The Amercian Soldier in ETO - WW2

[Frenchy]

For those interested, I have posted an interesting study of the GI in Europe during WW2.

http://www.trailblazersww2.org/american_soldier.htm

Comments can be posted in this forum if you wish. Thought it would be of interest to CM players.

------------------

Webmaster

http://www.trailblazersww2.org

http://www.vmfa251.org

[Guest wwb_99]

Interesting, especially the section on killing Japanese vs. German soldiers. Really demonstrates the difference between fighting within your culture and fighting outside your culture.

WWB

------------------

Before battle, my digital soldiers turn to me and say,

Ave, Caesar! Morituri te salutamus.

[Jeff Heidman]

Interesting study, but mostly pretty obvious stuff.

The only thing I found surprising was the low occurence of the men saying they worried a lot about being wounded.

Jeff Heidman

[Terence]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by wwb_99:

Interesting, especially the section on killing Japanese vs. German soldiers. Really demonstrates the difference between fighting within your culture and fighting outside your culture.

WWB

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

yes, it certainly is an interesting result.

38 -44 percent say they would "like to kill a Japanese soldier" whereas only 5-9 percent would "like to kill" German soldiers.

I wonder if it has anything to do with anger over the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, in addition to the cultural factors you mention.

[Guest wwb_99]

Qute possibly. There has always been some question as to weather or not we would have nuked Germany, a.k.a. the old country for many, many Americans.

------------------

Before battle, my digital soldiers turn to me and say,

Ave, Caesar! Morituri te salutamus.

[Marlow]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by wwb_99:

Qute possibly. There has always been some question as to weather or not we would have nuked Germany, a.k.a. the old country for many, many Americans.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What about Dresden?

[russellmz]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by wwb_99:

Qute possibly. There has always been some question as to weather or not we would have nuked Germany, a.k.a. the old country for many, many Americans.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

wasn't the a bomb developed BECAUSE of the german threat?

------------------

russellmz,

Self-Proclaimed Keeper for Life of the Sacred Unofficial FAQ.

"They had their chance- they have not lead!" - GW Bush

"They had mechanical pencils- they have not...lead?" - Jon Stewart on The Daily Show

[Maj. Bosco]

The bomb was developed to end the war. If that meant bombing Germany or Japan then we were up to it. If it meant bombing Moscow then we were almost certainly up to it.

[Warren Peace]

The problem with the question about killing the German verse the Japanese soldier is that it is asked in training camp. For both cultural and propaganda reasons the percentages come out as indicated.

However, once the troops are in the line I don't think there was any difference. That is once the troops started recieving fire they wanted to kill the other guy regardless.

[M. Bates]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The bomb was developed to end the war. If that meant bombing Germany or Japan then we were up to it. If it meant bombing Moscow then we were almost certainly up to it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Surely the USA used the bomb against Japan rather than see unnecessary bloodshed with a ground invasion of the mainland.

Doing it in Asia is one thing, but I don't think the USA would have dropped it in mainland Europe, it just wouldn't look good.

[Walter]

The bomb was developed to stop fascist Germany. Guess which continent the majority of the most important scientists who worked on the bomb were from? Certain of them almost certainly would have gone to Britain to work on the bomb for attacking Germany, if the United States did not end up at war with the Nazis. The majority of these scientists had one quarrel with the Japanese, that they were allied with the Nazis who had forced them to leave their homes.

Cheers,

Walter R. Strapps

[Terence]

One other thing -- the methodology of this survey is a little suspect -- unavoidably so.

Soldiers in service during wartime asked questions may have given the answers they thought they were supposed to give.

This data may be skewed for that reason.

How else could we have gathered the data? No idea right off the top of my head. And does it really matter? no, probably not since nobody here is writing a paper or making policy based on the survey...

[Major Tom]

I think that the impression of 'liking' to kill either a German or a Japanese continued on into combat. One thing that I noticed through a lot of photographs was the mutilation of Japanese corpses where this did not occur with German dead. Also, German war dead rarely were seen in American pictures, while Japanese dead were routinely photographed. Many pictures show US troops standing over a dead Japanese, looking kind of like hunters with a trophy.

Not to say that all Allied solders fighting the Japanese were treating them solely like animals, but, it is easier to look upon a dead German and 'see' an American dressed in German clothes than it is to look upon a dead Japanese. So they could relate more to the German dead, so, they treated them more tactifully.

In a firefight I don't think that there is any sort of 'like' or 'dislike' of killing one's enemy. It would probably usually come down to instinct and training taking over, and you rarely ever were face to face with your enemy, or there long enought to contemplate wether or not you will 'like' to kill them or not.

The best way to judge any of this racial hatred would probably be through pre-battle and post-battle accounts.

[Spook]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Major Tom:

I think that the impression of 'liking' to kill either a German or a Japanese continued on into combat. One thing that I noticed through a lot of photographs was the mutilation of Japanese corpses where this did not occur with German dead. Also, German war dead rarely were seen in American pictures, while Japanese dead were routinely photographed. Many pictures show US troops standing over a dead Japanese, looking kind of like hunters with a trophy.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would affirm some of your comments, Major Tom, such as checking on which interviews were pre-battle and which were post-battle.

But I have to counter about the "rarity" of dead Germans being photographed by US forces. In fact, some of the older WW2 pictorial histories I've seen would just as often show dead Germans as dead Japanese, particularly from the Bulge battle. What was likely more of a challenge to portray was dead US soldiers and providing these to the "public domain." Such pictures were certainly taken, and some did get portrayed for US news sources in WW2 (like the famous "Buna beach" scene), but many would instead end up being archived and not surfacing until decades later.

[Jeff Heidman]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by M. Bates:

Surely the USA used the bomb against Japan rather than see unnecessary bloodshed with a ground invasion of the mainland.

Doing it in Asia is one thing, but I don't think the USA would have dropped it in mainland Europe, it just wouldn't look good.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And firebombing Dresden "looked good"?

The idea that the US was nice enough to spare Berlin the bomb is a pipe dream. Germany was the intended target for the bomb, and you can be certain that had the bomb been ready in May 1944, the US would have wasted no time in making that nasty invasion thing unnecessary.

Jeff Heidman

[Jeff Heidman]

Another issue in the treatment of the Japanese in combat (not really related to this study however) is the ferocity of the fighting.

While the WEstern Front could certainly be brutal, only at its worst did it approcah the norm for the standards of combat in the Pacific. The Japanese, up until the very end, almost never surrendered. It was not uncommon for Japanese soldiers to use the same kamikaze tactics that their compatriots in the air force used. Strapping a satchel charge to your back and diving under the nearest Sherman was considered a great way to go.

The result was that the brutality with which the Pacific campaigns were fought quickly reached an extreme almost unheard of on the Western Front. Quarter was never expected, and quarter was (almost) never given.

This (to American minds) insane behavior on the part of the Japanese soldiers merely reinforced the already existing idea that the opponents were less than human, and not worthy of the consideration given to the German soldiers.

Jeff Heidman

[Croda]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Spook:

...What was likely more of a challenge to portray was dead US soldiers and providing these to the "public domain." Such pictures were certainly taken, and some did get portrayed for US news sources in WW2 (like the famous "Buna beach" scene), but many would instead end up being archived and not surfacing until decades later.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

IIRC, several of the photographers in the ABC show 'Shooting War' last week stated that they avoided filming U.S. dead for fear that someone at home would recognize them. I also got the impression from watching the film in that show that Japanese dead appeared to be filmed more often, but possible because the front lines were so close, the photographers just happened to catch more being shot/burning/etc. Perhaps it was a difference in combat photography training between the Marines and the Army, who knows.

------------------

WARNING! WARNING! WARNING! WARNING! -

THIS SIG FILE BELONGS TO A COMPLETE FOO.

MR T WOULDN'T BE SO KIND AS TO WRINKLE AN EYEBROW AT THIS UNFORTUNATE BEING. PLEASE OFFER HIS PARENTS AND COHABITANTS ALL SYMPATHY POSSIBLE. MAY BE CONTAGIOUS. CONTAINS ARTIFICIAL SWEETNER, INTELLIGENCE AND WIT. STAND WELL CLEAR AND LIGHT WICK. BY ORDER PETERNZ

Damn Croda. That is one funny sig!!!

must suck to be you - Hiram Sedai

[Scrogdog]

The bomb may have been developed to end the war, but it was *used* to curtail Soviet expansion. The Soviets, after declaring war on Japan, were quickly redeploying to the East for a land grab.

Japan could have been starved in to submission quite easily. They had no navy left. Further, I don't buy what most people say about the threat of kamikazes at that point. Even if you disagree, utilizing subs and long range air for surveillance, we could have kept our fast carrier groups out of land-based air range using them to pummel anything that sortied (a moot point, since there was nothing).

There was no military reason to invade Japan, IMHO.

[M. Bates]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>And firebombing Dresden "looked good"?

The idea that the US was nice enough to spare Berlin the bomb is a pipe dream. Germany was the intended target for the bomb, and you can be certain that had the bomb been ready in May 1944, the US would have wasted no time in making that nasty invasion thing unnecessary.

Jeff Heidman<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I forget how many died on the beaches on D Day, but I think it was under 10,000.

Dropping the bomb on Germany would cost more lives than save.

[Walter]

"I forget how many died on the beaches on D Day, but I think it was under 10,000.

Dropping the bomb on Germany would cost more lives than save."

Unfortunately for those who died between June, 1944 and May, 1945, the war in Europe did not end on D-Day...

Cheers,

Walter R. Strapps

[Marlow]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Scrogdog:

The bomb may have been developed to end the war, but it was *used* to curtail Soviet expansion. The Soviets, after declaring war on Japan, were quickly redeploying to the East for a land grab.

Japan could have been starved in to submission quite easily. They had no navy left. Further, I don't buy what most people say about the threat of kamikazes at that point. Even if you disagree, utilizing subs and long range air for surveillance, we could have kept our fast carrier groups out of land-based air range using them to pummel anything that sortied (a moot point, since there was nothing).

There was no military reason to invade Japan, IMHO.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your opinion is being viewed through the filter of 50 years. From a cold, objective point of view, we can debate the moral and military ramifications, as well as the actual purpose of the Bomb, but we also must remember that human emotions are often far stronger than pure reason. Imperial Japan was one of the most brutal military dictatorships of modern history. E.g. Nanking(there is a story from Naking where a SS officer who was there as an advisor was sickened by what he saw), Bataan, the human medical experiments, etc…. Americans were well aware of this, and to suggest that we should have either prolonged the war, and risked additional America lives (even without the invasion, lives would have been lost), or negotiated a less than complete surrender is ignoring the reality of 1945. Whether right or wrong, the human impulse toward retribution is real, and must be included in any calculus of why we dropped the bomb.

[Marlow]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by M. Bates:

I forget how many died on the beaches on D Day, but I think it was under 10,000.

Dropping the bomb on Germany would cost more lives than save.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Whose lives? Are you suggesting that a military not use an effective weapon because it will kill more of the enemy than it will save friendly lives?

[M. Bates]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Whose lives? Are you suggesting that a military not use an effective weapon because it will kill more of the enemy than it will save friendly lives? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes sir that is -exactly- what I am suggesting.

Of course it is in the end a matter of judgement. For example, wiping Iraq off the face of the earth a few years ago would have had more downsides than upsides, no matter how many Allied lives could have gotten saved.

[Marlow]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by M. Bates:

Yes sir that is -exactly- what I am suggesting.

Of course it is in the end a matter of judgement. For example, wiping Iraq off the face of the earth a few years ago would have had more downsides than upsides, no matter how many Allied lives could have gotten saved.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Iraq is a good example of the "kill as many of the enemy as you can to save your guys" school of thought. How do you think the U.S. and its allies kept the friendly body count so low? We bombed the hell out of the Iraqis, even a lot of the soldiers that didn't want to fight for Sadam, to save our boys lives. Would we have saved more of ours than we killed of theirs, doubtful. (I don't have the exact figures, but they are astounding. Well over one hundred thousand iraqi casualies IIRC). I have no problem with this approach.

[This message has been edited by Marlow (edited 12-14-2000).]

[M. Bates]

Yeah, but we've got to be friends with these people afterwards!