or food. The citizens were held under the stifling heel of one tyrant -- their own leader -- while another tried to grind them away to nothing. In one winter (1942, where the temperatures dropped below -40 F) over two hundred thousand people died from the cold and the hunger alone. Perhaps eight hundred thousand died during the course of the siege.
85. jexster - 3/5/2000 12:31:00 AM
PISKARIOVSKOYE MEMORIAL CEMETERY
At this sobering place one can truly understand the scale of tragedy that this city (then called Leningrad) lived through during the Second World War (the 900-day Siege of Leningrad). For over 2 and a half years the Nazis kept Leningrad under siege, but its heroic defenders, both soldiers and civilians, did not surrender.
In St. Petersburg we take pride in the fact that during almost 300 years of the city's history enemy forces have never taken the city.
Hundreds of thousands of people died in the city (mostly of cold and starvation) during the siege. About half a million of them, including 420 thousand civilians, are buried in the cemetery's 186 mass graves. The slightly raised mounds are marked by year and a long alley leads the visitor to a monument with a statue of the Motherland, portrayed as a grieving woman. Many of St Petersburg families come to the cemetery once or twice a year to bring flowers and pay tribute to the city's defenders, perhaps to members of their own family, who died during the Siege, which the Russians call Blokada
Near the entrance there is an eternal flame, where everyone stops insilent mourning and two pavilions, with an exhibit of photographs that need no captions. During summer time Russians drop coins into the little ponds and the money goes for maintenance.
86. Angel-Five - 3/5/2000 12:40:55 AM
Five hundred thousand.
Imagine that. That's something like a solid stack of bodies five hundred feet wide, five hundred feet long, and fifty feet high. IIRC the Russians just left them stacked up until the ground would thaw enough to bury them in the spring, and then draft people to dig mass graves and throw the bodies in.
87. Angel-Five - 3/5/2000 12:45:30 AM
I don't think that either the Nazis or Stalin even gave the citizens and soldiers a chance to surrender, Jexter. I may be wrong, but I thought that Hitler ordered that no surrender from Leningrad be accepted, and I'm pretty sure Stalin ordered that anyone attempting to surrender would be shot.
88. jexster - 3/5/2000 1:16:00 AM
A5 -
You are correct as far as I have read. Hitler planned to massacre everyone and the Leningrad authorities had detailed plans - concrete works, tank barriers, trenches, lines of fire all in place for an expected assault.
Any talk of surrender would have been considered treason
89. Angel-Five - 3/5/2000 1:43:15 AM
Jexster:
Have you read Eisenhower's Lieutenants by Russell Weigley? Thick as rock but lots of good day-to-day info about the ground campaign in Europe.
Did you have a plan for where to first tackle WWII in this discussion?
90. jexster - 3/5/2000 2:23:33 AM
Did you have a plan for where to first tackle WWII in this discussion?
Short answer is "no". If there is enough interest Wabbit might break this up into something like, off the top of my head:
- Origins
-Military Campaigns - Europe
- Military Campaigns - Asia
- Big Three Relations
- Holocaust
- Immediate Post-War (Nurmberg, UN, NATO, Marshall Plan etc)
Otherwise its a free for all.
91. Angel-Five - 3/5/2000 3:44:35 AM
We ought to be able to hit those pretty well; there's lots of knowledgeable people for each topic here. But you don't need Wabbit to do that for you -- you should be able to change the heading yourself as suits your need.
92. jexster - 3/5/2000 11:53:11 PM
Damned if I can't!. Damned if I didn't.
We now speak of events leading up to WWII - personalities, politics, ideologies, sociological changes, economics, military whatever. Just don't go beyond 1939 please.
We'll see how this goes.
93. AytchMan - 3/6/2000 3:05:41 AM
jexster--
OK, here goes -- how's this for a radical notion?
The Maginot Line was a screaming success. With one forgotten exception (which gave me the idea), I've never read a defense of the Maginot Line anywhere. Indeed, everyone today uses the phrase as a synonym for costly failure. Well, I beg to differ. Here's the argument:
While it nearly bankrupted the moribund French economy, the Line brilliantly achieved exactly what it was built for: to deter and deflect a German attack. That the French failed miserably in the Ardennes and elsewhere is a separate issue. Except for a couple of feints to distract the French at the outset of the attack into the Ardennes, the Germans completely ignored the Line until the Battle of France was nearly over. Only then, with the French desperately drawing troops to shore up a ragged line south of Paris, did the Germans break into the Maginot forts.
During construction, I think the French actually considered extending the ML into the Ardennes. If they had been able to scrape up a few more francs for that, the course of the war would almost certainly have been very different.
Let loose the electrons of discussion. I'll chip in as I can but this week looks busy.
94. AytchMan - 3/6/2000 4:59:23 AM
A clarification:
Since the Maginot Line was built before the war, I posted the previous message. But since the results were not determined until 1940, you may want to postpone discussion until later. Please advise.
95. PelleNilsson - 3/6/2000 6:54:15 AM
Something I would like to discuss is Hitler's original plan. On the surface it looks simple: to restore Gemany to pre-WWI status and fulfill the unification by adding Austria. Hitler did not want a war with France and England, at least not in the near future. But how could he gain Alsace-Lorraine without a war?
If the above is a mimimum plan was there a maximum one too? Incorporate all of the former Austrian Empire? Take over all of Poland, and perhaps Ukraine?
Or wasn't there any plan at all? Was it all a question of opportunism?
96. cazart - 3/6/2000 8:49:35 AM
Message # 90
Hmmmm.....sounds familiar. Could it be an echo from Message # 28 or Message # 29?
Otherwise 'WWII Lite' continues in this vein:
Gee, I like Prange better than Toland
Toland's really good.
A lot of people died in WWII
I'll say. Did you see Saving Private Ryan?
I cried when Tom Hanks got shot.
97. Angel-Five - 3/6/2000 9:30:53 AM
I actually want to amend something I said earlier -- about Wavell and Slim being candidates for the group of best war leaders to come out of the combat of WWII. The more I think about Slim, even though he committed some embarrassing blunders early on, he probably deserves a nod. And the more I think about Wavell, the more I actually wonder what ever he could have done to deserve such an accolade. He lost to Rommel twice and he didn't accomplish much of anything in SE Asia that I can remember.
98. Angel-Five - 3/6/2000 10:01:38 AM
It's commonly accepted that WWII was an inevitable consequence of the incomplete resolution of WWI -- that the economic and social condition Germany found itself in following its incomplete defeat in WWI set the stage, sooner or later, for a second future war against the Germans. To me this seems obviously true.
What isn't true for me is that the campaign necessarily had to be against a fascist Germany, let alone a virulently anti-Semitic state which in the common imagination has come to personify unmatched cruelty and malice. And we have to ask -- if we had done things differently in the years between the world wars, would we have faced a tougher fight or an easier?
Germany in the years leading up to the second war was ripe for a demagogue to lead them. The point has been made in the past that most other leaders would not have taken the crazy gambles that Hitler did in the early years (occupying 'traditionally German' territory) and there's probably some truth to this. But one also has to realize that a) the core of German power and industry would have not been terribly weakened if they had never occupied the Rhineland or the Sudetenland,
b)there would have been much less of a push on the part of the Allies to rearm without such aggressive seizures, and c) even if Hitler gave the Nazi state a strong early advantage, his insistence on calling all the military shots was the Nazi death knell.
So it would seem that a Hitlerian Germany might have been our best bet for a beatable opponent in WWII. Hitler commanded fanatic loyalty, but other demagogues might well have done the same.
99. Angel-Five - 3/6/2000 10:06:36 AM
Let's not forget that if it weren't for the fascists in Germany there would have been little to stop the Communists from assuming control. People don't speak much of that now but it was a real possibility in those days that communist insurgency in Germany would triumph. It's one of the reasons that the fascists were tolerated.
As horrible as WWII was, I can only think that a second world war of Allies vs the communist Soviets and Germans would have been much, much worse -- and much, much longer. The only redemptive factor would be that maybe there would have been no Holocaust.
100. PelleNilsson - 3/6/2000 10:13:06 AM
I cannot accept your premise in the first para that WWII was an inevitable consequence of WWI. I don't believe in historical determinism, and I don't think any respectable historian does either.
101. Angel-Five - 3/6/2000 10:17:29 AM
Bully for you, then, Pelle. What do you perceive that could have been done to forestall a second world war where Germany fought against the bulk of the Allies?
102. Angel-Five - 3/6/2000 10:18:52 AM
A proviso: Assume that the resolution at Versailles, including reparations and strictures, does not change.
103. ScottLoar - 3/6/2000 10:24:05 AM
Would the learned historians find The World War, Phases I & II more palatable? Or do you believe the two events totally unrelated, independent in origin, just coincidentally again ranging the interests of Germany against those of Britain, France and Russia? And that the US would never have been involved in the European land war save the bombing of Pearl Harbor?
104. PelleNilsson - 3/6/2000 10:30:53 AM
Well, Angel, we cannot wade through all of German domestic policies 1919-1933, but there were a great deal of occasions when developments could have taken another turn, the last one when the foolish von Papen persuaded Hindenburg to appoint Hitler as Chancellor, in spite of the fact that the Nazis had lost voters (I think -- I don't have any reference available now).
We cannot, in my view, exclude that democracy could have taken hold in Germany and that it could have come to terms with its defeat in WWI, just as it did for WWII.
105. Angel-Five - 3/6/2000 10:48:01 AM
Von Papen convinced Hindenburg to make Hitler the Chancellor because everyone was deathly afraid of Communism. One way or the other it would have happened.
Germany after WWII had a bombed-out country, a thoroughly destroyed power structure that was busily being hunted throughout the world by international tribunals, and huge floods of Marshall money. It was also occupied by foreign troops, had had the Holocaust forcibly shoved into its face -- and even then it took the Germans a LONG time to deal with their guilt, as evidenced by the fact that many ex-Nazis were 'sanitized' and incorporated into the West German power-structure.
Compare that to post-WWI Germany with massive inflation, a toothless central leadership, war reparations and humiliating strictures upon its abilities to function on a sovereign state, a strong Communist insurgency AND the notion that Germany hadn't truly been defeated by its foes.
No. I'll accept that there's some very small probability that WWII would have been thorooughly avoided or even largely avoided through chance, but only a probability small enough that it makes little sense to even address it.
106. PelleNilsson - 3/6/2000 10:56:35 AM
Yes, the central leadership was "toothless". My point is that it didn't need to be. But you are right, as a discussion subject this is not very profitable. Any thoughts on Message # 95?
I have to go offline for a while now.
107. Jenerator - 3/6/2000 11:24:08 AM
Res,
"Let's not forget that if it weren't for the fascists in Germany there would have been little to stop the Communists from assuming control. People don't speak much of that now but it was a real possibility in those days that communist insurgency in Germany would triumph. It's one of the reasons that the fascists were tolerated."
I've never heard of this before. How much of a threat was the Communist presence in Germany? If anything, the social conditions seemed ripe for a totalitarian/fascist government more than anything else.
108. Jenerator - 3/6/2000 12:03:13 PM
>> An American soldier, serving in World War II, had just returned from several weeks of intense action on the German front lines. He had finally been granted R&R and was on a train bound for London.
>> The train was very crowded, so the soldier walked the length of
the train, looking for an empty seat. The only unoccupied seat was directly adjacent to a well dressed middle aged lady and was being used by her little dog.
>>The war weary soldier asked, "Please, ma'am, may I sit in that seat?"
>>The English woman looked down her nose at the soldier, sniffed
and said, "You Americans. You are such a rude class of people. Can't you see my little Fifi is using that seat?"
>>The soldier walked away, determined to find a place to rest, but
after another trip down to the end of the train, found himself again
facing the woman with the dog. Again he asked, "Please, lady. May I sit there? I'm very tired."
>>The English woman wrinkled her nose and snorted, "You Americans! Not only are you rude, you are also arrogant. Imagine!"
>>The soldier didn't say anything else. He leaned over, picked up the little dog, tossed it out the window of the train and sat down in the empty seat.
>>The woman shrieked and demanded that someone defend her and
chastise the soldier.
>>An English gentleman sitting across the aisle spoke up, "You know,
sir, you Americans do seem to have a penchant for doing the wrong thing. You eat holding the fork in the wrong hand. You drive your autos on the wrong side of the road. And now, sir, you've thrown the wrong bitch out of the window."
109. Angel-Five - 3/6/2000 12:10:51 PM
Zara
The Communist threat was about equal, a little less than equal actually, in most cases than the fascist threat. The two ideologies are natural enemies and fascism had an ideological edge in Germany but the Communists had the Comintern and the Sovs. People in favor of neither side generally abhorred both but trusted nationalist fascism a little more than the R
110. Angel-Five - 3/6/2000 12:11:17 PM
a little more than bolshevism.
111. Angel-Five - 3/6/2000 12:24:35 PM
As far as Hitler's plan, I think it was opportunism, plain and simple, informed by 'Ein Volk, Ein Reich ... Ein Welt, Ein Sonnensystem, Ein Galaxie ... Ein Fuhrer'. I think he genuinely wanted to rule everything he could reach and have it populated by ethnic Germans. I have seen people suggest that his attacks on some other countries were the fruit of his paranoia, but I think he at first set out to build a Greater Germany and then decided he wanted the whole enchilada.
112. Jenerator - 3/6/2000 12:32:18 PM
Res,
I know Zara personally, and yes we're two distinct people. She knows a whole lot more about WW2 than I do, but it is something I'm interested in, whether or not you persist in claiming we're the same person. I have questions. How are fascism and communism natural enemies in your opinion? And wouldn't you say that those Germans in favor of neither fascism nor Communism preferring "national fascism" actually preferred what they thought was German nationalism?
113. Jenerator - 3/6/2000 12:34:11 PM
"I have seen people suggest that his attacks on some other countries were the fruit of his paranoia, but I think he at first set out to build a Greater Germany and then decided he wanted the whole enchilada."
I agree, and didn't Hitler's nationalism include a concept of 'living space'?
114. Angel-Five - 3/6/2000 12:48:13 PM
Re: Zara
Whatever.
Re: 'national fascism'
Well, obviously, they preferred neither, but the fears of a fascist government were there all along. Maybe some thought they could just get away with a strongly nationalist government, but don't forget that Mein Kampf was already out then and it was pretty frickin' plain as to what Hitler wanted.
As to why fascism and communism are natural enemies -- economics.
115. Angel-Five - 3/6/2000 1:01:31 PM
Also keep in mind that fascism wasn't a German invention. The powers that be had Italy to examine. The Weimar rulership was toothless, the German economy was in tatters, and Hitler wanted to centralize power while jackbooted Sturmtruppen marched at his beck and call and fought with the Communists in the streets, both sides aching for a revolution.
No, I think that even the optimists knew that they were looking at a change a lot more profound than simply having a nationalist government when they considered Hitler as a compromise candidate for chancellor.
116. jexster - 3/6/2000 1:25:03 PM
Well it appears the more focused format's better.
Have fun.
117. jexster - 3/6/2000 1:28:06 PM
The Maginot Line was a screaming success.
It certainly was. The problem was with the false sense of security it gave the French and the ammunition it gave the Socialists and other opponents of re-armament in the 1930's.
The Line was enveloped from the rear, the main thrust of course coming through the Ardennes and through Belgium where for various reasons, primarily finanicial the Line did not exist.
118. jexster - 3/6/2000 1:29:21 PM
AM -
Its OK to talk off topic as it were. As I said, your Maginot Line Post can easily relate to what happened or didn't happen in France in the 20's & 30's
119. cazart - 3/6/2000 1:33:50 PM
Well it appears the more focused format's better.
Only took you about a week and 90 posts to figure that one out, Clausewitz.
120. Angel-Five - 3/6/2000 1:42:33 PM
That'd make him a much quicker study than you, Cazart. Anyone who's bitched about the content of a thread for that length of time and not though of one interesting or intelligent thing to say is definitely second place to someone who can change their mind as need be. Is it just that you're out of your depth in a WWII thread or are you only disposed to complain in this thread because you're generally despised here?
121. cmboyce - 3/6/2000 2:01:53 PM
I have the impression that the German Communists had pretty effectively shot their wad with the spate of "People's Republics" (and attempts at them) right after the first war. The left was then committed to Weimar, and fascism and its allies on the "old" right, fought to weaken this establishment through the 20s.
Incidentally, wrt the proposition that a Communist, and thus Hitlerless Germany—which I quite agree would have been harder to defeat, at least if allied with Russia—would have necessarily involved the (compensating) absence of the Holocaust, I don't think this follows with anything like inevitability. Communism, especially in Russia, has shown no marked indisposition toward pogrom-as-policy.,
122. cazart - 3/6/2000 2:18:05 PM
Really, A-5? You call a rote recitation of a syllabus an interesting or intelligent discussion? Or a disjointed and ill-advised precis of Montgomery's campaigns, which was likely based on a movie portrayal?
The new format--one which I suggested eons ago--has promise. And I will participate when the more simplistic views of WWII's origins are exhausted. Until then, you can put your head up your ass where it belongs.
123. Angel-Five - 3/6/2000 2:26:44 PM
You call a rote recitation of a syllabus an
interesting or intelligent discussion?
(laughing) Hardly what's happened here, but even so, that's much more interesting than a would-be village idiot mouthing such pithy aphorisms as 'WWII Lite' and 'Say, seen Private Ryan?' in a frantic attempt to be noticed. Such rapier-like wit and poker-faced subtlety is only matched in these parts by Rosettastone, who would be hard put to outsmart my dog, and that speaks poorly of you both indeed.
If you think Montgomery has been maligned in this thread, well, then, Herr Docktor, 'splain away. But don't think this 'I'm saving all my intelligent speech for marriage' tripe is fooling anyone, except maybe you.
124. cigarlaw - 3/6/2000 2:29:56 PM
how about the origins of wwii lay in germany's national infiority complex/give a derman a uniform and beat a drum and they wou;d do it again--hence the troops we still keep there. hell, against the russians in the 50s, 60s, 70s amd 80s a girlscout troop would have sufficed.
125. cigarlaw - 3/6/2000 2:29:59 PM
how about the origins of wwii lay in germany's national infiority complex/give a derman a uniform and beat a drum and they wou;d do it again--hence the troops we still keep there. hell, against the russians in the 50s, 60s, 70s amd 80s a girlscout troop would have sufficed.
126. cigarlaw - 3/6/2000 2:30:02 PM
how about the origins of wwii lay in germany's national infiority complex/give a derman a uniform and beat a drum and they wou;d do it again--hence the troops we still keep there. hell, against the russians in the 50s, 60s, 70s amd 80s a girlscout troop would have sufficed.
127. PelleNilsson - 3/6/2000 2:31:30 PM
The thread holds its collective breath waiting for cazart to explain wie es eigentlich gewesen war (what really happened -- program of Ranke and his school of historians).
128. cazart - 3/6/2000 2:34:00 PM
Take a look at the posts to date, A-5. I guarantee that over half are just book recommendations with no supporting explanation. It's navel-gazing; it's to say Look, I read a book on WWII. Look everyone.
This thread, until recently, has been 'WWII Lite.' Starting with the origins is a promising, if not a logical, step in the right direction.
So kiss my ass, A-5. You've not exactly lit up this thread with your brilliance.
129. cazart - 3/6/2000 2:34:49 PM
Ahhh....Farmor Pelle weighs in.
130. PelleNilsson - 3/6/2000 2:38:26 PM
I would say that Angel's description of the situation in the 20's and early 30's is correct (I'm not patronizing). The failure of the Weimar republic can be summarised as the centre didn't hold.
131. PelleNilsson - 3/6/2000 2:40:32 PM
Or, perhaps, Pelle, the Conqueror. Watch it mate.
132. cazart - 3/6/2000 2:44:08 PM
Message # 130 Well, no shit. This is pretty obvious whenever either extreme prevails. But it tells us nothing.
Message # 131 Watch what, Farmor?
133. PelleNilsson - 3/6/2000 4:16:30 PM
Hindenburg, Paul von, twice the agent of Germany's destruction.
134. Angel-Five - 3/6/2000 6:50:09 PM
Boyce:
Sorry, mised your post until just now.
I didn't suggest that a Communist Germany would have necessarily avoided a Holocaust. That and 'inevitability' are not in what I said -- I believe I mentioned that the Holocaust would possibly have been avoided.
But you have to look at it like this -- there were many more Jewish intellectuals for Communism in Germany than there were for fascism, and the Communist propaganda already had a wonderful set of scapegoats set up --'wreckers' and imperialists. They had very little impetus to do what Hitler did to the Jews. The Communist track record with Jews is admittedly not that great but I think one can say with reasonable assurance that 6 million plus Jews would not have died in a Communist Germany the way they did under the Nazis, let alone in the horrible callous way they did die.
Of course, you have to balance this against the number of other people who would have died in a world war between a communist Germany, Soviet Union, and in all likelihood a subjugated Eastern Europe on one side and the Allies on the other.
One wonders what would have happened to Italy -- would it have gone the way of Spain? And one wonders whether the Japanese would have attacked Pearl Harbor under those conditions.
135. Angel-Five - 3/6/2000 6:52:53 PM
In fact, I think it's really rather doubtful that the Allies could have won that war.
136. Angel-Five - 3/6/2000 11:47:31 PM
Pelle:
I think it's a little unfair to blame Hindenburg for Hitler's rise to the Chancellorship in Germany. Hindenburg loathed Hitler and indeed did just about everything he could to keep him from that post.
Out of all the people who vied for Chancellor -- Schleicher, von Papen, and Hitler -- only the last one appeared to have any real backing from the people. Schleicher was pretty much done politically because he'd tried to break Hitler's hold on power and failed, and von Papen was (though he really didn't know it yet) firmly in Hitler's grasp. There wasn't really anyone else primed at the moment to take power, and the stasis of government had the entire country at the boiling point.
In addition, the Nazis had the backing of German industry because they believed he'd make them all a lot of marks. And he had the backing of the military, because Hitler promised to tear up the treaty of Versailles and rearm. And he enjoyed popular support due to his skilled use of propaganda and public speaking techniques that bordered on brainwashing.
Hitler promised something for everyone -- he'd make Germany great again, rich again, mighty again, above all he'd keep the Communists down and he'd punish the Jews, who were of course his convenient scapegoat for most of what was internally wrong with Germany -- and in the terrible depression when governments kept dissolving and new votes kept being called and government (thanks largely to the machinations of the Nazis under Goring) had ground to a standstill, those promises resonated in a lot of German ears. There was little food, little work, less hope, and the everpresent fear of Bolshevism (which was, along with the accompanying unionization, something that the industrialists feared a great deal).
137. Angel-Five - 3/6/2000 11:48:17 PM
The Nazis had indeed lost ground in the last election for several reasons relating to Hitler's state of mind and internal strife within the party, but they hadn't lost enough -- and Gobbels was quite adept at making Hitler's support seem much stronger than it was.
Faced with no real alternative and the popularity of Hitler, Hindenburg (who was an old, old man who didn't have the strength or political will to fight Hitler anymore against the apparent odds and Hitler's constant machinations) really didn't have much of a choice but to agree to von Papen's proposal of a dual chancellorship. The final straw was that von Papen had convinced Hindenburg that they could outwit Hitler and consign him to failure, ruining his appeal.
I really don't think that post-WWI Germany had any real chance of true democracy. Hindenburg was too old a leader to offer any permanence in the perceptions of the Germans. Bruning (I think that's his name) -- the last chancellor Germany had with any intent at democratization -- tried to do the right thing but his reforms were too slow and to ineffectual to win the support of the German people -- and I really don't know what else, under Versailles, he could have done to speed things up. There isn't really anything anyone could have done to stave off a popular demagogue who was intent on telling the people any lie he had to in order to discredit the Republic and gain their support.
138. Angel-Five - 3/7/2000 12:13:05 AM
The question then becomes -- what could somebody else outside of Germany had done?
And that's a tough call. Certainly the terms of the Treaty of Versailles could have been much less punitive -- they were later lessened out of both sheer necessity and a growing consciousness that something was rotten in Denmark, but by then Hitler's party had too much power and could manipulate the collapse of the Weimar republic.
I personally like to think that the only thing which might have prevented the Second World War is the successful formation of the League of Nations with the US playing its expected role and a Wilson who had gotten his way in Europe over the likes of Lloyd George and Clemenceau.
You can look at the two world wars, in a sense, as the struggle for a world body politic with the power to control and influence aggression between nations. The League was probably never going to get full support in America -- but I think it might have, if Wilson had played some of his political cards back home better and hadn't turned the Republicans in Congress further against him, losing both the House and the Senate to them.
Wilson or a similar type, as opposed to Warren Harding, and a real League of Nations instead of one that was broken from the start, might have made a large difference. Maybe. Yet I don't think that was in the cards. Moreover, once the fascist ball started rolling in Germany I don't think much could have been done to stop it. No one was up for a military intervention (god, what a mess that would have been) and the Soviets weren't much help. No one wanted Bolshevism to spread further into Europe; moneyed people were willing to forgive a lot to keep that from happening. And Germany was in economic ruins as demagogues vied to wrest power away from the former democratic-minded leaders in Weimar. The combination was disastrous.
139. cmboyce - 3/7/2000 2:31:23 AM
A5: You're right, I overstated your case about the communist non-holocaust. Actually, I did not so much mean to address that point as to inquire (for I'm not well versed in this history) as to my feeling, based on decades old and not intensive reading, that the German "revolutions" of 1918-19 were Pyrrhic insofar as they were victorious at all, which was, of course, only here and there and very very briefly. The Freikorps found their being in suppressing them, and I recall them as predecessors and recruiting grounds for Hitler's SA. And virtually all the Communist leadership was either dead or in exile in consequence of them. That the Bavarian People's Socialist Republic (or whatever it may have been called) was doomed in any case is surely so; but my question is: having made the attempt in the wake of the war, had not the Communists simply insured that they would not be around to potentially take power in the event of Weimar's fall (let alone do so electorally).
140. cmboyce - 3/7/2000 2:35:25 AM
But had they succeeded (the German Communists) then, yea verily, an ensuing war would have been, not just very difficult for the west to win, but very probably lost. Consider how difficult it was with Russia on our side. (Of course, Russia outside of Russia might well have been less imposing.)
141. cmboyce - 3/7/2000 2:39:05 AM
Back in the F place, I recall, there was a discussion of a battle fought between Japanese and Russian troops in Manchuria, in the late 30s. Can someone more knowledgeable than I reprise that subject and suggest how it may have influenced the balance of power in Asia at the time?
(Perhaps in the event of the hypothesized Bolshevik Axis between Communist Berlin and Stalinist Moscow, we'd have allied with Japan.)
142. Angel-Five - 3/7/2000 3:05:08 AM
cmb:
No, the Communists were a force in Germany for some time -- in fact, until the Nazis banned them.
Right now I don't have access to numbers, so I could be wrong -- but I do know that the SA and the Communists had equal power on the street and used to get into frightfully huge streetfights.
And in the level of government, they held enough of a bloc that once the Nazis started moving on their agenda (once Hitler was firmly the Chancellor) the first thing they did was take the Communist politicians into 'protective custody' to isolate them from the voting processes so the Communists couldn't block the voting. They then sent them off to the camps and confiscated all their holdings. This was in, I think, '33.
There was a great deal of bother over it all -- way too much bother for a unimportant political minority, even counting that the Nazis would want to make as much out of stamping out the Marxists as they could.
It's important to remember that the Communists didn't exist in a leftist vacuum in Germany, either. The Social Democrats were there as well and a coalition between the two was a strong possibility in the face of Nazi domination of the parliament. It didn't take the Nazis long to lose the Social Democrats, either.
143. Angel-Five - 3/7/2000 3:29:03 AM
In fact, the communist insurgency never left Nazi Germany. Well-hidden Marxists, who had blended into the nationalist movement, operated one of the best and most thorough espionage operations ever conducted. It was known as the Red Orchestra and even included high-ranking Nazi officials, and it spent the entire war radioing secret messages into the Soviet Union. The Red Orchestra was so efficient that Soviet spymasters reportedly got a lot of their data from the Germans before the German OKW got it.
Of course, Stalin didn't always make use of it (he didn't trust it). So while the Red Orchestra was busy burning up the airwaves trying to warn Stalin of Barbarossa, Stalin looked at the other indicators of attack, and saw none. The Germans weren't taking the preparations any sensible army would have taken, like issuing winterized clothing which required wool and sheepskin which would mean a sudden drop in the price of mutton as more sheep were slaughtered.
So Stalin figured that he was getting disinformation, and got a very bad shock when the Germans launched Barbarossa.
At least that's one version. Some German officers claimed that Stalin had cold-bloodedly planned it all out, had indeed known of the coming invasion, had calculated his army was too poor and untrained to stop the offensive, and had hurriedly begun conscripting troops to go train in icy cold Siberia so they'd be fresh and winter-hardened when the Nazi attack bogged down -- which is where a lot of those fresh troops used in the big counterattack came from. And Stalin, to preserve the surprise, didn't tell any of his forward commanders, many of whom were becoming politically inexpedient anyway... I personally doubt it, but if anyone was cold enough to make that sort of call it was Ole Joe.
All of this is really fascinating to me but I'm getting a little ahead of the ballgame so I'll stop.
144. PelleNilsson - 3/7/2000 3:39:35 AM
The last possibility for the Allies to do something decisive was probably when Germany reoccupied the Rhinelands in 1936. But I would be surprised to learn that any action was seriously considered, What the hell they gave away the Czechoslovakia's Sudetenland two years later.
In my opinion, we must conclude that the stage was set in the 1920's when a strong democratic leadership, alternatively a more benign strongman-rule (like in Poland, failed to emerge.
145. Angel-Five - 3/7/2000 3:53:46 AM
This link, for CMB, breaks down the constituency by party of the Weimar house. The Communists are usually in third place behind the Social Democrats and the nationalists (first the NDVP and then the NSDAP).
Pelle: The last chance for a 'benevolent strongman' was probably in '32 in response to the threat of Hitler gaining control of the government. An autocratic system suited many peoples' needs and was seriously considered alternately by Schleicher and von Papen with Hindenburg's interest as well. Of course, that was a risky proposition... but I don't know how much riskier it could have been than going with Hitler and watching the government get destroyed in a few months.
146. Angel-Five - 3/7/2000 3:57:10 AM
And, again, noting that a strong democratic government failed to emerge in 1920s Germany is sort of like noting that a strong Communist government failed to emerge in 1960s America. I really don't think it ever had any chance -- not with the economy as bad as it was, not with so few fruits of democracy available to offer the people.
147. Angel-Five - 3/7/2000 4:00:18 AM
sorry, DNVP. DeutschNationale VolksPartei.
148. PelleNilsson - 3/7/2000 4:25:12 AM
Thanks for the link. In an earlier post I said that NSDAP lost votes in the 1933 election. That was wrong. It was in the second election in 1932 they went down from 37.8% to 33.6%. The 1933 election was forced by Hitler because the Centre Party refused to join the NSDAP-DNVP coalition and was preceded by a violent intimidation campaign conducted by Röhm's SA.
It is an interesting question why the number of Reichtag seats increased from 584 in November 1932 to 647 in March 1933. A quick check indicates that NSDAP took 52 out these 63 additional seats. Gerrymandering perhaps.
149. PelleNilsson - 3/7/2000 4:38:16 AM
I looked around that site a bit more. Quite nice. My #148 reads as if lifted from there, but in fact it has its origin in Britannica.
150. PelleNilsson - 3/7/2000 5:24:45 AM
The crumbling centre 
The graph shows the outcome of the German elections from January 1919 to November 1933 (the intervals were irregular). The left staple in each series represents the Communists, the middle one the centre parties and the Social Democrats, and the right one the Nazis and DNVP.
151. stostosto - 3/7/2000 8:54:00 AM
A-5
I think your contention that German dictatorship was unavoidable is way too influenced from how events turned out. No doubt there was a large alienated middle class in Germany. No doubt the various Weimar parliaments were unstable and bred a lot of popular frustration. No doubt Hitler also due to mass unemployment was able to appeal to a lot of working class voters who should normally identify with the Social Democrats.
But consider Hitler's falling support in the 1932 election, down to only just third of the vote. Consider the bottoming out of the Great Depression around 1932-3. Consider the fact that German unions were dominated by Social Democrats, a party which was by no means a newcomer to German politics but one which had established its influence as early as during Bismarck, and was most decidedly a force of moderation. (In fact, maybe so much so that some of its core consistency considered it worn out).
My perceptioin is that Hitler's power seizure came in the last moment, just as the political tide was going to turn against him as the political situation de-radicalised. Nor was there any other player at the German political scene at that time (or ever) with such unadulterated reckless cynicism as to pull a coup d'etat. Hitler was, singlehandedly, a radicalising force. He consistently wrong-footed all his opponents by actually believing in his own bull-shit and acting on it. This goes for his German political opponents as well as for the various Chambarlains in the western countries.
152. stostosto - 3/7/2000 8:56:51 AM
The communist thread you talk about is surely exaggerated. In fact, I would write it off as mere fantasizing, again as seen through the mirror of subsequent events. At least, I have never heard that speculation before. In light of the communist's electoral backing such as can be gauged from the link you provided, it doesn't appear much more likely. Do you have some good sources to back up your claim of an imminent communist power seizure?
The communists did play a destabilising role, of course. Like everyone else they mis- and underestimated Hitler. Therefore their prime political focus was their rivalry with the Social Democrats, forcing these to defend its left flank rather than aiming for an appeal to middle-of-the road Germans, thus sapping the power of the left.
The communist calculus was that Hitler was bound to fail, making Germany ripe for the proletarian revolution. (Such is my understanding, but don't ask for sources. I once had a "Hitler's road to power" obsession, but I was only 12 or 13 at the time...)
153. Raskolnikov - 3/7/2000 12:10:59 PM
I don't think the Great Depression has been emphasized enough here. Surely, a major factor in Hitler's election was the economic situation. In the absence of a depression, there would have been a lot more time for Germany to become a stable democracy. And I think it is hard to argue that the Great Depression itself, and its international scope, were inevitable, considering the extent to which they were the result of a series of bad decisions.
154. Dantheman - 3/7/2000 12:47:54 PM
Rask,
I agree, and more particularly, I suspect the hyperinflation of the Weimar era did a lot to weaken the existing political parties, allowing a fringe group like the Nazis to be heard.
155. cigarlaw - 3/7/2000 12:58:16 PM
Regarding the Holocaust . I think in his time after 50 years to look at this was some other standpoint. I do not wish to diminish in any way what happened to the European Jews. It was horrendous. Alas, although people always think of the Jews in the Holocaust, they represented probably only about half those were killed or died in concentration camps. About 12 million people including Jews, Gypsies, Socialists, Communists, mentally retarded, disabled for other reasons, homosexuals, and others were killed. The Jews were the most notable example of those and had the biggest play in the history books. But they did not die alone. The Nazis killed 12 million people in death camps, not counting the uncounted millions killed in war itself. If Hitler had his way Europe would have been devoid of anyone but blue-eyed Aryans.
Do you think the killing wouldn't have stopped if Hitler had succeeded killing every Jew in Europe? Ultimately his philosophy would require the elimination of the slavs, the Greeks, the Italians, Spanish, and every other dark skined person on the planet. Of course at a certain point Hitler would have been eliminated himself. Hitler was an interesting person, but he was certainly not Stalin.
156. cmboyce - 3/7/2000 1:09:30 PM
A5, thanks. All that clears up my misapprehension quite thoroughly. I had never heard of the Red Orchestra, a fascinating development. I suppose its major players (first oboe and all) ended up in East Germany.
Looking at the figures, I tried to dope out just where the votes went that Hitler lost between July and Nov 1932, and while it's evident the Communists got a lot of them, I couldn't make the numbers come close to adding up, just eyeballing them, and then I noticed that the number of delegates changed. In fact, in no two elections throughout the period was the number of delegates elected the same. Sometimes the difference is slight, once ('28-'30) almost 20%. Why is this?
I have to go off-line now, probably until late tonight, but I'll look in when I can. This lead-up to the war is fascinating in detail, especially since it is for me, as no doubt for other Moties, the least familiar aspect of it.
157. jexster - 3/7/2000 1:15:36 PM
Message # 150
Thanks Pelle!
This thread is taking off. Now if we can just figure out how to keep Cazart out of here......
158. Raskolnikov - 3/7/2000 1:18:03 PM
well, if A5 keeps baiting him, he may either go away, or post something more substantive than a link to some lecture notes he found from an Internet search.
159. Jenerator - 3/7/2000 1:20:15 PM
Res,
Message#114,115
"No, I think that even the optimists knew that they were looking at a change a lot more profound than simply having a nationalist government when they considered Hitler as a compromise candidate for chancellor."
"but don't forget that Mein Kampf was already out then and it was pretty frickin' plain as to what Hitler wanted."
I tend to think that the majority of Germans believed more in the nationalistic slant and focus of the Nazi party. Just as Hitler said in Mein Kampf about the stupidity of the masses, I doubt that the majority knew what they were really voting for. If anything, the social classes were ready for a strong leader, opposite of the former Chancellor, and Hitler with his strong persuasive speaking abilities and his call on German unity and German spirit was able to 'fool' the people into believing one thing about his party when it really stood for other ideals. He clearly infused new meanings all of the time into his words. He kept the masses in the dark about much of what his party stood for, and much of what it did.
160. jexster - 3/7/2000 1:20:25 PM
The book 1933, which I cited in one of the intro messages, is a good read, if you can find it.
The author tells the story of Germany's "crumbling centre", as Pelle would have it, from the perspective of various liberal/moderate Germans, cosmopolitcan Berliners mostly, and the US Ambassador. The book is interesting because its also, in effect, an extended annotated bibliography of various memoirs of people living the times in Germany.
Long and short - there were still substantial numbers of people who in 1933 thought Hitler a clown who'd soon collapse and portrays others who were beginning to see the light - too late.
161. cazart - 3/7/2000 1:22:52 PM
Is that any way to treat the guy who saved this thread from extinction?
Hell, I could probably save Rosie's fucked up thread.
BTW, Raskolnikov's Message # 153 succinctly summed up -- correctly--what others have only guessed at or nibbled around for the previous 150 posts.
162. Jenerator - 3/7/2000 1:27:10 PM
Also, I expected more than one word out of you regarding the natural enemy status of communism/fascism. They have some weird similarities... racism, anti-intelligentsia, elitism, and so on.
163. PelleNilsson - 3/7/2000 1:43:58 PM
cigarlaw
Hitler was an interesting person, but he was certainly not Stalin.
Please expatiate. You find Stalin more "interesting"?
Jenerator
If you find that some aspect has not been adequatly covered I suggest you fill in the gap rather than complaining about others.
164. PelleNilsson - 3/7/2000 1:47:42 PM
cigarlaw
Also, I question the figure of 12 million exterminated. There is a touch of revisionism here -- exaggarate the total to reduce the Jewish share.
But we should save this for the Holocaust discussion that Jexster has scheduled for later.
165. PsychProf - 3/7/2000 1:48:08 PM
Stalin was directly responsible for the murder of some of my wife's family members. How interesting.
166. Dantheman - 3/7/2000 1:50:54 PM
Pelle,
The 12 million number is on the high end of the range that I've seen, but not outside the realm of possibility. I don't recall seeing any number lower than 9-10 million.
167. Jenerator - 3/7/2000 1:56:32 PM
Pelle,
"If you find that some aspect has not been adequatly covered I suggest you fill in the gap rather than complaining about others."
First of all, I wasn't complaining. Secondly, I asked Res a question about his opinion and he responded with a vague one word answer. Res never answers with one word, so that is why I was surprised. I asked for his opinion, and that is what I was waiting for.
168. cazart - 3/7/2000 2:17:57 PM
Jexster:
Time to get the cats marching in the same direction. They are straying in light of cigarlaw's idiotic post.
169. Jenerator - 3/7/2000 2:23:32 PM
I don't think Cigarlaw's post was dumb. I disagree that it was only half of the Jews that were killed in his 12 million figure, and I'm not sure what he meant with mentioning Stalin, but his post is interesting and gets you thinking in different directions.
170. cazart - 3/7/2000 2:28:29 PM
Jenerator:
Sure. It gets you thinking in different directions; so would a post on the statues of Easter Island--but it is hardly germane, certainly at this point in the discussion. Moreover, cigarlaw's conclusion (that Hitler would have to kill himself because he wasn't an Aryan posterboy) is superfluous and shallow.
171. Jenerator - 3/7/2000 2:33:54 PM
Well, what I think he meant was that after awhile, the critera for murder wasn't just in being Jewish. There were plenty of people killed for having brown hair and looking Jewish. If aryanism were taken to the extreme, it could have been possible for everyone who wasn't blonde and blue eyed to be killed. Nietzsche's monster, ya know?
172. jexster - 3/7/2000 2:42:09 PM
Caz -
Not really off topic. Stalin was doin some major purging in the '30's . No doubt one reason for Hitler's overconfidence in '41
173. Angel-Five - 3/7/2000 3:00:31 PM
Sto:
For me, this list pretty much sums it up:
Government was, due to the Communists and the Nazis sabotage, at a standstill
The economy was in ruins, unemployment and hunger were great
The Nazi party had the largest percentage of votes of anyone
The army and industrialists both favored a strongman
the people had lost faith in government.
To me, those circumstances leave little doubt as to the consequence of their union. You say that Hitler grabbed power while he had the chance -- of course he did. If Hitler hadn't grabbed power, von Papen or Schleicher would have -- if they hadn't, if nobody stepped up to the plate, then maybe Germany would have avoided a dictatorship. The point is that there's absolutely nothing chancy at all about the prospects of a Hitler seizing control in a 1933 Germany. Those are the sort of situations that it happens in. Might it have taken a little longer than the lightning speed with which Hitler dismantled the old Republic? Of course. The point is, though, that it wasn't chance that it did happen.
Re: Communism
Please bear in mind that I originally said that were it not for Fascism the Communists would have taken over. And I meant that. The primary block against Communists in Germany, the people that constantly went around discrediting them, outfoxing them, fighting them in the streets and above all giving people a hard-edged alternative to them and their Revolution, were the fascists. Their success is reflected in Pelle's graph. Without the Fascists, or with the Fascists discredited, their power would only have waxed.
174. Angel-Five - 3/7/2000 3:00:43 PM
It's also important to realize that the Communists might have been losing overall share of the votes, but they were swimming upstream very hard to maintain their position. And -- like the Nazis -- people constantly assumed that they were bigger than they were. Look at McCarthyism in America -- how many communists do you think were actually in America then? How many did Joe McCarthy have them believing were in America then? The scare was real. It's why the Nazis made such a campaign point out of stopping Marxism; it's why the Social Democrats took care to make sure that their Communist neighbors on the Left weren't used against them.
175. PelleNilsson - 3/7/2000 3:30:22 PM
Jenerator
There were plenty of people killed for having brown hair and looking Jewish.
Please substantiate.
If aryanism were taken to the extreme, it could have been possible for everyone who wasn't blonde and blue eyed to be killed.
This is just plain silly. You don't know what you are talking about. A majority of Germans are not blond and blue-eyed. A significant minority of Slavs (e.g Poles and Russians) are blond and blue-eyed.
176. PelleNilsson - 3/7/2000 3:39:05 PM
Angel
Please bear in mind that I originally said that were it not for Fascism the Communists would have taken over.
I disagree on two accounts:
177. PelleNilsson - 3/7/2000 3:44:02 PM
cazart
The thread is waiting for your masterful analysis promised in Message # 122.
178. stostosto - 3/7/2000 4:41:09 PM
A5
Sure, the circumstances were there for Hitler's takeover - I mean, duh. They presented Hitler with a "window of opportunity", which he jumped at. My point is, the window may have been about to close at the time he jumped, making it a last minute call.
There is a risk that we rationalise about historic events and make them seem inevitable, given the particular circumstances. But if you think about it, what, besides Hitler's energetic political manoeuvering, was so much worse about the situation in 1933 than, say, 1918-19 when the war had just been lost and returned soldiers were running loose, some of them staking communist uprisings, or in the wake of the killings of Karl and Rosa Liebknecht, or 1922-3 when France occupied the Ruhr, and the terrible German hyperinflation took place? (In fact, why is this last episode so often pointed to when explaining Hitler's rise to power a full decade later?)
Circumstances were ripe, yes. That was a necessary condition for the Nazi takeover. But they were not sufficient. To get at that, Hitler's vast evil energies were needed. And I actually think that had he not been there, personally, everything else being unchanged, the Weimar republic might well have stabilised and survived.
You are right in that the commie scare was more real than the actual commie threat. But that was not what you said in your earlier post.
179. stostosto - 3/7/2000 5:06:31 PM
Jenny
You need to read up on communism and fascism. Many people tend to lump them together as 'totalitarian' because they displayed a number of similarities in the way they exerted power. But their social and political origins are very different, indeed anathema, as A5 said. Briefly put, communism wanted a radical break with basic economic and social values and institutions like private property, religion, traditional authorities, even family. Fascism was very much a reaction against this - hence the term 'reactionary'. Its objective was to not only protect what it saw as True, Traditional, National, Social norms, but also forbibly, by use of the state, impose them on people and spheres where they didn't otherwise prevail. Hence the paranoid and sickly fascist obsession with 'normalcy' as opposed to 'decadence' promoted on the back of existing national myths (plus some newly fabricated ones, like in the German case the Dolkschuss legend). Communism, on the other hand, was internationalist in outlook. Stalin actually had to articulate the doctrine about 'socialism in one country' to expressly free himself from the tiresome obligations of having to help the rest of the world extricate itself from capitalism.
Thus, Stalin gained 'fascist' elements in that he bred a kind of Soviet nationalism (complete with the infamous 'cosmopolitan' (= anti-Soviet)labelling of Jews). He also completed the non-aggression pact with Hitler, as you may know. But this was to the huge dismay and embarassment of communists in western countries who had a tough job explaining away this move. (The faithful's line was to blame it on the western powers).
180. Angel-Five - 3/7/2000 5:09:01 PM
Please bear in mind that I originally said that were it not for
Fascism the Communists would have taken over.
I disagree on two accounts:
1.The revolutionary moment was over. The
Communists would have been contained by the
Social Democrats.
Pelle:
Why, exactly, do you think that the Communists were containable in the first place? Who do you believe expended the most energy to contain them?
Imagine Germany at this time period; a breaking republic, massive inflation and unemployment, reparations and a bar to rearmament. 'Democracy' was new and was offering little immediate return to the populace.
There was a strong feeling against the Weimar leadership. This is evident in the fact that so many people voted for parties which were openly against the continuation of the Republic and spent their time in Parliament openly sabotaging the function of government. This is a pool of massive discontent -- primarily populated by Germany's younger unemployed and marginalized citizens. Right?
These people wanted a change. And the two groups who fought tooth and nail to win this large disaffected group over were the fascists and the Communists. It's why they were natural enemies -- they were competing for the same resources for divergent purposes.
Now, compare this conflict to the larger political picture in Germany --there are plenty of moderates, but the radical base is growing as people become more and more disaffected with the status quo of Weimar. The radical base can't be ignored. It's getting bigger and bigger and demanding more and more attention -- so swiftly the issue becomes which side to court and which to scorn.
181. Angel-Five - 3/7/2000 5:09:40 PM
That wasn't much of a choice to the conservative industrialists, who feared Marxism and labor unions and wanted a leader who would kick-start the industrial base back into motion. This is why the Nazi political and economic power base grew along with their popular power base. No one wanted the Communists to have the chance to take power via coalition.
So, you see, the Fascists were instrumental to the entire attack and partial supression of Communism in the years leading up to 1933. That suppression would not have occurred without a fascist group to sap the power base of the Communists in Germany. Don't forget, moreover, that German Communism was an internationally supported political faction. The Soviets had as much interest in making Germany a Communist state as did the German Communists.
You are assigning Fascsism a heroic role in history:
Fascism saved Germany from Communism. I
dispute that
This is addled crack-pipe talk. No one is making 'heroes' out of the Fascists -- I'm merely explaining how the mechanism functioned. Germany saved itself from Communism -- it's just that the means they had at hand were the Fascists, to the eventual massive detriment of the world.
182. Angel-Five - 3/7/2000 5:27:20 PM
Sto:
My perceptioin is that Hitler's power seizure came in the
last moment, just as the political tide was going to turn
against him as the political situation de-radicalised. Nor
was there any other player at the German political scene
at that time (or ever) with such unadulterated reckless
cynicism as to pull a coup d'etat.
No. Schleicher wanted a coup; so did the Communists. Von Papen even argued at the last minute for establishing an autocratic government -- to keep the Nazis out of power. The Weimar Republic was being dragged towards Golgotha and everyone knew it.
Circumstances were ripe, yes. That was a necessary
condition for the Nazi takeover. But they were not
sufficient. To get at that, Hitler's vast evil energies were
needed. And I actually think that had he not been there,
personally, everything else being unchanged, the Weimar
republic might well have stabilised and survived.
I'm not so sure of that either. Schleicher was discredited largely because Hitler and Goering did it. Let's not forget Strasser.
Let's also not forget that part of the reason Hitler had to work so hard to get the Chancellor's chair is that -- well, he was Hitler. Everyone knew what he was about, he was a horrid demagogue who lied his ass off and had openly stated that he wanted to change the government. Hindenburg didn't trust him. Von Papen didn't trust him. No one among the elite trusted him at all -- they just thought they could co-opt him or force him out if they had to.
183. Angel-Five - 3/7/2000 5:27:45 PM
So perhaps Hitler at that time was the only person with enough twisted political skill and amorality to pull off the feat of getting Hitler into office, but then again, no one else needed that much skill to get themselves into office from that position except perhaps the Communists.
You say 'all else being equal' but for me that's where it gets a little slippery and vague, because although I disagree with your 'all else being equal' outcome and have demonstrated why -- well, all else couldn't in all probability have been equal without Hitler being there. Certainly some other demagogue would have filled in, yet it's less certain that they would have had enough of a charismatic effect upon their target audience to pull off what Hitler was unfortunately able to achieve.
184. Angel-Five - 3/7/2000 5:32:05 PM
BTW: Pelle's graph is misleading in that it lumps the Social Democrats in with the centrist parties. I don't think it's fair to call the Social Democrats 'centrist'.
185. PelleNilsson - 3/7/2000 5:39:26 PM
Angel
Your line of argument is not credible. As I said -- and sto --supported -- the revolutionary moment had passed. The Communists did not attract many votes. You talk about coalition. With whom? The Social Democrats. No way. You suffer from the usual American ignorance about the history of the marxist/socialist movement. The two were mortal enemies. And the numbers in the table you linked shows that such a coalition would not have gained power anyhow.
And before you bring out the big sledgehammer called "Popular Front": I know. Ineffectual window-dressing.
I have to log out now.
186. stostosto - 3/7/2000 5:45:12 PM
A5:
You do make some sense. Especially in pointing out the distrust facing Hitler. And while I agree with Pelle that painting the Nazi takeover as a defence against a communist takeover can have apologistic connotations, that doesn't necessarily make it untrue.
I happen to think it is untrue, though. The communists simply weren't in a position to make a revolution at that time, nor were they likely to be later anymore than, say, French communists were in France. But the fear of the communists and the sheer out-of-touchness of the leading politicians in Germany probably made the possibility a factor.
Fall of the Weimar Republic
A handy summary from the link A5 provided earlier.
Ecerpt (speaking of out-of-touchness):
June 1932: Hindenburg fed up with issuing unpopular decrees on Bruning's behalf replaces him by von Papen. Papen, reactionary, stupid and arrogant, was however an officer and fine horseman and so the ideal Chancellor in the eyes of the ageing President.
187. stostosto - 3/7/2000 5:54:49 PM
Going to sleep. Night.
188. Angel-Five - 3/7/2000 6:52:33 PM
Schto:
And while I agree with Pelle that
painting the Nazi takeover as a defence against a
communist takeover can have apologistic connotations,
that doesn't necessarily make it untrue.
Well, if more than one person thinks so, then I retract my suggestion that Pelle was sucking on a crack-pipe before he posted so. I might have been unlear, although I think that the 'apologistic connotations' have unfairly been read into this in the way that 'Democratic sympathies' are often unfairly read into an attack on a Republican.
Let me be clearer. The Nazi takeover is not a heroic example of German patriots taking over a disintegrating government in order to save their country from Communism. The Communists and Nazis were natural political adversaries and the Nazis certainly intended to stomp out communism in Germany, but that's hardly their intended reason, or a justification, for their seizure of power in Germany. And it is, as I've said, not the entire reason that people who otherwise should have known better supported Hitler's ascension to power. Nationalist pride and the promise of a strong economy did a lot to shape the circumstances which enabled Hitler to first subvert and then replace the German government.
However -- whether or not you and Pelle agree that the Communists were a legitimately perceived threat in Germany, and whether or not you acknowledge my argument about how the emergence of Communism in Germany was hampered and stalled primarily by the political aggression of the Nazis -- one must agree that the question of breaking the Communists was one which diverted a lot of political support in Germany into the Nationalist, fascist right. It's not a justification of why it happened, just a mechanism by which it occurred.
189. Angel-Five - 3/7/2000 6:55:04 PM
Campaign statements and propaganda of the time are laden with reference to the Communist menace. There was a strong Communist insurgency in Germany at that time, which was, demonstrably, fertile ground for the seeds of revolution. Moreover, the voting patterns alone do not paint a remotely complete picture of the political strength of Communism in Germany any more than they did in the decades before the October Revolution in Russia.
Voting patterns do not record the existence of crypto-Marxists or Marxist sympathizers within the German power structure, just as they didn't in Russia. The term 'bolshevik' means 'majority man' -- but that was a brilliant political ploy at the time, because Bolsheviks didn't represent anything like a majority at the time the phrase was coined.
I think that the non-Communist members of the German government and power structure were very much aware of what had happened in the years leading up to 1917 and Lenin's eventual ascent to power in the new Soviet Union. I think that awareness did much to inform their decision-making WRT the Nazis.
Ultimately that was for the worse, because it wasn't necessary to give the Nazis control in order to stop Communism in Germany. The existence of the Nazis as a well-organized minority was probably in hindsight enough to keep the Communists down. Yet that's the sort of hindsight which allows us to pronounce comfortable decisions in the modern era. It wasn't present then when the question came up.
190. Seguine - 3/7/2000 8:59:08 PM
Martin Girder's review of Dark Continent in The Sun's Eye may contribute to this discussion.
191. cigarlaw - 3/8/2000 1:27:51 AM
first, I didn't say that Hitler and would eliminate himself. I said he would be elevated. Next, evil is always interesting, don't you think? Otherwise we would not be discussing this topic . As to Hitler had not being Stalin, I don't see a problem with making the comparison. Stalin was far more competent, and not quite as insane is Hitler. Plus Stalin had a long history of European philosophers to support his position. Lastly, the figure of 12 million dead was not put forth to any way revise or diminish what happened to the European Jews. If there any revisionism it, he should be laid at the doorstep of those who emphasized that Holocaust killed 6 million use and forget the non-Jewish 6 million who died. who claim that the Holocaust only killed Jews. The figure of 12 million murders was used in the Nuremberg trials..
192. PelleNilsson - 3/8/2000 2:03:13 AM
Angel
Just to pick a nit. The term "bolsheviks" comes from the party split-up at its London congress in 1903. The other side became known as "mensheviks".
193. Stumbo - 3/8/2000 2:33:56 AM
Pelle:
And the nit you're picking is... ?
194. Angel-Five - 3/8/2000 2:42:19 AM
Pelle:
I know.
Yet it was Bolshevism that came to rule the Soviet Union, not the 'minority men'. Correct?
BTW in regards to Cigarlaw:
I think the 12 million toll also takes into account POWs who died in German custody, but yes, I've heard that too. The Nizhkor site mentions nearly twelve million deaths. But if the justification for the number is that it was cited in the Nuremburg trials, it has to be looked at a little more closely: some of the mass murders the Soviets charged to the Germans, such as the murders at Katyn, were actually committed by the Sovs.
195. PelleNilsson - 3/8/2000 2:42:25 AM
Hello Stumbo! Long time.
It seems to me that Angel's "at the time" refers to the late 20' - early 30's and that he implies that the term "bolshevik" was some kind of propaganda ploy used during that period.
196. Angel-Five - 3/8/2000 2:42:47 AM
Hey, Stumbo.
197. Angel-Five - 3/8/2000 2:49:51 AM
Pelle:
It seems to me that Angel's "at the time" refers to the
late 20' -early 30's and that he implies that the term
"bolshevik" was some kind of propaganda ploy used
during that period.
Every once in a while you make it painfully clear that English isn't your first language.
'Bolshevik' was indeed a propaganda ploy -- carried out by the Bolsheviks. When they coined the term. I'll reprint the text for you:
Voting patterns do not record the existence of
crypto-Marxists or Marxist sympathizers within the
German power structure, just as they didn't in Russia.
The term 'bolshevik' means 'majority man' -- but that
was a brilliant political ploy at the time, because
Bolsheviks didn't represent anything like a majority at
the time the phrase was coined.
The bold is used for emphasis of time placement. Read it again; I trust this clears up the alleged basis for your attempt to nit-pick.
198. Angel-Five - 3/8/2000 2:57:12 AM
Stumbissimo:
The nit he's picking is nonexistent. Pelle has a rather uninformed penchant to imagine that Americans are ignorant on any given topic upon which he disagrees with them, and a decided fetish for 'correcting' their ignorance as a means of discrediting their arguments. I think he comes by this by way of studying and emulating PE, but PE usually manages to correctly divine ignorance when he comes across it, whereas poor Pelle is forced all too often to pounce only upon his own misconceptions.
199. Stumbo - 3/8/2000 3:24:59 AM
.. And I was only away for about 2 weeks, heh. Thanks, all, for the nice reception; perhaps I should go get sunburned more often.
200. Stumbo - 3/8/2000 3:43:18 AM
* but check the Sports thread for even better news!
201. PelleNilsson - 3/8/2000 4:25:13 AM
Angel
We seem to be locked in some kind of semantic misunderstanding here. As you correctly point out English is not my first language although I feel that I have a reasonable command of it.
Let me also say that I didn't pick the nit as an attack on you but in order to clarify a point that seemed a bit obscure to me. In a thread like this there are usually many more lurkers than posters.
Now to the semantics and I hope that your reply will finally clarify this issue. You say:
"Bolsheviks didn't represent anything like a majority at the time the phrase was coined."
The time the phrase was coined was 1903 and the context was the congress of what was then Russia's Social Democratic party. "Majority" refers to "majority within the party" not to "majority among the population" or anything like that. Your reference to "crypto-Marxists and Marxist sympathizers" led me to believe that you used it in the latter sense. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
In order to preempt more nitpicking I hasten to add that Lenin's line lost the vote among the delegates but he later won the majority on the central committee.
202. PelleNilsson - 3/8/2000 5:11:55 AM
I would like to put in another 2 cents before our genial host decides to move forward. We have not mentioned the "knife-in-the-back" legend which played an important role.
It emerged at the end of the war and was based on the fact that the German army was never properly defeated in the field (or the perception that it wasn't). At the time of the surrender it still stood on foreign soil. So if the war hadn't been lost at the battle front, then where? The legend points to the home front and a communist/Jewish conspiracy that undermined the army's ability to fight and was out to destroy Germany.
For its proponents, this conspiracy was still around and that was one of the reasons why the fear of communism was much higher than its performance in the elections would warrant.
Another point that is perhaps not generally known is that there were several proposals by the Allies to reduce the burden of the war reparations. The last of these plans was the Young Plan of 1929, named after the American Owen D. Young. The plan would reduce the reparations from 123 to 37 billion gold marks. It was accepted by the government but the nationalist right led by the DNVP party forced a referendum arguing that its acceptance would be tantamount to acceptance of the Versailles Treaty - anathema to the nationalists. The nationalist position won only 15% of the votes, but there were other effects. The following is from Britannica.
To run the opposition's anti-Young Plan campaign, Hugenberg [the leader of DNVP] engaged Adolf Hitler, the leader of the apparently moribund NSDAP (National Socialist German Workers' Party.
An unintended effect of the anti-Young Plan campaign was to give widespread public exposure to the little-known Adolf Hitler. Hitler used his access to the Hugenberg-owned press empire and to its weekly movie newsreels to give himself and his Nazi movement national publicity.
203. Angel-Five - 3/8/2000 6:13:44 AM
Pelle: The hardliner bloc wasn't a majority when the phrase was used, which was one of the reasons its etymology is noteworthy. And that bloc did suddenly seize power. Lenin's crew, as Gobbels and Hitler did later, managed to portray their bloc as being much more in line with the majority wish than it really was. They didn't control the party by majority -- as I recall, it wasn't even close at that time. That's the whole slant of 'majority man'.
204. Angel-Five - 3/8/2000 6:17:40 AM
BTW: That's taken from Radzhinsky's biography of Stalin, if you want a source.
205. Angel-Five - 3/8/2000 6:18:48 AM
I should have said -- The hardliner bloc wasn't a majority when the phrase was first coined.
206. PelleNilsson - 3/8/2000 6:44:07 AM
That issue is not in dispute and I mentioned it in Message # 201.
In case somebody wonders what it was all about, Lenin wanted an elitist party with a small memmbership which would be the "vanguard of the workers". His opponents wanted a broad-based popular party. There was also the question whether the pary should be revolutionary or act within a democratic framework. The eventual losers, the Mensheviks, became to origins of the Social Democratic parties of Europe.
To bring this to the edge of topicality, the Nazi party was also elitist. Party membership had to be earned. Another similarity between the Soviet Union and Germany was that high positions in the civil service and other government bodies usually required party membership, a fact that many ex-nazis and ex-communists used to justify their membership (I had to join because I wanted the promotion ..).
207. stostosto - 3/8/2000 7:12:30 AM
a-5 Message # 188
In your declared attempt to dispel apologism, you only further it.
I really think your firm conviction that if it hadn't been for Hitler or some other fascist/right wing dictatorship, Germany would have fallen prey to communism is far fetched. You may be echoing the view of some players in Germany at the time, who were thus motivated into backing Hitler, but that doesn't in and of itself make the ghost of a communist revolution more of a reality. Please cite some sources for this imminent communist power seizure. I have never heard or read this theory anywhere, save perhaps in more openly apoligistic contexts. I am honestly interested.
You point to the Russian example and seem to think that the situation in Germany 1932-3 was parallel to the Russian one in 1917. I don't see very clear parallels.
cont.
208. stostosto - 3/8/2000 7:13:56 AM
I think it's noteworthy that there hasn't been a communist takeover in any western capitalist country ever that could underpin an assertion that such a thing was unavoidable in Germany if it hadn't been for Hitler. And Germany was very much a capitalist country, and a highly developed one at that - in stark contrast to Russia 1917. This line of yours strikes me as being similar to the cold war thinking and perception of the communist threat. Perhaps that's what leads Pelle to call your perspective American.
Moreover, I don't follow your political logic when you say that an extremist right wing party such as NSDAP was the best defence against a communist takeover. It most patently was not. In fact, it's the opposite: The stronger the Nazis, the better the communist's appeal - and vice versa. The two reinforced each other, rather than weaken each other. But any vivid scare images of communist takeovers were most certainly the working of Hitler's superior propaganda techniques much more than anything the communists themselves were capable of.
Indeed, he had to orchestrate the Reichstag fire farce and blame it on the communists to justify assuming dictatorial powers.
The communist thread was not real. Far from it. Where did you get that idea?
209. stostosto - 3/8/2000 7:16:17 AM
(Oops. The communist thread was not real. Nor was the communist threat).
210. PelleNilsson - 3/8/2000 8:33:42 AM
I made another chart with higher resolution among parties. 
Event 6 is the election in May 1928; event 7 is September 1930.
This fits very nicely into the Britannica cites in my Message # 202, i.e that Hitler used his position as leader of the fight against the Young Plan to great effect. He and Goebbels gor paid-for on-the-job training in propaganda techniques by DNVP leader Hugenberg, whose reward was to see his party's vote shrink from 15% to 7%.
211. Jenerator - 3/8/2000 12:24:07 PM
Pelle,
Message# 175
"There were plenty of people killed for having brown hair and looking Jewish.
Please substantiate."
I guess the strongest 'evidence' I have hear is from the stories of Holocaust survivors, but that probably doesn't count here, right?
"If aryanism were taken to the extreme, it could have been possible for everyone who wasn't blonde and blue eyed to be killed.
This is just plain silly. You don't know what you are talking about. A majority of Germans are not blond and blue-eyed. A significant minority of Slavs (e.g Poles and Russians) are blond and blue-eyed."
Again, knowing people with several members killed because they looked Jewish doesn't count here either, right?
A very good friend of mine's mother survived the Holocaust, barely. She and her family were from Poland, and had no religious affiliation. With the German occupation of Poland, their home was raided and the family was separated. The mother and the three daughters were marched in one direction and the father in another. After spending THREE years in concentration camps, the mother was shot (brown hair, brown eyes) and the daughters were eventually liberated in Russia.
I have German friends as well who claimed that in the latter sweeps on the storm troopers, many civilains were assassinated in a half-hazard manner. Why the hell would they make this up?
I believe their stories
212. Adrianne - 3/8/2000 12:26:51 PM
Jenerator
The word you're looking for is 'haphazard'
213. Jenerator - 3/8/2000 12:31:35 PM
Sto,
I appreciate you taking the time to give me 'Communism/Fascism 101'. I was merely asking for Res' response. I know that Fascism and Commuinism are opposite ideologies, I was simply pointing out that they had interesting similarities, too. Is this yet another thread where only a select few can talk with everyone? I have always been really interested in a WW2 thread, is it okay if I participate every now and then?
Oh, and on a side note, in a 1929 issue of The Times, the word 'totalitarian' was used to describe Germany and Russia.
214. Jenerator - 3/8/2000 12:36:43 PM
Adrianna,
Thank you for the spelling correction once again.
215. Adrianne - 3/8/2000 12:39:27 PM
Jen
It's not a *spelling* correction, obviously.
216. Jenerator - 3/8/2000 12:43:34 PM
half-hazard/haphazard
"It's not a *spelling* correction, obviously."
???
217. cigarlaw - 3/8/2000 1:10:59 PM
sorry about the garbage in my post. i meant eliminated, not elevated and jews, not use. sometimes dragon works and sometimes it don't. but it spells impecably.
218. PelleNilsson - 3/8/2000 3:25:24 PM
cigarlaw
Don't worry for a moment about your posts and don't apologise. We know the difficulties you have.
219. PelleNilsson - 3/8/2000 3:43:52 PM
Jenerator
There is no dispute that Russia and Germany were totalitarian states. Italy, Portugal and Spain too, all in their different ways.
There are at least two similarities between Communism and Fascism. First, a disdain for democracy but for different reasons. The communists regarded democracy as a sham, a tool employed by the bourguoise to control the masses. Fascists saw it as mob rule; the great unwashed would compromise la gloire of the nation. The other similarity is the insistence that the party should be made up by an elite (you mentioned this in an earlier post) , whose task it was to interpret and implement "the true will of the people".
Just a very brief comment on the Holocaust because jexster has scheduled it for later. It was not about religion. It was about race. Many Jews in Germany were completely assimilated and had adopted the Protestant faith. But that didn't make any difference to the Nazis.
As far as I'm concerned you are more than welcome to post here and challenge the conventional wisdom that I for one is an exponent of.
220. Jenerator - 3/9/2000 11:35:23 AM
Pelle,
Thank you for your reply, it was very kind and I appreciate it. The differences and similarities of ideologies interest me, as do their creation and destruction. I've enjoyed reading the opinions and points of view of Communism, National Socialism, and Fascism. It's all very interesting to me.
"Just a very brief comment on the Holocaust because jexster has scheduled it for later. It was not about religion. It was about race. Many Jews in Germany were completely assimilated and had adopted the Protestant faith. But that didn't make any difference to the Nazis."
I know this. It's a mistake to think that it was strictly religious. Hitler had an interesting hypocritical view related to religion. He felt that the "Church" was an invention of the Jews, yet he was raised a Christian. He also has been reported to say that the Christian church was good in that it taught people a certain level of discipline, which was good. Yet, it was a blemish. How he could embrace both Nietzsche's outlook on weakness, yet support the Church in other ways, all the while blaming its creation on the Jews, is a mystery to me.
221. jexster - 3/9/2000 12:46:03 PM
Pelle -
There was an important difference between the Soviets and Fascists IMO. While each pursued some version of world conquest, the Soviets having adopted the "socialism in one country" idea were far less impelled in that direction.
The quote I began the thread with bears repeating:
"It belongs to the very nature of a totalitarian system of the Fascist type that it is restless, dynamic, wanting action for its own sake and constantly devising imperatives."
Goebbels & National Socialist Propaganda
222. PelleNilsson - 3/9/2000 2:31:09 PM
You are right. I don't have the English terminology for this, but here we use the term "vitalism" to describe this urge of action for the sake of action. This includes the notion that war is a good thing in itself. It is essential to subject the nation to periodical "steel baths" to strengthen its will and preserve its spirit.
The discussion about origins has been very interesting and I think everybody has picked up something new. But maybe it has run its course by now?
223. jexster - 3/9/2000 3:57:23 PM
OK Pelle.
Lets switch hemispheres.
224. jexster - 3/9/2000 4:03:49 PM
Pelle's wish, my command
On topic here:
- development of Japanese militarism (I'm curious and largely ignorant of how Japan changed from a British ally and emulator with the Meijii Restoration)
- Japan's War in China & Manchuria
- US pre-war efforts to thwart Japan (extending all the way back to the Boxer Rebellion & immigrant bashing)
- The attack on Pearl (Did FDR know?)
- Japan's relations with Hitler
- Military campaigns generally
- The decision to nuke 'em
225. cazart - 3/9/2000 4:08:58 PM
See, Jexster?
Just follow my advice and you will prosper.
BTW, you should have developed a summary for the 'Origins' segment.
God. I've got to think of everything.
226. PelleNilsson - 3/9/2000 4:39:46 PM
jexster
You are too gracious.
I hope the change of subject will draw in some more posters. I know very little about the Asian theatre. But I will lurk and maybe put in a question or two.
cazart
Your idea of a summary is good. Why not go ahead and do it?
227. jexster - 3/9/2000 8:56:32 PM
The Mighty Yamato!
228. cmboyce - 3/10/2000 12:30:28 AM
Jexter, I'm curious about the mention of the Boxer Rebellion. Did the US keep Japan off the suppression army? Why? Simple racism (like the immigrant bashing impulse, though this applied to a great many others as well, including the Chinese, later our ally and Japan's enemy)?
229. jexster - 3/10/2000 1:17:25 AM
CM -
The US sent troops to the Boxer Rebellion in part to make sure that the Great Powers did not further dismember China but also and chiefly to keep Japan from getting involved there.
The same motivations resulted in US troops being sent to Vladivostok after the Bolshevik revolution.
230. cmboyce - 3/10/2000 1:24:09 AM
Who decided on this policy, anent the Boxers? TR?
231. PelleNilsson - 3/10/2000 2:54:11 AM
Hold on there. The Japanese were very much involved in putting down the Boxer Rebellion. More about this when I get home and can access references.
232. jexster - 3/10/2000 3:00:01 AM
Yes the Japanese were very involved in putting down. That is why the US got involved - to keep them at bay. The Japanese-US rivalry had a long history before WWII. In fact, it caused friction with the Brits who had an alliance with Japan.
233. PelleNilsson - 3/10/2000 3:06:27 AM
In WWI the Germans were called 'Huns'. They got that nickname in connection with the Boxer Rebellion. It's an amusing little anecdote which I will post later.
234. RickNelson - 3/10/2000 8:09:54 AM
hmm... change of thread topic...
I've some knowledge of this theatre. Novice at best, but I know what happened in general.
This is my qualifier, take it as one wishes.
The Greater East Asian Co Prosperity Sphere was Japan's master plan. In my humble opinion this is the best way to focus on Japan's mentality and expanssion ambitions during the 20's to the end of the war.
The systematic expanssion of power was well planned and in many cases well executed. Not perhaps to the wests standards but, hey, we're talking the 40's here. And it's too presumptuous of me to even think we could take on the Japanese if they hadn't attacked Pearl Harbor. We would have been sorely stretched if the incentive of Pearl Harbor had not taken place. This again is my morbid humble opinion.
Our national war manufacture and building was put to it's maximum after Pearl Harbor and that's my point.
I assume the same can be said for Australia, New Zealand and Great Britian. Though I've no idea what ship, plane, etc... manufacture capability Aussies and kiwi's had or have.
Back to Japan...
235. RickNelson - 3/10/2000 8:10:15 AM
The Manuchurian, Korean and Chinese campaigns of the 30's were all the testing grounds for Imperial Japans expanssion plans. They prepared the nation for everything south and whatever else they could get away with in the people's minds. Too bad the Imperial system allowed such blatant demagogary as world military expanssion.
When the focus turned south to Vietnam, Cambodia, Burma, Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, Phillipines, and Islands of the entire South East Pacific, the world came ablaze with Japanese military might.
They were left nearly unchallenged and all points that fought were the few strongholds, like Singapore and the hills of New Guinea. Oh, and I must mention the Island of Borneo. Inland was taboo I'm told. Too many patrols disappeared. I'm told there are still skulls to be found of Japanese soldiers caught in ambush by the local tribes. Though I've not been shown any examples yet.
Well, there's so much to say, I guess I'll wait to hear from others.
Ciao.
236. RickNelson - 3/10/2000 8:13:37 AM
Nearly unchallenged means that the might of Japan overwhelmed the defences of all that tried to stop them.
237. ScottLoar - 3/10/2000 8:53:35 AM
Before slinging charges of racism and impugning US motives:
The Boxers killed the German ambassador and beseiged the foreign legations at Peking, so the command of the multi-national relief force was necessarily given to a German (with the command from the Kaiser to treat in such a way that "a Chinaman will never again look askance at a German") and those countries having a legation under seige were of course allowed to participate. It was their right, and a unified command as a single force only made good sense. The first to enter and relieve the compound were Indian forces under the British who crawled through the sewers for that right.
The US used their part of the reparations paid each power to endow a scholarship for Chinese students, the only government to do so.
The Empress Dowager was later obliged to meet with the wives of foreign missionaries who described her as charming (photos testify to the meeting), this old and bitter woman who swore she'd never let Chinese dogs rule and after having the nose, ears and hands of her son's favourite concubine chopped off and the girl thrown into a pit invited her son to come and look at the "human pig".
Without knowing the events, cause, and nature of the people involved dismissing the affair as simple racism is... words fail me.
238. cmboyce - 3/10/2000 10:08:28 AM
Jesus, Loar, you're a crabby sonofabitch. And reading challenged to boot. I (who mentioned racism, applying it to "immigrant bashing") did not dismiss anything. I asked a question. Historically, American attitudes to Japan and the Japanese do not make the question at all untoward.
For Christ's sake, man, try to be a little civil. I don't know what time of day it is for you, but perhaps you need a drink. Or an enema.
239. ScottLoar - 3/10/2000 10:47:48 AM
I criticized your assumption as being shortsighted.
240. ScottLoar - 3/10/2000 10:48:32 AM
And, I admit, uninformed as well.
241. ScottLoar - 3/10/2000 10:52:08 AM
Message # 227how romantic! Battleship under full steam, guns ablaze, the Yamato in fighting trim.
Erh, Jexster, can you recount the battle record of the Yamato? Exactly how many times were those big guns fired?
242. ScottLoar - 3/10/2000 10:54:53 AM
Fired in combat, that is.
243. stostosto - 3/10/2000 11:27:55 AM
Was WWII really two wars in different parts of the world which just went on at the same time?
244. cmboyce - 3/10/2000 12:41:42 PM
Message # 239 There was no assumption being made.
Message # 240 I established that. That's why I asked a question. That I might become informed.
245. jexster - 3/10/2000 1:18:54 PM
Scott -
The Yamato was the most feared, most powerful battleship afloat. She was spotted by aircraft and sunk in 1944 I think in the Battle of the Sevian Sea.(sp)
I'll see if I can grab a photo of the blessed event.
All GOOKS must die :)
246. jexster - 3/10/2000 1:23:05 PM
God Bless America! 
247. ScottLoar - 3/10/2000 1:32:26 PM
The Yamato engaged the enemy (US) but once. Spotted by a few US Corsairs the Yamato loaded a round similar to flechettes in three of her big guns, and fired, the first and only time in combat. No effect, the Yamato was promptly sunk and the gunnery officer who had argued for loading such rounds going down with the ship in humiliation. The Yamato might never have well existed for all the effect that ship had upon the war.
And yet Japanese aircraft had sunk that most modern British warship Prince of Wales just beyond Singapore some three years earlier under similar conditions - and had learned nothing.
248. ScottLoar - 3/10/2000 1:36:05 PM
The Prince of Wales had come into Singapore and after two days the captain put to sea "looking for some trouble" as he said. He found it. So, not only was the newest and best of the Royal Fleet lost the most modern and expensive military port in the world - Singapore - was also to be lost.
249. PelleNilsson - 3/10/2000 3:40:20 PM
I promised to tell the story about how it came about that the Germans were nicknamed 'Huns' during WWI. I thought I had the source but I was mistaken, so this is from memory.
In his speech to the departing troops (presumably the same as ScottLoar quotes from in Message # 237), Kaiser Wilhelm said words to the effect that
Go make yourselves feared as the Huns under Attila were feared.
So the Kaiser did it to his own troops.
250. PsychProf - 3/10/2000 3:43:33 PM
251. cmboyce - 3/10/2000 4:08:11 PM
PP, what's that? (Besides cute, in an odd, charcoal-burner's-daughter way.)
252. cmboyce - 3/10/2000 4:09:37 PM
Pelle, were these troops going to Peking? Or WW1 troops?
253. PsychProf - 3/10/2000 4:10:16 PM
"That" is in reference to both Kaiser and Pelle...
254. PelleNilsson - 3/10/2000 4:14:50 PM
cm
Going to to suppress the Boxer Rebellion. I do wish I had that source, maybe it is hidden away in some shelf. In any case the Boxer incident produced the first international, multi-lateral intervention force under a unfied command (German in this case).
255. Wombat - 3/10/2000 4:27:15 PM
Scott Loar:
I think you are getting the Yamato and her sister ship Mushashi mixed up. Both were in the Japanese forces approaching the Philippines, but the Yamato survived--and presumably fired her guns in anger at US escort carriers. Mushashi was sunk in the Sibuyan Sea. Yamato was sunk as she was attempting to approach Okinawa as a naval Kamikaze.
256. Wombat - 3/10/2000 4:29:09 PM
Pelle:
Unified multilateral forces fought the Barbary Corsairs in the early 1800s.
257. PelleNilsson - 3/10/2000 5:26:30 PM
Wombat
You are right.
258. ScottLoar - 3/10/2000 5:38:10 PM
Wombat, I have confused them.
259. PelleNilsson - 3/10/2000 5:41:47 PM
Wombat knows.
Please stick around.
260. jexster - 3/10/2000 5:53:37 PM
Scott -
The Japanese were in a bit of a straight WRT the Yamato. It was sunk at the end of the war when most of Japan's aircraft carrier and long torpedo armed destroyer fleets no longer existed.
The Yamato was sent out in a desperate attempt to engage the USN close in to Japanese waters but just beyond air cover. It was all they could do.
261. Wombat - 3/10/2000 5:58:42 PM
Jex:
The Yamato's mission was to get as close to Okinawa as possible, beach itself and blast away. Good to know that the Japanese retained a strong grasp of reality at the end of the war. The Captain of the cruiser Yahagi, which accompanied the Yamato (and was quickly sunk) survived and wrote his memoirs. He spent most of the war in submarines.
262. jexster - 3/10/2000 6:11:50 PM
Wombat - out of curiousity are you an historian by vocation or by avocation?
263. jexster - 3/10/2000 6:13:40 PM
Was WWII really two wars in different parts of the world which just went on at the same time?
I think so. Primary evidence the complete lack of coordination between the Japanese and the Germans WRT Russia. This even though the 2 Axis powers maintained very close liaison. The only area they came close to working together was South America
264. ButterfieldSwire - 3/10/2000 9:28:54 PM
Does anyone know where I could find somewhat reliable info on the number of civilians killed in the Asian countries affected by World War II?
265. jexster - 3/10/2000 10:52:05 PM
Can't help. I have the numbers on the Great Patriotic War tho.
Bet its more of a wild ass guess in Asia
266. ButterfieldSwire - 3/11/2000 2:31:11 AM
Thanks anyway, Jexster. Wild ass guesses are fine as long as its by someone with some credibility.
267. RickNelson - 3/11/2000 6:48:59 AM
I've watched "Snow Falling On Cedars" and wonder if Jexter has?
Why the snotty racist remark about asian people Jex? Even in jest it hurts. I'm pained to read the blurb you posted. My wife and daughter are not animals to be smeared with blurbs! They are my family and they are human beings I love. Remarks of them is a remark of me.
I've read about the Japanese internment years ago and pretty much forgot about it until my wife met a woman who was interned. I'm told that woman was an inspiration to many in Minnesota. Of course I don't have her name at the moment. She passed away just recently. But, the point is knowing about the internment and it's affect upon a group of U.S. citizens whose rights were unjustifiably stripped because of the color of their skin. They lost jobs, homes, property, possessions, friends, family seperations, and their feeling of humanness. A disgusting display of ignorance within U.S. history. And that history is to recent for my taste.
Its recent occurance allows that many citizens involved or in agreement are still living. And it allows that their warped belief systems were passed to their offspring. A truely horrible thought to me.
Well, 'nuf of that.
268. RickNelson - 3/11/2000 7:10:08 AM
The Japanese I believe were also victims of the bomb because of race. Though they were forcing our hand. I wonder why another week wasn't ok? I suppose I would hear that whose American life is to be spent during that week? Yeah I suppose. But, 1000 American lives lost in a week doesn't come close to 100,000 lost in an instant. And the thousands lost after to radiation. Also who knows if another week would have made a difference, so it could have been a month.
I don't see how we even thought we would have to invade the main Islands? We would have been able to warn them with an atoll bomb warning, no? Of course not, they aren't humans who would fear such an aggressive test meant as a warning to surrender. The civilians of Hiroshima and Nagasaki had to be murdered in order to show the might of the bomb to the world. Didn't matter that the huge majority of people were non-combatants. Sure they had military production, but, what large, city in the war didn't? Doesn't matter, they were summarily executed for being Japanese. They were warned to surrender and the Emperor wasn't yet completely ready. He wanted to know what would happen to him, his role and the role of government.
Note: I don't know what the Emperor wanted, I'm inferring most of the above. Based upon reading, The "Rising Sun", and some other books that recount battle tales of individuals and their units. Oh, and that complete "Time Life" series of the war.
269. RickNelson - 3/11/2000 7:10:25 AM
The bomb. The biggest racist tool ever.
Just think about how the pres. thought it out.
It'll stop the war. Sure.
It'll save American lives. Sure.
It'll kill an entire city.
It's a city of Japanese.
They don't want to quit yet.
We don't want to continue.
That's it then, bomb them.
The above isn't enough. So, My process is just to time consuming and extensive to relay a good idea of the thoughts. And I'm being silly to think anyone cares.
The final point to be that a warning shot was not fired. Should it have been? In the name of humanity, yes! Why wouldn't one shot be ok? We had two. If they refused, then reality would force its use upon a military target. Say, a military target, wouldn't that have been a novel idea?
270. Wombat - 3/11/2000 10:16:14 AM
Jex:
Avocation, not vocation.
The Japanese and the Germans tried to work together: the Japanese supplied at least one German surface raider, and German U-boats also made the long trip to Japan. The Germans supplied the Japanese with samples and designs for the for Daimler Benz in-line aircraft engine that powered the ME-109. The Japanese used the design to build the "Tony" interceptor fighter, one of the only Japanese fighters able to fly high enough to attack B-29s. The Japanese attempted to send their submarines to Germany, but I don't believe any made it. Before Germany attacked the Soviet Union, the two countries held staff talks, and came up with the usual fanciful plans for the Afrika Korps to link up with Japanese forces invading India...yadda yadda. Once the Soviet Union was in the war, that ended. The reason...Nomonhan demostrated that the Japanese were not able to fight the Soviets on equal terms, and would never be able to.
271. jexster - 3/11/2000 1:51:26 PM
Nomonhan demostrated that the Japanese were not able to
fight the Soviets on equal terms, and would never be able to.
True enough based on experience before the German invasion of the USSR. As Wombat correctly states, there was a great deal of liaison between the 2 but very little coordination. The Germans were forever seeking, in the most strikingly tentative terms, to enlist the support of their allies, this according to Magic intercepts of Japanese diplomatic traffic.
The German enthusiasm for joining hands over the British Empire's corpse in India was indeed fanciful but in reading the material, one can't help get the impression that most of it came from a desire to molly coddle their allies. Zhukov's success in fighting the Japanese seems to have cemented the position of the Greater East Asian Co-prosperity sphere fanatics for whom the strike at Britain, a former ally, was a deeply racial thing.
272. jexster - 3/11/2000 1:51:50 PM
toys
273. jexster - 3/11/2000 2:03:52 PM
In August of 1939 with 57,000 troops and 500 tanks, GK Zhukov attacked forces of the Imperial Japanese Army in the Battle of Kahlkin Gol. Zhukov's forces quickly encircled the Japanese inflicting 60,000 casualties ending the debate in Japan over whether to attack the Soviets or attack to the South.
This had a tremendous psycho-political effect in Japanese miltarist ruling circles. To date, the Imperial Army had enjoyed the prestige. Per force the Imperial Navy was denied the glory of conquest in Manchuria and China. A debate over which direction to attack and expand was raging. This can easily be appreciated in schoolyard terms.
Navy - yayayayaya. The Emperor demands bettter. We await His call to strike the White Imperialists with our mighty fleet. The Army has proved its impotence.
Army - The Navy cannot prevail without our forces. Put up or shut up.
This battle between the Army and Navy continued even through the decision to strike South. The Army was ever ready to rub the Navy's nose in shit with each defeat.
274. jexster - 3/11/2000 2:05:01 PM
In point of fact, the Imperial Army lacked the equipment, mobility and tactical sophistication to fight the white man. The Navy suffered no such handicap.
275. jexster - 3/11/2000 2:06:33 PM
"I've watched "Snow Falling On Cedars" and wonder if Jexter has?"
Rick - I read the book. The "snotty" racist remark was intentional. It captures American and Japanese views of each other at the time. The allusion was also to John McCain's recent remarks.
276. jexster - 3/11/2000 2:08:54 PM
For the record, I negotiated business deals with Japanese. I've lunched with the Director General of Mitsubishi Corporation in his private dining room overlooking the Imperial Palace and was treated to a tour of Hiroshima by my hosts.
I harbor no anti-Jap sentiments. Not so my father or grandfather who both served as US Naval officers in WWII.
277. jexster - 3/11/2000 2:15:56 PM
Even though it was several years ago (16 to be precise), I will never forget my visit to the Museum and Memorial Park in Hiroshima. I happened to be there the weekend before the Anniversary. I was the only American there, naturally towering over the other visitors. Sticking out like a sore thumb.
The exhibits of the A-bomb's destruction were very unnerving as was being the only American there that hot August morning, a morning much like that the day the bomb was dropped I imagine.
With my phrase book Japanese, however, I was able to express and share something of my feelings with one or two Japanese.
Never forget it.
278. PelleNilsson - 3/11/2000 4:31:43 PM
For me, the Asian scene from the Russian-Japanese war 1905 to Pearl Harbour is an almost complete blank.
I would be glad if somebody could provide a precis of Japanese ventures during that period.
279. jexster - 3/11/2000 9:31:38 PM
I'm with Pelle. I learned about all that in my Mod East Asian History course in college but that was 30 years ago.
Japan had a liberal regime at the turn of the century and looked to emulate GB not only in govt but in colonialism. When the Western Powers shut down her ambitions at Versailles, Japan started to get more radical, eventually going over to Manchukuo. The decisive moment occured, as it did in the West, circa 1936 when a faction led by a guy whose name I forget lost out to the militarists.
280. Wombat - 3/11/2000 9:58:23 PM
Meiji Japan was only "Liberal" when compared to what came before it. The traditional feudal barons, samurai, and ronin were coopted into a modern military force, which offered them glory in a newly expansionist foreign policy. There were a few barons who resisted, but their forces were crushed by the new Japanese armed forces. The Japanese army was modeled on and trained by the French, while the Navy was modeled on the British. Most of Japan's early warships were constructed in Britain.
The Japanese seized Korea, fought and defeated the Chinese in 1899, and the Russians in 1905. They sided with the Allies in World War I, but contributed little materially to the war effort, other than hunting German commerce raiders and snapping up German possessions in the Far East.
The thing to bear in mind is that Japan was consistently expansionist, once it achieved internal unity.
281. RickNelson - 3/12/2000 8:13:28 AM
Jex,
The sentiment of old is understood. Bless you for your participation and concern during your visit some 16 yrs ago. I'm sure your presence represtented a standard for the U.S. as well as your personal journey.
I've seen some documentories of such visits. Healing visits, for the participants. One was the recent uncovering of the Korean bridge massacre. A soldier of the unit concerned went to a memorial sevice set up in Korea. He gave his best and received thoughtful consideration. It's hard for everyone. I teared up for the Korean stories and for the poor soldier who followed horrific orders while fearing for his life.
Bless you.
282. RickNelson - 3/12/2000 8:23:00 AM
Do any of us know a Japanese who can contribute to this? I do not, but would find it most generous if a Japanese national had the time to share.
Concerning the mood, as Wombat is looking at could really be focused.
I fear the mood that such societal cohesion can create. cohesion that is brought about by fear is even more scary. That is what I think of when I think of Imperial Japan during the 20's-45. People who must believe in their Divine Emporer and follow the lead of said emporer unquestioningly. It's a recipe for what occured. It's not much different than Hitler with respect to fear and following orders. Ruthlessness would reign. As it did.
Who can expand upon the infighting of the Japanese Imperial Navy and the Army? That's a bit interesting.
283. Wombat - 3/12/2000 5:02:13 PM
The rivalry between the Japanese Army and Navy was one over resources and glory. The Navy had the deserved reputation for both tactical skill and mastery of modern technology. The Army often did not.
This first became apparent in the Russo-Japanese War, when the Navy won a string of victories ending with the annihilation of the Russian fleet at Tsushima. The Japanese suffered very few losses. The Japanese Army in Manchuria maneuvered skillfully against against the poorly-led Russian field forces, defeating them in a series of hard fought battles, taking and inflicting heavy casualties. At Port Arthur, the Japanese suffered horrific casualties against a Russian garrison whose leadership was either incompetent or treasonous. After the failure of one attack, Japanese losses were so heavy that the Japanese commander had to be dissuaded from committing suicide. Fortunately, a lucky shell killed the Russian officer who was actively leading the defense, and the Japanese--after again suffering huge casualties--seized a key defensive position. The Russian garrison commander surrendered not long after, in spite vehement protests from his subordinates. When the garrison surrendered, there were still six months' worth of food and ammunition remaining.
Ironically, the Japanese needed the peace treaty signed in Portsmouth even more than the Russians. The Army had suffered losses in men and materiel that were becoming unsustainable. The Russians could replace their their losses, the Japanese could not. Also Japan's victories had unsettled countries that had initially sympathized with Japan, and they began to pressure Japan to end the war.
284. Jonesy - 3/13/2000 12:16:30 AM
I agree with the analysis comparing Japan's Navy to the British and the Army to the French. I believe that it was a conscious decision to emulate the most sucessful western powers at their greatest strengths. In a remarkably short period of time in historical terms, Japan had gone from an inward looking fedual system, to a modern nation-state. I do not think that colonial ambition was intrinsic in the Japanese character, or world view; but was rather adopted from their interpretation of what a modern nation should be as modeled on the most "advanced" countries of western Europe. With the exception of the Americans, the most agressive colonial powers in the late 19th and early 20th centuries were the newest nations. The Italians, Germans and Japanese did their best to grab what opportunties remained. The Americans were ambivalent colonialists- although certainly agressive in indirect and economic colonialism.
285. Jonesy - 3/13/2000 12:30:01 AM
There is something to be said for the short time period from the Meji restoration to the events of the 20's and 30's and the militarists rise to power. Obviously the political power and social status of samuri class was lost with the end of the shogunate, but the culture was obviously shaped by the long experience with a martial class operating the political system in service to a remote god-emperor. It was more of a return to the norm than a new experience when the militarists regained power. It could be viewed as a sign of national maturity and and cultural nativization when the militarists gained power in Japan, rather than a rejection of a well established monarchy.
286. Wombat - 3/13/2000 9:57:24 AM
The rise and power of the militarists was helped by the fact that Meiji's successor Taisho was "mad," and that Hirohito (Showa)was young and unprepared to rule when he ascended the throne in the late 1920s.
287. jexster - 3/13/2000 8:00:00 PM
The Imperial Japanese Navy [Nihon Kaigun] was a fearsome war machine. The supposed glory of the Royal Navy paled quickly in comparision and in combat. The US Navy found itself in combat with which was, until 1943, the best navy the world has ever seen.
288. Jonesatlaw - 3/14/2000 12:38:45 AM
Nelson- While I do not doubt that there was no small amount of racism driving American actions regarding Japan during the war (compare the propaganda efforts against Italy and Germany with that directed at the Japanese- the European enemies were targeted as politcal parties, a nation held captive by a evil cabal, the Japanese were targeted more as a nation) I have to defend Truman. In hindsight, a warning shot would seem rational, but given the difficulty that Japan had in surrendering even after both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were wiped out, I do not think that any demonstration would have been effective. I read a text concerning a plot to kidnap Hirohito on the day that his recorded message was to be broadcast calling for surrender. I believe that it is "Japan's Longest Day."
289. RickNelson - 3/14/2000 7:58:30 AM
Jonesatlaw,
Yes, the difficulties surrounding a Japanese surrender were well propagandized at that time.
I'm sure the Emporer was at the end of his rope and feared all things. I feel bad for those people who had to be sacrificed because of the system set up around them.
I cannot think of a parallel for such nationwide fear for their Emporer/leader and it's system With exception of Germany during WWII. Cambodia, China and Myanmar are/were close but, they didn't attempt world expanssion. It's like a weird silence that has all exhaulted power over them. They follow this psuedo silence like cattle and gave themselves to it to the end. It must have been a horrific time during surrender. Especially for surrndering to racist American military personnel. And don't try for examples, or tell me they weren't. I don't want to change my mind about who Americans were then.
Race played a role in how America decided it was the Japanese nation and not it's rulers that wanted the G.E.A.C.P.S. How, America would determine that the German people weren't the same as the Japanese with respect to national fervour for the war is beyond my ability to comprehend. I know the fervour for war was extremely high in Germany at the time. So, that would mean to me that the German peoples of America at the time, if all were equal would also need to be interred. Well we know they were not.
So, does that mean it was revenge for Pearl Harbor? Perhaps.
cont.
290. RickNelson - 3/14/2000 7:58:47 AM
But, it is race that allowed the internment and nothing else. The Japanese nation at the time was exactly like Germany with respect to its people having no choice to follow what they were told to do. Only those who understood what was happening diccented and I'm sure many of those sacrificed their lives for it. And then there are heros like Shindler. Well, there were probably heros in Japan too. But, we whites don't have time to share their stories. I know I've never heard of any Shindler like types out of Japan.
Could there have been some instances of compassion for humanity and those sufferiing under Japanese rule? Of course. Not to think there was, is to make a close to racist assumption imho. At the least it's an ignorant assumption to believe there were no Japanese who tried to help the suffering of other countries and races. I'm not speaking of the home Islands, but of the conquered lands.
cont.
Now I'm not considering you are mentioning any of what I'm stating above Jones. I'm just expanding upon my ideas a bit. And I understand what you've presented.
I still have my belief that a warning shot upon the military directly would have been equally effective as Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I cannot tell you where this would be, but, we missed an opportunity with all the Island hopping America did. We could have settled upon Iwo perhaps. A very problematic attack indeed. Would not a bomb have ended the necessary attack? Was it something we had to do when we did? Well who can truely say for sure? What other possible military targets could be thought of. I would have to research for such answers. I cannot imagine we had no military options for a target. That is why I've a problem with civilians being sacrificed/murdered by the bombs.
The bomb is very difficult!
291. PelleNilsson - 3/14/2000 3:16:38 PM
When we come to the bomb I have a long and eloquent piece by PE which I got from Dusty. The thing is that PE asked it to be deleted from archives, possibly because he wants to use it in some journal, so I would have to ask him before publishing.
Things are slow around here so I thought I could bring up a strange conspiracy theory that came up when I hosted Political Ideas some months ago. The occasion was a discusssion of FDR's policies in order to try to fit them into the traditional European political spectrum. I was surprised to learn how hated FDR still is by right-wingers.
Anyhow, the theory was very simple and went like this. FDR somehow co-conspired with the Japanese to achieve the bombing of Pearl Harbour. His motive was to provide a justification for declaring war on Japan and Germany in order to be able to help his buddy Joe Stalin who, at the time, was in a bit of a trouble with Hitler.
Has anyone else heard about this stuff?
292. Dantheman - 3/14/2000 3:18:59 PM
Pelle,
I've heard that from time to time, and usually dismiss it as coming from cranks. You're right, though, that there's still a large number of conservatives who despise FDR for creating the welfare state.
293. Raskolnikov - 3/14/2000 3:28:15 PM
Pelle: there are quite a lot of people who believe that FDR knew about Pearl Harbor in advance. It is a frequent topic for the conspiracy-minded. However, your description is a bit more out there than most I have heard. I haven't heard anyone say that FDR conspired *with* the Japanese, or argue that FDR's goal was to help Stalin in particular. The standard line is that FDR knew the Japanese were coming, and sent a good share of the fleet out of port, in order to get us into the war and help fight the Nazis.
I have never looked too deep into the conspiracy theories, but surface examination leads me to believe that they are bunk. The logic doesn't make a lot of sense, and the evidence is lacking.
294. ScottLoar - 3/14/2000 3:33:41 PM
How could the President of the United States, a quite public position and one utterly reliant on a cadre of advisors and staff, secretly advance to treason and the destruction of the American Pacific fleet? As we well know, not even the sexual peccadilloes of Presidents remain unknown; discretely avoided perhaps by an indulgent or sympathetic staff and press, but treason yet remains a more serious matter than fornication.
295. PelleNilsson - 3/14/2000 3:36:18 PM
Dan
I haven't read about the events leading up to Pearl Harbour for a long time and I have no good sources here at home. But I do remember that there are uncertainties in the time line like what was decrypted at what time, who knew and when, exactly when were telegrams delivered and how were they distributed, and so on. I guess it would be possible to work in a conspiracy.
I wonder if spudboy, our conspiracy connoisseur, ever lurks here and if he knows something interesting.
296. ScottLoar - 3/14/2000 3:39:57 PM
Or chance, which insinuates itself in affairs much more deftly than conspiracy.
297. Wombat - 3/14/2000 3:50:07 PM
The Pearl Harbor conspiracy fails the same logic test that most conspiracy theories do.
That is not to say that there weren't warnings before. The Army received warning to be alert for some potential Japanese action. Since an air attack was deemed inconceivable by General Walter Short (CiC US Army in Hawaii), when he ordered a heightened alert, it was directed against potential saboteurs. The result was that USAAF aircraft were placed where they could be most easily guarded: in closely packed rows on the runways. When the air attack came, the USAAF was easy pickings, losing almost all of its fighters and its bombers.
The Navy presumably received similar warnings, but Admiral Kimmel did nothing. Fortunately the Pacific Fleet's aircraft carriers were out of port delivering aircraft and supplies to US posts (Wake Island, Midway). This should have provided Kimmel a hint that war was expected.
However, the most colossal intelligence breakdown was in the Philippines. They had working radar, the knowledge that the US was at war with Japan, and yet the air force still managed to be caught on the ground. Why General Brereton was not cashiered for that lapse escapes me (McArthur also bears some responsability).
298. ScottLoar - 3/14/2000 3:56:32 PM
And even though the Japanese gauged the attack on Pearl Harbor a success (victory codeword: tora) they missed the carriers. So, the next strategy was to lure those US carriers into combat and sink them.
299. Raskolnikov - 3/14/2000 3:57:38 PM
Well, the usualy "evidence" for the conspiracy theory is a handful of intercepted messages, and US intelligence reports, which collectively could indicate that an attack was imminent. One major logical leap that the conspiracy-mongers make is that all of these reports must have been taken at face value and deemed important enough to call to FDR's attention, amidst all of the other intelligence reports floating around. Separating intelligence wheat from chaff is *still* a damned tricky business, nevermind that this was in the days before the *Central* Intelligence Agency, which was eventually formed as a result of frequent problems with coordinating intelligence information.
And it doesn't make sense that FDR would have needed a surprise attack. Any attack, even if it had been disastrous for the Japanese, would have justified a declaration of war.
Not to mention Scott's point about the inability of the government to keep a secret. There are too many steps in the chain of command. A large number of people would have had to have the same information FDR had. It is almost inconceivable that this could be kept secret for so long.
300. PelleNilsson - 3/14/2000 4:50:41 PM
Look. I didn't advance the conspiracy theory because I believe in it but to provide a topic for discussion in a slow thread. So far, so good.
Raskolnikov:
The standard line is that FDR knew the Japanese were coming, and sent a good share of the fleet out of port, in order to get us into the war and help fight the Nazis.
Wombat:
Fortunately the Pacific Fleet's aircraft carriers were out of
port delivering aircraft and supplies to US posts (Wake Island,
Midway). This should have provided Kimmel a hint that war was
expected.
Could design and fortune be mixed up?
The attack on Pearl Harbour was a clear threat to US interests in the Pacific. The declarion of war on Japan was logical. But was it necessary, from the US point of view, to go to war with Germany at the same time?
301. ScottLoar - 3/14/2000 4:55:11 PM
I believe America didn't want Britain gobbled up by the Nazis and so looked to the relief of Britain as the first step in the prosecution of the war.
302. PincherMartin - 3/14/2000 4:55:41 PM
Jonesy --
I agree with the analysis comparing Japan's Navy to the British and the Army to the French. I believe that it was a conscious decision to emulate the most sucessful western powers at their greatest strengths. In a remarkably short period of time in historical terms, Japan had gone from an inward looking fedual system, to a modern nation-state.
303. Dantheman - 3/14/2000 4:56:11 PM
Pelle,
My (fallable) memory is that the US declared war on Japan only, and Germany and Italy then declared war on the US.
304. PelleNilsson - 3/14/2000 4:59:00 PM
Dan
My memory is fallable too. Maybe someone can enlighten us.
305. Raskolnikov - 3/14/2000 4:59:47 PM
"The attack on Pearl Harbour was a clear threat to US interests in the Pacific. The declarion of war on Japan was logical. But was it necessary, from the US point of view, to go to war with Germany at the same time?"
Germany declared war on the US after the US declared war on Japan. I have seen some scholarly debate about what FDR would have done if Hitler had not made what is usually considered a foolish move. But given that declaration of war, I think it was quite necessary for the US to go to war with Germany. I don't think it is controversial to argue that the US had a stronger national interest in the outcome of events in Europe. FDR had pushing the US toward war for a couple of years. The only thing stopping FDR from getting involved was public sentiment, which was promptly washed away by the outrage following Pearl Harbor.
306. stostosto - 3/14/2000 5:00:26 PM
Pelle
If I am not mistaken, it was Hitler who declared war on the USA immediately after Pearl Harbor. I have always thought this highly strange. What could Germany possibly gain from that? They were attacking American convoys to Britain already. Of course, it would have likely been a matter of time before America sided with Britain. But why rush things? (Sorry, I realise this spills over to the 'European Theater').
307. Raskolnikov - 3/14/2000 5:02:40 PM
I have never seen a convincing explanation for why Germany declared war on the US. Obviously, they *did* declare war, but I have never seen a reason for it which makes it remotely look like a sensible plan. Given that US outrage was aimed at the Japanese, absent a provocation, the US would probably have been politically required to focus on the pacific theater.
308. stostosto - 3/14/2000 5:09:01 PM
Dan, Rask
You beat me to it.
Rask: Is Hitler's war declaration usually considered a foolish move? Then it's not just me? I am glad. (Strange as it may sound, I have never heard or read this peculiar war declaration commented upon, only registered...)
309. Raskolnikov - 3/14/2000 5:12:37 PM
"Rask: Is Hitler's war declaration usually considered a foolish move? Then it's not just me? I am glad. (Strange as it may sound, I have never heard or read this peculiar war declaration commented upon, only registered...)"
I haven't done a vast historical exploration of the arguments around it. I am largely going by memory from a couple of 20th century diplomatic history classes I took, but my understanding is that it is usually regarded as a bad move.
310. PelleNilsson - 3/14/2000 5:13:05 PM
I hate to reveal my ignorance but if one doesn't one doesn't learn, does one?
Was there a formal treaty between Japan and Germany so that the US declaration of war on Japan automatically triggered the German response, just as Germany's attack on Poland triggered the declarations of war by France and the UK?
311. Raskolnikov - 3/14/2000 5:15:36 PM
That I can't remember, but given Hitler's trail of broken agreements and willingness to pull a 180 on an ally when it suited his purposes, the existence of such an agreement wouldn't explain his decision.
312. Wombat - 3/14/2000 5:18:21 PM
Hitler was never one to let rationality and logic affect his decisionmaking. He did it impulsively, although with no little provocation from the United States. Nazi leadership thought that the United States was "soft" and too busy producing consumer goods to quickly switch over to war production. No doubt they also believed that the "mongrelized" Americans would be unable to match the "pure" and militarized German and Japanese forces.
313. Wombat - 3/14/2000 5:20:00 PM
There was a treaty, which all parties ignored when it suited them.
314. stostosto - 3/14/2000 5:25:39 PM
Wombat #312
Then I'd say Germany declaring war on the US was a mistake of incredible proportions.
315. Wombat - 3/14/2000 5:28:05 PM
I don't think it would have made much difference in the long run.
316. Raskolnikov - 3/14/2000 5:29:12 PM
Global rules of thumb:
1) Don't get in a land war in Asia.
2) Don't fuck with Uncle Sam.
Sorry, I share that peculiar American trait of puffing up with national pride when WWII gets discussed, despite the fact that I wasn't born until 22 years after it ended.
317. Raskolnikov - 3/14/2000 5:31:06 PM
"I don't think it would have made much difference in the long run."
I have seen this mentioned as a counter-argument for the "Hitler's declaration was a fuck-up" argument. What is your reasoning? Do you think FDR would have quickly found an excuse to enter the war anyway?
318. ScottLoar - 3/14/2000 5:42:45 PM
To that most excellent Message # 316 I'd pointedly include Russia in 1).
319. Wombat - 3/14/2000 5:44:39 PM
The declaration would have come eventually. The US was already at war with Germany de facto if not yet de jure. I don't know if Roosevelt would have tried to ask Congress for a declaration of war lacking one from Germany. It would have been a messy process, with a lot of dirty laundry aired. Hitler's action allowed the United States to go to war politically unified.
320. PelleNilsson - 3/14/2000 5:53:21 PM
i don't think demonizing Hitler, or relieving him of rationale and logic will contribute to our understanding of WWII. If there was a treaty and Hitler acted within its provisions it was no more irrational or stupid than the Allies acting on their treaty with Poland.
Wombat
Nazi leadership thought that the United States was "soft" and too busy producing consumer goods to quickly switch over to war production. No doubt they also believed that the "mongrelized" Americans would be unable to match the "pure" and militarized German and Japanese forces.
Can you source that? In particular the second sentence.
321. Raskolnikov - 3/14/2000 6:01:51 PM
"i don't think demonizing Hitler, or relieving him of rationale and logic will contribute to our understanding of WWII. If there was a treaty and Hitler acted within its provisions it was no more irrational or stupid than the Allies acting on their treaty with Poland."
It certainly can be. With Poland, you can at least make the argument that it was a line in the sand, after evidence of German expansionism in Czechoslovakia. If Britain and France had backed down, their credibility would have suffered further.
But Hitler didn't have much credibility in the first place, in December of 1941. He had already violated several treaties and agreements, including Versailles, Munich, and the Molotov-Ribentropp Pact.
Leaving Japan hanging high and dry wouldn't have hurt him in the slightest.
Not to mention that Japan hadn't really lived up to its side of the bargain, after German invaded the USSR.
322. PincherMartin - 3/14/2000 6:32:59 PM
I have to correct my own Message # 302
Here is what Importing the European Army: The Introduction of European Military Techniques and Institutions into the Extra-European World, 1600-1914 has to say about the matter:
In their efforts to set up a military establishment capable of meeting contemporary standards of performance, the leaders of the Meiji regime turned to the West for help and guidance. During the mid-nineteenth century, France was considered to be the leader in matters pertaining to land warfare, so the shogunate sought the assistance of that country when in the 1860s it set about trying to improve the state of its armed forces. The government of Napoleon III, eager to extend its influence to the distant corners of the world, had been glad to accede to Japanese requests, but by the time a French military misson had arrived and set to work in 1867, it was probably too late to prevent the military defeat and political collapse of the Tokugawa regime. Following the overthrow of the shogunate, the new Meiji government continued to make use of the services of France, even after 1870, despite that nation's military reputation having been somewhat tarnished in the Franco-Prussian War.
Down through the 1870s the French mission worked at educating the Japanese in the fundamentals of modern military practice, and its accomplishments were considerable. The men of the French mission -- six officers and six NCOs -- taught the Japanese how to organize, train and command units from the size of a company on up to brigade. They also set up a school for N.C.O.s and established an academy for officer candidates, which opened its doors in 1875. Apparently the Japanese government was satisfied with the work of the mission, since the contracts of the French officers were renewed in 1876.
323. PincherMartin - 3/14/2000 6:33:18 PM
The Satsuma Rebellion, demanding the commitment to battle of all the meager and still relatively untrained military forces the government had available, revealed a number of deficiencies in the Japanese army. It also had an unfortunate, disruptive effect on work of the French mission. Essential services such as the organization of the reserves and the regular provision of supplies functioned badly. These were matters the French mission had hardly touched upon, possibly because their own army was deficient here, as had been demonstrated in the recent war against Prussia. In any case, the French incurred some of the blame for the difficulties encountered in suppressing the Satsuma rebellion, while the ultimate success of the government after some six months of hard fighting gave the Meiji leaders asense of confidence in thier own abilities and that they no longer needed the tutelage of the French or of any other nation on an exclusive basis. With much tact and diplomacy, the Japanese set about negotiating the termination of the French military mission. It went home in 1880. To the degree that the Japanese utilized the services of any one European country for the rest of nineteenth centruy, they turned to Germany.
324. PincherMartin - 3/14/2000 6:48:21 PM
So, according to this source, it was not the Franco-Prussian of 1870 war that lessened the French influence on Japan's army, as I claimed, but the 1877 Satsuma rebellion.
A very interestng note on the German influence on the Japanese Army (from the same source):
By instituting the General Staff and endowing it with wide-reaching authority over the army, the Japanese were clearly following the Prusso-German example. In fact, the Japanese were some years ahead of the Germans, who did not free the General Staff from the official, if nominal control of the Ministry of War until 1883.
325. cmboyce - 3/14/2000 7:03:26 PM
Jexter, as publican here, you should know that I just clicked on "WWII '39-'45" in the butter bar and got.... the Mote Home Page.
326. cmboyce - 3/14/2000 7:04:36 PM
And, I just realized, it's target was "new"; ie, I now have two screens, with this thread on it.
327. spudboy - 3/14/2000 7:20:37 PM
A couple of helpful references:
German Declaration of War
Hitler's announcement to the Reichstag
328. cmboyce - 3/14/2000 8:16:15 PM
Wow, Spudboy, those are some great sites!! For those who haven't looked, the first of them, with the German Declaration of War, is to a vast trove of documents pertaining to international relations, and the second (Reichstag speech) is to a ditto concerning the Holocaust.
Anyone: how much truth is there to the German allegations that FDR had announced in Sept.'41 a policy of firing on German warships, and that the USN had in fact done so throughout the fall?
329. Wombat - 3/15/2000 9:59:38 AM
After the Bismark, and after the attack on the Kearney and the sinking of the destroyer Reuben James, Roosevelt declared a "shoot on sight" policy in waters extending hundreds of miles off the US coastline. The US was already escorting lend lease convoys in that area, before turning escort duties over the Brits.
330. Wombat - 3/15/2000 10:57:00 AM
Pelle:
Check out the section of the Nazi Propaganda Archive on the United States.
331. PelleNilsson - 3/15/2000 2:25:58 PM
I will if you can be a little more specific. What site are you referring to?
332. Jenerator - 3/15/2000 2:36:41 PM
Jexster,
I sat through an interesting lecture on Fascism yesterday. It started off with a minimal history on the political climate of Italy and Germany after WW1 and worked it's way up to it's 'definition'. The lecturer (actually a post grad. student working on her Ph.D) gave us these very distinct features of Fascism:
1) the 'corporate' state- all functions of the state both private and public are under the state and state run.
2) extreme nationalism- a fascist state is not respectful of individualism or tradition, rather emphasis is placed on nation and collectivism.
3) hostility towards democracy
4) anti-rationalism
5) elitism
My question of her was HOW ARE THESE CHARACTERISTICS DIFFERENT FROM COMMUNISM?
What makes Fascism different from Communism? In theory Fascism is supposed to be exclusive, the revolution coming from the top, its strength resting in the state, a hierarchy of classes, and 'relative autonomy'.
But, Fascism in practice seems to be more like Stalin's Communist Russia.
333. Wombat - 3/15/2000 2:39:25 PM
It is one of the links alongside this page. It has a whole section devoted to Nazi perceptions of the United States, its materialism and the disadvantages of a ethnically polyglot nation versus an ethnically pure one.
334. PelleNilsson - 3/15/2000 2:41:40 PM
Wombat
Sorry for having oberlooked the obvious. I will read.
335. PelleNilsson - 3/15/2000 2:52:16 PM
jenerator
The principal differences between communism and fascism are (a) the ownership of property and (b) the ultimate goal of societal development. In communism (b) is the completely egalitarian state where all property is a common resource and everyone works for the common good. In fascism, the goal is the national state which has fully developed all its inherent possibilities. I don't know if your studies have brought you into contact with Hegel. If so you would find similarities between fascism and Hegel's concept of the Volksgeist which strives to realise its own potential.
You are absolutely right that in practice, many if not most of these philosophical differences disappear from view.
336. Raskolnikov - 3/15/2000 3:00:45 PM
Just based on the criteria you list, the biggest difference is "elitism". Communism is pretty contemptuous of elitism. Additionally, Communism was not nationalistic in nature. It was international in nature. "Workers *of the world* unite". It required some post hoc rationalizations to explain how a communist USSR could exist by itself in the world.
337. PelleNilsson - 3/15/2000 4:22:50 PM
Raskolnikov
No, no, no. Communists were very elitist. What was the Social Democratic party of Russia split at the London Congress of 1903 over this very issue. The "Bolsheviks" (majority) led by Lenin enforced a structure where the party encompassed "the vanguard of the masses", the elite who could divine the "true will of the people".
You are right that at its inception the marxist movement was international: "Workers in all countries unite", but it became downgraded with Stalin's line "Socialism in one country". It didn't disappear though and I said earlier, extreme nationalism is one of the fundamental demarkation lines between fascism and communism.
338. spudboy - 3/15/2000 4:24:43 PM
Pelle and Rask are right about key differences between fascism and communism. (I might reformulate "elitism" as "contempt for the weak.") Another feature of fascism absent in communism is its core myth: palingenesis -- that is, the belief in a Phoenix-style rebirth from the ashes of the order it intends to destroy. In this sense it is quite different from communism, which aims to create an entirely new international order of workers. The palingenetic myth tends to be both backward-looking, focused on resurrecting the glory of days gone by, and nationalistic in nature. If it has international aspirations, they are of the imposition of the subject nation's ethos on the rest of the world, rather than creating an entirely new society.
Probably the chief difficulty here is that fascism generally has been difficult to analyze because it arose in essence as a reaction *against* communism. Its ideology has always been easier to describe in negative terms --that is, by what it is against -- than positive. (Thus, you still see "anti-democratic" and "anti-intellectual" as consistent traits.) And more than a few observers have noted that fascism inevitably becomes a kind of parody of its original intent. German and Italian fascists started out calling themselves "socialists," but were devoutly, murderously anti-socialist by the time they obtained power. American fascists declaim at length about "freedom" and rant about looming totalitarianism, but one can only imagine what their regime might look like -- and it wouldn't be pretty.
339. Raskolnikov - 3/15/2000 4:29:40 PM
"No, no, no. Communists were very elitist. What was the Social Democratic party of Russia split at the London Congress of 1903 over this very issue. The "Bolsheviks" (majority) led by Lenin enforced a structure where the party encompassed "the vanguard of the masses", the elite who could divine the "true will of the people".
I take your point, and have made it myself in other forums, but do you agree that this is a very different sense of elitism than is used by fascists? Anyone could be a member of the Communist vanguard party. It was elitism regarding ideology, not the racial elitism of the fascists.
340. spudboy - 3/15/2000 4:34:07 PM
Actually, Rask, if I'm not mistaken, there was also a real ethno-religious elitism at work with the Soviets, in the shape of that nasty anti-Semitism that lingers in Russia even today.
341. PelleNilsson - 3/15/2000 4:40:46 PM
Rask
In the Soviet Union not everyone could become a member of the Party. It was a privilege that had to be earned, and which carried with it benefits such as access to special shops with western goods, superior health care, vacation at exclusive resorts and so on. Furthermore, the scale of benefits was was tied to part rank. Very elitist.
342. Raskolnikov - 3/15/2000 4:42:17 PM
"Actually, Rask, if I'm not mistaken, there was also a real ethno-religious elitism at work with the Soviets, in the shape of that nasty anti-Semitism that lingers in Russia even today."
Certainly, but this isn't part of Communist ideology.
343. Raskolnikov - 3/15/2000 4:44:20 PM
"In the Soviet Union not everyone could become a member of the Party. It was a privilege that had to be earned, and which carried with it benefits such as access to special shops with western goods, superior health care, vacation at exclusive resorts and so on. Furthermore, the scale of benefits was was tied to part rank. Very elitist."
I should have said "everyone could potentially be a member". There was nothing in communist ideology which excluded specific racial or ethnic groups. For instance, there were many high ranking Communist Jews.
344. PelleNilsson - 3/15/2000 4:59:13 PM
Now I agree. The most famous Jew was Leon Trotsky. On the other hand there was an ambivalence. "Cosmopolitans" was a code word for Jews, an indication that their loyalty to the nation was suspected. This is extremely odd since the communist creed, as we have noted, was cosmopolitan in the sense that it was not bound to one country.
345. PelleNilsson - 3/15/2000 5:18:11 PM
Wombat
I have read:
During a war, only a people can fight for its future, not a mere population that is racially, religiously, linguistically, ideologically and governmentally disunified. Given all that has been said, the USA has no unified people, only a population.
This is of course in perfect harmony with Nazi ideology. I would like to say more on this but it's growing late at this end of the wire. Perhaps tomorrow.
But here is a cite from the same source, the sentiments of which still survive in vulgar European criticism of America:
This resulted in the desire for records and gigantomania that always amuses us. Lacking a significant political and intellectual history, the American is forced to build his national pride on technology.
346. Wombat - 3/15/2000 5:24:32 PM
Pelle:
I was amused by the number of Nazi "perceptions" of the United States that sound not unlike those of contemporary critics of the United States.
347. stostosto - 3/16/2000 4:47:23 AM
The Nazis may have thought that the USA wasn't all that much of a military threat. Hence, a state of war wouldn't seem terribly dangerous. What baffles me is whatever they figured they could gain by taking on the US. Did they really, truly fancy a German invasion of the North American continent??? It looks like such a one-sided proposition to me: Germany could never, ever win a war against the USA. The best they could hope for was that the American weighing in in the European war wouldn't cause too much trouble. That seems like something like the weakest possible argument for declaring war on anyone: "We can't harm them in the slightest, but nor can they us..."
Sure, I doubt the US would have kept out of Europe's war, and I also suppose the outcome would have been the same.
I am just amazed that the Germans so readily relieved FDR of a cumbersome political struggle for US participation - with apparently nothing to be gained in return.
348. PelleNilsson - 3/16/2000 7:13:36 AM
One thing the declaration of war did for the Germans: They could now freely sink US vessels.
349. stostosto - 3/16/2000 7:25:36 AM
Well, I don't think they acted as if terribly constrained in that respect prior to the war declaration. There was a reason for the American "shoot on sight" policy and attacking German subs with depth charges.
350. PelleNilsson - 3/16/2000 7:43:30 AM
sto
Vidi.
I sort of anticipated that objection and I have an answer in the works. But I'm desperatly short of time right now, not because of office duties, but because I have an exam coming up and I need to understand a piece of work by Hegel. If you've ever been in that situation you would pity me.
Watch this space though.
351. stostosto - 3/16/2000 7:53:11 AM
352. stostosto - 3/16/2000 7:53:50 AM
This would appear to refute my assertion
"With the japanese surprise attack on Pearl Harbour on Dec 7, 1941 Hitler was bound by a promise to Japan to also declare war on the US. He did so promptly on Dec 11 and after that all restrictions on German U-boats (which had been attacked and hunted by US convoy escorts in the North Atlantic for the last 5-6 months of 1941 anyway without permission to attack the US escorts) not to attack American shipping were removed. This opened up a whole new field for Dönitz which immediately drew up plans for a devastatingly swift blow on the US eastern seaboard. "
The sentence with the parenthesised clause nails me.
353. Raskolnikov - 3/16/2000 10:44:04 AM
Since unrestricted submarine warfare against the US in WWI did so much to keep the US out of the war and assure a German victory, it makes complete sense that they would try it again.
/sarcasm
At least in WWI, Germany could hope that they could have conquered France before the US had time to mobilize. By December of 1941, Germany had already turned its attention away from Britain, and was getting bogged down in Russia.
Still, the more I think about it, the less difference I think it would have made. After Pearl Harbor, the US was already mobilizing for war. I can't see how a several month delay in a war between the US and Germany would have affected things much.
354. Indiana Jones - 3/16/2000 10:49:39 AM
"With the japanese surprise attack on Pearl Harbour on Dec 7, 1941 Hitler was bound by a promise to Japan to also declare war on the US."
Jumping in here, so I hope I've not overlooked something previous. Technically, Hitler was bound only to aid the Japanese if the U.S. had attacked Japan. Since Japan was the instigator, he was off the hook. (Cf. Japan's failure to declare war on Russia in June 1941.)
I also wonder how easy it would have been without Hitler's blunder (deciding to declare war on the U.S.) to mobilize U.S. public opinion for a "Europe first" campaign--given the anger Americans felt over Pearl Harbor.
355. Jenerator - 3/16/2000 11:01:44 AM
I really enjoyed the brief discussion on fascism. Thank you Pelle, Rask, and Spud for commenting on it. I guess why I am always so curious about fascism when it's used to describe a movement, is because the characteristics are always so blurry. Whether it was an organic reaction of the times or whether it was created, I'm still wondering if it truly was a distinct ideology. So much of it seems to be borrowed from other ideologies. For example, I could describe Nazi Germany as a totalitarian dictatorship which was anti-capitalism, anti-communism, anti-democracy, anti-rational, anti-intellectual, elitist, and racist. How would describing it as fascist make it distinctly different?
356. Indiana Jones - 3/16/2000 11:03:21 AM
Actual Tripartite Pact
"Germany, Italy and Japan agree to co-operate in their efforts on aforesaid lines. They further undertake to assist one another with all political, economic and military means when one of the three contracting powers is attacked by a power at present not involved in the European war or in the Chinese-Japanese conflict."
357. PelleNilsson - 3/16/2000 12:39:08 PM
jenerator
It is difficult to get a handle on fascism but it is important to try, because as we know it is a movement that is alive and well in many places.
I found Walter Laqueur (ed.) Fascism; A Reader's Guide very helpful. It is a hefty scholarly work with several contributors. Laqueur has also published Fascism: Past, Present, Future. I haven't read it, but it is a later work (1997) and available in paperback. Probably a rewarding read.
The site I linked to is the e-commerce arm of WH Smith so you should be able to step in to your local branch and order any of the books.
358. Jenerator - 3/16/2000 12:49:18 PM
Thank you Pelle, I feel bad for having been mean to you previously.
359. Wombat - 3/16/2000 2:27:27 PM
The first incident between a U-boat and a US destroyer as almost certainly an accident, although not an unprovoked one. The destroyer, the USS Greer, was in the area of a British convoy, and had apparently detected a U-boat. As it was tracking it, a RCAF Catalina flying boat dropped depth charges nearby. The U-boat commander drew the logical, if mistaken, conclusion and fired torpedoes at the Greer, which promptly responded.
Hitler went out of his way to avoid provoking US wrath over submarine actions. U-boat commanders were given strict instructions to avoid US waters and to avoid attacking US flag ships. This did not apply to other neutrals, nor did it apply to US vessels sailing in (or escorting) convoys to Britain.
German U-boat long-term goals were based on racking up a high aggregate tonnage of sinkings. Thus, an empty tanker sailing from Philadelphia to Houston had equal value to a fully loaded freighter sailing in convoy to Britain. The assumption was that the Germans would sink more shipping than could be replaced by new construction. Once the United States was in the war, this assumption became fatally flawed. German attacks on shipping in US waters sank large numbers of ships, with virtually no loss to the U-Boats (the "happy time" for U-boat commanders), horrified the United States, and shocked the Navy and Army Air Force out of their complacency. One wonders whether it would have been more useful to have concentrated attacks on convoys to Britain, possibly overwhelming the outmanned British escort forces, or the inexperienced US escort forces. German U-boat attacks on convoys to Britain did not peak until 1943, by which time the United States escorts were both numerous and experienced, and new technologies had been perfected that negated the earlier German tactical expertise. Although many ships were sunk, German submariners suffered appalling casualties, which they never recovered from.
360. Ronski - 3/16/2000 2:36:31 PM
Just as Russia and Japan did not declare war on each other in the first few years following Pearl Harbor, the United States never declared war on Finland (the only democratic ally of Nazi Germany, which entered the war to attempt to regain territory taken from them by the USSR in 1940), though Great Britain did declare war on Finland.
I remember being taught in a NY public school that Finland was the only country to repay its debts to the United States. I wonder if such things are ever mentioned in any schools today.
361. ScottLoar - 3/16/2000 2:40:57 PM
The "happy time" was illuminated by the lights from the large coastal cities of the US silhouetting offshore targets for U-boat commanders.
362. Wombat - 3/16/2000 2:41:16 PM
By contrast, the other victim of submarine warfare, Japan, was incredibly poorly prepared for the US attack on their shipping. The Japanese did not even institute regular convoys until 1943. Convoy duty was perceived as lacking the cachet of fleet duty by Japanese naval officers and commanders, so subpar performers tended to find themselves on escort duty. Japanese escort vessel design and construction recieved a similarly low priority, as did long range aircraft. For a country whose new conquests necessitated increased maritime commerce to bring raw materials to the home islands, this negligence was staggering.
The Japanese submarine force was equally mishandled. The Japanese Navy had excellent submarines, superb commanders and crews, and of course the Long Lance torpedo. Throughout the war, merchant ships were given the lowest priority for attack by Japanese planners, forcing submarines to attack well-defended and well-protected targets.
Most merchant shipping losses in the Indian and Pacific Oceans were attributed to the handful of German submarines that operated in the region. One wonders what far-ranging Japanese submarines could have done in the Indian Ocean and off Southern Africa had they not been so idiotically hamstrung.
363. PelleNilsson - 3/16/2000 4:26:37 PM
wombat
I have a somewhat different view of the Battle of the Atlantic. My sources are in Swedish and off-net so you have to take me at my word.
In 1942 the situation was critical for the Allies. The U-boats sank 1160 ships which was above the replacement rate. This continued in early 1943 with March being the worst month ever - 108 ships sunk. The tide started to turn in May, 1943 and by the autumn more U-boats were sunk than Allied surface vessels.
364. ScottLoar - 3/16/2000 5:03:38 PM
Yes, exactly because intercepts were being "read" by the British descrambling machine, and so the U-boats were targeted at their gathering points and sunk in large numbers. Churchill told the Admirality to do this even at the risk of the Germans suspecting their coding machines were being read as the toll on convoys was unsustainable to Britain. The Germans did not doubt the infallability of their coding machines, and the tide of the Battle of the Atlantic turned dramatically to the Allies favour.
365. ScottLoar - 3/16/2000 5:05:14 PM
May, 1943, is the direct consequence of the British decoding machine being turned to use against the U-boat campaign.
366. ScottLoar - 3/16/2000 5:08:56 PM
That would be the Enigma machine (housed in a wooden cabinet I believe) at Bletchley Park.
367. PelleNilsson - 3/16/2000 5:15:37 PM
ScottLoar
I think the British "decoding machine" was always turned to the U-boat campaign but a series of fortunate circumstances enabled them to break the Einigma code. First, an Enigma machine was captured revealings its mechanical layout. Second, Turing was a true genius. Third, for a while the U-boats transmitted identical weather reports in Enigma code and in a simpler code the British had broken. All this enabled Turing to build a kind of reverse Enigma ("bombes" as they were called in Cheltenham) but it still took hours, even days to break the messages.
368. ScottLoar - 3/16/2000 5:21:54 PM
You may be right... or wrong. I had read in a book (titled Enigma?) that came out in the early 70's as the first exposition on the British descrambler that information gleaned was used sparingly should the Germans doubt the infallability of their encoders. A casualty of this precaution was Coventry, England, I believe, bombed into well-nigh obliteration despite British knowledge of the forthcoming attack. Such precaution was cast aside by reason of the unsustainable losses to allied merchant convoys on direct orders of Churchill, and so the dramatic reversal in the Battle of Atlantic - by reason of the direct application of superior intelligence against the U-boats.
369. ScottLoar - 3/16/2000 5:23:16 PM
I welcome any incontrovertible evidence that supports or refutes my recollection.
370. ScottLoar - 3/16/2000 5:26:05 PM
German supplies to Rommel's Afrika Corps. were also intercepted based on British decoding, and Rommel in a despatch questioned if the ciphering machines were somehow being read. They were, but his question was dismissed by his superiors as conjecture.
371. PelleNilsson - 3/16/2000 5:32:43 PM
No, Scott, you are right. But the U-boats and the Luftwaffe did not use identical versions of Enigma. And the situation in 1942-43 in respect of sunk tonnage was really serious, so when Cheltenham broke the U-boat code, the British, as you say, cast caution overboard although they tried various deception techniques such as sending out spotter planes after U-boat locations had been discovered from Enigma messages.
372. Wombat - 3/16/2000 6:02:28 PM
Pelle/Scott:
Allied new construction began to exceed losses in late 1942. Many of the sinkings in 1942 were of unescorted shipping in US waters, not the crucial transatlantic convoys.
There were a number of advances that were introduced in 1942-43 that had a cumulatively devastating impact on the German submarine arm:
1-Introduction of radar to the escort forces: Eliminated the night surface attack that U-boats used so effectively against convoys.
2-HFDF (High Frequency Direction Finding): U-boat wolfpacks were closely controlled from Fleet headquarters. HFDF allowed convoy escorts to home in on U-boat transmissions to base, making it easier to locate wolfpacks before they attacked.
3-Airborne radar. This allowed aircraft to locate and attack submarines as they transited the Bay of Biscay on the surface to the Atlantic. Used on converted B-24s and Halifaxes based in Northern Ireland, Iceland, Recife, and the Azores, it made it difficult for U-boats to operate on the surface in principal convoy routes. Since a U-boat's speed underwater was about six knots (19 knots on the surface) this had a marked effect on the ability of U-boats to find and attack convoys; not to mention less fighting efficiency from excessive time underwater.
4-Mass produced, prefabricated escort vessels. The Destroyer Escort was inexpensive to make, and better suited to escorting convoys than the destroyer. Working with escort carriers (converted merchant ship hulls, carrying fighters and torpedo bombers), the augmented escort forces were able to escort convoys, and to set up hunter-killer groups to disrupt wolfpacks before they could attack, and to hunt them down afterwards.
German attempts to counter the allied advances were usually too little, too late.
373. ScottLoar - 3/16/2000 8:21:16 PM
Wombat, yours is the traditional read, prior to the revelation of the decoding machine. It is the decoding which intelligence has been credited with knowing where the U-boats would gather and sinking them. To the end of the war the Germans employed their cipher machines and, excepting the sole example of Rommel, never suspected the messages were being read by their enemies.
In other words, what devastated the U-boats was not a "number of advances" but one - knowing where the U-boats would be in a vast ocean.
374. ScottLoar - 3/16/2000 8:22:55 PM
re Message # 371, but I agree, as I said previously.
375. Jonesy - 3/17/2000 1:22:31 AM
Ronski- I believe that the only country to fully repay its war debt to the US was Norway. Or so my father said he was proudly told by the Mayor of the Norwegian port that he visited on an midshipman cruise with the atlanic fleet in summer 1951.
376. cmboyce - 3/17/2000 1:27:43 AM
It certainly makes more sense that Norway, rather than Finland, might have had such debts. How much aid could we have given a country that was or had recently been a belligerant toward each of our two major allies? Or could it have been hidden from them?
377. PelleNilsson - 3/17/2000 6:26:33 AM
I have found out that code breaking was also one of the reasons behind the huge losses of Allied shipping in 1942 and early -43. The Germans hade broken first the code of the British merchant fleet and then its Naval code.
The fact that the British had broken Enigma already in 1939 (at Bletchely Park, not Cheltenham which was the listening station) remained secret until 1974 when F. W. Winterbotham published The Ultra Secret. Obviously there were rumours which had to be countered by disinformation campaigns. In Herman Kahn's book The Code Breakers published in 1973 and something of a standard work on the history of cryptography, he dates the break-through in the Enigma decryption to May 1944 following the capture of a German U-boat with intact machine and code-book, a clear piece of disinformation (either by Kahn or by his sources).
It follows that all works on WWII written before 1974 will overemphasize the importance of the techniques Wombat lists in Message # 372.
378. PelleNilsson - 3/17/2000 6:35:09 AM
I now recall that one of the sub-plots in Neil Stephenson's Cryptonomicon concerns the mounting of deception operations in order to conceal that the Allies had information from Enigma decrypts. In one episode this involved the setting up of a dummy huff-duff receiver on a remote island.
379. Indiana Jones - 3/17/2000 8:58:32 AM
The war debt that Finland alone repaid was from WWI and is part of the reason Americans were very sympathetic to Finland when the latter was invaded in 1940.
Link
380. ScottLoar - 3/17/2000 9:14:32 AM
re Message # 377, yes! That's it! The Ultra Secret is the book I tried to remember and haven't visited the subject since until this yesterday.
381. Wombat - 3/17/2000 9:38:01 AM
The information Ultra provided to Allied antisubmarine forces allowed convoys to avoid known concentrations of U-Boats. Remember that Ultra could not provide the real-time information most needed by convoy escorts operating in U-boat infested waters. HFDF and radar could. I suggest you find Gerhard Weinberg's excellent one volume history of World War II, which makes excellent use of the Ultra revelations of the last decade. While not wanting to underemphasize the importance of Ultra, one must also be careful not to overemphasive it, either.
382. PelleNilsson - 3/17/2000 11:49:09 AM
Indiana
So Finland assumed a share of Russia's war debt and repaid it? Very interesting I didn't know that.
383. janjon - 3/17/2000 12:30:09 PM
I recall having read The Ultra Secret some time ago, although I too had forgotten its title until reading the above.
Is my memory also suspect in terms of vaguely recalling that there was a movie made about the breaking of the Enigma code and the resultant subterfuges, the sacrifice of Coventry, etc.?
Damned thing, memory, at times.
384. ScottLoar - 3/17/2000 4:35:38 PM
I recall no such movie; I do recall the book.
385. RickNelson - 3/18/2000 8:05:42 AM
Scott and Janjon,
I'm sure there is a movie. I know I've seen it. Probably in the early 70's and it would be a fifties production I think. It was a british film whose title I will not recall after so much time has passed. But, I know I've seen a film which recalled some valiant hero solving enigma for the greater good. A personal sacrifice film, showing how one works for the common good. You know, stay up all night sacrifice ones health until the mystery is solved, damn the torpedoes full steam ahead.
Very similar to the film showing a chap who had to build a better airplane to fight the Nazi's. This film also had to be from the late 40's or early 50's. The hero sacrificed his life in this film. Staying up all hours days in a row, going on to weeks and months. Then finally, he comes up with wing, propeller and fusilage designs that create the famous Spit-fire. At least I think it was the Spit-fire.
386. stostosto - 3/20/2000 6:51:19 AM
Before completely ending the discussion of the submarine war, I have to recommend Das Boot. In my humble opinion (as well as that of many others) it's one of the best war movies ever made, and if you haven't seen it, you should.
One of its attractions is that it's German, and so, among other things, avoids that incredibly grating feature of English speaking actors affecting German accents. Needless to say, it affects the perspective as well, freeing it from any implied victorious heroism. This boat is on the losing side, fighting for a wrong cause (as some of the men clearly suspect), it's destined to going down, and its crew knows it. But they take an immense pride in what they do nevertheless, and the suspense is devastating.
Highly recommended.
387. Indiana Jones - 3/20/2000 8:38:00 AM
Pelle: I guess that must have been how it worked, as there was no independent Finland before the war (which makes Finland's sense of fiduciary obligation all the more remarkable).
388. Wombat - 3/20/2000 10:33:12 AM
Sto:
As long as it's the uncut, subtitled version of Das Boot. There is a dubbed and edited version as well.
389. Raskolnikov - 3/20/2000 11:39:47 AM
Not to distract the thread into a movie discussion, but one of my first DVD rentals was Das Boot. It is a film which takes great advantage of the sound quality available on DVD. Those sonar pings become even more terrifying with a decent sound system. Great commentary track as well.
Wombat, have you read "Seizing the Enigma"? It makes a pretty strong case for the impact of decryption on the course of the war. It doesn't mention the other technological developments you discussed (it is a book about how decryption, not submarine warfare), so it may be incomplete.
390. Wombat - 3/20/2000 1:12:32 PM
Rask.:
No I haven't, I have read the Hinsley book, RV Jones' book, and the new one by Singh on cryptography (highly recommended) and others too numerous to mention.
Note that I am not denigrating the impact of Ultra--and codebreaking in general--in the conduct of strategy and operations. However there does appear to be a sentiment, often propounded by highly sensationalist and self-serving authors (Stephenson springs to mind) that Ultra singlehandedly won the war. Its impact on future operations was measured in days, at best.
To reiterate: Ultra could provide information on the location of wolf packs days in advance, which was extraordinarily useful in routing convoys to avoid them. However, Ultra could not provide the real time intelligence necessary to deal with U-boats once engaged. HFDF and radar (and sonar) could.
391. ScottLoar - 3/20/2000 1:17:37 PM
I first read the English translation of the book Das Boot, then some while later saw the movie. Read the book, noting that it is the accumulated experiences of the author who served as a war correspondent to the German Navy and after the war he became a dealer of modern art.
In fact, I cannot immediately recollect any instance in which a movie surpasses the book.
392. cazart - 3/20/2000 1:41:01 PM
Echo the good reviews of Das Boot. An opening graphic says it all: During WWII, 40,000 men served in the U-boat service; only 10,000 survived the war.
BTW, get the director's cut on DVD. It takes the movie to nearly 3 and 1/2 hours.
I've had occasion to meet several U-boat skippers over the years, fascinating men. I was chatting with one several decades ago and we were discussing New York city. I asked if he had ever been to a certain location and he said he had. I asked his impression of the place and he said he'd only visited--through his periscope.
393. Raskolnikov - 3/20/2000 6:13:36 PM
"To reiterate: Ultra could provide information on the location of wolf packs days in advance, which was extraordinarily useful in routing convoys to avoid them. However, Ultra could not provide the real time intelligence necessary to deal with U-boats once engaged. HFDF and radar (and sonar) could."
That is the conclusion in "Seizing the Enigma" as well, except that he argues that Ultra shortened the war by much more than days. More like several months or a year, as I recall. But the conclusion in the book is explicit that the allies would have won the submarine war anyway. The author's emphasis is on the lives saved by that shortening.
394. Raskolnikov - 3/20/2000 6:14:09 PM
"In fact, I cannot immediately recollect any instance in which a movie surpasses the book."
I'll take this on in the movies thread, if you want to restate it there.
395. stostosto - 3/20/2000 6:19:35 PM
Wombat #388:
I have only seen the German language version, but I'd imagine the dubbing unbearable.
396. Wombat - 3/21/2000 9:23:38 AM
Rask.:
I was referring to Ultra's impact on individual operations. Add enough of them up, and I am sure that one would get a cumulative impact of at least months in terms of shortening the war.
397. Raskolnikov - 3/21/2000 11:14:55 AM
I have seen parts of the dubbed Das Boot, and it isn't completely horrible, simply because it is the original actors doing most of the dubbing, including Jurgen Prochnow (sorry, don't know how to do umlauts on a computer). The DVD presents both options.
398. Jenerator - 3/21/2000 1:48:32 PM
Breaking the enigma code at Bletchley Park
"In Bletchley Park, Alan Turing, a leading mathematician, developed the 'Bombe', electro-mechanical machines that greatly reduced the time required to break daily Enigma keys. One was fully in operation in August 1940. At least six machines were housed in Hut 11, where a 'Bombe' is currently being rebuilt. More were housed in villages around Bletchley and then concentrated at Stanmore and Eastcote.
Other buildings were added as the war expanded into the Far East. By 1942, work started on planning the invasion of Europe, leading to yet more building in the Park. Block D was erected and became the major intelligence gathering building for D-Day.
H Block which housed the world's first computer complex is still standing in Bletchley Park and is now the home of a rebuilt Colossus.
By 1944, the Bletchley Park intelligence network was almost worldwide. Decrypt stations in Malta, Cairo, Nairobi, Mombasa, Delhi, Colombo and Brisbane were revealing enemy secrets, passing them on to operational theatre commanders, and then sending them back to Bletchley Park for an overview of the war. The raw material came from thousands of wireless intercept operators, the 'Y' Service, without whom Bletchley Park and its outstations would have been deaf, dumb and blind. Any nation from which useful intelligence might be obtained was the subject of wireless intercept action: German, Italian, Japanese, Vichy French, Swedish, Spanish, Portuguese, Russian, Chinese, Hungarian, Bulgarian, Rumanian and many other cyphers were intercepted and broken."
399. PelleNilsson - 3/21/2000 2:17:23 PM
Thanks for the link, jen, but it doesn't work.
This one does.
(You had somehow gotten 'www.themote.com' into the URL)
400. Jenerator - 3/21/2000 2:18:37 PM
Thank you! I've been having some strange technical glitches lately.
401. jexster - 3/22/2000 10:23:16 PM
Before I RIP this, I've a computer game which might be of interest to some.
Close Combat III: The Russian Front (15 bucks from Egghead.com) alows you to replay major battles and campaigns from the Eastern Front and play "what-if" games.
Its cool. Check out the trial version Here
402. PelleNilsson - 3/23/2000 1:43:52 AM
RIP??
What the hell do you mean? We drifted from Asia to the U-boat war and code-breaking. That subject is more or less exhausted which is why activity has dropped.
I cannot speak for others, but I at least wait for you to set a new subject.
403. cmboyce - 3/23/2000 2:42:13 AM
I'll second that. There are dozens of subjects within the topic, even still within Asia. The CBI theater. The Indian Nationalist Army. Was the Coral Sea as crucial as it seemed, or had the war been won at Midway? (I've no idea; just asking.) Anzac. CHINA. Vinegar Joe Stilwell. The Soong Brothers. As you knew when you started the thread, WW2 just goes on and on.
404. jexster - 3/23/2000 2:03:18 PM
OK Pelle...
Let's get to the real war. Europe.
405. jexster - 3/23/2000 2:05:58 PM
CM -
I know next to nothing about the "Indian Nationalist Army" or anything much about India's internals during the war. I am vaguely aware that there was an Indian nationalist that the Japanese used but, according to Magic intel intercepts, didn't really trust.
I'll keep the thread going as long as there's some interest or until Rose decides to RIP the Kosova Liberation Thread, whichever occurs first. :)
406. cazart - 3/23/2000 2:06:51 PM
An effective moderator would have made an outline of discussion....
407. jexster - 3/23/2000 2:11:51 PM
Pelle:
I'd like to know a bit more about Sweden's role in the war. Its relations with the Germans while Norway was being overrun for instance.
Also what did Sweden do when the Brave Finns were fighting the Ruskies??? Did Sweden send volunteers to the Waffen SS legions? Did any Swede aryans fight with the SS Viking Division???
408. Wombat - 3/23/2000 2:33:08 PM
Jex:
I am sure that Pelle will respond in detail at some point, but until then...As Norway was being overrun, Sweden apparently offered to take over the port of Narvik to ensure iron from northern Sweden could continue to be exported. Germany said "thanks, but no thanks." Sweden supplied Germany with iron, ball-bearings, ships. They also allowed German troops to transit Swedish territory. According to G. Weinberg, this Swedish favoritism to Germany continued well after it was clear that the Germans were going to be defeated.
On the plus side, the Swedish government and citizens did good deeds on the humanitarian front, taking in Danish Jews, and giving Raoul Wallenberg a large amount of freedom to use Swedish papers and influence to assist Jews in Hungary.
Swedish volunteer units were formed to assist the Finns in the "Winter War." I don't know whether or not they saw action.
409. PelleNilsson - 3/23/2000 4:47:12 PM
jexster
I'd like to know a bit more about Sweden's role in the war. Its relations with the Germans while Norway was being overrun for instance.
Funny you should ask. During the past year I have published, at irregular intervals, instalments of a concise history of Sweden. The next instalment due is about Sweden and WWII. I'll have to put my act together and produce.
Wombat's outline is essentially correct, although the Narvik question was a bit more complicated.
410. jexster - 3/23/2000 4:59:00 PM
Hey tnx Pelle!
I've bookmarked for later study.
411. Jonesatlaw - 3/25/2000 10:24:05 AM
A somewhat topical issue given Pope John Paul's recent apology and the drive to beatify Pius XII- What, if anything could the church have done to stop Nazi genocide?
412. ScottLoar - 3/25/2000 10:35:11 AM
Only to the degree Nazi adherents, sympathizers and anti-semites would be open to moral suasion by the Catholic church.
413. PelleNilsson - 3/26/2000 2:24:06 PM
Pelle's Concise History of Sweden
Part 14. Sweden and WW2
Sweden was neutral during WWII. The meaning of neutrality is defined in the 5th and13th Hague conventions of 1907, which regulate the rights and obligations of both the neutral states and the belligerent ones. As with all international treaties, there is some room for manoeuvre, and it is important to note that the conventions do not deal with trade policies. Generally speaking, Sweden leaned towards Germany until its defeat at Stalingrad after which followed a re-orientation towards the Allies. There were, as we shall see, two outright breaches of neutrality in favour of Germany.
Normal party politics were suspended during the war. The country was governed by a coalition of "the four democratic parties" (meaning that the Communists were excluded) with the Social Democrat Per-Albin Hansson as prime minister and Christian Günther, a career diplomat, as foreign minister. Its mandate was to keep Sweden out of the war.
The first challenge to the neutrality policy came with the Soviet Union's attack on Finland at the end of November, 1939. This was the start of the so called Winter War, which has almost achieved legendary status as David against Goliath. The Finns managed to stop the Soviets but had give up territories in the east and the south when peace was concluded in March, 1940. 414. PelleNilsson - 3/26/2000 2:28:11 PM The Winter War was an emotional issue in Sweden because of the old ties between the two countries, and there was popular support for an intervention. The government solved this by giving covert support to a "volunteer force" of 12,000 men, including armaments and air support. England and France wanted to send an expeditionary force to Finland from Narvik in northern Norway through Sweden. However, this was rejected, ostensibly because it would be a breach of neutrality, but there were other reasons as well.
Near the centre of this map you find Malmberget which translates as Ore Mountain. The vast iron ore fields of north Sweden are located there and in Kiruna a bit further north. There are two ways to get the ore out by rail: to Luleĺ on the Baltic or to Narvik in Norway. However, the north Baltic Sea is normally frozen for several months each year, while Narvik is ice free due to the Gulf Stream.
The fear in Sweden was that the real purpose of the expeditionary force proposed by England and France was to occupy the iron ore fields. This would have led to war on Swedish territory, and if the Swedes could not repulse the occupation, Germany would certainly interfere, because it was dependent on Swedish ore.
415. PelleNilsson - 3/26/2000 2:31:22 PM
The export of Swedish ore to "feed the German war machine" has been much criticised. I don't intend to enter that debate, but there is one thing you should know. As I have noted earlier, the German-dominated Hansa trade organisation, had Sweden in a strangle-hold during the late middle age because its control of the trade in salt, a commodity that does not exist in Sweden. In the industrial age its role was taken by coal. The whole of Swedish industry was completely dependent on coal; it was heavily used for heating in the cities and for the production of household gas. Germany had ample supplies of coal of its own, and from the start of the war it controlled the main coal mining districts in Poland.
I don't know if it would have been possible to shift the coal against ore trade to England and France, but one must assume that any attempt to do so would have met with German wrath.
416. PelleNilsson - 3/26/2000 2:37:42 PM
From the start of Germany's invasion of the Soviet Union in June, 1941 (Operation Barbarossa) Sweden's situation was at its most precarious. Germany occupied Denmark, Norway, Poland and the Baltic states and had troops in Finland. The country was completely encircled. It was in this situation the two clear-cut breaches of the Hague conventions took place.
The first was the transport, through Sweden, of German soldiers to and from leave in Germany. There were daily trains from Finland and Norway. Swedish ice breakers assisted troop transport vessels in the Baltic.
The second and more serious breach was the permission to transfer an entire army division of 18,000 troops and all equipment from Norway to Finland in July, 1941.
417. PelleNilsson - 3/26/2000 2:38:50 PM
All in all there is nothing courageous or heroic in Sweden's conduct during WWII. But that was not the purpose. The purpose was to stay out and not risk a German occupation. Some good deeds were done such as assistance to the Norwegian and Danish resistance movements and the breaking of the German naval blockade in order to get critical machine parts, e.g. roller bearings, to the west.
Life in Sweden was dominated by the massive calling-up of males for military duty, forcing (or allowing) women to play a greater role in the national economy, and by the rationing of virtually all foodstuffs. During WWI rationing had been a shambles and a scandal. It was much better during WWII ,but of course there was some black marketeering, and city dwellers with relatives in the countryside could live a little better than others.
418. Wombat - 3/27/2000 11:26:53 AM
Thanks, Pelle. You encapsulated the dilemma faced by all the Neutrals.
Jones:
My impression is that Pope Pius was handicapped by several factors:
1) The catholic church had no divisions (to paraphrase Stalin), and thus could not influence events in Germany and areas occupied by Germany (which, from 1942-44, included Rome).
2) Pius hated Communism more than Nazism.
3) He lacked the transcendent moral sense of a truly great pope (John Paul II springs to mind).
The most charitable analysis (short of actual support for his policies) of Pius' actions--or lack thereof--was that he felt powerfully constrained not to act forcefully by the perceived threat to his "flock" in Germany, and later to the church itself in Italy.
That said, he failed to criticize or discipline the Catholic leadership in Croatia when they encouraged brutal progroms against Greek Orthodox Serbs in territory controlled by Ante Pavelic's Ustasha regime. He failed to discipline Monsignor Tiso for taking a leadership post in the German-created puppet state of Slovakia. There is little--if any--evidence that he overtly or covertly encouraged those brave catholics who did act to save Jews and others from the Nazis in occupied countries. Finally, the so-called "rat line," which enabled a number of Nazi war criminals to escape the Allies' hunt, was apparently supported by elements within the Vatican, if not Pius himself.
He is no candidate for sainthood, and it reflects badly on John Paul II to try and beatify him.
419. Jonesatlaw - 3/27/2000 1:08:34 PM
toys.
420. Wombat - 3/27/2000 1:11:37 PM
Toys? What means toys?
421. Indiana Jones - 3/27/2000 8:57:36 PM
Wombat: "Toys" signifies the message is just to clean up a missing HTML tag. I'm not sure why my lawyerin' cuz posted it after yours.
422. Jonesy - 3/28/2000 12:41:47 AM
Wombat- my toys post was only to undo the bold typeface that had not been turned off in previous posts.
It was not intended to respond to the content of your post, which I found to be well reasoned.
I think that the Church's early tolerance, if not support, of Mussolini, and the agreements with Italy and later with German occupation forces probably figure prominately in the criticism of Pius XII as well. It is also true that there were factions at work within the church were active in opposition to facism, and in some instances in smuggling and hiding Jews. There has been speculation that the Nazi's infilitrated the Vatican. It is possible that this is correct, but I have no information to discredit it, or to prove it.
Sadly, many seem to have made Pius and the Church a symbol of the utter failure of "Christian" nations and leaders to act to halt the holocaust much earlier.
423. PelleNilsson - 3/30/2000 4:02:49 PM
jexster
With all due respect may I suggest you take some time off from rehashing old arguments in Politicics to attend to your own thread.
Before I posted this the thread languished at the bottom together with Balkan Wars. Is that how it should be? Is that something to be proud of?
Please pick a subject: Blitzkrieg, Battle of Britain, Barbarossa, Waffen-SS, whatever you fancy, provide a brief intro and throw out a few questions.
424. janjon - 3/31/2000 5:46:01 PM
Yes, this has been far too good a thread to have it languish.
425. PelleNilsson - 4/3/2000 11:21:51 AM
I had decided not to post untl Lazy Jex posted first, but I just read something that intrigues me. It appears in this obituary of defence lawyer Warren Magee who defended three war criminals at Nuremberg All three were sentenced to death but Magee " tirelessly took on their appeals against their sentences, fighting on their behalf for years in the American courts" and "he saved his pariah-defendants from the rope for four years, until the United States Supreme Court decided that it would accept no more delays of their executions".
I didn't know that the verdicts of the Nuremberg Tribunal could be appealed in American courts, and I find it somewhat strange.
Any comments?
426. Wombat - 4/3/2000 11:51:15 AM
Pelle:
I will look at a history of the Nuremburg Trials and see.
427. PelleNilsson - 4/4/2000 4:37:16 PM
The Waffen-SS was arguably the most miserable lot in the German army. They did do a nice goose step but fucked up every battle they were involved in.
428. Wombat - 4/4/2000 5:32:36 PM
Pelle:
Those convicted by the Nuremburg tribunal did not have recourse to the Supreme Court. After the Nuremburg Tribunal completed its work and disbanded, each of the powers were free to conduct war crimes trials against the lesser fish in their jurisdiction. Apparently, an appeal to the Supreme Court in capital cases was permitted. I do not know what legal precedent permitted it. I believe General Yamashita also had recourse to appeal to the Supreme Court after his conviction.
429. stostosto - 4/9/2000 1:57:19 PM
Today, 60 years ago, Denmark was occupied by the Germans in an operation codenamed Weser-Übung which also encompassed the occupation of Norway. Norway was the strategic motivation for occupying Denmark due to the need to protect those iron ore transport from northern Sweden which Pelle talked about. Denmark was little more than a stepping stone to this end, although an indispensable one. Also, the country the key to controlling sea traffic to and from the Baltic Sea.
There was only minor skirmishes at the border and at Amalienborg, the King's resident castle in Copenhagen, because the government surrendered immediately having been shit scared at the escadres of German bombers flying over the city. The government and the King stayed put "under protest" as they declared in an effort to avoid German law and police in the country, thus making the best of the situation under the circumstances. This meant that any Danish resistance fighters were officially being denounced in greave language as terrrorists and criminals, and were prosecuted by Danish police and authorities. This state of affairs lasted until August 1943 when popular strikes and growing sabotage led the Germans to demand harsh measures from the Danish authorities which they couldn't stomach.
430. stostosto - 4/9/2000 1:58:11 PM
From then on - but not before - it was clear to all that Denmark wasn't happy about the occupying forces. Resistance grew, not to any overwhelming proportions but enough that a few thousand men - with covert and overt backing from the population at large - just managed to save our reputation. But all in all Denmark was - after Sweden - the country that was least affected by the war. You can say what you want about lacking heroism, but the policy worked as intended.
By contrast, Norway put up an angry resistance for several months, the Norwegian government stepped down and the king fled in exile in London. The Germans put in a marionet regime led by the Norwegian Nazi Führer Qvisling, thus coining a new derogatory term.
431. Wombat - 4/9/2000 3:55:53 PM
Denmark was treated comparatively well because of the lack of resistance, but also because the Danes were considered racially akin to Germans. (For the same reason, the Dutch were initially treated with forebearance.) In addition to its strategic value, Denmark was also a major source of foodstuffs to the Reich.
Danish Jews who were unable to flee to Sweden were sent to Thereisenstadt, the comparatively "cushy" concentration camp that eventually fed them into Auschwitz. The Danish government insisted on the former, was helpless to prevent the latter. Contrary to legend, King Charles did not wear a yellow star in protest of the German insistance that Jews wear them.
"Happy" anniversary, Sto!
432. stostosto - 4/9/2000 4:49:50 PM
Wombat, I am impressed.
The king's name was Christian X, but that's the only quibble I have.
I would also like to add that the major part of the Danish Jews escaped to Sweden due to a well organised rescue action by the Danish resistance and many other good people (plus, inevitably, some who charged a price for the risk of transporting Jews to Sweden).
Regarding the strategic role as food stuff provider, a new study by a German historian shows that this was actually much more important than one would be inclined to think. Danish farmers happily took good money for their produce to sell to the Germans (money which the Germans printed in the Danish Central Bank), so much so that Germany was actually the second-best fed European nation almost to the very end of the war. Only surpassed by - Denmark. Or so the study claims.
One more thing: Only today I heard a brief discussion in the radio over the occupation (60 years anniversary, right). One piece of information startled me. It was said that more Danes died fighting voluntarily for the Germans than died in the Danish resistance. The Germans encouraged young Danes to join their cause, and they set up a unit called the "Frikorps Danmark". This was, at least officially, with the support of the government. After the war the survivors from this were jailed and some were lynched on charges of treason - retroactively, of course. It was claimed that they must have known all along that they were seen as traitors by every true patriotic Dane.
There were other dark spots immediately after the liberation in 1945. One was the mobbing of girls who had fraternised with Germans. They had their hair cut off and were publicly spit upon and humiliated in various ways. Another was the lynching of other collaborators, which, perhaps inevitably, included many instances of people turning in old personal enemies to get rid of them. Etc., etc.
433. stostosto - 4/9/2000 5:03:04 PM
One more thing: June 22nd 1941 when the Germans broke the non-aggression pact with the Soviet, the Danish communists were hunted down and arrested. This operation was carried out with great efficiency and zeal by the Danish police who had on its own initiative kept records on the communists. Hans Scherfig, a writer who was one of them, later wrote a biting satirical novel about this and other examples of dubious Danish conduct during the war. I have mentioned Scherfig before here at the Mote (in Books) and I recommend him highly.
434. jexster - 4/9/2000 5:03:28 PM
Message # 423
Well hell Pelle, we are in the midst of a political campaign here. I know it may seem repetitive but political education mostly is.
Therefore it is vital to get the message across that the Compassionate Conservative, the Reformer with Results is little but a Goober Sans Gravitas
(or gravlax) for that matter.....
Now on with the show.....
435. Wombat - 4/9/2000 5:08:46 PM
The fall of Denmark allowed the United States to occupy Greenland and the Danish Virgin Islands.
The Norwegians had at least a day's warning of invasion when the Polish submarine Orzel sank a German transport off the Norwegian coast. The survivors that made it ashore were in full combat array, but a lack of communication (deliberate?) to other Norwegian defense installations led to suprise in Stavanger and Narvik.
436. Wombat - 4/9/2000 5:10:57 PM
Jex:
Frankly, most of your contributions to the politics thread are obvious and predictable (to anyone who reads the newspaper).
437. jexster - 4/9/2000 5:11:17 PM
From Fueherer Directive No. 21:
The mass of the [Red] army stationed in Western Russia is to be destroyed in bold operations involving deep penetrations by armored spearheads (schwerpunkt), and the withdrawal of elements capable of combat into the extensive Russian lands is to be prevented.
By means of rapid pursuit, a line is then to be reached from beyond which the Russian air force will no longer be capable of attacking the German home territories
And the world will hold its breath....
438. stostosto - 4/9/2000 5:11:32 PM
Wombat:
The Danish Virgin Islands? Which would those be?
439. stostosto - 4/9/2000 5:14:06 PM
I can think of Iceland and the Faroes. But I don't actually know whether the USA occupied them. The former Danish possessions in the Caribbean were sold to the USA in 1917.
440. jexster - 4/9/2000 5:17:22 PM
Aaa Mein Furhrer how your words stir my Aryan soul even today!
But how was it that you fucked things up so?
- Was it the excursion into the Balkans to teach the Yugos a lesson and save Il Duce's fat ass?
- Was it that your F.Directive was too vague, your program too ambitious, your resources too limited?
- And why oh why did you declare war on the US when those slit eyed rice eating devils didn't (wouldn't) do sheisst for us?
- And why did you have to make so many enemies among admittedly lesser creatures, beasts even, yet beasts like the Poles, Ukrainians and White Russians who hated Stalin and his Asiatic band of commissars?
- And what was that old fox Stalin up to any way? Did you really fool him or did he wish all along to have us waste our precious resources trying to crush pockets with insufficient and insufficiently mobile infantry? Was it always his plan to sacrifice millions and millions of square miles of territory just to prepare a proper defensive land thousands of km from our dear fatherland?
441. Wombat - 4/9/2000 5:18:29 PM
Saint Croix, for one, with towns named Christiansted and Frederiksted. I have no idea how Denmark ended up in the Caribbean.
442. jexster - 4/9/2000 5:18:39 PM
Yes Wombat they are..but most don't. It is also vital to crush the morale of the Joezan's, Niners Beiners and Indys of the world.
Its the Gravitas Stoopid and don't forget it!
443. Wombat - 4/9/2000 5:21:00 PM
Sto:
The US occupied Iceland in 1941, I believe. I didn't know that Denmark sold its Caribbean possessions in 1917.
444. stostosto - 4/9/2000 5:27:26 PM
A brief on Danish WWII history
It's commendably short. Just in case anyone would be interested.
I feel it's my patriotic duty to provide the link on this day of dark national commemoration.
445. jexster - 4/9/2000 5:28:01 PM
Wombat -
Your intellectual gifts and historical knowledge to the contary notwithstanding, you have forgotten the ancient wisdom of Dr. Goebbels
The masses are stoopid - repetition is the key to mass propaganda!
446. jexster - 4/9/2000 5:30:50 PM
- And why oh why did you declare war on the US when those slit
eyed rice eating devils didn't (wouldn't) do sheisst for us?
The lessons that I learned early on in dealing with Japanese business types was lost on the Germans.
All that "hai, hai" smiling and bowing doesn't mean they like you much less agree with you.
It means you're about to get it up the ass!
447. jexster - 4/9/2000 5:42:14 PM
and make no mistake Wombat, Goebels was a man worthy of listening to
Should the German people lay down their arms, the Soviets … would occupy all eastern and south-eastern Europe together with the greater part of the Reich. Over all this territory, which with the Soviet Union included, would be of enormous extent, an iron curtain would at once descend.
Joseph Goebbels Das Reich (23 Feb. 1945).
The Columbia Dictionary of Quotations is licensed from Columbia University Press. Copyright © 1993, 1995, 1997, 1998 by Columbia University Press. All rights reserved.
448. Indiana Jones - 4/9/2000 5:46:37 PM
Jexster: It's useless to attempt to crush my political morale. I look at a glass and drink it.
Then there's no doubt that it's empty.
449. stostosto - 4/9/2000 5:46:41 PM
Danish volunteer soldiers for the German war. Note the Danish national flag.
The source from which the picture is taken (which is actually Swedish) says that the Germans had problems recruiting Danes at all for the Frikorps Danmark. They had to offer special privileges to get men.
It also says that its commander wasn't a member of the DNSAP nor Nazi. The soldiers swore an oath of allegiance to the leadership of the Wehrmacht instead of to Hitler like every other Waffen-SS unit.
So, they took some pains to make it appear as a Danish venture.
Still, when the Frikorps men were home on leave for four weeks in 1942 - after having lost 78% of their ranks in tough battles at the eastern front - they were mocked by their country men and got mixed up in a large number of trouble incidents.
It is estimated that 2,000 Danes died serving in the German forces, the site also says.
450. stostosto - 4/9/2000 5:56:59 PM
I was looking for a propaganda poster for joining the Waffen-SS. I remember one I have seen with a text saing something like "Common blood - common enemy" illustrating Wombat's remark on the German view of the Danes a racially correct.
But until now I only managed a Norwegian poster: 
He is one mean looking skier, huh? Almost ghost-like in his white drapings.
The text (in Norwegian): Join us northwards! The Norwegian Ski Batalion.
451. stostosto - 4/9/2000 6:10:47 PM
Hey, I found it: 
"Same kind of blood fighting jointly against the same enemy"
Small type: "Volunteers from Germany, Norway, Denmark, Netherlands, Flanders report for the Waffen-SS."
452. stostosto - 4/9/2000 6:22:39 PM
This one has a comic quality, I think: 
Yes, yes. I'll stop now.
453. jexster - 4/9/2000 7:22:42 PM
Thanks Sto!
There is no doubt in my mind that I had been born 50 years earlier I'd have been a member of Die Friewilligen
Indeed in those less lucide moments when I sense reincarnation as possibility, I envision wearing the proud insignia of 2d SS Pz Div "Das Reich"
Meine ehre heisst treue!!!
454. jexster - 4/9/2000 7:26:50 PM
One of the most amazing aspects of WWII, and one of the least well known, is the incredibly large number of foreign volunteers that joined the German Armed Forces between 1939 and 1945. During WWII, nearly 2,000,000 foreigners served within the German fighting forces, many as willing volunteers, others through varying degrees of conscription. The reasons these volunteers joined the German Wehrmacht were varied, but a simple look at the numbers begins to tell the story - in the East alone nearly 1,000,000 men volunteered for service with Germany. This number is a direct result of the situation millions faced under the brutal rule of the Soviet Empire. Many foreign volunteers and conscripts were anonymously intergrated into all areas of the military, while a great number of others formed distict units consisting either partly or entirely of volunteers of specific ethnic, cultural or political backgrounds.
455. jexster - 4/9/2000 7:27:12 PM
These units were employed in all varieties of combat tasks from carrying wounded and supplies, to fighting partisans, to serving on the front line. Some of these units would prove to be tenacious and elite formations - the match of any regular German units - while others would prove worthless in serious combat. Some units even mutinied and resisted the Germans after having been fully trained and armed! In the end, many volunteers were openly slaughtered by the partisans, and in some cases by the Allies themselves, while most others were handed over to their respective former homelands. In most cases, as with those sent to the former Soviet Union, these volunteers would never be seen again.
456. jexster - 4/9/2000 7:33:39 PM
width=300>
Mote Moderator on his Tiger At Kursk
457. jexster - 4/9/2000 7:40:09 PM
Voelkischer Beobachter "Man of the Year - 1942"
458. jexster - 4/9/2000 7:42:14 PM
459. jexster - 4/9/2000 7:43:13 PM
< i>toys
460. jexster - 4/9/2000 7:45:04 PM
WRT the continuing interest in foreign legions etc, there is a section in the German Propaganda Archive link that has a wealth of foreign propaganda, Hitler's image handlers hard at work :)
Very interesting, very detailed website
461. jexster - 4/9/2000 7:45:39 PM
shit TOYS!!! what did I do to screw this up???
462. cmboyce - 4/10/2000 1:04:50 AM
Some toys.
463. stostosto - 4/10/2000 7:05:18 PM
jexster:
There is no doubt in my mind that I had been born 50 years earlier I'd have been a member of Die Friewilligen
You really fall for that crap?!
Do you also go for humongous tits, cheap perfume and six layers of makeup? I mean for real???
464. stostosto - 4/10/2000 7:06:18 PM
toys
465. DocBrown - 4/20/2000 11:37:58 AM
Good morning, World War II!
This is a great thread, but it has hit a slump of direction and ideology. Jexster, does Die Friewilligen have something to do with the concept of Free Will?
How silly of you.
Anyway, I am sorry I have to read so much of this thread as history (pardon the pun). I would have liked to comment on several subjects. But while this thread is here, I want to ask for opinions and analysis on something that has long intrigued me.
In my high school days, I played a lot of War Games. Many of them involved WWI and WWII. Those familiar with such games already know their names, and those unfamiliar do not care, so I will not give them.
WWII was particularly well suited for exciting games because the technology was "just right" . . . a high level of mechanization that allowed for realistic simulation, but no nuclear weapons that make for a short and unsatisfying game. WWII came along at the perfect point in history to fill my teenage years with many hours of exciting battles.
Unfortunately, in both strategic and tactical camaigns, the Allies usually have a distinct advantage. The ultimate war gaming challenge would be to fight WWII on even terms. For example, if Russia or the United States had become a stable, dedicated, and reliable ally to Germany.
I can imagine many radical twists of history that might have lead to such a scenario, but I have no idea how close we actually came to this. I often wonder about the minimum event that might have lead to it. Perhaps if Stalin had died in the 1920s . . . ?
Does anyone have an analysis to share?
466. Indiana Jones - 4/20/2000 11:55:27 AM
Doc: I think I mentioned upthread my two favorites were Squad Leader and Avalon Hill's Third Reich.
IMO the best the Germans could have hoped for was the U.S. maintaining neutrality. Or if Edward hadn't abdicated, a better relationship with Great Britain. Everything else appears too far-fetched.
Clearly, Stalin helped the Soviet-Nazi relationship. Hitler was totally opposed to communism, and it took someone like Stalin to believe any kind of "deal" was possible between the two.
467. Indiana Jones - 4/20/2000 11:58:34 AM
Doc: Another thought is technology helping even the odds. My understanding is that many of Hitler's decisions slowed up the technology the Germans were developing. Suppose anti-Semitism hadn't driven out men like Einstein. Suppose Germany had jets and/or rockets a year or two earlier.
Give the Nazis short range nuclear missiles and yes, history might be a little different.
468. DocBrown - 4/20/2000 2:18:15 PM
Wow, that would be a frightening scenario. It could make a great video game . . . the player flies a Spitfire against nuclear tipped buzz bombs. Ouch.
But I think it is too far-fetched to be a "minimum event." As we saw earlier in the thread, the Nazis had a number of security problems. Not only would Hitler (and possibly other German leaders) need to make different technological and ideological decisions, but the Germans would also need to do a much better job of keeping secrets.
Hitler did develop a number of secret weapons during the war. How was he to know that The Bomb would turn out to be the most important? He built gigantic guns, jet planes, rocket planes, and ballistic missiles. The Allies knew enough about these projects that they were able to do things to thwart them. A larger and more successful Atom Bomb project would probably have attracted lots of Allied bombers.
By my assessment, the biggest problem that Germany had was maintaining its fuel supply. By the 1930s, Germany's plentiful coal was no longer good enough. If Hitler was going to fight a war with jets and rockets, then he needed oil badly. He had to either make a reliable ally to the east, or wage the war on an Eastern Front.
Perhaps the technology that would have most helped Germany would have been the invention of the offshore oil rig. There is a lot of oil in the North Sea.
469. DocBrown - 4/20/2000 2:29:36 PM
Now that would make a good game! The German Navy and Luftwaffe have to defend a series of offshore oil rigs! British and American ships and bombers lead the attack! This scenario would give the Bismark and Tirpitz a useful reason to exist. The oil rigs would also be protected by vast underwater minefields.
In this scenario the Germans have plenty of fuel, so they operate their ME 262s at their leisure. The Luftwaffe could modify the Me 163 Komets to launch from the oil rigs and land in the water. Or they might develop an aircraft carrier.
This battle would probably require the Americans to transfer a few aircraft carriers from the Pacific . . .
470. Indiana Jones - 4/20/2000 2:34:47 PM
Doc: If you are interested in that aspect of the war (fuel, industrial planning and production) and you haven't already read it, you should read Albert Speer's Inside the Third Reich. As I recall, he goes into great detail about such matters.
471. DocBrown - 4/20/2000 3:02:17 PM
Thanks for the recommendation, Indiana.
472. SpenceMirrlees - 4/20/2000 3:07:25 PM
also check out any books on game theory and management science/operations research written before 1960.
473. Wombat - 4/20/2000 9:48:56 PM
Doc:
You should try France 1940 by Avalon Hill. If you play the "historical" scenario, it is very difficult for the Allies to avoid defeat.
Offshore oil platforms did exist in the 1940s. However the Germans had access to plentiful oil from Romania from 1941-44.
474. jonesatlaw - 4/20/2000 11:05:42 PM
Wombat- Re oil- I agree. I have never understood the shift to the south on the eastern front. The given rationale has been to obtain oil for Germany, but it seems that trying to deny it to Stalin is more accurate.
475. Wombat - 4/21/2000 1:42:06 PM
Doc:
I just love your imagination. The ME 163 had enough (rocket) fuel to get to the high altitude that the US heavy bombers flew at. Then a few minutes to shoot through the formation firing at the bombers before gliding down to earth. It could barely maneuver (assuming it didn't explode when taking off). Any planes attacking an oil rig would do so at low level, most likely firing rockets at it.
Of course, the Germans did attempt to build an aircraft carrier, the Graf Zeppelin. It was to carry ME 109s and Stukas. The Germans never did get around to building a single-engine torpedo bomber. I cannot thing of a plane less suited for carrier operations than the ME 109, with its skinny, close-set landing gear. The Stuka was an invitation to suicide against any modern fighter craft.
The ME 262 saga encapsulates the strengths and weaknesses of weapons procurement in the Reich. By the time the ME 262 was ready for final development and testing, Goering (who was a bona fide airman under all his fat and medals) had lost all credibility with Hitler over his failure to resupply forces trapped at Stalingrad and to prevent air attacks on the Reich. He was in no position to resist when Hitler got it into his head that the ME 262 would make a great high speed "blitz" bomber, and demanded that it be so reconfigured (hanging bombs off the ME 262 reduced its speed dramatically, and ruined its aerodynamics, making it even more difficult to fly). At great personal risk, Luftwaffe staff and Messerschmidt ignored Hitler's directive and continued building and testing the ME 262 as fighter. When Hitler discovered this, he blew his stack and forbade any production of the ME 262 as a fighter. He was eventually talked into permitting some ME 262 fighter production, but only after the projected bomber production quotas had been met. All this to-ing and fro-ing set back production significantly.
476. jexster - 4/21/2000 2:11:01 PM
Doc: I think I mentioned upthread my two favorites were Squad
Leader and Avalon Hill's Third Reich.
Indy:
I'm not familiar with those. Just got the Combat Trilogy. Its fun but much too tactical level.
Am interested in getting a real computer wargame of the Eastern Front like the one's you used to get with cardboard cutouts back in the olden days. Something at a more strategic level
Can you recommend?
477. Wombat - 4/21/2000 2:20:54 PM
From what I have read, the ME 262 was an overrated aircraft. It had a very high landing speed, and a very high stall speed. Its Jumo turbojets were not very reliable, and were prone to falling off the wing. The ME 262 could not fly on one engine. It gobbled fuel. It could not withstand minor battle damage. The Allied strategy for dealing with them was to use P-51 Mustangs to follow them to their airfields, and attack them as they landed.
Had they been built in greater numbers and deployed agianst bomber formations sooner, they would have had an initially devastating impact on the strategic bombing campaign. However the strategic bombing campaign was not central to the Allied war effort by 1944, the tactics used against the ME 262 were still valid, and if need be, the Allies would have sped up development and production of their own jet aircraft, particularly the Gloster Meteor and the Lockheed Shooting Star.
478. Indiana Jones - 4/21/2000 2:41:49 PM
Jexster: Sorry, but games aren't something I'm able to devote any time to anymore (unfortunately). The last computer game I've played at all was Civilization II, which I thought was superb.
If you find out anything, please let me know. The biggest drags to those games were setting them up, keeping track of things, and finding an opponent. If someone made a computer version of Squad Leader with decent artificial intelligence, that would be fantastic. (Or Magic Realm, which wasn't a WWII game but was very nice.)
My little experience with computer simulations, though, is that it's difficult finding a match between good programming and the charm of the board games (realism, detail). Most good programmers seem to be video game junkies, rather than simulation specialists.
Maybe it's because the problem space is still too large for most AI (or at least AI that can exist on a PC). The rules of chess, for example, while producing many, many possibilities, are still fairly few. Most Avalon Hill rulebooks are about 32 pages and in a game like Third Reich, a single turn is extremely complex.
BTW, Civilization II does have a WWII European-theater scenario in it, though it's more impressionist than realistic. The game in general held my interest for a fairly long time.
479. Indiana Jones - 4/21/2000 2:51:39 PM
Jexster: I did a little research, and it appears that Avalon Hill came out with both a Third Reich and Stalingrad among others for the PC. Apparently, the company has been purchased by Hasbro, though, and is now in limbo.
480. jexster - 4/21/2000 7:19:51 PM
Most good programmers seem to be video game junkies, rather than simulation specialists
Sad but my limited experience is same. Too bad because the computer makes it possible to do some serious and seriously entertaining war gaming.
I have located something called The Operational Art of War by Gathering of Developers. Unfortunately, OAW I covering period to end of WWII or thereabouts seems to be out of print or whatever the digital equivalent is.
481. ScottLoar - 4/21/2000 8:22:52 PM
Goering (who was a bona fide airman under all his fat and medals) was not only that but an ace and last commander of Richthofen's Flying Circus.
482. ScottLoar - 4/21/2000 8:22:53 PM
Goering (who was a bona fide airman under all his fat and medals) was not only that but an ace and last commander of Richthofen's Flying Circus.
483. AytchMan - 4/23/2000 1:24:23 PM
Jexster--
The original OAW is out of print but there's a newer version called the Elite Edition that's still around. There's also a combo pack that includes OAW 1 and 2 (covering the entire modern era from 1939 on).
The OAW series is a pretty detailed and complex treatment of modern warfare. Not perfect but very good. There are some good scenarios floating around the Web that cover specific battles and even the entire Eastern Front.
484. CalGal - 4/23/2000 1:25:51 PM
Hey, Aytchman, welcome back.
485. AytchMan - 4/23/2000 1:36:12 PM
CG--
Hi. Haven't had much time lately. There's a couple of threads I'd like to really jump into (including this one) but c'est la vie.
486. AytchMan - 4/23/2000 2:55:40 PM
Jexster--
Some more info on strategic computer games. If you're looking for a good one on the Eastern Front, I think OAW is your (current) best bet. The game includes a couple of short campaigns from the Eastern Front. There's also a 1941-44 scenario at the Talonsoft website. Talonsoft published the game, not Gathering of Developers. OAW also includes a killer scenario design tool. Stay away from the Avalon Hill stuff. Their computer games are an unrelieved string of disasters. On the horizon, Road to Moscow may become the new champion strategic game if it's ever released.
487. lou - 4/27/2000 1:04:51 PM
Microsoft has a couple of pretty decent war games, the "Close Combat" Series, I - IV. Blow off I, but II - IV are pretty good. The AI works because each game is based on limited scenarios. CC II for example is based on the 19 day "Operation Market Garden" Campaign, remember "A Bridge Too Far."
488. AytchMan - 4/27/2000 11:49:43 PM
lou--
True enough. The CC series captures platoon level combat very well (in real time) but it's definitely not strategic which is what Jexster is looking for, I think.
489. ilyavinarsky - 4/27/2000 11:56:12 PM
Question.
The Battle of Berlin cost the Soviet Union hundreds of thousands of soldiers' lives.
Would the Berlin garrison have surrendered on its own, besieged?
Perhaps it would have surrendered more eagerly to Ike than to Zhukov... but who cares, the lines of control were already drawn at Yalta.
490. AytchMan - 4/28/2000 12:16:53 AM
By "surrendered on its own", do you mean without Hitler? If so, they didn't (surrender). After Hitler died, the defenders battled on until the Chancellery (arguably the very center of Germany) was captured a couple of days later. Of course, I'm not sure how long it was before the troops knew Hitler was dead.
491. stostosto - 4/28/2000 4:36:50 AM
Ilya
Do you mean from the point of view of the Soviets, could they have settled for a siege, waited until the Germans surrendered to the Western powers and thus spared tens of thousands of Soviet soldiers' lives while still gaining everything that was agreed to in Yalta?
As far as I can see, and bar the possible short-cutting event of Hitler's death, this could have happened - on one condition: That Stalin trusted the Western allies enough that he'd let them take Berlin and expect them to hand it over afterwards. I don't think he did. He lived by Lenin's dictum: Trust is good - control is better.
492. PelleNilsson - 4/28/2000 5:44:21 AM
I think that the motive for the Allied landing in Normandie was not only to defeat Germany but to stop the Soviets from overrunning major parts of Western Europe.
493. Wombat - 4/28/2000 10:48:03 AM
Sto & Ilya:
Stalin's MO did not concern itself with the possibility of huge casualties. They were expected in order to achieve an objective.
Pelle:
Nonsense. A "second front" in Western Europe was planned from Dec. 1941 (actually earlier) on. The objective was not only to liberate territory, but to take pressure off the Soviet Union, which was hardly in a position to fight an offensive war at the time. Indeed, Stalin continually harped on the necessity for a second front.
494. stostosto - 4/28/2000 11:11:59 AM
Wombat:
What does 'MO' stand for? Actually, I was thinking the same thing about the importance Stalin attributed to his soldiers' lives (and human lives in general).
Regarding Pelle's "nonsense", I tend also to agree. Stalin's march into Western Europe was hardly a major concern in the summer of 1944, though the Soviets' westward push had begun. But the concern possibly grew stronger towards the end of the year (and the war), possibly contributing to the desire to make an orderly deal with the Russians at Yalta rather than let chance, military muscle, and war luck decide the outcome.
495. Wombat - 4/28/2000 11:17:14 AM
Sto:
Sorry about that. MO=Modus Operandi.
There was quite a lot of ex post facto quibbling over where the Allied forces would meet up. Are you familiar with the "Broad Front/Narrow Front" controversy?
496. AytchMan - 4/28/2000 10:46:49 PM
Pelle & Sto--
While I think that the Soviet drive into Central Europe *was* a serious Allied concern by the summer of '44, the decision to assault Northwest Europe (at least in the Americans' minds) arose in the early days after Pearl Harbor. America's perennial optimism and 'can do' attitude (as reflected in the thinking of high Army and civilian leaders) led to the belief that the shortest and quickest way to end the war was to take the shortest and quickest route to Berlin. This, of course, immediately clashed with the Brits' aversion to casualties and desire to chip away around the fringes of Axis power.
On the threat to Central Europe: By the summer of '44, the Soviets were far closer to Berlin (in terms of actually getting there) than the Allies. Indeed, until the closing days of the war, the Soviets were always closer to overrunning all of Germany than the Allies. So, I think that the landings in Normandy represent the start of serious concern by the Allies on this issue.
497. AytchMan - 4/28/2000 10:52:15 PM
Clarification on last sentence: The *time* of the landings (June, 1944) represents the start of serious concern, not the landings themselves or the choice of Normandy.
498. jexster - 4/29/2000 1:59:08 AM
499. jexster - 4/29/2000 2:00:36 AM
The above is from a great site - WWII in sounds and pictures. Pics etc from every country including propaganda broadcasts.
Here!
500. jexster - 4/29/2000 2:02:50 AM
Thanks Atych...and UR correct...i already have Close Combat Trilogy which as you say is very tactical. Cute but not the good shit. I'll look around for the OAW Elite Series...
501. jexster - 4/29/2000 2:04:20 AM
Ilya - UR probably correct about Berlin...anything will surrender to seige eventually and/or the Brits were chomping at the bit to take Berlin and we could have done it before the Soviets if Stalin hadn't insisted
502. jexster - 4/29/2000 2:15:49 AM
I cannot recommend the sounds site highly enough. Lotsa shit, the sound of the Iowa's 16" guns and little known shit like Lord Haw-Haw's propaganda broadcasts to England including his final one - he was drunk.
This one is for Ilya Stalin's broadcast to the Nation 7.03.41
503. jexster - 4/29/2000 2:22:07 AM
Hitler & Ernst Roehm 
504. jexster - 4/29/2000 2:34:09 AM
505. jexster - 4/29/2000 3:17:36 AM
We've barely mentioned the Holocaust so..... 
506. jexster - 4/29/2000 3:22:33 AM
The "Eternal Jew" was a seminal Nazi Propaganda film....Much, most of what transpired in the German polity towards Jews can be appreciated from this film.
Introduction
Der ewige Jude ("The Eternal Jew") is the most famous Nazi propaganda film. It was produced at the insistence of Joseph Goebbels, under such active supervision that it is effectively his work. It depicts the Jews of Poland as corrupt, filthy, lazy, ugly, and perverse: they are an alien people which have taken over the world through their control of banking and commerce, yet which still live like animals.
Though unquestionably vicious, many would say that, by today's standards, it is also crude and transparent. The narrator explains the Jews' ratlike behavior, while showing footage of rats squirming from sewers and leaping at the camera.
507. jexster - 4/29/2000 3:25:58 AM
More, much much more at The Holocaust History Project
508. jexster - 4/29/2000 3:44:12 AM
I'm on a roll..... width=350>
509. jexster - 4/29/2000 3:50:41 AM
try again.. _jk.jpg)
Siegfried Kills Fafnir
510. jexster - 4/29/2000 3:53:18 AM
and more I know
even more I can tell
how once by his violent hand a mighty dragon fell
he bathed in its blood
grew strong and can't be slain
and many have seen this again
and yet again
The Niebelungenlied
511. jexster - 4/29/2000 4:25:42 AM
512. jexster - 4/29/2000 4:30:14 AM
The Horst Wessel Song...Die Fahne Hoch
and good night....
513. uzmakk - 4/29/2000 9:26:04 AM
I have a typically ignorant comment to make on Jexster's 511, but I don't want to disturb him.
514. PelleNilsson - 4/29/2000 10:38:45 AM
#511 is not well translated. Too timid. But then English doesn't serve well for martial poetry, I don't think, Kipling notwithstanding.
515. pseudoerasmus - 4/29/2000 10:40:16 AM
English doesn't serve well for martial poetry? Nilsson, have you read any English poetry?
516. uzmakk - 4/29/2000 10:47:08 AM
Henry the Fifth? Not martial poetry?
517. PelleNilsson - 4/29/2000 10:50:38 AM
What do you think of the Latin translation?
518. uzmakk - 4/29/2000 10:53:09 AM
I will have to get my son to read it to me.
519. uzmakk - 4/29/2000 10:53:51 AM
In Latin, ofcourse.
520. PelleNilsson - 4/29/2000 11:00:55 AM
It's not only about words. It's about sounds too.
Wo Heldengeister niederschau'n,
Und schwört mit stolzer Kampfeslust
521. pseudoerasmus - 4/29/2000 11:06:48 AM
I've a classical bias in my Latin, but the rhythm of the Latin translation is more appropriate to a medieval love lyric in corrupted Latin. Martial poetry in Latin must be in dactylic hexameters, but that could just be my classical straitjacket from school.
522. uzmakk - 4/29/2000 11:11:08 AM
Tha mon o' micht, he rade o' nicht
Wi' neider swerd ne ferd ne licht.
He socht tha Mare, he fond tha Mare,
He bond tha Mare wi' her ain hare,
Ond gared her swar by midder-micht
She wolde nae mair rid o' nicht
Whar aince he rade, thot mon o' micht.
523. jexster - 4/29/2000 2:44:15 PM
Jeez yoos guys is smart!
524. jexster - 4/29/2000 2:44:39 PM
toys
525. Wombat - 4/29/2000 6:59:04 PM
"half a league, half a league, half a league onward,
into the valley of death rode the six hundred."
(Tennyson)
526. jexster - 4/29/2000 7:20:43 PM
from the Horst Wessel site, a yuk:
The low-life Horst Wessel (b. September 9, 1907, Bielefeld, Germany -- d. February 23, 1930, Berlin, Germany) joined the Nazi party in in 1926. He was killed by political enemies (probably degenerate communists) in a fight in his filthy squalid rooms in Berlin. Glorified as a martyr to the Nazi cause, his song became the official Nazi anthem
527. jexster - 4/29/2000 11:14:50 PM
Operation Bagration
was an obscure operation to Westerners and is not discussed in most histories of the war this side of the Iron Curtain.
Perphaps the Cold War has something to do with this, perhaps too because Allied forces were hacking their way out of the hedgerows of Normandy at the time it was launched on June 21, 1944 - three years to the day after the Germans invaded Russia.
528. jexster - 4/29/2000 11:15:58 PM
But this Operation, named after a hero of the War of 1812, provided Hitler with more than he could handle and definitely prevented him from reinforcing his forces in the West. The Russians attacked German Army Group Center in Belorussia with 4 Fronts that included 14 combined arms armies, 1 tank army (5th Guards Tank), 4 air armie, 118 rifle divisions, 7 fortified regions, 12 calvary divisions and 8 mechanized tank corps. The combined force totaled 1,250,000 men; 4070 tanks and assault guns, 24,363 artillery pieces and 5300 combat aircraft. A neighboring attack from the South included another 400,000 men, 1800 tanks, 8400 artillery pieces, and 1500 aircraft.
The attack was conducted along a 300+ mile front and suceeded in driving the Germans back over 300 miles back into Poland. The nearly 800,000 Russian dead and wounded bought not only 900 square miles but probably saved thousands of American, British, Canadian and French lives too.
In our fascination with D-Day and Normandy we forget that our sucess was due in no small part to the Russians.
529. jexster - 4/29/2000 11:23:42 PM
Source: Glantz & House, When Titans Clashed
530. PelleNilsson - 4/30/2000 3:50:12 AM
There can be no doubt that the Germans were defeated by the Soviet Union. D-day and waht followed was essentially a mopping-up operation.
531. PelleNilsson - 4/30/2000 3:50:57 AM
... what followed ...
532. pseudoerasmus - 4/30/2000 3:55:31 AM
I have read and heard many Americans argue that the Soviet Union could not have won the war without allied material assistance. Alexander Werth, in his excellent Russia at War has a fairly impressive tally of this assistance to the Soviet Union, and although he doesn't speculate either way, I would say that the external aid was not the difference between victory and stalemate/defeat.
533. PelleNilsson - 4/30/2000 5:18:06 AM
Can allied material assistance have been more than a drop in the ocean compared to the needs of the Soviet army? Although it could have been a high-quality drop, I suppose. Bomb sights and stuff like that, I mean.
534. PelleNilsson - 4/30/2000 5:22:43 AM
jexster
In launching Operation Bagration, Stalin evidently fulfilled a promise made at the Teherean conference in December, 1943:
Took note that Operation OVERLORD would be launched during May 1944, in conjunction with an operation against Southern France. The latter operation would be undertaken in as great a strength as availability of landing-craft permitted. The Conference further took note of Marshal Stalin's statement that the Soviet forces would launch an offensive at about the same time with the object of preventing the German forces from transferring from the Eastern to the Western Front.
Source.
535. PelleNilsson - 4/30/2000 6:43:18 AM
It seems lend-lease may have been a bit more than a drop in the ocean. I found this:
American, British and Canadian Lend-Lease made a significant difference in the progress of the Soviet armies against Hitler's armies. However, the USSR tried to keep this information limited and the role of Lend-Lease is generally not well known although it constituted about 15 per cent of the total equipment used by the USSR, particularly almost one-half million American trucks. It was said that the only thing that moved through the mud towards Germany were the Ukrainian T-34 tanks with their wide tracks and the American Studebaker trucks.
The USA supplied the USSR with 6,430 planes, 3,734 tanks, 104 ships and boats, 210,000 autos, 3,000 anti-aircraft guns, 245,000 field telephones, gasoline, aluminum, copper, zinc, steel and five million tons of food. This was enough to feed an army of 12 million every day of the war. Britain supplied 5,800 planes, 4,292 tanks, and 12 minesweepers. Canada supplied 1,188 tanks, 842 armoured cars, nearly one million shells, and 208,000 tons of wheat and flour. The USSR depended on American trucks for its mobility since 427,000 out of 665,000 motor vehicles (trucks and jeeps) at the end of the war were of western origin.
I have no idea about the reliability of the source
536. pseudoerasmus - 4/30/2000 6:50:20 AM
The Werth book has an exhaustive tally of the material sent to Russia. I once painstakingly typed and posted the tally somewhere in suite101, which I could lead to if I knew where it was.
537. Wombat - 4/30/2000 2:18:04 PM
One could probably argue that without the massive infusion of trucks, the Red Army would not have had the mobility necessary exploit the armored breakthroughs that destroyed Army Group Center (and subsequent offensives). Other favorite Lend-lease items were P-39 Aircobras and P-63 Kingcobras, which were used for ground attack (the P-39, which was a failure against the Japanese, was apparently able to hold its own against German fighters at low altitudes).
538. jexster - 4/30/2000 2:46:49 PM
, I would say that the external aid was not the difference between victory and stalemate/defeat.
Hard to say. Glantz makes the argument that Western aid was most valuable in 2 areas - trucks and air power. The Soviets never developed much in the way of truck transport during the war, this in contrast to producing arguably the best armor of the period. Without the jeeps and truck provided, the Soviet "deep battle" concept could never have been attempted.
The air power contribution, according to Glantz, was more indirect though not less valuable for it. Aircraft, like most combat materiel the West provided was inferior, second-line stuff. However, Allied bombing of the German homeland forced the Luftwaffe to divert massive resources and effectively surrender combat air superiority early on - by 1942.
How much all of this affected the outcome in the East will always be fruitful ground for speculation and debate. The answer lies somewhere in between the Russian view "The war was won on American Spam and Russian blood" and the highly prejudiced view we or at least I learned in school that they never have prevailed without us.
Parenthetically, this is something I'd like Ilya to weigh in on if he's of a mind to. What was the school line on the Great Patriotic War, the Molotov Ribbentrop pact etc. I had an e conversation with a Russian on the subject of what he was taught v. what I was....would be interesting.
Clearly though, Hitler made a huge strategic error by declaring war on the US after Pearl Harbor.
539. Indiana Jones - 4/30/2000 2:50:41 PM
"There can be no doubt that the Germans were defeated by the Soviet Union. D-day and waht followed was essentially a mopping-up operation."
Pelle once more falls into the classic mistake of underestimating the Swedish contribution.
540. PelleNilsson - 4/30/2000 3:00:53 PM
Indy
hahaha!
I have written about Sweden and WWII. Here.
541. Ahab42 - 4/30/2000 3:40:15 PM
539. Indiana Jones - 4/30/00 7:50:41 PM
"There can be no doubt that the Germans were defeated by the Soviet Union. D-day and waht followed was essentially a mopping-up operation."
**This is the sillyest assertion I have heard since debating a Cper on this subject. Without Allied aid the Soviet Union would have been pushed permanetly back to the Ural Mountains.
The massive diversion of German recources-primarily air assets was absolutly pivitol in the Soviets ability to weather the German torm.
Admittedly Hitler's allmost fanatic ability to wreck his own Militarys opperations is as great a contributor. The idea that Soviets could have beaten germany without Allied intervention is a historical and smacks of Soviet disinformation..not that i'm accusing anyone of spreading disinformation. Just reading brithsh scholl of military history perhaps.
Carl Military Historian
John Toland Ridiculed for a Small Fee
542. PelleNilsson - 4/30/2000 4:10:14 PM
Ahab42
If you had read a bit more carefully you would have realised that the assertion is mine not Indiana's.
The remainder of your post is indecipherable.
543. PelleNilsson - 4/30/2000 4:26:49 PM
jexster
Clearly though, Hitler made a huge strategic error by declaring war on the US after Pearl Harbor.
In an early post I argued that the real purpose of the declaration of war was to allow the U-Boats to attack the lend-lease transports.
544. AytchMan - 4/30/2000 7:03:18 PM
It seems to me that the contribution of Lend-Lease in winning the war has two components. First how much materiel was delivered in the first eighteen months of Soviet participation (June 41 to November 42) to keep them from losing the war and, second, how much was delivered after that to enable them to drive back toward Germany.
I'd guess that relatively little was delivered until US industry started to hit its stride (about June 42 at the earliest?). Thus, it seems clear that the Soviets survived the initial German onslaught almost entirely on their own. So, Lend-Lease can't claim much credit here.
As for the winning of the war, the numbers posted by Pelle make a good case that a substantial part of the Soviet offense (certainly the mobility) was generated in Detroit. Does anybody have a breakdown of Lend-Lease by month or year?
545. jexster - 4/30/2000 11:41:12 PM
Sweden's decline began at Poltava. They reached rock bottom when Ford purchased Volvo. Now their squalor is manifest by billboards featuring a queer couple bitching over furniture (IKEA).
546. jexster - 4/30/2000 11:44:02 PM
Atych -
Don't look at me for those facts and figures on Lend Lease. WRT turning the corner in '42 on their own, you neglect the very crucial impact of the North Africa campaign on the German offensive that year. Hitler's North African diversion of fighter and transport planes was substantial.
I do have figures on that.
547. jexster - 4/30/2000 11:45:17 PM
Most of my shit BTW comes from David Glantz whose link I've put up in that little yellow bar.
Glantz is God Amen.
548. jexster - 4/30/2000 11:49:19 PM
Pelle, you may be right about Hilter's purpose in declaring war. Though the first I can recall hearing of it, that doesn't make it so. It does have sort of a "rational actor" plausibility about it. As far as I know though, his decision was made rather quickly and without much if any input from his government.
My comment was 20/20. At the time, most, regardless of which side they were on, thought that the Allies were kaput
549. jexster - 4/30/2000 11:49:55 PM
"make it so" = "make it not so"
550. jexster - 4/30/2000 11:54:47 PM
There can be no doubt that the Germans were defeated by the
Soviet Union. D-day and waht followed was essentially a mopping-up
operation."
Definitely an overstatement but one that contains essential truth. The German army was incapable of sustained offensive operations by the end of Citadel in Summer 1943.
Further, on June 6 '44, the Soviets had some 3,000,000 Germans and other assorted Axis forces tied up on the Eastern Front.
In my opinion, Russia was far and away the prime reason Germany was defeated (makes me want to cry)
Off to compose myself.
551. jexster - 5/1/2000 12:01:30 AM
[sobbing]
I just noticed that for some reason I screwed up the link to the review of When Titans Clashed. The Journal of Slavic Military Studies link is good I hope.
Here's the review
552. Ahab42 - 5/1/2000 2:57:30 PM
542. PelleNilsson - 4/30/00 9:10:14 PM
Ahab42
If you had read a bit more carefully you would have realised that the assertion is mine not Indiana's.
The remainder of your post is indecipherable.
*** Gee next time I will use smaller words so you can decipher what i say. Yes I do owe INDIANA an appology. Boy do I owe him an appology.
543. PelleNilsson - 4/30/00 9:26:49 PM
jexster
553. Raskolnikov - 5/1/2000 3:16:25 PM
How about the allied bombing campaign of Germany? What is the current assessment of the impact it had on the war, and Germany's ability to fight on the Eastern Front?
554. PelleNilsson - 5/1/2000 3:21:29 PM
Ahab42
You don't need to use smaller words. You need to learn to spell.
And I'd like you to elaborate on
The massive diversion of German recources-primarily air assets was absolutly pivitol in the Soviets ability to weather the German torm.
555. AytchMan - 5/1/2000 11:55:54 PM
Pelle 543--
I think you're correct but I also think that a substantial part of the declaration of war stemmed simply from Hitler's ego. From all accounts I've read, he grossly misunderstood and underestimated the US. Since he thought a US declaration was imminent, he wanted to be first for prestige.
Jexster 546--
I think our arguments are diverging. The phrase that started this was, I think, 'allied material assistance'. Whether one takes that to mean the smaller concept of Lend-Lease or the larger one of 'everything the Western Allies did to draw off German power" probably determines the outcome of the discussion.
At any rate, I think that the use of airpower meant two different things on the Eastern and Western fronts. In the West, airpower was notable for its presence in most engagements while in the East, it was notable for its absence.
To really oversimplify it (just to get the point across), I think that dividing the number of planes by the square area of active combat would give two very different numbers in the two theaters. Thus, I think that drawing off x number of planes to North Africa made a dramatic difference there while not having a great effect in the East. So, I don't think an argument that "x percent of aircraft were moved out of the East" makes the case.
556. AytchMan - 5/2/2000 12:21:37 AM
Jexster 548--
>>As far as I know though, his decision was made rather quickly and without much if any input from his government.
I think that's right but, almost from the beginning, Admiral Raeder never missed an opportunity to beat up on Hitler (as much as anyone could) about loosening the restrictions on the U-boats. So, I think it contributed to his decision. Nevertheless, I think a lot of it was simply megalomania. He had to declare first.
557. Wombat - 5/2/2000 9:40:30 AM
Aytch:
The difference in the use of air power between the Eastern and Western Fronts was that the former did not see strategic bombing as used by the Allies. Tactical air power was widely used in the East, and the Germans certainly terror-bombed the cities that its bombers could reach.
558. jexster - 5/2/2000 12:49:22 PM
What is the current assessment of the impact it had on the war, and Germany's ability to fight on the Eastern Front?
The strategic bombing campaign destroyed most of the Luftwaffe's tactical fighter force. The remainder was eliminated in the Western Front operations of 1994. Germans had air superiority in the East in 1941 began to lose it in '42, lost it in '43 as a result.
559. jexster - 5/2/2000 4:24:25 PM
On the 50th anniversary of the Normandy invasion, a US news magazine featured a cover photo of General Dwight D. Eisenhower, who was labeled as "the man who defeated Hilter". If any one man deserved that label it was not Eisenhower but Zhukov, Vasilevsky or perhaps Stalin himself. Glantz & House (1995) p. 282.
560. jexster - 5/2/2000 4:35:18 PM
To really oversimplify it (just to get the point across), I think that dividing the number of planes by the square area of active combat would give two very different numbers in the two theaters. Thus, I think that drawing off x number of planes to North Africa made a dramatic difference there while not having a great effect in the East. So, I don't think an argument that "x percent of aircraft were moved out of the East" makes the case.
On those terms it doesn't of course. But consider Stalingrad. Consider Fat Boy Goering's boast that he could resupply Paulus. Consider then the fact that 400 Luftwaffe aircraft redeployed from the east to the west between November and December 1942 to meet the Allied threat in North Africa. German losses in the Mediterranean between Nov 42 and May 43 totalled 2,422 40.5 percent of the entire Luftwaffe strength.
"Hardest hit was the Luftwaffe's transport arm. IN addition to the vain effort to resupply Stalingrad, the transport pilots were called upon twice for major surges of supplies and reinforcements to North Africa (Malta blocked most sea resupply). In May 43 when German forces were destroyed in Tunisia 177 Ju-52's and 6 of the scarce Me-323 "giants" were whoped out....Taken together, these three major airlifts in six months destroyed the Luftwaffe's transport force taking not only planes and pilots but instructors as well....Without these transports, future parachute and resupply operations were impossible.... From March 43 onward, German fighter losses in the West consistently exceeded those in the East...even in July 43 at the height of the Kursk offensive, 335 German fighters fell over Germany but only 201 over Russia..." G&H p. 149
561. Ahab42 - 5/2/2000 5:24:36 PM
And I'd like you to elaborate on
The massive diversion of German recources-primarily air assets was absolutly pivitol in the Soviets ability to weather the German torm.
Well, posts following yours seem to have elaborated quite succintly on this subject. Suffice it to say that the massive deversion of ait assets from East to West crippled Germany's ability to provide even minimal amounts of tactial and supply air assets. Both of which are crucial to successful ground operations.
Carl
562. AytchMan - 5/3/2000 2:54:48 AM
Wombat 557--
Strategic bombing was clearly a qualitative difference between East and West. As for tactical, I think there was a significant difference in degree between the two fronts. I would agree that tactical air power was 'widely' used in the East but not to the extent as in the West. The Eastern front was much bigger (the actual front was much longer), flight distances were somewhat longer from fewer airbases) and there were (I think) fewer planes. Plus, the weather was generally worse. Thus, it stands to reason that, for the typical engagement, substantially fewer missions were flown. I don't have any citations for this but if you guys ain't buying it, I may try to dig something up. Whaddaya think?
563. AytchMan - 5/3/2000 3:21:39 AM
jexster 560--
Assuming our discussion centers on the diversion of airpower affecting the turning point of the Russian campaign, your numbers for Nov 42 to May 43 make the argument about six months too late. I would argue that the actual turning point was in September and October 42 as the Russians were able to build up their counterstroke north and south of the city. Obviously, it was unrecognizable as such at the time. But I think that the actual siege at Stalingrad (Nov to Jan) was a foregone conclusion even if the encircled troops could have been supplied by air. If I recall correctly, neither Manstein nor Hoth held out much hope that they could get through. A dramatic anticlimax but an anticlimax nonetheless.
By the way, as an American, it pains me to argue that we weren't very useful in the early going but I think that's the case.
564. AytchMan - 5/3/2000 3:36:18 AM
jexster 559--
I certainly agree that the 'one man' wouldn't be Ike. And either Zhukov or Stalin are solid candidates. But I also think Churchill could be argued. Not on purely military grounds, of course, but rather political, psychological and even grand strategic. If the Brits had folded in 1940...
565. PelleNilsson - 5/3/2000 9:32:23 AM
uzmakk -- Message # 522
I read that late at night and couldn't make sense of it. Then I forgot. Now I have read it again and couldn't make sense of it. What is it? Old English?
566. uzmakk - 5/3/2000 10:05:46 AM
Well, Pelle, the reason that I posted it was because you mentioned the "sound" of the words being lost in translation. That poem immediately flashed into my mind because of the "sound". I translate what I can and leave untranslated what I cannot in the following:
A fuller account of Odin's feat is given in the North Country Charm against the Night Mare, which probably date from the fourteenth century:
That man of might, he rode of night
Wi' neider swerd ne ferd ne light.
He sought the Mare, he found the Mare,
He bound the Mare with her own hair,
Ond gared her swear by midder-might
She would no more ride of night
Where once he rode, that man of might.
The Night Mare is one of the cruellest aspects of the White Goddess. Her nests, when one comes across them in dreams, lodged in rock-clefts or the branches of enormous hollow yews, are built of carefully chosen twigs, lined with white horse-hair and the plumage of prophetic birds and littered with the jaw-bones and entrails of poets. The prophet Job said of her: "She dwelleth and abidith upon the rock. Her young ones also suck up blood."
I am certain you know where I got this stuff.
567. PelleNilsson - 5/3/2000 10:27:56 AM
Uzmakk
The second line might be:
With neither sword, nor fear, nor light
And the fifth:
And made or swear on [???]-might.
No, I don't know where you got it from. Is it very simple to guess
? If so Beowulf perhaps.
Offhand I don't recall anything similar in the Edda but I will check. The White Goddess is not part of Norse mythology, at least not under that name.
568. PelleNilsson - 5/3/2000 10:29:06 AM
If we have more to say on this we should probably do it in Poetry lest the wrath of Jexster smite us.
569. uzmakk - 5/3/2000 10:55:13 AM
I fear the wrath of Jexster. Oh, and my typically ignorant comment is that the poem that he cited could be that of any chosen people jealous of their land.
570. jexster - 5/3/2000 12:36:40 PM
Atych - you are correct that when Fat Man made his resupply boast, the die was cast. But it was in no small part because of transport diversions which were then occurring. Further, the Kursk operation, I would argue, was made necessary and predictable (the Russians knew it was coming both from the map and from spies) because that was the only point that the Germans could attack given the fact that they no longer had the air assets to do anything else.
What if's are fun because they cannot be definitively answered but I would say that the 6th army might not have been lost if we had not been in North Africa/Sicily at or about that time.
571. jexster - 5/3/2000 4:49:56 PM
What poem Uzzie, before I rip you a new asshole about which do you bitch?
The passage from the Niebelungenlied?
Its an ominous prophecy of great things to come from the Vaterland!
572. PelleNilsson - 5/3/2000 4:56:31 PM
jexster
Check Message # 522
573. jexster - 5/3/2000 4:57:25 PM
droll how very droll
574. Wombat - 5/3/2000 5:20:45 PM
Aytch:
I don't think enough is known about the Soviet use of tactical air power to come to concrete conclusions. I doubt that it was as well organized as the Typhoon "cab ranks" and ground based air liaisons that were used in the West.
575. PelleNilsson - 5/4/2000 1:19:45 AM
Wombat
What were Typhoon "cab ranks"?
576. AytchMan - 5/4/2000 2:47:15 AM
Wombat--
I'm *confident* that Soviet air was not as well-organized as in the West. I read somewhere that, early in the war, only flight leaders had radios. The wingies had to simply follow the leader and/or respond to hand signals. I would guess this eventually changed but I don't know at what point.
577. AytchMan - 5/4/2000 3:07:45 AM
jexster 570--
I think we're at the point where we agree to disagree. I am curious about your Kursk statement, however. The operation was certainly obvious and well-telegraphed, as you point out. But why was Kursk the only point at which the Germans could attack? Are you making a geographical argument based on German air power or a strategic one based on other factors? I always thought that Kursk arose out of one of those Hitler screeds where his unshakeable will engendered an irrevocable decision for a supreme effort (I love those transcripts where he harangued everybody into exhaustion).
578. Wombat - 5/4/2000 9:32:22 AM
Aytch:
Early in the war, French fighters didn't have radios at all.
Pelle:
Hawker Typhoon squadrons were assigned to patrol over Allied ground forces. When requested by RAF controllers traveling with front-line units, a Typhoon or two would attack pockets of resistance, tanks, bunkers with bombs, cannon, and rockets. The remaining aircraft would remain on call and available for use, ergo "(taxi) cab rank."
579. PelleNilsson - 5/4/2000 9:47:22 AM
Thanks, Wombat.
580. jexster - 5/4/2000 4:16:20 PM
Atych -
Lack of air transport, lack of tactical air, lack of airborne capability made a concentrated ground attack on the salient as opposed to a deeper encirclement or attack along other fronts the only feasible choice - not a very good one at that.
581. AytchMan - 5/5/2000 2:34:07 AM
Wombat--
By my comment, I meant the US and Brits during the comparable period. If they didn't have any radios, I may have to surrender the point. But I didn't know that the French didn't have them. Thanks.
582. AytchMan - 5/5/2000 3:20:00 AM
jexster--
Since you seem to be making the airpower argument, I confess I still don't understand. You seem to be attaching a great deal of importance to the air arm in dictating the '43 offensive. Is this from the Glantz book? I'm not so much looking for an argument here as for information. Frankly, I don't know as much about Kursk as other areas of the war. However, it does seem that other factors would take precedence, that is, "air' would be a supporting factor in the decision rather than a driver. Yes/no?
583. stostosto - 5/5/2000 4:40:19 AM
5th of May 1945: Liberation of Denmark.
The 'message of liberty' was heard from BBC London the evening before:
'Det meddeles netop i dette řjeblik, at feltmarskal Montgomery har oplyst, at de tyske tropper i Holland, Nordvesttyskland og Danmark har overgivet sig. Jeg gentager...'
'At this moment it's reported that field marshall Montgomery has informed us that the German troops in Holland, Nort-West Germany and Denmark have surrendered. I repeat...'
And all heaven broke loose. People burned their curtain shades and put candle lights in the windows. Many people still do so every year on the eve of May 4th (though it's inevitably a fading tradition).
Of course, in the uproar, the easternmost part of the country, the Baltic island of Bornholm was forgotten. The local German commander refused to surrender to anyone but the British, and they didn't see fit to send over a couple of officers. So Bornholm was bombed by the Russians who also occupied it for a number of days (weeks? months?) before eventually relinqushing it. I think historians are still debating why the Russians did this without further ado... Are there any other instances in which the Russians conceded areas to the west that the Red Army had conquered from the Germans?
(I should provide a map, but that will have to wait).
584. AytchMan - 5/5/2000 5:13:50 AM
Sto--
>>Are there any other instances in which the Russians conceded areas to the west that the Red Army had conquered from the Germans?
There were some minor adjustments along the line near the Elbe where the Allies met. But the big withdrawal was from Austria. The Soviets overran most of the country in April '45 (including Vienna) but pulled back to a Soviet zone in the eastern part. They finally withdrew completely in the early '50's, as I recall. Big of 'em.
585. PelleNilsson - 5/5/2000 5:47:37 AM
Here is Denmark with the island of Bornholm at the bottom right. 
586. PelleNilsson - 5/5/2000 5:59:03 AM
And here you can see Bornholm's strategic position in the Baltic. 
sto
Are there NATO installations on Bornholm? Submarine pens and that sort of stuff?
587. PelleNilsson - 5/5/2000 6:11:40 AM
sto
Here is a site in English with key dates and events in the history of Denmark. It is maintained by the university of Linköping.
588. uzmakk - 5/5/2000 10:07:11 AM
571Jexster:
or, the Gotterland.
589. stostosto - 5/5/2000 10:39:15 AM
You're a pal, Pelle! Thank you. Interesting link too, even though it's from Linköping. I have bookmarked it for future reference.
590. uzmakk - 5/5/2000 12:45:13 PM
And please mistuh Jexsta, don't rip me a new asshole.
591. stostosto - 5/5/2000 5:40:48 PM
Pelle, I don't think there are submarine pens (pens...?) on Bornholm. But there are certainly naval and air force observation posts as well as a land based defense force. This force has a somewhat special position in the Danish army, btw. For some reason they are the ones recruited for the missions in Bosnia and KFOR. (The DIB, Danish International Brigade). But this may have as much to do with Bornholm being a poor peripheral region which needs the revenue generator of a military facility as it has to do with the island's strategic importance...
592. PelleNilsson - 5/5/2000 5:51:05 PM
Main Entry: 2pen
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, perhaps from pennen
Date: 14th century
1 a : a small enclosure for animals b : the animals in a pen < a pen of sheep>
2 : a small place of confinement or storage
3 : a protected dock or slip for a submarine
593. stostosto - 5/5/2000 6:32:02 PM
AytchMan #584
Thank you. That's fascinating. I have large holes in my WWII knowledge, that's becoming painfully clear to me in this thread. (But then, there are many other holes. In fact, my ignorance is fairly all-encompassing when I think about it. But the Mote helps punch holes in it).
594. uzmakk - 5/5/2000 7:02:14 PM
Now this thread is developing a bit of pizzaz with those etymological derivations.
595. AytchMan - 5/8/2000 8:29:59 PM
Two what-if questions:
First, what would have happened if Hitler had died in July 1939? The default answer is that (a) there would have been no war and (b) Hitler would have gone down in history as one of the greatest Germans of all time. Yes/no? Other answers encouraged. Bonus points for etymological derivations.
Second, what would have happened if Hitler had died in May 1941 (that is, after the overrunning of Yugoslavia but before the attack on Russia)?
596. AytchMan - 5/9/2000 9:45:25 PM
I've always been fascinated by the Doolittle raid on Tokyo and consider it one of the more amazing events of the war. Mainly for the role such a shoestring operation played in changing the course of the war. I'm wondering what other minor operations or events you guys think are in the same category. I can think of at least one other candidate.
597. spudboy - 5/9/2000 10:24:35 PM
Aytch: The China-Burma airlift campaign clearly qualifies in that category.
598. AytchMan - 5/9/2000 10:50:59 PM
spudboy--
Interesting. The airlift certainly used minimal resources and qualifies on that count but I'm not sure whether it qualifies as pivotal. I have to think about that a bit. Do you think it held the Chinese in the war?
If, on the other hand, you're referring to the whole CBI theatre, then that's a bit large for what I'm trying to draw out. Sorry if I didn't make that clear.
599. spudboy - 5/10/2000 12:13:25 AM
Aytch: No, I just mean the airlift. I’ve been fascinated by it because it was such an aviation feat, and there’s still a bunch of hardware (and bones) scattered over those mountainsides from it. Stillwell really used baling wire and gum to keep the operation going, but it managed ultimately to achieve the Allies' objectives: Keep China in the war, divert Japanese resources over a wider theater, and provide some strategic leverage.
However, I agree on further consideration that it probably doesn’t quite qualify as pivotal. It did prove to be important in the latter stages of the war, when the Pacific theater advances had outrun those in SE Asia. It enabled the Allies to retake Burma and the Ledo Road in the fall of 1944, and the supplies proved crucial in halting the Japanese advances at Chihchiang in April 1945, after which they retreated to a full defense of their home islands. But it wasn’t pivotal by that point.
As a substitute, let me offer up the rescue of the “Lost Battalion” by the 442nd Regimental Combat Team, which was cited by an Army commission as one of the 10 most significant land battles in U.S. military history, ostensibly because it marked a turning point in the German resistance. It wasn’t really a baling-wire operation, but it wasn’t very well conceived or executed, either; mostly it involved pouring in a horde of “expendable” troops into a meat grinder. And it worked.
600. Wombat - 5/10/2000 9:37:29 AM
Aytch:
The crash of a light aircraft carrying a German General Staff officer in Belgium during the Winter of 1940. Against orders, he was carrying a copy of the plans for the attack on France and the Low Countries. He attempted to burn them, but enough was salvaged to fatally compromise them. As a result, the Germans re-did the plans, and changed the axis of the primary attack from a modified Schleiffen plan, which the Allies were prepared to counter, to an armored strike through the Ardennes forest. We all know happened as a result.
601. stostosto - 5/10/2000 9:51:15 AM
Aytchman
Your question made me think of the commando attacks on the Norsk Hydro plant in Rjukan producing heavy water (deuterium), a crucial component in the Germans' effort at the atomic bomb. Norwegian resistance, trained in and directed from Britain, carried out the operations at extreme personal risk. (Hitler had ordered any captured commando soldier executed - and so they were).
Here is a book about it at Amazon. Dan Kurzman's Blood and Water : Sabotaging Hitler's Bomb.
It was a truly heroic effort but whether it qualifies as a "pivotal" operation hinges upon its effect on the German project. The Germans might not have succeeded in beating the Allies to the bomb regardless. But nobody could know at the time.
Clips from two reviews at Amazon:
"..large numbers of both British special-operations troops and Norwegian resistance fighters attacked the heavily defended, nearly inaccessible plant during the course of two years, and sustained heavy casualties. Finally, success came when the ferry carrying most of the heavy water was sunk by the resistance, but by then the Allied bomb program was far ahead of the Germans'. "
"When the Nazis attempted to move heavy-water stocks from Norway, saboteurs destroyed a ferry bearing the cargo, killing 26 civilians in the process. Kurzman quotes OSS official (and later CIA chief) William Casey as estimating that at war's end the Germans were 700 liters of heavy water short of developing an effective nuclear reaction. Spellbinding and deeply sobering military history"
602. Wombat - 5/10/2000 10:45:02 AM
Aytch:
The Winter of 1939-40.
603. Wombat - 5/10/2000 10:48:55 AM
Subsequent studies of the German nuclear effort, led by Heisenberg, indicate that they lacked the technology needed to miniaturize the components for a bomb, and that using heavy water was a scientific blind alley. It has been speculated that Heisenberg deliberately pursued the use of heavy water in an effort to ensure that Hitler would never get the bomb.
604. stostosto - 5/10/2000 12:18:03 PM
Wombat
Your insight is awesome. So heavy water isn't necessary? Is it useful at all? Or is it just that it's not the smartest technology?
605. Wombat - 5/10/2000 1:00:10 PM
The British and the United States experimented with heavy water, but quickly found it impracticable. Since they had access to uranium, they focused their efforts in that direction. They were also able to benefit from the pool of knowledge that Hitler so thoughtfully provided the Allies when his anti-jewish policies in academe stripped Germany of some of its best scientists.
606. AytchMan - 5/10/2000 5:10:59 PM
spudboy--
Facinating story about the 442nd. I'd never heard it before. Did it take place in Belgium in 1944? I didn't see the date or location in the story.
607. AytchMan - 5/10/2000 5:17:43 PM
Wombat 600--
Excellent example. As I recall, the plans were so complete (and, obviously, authentic) that the Allies agonized mightily over whether or not they were a plant.
608. AytchMan - 5/10/2000 5:35:45 PM
sto 601--
I've also read what Wombat refers to so I think the operation qualifies as a near-miss. I've always wondered whether Heisenberg really misdirected the Germans or whether it was just an after-the-fact apologia.
609. AytchMan - 5/10/2000 5:46:13 PM
Another example I thought of was the navigational error that inadvertently sent a small German air raid directly over London in August 1940. In retaliation, the British sent a small raid over Berlin the next night. Since it was the first raid on Berlin, the Germans came unglued. Either Hitler or Goering ordered the Luftwaffe to switch priorities from airfields and radar stations to the city of London. Since the RAF was on the ropes at that point, the relief probably turned the Battle of Britain around.
610. Wombat - 5/10/2000 5:48:49 PM
Aytch:
The Dieppe Raid in 1942. The failure of the attack persuaded the US that the time was not ripe for a cross-channel invasion (which they had been pushing) and convinced the Allies that an attempt to sieze a port immediately upon invading was not the way to go. It also caused the British to develop its "funnies:" flail tanks for clearing mines, kangaroos (flame throwing tanks), Churchills equipped with spigot mortars for busting bunkers, bridging tanks and fascine tanks for crossing trenches and streams, which allowed them to subdue beach defenses with comparative ease.
611. AytchMan - 5/10/2000 5:55:12 PM
Wombat 602--
I think you're probably right but possibly for a different reason. How do you see its effect?
612. Wombat - 5/10/2000 6:01:07 PM
Aytch:
I was correcting an ambiguity in message #600. The Winter of 1940 took place after the fall of France. I wouldn't call the Russo-Finnish War a minor event, although it caused the Germans to underestimate the Soviets; and taught the Soviets some valuable lessons in winter fighting that the Germans would regret.
613. AytchMan - 5/10/2000 6:20:17 PM
Ha!
The funny thing is that I was actually considering the Winter of 39-40 on the Western Front. Some have argued that the severe winter weather forced a postponement in the attack until the spring. Hitler was certainly itching to go. I think a reasonable assessment holds that the Germans simply weren't ready.
But the what-if's of whether or not the Germans could have gone, what the results would have been and what a difference six or eight months would have made could perhaps be construed as pivotal.
614. Wombat - 5/10/2000 6:23:43 PM
Aytch:
The severe winter also stymied French attempts to extend their fortifications to the Belgian border and beyond. Whether they would have been enough to stop the Germans...who knows?
615. AytchMan - 5/10/2000 6:42:33 PM
Wombat--
On Dieppe, I'm still coggin'. It certainly qualifies as a minor event with serious consequences and, thus, passes the test.
But I'm also trying to factor in unintended consequences (which was unstated in my original post). On that (unfairly changed) basis, it probably doesn't. From what I've read, the Brits were inclined to mount the attack knowing full well that it was doomed. The purpose was, as you said, to dissuade the Americans from an early cross-Channel invasion as well as to gain experience for the eventual assault. Sorry to switch gears on you.
616. AytchMan - 5/10/2000 6:49:30 PM
Wombat 614--
Is that right? Into the Ardennes? I didn't know that. I guess it makes sense that they'd do that in the time available. But I figured that they were just sitting on their defeatist duffs (Sitzkrieg and all that).
Do you know if they were trying to build Maginot-quality fortifications or just 'normal' defenses?
617. Macnas - 5/11/2000 11:15:31 AM
A bit off the current thread I know, but could anyone tell me, does the city that was Stalingrad still exist under a different name? or has it been levelled?
Myself and a mate were wondering about this the other week, and neither of us has a clue..
618. stostosto - 5/11/2000 11:20:12 AM
Macnas
It's called Volgograd. I don't know when it was renamed, but it was probably in the aftermath of Khruschev's 'secret speech'. (1954? -5? -6?)
619. Macnas - 5/11/2000 12:04:15 PM
stostosto,
Thank you very much, I might win a pint out of that, if I do I'll have one for you.
620. Wombat - 5/11/2000 2:05:28 PM
Aytch:
Moving the goalposts, eh. One unintended consequence of Dieppe was that it allowed the Germans to become complacent about successful resistance to amphibious landings. This lasted until Rommel took command in 1944.
McNas:
The Belgians, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, felt that if they did not provoke the Germans by coordinating their defensive efforts with France and Britain, they would be spared invasion. As a result, Belgian troops were stationed on the French border, as well as the German, no staff talks were held to assist and coordinate an Allied response to a German invasion, and no attempt was made to coordinate the construction of fortifications.
In answer to your question, no the defenses would not have been on the scale of the Maginot Line; they would have been more along the lines of interconnected bunkers, pillboxes, and anti tank defenses. The only fortifications extant at Sedan were a few pillboxes that were poorly sited and useless in the fighting that took place.
621. Indiana Jones - 5/15/2000 11:13:39 AM
622. jonesatlaw - 5/18/2000 11:17:54 AM
WWII hardware quiz in the quiz thread.
623. jexster - 5/19/2000 3:50:54 PM
Where are we?
Where am I?
Anyone need "re-education"?
624. PelleNilsson - 5/19/2000 3:57:17 PM
I do.
625. jexster - 5/19/2000 4:01:33 PM
"Ivan built up its strength with incredible speed. A pocket with insignificant numbers of Russians at dusk, were a battalion in well prepared defence positions at dawn the day after. Then - at the last moment - the "Za Rodinu!" could be heard as Ivans poored out of the fog, shoulder by shoulder, wave after wave. We shot them down in heaps, but there were always more and more of them who stormed the field."
- Memories of an unknown German soldier.
626. jexster - 5/19/2000 10:44:22 PM
627. jexster - 5/26/2000 11:03:07 PM
What say we RIP this?
Comments?
628. arkymalarky - 5/26/2000 11:06:18 PM
This has really been a wonderful thread, Jex. I hope everything is being archived or saved somewhere.
629. jexster - 5/26/2000 11:08:05 PM
Before I do though, I'd like to e-salute the true heroes of WWII, the Russian people, especially the citizens of Leningrad:
This was certainly the most tragic period in the history of this city. It was full of suffering and heroism. For everyone who lives in St. Petersburg the Blokada (the Siege) of Leningrad is an important part of their heritage and for the older generations it brings the memories that they will never forget.
Less than two and a half months after June 22,1941, when the Soviet Union was attacked by NaziGermany, German troops were already approaching Leningrad. The Red Army was outflanked and on
September 8, 1941 the Germans had fully encircled Leningrad and the siege began. It lasted for about 900 days, from September 8, 1941 till January 27, 1944. Two million 887 thousand civilians (including about 400 thousand children) plus troops didn't even consider any calls for surrender. Food and fuel stocks were very limited (1-2 months only). All the public transport stopped. By the winter of 1941-42 there was no heating, no water supply, almost no electricity and very little food.
630. jexster - 5/26/2000 11:09:55 PM
In January 1942, in the depths of an unusually cold winter, the lowest food rations in the city were only 125 grams (about 1/4 of a pound) of bread per day. In just two months, January and February, 1942, 200 thousand people (!!!) died in Leningrad of cold and starvation. But some of the war industry still worked and the city did not surrender.
Several hundred thousand people were evacuated from the city across Lake Ladoga via the famous "Road of Life" ("Doroga Zhizni") - the only route that connected the besieged city with the mainland. During the warm season people were ferried to the mainland, and in winter - carried by trucks that drove across the frozen lake under constant enemy bombardment.
Meanwhile, the city lived on. The treasures of the Hermitage and the suburban palaces of Petrodvorets, Pushkin, etc. were hidden in the basements of the Hermitage and St Isaac's Cathedral. Most students continued their studies and even passed finals. Dmitry Shostakovich wrote his Seventh "Leningrad" Symphony and it was performed in the besieged city.
In January 1943 the Siege was broken and a year later, on January 27, 1944 it was fully lifted. At least 641 thousand people had died in Leningrad during the Siege (some estimates put this figure at 800 thousand). Most of them were buried in mass graves in different cemeteries. The Piskariovskoye Memorial Cemetery, where almost 500 thousand people are buried, became one of the most impressive national war memorials.
631. PelleNilsson - 5/27/2000 5:05:00 AM
Some time ago, somebody (aytchman? wombat?) invited us to speculate on the course of events if Hitler had died before Barbarossa. This is my version.
Göring would have taken over. He would not have launched Barbarossa. He would have tried for an accommodation with France and the UK based on the following:
632. AytchMan - 5/30/2000 2:15:38 PM
Pelle--
Interesting scenario. All points sound reasonable but there's a big "if" -- how likely were the British to negotiate? They had turned down Hitler flat in 1940 when they had already "lost" the war. A year later, they were much stronger -- still on the ropes strategically and with no immediate prospect of winning but not in imminent danger of losing.
Minor point: would Goering have assumed power or would it have been Hess? For a long time, Hess was the designated successor to Hitler. But by May 1941 (when he left for Britain), he may have already been out of the loop. Anybody know? Incidentally, that would have been a novel trait on which to base a line of succession: insanity.
633. PelleNilsson - 5/30/2000 2:27:17 PM
I think the change of leadership in Germany would have given the Brits the opportunity the change their minds - if they wanted to.
Your point about Hess is well taken. But it doesn't force any change in the scenario, does it?
634. Wombat - 5/30/2000 2:54:50 PM
By the time WW2 started, Hess had become what he always was, a nonentity (and nuts, too). Although I usually find "what if" scenarios to be intellectually masturbatory, here goes (aah!)
There was no guarantee that Goering would have been able to take over. Himmler and his SS organization would have proved a formidable actor in any post Hitler power struggle. The Army was also a powerful force internally, and the high command had no liking for either Himmler or Goering.
635. AytchMan - 5/30/2000 3:07:51 PM
>>I think the change of leadership in Germany would have given the Brits the opportunity the change their minds - if they wanted to.
Definitely. Although, as long as Churchill was leading the government, I can't envision the Brits changing their position on a complete withdrawal from Poland at least (and, most likely, everywhere else as well). The whole history of the shift from the 1930's MacDonald-Baldwin-Chamberlain appeasement to the 1940's nationwide determination argues against it. But then that's the fun of "what-if's". Incidentally, for those interested, some of the histories of the period provide fascinating accounts of the mindsets (collective and individual) that fostered appeasement. It seems unthinkable now, not so much then.
>>Your point about Hess is well taken. But it doesn't force any change in the scenario, does it?
I'd have to do some digging to venture a serious guess but I think by 1941 Hess was probably certifiable. Thus, almost anything would have been possible with him in charge.
After reflecting a bit, I think it unlikely that Hess would have come to power. Even if his succession was legal, the nature of the regime would have eaten him and Goering probably would have taken over. If I recall correctly, Hess measured up as one of the "innocents" (relatively speaking, of course), clinging to some of the outdated idealistic (!) notions of the early Nazi era. So I think your choice of Goering is right on target. It was too early for either Himmler or Bormann. Goebbels would never have had a shot.
636. AytchMan - 5/30/2000 4:01:26 PM
Wombat--
>>There was no guarantee that Goering would have been able to take over.
Agreed. But, in May 1941, Goering still maintained most of his reputation (his mishandling of the Battle of Britain notwithstanding) and his interest in power. I think his decline began with the first reverses in Russia.
The Army would have been a factor, as you point out, and it seems to me they would have supported Goering over Himmler. While they were contemptuous of the Luftwaffe, they feared the growing power of the SS and considered it (thus, Himmler) their mortal enemy. In any event, whoever the Army supported would have had to pursue a negotiated settlement since they overwhelmingly favored such a course.
Had he come to power, I think Himmler would have been a question mark. Like many who toiled in the lower realms of Nazidom, he combined two unsavory traits: intellectual sadism and physical cowardice. How this would have played out in international politics escapes me.
Aaahhh.
637. PelleNilsson - 5/31/2000 7:25:55 AM
But what if Barbarossa hadn't happened? Would WWII have been winnable for the Allies? (Using conventional forces)
638. AytchMan - 5/31/2000 2:44:21 PM
Perhaps the ultimate what-if.
It might have taken ten years but I think the Allies would ultimately have prevailed. Assuming a neutral USSR.
First, the Allies had superior economic strength. The US, Britain and the Commonwealth, the Free French possessions plus the rest of the United Nations had several times the economic strength of the Axis (even including the reluctant occupied territories). As much equipment as the Americans produced, the US never fully exerted its economic muscle -- the US was the only country to raise its standard of living during the war.
Second, the Allies controlled the seas after the first six months of US participation. In a world war, this amounted to the equivalent of interior lines. The Germans and Japanese never came close to the ability to shift troops between them. A corollary to this is that, short of nuclear weapons, the Axis did not possess the means to strike at the heart of the Allies. They couldn't mount an invasion of Britain, much less the US.
cont.
639. AytchMan - 5/31/2000 3:00:29 PM
Third, the Allies built and maintained a centralized command structure to direct the war. As much as the Brits and Americans fought with each other, there was never any doubt that they were in it together. The Germans, Italians, and Japanese failed to coordinate their efforts and often worked at cross-purposes. As an example, the Italian invasion of Greece in December 1940 infuriated Hitler and probably changed the course of the war. On top of this, Hitler simply could not (indeed, refused) to think strategically except for the USSR (which has been removed from this particular equation). While, at times, his maniacal determination saved the day in Russia, I think this strategic flaw would have doomed the German to flounder even worse on a global stage.
Fourth, the Allies were the good guys. While rather intangible, I think this would have delivered a significant advantage in a longer, more closely-run war. In the actual war, this was manifest by the various resistance organizations, the reduced rates of production by workers in the occupied territories and the flow of technical workers from Axis to Allied countries (largely pre-war).
There are a couple of other reasons I can think of but those are the main ones. About the only real advantage the Axis had was that the Germans and, to a lesser extent, the Japanese were, man for man, better soldiers.
640. Indiana Jones - 5/31/2000 3:24:24 PM
Superb analysis IMO AytchMan, though without the Russian involvement the U.S. might have contented itself with handling the Japanese...seeing a European invasion as undoable.
Probably any alternative history along these lines quickly becomes absurd because it was almost impossible for Germany and Russia to avoid confrontation.
641. AytchMan - 5/31/2000 4:00:43 PM
Good points. I think the US dilemma over Germany or Japan would have been much tougher in this scenario. While FDR would probably have continued to favor action against Germany (as the more dangerous opponent threatening Britain and as the only foe who might actually be able to win the war), his generals and the American public would probably have swung even further toward a punchout on Japan.
As you point out, Russia becomes the great, imponderable basket-upsetter. Although, even as a neutral, they would have tied down (I guess) well over a hundred divisions. What Hitler would have done with the rest -- Spain, the Middle East, Bali, who knows?
642. Indiana Jones - 5/31/2000 4:25:19 PM
I do think Hitler was right in that the Reich and Soviet Union were doomed to face each other and that (as your analysis shows) over the long haul his relative position was going to weaken. His best bet IMO would have been sticking to his original timetable for Barbarossa and not declaring war on the U.S. after Pearl Harbor.
643. AytchMan - 5/31/2000 5:07:04 PM
>>...the Reich and Soviet Union were doomed to face each other...
Absolutely, for a couple of reasons -- Hitler himself and politics. Many people in the pre-war years discounted Mein Kampf as a simple rant. Yet, amid all the turge, Hitler telegraphed in no uncertain terms the two major preoccupations of his life: the Jews and lebensraum (i.e. Russia). As for politics, the contention between the two powers is obvious, both geopolitical and systemic.
644. AytchMan - 5/31/2000 5:14:48 PM
>>His best bet IMO would have been sticking to his original timetable for Barbarossa and not declaring war on the U.S. after Pearl Harbor.
I agree but this is less clear. Not so much because it was a bad idea as that it was impossible to carry out. While there will always be a dispute over the six-week delay in the start of Barbarossa, I think it was inevitable (Italian invasion of Greece --> German invasion of Yugoslavia/Greece/Crete --> rainy season --> redeployment delays of panzers). This is where Hitler's lack of a strategic vision killed him (literally, four years later).
As for the declaration of war, he certainly should have foregone the pleasure although I think it unlikely that war with the US could have been avoided for long.
645. AytchMan - 5/31/2000 5:20:30 PM
jexster 627--
While my haphazard rl schedule results in my sporadic posts, I'd hate to lose the thread. Is there any way to maintain it in the background, so to speak? Keep it as another 'leisurely' thread?
646. Indiana Jones - 5/31/2000 5:24:30 PM
AytchMan: I agree with the general inevitability of most history, but we're talking hypotheticals here. He probably would have lost in Russia anyway, but those extra six weeks would have helped.
The declaration of war is an event in which I think the individual does come into play because mobilizing American public opinion for a "Europe first" campaign would have been difficult IMO without it (considering how riled we were about Pearl Harbor).
From a post-war perspective, it's also easy to wonder how things might have gone if we had concentrated on the Japanese and let the Nazis and Communists bleed each other even worse than they did. Britain and the U.S. were for a time afraid that Stalin would sign a separate peace, but in hindsight that looks really unlikely. How would Churchill's timetable of a continental invasion have changed things? (I think he wanted D-Day in about 1946, and maybe in a different location.)
647. Wombat - 5/31/2000 6:03:27 PM
The Allies would have dropped the A-Bomb on Berlin, instead of Hiroshima.
648. Wombat - 5/31/2000 6:05:21 PM
While we are on hypotheticals...what if the Japanese had not attacked the United States, but had limited themselves to British, Dutch, and French possessions in Asia?
649. AytchMan - 5/31/2000 6:17:48 PM
Indy--
Holy Cow! We're raising some issues now.
The general inevitability of history -- there's a subject for a whole 'nother thread.
Six extra weeks for Barbarossa -- if we stipulate (as you stated) that the timetable was simply adhered to, then the Germans almost certainly would have fared better. My bad. Point to Mr. Jones.
>>...if we had concentrated on the Japanese ... -- Why do I always get the hard questions? I concur that Stalin would never have signed a separate peace. Deep down, each regime simply considered the other as pure evil. However, in the absence of any European pressure from the Allies, Stalin might have signed a sham treaty to buy some time before a counter-stroke. But I think that the most significant result is that Pelle would now be speaking Russian. That is, while the Allies were grinding the Japanese to powder and then turning back to Europe, the Soviets would have prevailed and driven across most of Northern and Western Europe. As it was, even with the Allies concentrating on Europe, the Soviets reached Berlin and Vienna first.
650. AytchMan - 5/31/2000 6:20:46 PM
Wombat--
From Pelle's initial hypothetical, nuclear weapons are excluded. I'm not sure if this restriction continues in Indy's scenario.
651. AytchMan - 5/31/2000 6:57:00 PM
Indy--
On Churchill's invasion timetable, I'm unclear as to whether you mean with the Allies concentrating on Japan or just accepting his plans within the actual Europe-first strategy. Clarification?
As for wanting D-Day in about 1946, well, he did and he didn't. He has himself given different accounts at different times so it's no wonder that the historians have ranged even farther afield. He certainly favored waiting longer than the Americans wanted. He was also very much aware of British manpower limitations and thus favored his sometimes fanciful 'underbelly' operations around the margins of Europe as a primary strategy in the first couple of years after the US came in. This would, of course, have pushed the main invasion to '44 or even '45. But, always cynical about the Soviets, he began to realize that they were closer to overrunning most of Europe than the Western powers were. Thus, he came to favor and then champion the 1944 plans although he never gave up on the various Yugo/Greek/Dardanelles/Turkish sideshows. But I don't think he ever literally felt the Allies needed to wait until '46 for the main invasion.
652. AytchMan - 5/31/2000 7:21:17 PM
Wombat 648--
Very tough (and intriguing) question. All I can come up with is that FDR would have eventually found a pretext for entering the war. By pretext, I don't mean a manufactured incident. Rather, he would have continued his two-pronged strategy of supplying ever-increasing aid to the Brits et al and supplying ever-increasing evidence of the worldwide threat to a still-skeptical American public. In executing the former, he would have placed Americans increasingly in harm's way. Eventually, either the Germans or the Japanese would have said "Enough" and either declared war or blundered into the incident FDR needed. It was in the nature of the two regimes.
I guess my main point here is that FDR, like Churchill, was far, far ahead of everybody else in recognizing the magnitude of the threat. And, in so doing, he resolved to oppose it however he could. Full stop. Thus, as long as FDR was President, the US was on a collision course with World War II.
653. Indiana Jones - 5/31/2000 9:17:28 PM
AytchMan: In his six volume series, I think Churchill included a letter he sent to Roosevelt where he mentions a timetable for the rest of the war and advocates a 1946 date for the landing on the continent (this was very early on). My impression was that he was always dragging his feet on the invasion, whereas the Russians were pushing hard for it (obviously) and Roosevelt tended to side more with Stalin. I also seem to remember Stalin at one point even suggesting the allies commit troops to the Russian front, if nothing else.
As far as poor Pelle, I think the Western Allies could have still invaded later (provided they weren't siphoning off Germany in Italy and Africa and weren't supplying the Russians--so I guess that means an Asia first strategy) and still resulted in a pretty similar or better partition of Europe. All just guess work, of course, but I think the Germans and Russians would have been throwing everything at each other they had, grinding each other to a powder, and we could have landed later and encountered even less resistance. Plus, like Wombat says, we would have had the bomb.
All things considered, I think it worked out in real life about as well as it could have...though doubtlessly a lot of Eastern Europeans wouldn't agree. And I think you have to concentrate on Germany as the least risky strategy (someone else I believe pointed out that Japan was almost certainly not going to win, whereas Germany, while doubtful, might have).
654. Wombat - 6/1/2000 9:28:26 AM
Aytch:
I agree, but there may well have been no decisive act like Pearl Harbor to unite the US. And in the months--or more likely--years that it would have taken to reach that point, the Brits would have been unable to launch large-scale offensives in Africa, would have been rolled up in Asia (with India under a real threat), and would have been unable to provide much material assistance to the Soviets.
Hitler would have been able to devote far more resources to the attack on the Soviet Union, weakening it considerably--possibly fatally.
655. Indiana Jones - 6/1/2000 9:36:47 AM
Wombat makes me think of one other thing, though, re the British. How much longer could they have held out from German bombings, especially once the V rockets came into play. Suppose the Germans had rockets and maintained their grip on the low countries and northern France with no end in sight.
Even Churchill might have become a little keener about an amphibious assault!
656. PelleNilsson - 6/1/2000 11:48:33 AM
Very interesting discussion.
657. jexster - 6/1/2000 11:48:49 AM
nuclear weapons are excluded.
Raises an interesting point, one I've not thought of. Would the US/GB have dropped an A-bomb on Europeans?
658. Indiana Jones - 6/1/2000 12:07:24 PM
I don't have any doubt they would have. There's an essay by Fussell(?) called something like "Thank God for the Atomic Bomb" that I think addresses the issue of choosing to use the bomb very thoroughly. (There are also rebuttals to it.)
I think it's very difficult decades later to put yourself in the mindset of the people at the time, but IMO the fabric of civilization had been so torn by 1945 that just about any human atrocity was possible. If Truman had a button that would have "disappeared" Germany entirely, there would have been many people fine with his using it.
Look at some of the comments re Serbia on Stone's RIP'd thread.
659. Wombat - 6/1/2000 12:49:34 PM
The British and Americans had no problem killing hundreds of thousands of white people with conventional bombing during World War II. I see no reason to doubt that they would have used a nuke or two on Germany.
660. Indiana Jones - 6/1/2000 1:21:01 PM
Fussell's essay
(PDF)
661. AytchMan - 6/1/2000 1:32:03 PM
Wombat 654--
Under your very plausible scenario, I fall back on that great intangible: American public opinion. As much as we snipe amongst ourselves, hold the great issues at arm's length and steadfastly avoid painful decisions until the last possible moment, I think we would have been reacting to Axis successes. That is, as the Allies declined, it would have taken less and less to scare us into the war. We seem to possess a talent (?) for showing up awfully late at the really big parties; nevertheless, it's always just in time. For various reasons, this national trait has always been misread and misunderstood by the bad guys from the Kaiser to Hitler to Tojo to Saddam.
662. Wombat - 6/1/2000 1:49:35 PM
Aytch:
As long as Britain's short-term survival was not in doubt, I don't see the sentiment rising.
Without the stimulus of a German declaration of war, it would have taken a very far-sighted American public to get past the spectacle of Stalin and Hitler fighting it out, and recognizing that one side is the "good guy."
British, French, and Dutch attempts to get military support against Japan because their colonies were being taken, didn't get much sympathy from Roosevelt in the real war, and would have gotten even less absent Pearl Harbor.
The situation would have presented a self-fulfilling prophesy for the isolationist movement, which had the wind knocked out of its sails by Pearl Harbor. No Pearl Harbor, a continued strong isolationist movement, the eventual discovery of Roosevelt's subterfuges, and a congressional investigation that would have made Watergate or Clintongate look like tempests in teapots.
663. AytchMan - 6/1/2000 2:07:03 PM
jexster 657--
On Germany, unquestionably. On Italy, highly unlikely (not that the issue ever would have come up).
Indy's point in 658 about hindsight is right on although I question whether many would have considered the bomb an atrocity at the time! Since the bomb had never been used, I think a first use was more or less inevitable.
664. AytchMan - 6/1/2000 2:30:36 PM
Wombat--
>>As long as Britain's short-term survival was not in doubt, I don't see the sentiment rising.
I agree although I'd say I don't see the sentiment rising much. In the absence of a mortal threat to Britain, I think I overstated the importance of public opinion. In that case, I can easily see the war going on with us sitting on the sidelines, somewhat oblivious. I would quibble a bit about equating Hitler and Stalin as bad guys. I think that, even in '41, there was still a residual fondness for the Soviets among a substantial number of Americans. Not good guys certainly, perhaps not-so-bad guys. I think it took our wartime dealings with them and the immediate postwar period to completely quash this sentiment.
665. Indiana Jones - 6/1/2000 2:53:32 PM
AytchMan: That is part of my point (that at the time it wouldn't have been considered an atrocity or likely even an eye blink). What I meant about putting oneself in their position is that I don't believe the average American in 1945 would have entertained indecisiveness at all about using the bomb. I think we have an erroneous tendency to invest those from the past with our own sensibilities.
It's like thinking the Conquistidadors lay awake at night wondering whether they were showing proper respect for indigenous cultures.
And BTW, I think Truman made the right call (though I wouldn't want to have something like that on my conscience).
666. AytchMan - 6/1/2000 2:58:30 PM
Indy 655--
Even in the absence of direct American participation, I think the Brits would have held out indefinitely. At least as long as they believed that the Yanks would get there eventually. As painful as both the bombers and V weapons were, they never directly threatened Britain's survival. I think Churchill's rhetoric at the time accurately captured the national mood --"fight on the beaches, in the hills...even if the island or a large part of it were subjugated".
667. AytchMan - 6/1/2000 3:02:25 PM
Indy 665--
Complete and utter karmic agreement.
668. janjon - 6/1/2000 3:06:25 PM
I think there can be little doubt that the Bomb would have been dropped on Berlin. There would have been very little thought given to radioactive dispersion by air in those days and, to the extent so given, it would have been concluded that the easterly wind patterns thus posed no threat to Western Europe/Britain. This decision would have been made even easier if, as would have been probable, made in a context where the ground war was much more of a stalemate than it was. Add to this the distinct possibility that news about the Holocaust would have begun to seep out, which inevitably would have raised hatred of the Germans to even higher levels, and the justification for the Bomb would have been one/two/three (in the context of the mentality of late WWII days).
669. AytchMan - 6/1/2000 3:41:24 PM
janjon--
Agreed. I think the key point is the one made by Indy -- the morality (if that's the right word) was simply light-years different in those days. Does anybody know if a Mote thread ever discussed the morality of dropping the bomb?
On a related issue, the hatred and fear of Germany led to some drastic plans for the reduction of German power. These assumed that Germany would remain united, of course. Most notable was the Morgenthau plan (I think) which practically reduced them to agrarian serfdom. While seriously considered for a time, it never got far in light of the growing Soviet threat.
670. Wombat - 6/1/2000 3:51:35 PM
Aytch:
There have been a number of discussions about the A-bomb and Japan in the old Fray. Check the Fr'Archives.
671. AytchMan - 6/1/2000 3:56:54 PM
Thanks. Will do
672. AytchMan - 6/1/2000 5:57:24 PM
I remember a discussion from way back about the best generals of the war. Who were the five worst generals?
673. Wombat - 6/2/2000 9:35:29 AM
Aytch:
Five is kind of limiting, isn't it?
General Georges (France). Responsible for day to day supervision of the French forces in May-June 1940. Terrified by the Germans, did absolutely nothing.
General Percival (Britain). Lost Singapore even though he had superior numbers and supplies.
Marshal Budenny (Soviet Union). As a front commander, was repeatedly defeated by the Germans, losing hundreds of thousands of men.
General Brereton (USAAF). In spite of a day's warning after Pearl Harbor, and working radar, most of the USAAF Philippines was caught on the ground at Clark Field and destroyed.
Marshal Graziani (Italy): Discovered that fighting the British was much different from slaughtering Ethiopians. Forces under his command were chased out Egypt and most of Libya by an undermanned and underequipped British force. Tens of thousands of prisoners lost.
674. Indiana Jones - 6/2/2000 10:30:38 AM
AytchMan: Since I'm post-Fray, I don't know what's in the archives, but I really do recommend the Fussell essay I linked in post 660 if you've never read it.
Also, here are some other online sources on the subject.
675. jexster - 6/2/2000 2:51:04 PM
Wearing the prestigious gold medal from a yellow ribbon placed around his neck, the president addressed an admiring audience in a sunny courtyard outside the cathedral where the body of Charlemagne, the eighth-century ruler of the Holy Roman Empire, is interred.
I am not disputing the claim that Charlemagne is buried in Aachen but didn't Hitler believe in some myth that he was buried in a mountain near Obersalzburg destined to return in some sort of Second Coming myth????
676. jexster - 6/2/2000 2:56:05 PM
WRT A-bombing Europe you guys are probably right. What we did to Tokyo we did to Dresden with scads less strategic justification and we did spare Kyoto.
What clicked in my mind was the post war and even current concern that Europe would become a battlefield, a nuclear wasteland for superpower disputes.
I suppose that if Hitler and Stalin could have settled their differences thereby making an invasion of Fortress Europe impossible or extremely problematic at best, we probably would have nuked Berlin.
677. AytchMan - 6/2/2000 7:04:36 PM
Indy--
I tried the Fussell link and got what looks like a 3-page study guide. Is there a separate link to the actual essay? What am I missing?
678. AytchMan - 6/2/2000 7:57:06 PM
Wombat--
With the possible exception of Brereton, that's a good list. I agree about his Phillipines performance but didn't he redeem himself later on? I'm not familiar with his career.
Five probably is too limiting since you mentioned a couple I hadn't even considered. Hell, we could probably get five from the French General Staff alone. But if we can get one or two more lists, we can argue about the all-time worst.
My favorites (from worst to...less worst):
1. Volume Discount Pack 1: Gamelin and Weygand (French). Poster boys for paralytic defeatism.
2. Himmler (German). Although he only assumed direct command in the last few months of the war, he was as hopeless as the German cause at that point.
3. Percival.
4. Volume Discount Pack 2: The Kimmel and Short Show (US) at Pearl Harbor. I tend to discount a lot of the later revisionist history that exonerates them. I think they had enough information to alert the fleet and disperse the aircraft.
5. Graziani. Probably the one with the longest career. As you point out, the worst thing that ever happened to him was moving up from Class A ball at Addis Ababa to the bigs.
The only thing that saves Soviet generals (Budenny, Mehklis, Popov and the rest) from my list is that, with the purges and Stalin's idiotic early-war directives, much of the carnage wasn't their fault. Most of them should have been Majors attached to divisional staffs.
679. Indiana Jones - 6/2/2000 9:32:22 PM
Damn, my bad, AytchMan. The computer I was on when I posted the link didn't have Acrobat Reader, and I assumed it was to the actual essay. Since it's still under copyright, maybe it's not on the Web, but if I come across it, I'll post the link.
680. Wombat - 6/5/2000 10:04:41 AM
Aytch:
The story behind Brereton and his subsequent career was that MacArthur felt he couldn't fire him for the Clark Field fiasco because he would demand a court martial, which would doubtless reflect badly on MacArthur's own preparations for war.
Brereton's subsequent career was lackluster.
I am inclined to treat General Short a little better than Kimmel, in that he received and acted on a war warning from Washington. Unfortunately, since he could not imagine hostile action by Japan as anything other than sabotage, the precautions he took made USAAF planes sitting ducks for the air raid.
Budenny was a successful commander in the Russian Civil War. By the time World War II broke out, times had long since passed him by.
On the scale of lower-ranks incompetence: I wonder what the career of Lt. Kermit Tyler was during the rest of World War II. He was the officer in command of the radar post that detected a large force of planes approaching Hawaii from the North. When queried by the radar operators about the "blip," he told them "don't worry about it." They then shut down the radar, and it was not reported up the chain of command. Tyler thought that the blip was a flight of B-17s flying in from the mainland that were scheduled to arrive that day. They did arrive, right in the middle of the attack on Pearl Harbor!
681. Jack Vincennes - 6/5/2000 12:00:52 PM
I noticed the recent discussion of the use of the atom bomb. I recalled an hour long interview given by Charles Sweeney, to Don Imus. I could not find the text, but I did find an interesting New York Post story:
August 7, 1997
REMEMBERING IT LIKE IT WAS
Dennis Duggan
Less than a month after the B-29 he was piloting dropped the atomic bomb on Nagasaki on Aug. 9, 1945 that led to the Japanese surrender in World War II, Gen. Charles Sweeney visited the devastated city and checked into a small country inn on the city's outskirts.
"It crossed my mind that perhaps the better part of valor would be to avoid signing the hotel register," he said yesterday in Manhattan.
But then even Col. Paul Tibbets, pilot of the Enola Gay that had unloaded the first atomic bomb over Hiroshima on Aug. 6 signed his name in a clear hand. So, Sweeney says he wrote "Major Charles W. Sweeney, USAAF" into the hotel book.
"But when I went to bed that night," says Sweeney "I took out the bullets I carried in my map pocket and put a clip into my .45 pistol. Then I hung it over the bedpost a few inches from my head."
And then, says the 77-year-old Bostonian, "I had a good night's sleep."
He is the only American pilot who flew both the Hiroshima and Nagasaki
missions. His plane was about 30 feet from the Enola Gay's right wing when the bomb called Little Boy, dropped out of the bomb bay doors on Aug. 6.
"I watched it falling," he says, "and I thought It's too late now. There are no strings or cables attached. We can't get it back but if it works, it might just end the war.' "
It didn't, though. That same night Tibbets told Sweeney that "if this doesn't work - if the Japanese don't surrender, you are going to command the next mission."
682. Jack Vincennes - 6/5/2000 12:01:20 PM
The Americans had just one bomb left. They felt they had to convince the Japanese they had many more atomic bombs. Sweeney was the last military officer to command an atomic bombing mission.
"I hope there is never going to be another such mission," he says, adding that "I make no apologies for that mission though."
He is a big, barrel-chested man who smokes cigars imported from the Dominican Republic. He is as sharp as a razor's edge and he has written a new book called "War's End," (Avon Books) that has gotten praise from all the right places. I talked to him yesterday in a 14th-floor midtown suite after he had made an hour-long appearance on the Don Imus radio and cable TV show. He is clearly an Imus favorite, which bodes well for the book's sales. One reason is that he tells a significant and historic story calmly and clearly.
Aside from that, he is the father of 10 children and 21 grandchildren. He joined the Army Air Force as a cadet in 1941 and he retired in 1976.
Why did he wait this long to write the book?
"Because I got sick and tired of hearing revisionists blame this country for destroying those two cities in Japan," he says. His anger reached a boiling point in 1995, the 50th anniversary of the two bombings when the Smithsonian Institute presented an exhibit which featured mostly the photographs of wounded and dying Japanese.
"Look, I don't celebrate atomic bombs," he says. "But I want to set the record straight on why we had to drop those two bombs, and I hope they are the last we will ever have to deploy."
683. Jack Vincennes - 6/5/2000 12:01:48 PM
CBS newsman Dan Rather describes Sweeney as a "revisionist historian's
nightmare," and it is easy to see why. Sweeney is clearly a patriot but he is just as clearly not a scoundrel. He was awarded the Silver Star for leading the mission which will have its 52nd anniversary Saturday. He recalls the bombing mission so graphically he could be talking about it as if it happened yesterday.
He says he had no qualms about leading the mission. The Japanese had started the war by bombing Pearl Harbor. Sweeney had seen the awful firefights where thousands of American soldiers were killed in places like Iwo Jima and Okinawa. He was ready to fight but also recalled what Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee had said: "It is good that war is so terrible, or we might grow to like it."
When Sweeney had been accepted into the inner circle of men and women who could be trusted with the atomic bomb secret, he was taken to a remote southwestern desert by a security officer.
"Our new bomb," Sweeney recalls the officer telling him, "will turn a city into this," and picking up a handful of sand and throwing it into the air.
Sweeney was cautioned to talk about the new atomic bomb project to no one but that if he had questions he would be taken to a secure, lead-lined room and briefed there.
Sweeney practiced for his mission dropping concrete-filled bombs over the desert for ballistics tests and when his plane flew from an island in the Pacific called Tinian at 2:45 a.m. the morning of Aug. 9, 1945, he was aware that if he didn't deliver the bomb the war might continue on with more lives lost.
684. Jack Vincennes - 6/5/2000 12:02:17 PM
At 11:15 a.m. on Aug. 9, he unloaded a bomb that caused his plane to shudder and to react violently to the concussions that flowed around it. "My bombardier called out, Chuck, I've got it.' He had seen an opening in the clouds over Nagasaki, a city Sweeney says was often called the "San Francisco of Japan."
"You own it," Sweeney told him.
And so a bomb born in the mind of Albert Einstein and sanctioned for use by President Harry S. Truman, fell through the clouds and exploded with such intensity that Sweeney recalls walking through the city several days later and noticing a fire truck "that had been flattened as if a giant had stepped on a child's toy."
The first bomb on Hirsoshima killed closer to 80,000 people and injured 70,000 others. The bomb that hit Nagasaki killed some 40,000 people and injured the same number, devastating 1.8 square miles.
While I am with him in his Manhattan hotel, Sweeney talked with a radio station in Seattle. When he hangs up the phone he turns to James and Marion Antonucci who co-wrote the book with him. Both are lawyers in Boston and James was a prosecutor there.
"That was a good one," he says.
Sweeney ends our interview telling me about meeting President Truman in the late 1950s. Truman had come up to Boston by train from New York to make a speech. Sweeney says that he had been asked by Cardinal Cushing of Boston to escort the president around the city.
"The train stopped outside Boston where we were waiting with a limousine to take him to his hotel," Sweeney says.
685. Jack Vincennes - 6/5/2000 12:02:40 PM
"Truman sent an aide out to ask me to come into the train. He asked me there if I wanted coffee and then he said to me: I hear you were the man who flew that plane.' "
"I was," said Sweeney. Truman had come under fire for dropping the two atomic bombs.
"Mr. President," said Sweeney to Truman, "you made the right decision."
686. Jack Vincennes - 6/5/2000 12:02:58 PM
And a different view:
January 11, 1998
A HERO'S RECEPTION FOR TRUMAN'S WILLING EXECUTIONER
Philip Nobile
Maurice Papon, a former Vichy functionary, is on trial in Bordeaux for
helping to deport 1,560 Jews to Auschwitz in 1942-44. Meanwhile, a retired U.S. Air Force pilot directly involved in the massacre of 70,000 civilians at Nagasaki is getting a hero's welcome on his book tour.
Last month, Don Imus lavished a hunk of prime simulcast time on former Gen. Charles Sweeney, the 77-year-old co-author of "War's End," a banal memoir from Avon, surprisingly blurbed by Dan Rather. Later the same day, he was cheered at a Borders bookstore in White Plains. This was where I caught up with one of the least wanted criminals of World War II.
(Author's note: Since the concept of Allied atrocities is as popular in the United States as the Rape of Nanking in Japan, let us take a Nuremberg timeout. The Nuremberg Charter, an Allied legal document designed to punish the monsters of the Axis, outlawed "the indiscriminate destruction of cities, towns and villages, and devastation not justified by military necessity." Despite the
Allied terror bombing of German and Japanese cities and the universal moral condemnation of the Bombs of August, it is considered historically perverse in certain British-American circles to impute criminality to our side excepting, of course, to the Soviet Union.
Yet no less an authority than Telford Taylor, a former U.S. Army prosecutor at Nuremberg and later a Columbia Law School professor, has pointed the finger at Gen. Sweeney and his boys. "It is difficult to contest the judgment that Dresden and Nagasaki were war crimes . . . ," Taylor wrote in "Nuremberg and Vietnam." If Robert Oppenheimer, the scientific director of the Manhattan Project, thought that he had blood on his hands, how about the Nagasaki pilot?
End of timeout.)
687. Jack Vincennes - 6/5/2000 12:03:17 PM
Tall, burly and brimming with Boston Irish brio, Sweeney offered no
contrition at his Borders flyby. Instead, he dished out a straight
Japan-made-us-do-it line, explaining that he came out of the cold in the wake of the "Smithsonian fiasco." He was referring to the controversial script that Smithsonian curators had drafted to accompany a 50th anniversary exhibition of the Enola Gay, the B-29 that dropped the first atomic bomb on Hiroshima.
Although the 300-page script exonerated Truman for nuking two defenseless cities without warning, noting that "alternatives were clearer in hindsight," this searching examination of history proved unacceptable to the Washington establishment. Having acquired a copy of the original uncensored script, I arranged for unauthorized publication under the title of "Judgment At The Smithsonian" in 1995. Thus my avid interest in Sweeney's book.
Standing casually at a lectern, the general unashamedly stated his
pro-atrocity position. Japanese leaders were evil, beautiful American boys were dying in droves on Iwo Jima and Okinawa, a land invasion of Japan would be even bloodier, and no surrender was in sight. As he wrote in his foreword, "We had a job to do, a war to end. I never questioned President Truman's decision to use every weapon at his disposal to end the bloody conflict - nor do I now." After this too-abreviated briefing - which omitted Truman's hard-hearted refusal to
alter the terms of surrender, to wait for Stalin's imminent declaration of war or to demonstrate the bomb's apocalyptic power on an uninhabited area of Japan - the author asked the audience for questions.
688. PelleNilsson - 6/5/2000 12:03:28 PM
Wombat --- Message # 662
No Pearl Harbor, a continued strong isolationist movement, the eventual discovery of Roosevelt's subterfuges, and a congressional investigation that would have made Watergate or Clintongate look like tempests in teapots.
What subterfuges were these?
689. Jack Vincennes - 6/5/2000 12:03:38 PM
The general and I had crossed swords before - in August on WBUR, Boston's public radio station. Chris Lydon, host of "The Connection," had invited me to confront Sweeney on his book. (Apparently, Son-of-Sam laws do not apply to war crimes and, to be fair, the general whom Rather called "the best kind of warrior" is only an alleged war criminal.) After hearing him tell Lydon that he did not have "any qualms" about the 70,000 victims, including an estimated 250 Allied POWs, I endeavored to prick his conscience by citing the Catholic
casualties.
In his mad dash to drop the billion-dollar bomb anywhere on Nagasaki, which was shrouded by clouds on Aug. 9, 1945, Sweeney missed his main target by two miles. Instead, he obliterated the packed Catholic suburb of Urakami. He not only destroyed the largest Catholic church in Asia but sent some 30,000 of his co-religionists to their reward. Piling on the guilt, I mentioned Vatican II's fatwa against city-bombing - "a crime against God and man." Yet the general, a
practicing Catholic, was not provoked. After laughing nervously, he replied, "I don't want to listen to anymore, really. I just want to say, Say a prayer for me.' "
Dissatisfied with the general's answer on WBUR, I raised the religious angle once more at Borders. "Do you know how many Catholics you killed in Nagasaki?" I asked when he recognized me.
"No, I don't," the general replied, apparently unperturbed by my bluntness. "But you sound as if you do."
"You killed a quarter of the Catholics in Japan, which was surely a war crime under Nuremberg rules," I remarked.
"Are you saying that Harry Truman was a war criminal?" he riposted, reading my mind.
"General, I'm saying that you are a war criminal."
690. Jack Vincennes - 6/5/2000 12:03:51 PM
Instantly, the crowd turned hostile. Overreacting to the sudden emotion, the Borders woman in charge of the event accused me of disrupting the presentation and had me removed.
To Borders' credit, this un-Jeffersonian rupture of speech was quickly atoned by management, which readmitted me to the Nagasaki party. Borders' politesse contrasted with the usual incivility that greets the case for judging Allied war crimes. Smithsonian officials banned me from the press conference at the opening of the Stalinesque Enola Gay exhibit in 1995, lest I pose an impolitic query. Lydon promised an hour with Gen. Sweeney on WBUR, but he disconnected me after five minutes.
Nobel Peace Laureate Shimon Peres, who knew one or two things about crimes against humanity, spoke of two World War II holocausts - "the Jewish holocaust and the Japanese holocaust." The perpetrators of the former are proper game for prosecutors and historians, but Truman's willing executioners, like Gen. Sweeney, are wrapped in impious patriotism and surrounded by a bodyguard of lies.
691. PelleNilsson - 6/5/2000 12:12:05 PM
This Philip Nobile sounds like a cheap shot. And what does it matter if Catholics rather than others died?
692. Wombat - 6/5/2000 12:13:05 PM
Is Nobile sure that Peres was not referring to what the Japanese did in their conquered territories?
Pelle:
One of the subterfuges that I am familiar with was to tow aircraft to the Canadian border and leave them there for Canadian personnel to cross over and pull into Canada. That way the US could not--technically--be accused of violating the Neutrality Act by transferring weapons to a belligerent.
693. PelleNilsson - 6/5/2000 12:29:12 PM
Wombat
Do you remember Ranheim and AlDavis, two very conservative gentlemen who used to post in the Mote? They advanced the notion that Roosewelt used any excuse to get into the war to help "his pal Joe Stalin", even going as far as accusing FDR of setting up Pearl Harbour.
694. Wombat - 6/5/2000 12:50:57 PM
Pelle:
Of course I remember. Roosevelt was trying very hard to involve the United States...against the Germans, and it was to help his pal Churchill. In the year leading up to December 1941, the United States occupied Greenland and Iceland, instituted Lend-Lease, escorted arms convoys half-way across the Atlantic, declared a "shoot-on-sight" policy over much of the North Atlantic, and swapped destroyers for British bases.
The US also transferred modern weapons (after labeling them "obsolete") to Britain. This came at the expense of modernizing the rapidly-expanding US Army, and would have certainly been a major scandal had not Pearl Harbor been attacked.
The one action that Roosevelt haters and conspiracy theorists claim as the catalyst for the Japanese move against the US was the extention of the US trade embargo to include oil. This presupposes that the Japanese had no aggressive intentions beforehand, which is arrant nonsense.
695. janjon - 6/5/2000 3:33:49 PM
Not that I would expect him to hit the bottom five or ten list (the number of worthy candidates is ample), but I would be curious to learn what the various gentlemen (making an assumption as to gender, not as to demeanor) who post here think about Montgomery.
696. stostosto - 6/5/2000 6:57:29 PM
Montgomery is a hero in Denmark. Not only did the Germans here surrender to him, he visited Copenhagen after the liberation and paraded through Copenhagen hailed by the wildly cheering masses.
And not only that, he also, thoroughly cementing his place in the pantheon of people known by Danes for through-and-through goodness, declared to us, in public, that the Danish resistance - listen now, carefully - had been, and I quote: "Second to none!" These words were repeated over and over and prominently inscribed into the official, and unofficial, Dansih recording of events during WWII. Probably, I imagine, as much to convince ourselves of our respectability as anyone else. And in many cases, I further dare to assume, on a very personal level.
There was a Danish resistance, people who daringly risked their lives, and with a high casualty rate indeed, in order to put sand in the German war machine for all they were worth. But even if they had the unquestioned backing of 97% of the population (meaning opportunities for shelter and hiding, etc.), they were not many, by no means. And before August 1943, there were almost none. The Danish politicians, remember, had resolved to appease the Germans, stay in power and keep the administration on Danish hands. The Germans were satisfied with the smooth running of things, and the Danes got a mild treatment, possibly uniquely mild among the German-occupied countries.
Until August 1943, the Danish politicians officially and harshly condemned all anti-German activities, and the Danish police zealously persecuted the few perpetrators, notably communists who were effectively rounded up and put in a prison camp on June 22nd 1941.
697. stostosto - 6/5/2000 6:58:39 PM
After 1943, the resistance gained momentum, and by 1945 there was enough of them that some of them had a sense of being in charge of the country. There was a large circulation of partly home-made hand guns and so-called stenguns, and there was a spiralling lawlessness towards the end, so that in some cases it was hard to distinguish patriotic resistance from outright criminals.
But Montgomery presented a straw of approval which was much appreciated, even cherished, and duely placed in the national shrine of True Danish History for several generations to behold. Until the events became distant enough that young historians start looking with more critical - and critisised - eyes on these dark years.
698. stostosto - 6/5/2000 7:16:40 PM
Field Marshal Bernard Law Mongomery.
Incidentally, the photo is from a piece portraying Montgomery as a certified racist.
Montgomery's racist plan for Africa
699. Indiana Jones - 6/5/2000 9:39:12 PM
Regarding Jack's posts, here was one link I thought particularly interesting at the resource I posted upthread: Interview with Leo Szilard, scientist who helped develop but opposed use of the bomb. This comment is especially apropos Nuremberg:
"Let me say only this much to the moral issue involved: Suppose Germany had developed two bombs before we
had any bombs. And suppose Germany had dropped one bomb, say, on Rochester and the other on Buffalo, and
then having run out of bombs she would have lost the war. Can anyone doubt that we would then have defined the
dropping of atomic bombs on cities as a war crime, and that we would have sentenced the Germans who were
guilty of this crime to death at Nuremberg and hanged them?"
"But, again, don't misunderstand me. The only conclusion we can draw is that governments acting in a crisis are
guided by questions of expediency, and moral considerations are given very little weight, and that America is no
different from any other nation in this respect."
700. AytchMan - 6/5/2000 9:39:30 PM
JV--
Two very interesting stories. Do you know the origin of Philip Nobile's account? That is, is it a story from a newpaper or from a book written by Nobile? I agree with Pelle that it's a very prejudiced version. While a reasonable argument can be made against the use of the bombs, I don't think we'll ever hear it from Nobile.
701. AytchMan - 6/5/2000 9:52:48 PM
janjon--
I'd rate Monty as average overall. But that's sort of like saying you're standing in water of average temperature when one foot's in boiling water and the other's freezing.
I think Monty was a superb organizer and administrator, he fought set-piece battles brilliantly (when he could get them) and his men respected and admired him. But he couldn't improvise, he was inordinately cautious unless he was perfectly prepared and his monumental ego cost him dearly in his interactions with senior commanders both British and US.
702. Indiana Jones - 6/5/2000 9:52:58 PM
Of course history is written by the victors. Moreover, 70,000 people destroyed in a second is, as I said earlier, nothing I would want on my conscience, but nonetheless a miniscule fraction compared with the total loss of human life in the war...both combatants and civilian.
To me the more questionable position was the self-righteousness of Nuremberg, and especially the hunting down of war criminals fifty years after the fact. Should these people "get away with it"? I don't know in every case...an 18 year old concentration camp guard who might have taken advantage of the power of his situation to kick some of his prisoners but later on leads a model life for five decades? Should he still be punished? Beats me.
Should Himmler and Goering and that bunch have walked? Hell no!
Just because we're not always sure of right and wrong and make mistakes, that doesn't mean we have to wring our hands and let the bad guys slide.
"The best lack all conviction while the worst are filled with passionate intensity."
703. AytchMan - 6/5/2000 10:01:43 PM
Indy--
Szilard sums up the dilemma very well. I'd never thought of it that way before. Having said that, I'd still have dropped at least the first one. I guess I'd classify it as a necessary evil.
704. Indiana Jones - 6/5/2000 10:10:44 PM
AytchMan: I think we see eye-to-eye on this. And IMO Nobile is a cretin.
705. AytchMan - 6/5/2000 10:20:30 PM
Indy--
Do you know anything about Nobile or are you just basing it on JV's item? I'm wondering if he's American or French.
706. Indiana Jones - 6/5/2000 11:48:56 PM
AytchMan: Just basing it on JV's item. Nobile's questions don't seem particularly thought-provoking--just harassing--and his belief that he's "crossing swords" with an old man on a book tour...Chris Hitchens-Roger Moore "journalism" at its worst.
707. Indiana Jones - 6/5/2000 11:49:35 PM
Ha-ha. Roger Moore should be Michael Moore, but I sort of like it as it stands.
708. Jack Vincennes - 6/6/2000 11:19:08 AM
The "war crime" aspect of the dropping of nuclear weapons on the civilian populations of Nagasaki and Hiroshima misses the mark, and to a certain degree, so does the discussion in the thread. You cannot separate the decision from the decisionmaker, though modern historical analysis strives for this inadequate approach. The result is as follows:
1) One group labels the act, no matter the actor, a war crime. Killing civilians in mass bombing is a war crime. Curtis LeMay is kin to Himmler. Dresden is family to Treblinka.
2) One group differentiates without reference to morality or cause, "We saved lives by doing this act." The problem with this is, in all likelihood, had Germany dropped atomic weapons in 1942 (were they available), when all was said and done, lives probably would have been saved given the expected quick capitulation of those nations in mortal fear. Saving lives in a vaccuum is meaningless.
3) This is the only viable alternative. We were right in cause, and when right in cause, you can make no. 2 work properly.
We dropped bombs on Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Tokyo (see the introduction to "The Soul of Battle" for an interesting assessment of those jellied-gasoline raids) because the Japanese were wrong in cause and it saved not just lives, but the more precious lives of just Americans.
709. DocBrown - 6/6/2000 11:25:27 AM
Indeed, Jack Vincennes, the "right in cause" argument is the only thing that prevents almost every moment of every war from being some sort of war crime. Unless the victor considers itself right in cause every shot fired in every battle might be called into question.
This was a problem for the United States in both Korea and Viet Nam.
710. PelleNilsson - 6/6/2000 2:13:33 PM
Mr Vincennes
.... misses the mark, and to a certain degree, so does the discussion in the thread.
Eight out of ten on the pompousity scale. Well done.
711. jexster - 6/6/2000 2:24:50 PM
Pelle - should we be offended?
712. jexster - 6/6/2000 2:26:16 PM
June 6, 1962...a young jexster steps off Air France flight at Orly from Idlewild.
"Layfayette, je suis ici!!!"
Happy D-day!
713. jexster - 6/6/2000 2:27:10 PM
"Lafayette"...the young man had spelling problems
714. PelleNilsson - 6/6/2000 2:29:57 PM
jexster
Not offended, maybe ... amused in a sort of superior
715. PelleNilsson - 6/6/2000 2:32:10 PM
superior way.
716. Jack Vincennes - 6/6/2000 2:35:01 PM
Jexster, Pelle
No need to apology. Just strive for better.
Indy
The Szilard interview gave me great belly laughs. This in particular:
"A It is easy to see, at least in retrospect, how an effective demonstration could have been staged. We could have communicated with Japan through regular diplomatic channels - say, through Switzerland - and explained to the Japanese that we didn't want to kill anybody, and therefore proposed that one city - say, Hiroshima - be evacuated. Then one single bomber would come and drop one single bomb.
But again, I don't believe this staging a demonstration was the real issue, and in a sense it is just as immoral to force a sudden ending of a war by threatening violence as by using violence. My point is that violence would not have been necessary if we had been willing to negotiate. After all, Japan was suing for peace."
717. Indiana Jones - 6/6/2000 2:48:39 PM
Jack: There are several good guffaws there, alright, but what do you expect when an egghead discusses policy? At least two and maybe three inanities:
Japan's cooperative evacuation of a city so we can demonstrate the effectiveness of a new weapon we've developed. Moreover, they'll let a single plan with this weapon fly in unmolested and deliver it.
"It is just as immoral to force a sudden ending of a war by threatening violence as by using violence." (What's presumably moral is to stick to old-style WWI wars, in which neither side can force the other to quit.)
I've never heard that the Japanese were already "suing for peace." If someone has some primary source links, I'd like to see them.
718. Jack Vincennes - 6/6/2000 3:51:35 PM
"May I have your attention. Everybody, please vacate your homes. In two days, we will be dropping a weapon of such awesome destruction that it will make our recent firebombing of your asses with jellied gasoline pale in comprison. This has been an announcement from the United States Government. Thank you for your cooperation."
719. Ronski - 6/6/2000 4:08:11 PM
Well, that would have gotten my attention.
720. janjon - 6/6/2000 4:13:34 PM
The Government probably would have put up blockades, arrested (at the least) those weak, panicked, unpatriotic people trying to leave, and called us bluffing infidels.
721. Wombat - 6/6/2000 4:34:06 PM
I believe elements in the Japanese government (Marquis Kido) were making back-channel attempts to determine what it would take to end the war on terms other than unconditional surrender. I very much doubt that these approaches were sanctioned by the military, who were in de facto control (barring direct intervention by the Emperor). The only thing approaching a concession that Kido received was that the Emperor might not be held responsible for Japan's entry into the war. (This assurance was made more explicit after Japan surrendered.)
It is instructive to note that even after the two bombs were dropped, and the Emperor had intervened and ordered the Japanese military to surrender, elements of the military (a new generation of fanatical junior officers, supported by an equally fanatical clique in the high command) attempted to prevent the Emperor from recording his surrender message, and attempted to assassinate cabinet members who they supsected of supporting an end to the war. The coup was halted by the War Minister, General Anami, who after strenuous arguments, ordered the participants to obey the Emperor. Anami committed seppuku shortly thereafter.
722. AytchMan - 6/6/2000 4:36:01 PM
Let me see if I can sum this up. Consider the following slightly oversimplified assumptions:
1. Some people (probably including Nobile) believe that the use of "terroristic" weapons (for lack of a better phrase) such as the bomb is immoral and worthy of condemnation regardless of circumstance.
2. Some people (including myself) believe that the use of such weapons is moral in certain very restricted circumstances. We also consider them to be a necessary evil and agonize over their use even as we use them.
3. Some people believe that the rightness of a cause justifies the use of virtually any weapon. They sleep well at night and are untroubled by their use.
If we construct a morality scale from 0 to 10, my guess is that the above positions come in around 0, 7 and 10, respectively. Where do you place yourself on the scale? Where should the US government have been in 1945? Where should the US government be today?
723. janjon - 6/6/2000 4:41:54 PM
7 7 7
724. AytchMan - 6/6/2000 4:42:50 PM
sto--
Just a wry observation on Monty's remarks to the Danish people: His statement of "second to none" could be interpreted as meaning next to last.
Just kidding. Hey, It's Just A Joke.
725. janjon - 6/6/2000 4:43:23 PM
with the emphasis on restricted circumstances. Very restricted. In fact, today, probably so restricted and hypothetical as to push me to a 0.
726. janjon - 6/6/2000 4:44:43 PM
Aytch - I was going to make a comment to sto along the lines that, well it was just another example of Monty's occasional great lapses in judgment, but thought better of it.
727. CalGal - 6/6/2000 4:46:36 PM
Aytch,
I'm more of a 10, actually, except I don't think that "rightness of a cause" matters much. Once in a war, you do what you need to to win. I see no other way for a government (as opposed to individuals) to behave.
That's different from atrocities that aren't necessary (raping women, killing people who have surrendered rather than imprison, etc).
728. AytchMan - 6/6/2000 4:47:46 PM
janjon--
3Ha!
729. stostosto - 6/6/2000 4:51:56 PM
Oh, come on. I can take it. If for nothing else, I was born 19 years after the war ended. But the elder generation has some qualms. I witnessed many times my father (born 1944) holding my grandmother - somewhat unfairly, the poor woman - personally responsible for the poor and shameful Danish showing during that war. She emphatically denied that they should or could have acted differently.
I remember one time he harrassed her so much she burst into tears. But that, I suppose, had as much to do with a strange mother-son relationship as with anything else.
730. Wombat - 6/6/2000 4:55:28 PM
Those who condemn the immorality of Allied terror bombing should remember that the Allies did not initiate terror attacks on civilian targets. The Allies did not commit deliberate mass atrocities against religious or ethnic groups (or subjugated populations, in the case of Japan). Well the Soviets did, but after what they went through at the hands of the Germans, I find it hard to blame them...too much.
Does anyone here doubt that the Germans or the Japanese would have used such weapons against the Allies if they had been able to produce them?
For the present, I cannot envision any circumstances in which the United States should use nuclear weapons (since the collapse of the Soviet Union rendered MAD moot).
731. CalGal - 6/6/2000 4:58:03 PM
Oh, in the case of nuclear weapons, it's easy. I can't think of any situation that we would use them and be able to declare the results a win. Therefore, I can't see myself ever buying off. My objections wouldn't be moral, but pragmatic.
732. janjon - 6/6/2000 4:58:12 PM
sto - before I read your last paragraph of 729, I found myself thinking Wow, what kind of mother-son relationship would THAT one have been. That is such a guilt trip being laid on that it is laughable. Unless your Grandmother was the Queen.
733. AytchMan - 6/6/2000 5:01:41 PM
CG--
If you say you're a 10 (more or less), what would you have done in the Korean War IF you had received ultra-reliable intelligence that the Chinese would not intervene under any circumstances. Would you have used everything in the arsenal? Nukes, chemical weapons, biological weapons, deliberate bombing of purely civilian targets?
734. janjon - 6/6/2000 5:01:58 PM
let me get this straight - use of nuclear weapons would not result in a situation where we would not be able to consider the result a victory. But not because of the morality involved due I assume to the widespread horrible immediate and secondary effects of using nukes, but for other pragmatic reasons. What pragmatic reasons.
735. janjon - 6/6/2000 5:04:03 PM
scratch the second not in the first sentence. It should read "let me get this straight - use of nuclear weapons would not result in a situation where we would be able to consider the result a victory."
736. Wombat - 6/6/2000 5:05:34 PM
Montgomery was not as good a general as he thought he was, but, considering the overall quality of British generals in the war, he was pretty damned good. His personality was such that only "Vinegar Joe" Stilwell could rival him for unpleasantness. Had he been more emollient, he would have been as well-liked as Lord Alexander of Tunis, who was not his equal as a strategist or a tactitian.
Incidentally, after Montgomery had antagonized Eisenhower once too often, and the latter had demanded that he be fired, Montgomery remarked to his chief of staff that Eisenhower could not fire him because there was no British commander of his stature that the British government would accept. His chief of staff replied that Eisenhower had requested that Alexander take over for Montgomery. Monty's apology went to Eisenhower immediately thereafter.
737. AytchMan - 6/6/2000 5:10:02 PM
janjon--
>>with the emphasis on restricted circumstances. Very restricted. In fact, today, probably so restricted and hypothetical as to push me to a 0.
I think the US's current status as uncontested big kid on the block probably compresses the scale such that 0 is very close to 7. A rather unusual historical circumstance, possibly unique.
738. janjon - 6/6/2000 5:12:27 PM
aitch - without getting chauvinistic about it, a unique circumstance that I hope continues ad infinitum.
739. CalGal - 6/6/2000 5:20:50 PM
Aytch,
"Doing what you need to win" would mean just that. I would need to know more about the specifics to say what I thought that would be in any given circumstance. If the >only way to get out without a prolonged engagement was nuclear bombing and (unlikely) there would never be any risk of escalation, then I might support it. I find that situation unlikely, though.
I'll use a hypothetical based on something I'm (only marginally) more familiar with: the Kosovo bombings. Suppose we deemed it utterly necessary that we "win" and suppose we determined that the massive support demonstrations that took place in the country (standing outside, daring us to bomb them) were causing the war to be prolonged. Military experts said that we could shorten the fight and reduce our own losses considerably if we caused the civilians some serious pain and caused them to feel the heat. The best way to do this, military experts say, is to bomb the civilians directly. No other option will be anywhere near as effective and would prolong the war, casualties, costs, etc.
Boom. Do it, as far as I'm concerned.
So if you give me a hypothetical and the military assessments, I can tell you what I'd probably do, if that helps. I would never support deliberate overkill, but I accept that sometimes the best assessments can be wrong. Provided that you go in with only an end to the war in mind and no dishonesty, I accept outcomes as they fall.
I should throw this in as well: I am very much the isolationist, and think most wars/conflicts are idiotic in the extreme. So my approach is, given that it is all nonsense, fight to win and get the fuck out.
740. AytchMan - 6/6/2000 6:11:36 PM
To clarify the Korean example: The war had see-sawed back and forth wildly for a year. Finally, the front had stabilized near the starting line and everybody settled down to trench warfare. In the next two years, the US would suffer tens of thousands of casualties (as could easily be forecast). The US government wanted to win very badly. The American people were not overly enthusiastic about the war but wanted to win given the fact that we were in it. With essentially no risk since the only real danger (the Chinese) has been eliminated from the hypothetical, it seems clear to me that this is the perfect situation for a 10 to throw everything in. No trick questions here, I'm just trying to understand the position of a self-described 9.8. Release the hounds?
741. CalGal - 6/6/2000 6:18:07 PM
Aytch,
Yes. This is the sort of situation that I can't even see any rationale for being there in the first place--but once there, get the hell out.
I would do whatever was needed to get us out as cleanly and quickly as possible--with the minimum loss of life on both sides (even if that meant civilians). For example, if they said, "Nothing but a nuclear detonation will get us out. Anything less is just a waste of time and will actually cost more of everyone's lives"--then go straight to that. If they said, "We're having too much problem with civilian resistance--we'll be in a better position to end this quickly without nuclear arms if we bomb the shit out of three cities," then do that. And so on.
742. CalGal - 6/6/2000 6:25:07 PM
I apologize for the TV reference here, but there was an early episode of The West Wing in which the President angrily told his military advisers after a plane was destroyed that he wanted to knock the shit out of the country that did it--not spank them. He then got all gray and backed down when told what that would mean, and deferred to the advisers recommendation to provide a "proportional response" (three hangars and two runways, or something like that).
I always thought this was rather silly. Let's be a giant and play fair--thumb wrestle with the Lilliputians. No, if someone thinks they can fuck with you, strike back much harder and make them dearly regret it. And let there be no joy in the doing, either. Just a simple intolerance for idiots who misunderstand forbearance.
The argument I would accept in return would not be moral ("eek! We can't use our power in anger!") but pragmatic ("Hey, it'll make all the other countries very nervous and you'll spend all your time in meetings reassuring the Europeans.").
Incidentally, it occurs to me that this might be a subject for future war? I don't know if SheRex had it in mind, but if moving it is appropriate that's fine by me.
743. AytchMan - 6/6/2000 6:25:21 PM
CG--
Thanks, now I understand. Being a 7 myself, I would have taken a different route but I appreciate your explanation.
744. AytchMan - 6/6/2000 6:27:16 PM
CG--
743 referred to the nukes over Korea. I'm now coggin' on the West Wing item.
745. CalGal - 6/6/2000 6:28:43 PM
I knew which you were referring to, no prob.
746. AytchMan - 6/6/2000 6:35:16 PM
CG--
West Wing episode -- "I always thought this was rather silly."
I completely agree in this area. I think that, as a general policy, disproportionate response is the way to go. As always, there are exceptions. But, if they bend your finger back, don't bend their finger, break a kneecap.
I did see the episode and remember shaking my head when the Prez knuckled under.
747. AytchMan - 6/6/2000 8:01:19 PM
Another Subjective Question.
The Nazi era lasted from 1933 to 1945. How honorably did the major non-Axis players conduct themselves throughout this period? Honor is herein defined as a combination of the individual trait of honor (not lying, cheating or stealing) as applied to nations plus the classic standards of national honor (whatever that means exactly -- your choice). As a benchmark, Germany's conduct was horrendous (endless deceit, broken treaties, atrocities, ultimatums, aggressive war, the Holocaust, selling out allies, you name it). Assign a letter grade (A-F) to the following countries:
Belgium
Britain
Denmark
Finland
France
Norway
Poland
Soviet Union
Spain
Sweden
US
Please post in white. With a worldwide contingent, I'd like to see how far some of the rankings diverge. Remember to consider the entire period from 1933-45. I'll post shortly.
748. AytchMan - 6/6/2000 9:40:48 PM
National Grades:
Belgium -- C-. Fearing Germans, refused to coordinate defenses with Allies, folded up tents early in May 1940. At least they were on the right side.
Britain -- B+. Dreadfully shortsighted in the 30's but rallied Europe. Supported every ally even when it hurt. Churchill Man of the Century.
Denmark -- C. Couldn't do much, didn't do much.
Finland -- B-. Humiliated the Red Army but picked the wrong side.
France -- D-. From the appeasement of the 30's to the defeatism of 1940 to the widespread collaboration under the occupation, a pretty sorry record.
Norway -- A-. Refused to knuckle under, went down fighting. Small but active resistance. But they did coin the term 'Quisling'.
Poland -- B+. Profited from Germany's pre-war dismemberment of neighbors but drew the line in the sand, went down fighting, active resistance, many fought for Soviets and in the West.
Soviet Union -- F+. Not much better than the Germans in many ways but they fought magnificently.
Spain -- D. Sat it out but they were wrung out from the Civil War. Favored Axis, provided bases.
Sweden -- C--. Sat it out, traded with the Germans, slowly relented under intense Allied pressure as the tide turned.
US -- B-. Isolationism, foot-dragging on accepting refugees but foresight by Roosevelt, wholehearted prosecution of the war, LendLease, leader of the good guys. Saved the world for Britney Spears.
Done.
749. iiibbb - 6/6/2000 9:53:45 PM
I think there are two important things to consider about morality the Americans dropping the bombs on Japan.
First, we didn't _ask_ for the war (although theories abound about what FDR knew and when). I do honestly believe that a conventional invasion of Japan would have been far more costly in human life.
Be that as it may, Germany and JApan were intent on world conquest. I don't believe for an instant that Hitler planned to stop... or if he did, once he had secured enough power, he would have eventually turned on North and South America as well. So our mission was to end it, with any and all means at our disposal. That was our sole responsibility in the war, not to worry about the morality of the method... particularly when fighting for what was a clearly just cause as WWII was.
A second, and more subtle consideration, is that we are fortunate that we were able to learn what horrible weapons nuclear bombs are while the technology was in its infancy. If we had not dropped the bomb, then I think it is entirely likely it would have been used by some country eventually in a later war with far more devestating effects; Korea or the Cuban crisis comes to mind. By that time the technology had grown to the point where far more horrible scenarios could have evolved. Admittedly some in our own military fully thought that a nuclear war was winable, and without Hiroshima, the counterview may not have been strong enough to resist.
From that standpoint I think it was good that we used the bomb.
750. AytchMan - 6/6/2000 10:16:25 PM
iiibbb--
>>From that standpoint I think it was good that we used the bomb.
Do you literally mean 'good' or rather something along the lines of 'the right decision'?
At any rate, at the risk of an electronic bop on the head from somebody or other, I'd say that most of the posters on this thread are in rough agreement.
I'm trying to get the morality issue picked up over in the Future War thread. You might want to check that out. We're kinda hitting around it over there.
751. iiibbb - 6/6/2000 10:16:54 PM
Belgium - C - Granted, they were stuck in the middle, but they didn't seem to care much for either side.
Britain - A minus -Never gave up, but their pandering to the Nazi's early in the war smacks of how we treat China now. Should have stood up taller, earlier.
Denmark -Incomplete - Did they attend?
Finland - B - Really didn't want to be on either side. The only reason they picked the Germans was to regain territory lost to the Russians. Once they had reacquired this territory, they refused to advance the German cause. Only nation that paid off its war debts.
France - D - Very poor planners. Brown noses to the German occupation. Fair weather allies.
Norway - B+ - Never quit
Poland - I - Out sick due to german measels. They never had a chance. Resisted Germany early on… truthfully, I don't know much about Poland.
Soviet Union - C - They get a B because they Kept the Nazi's from bringing their full effort to the West. Without their efforts the Western front would have been too difficult to overcome, the nazi's would have had time to developed their myriad of super-weapons, and potentially turned the tides of war. However, they get a D since Stalin was virtually as bad as the Nazis as far as genocide goes.
Spain - F - F is for fascist.
Sweden - C minus - At least they weren't the French.
US - A - Face it, we basically supplied virtually everyone, we liberated everyone, we rebuilt virtually everyone. We may have been slow to get into the war, but at first we had the lowest stake and there was a chance that Europe would have worked it out themselves. However, the US sacrificed quite a lot for the sake of many other nations.
752. iiibbb - 6/6/2000 10:23:58 PM
I mean 'good' as in 'better then than later' because I think if it had not been used then, the stigma associated with the bomb would not have prevented its use later. It didn't take long for the technology to advanced beyond its infancy and far more horrible weapons could have been used in Korea, or Cuba... and without the knowledge of the magintude of these weapons destructive power from the world's experience with Hiroshima and Nagasaki, those that held the belief that a nuclear war was winable may very well have prevailed with that opinion.
That's what I mean by 'good'.
753. AytchMan - 6/6/2000 10:56:03 PM
iiibbb--
I just reread your original post and I think you explained it just fine the first time. Sorry about that.
You raise an interesting issue with your second reason. What are the implications of this for all new technologies? Use them at the first reasonable opportunity to evaluate them? I don't think you're advocating this, I'm just asking an open question.
You may want to reply in Future War since I think it's more appropriate there. Let's let SheRex worry about it.
754. iiibbb - 6/6/2000 10:59:14 PM
I will post response to that specific question 753 in Future War...
755. Wombat - 6/7/2000 10:21:53 AM
Belgium: D Refused to cooperate with Britain and France before 1940. Surrendered prematurely. Elements of Flemish and Walloon communities collaborated, formed SS units. Resistance became active.
Britain: B- Appeased Germany 1936-39. A more forceful stance with France in re the Rhineland could have ended Hitler's career. Fought well.
Denmark: B Unprepared, overwhelmed. Active, effective resistance. Some collaboration.
Finland: B One lucky country! Fought Soviet Union, allied with Germany (but fought Germany at the end). Survived as independent state.
France: C- Prewar governments were actively anti-German. Constrained not to act during Rhineland, Sudeten crises because of lukewarm British support. Succumbed to defeatism. Fought poorly in 1940, redeemed by Free French, post 1942 military. Much resistance, much collaboration.
Norway: C Quisling was Defense Minister in prewar government. Extremely poorly prepared. Elements fought well during German invasion. Active resistance movement.
Poland: C+ Prewar government appeased Germany, seized territory from neighbors. Fought hard, active resistance.
Soviet Union: F Hitler's ally 1939-41. Subverted Allies 1939-41. Unreliable ally. Fought hard (once betrayed by Hitler). Inflicted and took massive losses.
Spain: C- Maintained neutrality. Made concessions to Germans, Allies, depending on who was winning. Permitted recruitment of forces to fight against Soviet Union.
Sweden: C Maintained neutrality. Made concessions to Germans, Allies, depending on who was winning. Permitted German troops to transit Swedish territory. Active on the humanitarian front.
US: A- Nation divided until Pearl Harbor, policy reflected this division. Led anti-Axis effort, once in.
756. stostosto - 6/7/2000 5:13:32 PM
Intriguing poll, Aytchman! These are my opinions - before having looked on the others. And without ever having given the subject much thought - and my opinions are not very educated, anyway. (How about Switzerland, by the way? Holland? Czechoslovakia? Hungary? Romania? Bulgaria? Yugoslavia? Greece?)
Belgium ?
Britain: A
Denmark: D
Finland: B
France: E
Norway: A
Poland: C
Soviet Union: B
Spain: F
Sweden: D
US: A
Done.
757. stostosto - 6/7/2000 5:42:00 PM
Re: The Soviet Union and honor: You gotta give the Soviets a huge credit for having faced and beaten Hitler's ultimate, savage and highly devoted aggression on the eastern front, wasting perhaps 20 million Soviet people in the process. That stands out as the most monumental raw effort of the war, even if Stalin must take some blame for recklessly destroying the Soviet army's organisation on the eve of the war, thus possibly raising the cost in lives unnecessarily. And they can't have an A because of their non-aggression pact, division of Poland, and their annectation of the Baltic countries and Karelia.
758. Wombat - 6/7/2000 5:42:46 PM
Switzerland: D+ Neutral. Made concessions to Germany, Allies, depending on who was winning. Permitted transhipment of war equipment to Italy from Germany. Accused of laundering Jewish assets seized by Nazis. Served as conduit for communications between Allies/Germans.
Holland: C+ Badly prepared, fought hard. Active resistance, some collaboration.
Czechoslovakia: No Grade, No chance. Once the Sudetenland was gone, they were defenseless.
Hungary: D+ German Ally. Fought half-heartedly, attempted to back out in 1944. Germans staged coup, kept Hungary in the war.
Romania: C- German Ally. Fought badly, changed sides in 1944, didn't do much better.
Bulgaria: D+ Neutral. Collaborated with Germany. Permitted German forces to use its territory. Declared war on Germany after Soviet invasion.
Yugoslavia: C+ Poorly prepared, fought poorly when invaded. Extremely effective resistance marred by civil war, collaboration.
Greece: B Might have avoided war had not Italy invaded. Repulsed Italian invasion, counterattacked into Albania. Poorly equipped forces overwhelmed by Germany. Effective resistance marred by internecine strife.
Turkey: B- Neutral. Leaned toward the Allies.
Ireland: B- Neutral. No matter what the Brits say, Ireland leaned toward Allies.
759. AytchMan - 6/7/2000 9:29:15 PM
Thanks for the responses so far. Let's keep it in white for one more day so maybe we can get one or two more. By the way, I held it down to ten or twelve to keep it manageable; the additions are all good choices. Although it's been discussed before, how does the Vatican rate?
760. AytchMan - 6/8/2000 1:32:53 PM
National Grades:
...............iiibbb...wombat...stostosto...aytchman
Belgium.........C.........D..........?...........C-
Britain..........A-........B-.........A...........B+
Denmark........I.........B..........D...........C
Finland..........B.........B..........B...........B-
France..........D.........C-.........E...........D-
Norway.........B+........C..........A...........A-
Poland...........I.........C+.........C...........B+
Soviet Union..C.........F..........B...........F+
Spain............F.........C-.........F...........D
Sweden.........C-........C..........D...........C--
US...............A.........A-.........A...........B-
Sorry about the alignment. With a couple of glaring exceptions (the B/D on Denmark, the A/C on Norway, the B/F on the Soviets (!), and maybe the A/B- on the US), the grades are pretty close. Interesting stuff.
761. Indiana Jones - 6/8/2000 1:42:45 PM
I agree with the general consensus, siding with those who rate the U.S. more highly and the Soviet Union less so. In addition to Stalin (IMO every bit as bad as Hitler), the conduct of Soviet soldiers also left something to be desired in many cases.
762. CalGal - 6/8/2000 1:56:56 PM
| Country | iiibbb | wombat | sto | aytch |
| Belgium | C | D | ? | C- |
| Britain | A- | B- | A | B+ |
| Denmark | I | B | D | C |
| Finland | B | B | B | B- |
| France | D | C- | E | D- |
| Norway | B+ | C | A | A- |
| Poland | I | C+ | C | B+ |
| Soviet Union | C | F | B | F+ |
| Spain | F | C- | F | D |
| Sweden | C- | C | D | C-- |
| US | A | A- | A | B- |
763. stostosto - 6/8/2000 4:19:18 PM
Cal, you show-off you!
764. CalGal - 6/8/2000 4:56:59 PM
I'm sorry, I didn't mean to show off. I thought it'd be easier to read, and that Aytch could copy it if he got more responses.
765. stostosto - 6/9/2000 4:06:53 AM
Sure, you didn't mean to show off. Uh-huh.
766. AytchMan - 6/13/2000 2:06:39 PM
With the lazy summer months stretching out before us, would anybody be interested in some sort of a wargame tournament? I'd be happy to moderate as required.
767. Indiana Jones - 6/13/2000 2:22:23 PM
AytchMan: What's your poison?
768. AytchMan - 6/13/2000 2:34:02 PM
Well, there are a couple of possibilities. For PBEM, I think the best choice is Operational Art of War. There are various versions available but the WW2 version is most relevant here. For those who don't have it, it's under $25 these days.
For online, Close Combat 3 and 4 are excellent real-time tactical sims.
769. PelleNilsson - 6/13/2000 2:48:00 PM
I just read an article in the IHT about a new museum in New Oreleans devoted to Andrew Higgins and his WWII landing craft. William Cohen and NATO colleagues were there. At the peak of production Higgins's yards turned out 700 crafts per month. Total production was 20,094.
The article originates from Washington Post. My connection makes it difficult to search and link.
770. Wombat - 6/13/2000 3:02:44 PM
Pelle:
I think it's a Museum devoted to World War II.
771. Indiana Jones - 6/13/2000 3:02:49 PM
AytchMan: I've never played either. What do you mean by PBEM (play by email)?
Let me see what I think of 'em and I'll let you know. Also, I'd been thinking about running some kind of role-playing trivia-based puzzle on the Mote, but so far it hasn't attracted a lot of interest. I can probably swing only one of them, though, especially since I have two trips scheduled in the next two months.
772. AytchMan - 6/13/2000 3:30:24 PM
Indy--
Right, play-by-email. I was thinking to round up six or eight players (if there are that many) in some sort of playoff tournament or round-robin, whatever. Even a short-scenario game would take a fair amount of time (chronologically) but a relatively small amount per week.
I like your idea of a Murder party although I'm not sure how it would work on the Web. I hosted one a few years back that was a stitch. Great fun.
773. AytchMan - 6/13/2000 3:35:19 PM
Pelle--
I may have read the same article if it's the one that reports Ike(?) as mentioning Higgins as the man who won the war for the Allies. A bit of an overstatement perhaps but remarkable nonetheless.
774. AytchMan - 6/13/2000 5:39:37 PM
Indy--
Check out those games on Games Domain (gamesdomain.com). They're a good site posting solid reviews.
775. jexster - 6/15/2000 3:24:07 PM
I'm re-reading The Road to Pearl Harbor by Princeton historian Herbert Feis.
I originally read it 30 years ago in a college history course. The book was published in 1950. I guess it can be called a classic as from the check-out list at the University library indicates heavy use even today.
Feis meticulously examines the internal debates in the US and Japan from 1936 through the Day That Lives in Infamy and as such, gives the reader not only a good picture of the events leading up to war but more siginifantly serves as a great casestudy of how domestic and bureaucratic politics interact at the international level.
Not an easy read but worth it.
776. jexster - 6/15/2000 3:28:39 PM
Atych -
I'm up for an e-game.
I've mentioned one I played in before which was run by a bored USMC lt. in Okinawa which was far too ambitious for his abilities - some 25 nations making econ. and purchase decisions and military strategies to the division level.
I was the PM of Great Britain. It took me days to deploy and instruct the Fleet (we had to research all ship names to actual). It took hours and hours to do all of the diplomacy.....
At bottom, I don't see how such can be effectively monitored but I am game.
It was fun before it disintegrated before the sheer volume of information involved.
777. AytchMan - 6/15/2000 10:06:04 PM
jexster--
As I mentioned to Indy, I think the best choice at present for a WW2 game is Operational Art of War as a turn-based operational game (regiments/divisions) or one of the Close Combat series (3 or 4) for real-time tactical. If you've never played any of the above, they're all rewarding for different reasons. I think both Close Combat 3 and OAW are around 20 bucks now.
Let's see who else is interested in general and then home in on the game of choice. I've written reviews of both games elsewhere so I can give everybody a good rundown as required.
778. Karl Northman - 6/19/2000 12:36:48 AM
re Jexster 776:
"It was fun before it disintegrated before the sheer volume of
information involved..."
And interestingly, that's probably the thing that ultimately won the war for the allies: sure, it's true we loaded something like 5billion tons of iron ore out of Duluth down the lakes to the smelters and forges and foundries, but every damn ton of it would have sat offshore for week without the planning. And they would have sat another week, if the coal and limestone weren't there.
My father, (2nd Armored, 1941-1945) used to say when I was a kid and asked about these things, that a single top-end German tank was worth 5 M-4 Shermans. We won, he said, because each of them was up against 12 or 15 Shermans.
779. AytchMan - 6/20/2000 1:27:45 PM
Indy and jexster--
Seems like it's the three of us. For starters, since I've played OAW a lot, the best plan might be a short-to-medium length game between you two. Perhaps with a few status reports and maps posted here.
780. Cellar Door - 6/23/2000 8:18:52 PM
Pinocchio Bore: Guilty as hell
Pinocchio Bore: Guilty as hell
Pinocchio Bore: Guilty as hell
Pinocchio Bore: Guilty as hell
Pinocchio Bore: Guilty as hell
Pinocchio Bore: Guilty as hell
Pinocchio Bore: Guilty as hell
Pinocchio Bore: Guilty as hell
Pinocchio Bore: Guilty as hell
Pinocchio Bore: Guilty as hell
Pinocchio Bore: Guilty as hell
Pinocchio Bore: Guilty as hell
Pinocchio Bore: Guilty as hell
Pinocchio Bore: Guilty as hell
Pinocchio Bore: Guilty as hell
Pinocchio Bore: Guilty as hell
Pinocchio Bore: Guilty as hell
Pinocchio Bore: Guilty as hell
Pinocchio Bore: Guilty as hell
Pinocchio Bore: Guilty as hell
Pinocchio Bore: Guilty as hell
Pinocchio Bore: Guilty as hell
Pinocchio Bore: Guilty as hell
Pinocchio Bore: Guilty as hell
Pinocchio Bore: Guilty as hell
Pinocchio Bore: Guilty as hell
Pinocchio Bore: Guilty as hell
Pinocchio Bore: Guilty as hell
Pinocchio Bore: Guilty as hell
Pinocchio Bore: Guilty as hell
Pinocchio Bore: Guilty as hell
Pinocchio Bore: Guilty as hell
Pinocchio Bore: Guilty as hell
Pinocchio Bore: Guilty as hell
Pinocchio Bore: Guilty as hell
Pinocchio Bore: Guilty as hell
Pinocchio Bore: Guilty as hell
Pinocchio Bore: Guilty as hell
Pinocchio Bore: Guilty as hell
Pinocchio Bore: Guilty as hell
781. iiibbb - 6/24/2000 10:38:18 AM
What's with this frigging spam?
782. Cellar Door - 6/24/2000 11:00:02 AM
IT'S WAR!
783. PelleNilsson - 6/24/2000 1:52:04 PM
Cellar
Talking about war, I invite you - end everyone else - to read the infamous Wannsee Protocol.
784. CalGal - 6/25/2000 11:37:40 AM
Pelle,
Bleah. I always have trouble remembering how relatively late in the game the "final solution" came into being.
785. AytchMan - 6/25/2000 12:03:20 PM
Pelle--
I'd always heard of the Protocol but never read it. It's a commonplace that the Holocaust is the worst blot on the record of Mankind. But it's still a shock to read the sheer bureaucratic cold-bloodedness of the document.
786. CalGal - 6/25/2000 12:31:40 PM
I know. All the various cases--if a Jew is married to an Aryan, case 1. If a Jew is married to an Aryan, case 2. If a Jew is married to an Aryan and there are kids, case 1. If a Jew is married to ....
And then that coldblooded bit--"Hmm. This is complicated. Perhaps it'd be simpler just to enact a law that dissolves all the marriages."
787. CalGal - 6/25/2000 12:39:00 PM
Actually, that's wrong, what I said. It's not that the consideration of the law is any more coldblooded, it's that it reinforces how easy it was for them to just wipe away laws that made the case by case necessary. The case by case was horrifying, but it's only after they casually consider wiping away the need for it that it really sinks in how much power they had. It wasn't enough that they had the power to take people away and determine whether or not the children of Jewish marriages were sufficiently human to warrant consideration--it was that they then found this all too much trouble.
788. Indiana Jones - 6/25/2000 11:04:36 PM
My reaction is similar to 785-786. Ironically, it's easy to fall into racial stereotyping when reading it. I caught myself thinking "how typically German," which is just the sort of mindset that can lead to final solutions.
789. PelleNilsson - 6/26/2000 4:32:26 PM
And the bureacratic cold-bloodness continued into the "implementation phase". The many bureucrats involved were able to shield themselves from the human dimension by looking at the thing as a production process with its own peculiar problems of logistics (vide Eichmann) and productivity.
- Hello liebling, how was your day at the office?
- Quite good. We have a productivity problem in Treblinka but I think I have the solution. I have written a memo about it.
- How clever you are, Karl!
- Yes. It will probably go to the Sturmbannfűhrer. Could be quite a feather in my hat. What's for dinner?
¨- Your favourite, liebling, Eisbein mit Sauerkraut.
- Good, good, good. I think I'll indulge in a Jägermeister before the meal.
- I'll get it for you, liebling. The Sturmbannfűhrer! I'm so glad for you.
790. AytchMan - 6/26/2000 4:52:31 PM
Pelle--
True enough. I think there are actually official memos that document the strategy: parse and subdivide the bureaucratic process to fool the intended victims and ease the task of those carrying it out.
"Always leave a residue of hope; this step will be the last".
791. AytchMan - 6/26/2000 4:57:27 PM
I'm also reminded of that famous pyschology experiment in which the subject administers (fake) shocks as part of a "teaching" exercise. Very sobering.
792. PelleNilsson - 6/26/2000 5:01:06 PM
Aytchman
Very sobering, indeed. I don't for a moment think that this is a particular German trait. Sometimes when I'm in a black mood I look at my fellow travels on the bus and ask myself who whould be a concentration camp guard? Who would be a torturer?
793. AytchMan - 6/26/2000 5:13:27 PM
I always say to myself "I would never, could never do that". And yet, ridiculously high percentages of the subjects went right along to the end. Somewhere between 60 and 80%, as I recall. It makes me wonder: if the economy collapsed, if there was major civil unrest, etc. etc., maybe it's not so unthinkable. As I said, very sobering.
794. CalGal - 6/26/2000 5:21:01 PM
The sort of people who would never, ever do things like that are generally considered a monumental pain in the ass in every day living.
795. PelleNilsson - 6/26/2000 5:22:20 PM
Please expatiate.
796. CalGal - 6/26/2000 5:38:36 PM
It seems to me that the sort of person who would be able to resist would be someone who was fairly immune to social and peer pressure, whose internal judgment matters more to them than the number of people who think they are wrong. Generally, such a person would also be a moral absolutist, one who can hold on to their values because they don't think, "Well, it depends on the situation". No, what is wrong is just flat out wrong.
In general, people who aren't prone to change their mind based on how many people agree or disagree with their pov, people who are moral absolutists, and people who won't take actions based on what is convenient are a serious pain in the ass when the future of the free world isn't at stake.
797. PelleNilsson - 6/26/2000 5:43:23 PM
CalGal
Are you familiar with the experiment Aytchman referred to?
798. CalGal - 6/26/2000 5:46:50 PM
Pelle,
I'm not familiar with the specifics, but I've heard the generics before.
799. PelleNilsson - 6/26/2000 5:53:45 PM
OK, maybe we'll come back to this. Now it's midnight here and I'm signing off.
800. Slackjaw - 6/26/2000 7:00:25 PM
The experiment was conducted by a white coat named Stanley Milgram. A search on "Milgram, experiment, authority" should yield no less than 500 results at any respectable search engine, I'd guess. Find one with a .edu that dispassionately presents the results and is light on overarching implications, is my advice.
801. Slackjaw - 6/26/2000 7:13:26 PM
which is to say, it's hard to learn anything of great import and lasting value from that sort of experiment.
802. CalGal - 6/26/2000 7:47:30 PM
I read up a bit on it just now. Here is an overview, although I'm sure there are others.
I wasn't trying to make any greater point than this: given the constructs of the experiment as described, I think the majority of people who would refuse to do it--or who would say, "Whoa, this is enough." after minimal shocks--are those who don't mind being rude or contrary, and don't have any real objection to pissing people off. These are attributes acquired with practice. I don't think that most of the people who pride themselves on questioning authority necessarily fall into this category.
From what I can gather, Milgram's experiments were used to make claims about the value (or lack thereof) of obedience, conformity, etc. I wasn't making any claims or observations about that. It was more of an intuitive observation, but one that I think would prove true.
803. Indiana Jones - 6/26/2000 10:49:54 PM
I agree with what CalGal said in 796. There are also people like that who are "quiet" about it, and therefore not as likely to be viewed as pains in the ass, but in general, the Thoreaus of the world are often pains in the ass to those who have to deal with them on a daily basis.
804. PelleNilsson - 6/27/2000 3:30:32 PM
But in terms of participating in the Holocaust those who you so easily dismiss as "pains in the ass" would be akin to heroes, would they not?
805. Indiana Jones - 6/27/2000 3:45:14 PM
Absolutely, Pelle. One of the RL people I admire the most is viewed as a pain in the ass by his family and co-workers, even though he serves other people about as much as anyone I know. He just never bothers to say the right thing or go along with the crowd.
One of the reasons he is able to get so much done is he doesn't waste time with courtesy. He'd help you plow a field in broiling heat, but he wouldn't mind for a minute to just tell you "bye" in the middle of a telephone conversation about your sick mother, then click the receiver before you had a chance to say a word.
One time I had the pleasure of watching him deal with a real estate agent and the contrast between his lack of sham and her attempts at artifice was something to behold.
And because he cares so little for what other people think, I'd bet on him to tell a bunch of Nazis to grow screw themselves.
806. CalGal - 6/27/2000 3:47:04 PM
Pelle,
They would be in absolute sense, yes. Would they be known for it? They might be, yes. If they survived.
But my point is that the sort of trait that would cause one to resist or refuse to participate is also the sort of trait that makes one difficult to live with. I think we can agree that resisting the Holocaust and/or speaking out against German political leaders (while in Germany) is of an entirely different order than being an Irish revolutionary, a slavery abolitionist, or protesting the Vietnam War. Not only was the penalty for non-compliance much, much higher, but worse, in a way--the expectation of compliance was exceptionally high (this is where I think the Milgram experiment has some degree of similarity).
It takes an unusual person to go against the expectation of compliance, and this person usually doesn't reserve it for just a few special occasions. They also aren't necessarily rabble-rousers. Rabble rousers are usually those who like crowds (hence the term). The sort of person who would object in the face of all this expectation is the sort of person who doesn't care whether or not people agree with him.
I think you might not have found many of these people in Nazi Germany. Most of them would have left in disgust long before there would have been a need for them to resist.
807. CalGal - 6/27/2000 3:59:53 PM
Karl Northam brought up a relevant example in ethics. In the Vietnam War, he went to jail rather than get a deferment, run to Canada, or go underground.
There are lots of people who would protest by one of the other methods, or rebel against Daddy's mean corporate sponsors until Daddy's pull could get them out. But these people are rebelling in large part because it's trendy, because it's in, because it makes them feel like they belong. In short, they are complying with one set of expectations. There are many ways of joining in. What Karl describes is the sort of thing that comes with the territory if you are someone who is not willing to comply.
808. PelleNilsson - 6/27/2000 4:55:14 PM
So we should then excuse all those minor participants in the Holocaust and put it down to "human nature"?
809. CalGal - 6/27/2000 5:12:00 PM
Pelle,
I don't think it comes down to excusing people or not. I'm only making an observation. It seems inherent to most humans to want to belong, to want to avoid ostracization, to win approval. Those who don't want this are generally going to have a harder time of it--because most humans don't like the aggravation that comes along when people don't wish to comply.
But if instead of excusing them, I think it is fair to say instead that humans almost by definition are at some small risk for something like the Holocaust occurring because most people don't have the personality necessary to resist. Fortunately for us, the conditions would have to be "perfect"--in this case, no outlet for compliance by resistance, near total agreement on desirable goal, no disapproval (or even attention) from an outside party with something the offenders wanted, a victim that was used to being ostracized and didn't resist, and so on.
810. PelleNilsson - 6/27/2000 5:28:06 PM
CalGal
I substantially agree. And it brings me back to the point that this willingness to conform and to avoid looking at the ultimate consequences of one's action (or to suppress what one knows) is a human trait, not a German one.
811. AytchMan - 6/28/2000 1:25:24 PM
>>...this willingness to conform and to avoid looking at the ultimate consequences of one's action (or to suppress what one knows) is a human trait, not a German one.
I agree but now I'm going to stir things up. Let us stipulate that all humans are subject to the potential for evil deeds. Having said that, I think there was a peculiar set of conditions in German culture in the '30's that engendered their descent into the abyss. It would take a voluminous post even to sum it up but I believe that the late creation of Germany (1860's -- the last of the major European nations) led to the strong anti-democratic nature of their governments up to that time (even Weimar). Couple that with the residue of their pagan myths (Siegfried et al, bloody revenge and conquest, Armageddon-class destruction), a well-absorbed authoritarian tradition, a rigid class structure and the historic North European work ethic...and the seeds are planted.
So, while we're all capable of it, it doesn't happen just anywhere. A fine point but an important one.
812. Indiana Jones - 6/28/2000 1:34:42 PM
"there was a peculiar set of conditions in German culture in the '30's that engendered their descent into the abyss"
"Peculiar" (though perhaps not unique)--and I agree. Also, in reading the memo that started this discussion, I think that there was something about German culture that would allow such a matter-of-fact discussion about the Final Solution. I just don't see Italian "gangsters" (the word Churchill used frequently to describe the Nazis) acting in the same fashion.
I remember watching a Sixty Minutes report on Switzerland one time in which they mentioned that one of the worst things you could call someone there was translated into English as "troublemaker." So again it's probably not unique to Germans, but they had a culture that was fertile ground for socially engineered madness.
813. AytchMan - 7/11/2000 8:44:11 PM
If anybody is still interested in either an online or email wargame, I'm ready to give it a shot. Since I've played OAW and the Close Combat games quite a bit, I'd be glad to play a friendly, informal game with an inexperienced player just to help them learn.
814. Indiana Jones - 7/11/2000 10:47:42 PM
AytchMan: I'm going on another trip in the next couple of days that will last about two weeks. Please post a link or some info about OAW (where I can get it, for example), and I'll try to look into it between now and when I get back. If you're still interested and available then, maybe we can give it a whirl.
815. AytchMan - 7/12/2000 1:04:36 PM
Indy--
Here's a good review of the game (with embedded links to the original)
OAW1 Elite Edition
plus one I wrote a while back on OAW2 (with an embedded link to OAW1)
OAW2
There are several versions of the game out. I think the best best is the OAW 1 Elite Edition. It's $18 at Chips & Bits. I've dealt with them before, they're reputable. You may be able to find it even cheaper elsewhere.
816. AytchMan - 7/14/2000 10:27:21 PM
Who was the greatest leader of the 20th century? "Greatest" is herein defined as having the greatest effect on the planet's history.
I'm posting the question in this thread since several of the leading candidates were directly involved in the war. Also, it's been slow.
817. angel-five - 7/14/2000 11:29:51 PM
We actually did this once upon a time. My vote is for Stalin.
818. AytchMan - 7/14/2000 11:44:04 PM
A solid choice and clearly in the top five. I think he wins over Hitler, another classic candidate. Sometimes I argue for Lenin and sometimes I argue for one of the leaders of the French Revolution (three-quarters seriously). Sometimes I just argue.
819. CalGal - 7/14/2000 11:53:57 PM
Actually, we discussed Person of the Century (see here for the archive). Leaders figured heavily.
820. AytchMan - 7/15/2000 12:07:54 AM
cg--
Thanks for the link. People seemed to put a much different spin on it there (to be charitable) but thanks anyway.
821. angel-five - 7/15/2000 12:17:14 AM
You can pretty much rule out any US president due to a lack of tenure. The closest is obviously FDR; he and his legacy did a lot to shape world history, so it's debatable whether or not you include him in your top four. The same goes for Win Churchill -- Churchill's policies arguably changed the entire course of WWII. Obviously, though, Churchill has less peacetime contributions than someone like FDR. So, too, another good candidate but a beatable one.
Hitler obviously changed the structure of the world. The argument can be made that the structure was just waiting to change and Hitler was merely a catalyst but I think that's a little short sighted. Very few people, through the accidents and vagaries of history, could have done what Hitler did, and the world is supremely unlucky that he was in the wrong place at the wrong time. There is a clear and lasting effect from his reign, both direct and indirect. He's still a household word today. Adolf is clearly in the top four.
For my money, though, Stalin left a longer legacy, and a bloodier one, and had overall much more of an effect upon the nations of the world than Hitler ever did. Stalin singlehandedly rewrote the book of Communism and changed Russia into a brooding, inscrutable and violent monolith in the affairs of world politics. Like Hitler, and indeed like Churchill and FDR, he didn't merely do what might have been expected of a man in his position but rather changed things in a manner that was hardly expectable. And you can certainly argue that while Hitler's direct legacy died some year or so after the end of WWII, Stalin's lasted until the nineties (and even, in some cases, still is in effect). I think he heads the list.
822. angel-five - 7/15/2000 12:18:16 AM
Some other candidates: Chairman Mao (middling candidate -- limited sphere of influence, very influential within it though)
Lloyd George (weak candidate -- set, with Clemenceau, the stage for WWII)
VI Lenin ( average to weak candidate -- influential at the time but his effects were quickly changed by Stalin)
Mikhail Gorbachev (weak candidate -- there was a lot of pressure upon the USSR to reform and Gorbachev merely heeded the pressure)
Gandhi (weak candidate, found an entire modern tradition of nonviolent colonial resistance)
Ho Chi Minh (weak to average candidate, represented the inability of colonial powers to oppress their colonies in the modern era)
JFK (weak candidate -- arguably ensured that the US would become entangled in Vietnam, which changed the entire shape of superpower doctrine and internal US politics)
Nikita Khrushchev (weak candidate -- allowed detente).
823. AytchMan - 7/15/2000 12:33:25 AM
Stalin's a pretty solid choice. Although I'd rate Lenin more highly than you did (based more on legacy than direct effect), I agree that Stalin trumps him. I'd also rate Churchill very highly although probably not the winner. He had a direct and strong influence on both World Wars. He probably has to settle for Most Influential Good Guy of the Century.
I'm glad you rated most of your later choices as weak. I find choices in the second half of the century very shaky -- there's no time in which to factor in a legacy on top of the direct effect.
824. angel-five - 7/15/2000 1:48:53 AM
Lenin certainly was a focal point for intellectual Communism in his day; he was charismatic and quite bright. The thing about Lenin's legacy is simple, though -- it wasn't his legacy at all. Lenin died early; the Lenin of Marxism-Leninism, sort of the Christ figure of Communism, really wasn't much more than what Stalin wanted people to think of when they thought of Lenin. Really, I think Trotsky had more of an effect upon Communism in the long run, and Trotsky's influence wasn't all that great.
I also don't think that Lenin really did anything all that out of the ordinary to achieve the position that he did -- you cannot, for example, convincingly argue that the Bolsheviks would have attained power in Russia without Lenin. You can argue about the NEP and the five-year plan, or machinations with Germany, but in my book Lenin really didn't do anything that far out of the ordinary unless you count the fact that he made 'Koba' Stalin his Gensek and failed to understand what an awful mistake that was until it was far too late to change it.
In the past iterations of this discussion (prolly because PE was in most of them and therefore economics was always on the table) there was mention made of the people who championed the Marshall plan. They, too, if taken as one, deserve real consideration for the top five -- the problem is, no one person can take most of the credit for the Marshall plan.
825. angel-five - 7/15/2000 1:49:33 AM
It is a shame that the top two most influential people of the 20th century were such bastards. I'd like to rate Winston and FDR more highly -- FDR, I think, a bit more so than Churchill simply because of the tremendous effect he had on American society and politics -- but the sad fact is that their accomplishments just didn't have as lasting an effect upon the world as those of Hitler and Stalin, even considering that the former two won and the latter two eventually lost.
There's one story about Churchill of dubious verity that I cherish anyway. The easily contestable story has Churchill making his 'never surrender' speech; when he gets to the point where he's going on about how the English will fight on the beaches and so on, he covers the microphone with his hand and says, 'and when they land we shall throw our flagons of beer in their faces, for that is in fact all we Have.'
As the man once said, if it ain't true, it ought to be. And, true or false, it illustrates just how gutsy of a stance Churchill was taking, because the 'flagons of beer' comment would have been pretty accurate at the time.
826. angel-five - 7/15/2000 2:50:40 AM
you cannot, for example, convincingly argue that the Bolsheviks would have attained power in Russia without Lenin.
This should read 'you can'. Sorry for the confusion.
827. AytchMan - 7/16/2000 6:42:48 PM
angel-five --
The thing about Lenin's legacy is simple, though --it wasn't his legacy at all.
To an extent, I agree. But I think Lenin was instrumental in instituting the modern totalitarian state -- Soviet Russia was, of course, the first. The result has been the engine for most of the century's history. Lenin only presided over it actively for five or six years but created many of its lasting features: the centralized command economy, government by terror, collectivization (admittedly perfected by Uncle Joe), and omnipotence at the top (far more than the Tsar). One could, arguably, call this the Totalitarian Century.
At any rate, I agree with your position that Stalin outpoints him.
I also don't think that Lenin really did anything all that out of the ordinary to achieve the position that he did -- you [can], for example, convincingly argue that the Bolsheviks would have attained power in Russia without Lenin.
Rather than argue your immediate point (we could go on for days about it), I'll give you a "perhaps". But I think the all-important point here is that, without Lenin, the course of events would almost certainly have been far different. For one important reason: Much more than his associates, Lenin was the great believer in government by terror. He always wanted to enlarge the boot on the neck of the people for its own sake. A thoroughly regrettable impulse, of course. But that is the essence of modern totalitarianism.
828. AytchMan - 7/16/2000 6:52:29 PM
angel--
On the Marshall Plan, I find the idea unpersuasive (I realize you're not making the case). Even putting aside the lack of a single author. While the Plan undeniably had a large effect on Europe after the war, it stemmed from the war. In addition, I hardly think that the economic effects of the Plan were greater than the war itself.
829. AytchMan - 7/17/2000 4:09:22 PM
The second half of PBS's Finest Hour: The Battle of Britain is on tonight at 9c. The first half was superb; it took a slightly different tack from other documentaries on the subject. The show also included some fascinating first-person accounts which is surprising since these are often the kiss of death. Highly recommended.
830. Jack Vincennes - 7/24/2000 10:43:15 AM
I recently finished Victor Davis Hanson's The Soul of Battle, a three part book that deals with three armies - that of the Theban Epaminondas, Sherman and Patton. In reading the section on Patton, I highlighted a rebuttal to the sometime-repeated view that the Soviets did the bulk of the work at the end of the war and/or that the Western effort was secondary to that of the Russian push:
"Yet despite the undeniable contributions of the Russians, and the horrendous German losses incurred on the Eastern front, the idea that the Western front was somewhat a subsidiary theater is simply not true. Patton and the Americans, in fact, destroyed an enormous veteran army and did it far more quickly and efficiently-in time and losses incurred-than did the Russians. The Russians lost millions and killed millions; the Allies lost thousands and had millions of Germans simply surrender. German armies transferred from the
Eastern front to the West quickly learned that they could no longer advance with tanks in massed formations as they had against the Russians, inasmuch as American fighter aircraft and mobile artillery-by 1944 in constant radio communications with armored columns-would obliterate Panzers within minutes after they appeared in daylight on major roads.
Second, the Americans were fighting on far more fronts, against far more enemies, at much greater distances from their sources of supply, and were doing it with far greater skill than the Russians, who were engaged on a single linear front, supplied by industries to their immediate rear, and augmented by generous American equipment. American global commitments and the obstacles to their success were far greater than those challenges that confronted either Russia or Germany."
Hanson devotes an entire chapter to this argument.
831. DocBrown - 7/24/2000 1:43:10 PM
A Liberty Ship is coming to my town:
I will be excited to visit the SS JOHN W. BROWN, when she comes to Cleveland from her home in Baltimore. I believe that Hanson is correct in assessing the American achievement in moving men and material. It was an incredible accomplishment, made possible by the Liberty Ships.
832. jexster - 7/24/2000 7:51:55 PM
Thank God for Henry Kaiser!
833. AytchMan - 7/25/2000 9:43:51 PM
jv--
Does his argument pertain primarily to the overall war-long effort or "the bulk of the work at the end of the war" as you state above? It makes rather a difference since an argument for the latter is somewhat easier.
834. Indiana Jones - 7/28/2000 12:15:20 PM
For once I'm in general agreement with A-5 about Stalin and Hitler as having as much influence as any 20th century leader on the 20th century (though I find even the mention of JFK fairly laughable). Trying to look with non-Western eyes, I'd throw Gandhi in there.
I didn't see him mentioned (and he's not one of my favorite presidents), but the geopolitical philosophy of Wilson has probably had as much of an effect as any American. To the degree that he forced America into the international arena, I rank TR pretty important, but then he's probably my favorite President, so I'm a little biased.
And if we just choose the 20th century person (instead of leader) who affected events the most, my dark horse would be Princip (can't recall his first name now and not going to search while on a 28k line)--the guy who assassinated Archduke Ferdinand. He sparked WWI, which led to both the Russian Revolution and the rise of Hitler, resulting in WWII and the Cold War. Now those events may be seen as inevitable, but if we view history as predestined, then it's hard to judge any individual as especially significant.
835. Indiana Jones - 7/28/2000 12:31:10 PM
Jack makes some good contrarian arguments, but I still find the number of German troops tied down on the Eastern Front vs. Western highly persuasive. I've never subscribed to the belief that the Russians could have won single-handedly, but as much as I would like to give it to them, I don't think the Americans deserve the most credit for ending the Third Reich.
OTOH, we never signed a pact with Hitler, carved up Poland, grabbed the Baltic States, and chewed on Finland. IMO if you give Hitler a 100 on the pure, unadulterated evil scale, Stalin qualifies as a 99.9 with an overbar. And in all honesty, though I'm fascinated by both men, I think Hitler's motivation wasn't purely selfish, whereas Stalin seemed totally driven by ego and paranoia. The end results of Hitler's racism and nationalism were terrible for the German people, but that's not how he envisioned it. Stalin, OTOH, appears to have practiced terror purely for its own sake. (And that's all the keystrokes I wish to devote to distinguishing between the evil of one monster versus another, so if another Motier's mileage varies, have at it. It's probably more useful and entertaining--certainly lighthearted--trying to compare who's worse misunderstood: Dracula or Godzilla.)
836. Indiana Jones - 7/28/2000 12:35:18 PM
AytchMan: Regarding the war game, what would you think about designing some kind of small game ourselves that could be played over the net?
I have the impression you're a techie. What kind of programming skills do you have?
837. AytchMan - 7/28/2000 4:35:52 PM
Indy--
Designing our own sounds interesting but way too complicated to get a decent game. In a different direction, some sort of detective/mystery game with multiple players might be feasible. It would also appeal to a wider audience.
I am a tekkie, I suppose, but my programming skills are not well suited to the Net -- FoxPro is the only thing I've done in the last few years.
I can also search around a bit to see if there are any decent online games for the general Mote audience.
838. amax - 7/28/2000 7:19:14 PM
Hey guys&gals,
I'ts been awhile since I've been to the mote, so I don't know if I recall talking to some of ya. Looks like some of the old regulars are still here. Indy, Aitchman, pleasdtametcha. I'd be up for a game or two of CC-whatever, and I'd be interested in trying OAW, altho I've been shying off buying the game 'cause I don't really have time to learn the UI. I hear it's based on the old Squad Leader boardgame by Avalon Hill, and that was a mother of a game to learn to play well.
839. amax - 7/28/2000 7:28:27 PM
Getting more to the point of the thread, tho, I recently got into an discussion w/a friend over the topic of how the Americans stacked up against the Germans. I tend to believe that the US was basically pitting numbers, bravery, and firepower against superior soldering, generalship, and technology. The irony being, that is not how we portray the conflict -- rather the reverse. Movies like Saving Private Ryan show American forces wiping out large numbers of the enemy while taking very slight losses relative to the damage they do. Seems to me that it would take much more heroism&dedication to go through that and keep pushing instead of the other way round.
I am currently trying to track down an incident that I saw mentioned in a review of the movie: something like two or three squads of German infantry holding an entire American army group for four or five days. Anyone know of the incident? I'd appreciate any leads.
840. AytchMan - 7/28/2000 10:06:11 PM
Hi amax--
I am currently trying to track down an incident that I saw mentioned in a review of the movie: something like two or three squads of German infantry holding an entire American army group for four or five days. Anyone know of the incident? I'd appreciate any leads.
This is probably not what you were looking for but somewhere way back upthread there's a link to a battle in Belgium in 1945 in which a small number of Americans reportedly held off a huge German force for a week or two. If you can't find it, let me know and I'll track it down for ya.
841. AytchMan - 7/28/2000 10:37:22 PM
I tend to believe that the US was basically pitting numbers, bravery, and firepower against superior soldering, generalship, and technology.
Well, sort of. I certainly agree that the Germans fielded better soldiers and better generals. On technology, however, I think it goes to the US. The Germans developed some superb weapons (the all-purpose 88, several models of aircraft and some of their small arms) but the P-51, the B-17, the Higgins boat, the Liberty ship and even the Sherman (large numbers are a triumph of technology, too) arguably tip the scale to the US. In addition, the German insistence on developing a huge number of weapon types worked against them. Throw in the A-bomb and where are ya?
As for numbers, if you mean materiel, I agree. If you mean troops, the US fielded a pretty small army until the last year of the war. The success of Americans attacks was usually due to artillery, air strikes and mobility, not numbers of troops.
I also think bravery goes to the Germans but it's a pretty subjective argument either way. German troops rarely deserted or routed until the last few months and routinely fought for and held positions against overwhelming odds throughout the war.
842. angel-five - 7/29/2000 4:42:03 AM
I hope that bit about the Higgins boat was a joke.
German tech was superior until about 1944 or so. In once sense Aytch is correct -- the Nazis squandered a lot of resources on dubious projects that didn't benefit their war effort. Yet much of the reason their tech was eventually surpassed by the Americans is very simple -- they chose to stick with and improve older weapons and weapon systems (the Me-109 being an excellent example) that were superior in the early war years but later couldn't keep up with evolving technology. Such a practice was a hallmark of the centralized Nazi war industry and the later innovative new assets like the 262, the A-series rockets, and the Nebelwerfer were too little too late, not to mention often misused. So in that sense the Nazi military-industrial system was too static, not too dynamic, to keep fielding cutting-edge weapons.
To be fair, the Brits had this problem too, and it's probably natural in any military industry that's under severe duress to stick with tried and true platforms. The Nazi war machine had the added disadvantage of having the snot bombed out of it around the clock whereas the American war machine labored away in complete safety.
American technology in the field wasn't that great. The P-51 (once they added the bubble canopy) was arguably the best prop-driven fighter produced in the war but the development of long range drop-tanks had much more to do with their effectiveness over Europe than the fighters did themselves. The B-17 could take an incredible amount of punishment but didn't have great range or payload capacity. American artillery wasn't that stellar either, it was just that there was a ton of it available, and while American forces in Europe did have strong air-to-ground attack capability American commanders had a really hard time with combined arms.
843. angel-five - 7/29/2000 4:43:09 AM
The Sherman was usually at the mercy of whatever German armor or artillery happened to be in town at the moment, so even though there were a lot of them I'd hesitate to list them as a triumph of American technology. Being in a Sherman tank more or less meant that you were in a mobile and immediately visible foxhole, only foxholes provided better protection, and weren't explosive.
And American small arms sucked. The Garand was a dependable carbine but there's no comparing the Thompson to the Schmeisser or the .45 to the Luger.
Because the Nazi armies introduced the concept of lightning war to the world, we think of them as being highly mobile, but aside from their armor they weren't. German infantry, even 'mechanized' infantry, wasn't terribly mobile at all compared to American infantry, but ironically was much more suited to defensive engagements. There's an old Brit saying -- 'he does not know war who has not fought the Germans' -- but in the Allied campaign in Europe, German defensive tenacity had as much to do with their lack of mobility as it did with the competence of Nazi soldiers.
It's so common to hear the vaunted bravery and superiority of German soldiers and the skill of the German General Staff mentioned, and there's indeed a reason why you hear it so often. but I think it's well to bear in mind that for much of the ground conflict the Allies were actually rather outnumbered by their foe, and you can't attribute the Allied victory to technology or superior production capability alone.
844. angel-five - 7/29/2000 4:47:13 AM
It's kind of fun for me to sit back and count all the different instances where Indiana's said something like 'For once I'm in agreement with A-5'...
This curious contradiction is, no doubt, simply explained: Indiana worships the ground I walk on, but is too bashful to admit it. Cheer up, Indy, there's a twelve step program available, and once you get past denial the rest is easy.
845. Jack Vincennes - 7/29/2000 9:19:45 AM
Aytch
I think you have to discern between contribution and sacrifice. There is no question that Russia sacrificed a great deal more than the United States in its WWII was effort, but, as Indy points out, that sacrifice was in part destined under the leadership of a madman like Stalin, and in part earned by Russia's pact with Germany.
As for the end of the war, many other factors point up the sad but true fact that the Russian advance in the East, while massive and critical, was bereft of tactics. Had there been no press in the West, the Germans would have in all likelihood repelled the crude Soviet advance interminably. Another argument can be made that the Allied advance in the West was bungled badly - thereby lengthening the war by 9 months - due to Eisnenhower's bureaucratic timidity, the silliness that was Market Garden, and the murderous wandering about in the Hurtgen Forest.
846. Jack Vincennes - 7/29/2000 9:34:34 AM
A salient statistic:
The Russians had over 5 times as many divisions as the Allies in Europe by late 1944 (500 to 76). Still, the Germans had half their divisional strength in the West.
847. Jack Vincennes - 7/29/2000 9:41:14 AM
amax
That statistic somewhat undermines your numbers, bravery and firepower v. superior soldiering, generalship and technology.
The numbers were even in the West, as was the bravery (if that can be measured) and firepower. I agree that the Germans had superior soldiers and vastly superior leadership (except, of course, at the political top from the Little Corporal).
848. Indiana Jones - 7/29/2000 2:00:38 PM
"Still, the Germans had half their divisional strength in the West."
I'm looking around for confirmation of this, because it's not my impression. An interesting link I did find on another board contains a post by some fellow named "pseudoerasmus" (heh-heh).
It has the following statistics:
Pct manufacturing output during the war--
US = 27.7
USSR = 17.6
Tank production in 1943 (peak for all powers)
US = 29,500
USSR = 29,000
Aircraft production in 1944 (peak for all powers)
US = 96,300
USSR = 40,300
Of course some US effort was going in the Pacific, and of course the Russians were fighting a few months before we were (albeit losing a whole lot of weapons and men). I'll keep looking for those numbers on how many Germans were tied down by whom, but that's where I give the Russians the edge.
The other argument--that they lost so many more men than we did--doesn't cut it as much with me. To paraphrase Patton, you win a war by making the other sonuvabitch die for his country.
849. angel-five - 7/29/2000 5:29:15 PM
No, the Nazis didn't have half their divisional strength in the West.
Here is the Nazi order of battle for their Western forces in 1944. (interesting site all around)
Compare this to the starting order of battle for Barbarossa, and then bear in mind that the Nazis kept pulling divisions out from their posts and sending them into the meat grinder of the Ostfront.
850. Jack Vincennes - 7/29/2000 5:30:14 PM
Indy
My reference is Davis Hanson. The Soul of Battle, pp. 325-26. He cites for comparisons of the German forces in the East and West, the respective size of the Allied and Russian armies, and their relative accomplishments, the following sources: Weigly, Eisenhower's Lieutenants, pp. 572-73; Keegan, Six Armies, pp. 313-33; Wilmot, Struggle, p. 621 ("The Western Allies were now directly engaging 100 German divisons, 76 in the West and 24 in Italy. A further 27 were tied down in outlying areas, 10 in Yugoslavia and 17 in Scandinavia. Thus on the Eastern front, where Hitler had been able to commit 157 German divisions when the Normandy invasion began, he now had . . . barely half the total strength of his ground forces").
851. Jack Vincennes - 7/29/2000 5:33:41 PM
Regardless of whether the German divisional strength was half or near half, the remarkable statistic is the fact that the German force was close to evenly split while facing 76 Allied divisons in the West, and 500 Russian divisions in the East.
852. angel-five - 7/29/2000 5:40:35 PM
27 divisions in the outlands don't matter. Your source might be taking into account all the stripped divisions left behind in Germany, many of which weren't real fighting forces at all, JV. IAC most of the divisions in the West were static.
It is of course correct to list the army in Italy when considering the warfare between the Allies and the Axis. But I'm not sure you can say that they were in the West -- a minor quibble at any rate.
The statement about having barely half the total strength of the ground forces is interesting; I'm not sure whether he's referring to divisonal count or total number of fighting men. The Nazi armies kept paring down the size of their divisions in order to keep more units operational -- this almost always consisted of shaking down Western and Home divisions and sending men to the Eastern front.
853. angel-five - 7/29/2000 5:43:32 PM
The commonly quoted statistic is that when the tide turned in the East, there were six Russian divisions on the line for each Nazi division, and to boot a majority of those divisions were much fresher than their Nazi opponents.
However, I'm not really sure it's useful to compare the firepower, equipment, and effectiveness of a Russian division to that of a German division, so the six to one figure is a little misleading.
854. angel-five - 7/29/2000 5:49:16 PM
Had there been no press in the West, the Germans would have in all likelihood repelled the crude Soviet advance interminably.
Now, this I'll take much more exception to, Sally, unless you meant to say 'had there been no threat of a press in the West'. And even then I'm not so sure, once you consider the spectacularly ill timing of the Barbarossa offensive, the failure of the German forces to prepare themselves adequately for a winter combat, and the horrible debacles of Leningrad and Stalingrad.
855. Jack Vincennes - 7/29/2000 5:56:12 PM
angel
I'm not sure of the usefulness as well, unless one is rebutting a claim that the Eastern effort was primary and the Western effort was subsidiary. In fact, both efforts were critical, and given the air and tactical superiority, as well as the better quality of command and troop effectiveness in the West, it makes sense that approximatley half the German divisional strength (give or take 10 divisions) matched up against 500 Soviet divisions, as opposed to 76 Allied divisons. Hell, by the end, the Germans were sticking silverware in the anti-aircraft batteries and firing at ground-level trajectory, and the Soviets were still coming.
It is fair to say that the Allies in the West tried to emulate Sherman (at their best; at their worst, the Allied armies were positively Mclellanesque) while the Soviets held Grant closer to heart.
856. Jack Vincennes - 7/29/2000 6:00:21 PM
angel
Except away. Had the Allies not conducted either Normandy or the Italian campaign, I think it a fair bet that the Germans would have been able to distribute the other roughly half of their divisional strength, hunker down in classic defensive repose, and mulched the Soviets interminably.
857. jonesatlaw - 7/29/2000 6:04:04 PM
And American small arms sucked. The Garand was a dependable carbine but there's no comparing the Thompson to the Schmeisser or the .45 to the Luger.
The Garand was a bit long in the tooth by WWII, but it beat the shit out of the standard issue German weapon, which was still the bolt action '98. The M1 "Thompson" was a fine weapon whose real problem was in production, not in performance. It was a better weapon than the Schmeisser, but not nearly as good as the MP43 or MP44. The Schmeisesser certainly was a more influential design than the M1 Thompson because it was simpler to manufacture.
As for the .45 vs. the Luger, are you nuts? The 1911A1 is arguably the most successful pistol design ever. The Luger is beautiful, and balances well. It shares the same sort of problems as a military weapon as the Thompson. It was popular in civilian use, and well made. However, the Germans replaced it with the P-38 in '42-43. The Colt had superior stopping power, was more rugged, and was very accurate. It's design is still the foundation for automatic pistols around the world.
858. Jack Vincennes - 7/29/2000 6:05:27 PM
As for the Nazi failures in the Soviet Union due to Russian resourcefulness and the do-or-die last-ditch pitches, they are irrelevant to the point of whether the Soviets would have been able to transform their defensive coup into a successful offensive without the Allied press from the West.
In short, the Allies ignore Normandy, bag the Italian campaign, choose to lick their wounds, and negotiate a peace with Hitler (something quite hoped for by those in the Bunker).
Even with this premature political truce, under the scenario, the Allies still equip the Soviets at exactly the rate and tonnage they were equipped for their offensive in the West.
So, for every 6 Soviet divisions, there are 2 to 2.5 German divisions.
I'll take the Germans and I'll lay odds.
859. Jack Vincennes - 7/29/2000 6:06:23 PM
"equipped for their offensive in the West" should state "in the EAST" under my hypothetical.
860. AceofSpades - 7/29/2000 6:09:10 PM
Given that the 1911 Colt .45 is still one of the most popular designs in the world today -- scarcely modified over the years; only replaced as the standard-issue sidearm in the late 1980's (though the Marines kept the Colt, I think) -- I'm at a loss to understand how one can say the 1911 "sucked" in comparison to the obsolete Luger.
861. angel-five - 7/29/2000 6:12:08 PM
Well, the obvious point is that those divisions couldn't have been pulled out and sent East unless there was absolutely no threat of an Allied landing, and even then a fair portion of them would have had to remain in the West simply to keep their conquest under control. If there had been a threat of an Allied landing, pulling those forces out would have converted it into a certainty. The primary problem Nazi forces had in the east, besides being horribly outnumbered by a foe willing to sacrifice enormous amounts of men and material, was one of resources, and the resource problem was primarily caused by Allied bombing. So you'd pretty much have to say, 'Without any threat of conflict with the Western Allies at all, Nazi Germany would have mulched the Soviet' in order to correctly state your case, I think.
That's so far off into the realm of speculation that it's really irrelevant mental masturbation (i.e. perfect for the Mote) but IAC I'm inclined to agree with it, with the above qualifications.
862. angel-five - 7/29/2000 6:19:55 PM
The Luger was lighter, better balanced, and more accurate. It also had a marginally faster rate of fire. This is probably why so many Allied soldiers appropriated and kept Lugers even though the ammunition was a lot harder for them to find than .45 shells.
The Colt .45 is easy to manufacture, dependable, and relatively accurate. It was a fine weapon. It just wasn't as good as the Luger.
The Luger wasn't replaced because it was obsolete, it was replaced because it was much easier to manufacture the P-38.
863. Jack Vincennes - 7/29/2000 6:23:57 PM
angel
I think you took the right bet, even if takling it was like having a wisdom tooth pulled.
Allied bombing was vastly secondary to the presence of 76 divisions taking ground in the West. Indeed, you certainly can't make the argument that it significantly augmented German industrial and hardware output in late 1944, early 1945. What the Allied air superiority did do, however, was devastate the Germans in the West, thus making advance easier and requiring even more siphoning from the German divisions in the East, who otherwise would have more comfortably massacred the advancing Soviet armies.
864. Jack Vincennes - 7/29/2000 6:30:12 PM
I do enjoy - if not agree with - Patton's non-politically correct assessment of the Soviet solider. As Carlo D'Este writes in "Genius for War":
"Although he admired their fighting qualities, Patton thought Russian soldiers little better than robots, and described the hero of the red Army, Marshal Georgei Zhukov, as apelike, "comic opera, covered with medals."
Typically, Patton concluded, "They are a scurvy race and simply svagaes. We could beat hell out of them."
865. AceofSpades - 7/29/2000 6:34:17 PM
"The Luger wasn't replaced because it was obsolete, it was replaced because it was much easier to manufacture the P-38."
Please explain why civilian gun-buyers aren't snapping up this "superior" weapon today. Please explain why no police departments use this superior weapon.
Please explain why it isn't even being manufactured. (Except, perhaps, in tiny runs by a licensor in Brazil or something.)
866. Jack Vincennes - 7/29/2000 6:34:59 PM
More D'Este, Patton and Hap Gay:
"Patton was both impressed and distressed at the severe discipline of the Russians: 'The officers with few exceptions give the appearance of recently civilized Mongolian bandits. The men passed in review with a very good imitation of the goose step. They give me the impression of something that is to be feared in future world political reorganization.'
Gay's diary recorded: 'Everything they did impressed one with the idea of virility and cruelty.' Patton's verdict was that 'in addition to his other amiable characteristics, the Russian has no regard for human life and is an all out son of a bitch, barbarian, and chronic drunk.'"
867. Jack Vincennes - 7/29/2000 6:35:56 PM
I'll never understand why Patton didn't flourish as Military Governor of Bavaria.
868. AceofSpades - 7/29/2000 6:38:51 PM
Here's a bit of politically incorrect stuff from Patton:
Said to a group of 8 year old boys and girls in 1946:
"You will be the soldiers and nurses in the next great war. And there will be another great war. There always has been."
869. angel-five - 7/29/2000 6:47:35 PM
Please explain why civilian gun-buyers aren't snapping up this "superior" weapon today. Please explain why no police departments use this superior weapon.
Ace, you're so funny when you don't know what the hell you're talking about.
Lugers are very collectable indeed, and they're fun to shoot. May people do own them. They're excellent examples of craftmanship.
They're also much harder to manufacture than a Colt, and consequently more expensive. I could turn your analogy around and ask you why it is that police departments don't use Maseratis despite the fact that they're a superior automotive design.
As for why they aren't made today... well, the old-model Volkswagen Beetle is still manufactured today, for the same reason that the Colt is. It's a cheap and dependable car that's easy to service. If you'd thought for a second before you jerked your knee looking for a counter argument, I'm sure this would have occurred to you, because you're at least marginally bright if a tad frothy in the brain.
870. angel-five - 7/29/2000 7:02:49 PM
I mean, this from the guy who claims to be afraid of shooting a firearm.
Have you ever fired a Luger, Ace?
No? How about, say, a precision crafted original .50 caliber Hawken rifle? You know, one of the most accurate and famed hunting weapons ever? Why is it that no one manufactures them anymore, favoring instead mass-produced Hawken knock-offs from CVA and such places? Wow, I guess these knock-offs are superior to the original, because, hell, no one makes them anymore, or hunts with them.
And, you know, cops don't carry Browning match pistols, so I guess they must be inferior to .357s and Glocks.
Whatta maroon.
871. angel-five - 7/29/2000 7:09:10 PM
Anyway.
Jones. I've never heard the Thompson mentioned as superior to the Schmeisser. Most of what I heard about the Thompson in WWII was that they jammed easily and were very hard to properly clean -- that people died trying to field strip them, in fact, because if it was done hastily the firing spring assembly had a nasty tendency to rip right through your throat. But I might have made a hasty generalization. Do tell me, if you would, why the Thompson was so highly regarded -- aside from the fact that it was the only light SMG that was really available to the average GI.
872. jonesatlaw - 7/29/2000 10:18:29 PM
Angel-Ace
1. The Luger did have fine balance, and has a bit of mystique to it, thus it's desireability amoung GI's. It is an elegant looking design and harkens back to the days of officers as "gentlemen" and the Red Baron.
2. The Luger has one more cartridge per magazine than the Colt, but otherwise I don't understand your "rate of fire" comment. It's not human possible to pull the trigger on either fast enough to outrun the action of the pistol, so its a wash. If you are referring to the Luger as better balanced and lighter in recoil and thus easier to bring back to target, I guess I would refer you to modern combat shooting competitions where modified 1911's still dominate.
3. The Luger was removed from service for more than machining problems. The toggle recoil action is prone to jams in cold weather, is highly sensitive to dirt, and variances in ammunition. The P38 was a superior military weapon.
4. As for the Thompson, it was always a popular weapon with the troops, more so than the Sten or M3 which replaced it in allied forces. The Marines were still using it in Korea, and it was sought after, especially by tank crews, who tried to avoid the "grease gun" and the M-2. It had a higher rate of fire than the MP38/40 and was less prone to jams. The .45 ball was also harder hitting than the 9mm.
Finally, the Luger is still in civilian production under an old American license that pre-dates WWI.
873. angel-five - 7/29/2000 10:29:14 PM
If you are referring to the Luger as
better balanced and lighter in recoil and thus easier to bring back to
target,
Yup.
I guess I would refer you to modern combat shooting
competitions where modified 1911's still dominate.
I guess a key word here would be 'modified'.
The toggle recoil action is prone to jams in cold weather, is
highly sensitive to dirt, and variances in ammunition.
Thanks. I'd never heard that.
874. Indiana Jones - 7/29/2000 10:37:13 PM
One aside about the Russian troops...can't remember the source, but it was one of those "a soldier's story" personal recollections. (I would think it was "Eyewitness to History," but it seems to me I remember the guy speaking it, so more likely a book I've listened to on tape.)
Anyway, it was when the Americans were meeting up with the Russians along the Elbe and so everyone was gladhanding and celebrating all around, knowing the war would be over in a few short days. The Russians and Americans did the slap each other on the back thing, swap cigarettes for vodka, and as evening fell returned to their respective positions. In the middle of the night according to this GI, the Russians had become totally plastered and begun to shut off their guns...in the direction of the Americans.
He said he remembered hunkering down all night and thinking, "Damn, made it through the entire war to get killed like this."
875. Indiana Jones - 7/29/2000 10:51:00 PM
Jack (850): Thanks for the actual numbers. That's more reasonable, though still not the impression I had previously. I'm pleased to see the Allies weren't facing a small fraction of what the Russians dealt with, even if the Russians still faced more.
One other stat I came across, which I wish I'd bookmarked but didn't, mentioned that the Germans on the Russian front dropped by about 900,000 between Jan and Dec 1944. Some of that was losses, I'm sure, but some of it had to be the result of Normandy and the Bulge offensive.
Also, for general info in comparing, I saw a note that mentioned German divisions were about 1.5 to 1 in manpower vs. Russian.
876. jonesatlaw - 7/29/2000 10:53:13 PM
Re "modified 1911A1's"
Most of the modifications are to the trigger, thumb spur and grips. Usually in order to trim some weight and to mold the weapon to the hand. Everyone that shoots in these things does the same to their weapons, unless they have those sorts of modifications already done by purchasing a model already set up for the sport. Even so, they are almost always based on the 1911. Only recently have some of the more modern weapons begun to replace the 1911.
Auto-Ordnance, Colt, Entreprise Arms, Kimber, Llama, Para-Ordnance, Safari Arms, and Springfield all still produce 1911's or clones of the .45.
Stoger arms produces the Luger, in one caliber, with a choice of 4" or 6" barrels.
877. jonesatlaw - 7/29/2000 10:57:31 PM
Finally, the Sweedes and the Finns did produce pistols that looked like the Luger but had a totally different operating system because of their climate. They had fine balance as the parent weapon did, but because of their construction were more reliable in the field, and had a better trigger pull.
878. Cellar Door - 7/29/2000 11:56:03 PM
Required Reading: "A Court of No Appeal" by Renata Adler in the August "Harper's" magazine.
879. angel-five - 7/30/2000 1:52:55 AM
Just to clarify, Jones:
Are you saying that the only difference between the match pistols and the standard issue sidearm for American officers in WWII is in the grip, trigger, and spur?
880. jonesatlaw - 7/30/2000 2:22:32 AM
A-5:
The standard issue has a military non glare finish, early models had a long spur trigger, a solid trigger and narrower grips. The current combat match versions have custom sights, sometimes target style and sometimes other exotics, skelltonized triggers and fatter grips. The machining and fitting is more exacting than military weapons.
The real question is, why don't people do the same with Lugers, if it is a superior weapon? Or for that matter, just use Lugers without modifications?
881. jonesatlaw - 7/30/2000 2:29:35 AM
Don't take my word for it- try Ian Hogg'sand John Weeks "Nothing succeeds like success, and the Colt M1911 pistols are without doubt amongst the most successful combat pistols ever invented. Incredibly robust and with more than enough leathality and stopping power from the 230 gr. bullet- which delivers 380 ft.lbs of energy at the muzzle,the Colt has, since its inception in 1911 armed the US Army and Navy and has been used by many other forces." Military Small Arms of the Twentieth Century, 1973 Digest Press.
882. AceofSpades - 7/30/2000 2:32:21 AM
Match pistols are made with more demanding tolerances, aren't they?
883. jonesatlaw - 7/30/2000 2:55:37 AM
re 822- Yes, thus the machining and fitting comment above. However, with mass production, some guns will naturally have the same qualities by chance as a match weapon, while others may be "lemons."
884. AceofSpades - 7/30/2000 3:03:15 AM
Jones--
I didn't read that part of your post.
885. angel-five - 7/30/2000 1:03:03 PM
The real question is, why don't people do the same with Lugers, if it is a superior weapon? Or for that matter, just use Lugers without modifications?
Why do .357s and 9mm pistols dominate at police shooting competitions?
Am I wrong in the knowledge that the majority of people who shoot at places like Camp Perry learned to fire a weapon in the military and therefore learned pistol skills with a .45 and are more likely as a consequence to develop mastery with them?
I mean, don't get me wrong, this has been educational and the 1911 is probably a better weapon than I gave it credit for, but your arguments aren't really convincing.
886. AceofSpades - 7/30/2000 1:07:35 PM
angel--
his arguments are quite convincing and you know it, you occasional objection aside.
Browning developed a hell of a gun in 1911. (Yeah, it was good old Browning.) The simple fact that the 1911 colt .45 is still a best-selling weapon design should back you off any notions of the weapon's "inferiority."
I mean, come on-- a weapon design which has remained extremely popular with military and civilian users for 89 frigging years.
887. amax - 7/30/2000 9:17:20 PM
I have no direct proof of this, but from a lot of the accounts that I have read of the post-D-Day campaigns, most of the german units were in the western front were there to rest-n-refit, and only incidentally to resist the A-B's. F'r instance, the German armored regiments that took part in the Market-Garden campaign had been transfered there from the eastern front, where they had suffered 60-80% casualties. I recall reading that if an American armored unit suffered more than 40% casualties, it was considered destroyed and would be disbanded. Well, I just recieved a copy of a book called Invasion!:They're Coming! purportedly about the Normandy campaign from the German point of view. I'll post a review in about a week or so.
888. amax - 7/30/2000 9:23:13 PM
In terms of technology, yeah, I know that the Garand was a much better weapon than the Krag-98's the german infantry was issued with, but in total everything else the Germans had - from the MG42 up to Armor - was better than the American's unit. While I found the discussion on the m1917 interesting, I would lay a bet that pistol wounds were a pretty small % of the total casualties on either side. I suppose you could make a case for the proximity fuses the Americans had as being technologically superior, but from what I read, the German artillery spotter system more than compensated --making the Germans again the victors in the broad sense of technology.
889. amax - 7/30/2000 9:24:17 PM
er, make that the m1911 in the post above.
890. Wombat - 7/31/2000 4:12:18 PM
Some of the German units defending Normandy were foreign conscripts and reserve units with men in their 40s and 50s.
I would suggest that, in terms of weapons technology and logistics, the Allied triumph was due to a superabundance of the "good enough" against scarce amounts of the "superior." That said, there were a number of Allied weapon systems that were superior to their German equivalent. The T-34 (76mm and later 85mm) was a better design than the Pkw IV and Panther. The Garand M-1 was the only semiautomatic rifle used by any army for most of the war. The P-51 and Spitfire were superior to the BF-109, and the latter was easily upgraded in response to the advent of the FW-190.
The other area in which the Allies were superior was in operational and tactical flexiblity, and interservice cooperation.
891. DocBrown - 7/31/2000 4:52:27 PM
The Germans used U Boats very effectively.
The Americans had pretty good submarines with defective torpedoes and a bureaucracy that insisted on blaming the Captains and crews for their failure.
Another great Allied advantage was America's propaganda machine: Hollywood. Once Moe Howard started playing him, Hitler never stood a chance.
892. Wombat - 7/31/2000 5:11:47 PM
Doc:
The Germans had similar problems with their torpedoes at the beginning of the war. The failure of magnetic detonators saved the British carrier Ark Royal when it was attacked by a U-Boat while out on an antisubmarine "sweep."
893. Jenerator - 8/1/2000 11:16:55 AM
Take the Internet Addiction Quiz in the Internet Thread!! 894. marshame - 8/1/2000 11:56:40 AM
895. AytchMan - 8/2/2000 1:51:44 PM
Assuming access to a reasonably comprehensive and honest news source, what would the average German citizen see as the high point of the war (event and/or month and year)?
896. AytchMan - 8/2/2000 1:56:36 PM
clarification: a German citizen during the war, not today.
897. Indiana Jones - 8/2/2000 1:58:27 PM
I'd say an intelligent German citizen would probably think sometime around June-July 1940, with the crushing of the French.
Your average German citizen, maybe Sept. - Oct. 1941, while the push into Russia was going so well.
I think after Dec. 1941 (and declaring war on the U.S. only six months after doing the same to Russia), you'd have to be a fool not to know what the outcome was going to be. Which I guess includes Adolf.
898. AytchMan - 8/2/2000 2:11:22 PM
That's a pretty shrewd analysis although I'd probably lump the smart guy's high point in with the average guy. In the fall of 1941, many (most?) intelligent observers still thought Russia was finished. Since it's the perception that's important here (based on available info), the fact that they were wrong is beside the point.
899. Indiana Jones - 8/2/2000 2:37:43 PM
Aytch: I guess I come down on the air of caution. If I'd been living in Germany during the time under discussion, I'd have been ecstatic when the French were crushed...and likely never breathed an easy moment after June 1941.
900. AytchMan - 8/4/2000 1:38:36 AM
With benefit of hindsight, I think most observers would declare something close to a tie between Hitler and the Nazis and Stalin and the Communists in the Reprehensibility Sweepstakes. Certainly, both were evil entities. Yet, throughout the 1930's, many people in the West (including some well-known, well-respected personalities) supported and sympathized with the Soviet government and communism in general. On the other hand, a much smaller number (including very few personalities -- Lindbergh being the best-known, I suppose) favored the fascists.
Why? I've got a couple of theories but I'd like to hear what you guys think.
901. Jack Vincennes - 8/4/2000 9:07:39 AM
The Nazis had better attire.
902. PelleNilsson - 8/4/2000 9:25:19 AM
The professed goal of the communists was noble, that of the nazis was not.
903. Jack Vincennes - 8/4/2000 9:31:11 AM
Pelle
Absurd. The "professed" goal of the Nazis was to strengthen Germany and unshackle it from the chains of the WWI terms. The "professed" goal of the communists was a change in social and economic conditions.
The sick and dark heart of those goals was the slaughter of millions of innocents.
904. CalGal - 8/4/2000 9:34:21 AM
Jack,
You've just stated the "professed goals" fairly nicely. Now, if you were an outsider, and focusing only on "professed goals", which sounds more interesting and attractive?
Nothing absurd about it.
905. Jack Vincennes - 8/4/2000 9:41:02 AM
Cal
If you were a German, no. 1 sounds better than no. 2. If you were a Russian, no. 2 sounds better than no. 1. If you were a Finn, I can't imagine you would care all that much.
906. DocBrown - 8/4/2000 9:52:25 AM
AytchMan, I would not say that Lindbergh "favored the fascists." He simply believed that the Allies could not defeat Germany. He did refer to Germany as the enemy.
I expect that those Americans who favored the communists were disenchanted with capitalism. After all, this happened during the Great Depression.
907. CalGal - 8/4/2000 10:06:31 AM
Jack,
But clearly the intelligentsia in other countries--if not Finland--did get involved, else Aytch wouldn't have had any basis to ask the question.
Communism was quite the thing among certain circles in the US. Fascism wa
