Best soldiers of WWII?

[ferdinand]

Londoner, thats interesting, especially since i've just finished reading Bourke's book.

Could you clarify what you mean by "warrior ethics" ? It seems you equate this with willingness to kill, and your examples come mostly from young volunteers.

I would have thought that the "warrior code" was for professional soldiers, and included things such as protecting civilians, not killing an ennemy who surrenders, accepting sacrifice i.e. a good soldier (to come back to the subject of the thread) is not just a killer.

[Warmaker]

For a better understanding on the Japanese mentality of war, I suggest digging into Samurai and warfare in Feudal Japan. Also take into account the government's twisting and perversion of Bushido for their use in the early 20th century. You'll find some interesting reading.

[von Lucke]

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

For a better understanding on the Japanese mentality of war, I suggest digging into Samurai and warfare in Feudal Japan. Also take into account the government's twisting and perversion of Bushido for their use in the early 20th century. You'll find some interesting reading.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Along those lines I'd recommend "Zen and The Way of the Sword --- Arming the Samurai Psyche", and "A Glorious Way to Die".

[RMC]

Wow.

Interesting that you talk about the failings of the repple depple system. Balkoski used the same thing to highlight the German system that had soldiers associated with a specific unit in their training and all the way through to aarrival at the front. This would have the effect of heightening cohesion amongst the German troops.

Also worth looking at is something I've seen mentioned before in this regard. I have often seen comments about the German ability to form kampfgruppen from fragments of units and make them fight effectively while the US was never able to do this.

[Londoner]

Glad you found it interesting Ferdinand/RMC. Broadly speaking, the "warrior ethos" seems to be the belief that battle is the ultimate test/trial of manhood. However as you point out their are other attributes attached to it.

Gyene? Is that how you spell it? No insult meant I just couldn't remember you name. Ok fair enough, I'll drop the insults, the only reason I used so crude a term was because you seemed to be oblivious to some of objections raised. You just dissmissed them. Also you knew what I meant when I said "do you think I'd waste my time.." Of course I dont think it was time wasted. I discovered alot of stuff I didnt know about a fasinating subject, and I got a nice grade that went towards my final degree. Again you mince words. BTW are you really a child or did I, in my stupidity miss the joke? Oh and your little after thought about being on different continents is pathetic in the extreme. I'm a 6 foot black Londoner with almost 10 years of heavy weight training behind me. I'd happily tell you in person, what I've said here, without to much fear of an effective physical response from your good self. LOL why did you have to add that BS on the end?

[ 05-03-2001: Message edited by: Londoner ]

[Warmaker]

It seems that in the past I've heaped praises for the German armed forces. However, we all know there were faults and I want to get into the one I know best and to be more "narrowed down." My example is the Luftwaffe. It is my understanding that once men were usually assigned to a staffel (squadron) they were there for the entire duration usually. For one, it can build cohesion. Also, being in a combat zone for so long led for a variety of reasons why Germany had so many HIGH scoring aces, i.e. Erich Hartmann with 352 kills... and surviving the war. A kill record I don't see anyone breaking anytime soon, barring only a true, large scale war. Hell, there's even more with 100+kills from the Luftwaffe. But this also contributed to the downturn of the Luftwaffe. Not enough of these experten were rotated back for duties like instructor duty. It also eventually led to many high scoring aces' demise that, well... luck ran out in some of their cases from fighting continuously for years. Rotations to the rear were probably less common, though I'm not concrete on this. Hell, they were fighting on two fronts and trying to even match the numerical might of the USAAC and the RAF is a problem itself. Not to mention the growing numbers of the Soviet Air Force as the war dragged on.

[Abteilung]

Dont' forget about the FJ who essentially single-handedly cracked those "impregnable" Belgian fortresses in '40. Not to say they were the best troops or anything as grandiose as that, just that they had an immense impact on the Allied nations. I believe we (USA) didn't actually have airborne troops until after '40 IIRC.

[Dr. Brian]

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

Let me address a few things here with my meagre knowledge.

Dr. Brain.

In regards to your classification of 'backwards', in regards to military implementation (does this mean depolyment, tactics, equipment, etc?), then you could classify the Russian Army until 1943, the US Army until 1943, the British/Commonwealth Armies until 1943, etc. ALL as 'backwards'. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Major Tim,

What's your point?

[REVS]

This is the thread of infinite tangents, written about almost exlusively by people who were never there. Maybe all people who were never there should start their authoritative contributions with "I was never there but..." and all the people who were there could start off by saying "I'm 82 years old now, and my memory's fading, but...."

How about a bit of modesty, moderation and room for doubt and, perhaps, the chance that new information might change your mind...

[Major Tom]

Dr. Brain

(please no messing with handles outside the Peng threads, it is a sign of lack of respect, unless it was a typo)

If you take my entire post into connentation, then you will realize that the only way the Allies were able to conquer Germany from 1943-1945 was that in comparison the German army was comparatively 'backward'. Their general equipment, tactics and deployment were obsolete in 1944, just like the Allieds were in 1940.

It was not just a matter of the Germans engaged backward troops in 1940, and the Allied beat out an equal force in 1944, but whenever a side had initiative their opponent usually fit into the description of 'backward', as, they were not able to counter their enemy effectively.

To state that the Germans won in 1940-41 because they were up against 'backward' nations and ignoring the fact that from 1944-45 Germany, when compared to the war effort of the Allies in equipment (not just tanks), tactics and deployment (All tank formations became obsolete in 1942) was relatively 'backward'. The period from 1942-1943, throughout the war in Europe, was an era of a change of initiative. The Germans started losing it and the Allies started gaining it.

Tactically, initiative goes to the side that has something that the other cannot stop. In 1939-41 the Germans had Blitzkrieg, which no matter the quality or ability of their opponent they could not effectively counter it. From 1944-1945 the Allies used the strategy of massed equipment. No special wings of the army, such as the German Armoured Korps, but, an entire well equipped army. This effectively countered Blitzkrieg as even a lowly Allied Infantry Division was more than a match against a German Panzer Division, and possibly even a Panzer Korps.

However, the Allies had to learn this through their many defeats. Germany was not given the time to learn how to defeat the Allied strategy, as they had nowhere to retreat by 1944, unlike the Allies in 1940.

So, stating that Germany was not as powerful as they were made out to be in 1940 becase their opponents were 'backward' can also be used to say that the Allies were not as poerful as they were made out to be, because in 1944 Germany could be seen as 'backward'.

However, just by the fact that in 1940 Germany was NOT 'backward', and in 1944 the Allies were NOT 'backward' not only says something of their opponents, but, something of them. Not being 'backward' means that they ARE using their equipment, deployment and tactics better than their opponent, which means that their opponent (Allies 1940, Germany 1944) is not necessarily 'lowered', but they (Germans 1940, Allies 1944) could be 'raised' in quality.

This was what I was trying to get at.

[Wesy]

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

> by late 1945 the Kwantung Army (IJA in

> Manchuria) was a shell of it's former

> self.

Yes, but I am talking about what soviet officers thought about their opponents' tactical skills in combnined arms warfare, not about their numbers or anything like that. And basically, after five years of fighting germans, japanese did not seem up to par.

To clarify what I meant, by Aug. 45 the units that were stationed in China were 1)Exhausted from previous offensives in China 2) Poorly equiped/supported 3) Not prepared to stop a Soviet Offensive 4) units in the pacific and other areas were drawn from the talent pool in China.

> My uncle in fact was captured by the

> Soviets and spent three years in the Gulag

> near Lake Baikal.

Baikal. Not the worst place of them all. If you take a look at diesel vs petrol thread, I lived in a house built by Japanese POWs. Very good house, by the way. Double walls and everything.

Btw, Gulag was Department of Camps, NKVD. Your uncle should have been a client of a different organisation, namely Department of POWs, NKO.

> Didn't sound like much fun to me...

I guess so. At least, he survived.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks for the clarification on this point...All in all probably not the best place to be for three years. He is indeed lucky as many of the POWs died in those camps.

[Skipper]

> He is indeed lucky as many of the POWs

> died in those camps.

Yup. Some 10%. Germans taken around Stalingrad were not anywhere as lucky.

[Kanonier Reichmann]

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

Yup. Some 10%. Germans taken around Stalingrad were not anywhere as lucky.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What was it again? I thought I read somewhere that only about 9,000 returned from the Gulags (or whatever you want to call them) from the approximately 200,000 men captured from the shattered remnants of the German 6th army. Is that approximately right?

Regards

Jim R.

[MrSpkr]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kanonier Reichmann:

What was it again? I thought I read somewhere that only about 9,000 returned from the Gulags (or whatever you want to call them) from the approximately 200,000 men captured from the shattered remnants of the German 6th army. Is that approximately right?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your figure, KR, is more in line with what I have read, also. In many cases, the Soviets did not release German or Italian POW's until five or more years after the war was over. Starvation and disease were the primary culprits - I have read eyewitness accounts of cannibalism in the camps, as well as reprocessing human waste to sift out undigested food. Disgusting, but probably true.

You know, its tangents like this that are interesting to read, rahter than the rants and personal attacks and penis waving ("I'm bigger than you, say it to my face") crap. Thanks for a good posting.

MrSpkr

[Kanonier Reichmann]

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

You know, its tangents like this that are interesting to read, rahter than the rants and personal attacks and penis waving ("I'm bigger than you, say it to my face") crap. Thanks for a good posting.

MrSpkr<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeh, thanks. Notice how us Aussie types don't tend to crap on about how great our troops were during WW II (except in defence of ignorant posts about them)... we already KNOW which troops were the best!

Regards

Jim R.

[Skipper]

I've seen these figures somewhere, but was unable to track down the source. Not as few as you say - from the memory the number of survivors was in the range of 30 to 50%.

I have total numbers from Col. Gen. Krivoshein.

Axis POWs in Soviet captivity:

captured 4,1 mln, including 2.4 mln germans

died in captivity 0.6 mln, incl 0.45 mln germans

To put this in perspective, Soviet POWs in German captivity:

captured 4,6 mln combatants,

died in captivity 3.3 mln

Notably, soviet ration for german POWs was officially equivalent to the ration of a soviet private infantryman out of frontline duties (it wasn't much, and they didn't get it all, probably, but...). OTOH, german ration for a soviet POW was way below that level.

Source: Gen.Col. Krivoshein, report to the Association of WWII historians, 29.12.1998

http://web.referent.ru:2003/nvk/forum/archive/24/24909.htm (in Russian)

[Terence]

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

I've seen these figures somewhere, but was unable to track down the source. Not as few as you say - from the memory the number of survivors was in the range of 30 to 50%.

I have total numbers from Col. Gen. Krivoshein.

Axis POWs in Soviet captivity:

captured 4,1 mln, including 2.4 mln germans

died in captivity 0.6 mln, incl 0.45 mln germans

To put this in perspective, Soviet POWs in German captivity:

captured 4,6 mln combatants,

died in captivity 3.3 mln

Notably, soviet ration for german POWs was officially equivalent to the ration of a soviet private infantryman out of frontline duties (it wasn't much, and they didn't get it all, probably, but...). OTOH, german ration for a soviet POW was way below that level.

Source: Gen.Col. Krivoshein, report to the Association of WWII historians, 29.12.1998

http://web.referent.ru:2003/nvk/forum/archive/24/24909.htm (in Russian)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think that this POW issue is one of those places where nobody is going to score any points.

That set of figures you cited represents brutality and inhuman cruelty on both sides that really beggars the imagination.

[Kanonier Reichmann]

I couldn't agree more. I certainly don't want this to degenerate into some sort of discussion along the lines of "our troops were treated worse than your troops". Rest assured that the conditions in any of those German, Soviet or for that matter, Japanese POW camps would have been horrendous and thankfully none of us will have to endure such deprivation.

Regards

Jim R.

[MrSpkr]

Skipper-

For overall German POW's, you are probably right. However, the Stalingrad POW's fared far worse. The likely cause was the fact that many of those captured were already extremely malnourished before they were forced to march long distances in appaling weather (remember, they surrendered in Jan/Feb), thhus causing an already appalling attrition rate to skyrocket.

I have also read that the POW camp guards, many of them from Siberia, often took the "pick of the lot" of any food or materials sent for the POW's/

MrSpkrMrSpkr

[Dr. Brian]

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

Dr. Brain

(please no messing with handles outside the Peng threads, it is a sign of lack of respect, unless it was a typo)

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Major Tim,

First, my typing skills are the same as yours, so I'm suffering from the same typos as you. If however, the mulitple (and successive) times you "messed with my handle" are indeed typos and as you say, not a "lack of respect" I will ensure I proof read extra for you.

Anyway, Germany was not "backward" late war. We clearly have two different interpretations of "backward."

You've already defined it, and attempted to define it for me. If we discuss this point, we first have to define backward.

However, I will define it for myself, to help see if it clears up anything.

Backward to me are the "minor" powers. Players on a world stage above their game. Poland, Denmark, Norway, Be-Ne-Lux, Yougoslavia, etc.

Now, what points in your post, are addressing this? Germany is not "backward" to me, so that's why I'm not seeing your point.

Can you go further?

Thanks.

[ 05-03-2001: Message edited by: Dr. Brian ]

[Skipper]

> For overall German POW's, you are probably

> right. However, the Stalingrad POW's fared

> far worse.

I know. As I said, iirc, somewhere between half and 2/3rds of them died.

> ...POW camp guards... often took the "pick

> of the lot"

NB: there was something to pick from. No such luck for a Soviet POW.

> I certainly don't want this to degenerate

> into some sort of discussion along the

> lines of "our troops were treated worse

> than your troops".

Agree. I just gave the other set of numbers to show that it was not "uncivilised maltreatment of German POWs by cruel russian barbarians" as someone put elsewhere.

> That set of figures you cited represents

> brutality and inhuman cruelty on both

> sides that really beggars the imagination.

Ditto.

[Dr. Brian]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kanonier Reichmann:

What was it again? I thought I read somewhere that only about 9,000 returned from the Gulags (or whatever you want to call them) from the approximately 200,000 men captured from the shattered remnants of the German 6th army. Is that approximately right?

Regards

Jim R.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What are the numbers again for any Red Army soldiers captured by the Germans? Did most get exectuted? I know the Germans treated the West much better than the east.

[Wesy]

Here's a tangent to the thread...

I would say that those powers that one the war had the advantage of logitics. The US Military was/is the KING of logistics. The US is the only power that could have waged two wars ETO and PTO successfully. The PTO was waged over vast physical geographies and the US was the predominant power in bringing Japan to it's knees. In Europe they also played a large part (The USSR - shouldered most of the burden for much of the war). What do you guys think?

[MrSpkr]

IIRC, the 9,000 figure is the number of German POW's from Stalingrad that had returned by 1955. The research was done by William Craig - he cites his figures in his book, "Enemy at the Gates" (the one that movie made such an appalling attempt to bring to life - IMHO, the only book that suffered a worse transition to the silver screen was Heinlein's "Starship Troopers").

MrSpkr

[Wesy]

Jeez man, I better brush up on my English and to think I graduated from the University of California system...I meant "Won" not

"One" :eek: