The flavour of history

[Brian]

[This continues on from the now locked Bren Tripod thread]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>[QB]

quote:

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

Originally posted by Michael emrys:

Not too surprising! In the interest of continued amity, I will leave

off for the present my opinion for why that is! LOL!

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

Don't be too frightened to share your thoughts, Michael. We're all,

well, nearly all, grown ups here. I'd be interested in reading what

you have to say.

Okay. With a couple of provisos then. The first is an understanding that much of what follows involves some speculation on my part. I've never let that stop me; in fact, it tends to be one of the things I am good at. But it's fair to draw a distinction between speculation and fact. The second thing I've forgotten already.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>[/QB]

Fair enough, although I should note that you get a lot of your speculation wrong, IMO.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

There is a considerable body of historical writing from the British side that examines every action that the British/Commonwealth/Empire forces took part in in the minutest detail. Now there is nothing the slightest bit wrong in that; in fact, those of us interested in the history of the war owe a considerable debt for this service. Most of all, the huge body of unit histories is not matched anywhere else, so far as I am aware. The US Army produced a series of official histories that are invaluable in their own right, but these tend to cover entire campaigns, and so are more condensed. Then there are of course all the individual memoirs and books devoted to specific battles, etc. I think in this area, the coverage for the US is approximately equivalent to that of the B/C/E. But in toto, it is a very large magnifying glass that gets held up those actions in which B/C/E forces took part.

The point is, if one reads only or mostly B/C/E accounts of the war, one can come away with the impression that the battles they were involved in were the crucial ones, the turning points of the war. The rest of the Allies begin to be forced off the margins of the stage. If one has grown accustomed to that picture, has in fact grown quite comfortable with it, one could easily then feel quite unfairly done to when confronted by a different picture of the matter.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK, I'd hazard to suggest that this is a common problem, Michael. I've yet to read a history of the Pacific war done by either Americans or even the British which pays any attention to the Australian contribution to the war effort - particularly the early first 1-2 years when we carried most of the ground war in that region of the world.

Let me provide you with an interesting example of what I mean. Keegan wrote an excellent little monograph called "The Battle for History: Refighting World War II" which started out as a rejoinder to people like Irving and his merry bunch of neo and old-time Nazis who have been denying the Holocaust. It turned though, into what was is IMO an excellent little study guide on WWII. However, there is absolutely no mention of an entire theatre of war nor of the contribution of an entire Allied nation. Keegan misses the SW Pacific and Australia completely. Despite, as I said, Australia having carried the full weight of land war for the Allies for a pretty large slice of the entire Pacific war and having inflicted the first land defeats on the Japanese.

Now, you might not consider that most of the battles that the B/C/E fought were "crucial" but I would suggest that they were the ones which laid the ground work for the eventual allied victories, both in Europe and the even the Pacific. If the B/C/E had not fought in North Africa, the Suez Canal would have been lost, the Meditterean turned into an Axis lake and more than like the war with Russia would have gone a great deal worse than it did - purely because Turkey would have been forced into the war and the Dardenelles opened to Axis troop and supply movements much more easily. In turn, the great oil fields of Persia would have been threatened, if not captured.

Furthermore, your view is one which is created primarily through the benefit of hindsight. At the time, there were real fears that unless the enemy was fought and fought now, the war would be at worst lost and at best prolonged. The result being what you appear to consider "sideshows" but to the B/C/E they were in effect the "only show in town" at the time.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

But taking a longer view, such feelings are not be justified. The B/C/E contribution to the victory over the Axis, while by no means inconsiderable, was not the major one. To say so is not to belittle the many feats of arms accomplished by His Majesty's forces, but merely to put them in their proper perspective.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'd suggest that you tread very carefully here. I would suggest that indeed, the B/C/E contribution to the victory over the Axis was the second most important after that of the Soviet Union's, on the battlefield. While the US supplied the means to achieve victory, it did not supply the men nor sacrifice them as willingly to achieve that victory.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

Let us take for example, the North African Campaign, specifically that part which took place in Libya and Egypt. Now it happens that I love that campaign. I have read a tall stack of books and articles on it. There is much about it that appeals to me. But looked at seriously in the context of the whole war, it really was a sideshow. There really wasn't much at stake there strategically. If the Axis had won there, it would have harldy have benefitted them at all. Conceivably it might have lengthened the war by three months. Or maybe not. Bit deal either way. If the British had lost, it would have been one more blow to their prestige, but the consequences of that would have played out mostly after the war was over.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Like you, I've studied that campaign extensively. I disagree with your conclusions considerably. Loss of the Mediterrean would have resulted, without a doubt, IMO to a considerable lengthening of the war in Europe, and might well have tipped the balance on the Eastern Front, as I've outlined above. It would have made it very difficult for the Western allies to move forces as rapidly about as they did.

Three months? I doubt it. I'd suggest perhaps 6-12 months (ignoring for the moment the matter of the atomic bomb). You would, if nothing more, have seen the weight of an invasion of Europe falling almost completely on the Americans as the British would have lost their best units in any defeat and neither their replacements nor the American units involved would have had any battle-experience and so would have done much, much, worse than they did against the German forces opposing them. So, both Allied forces would have been forced to achieve a lot more "on-the-job" training than they did, being able to utilise the battlehardened veterans of 7 Armoured Divsion and so on.

So, if nothing more, the North African, Palestinean and East African battles provided valuable experience and training for not only the men of the Allied forces but also perhaps more importantly, their commanders as well.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

And yet, this sideshow gets ballyhooed in the Britishi media, and even to some extent the serious British historical establishment as if the history of the world hinged upon it.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Perhaps because they perceive the war different to yourself or Americans? Remember, the American objective was the defeat of the Axis. The B/C/E objective was the defeat of the Axis and the preservation of the Empire as well. Two very fundamentally different objectives - which is why you have the US JCS making (IMO insane) proposals for cross-channel operations in 1942 and 1943, well before their forces or those of their allies were ready and the British quite rightly resisting them. I mean to say, the Battle of the Atlantic hadn't even been won yet so how the hell did they think they'd have been able to keep their forces, once ashore, supplied?

Apart from the different objectives, there were also the different approaches to war - the American one of bull at a gate, go for the throat, attack the centre of mass method while the British preferred to preserve their forces as much as possible, husband their resources and peck around the edges until their enemy was weakened and it was then possible to destroy him. The first reflects perhaps naivete and the knowledge that there were large reserves of equipment and manpower to draw upon while the second reflects the reverse - more understanding of the nature of war and knowledge that equipment and more importantly manpower were limited.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

Now when CM3 appears, I truly hope they get everything into it somehow, the LRDG, the SAS, the Sudanese Defense Force, the Czechs, the Poles, the felons that comprised a substantial part of Rgt. 361. Even, for Christ's sake, the bloody Bren tripods! (Yes, they would have a legitimate role here, due to the active presence of the Luftwaffe and Reggia Aeronautica.) I want all these things and more because the story and appeal of the NA campaign is mostly in the color and romance of it, the exotic environment, the somewhat casual nature of the discipline, the very uncasual nature of the discipline imposed by the environment and the enemy. But I don't know what BTS has in mind. They will, I am sure, feel obliged to produce a game that is consistent with the entire opus of Combat Mission, and in doing so, maybe many of the things that I will look forward to, that give the campaign "flavor" for me, will not appear.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm willing to wait and see. However, one hopes they are consulting much more widely of the proponents of Commonwealth and British military matters than they appear to have to date, going by what I've been told by other, longer posting members.

[PiggDogg]

I (a USA, New Orleans American) have not followed the Bren gun tripod thread. However, I will make a few comments about the UK/Commonwealth (U/C),World War II, and the free world. [i will keep this brief otherwise I would end up with an incredibly long essay.]

The present day, free world is only here as a free, civilized world (ignore the present 9/11/01 disaster) because of U/C standing alone against Hitler from May 1940 to December 1941.

If U/C had come to terms with/surrendered to Hitler in 1940-41, most surely Germany & the USSR would have come to some terms after Barbarossa.

One could hardly imagine the USA and U/C in exile (in Canada) fighting a two front war (Atlantic/Germans and Pacific/Japanese) and having to cross 3000 miles to get back to Europe & 5000 miles to get to Japan. Without the USSR to pay the butcher bill to grind Germany's armies (by far the best in WW2) to a manageable level, I doubt the free world could have defeated Germany, much less the Axis of Germany & Japan.

Maybe, USA A-bombs coming before the German A-bomb may have shifted the balance.

However, the U/C may not have had the best soldiers and military leadership (excluding Churchill who "is" the most important person of the 20th century because without him the U/C would probably have come to terms with Hitler) in WW2, but they stood alone against the greatest threat to civilzation (Germany) since Ghenghis Kahn.

If it were not for the U/C in WW2, we in the civilized world would be goose stepping and saluting the swastika & the rising sun. What a horrible & dismal thought.

I salute the U/C. WW2 was certainly 'Their Finest Hour'.

Cheers, Richard

[Enoch]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Brian wrote:

Apart from the different objectives, there were also the different approaches to war - the American one of bull at a gate, go for the throat, attack the centre of mass method while the British preferred to preserve their forces as much as possible, husband their resources and peck around the edges until their enemy was weakened and it was then possible to destroy him. The first reflects perhaps naivete and the knowledge that there were large reserves of equipment and manpower to draw upon while the second reflects the reverse - more understanding of the nature of war and knowledge that equipment and more importantly manpower were limited.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm sure other more qualified people will come along to comment on all this. But, the American doctrine of "go for the throat" goes back to at least the US Civil War when U.S. Grant decided the only way to win was to destroy the Confederate Army. He set out to do that and accomplished his goal. Since then the US has sought the same strategy in every major conflict where it has been involved. The Spanish-American War, WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, and the Gulf War. Find your enemy and destroy his forces. If you destroy your enemies army he is no longer a threat.

The means to accomplish the end of destroying your enemy may not have always been appropriate (Vietnam) but the success of this doctrine is pretty resounding.

I don't know nearly as much about British Grand Strategy so I don't know to what extent the nipping at the heels and sniping at the edges ideals were burned into the British armed forces. Were they a result of WWI? Were they merely done in response to the situation after the fall of France in 1940? That would be interesting to know.

[Pascal DI FOLCO]

Hum, threads start with "Was a Bren tripod commonly used in WW" and end up as "How the Brits did save the Free World" ...

Hmmm, perhaps Bren tripods saved the free world ?

[Vanir Ausf B]

Ah, another "my country did more than your country" WW2 thread. If I had a nickle for every one...

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

While the US supplied the means to achieve victory, it did not supply the men nor sacrifice them as willingly to achieve that victory.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Later:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Apart from the different objectives, there were also the different approaches to war - the American one of bull at a gate, go for the throat, attack the centre of mass method while the British preferred to preserve their forces as much as possible, husband their resources and peck around the edges until their enemy was weakened and it was then possible to destroy him.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Self contadiction. So which is it? Was the US less willing to sacrifice men, or was it the Brits who were more worried about casualties? I think it is generally understood to be the latter.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I would suggest that indeed, the B/C/E contribution to the victory over the Axis was the second most important after that of the Soviet Union's, on the battlefield.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Personal bias speaking there. You correctly note the Soviet Union's role, but ignore the US's major materiel contribution to that nation's war effort.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The first reflects perhaps naivete and the knowledge that there were large reserves of equipment and manpower to draw upon while the second reflects the reverse - more understanding of the nature of war and knowledge that equipment and more importantly manpower were limited.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

More bias. I find your notion that the US was somehow naive as to the nature of war laughable.

But then again, bashing anything and everything having to do with the US military seems to be a hobby horse of yours, so it's all rather predictable. People with axes to grind cannot be expected to express objective opinions.

[Vanir Ausf B]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Richard Cuccia, the PiggDogg:

If it were not for the U/C in WW2, we in the civilized world would be goose stepping and saluting the swastika & the rising sun. What a horrible & dismal thought.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, no, not really. Without the "U/C" the US would still have defeated Japan. That would not have changed.

Germany is more difficult to predict. It is doubtfull that there would have been a D-Day or anything similar. The US would more likely have pursued a policy of containment, contesting North Africa and the Middle East while writing off Europe. In the end there would have been a negociated peace with Germany giving up France and Britian but allowed to keep most of the rest. Either that or Germany would have been nuked until it glowed.

[Vanir Ausf B]

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

I don't know nearly as much about British Grand Strategy so I don't know to what extent the nipping at the heels and sniping at the edges ideals were burned into the British armed forces. Were they a result of WWI? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In large part, yes.

[Brian]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:

[QB]

Ah, another "my country did more than your country" WW2 thread. If I had a

nickle for every one...

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, it isn't, Vanir, so I'd suggest you either grasp the ideas behind it or run along.

Appears I was right though, Some of us aren't grown up enough to discuss this sort of thing without trying to drag national agendas into the matter.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

quote:

Originally posted by Brian:

While the US supplied the means to achieve victory, it did not supply

the men nor sacrifice them as willingly to achieve that victory.

Later:

quote:

Apart from the different objectives, there were also the different

approaches to war - the American one of bull at a gate, go for the

throat, attack the centre of mass method while the British

preferred to preserve their forces as much as possible, husband

their resources and peck around the edges until their enemy was

weakened and it was then possible to destroy him.

Self contadiction. So which is it? Was the US less willing to sacrifice men, or was

it the Brits who were more worried about casualties? I think it is generally

understood to be the latter.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Errr, these two statements are not contradictory. The first reflects the political view, the second the military view, as I understood them to be within the US leadership/establishment. The US politicians were concerned about casualties and preferred, to supply the other Allied nations to do the fighting. The US military, on the otherhand, wanted to come to grips as quickly as they could with the enemy.

If they are contradictory, they are so because the American viewpoint was contradictory.

Do you deny that the objectives of first "Cash and Carry" and then "Lend-Lease" were to provide the UK and other nations, such as China, with the means to conduct the war on the behalf of the US, until the US had sorted out its isolationist feelings? Do you deny that the US military wanted to immediately start mounting cross-channel invasions and were only dissuaded with considerable difficulty by the British?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

quote:

I would suggest that indeed, the B/C/E contribution to the victory

over the Axis was the second most important after that of the

Soviet Union's, on the battlefield.

Personal bias speaking there. You correctly note the Soviet Union's role, but

ignore the US's major materiel contribution to that nation's war effort.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Funny, I could have sworn I stated, immediately after that sentence (and you've even quoted it above), "While the US supplied the means to achieve victory" - which acknowledges the "US's major material contribution to [all] nations' war effort". However, you cannot deny that it was the willingness of the USSR to fight the Germans and to keep on fighting, right to the Fuhrer Bunker that actually won the war, can you?

Sounds to me that you'd much rather downplay the blood and flesh which was sacrificed and try and compare the building of a tank or a ship or an aeroplane to that. Why?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

quote:

The first reflects perhaps naivete and the knowledge that there

were large reserves of equipment and manpower to draw upon

while the second reflects the reverse - more understanding of the

nature of war and knowledge that equipment and more

importantly manpower were limited.

More bias. I find your notion that the US was somehow naive as to the nature of

war laughable.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I find your notion that it wasn't laughable in return. American society hadn't engaged in a major war for nearly 100 years. Its effort in WWI had arrived too little and too late. It may have tipped the balance strategically but on the actual battlefield its efforts were overshadowed by those of the French and the UK/Commonwealth.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

But then again, bashing anything and everything having to do with the US

military seems to be a hobby horse of yours, so it's all rather predictable. People

with axes to grind cannot be expected to express objective opinions.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Must be just so wonderful to have an intellect so superior to the rest of us, Vanir. Must be lonely being able only to talk to Slappy - the only other person who posts that sort of line on this webboard.

In reality, Vanir, it appears to me that you are over-sensitive to what is in reality nothing more than mild criticism based upon the views present in many history books, such as Overy, Keegan and others. If I have it so wrong, then I'd suggest you should start telling them they have it wrong as well.

Now stop being a so pretentious.

[The Scarlet Pimpernel]

Who gives a flying f$*k about any of this anyway? The war is freaking over...the Allies won...The Axis lost...

You guys need to get a freaking life....

[Berlichtingen]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Richard Cuccia, the PiggDogg:

If U/C had come to terms with/surrendered to Hitler in 1940-41, most surely Germany & the USSR would have come to some terms after Barbarossa.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Absolutely no chance of this. The war in the east was to the death, and was from the very beginning. Hitler would have accepted nothing short of total victory, and Stalin was no different

[Vanir Ausf B]

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

Some of us aren't grown up enough to discuss this sort of thing without trying to drag national agendas into the matter.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed. So please drop the agenda.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Do you deny that the objectives of first "Cash and Carry" and then "Lend-Lease" were to provide the UK and other nations, such as China, with the means to conduct the war on the behalf of the US, until the US had sorted out its isolationist feelings?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes I do. For all intents and purposes isolationism went out the window on Dec. 7 1941. There was no sorting out to do after that.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Do you deny that the US military wanted to immediately start mounting cross-channel invasions and were only dissuaded with considerable difficulty by the British?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

More contradictions. If the US was so gung-ho from the start that pretty much shoots down the whole "US wanted others to fight for them" theory.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The US politicians were concerned about casualties and preferred, to supply the other Allied nations to do the fighting. The US military, on the otherhand, wanted to come to grips as quickly as they could with the enemy.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have never read anything that would support this. Even if it were true then the military obviously won out. The US supplied the bulk of Allied ground troops in the Pacific and in Europe post D-Day.

You did know that, didn't you?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>However, you cannot deny that it was the willingness of the USSR to fight the Germans and to keep on fighting, right to the Fuhrer Bunker that actually won the war, can you?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, I can not, and did not attempt to.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Sounds to me that you'd much rather downplay the blood and flesh which was sacrificed and try and compare the building of a tank or a ship or an aeroplane to that. Why?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then you need to read more closely. I said no such thing.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I find your notion that it wasn't laughable in return. American society hadn't engaged in a major war for nearly 100 years. Its effort in WWI had arrived too little and too late.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Completely false. Not even really worthy of response.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>It may have tipped the balance strategically but on the actual battlefield its efforts were overshadowed by those of the French and the UK/Commonwealth.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

True, but we're talkning WW2 not WW1.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Must be just so wonderful to have an intellect so superior to the rest of us, Vanir.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Never claimed any such thing. And who is "us"? Do you have multiple personalities?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>In reality, Vanir, it appears to me that you are over-sensitive to what is in reality nothing more than mild criticism based upon the views present in many history books, such as Overy, Keegan and others. If I have it so wrong, then I'd suggest you should start telling them they have it wrong as well.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sounds to me like you're the one who should be telling them they have it wrong. You're the one critisising Keegan, not me.

[ 10-14-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The Scarlet Pimpernel:

Who gives a flying f$*k about any of this anyway? The war is freaking over...the Allies won...The Axis lost...

You guys need to get a freaking life....<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Indeed this is a useless thread, but not maybe for the reason you are thinking.

If you remember JOCHEN PEIPER thread we had a fan of the SS posting 10,000 aren't they great everyone else sucks posts, finally melting down into a picture fest of idiocy. Here we have an equally biggoted attempt to portray the effort of one country as superior or inferior to another without using any facts, and in fact making quite a bit up. The melt down here is that there is no historical discussion, merely a uneducated rant at the heavens proclaiming the superiority of the Australian and the inferiority of everything else. Read closely, as Vanir did, the contradictions in the argument are obvious. When those contradictions are pointed out, they are dodged or ignored (which is it, the US was a pitt bull that went for the throat versus the delicate intellectual commonwealth, or it was a mealy mouthed coward that made the commonwealth do all its fighting while it floated around and took all the credit, both are claimed but they are not compatible).

So this conversation is worthless because there is no chance of getting intellectual conversation out of bigotry. Ideas entrenchged into bigotry, by there nature, do not and cannot be supported by fact, and thus are not capable of being discussed in a knowledgeable forum.

[PJungnitsch]

Err, don't want to interrupt anyones flame war here but I think it is pretty hard to sort out who made the most contribution as efforts were so intermingled amongst the Allies (and very fortunate they were, too). Anyway, here's an alternative history article that may be of interest on what may have happened if Dunkirk had been a fiasco and the British empire had been knocked out of the war.

[Mr. Johnson--]

Come on now, After Genghis got through killing all the adults and 100 years of brainwashing had passed, the world would have been a better place in the end. And much more civilized.

[Gen-x87H]

the LRDG, the SAS, the Sudanese Defense Force, the Czechs, the Poles, the felons that comprised a substantial part of Rgt. 361. Even, for Christ's sake, the bloody Bren tripods! "

Well then I want the British Free Corps.

Just think of the possibilities as an Axis commander. You can use them to invade the bars, brothals, and jails of your enemies town.

Gen

[Simon Fox]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:

Ah, another "my country did more than your country" WW2 thread. If I had a nickle for every one...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Thusfar this discussion has been a fairly mature one of differing perspectives. If you want to characterise it as something other than that then feel free to do so. Just don't expect anyone to give one iota of attention to anything of worth you might happen to secret in there admidst all the snarling and growling.

[Simon Fox]

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

Indeed this is a useless thread, but not maybe for the reason you are thinking.....etc etc....

So this conversation is worthless because there is no chance of getting intellectual conversation out of bigotry. Ideas entrenchged into bigotry, by there nature, do not and cannot be supported by fact, and thus are not capable of being discussed in a knowledgeable forum.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>So I take it that now you've had your little diatribe Michael, Brian and anyone else who wants to participate in this thread can do so in the expectation that you won't continue to sully yourself with it's uselessness.

[Mark IV]

I have an Aussie history (still packed away with the other things) called "The War in the Pacific". I bought it in Australia and I like it. It is an overview type of history, as one might suspect from the title, but goes into more than the usual depth on the fighting in New Guinea, and other operations in which Americans were not central figures.

It is aussi-centric, though other nations are covered in the context of the overall effort. This is quite natural; it is an Aussie history for Australians. Much of that part of the war occurred in their lake and that is where their picture window faces. I guess some authors write to their audience.

There is some commentary on both the British and American conduct of operations that might be construed as "biased" although it is generally couched as opinion. If memory serves, it was rather harder on the British... I also have a Brit history, "The Battle for the Rhine" about the British invasion of Germany. It is a fine book from a participant officer. There is very little about Patton in it.

I also bought a book about the bombing of Darwin while I was in Melbourne. It was somewhat critical of Australian officials. Objectivity is one of the great contributions of the Anglo-Saxon tradition.

My Japanese histories certainly downplay the German contribution... you'd think it was Japan all by herself in WWII. Go figure.

[Vanir Ausf B]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Simon Fox:

Thusfar this discussion has been a fairly mature one of differing perspectives. If you want to characterise it as something other than that then feel free to do so. Just don't expect anyone to give one iota of attention to anything of worth you might happen to secret in there admidst all the snarling and growling.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Although I stand behind every word I wrote, I admit my tone could have been more... diplomatic. I'm usually better at suppressing my annoyance. The weather must be changing or something.

[edward_n_kelly]

Hi

As a newbie and a bit of a lurker (just trying to get my bearings still), can we conduct this thread in a little more of a civil (and civilised) manner ?

Brian has raised some interesting points of a much more general nature than I have normally seen on this site. At this stage he must be regarded as being on the winning side if for no other reason that no one has present a cogent counter.

No need for name-calling or other abuse by any party.

Anyway - accounting for inflation would this be my 23c worth ?

[Mark IV]

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

Brian has raised some interesting points of a much more general nature than I have normally seen on this site. At this stage he must be regarded as being on the winning side if for no other reason that no one has present a cogent counter.

No need for name-calling or other abuse by any party.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ignoring some of the ad hominems and generalizations in the original post as well, what were the major points?

1. Australia’s contribution has been ignored by major historians, with the example of Keegan in "The Battle for History: Refighting World War II".

2. Brit/Commonwealth forces laid the groundwork for the eventual Allied victory, despite their apparently (to some) tangential significance to the “main effort”.

3. The B/C/E efforts were the only apparent avenus of action open to them at the time.

4. The B/C/E contribution to the victory over the Axis was the second most important after that of the Soviet Union's, on the battlefield.

5. “If nothing more, the North African, Palestinean and East African battles provided valuable experience and training for not only the men of the Allied forces but also perhaps more importantly, their commanders as well.”

6. “the American objective was the defeat of the Axis. The B/C/E objective was the defeat of the Axis and the preservation of the Empire as well. Two very fundamentally different objectives…”

7. “…Two different approaches to war - the American one of bull at a gate, go for the throat, attack the centre of mass method while the British preferred to preserve their forces as much as possible, husband their resources and peck around the edges until their enemy was weakened and it was then possible to destroy him. The first reflects perhaps naivete and the knowledge that there were large reserves of equipment and manpower to draw upon while the second reflects the reverse - more understanding of the nature of war and knowledge that equipment and more importantly manpower were limited”.

Keegan is a British author, and his focus has not typically been the Pacific. We can only conclude that many major historians (including Keegan) have either overlooked, or discounted, the importance of those campaigns as war-winners. They will have to speak for themselves.

B/C/E forces certainly rendered invaluable contributions to the war, but among them was the strident effort to bring the US into it. Apparently they were not confident in the USSR's ability to win one side while they won the other...

...since they no longer had valid passports for the Continent and could not force their way on, alone. Nor were they going to, in any amount of time that anyone can postulate, unless it would have been to greet the Red Army in France. I think this can be said without slighting the B/C/E contribution at all. After all, without a free, active, and allied Britain, there would have been nowhere to have launched an invasion from.

Africa was the work of a desperate but determined colonial power offering battle as bait, which a poorly-thought-out enemy foreign policy took hook, line, and sinker. There was no way to justify the dilution of German effort against USSR, nor the decision to accept the African challenge while ignoring the relevance of Malta to it. Britain got a lot of leverage out of this relatively (to WWII) small effort. It was a shrewd move.

But the point about the second greatest contribution after USSR's rings a bit hollow. USSR was sustained to a degree (possibly not vital) by shipments and other aid from US, not the least of which was the threat of invasion from the west. And the REAL argument is about the KIND of victory... Britain was no more interested in a "free" Europe under Stalin than US was. Hitler and Stalin were same pants, different pocket, in both British and US estimation, and to suggest that either USSR couldn't have defeated Germany without Britain's aid, or that Britain would have been satisfied with a Russian solution to the German problem, is clearly not true. Without direct American involvement the cause was lost, regardless of which dictator's flag flew over Europe. Britain alone couldn't have taken it back from either.

That North Africa provided a valuable training ground is certainly true, but was it a war-winner (we can dismiss the "if nothing more..." as a figure of speech)? I believe that the American experience there helped to shorten the war, but it was probably more important as another geographical toe-hold east of the Atlantic. The US also gained experience at Sicily and Anzio that may arguably have been of more value in the destruction of the German heartland. They wouldn't have gotten this without North Africa, but Africa was "do-able" in any case. They still would have won the invasion of Normandy.

The differing goals of US and the UK is historically accurate, but not calculated to garner much sympathy with Americans. The notion of colonial empire was already obsolete in 1941, and the Japanese were the second to the last to learn that. The sun set on colonialism and gave way to modern ideological empires instead. And they say there's no progress...

Lastly, the generalization about American/British approaches to war sure overlooks a lot... Goodwood, Tractable, to name a couple... perhaps this point is best ignored until the poster elaborates.

[JasonC]

I'm a late comer to this discussion, but a few of the points being made struck me because they seemed so removed from reality that I thought I'd comment on them. Pardon me if I get the characters wrong, I really don't have a scorecard on who has been maintaining what position. So I'll ignore names and just address arguments.

It is claimed that US histories ignore the role of Aussies in the early war period, that said role is never mentioned, and that the Aussies did all the ground fighting vs. Japan for the first two years. False on all counts. The US histories of the Pacific war certainly do include the participation of the Aussies (1). The US was fighting on land from the first week of the war (Wake, Guam, Philipines) (2). As for the two year figure, in the case of the Japanese front that take us to the end of 1943, and by then the US counteroffensive in the Solomons was well underway, that in the central Pacific started, and both the Aussies and Mac's US forces were moving in New Guinea.

It is also claimed if the Brits hadn't won in N.A. vs the Germans, that all sorts of awful strategic consequences would have ensued. But none of the alleged consequences would have stopped an operation like Torch. The Germans did not have the logistics to hold North Africa. Nor would taking the canal area have gotten them through the red sea, past the horn, across Mesopotamia, etc. The Germans couldn't maintain 2 Panzer divisions at full strength and in offensive supply as far away as El Alamein. The idea they were going to support whole armies a thousand miles farther east is laughable on its face. Going deep into the east would also just have left the back door open in Morocco.

The basic German problem with the whole thing was they had neither a navy (besides U-boats for guerre de course) nor any merchant marine to speak of. And the Italian navy could hardly fill in. If they had reached Cairo it would have taken the Brits and US another year to through them out of Africa, perhaps, while also being a bigger drain on their forces and supplies. But nothing they could do was going to give them the upper hand in campaigns in that area. Nothing they could do would prevent the US and UK from outmatching whatever they sent, by whatever turned out to be enough to beat it.

It is the same sort of story with fears of the Japanese taking either India or Australia. They never had the logistic capacity to support the massive conventional armies abroad, in high intensity conflict against large and modern land forces, to take either place (let alone the continental US).

They started the war without enough shipping to supply the overseas garrisons of the island perimeter and provide the imports to keep their civilian economy working. Then their available shipping plummeted from Allied submarines, especially from 1943 on. There was never a more overdetermined eventual defeat.

Hard fighting early on made the eventual victory cheaper and faster, and thus valuably saved lives. This should not be overstated, though. The Japanese romped for six months regardless. And they would have been on their heals after 18 months also regardless. That the tide turned faster than that was due to good fighting, but especially to naval combat (Coral Sea, Midway, Solomons).

As for the sacrifice of blood rather than treasure notion, there is little to it one way or the other. The western Allies shared the burden in that regard quite evenly. Total US and UK casualties from the war are quite close to one another. The UK carried the burden of the first few years in Europe, but the US carried most of the burden in the Pacific. Both shared the later war portions in Europe, at first about evenly, more US in the last 6 months or so.

The Russian "load" was many times the size of that carried by the western Allies combined, in terms of German forces faced for how long, and their losses were higher still - an order of magnitude larger than the combined western Allies. The bulk of the military burden certainly fell on Russia, therefore, as everyone admits. The Russians did the dying, and most of the killing.

The bulk of the economic contribution on the Allied side was made by the US - about half of it, with Russian having a somewhat larger share of the other half. Even those totals reflect production supported by lend lease; up to 2/3rds of wartime output by value on the Allied side originated in the US. Which doesn't mean those were the most decisive weapons. The Russians produced half the Allied tanks. The US had much higher portions of the output in planes, ships, industrial feedstocks, and other general supplies. The ships especially form a high portion of the value of output, while perhaps being "overkill" by late in the war (60 million tons from the US alone), and thus less decisive than tanks per unit of value produced.

The UK contribution does not come near the Russian one in manpower and enemy forces faced, nor near the US one in production and supplies. It was more critical politically and technically, in all sorts of ways. By being in the war from start to finish, by supporting minor powers and resistence movements, by securing bases and supply routes used by all the Allies, regulating overseas trade from early on and reducing Axis supply from that source - all political. Scores of governments operated in London, and many provided armed contingents. Most of them small, but significant by late war in the case of the French, certainly. The UK also ran the night bombing campaign, provided critical technology (radar navigation, sonar, chaff, etc), and the best intelligence operation of the war by a long way. Their tech and intel won the fight against the U-boats, with some help from US output to be sure.

Brits organized, spied, invented, Americans built more than enough of everything, while Russians did most of the fighting. Different societies excel at different things, and the various ways the countries were placed in the war made a difference in how they fought it. The idea that the war was won by the Aussies is a laughable bit of hyperbole, but then I suspect no one is honestly trying to maintain any such thing.

As for the idea that the Russians were singularly determined to fight the Germans, I don't think it stands close scrutiny. They made peace with them in 1939. The collected spoils in eastern Europe then and in 1940 (or tried to). Through 1941 they continued to supply Germany. Even after the invasion, Stalin wanted to buy the Germans off, but found them unappeasable. The Russians fought to the death because death or victory were the only options the Germans gave them. Of course, once the Russian people understood, from German actions in 1941, that they were fighting a war of survival, there weren't going to slack.

Just my impressions on some of the items being loosely tossed about, for whatever they are worth.

[Kwazydog]

Guys, this looks like it should be over in the General Forum...

Dan