"History, I'm talking about history"

[jon_j_rambo]

"History, I'm talking about history" -Robert Shaw as General Custer.

Okay, it seems like we have alot of historians out there. Everybody has there beliefs about WWII, as with any other issue. Once you state your point, that's great. Then it's debate time. So this leads me to my beliefs on WWII, in statement form.

My top-10 'takes' on WWII (like David Letterman)

1) The Germans were OVER-RATED !!! I'm tired of hearing all the bull-crap about their generals, equipment, planning, engineering, pretty uniforms, etc. ANYBODY CAN DEFEAT UN-ARMED COUNTRIES. Poland, Low Countries, & Baltic States don't count.

2) The SS were OVER-RATED !!! Big-deal shooting women & children. They hid behind the lines, until a nice soft spot was available.

3) The Stukas were OVER-RATED !!! Anybody can bomb somebody who can't shoot back.

4) The War @ Sea is UNDER-RATED: It took brass balls to go out in the middle of the Atlantic in some U-Boat.

5) The French are weak: UNTRUE!!! Look at all the wars they had been involved in over history. Vietnam, Napolean, War of the Roses, Dark Ages crap, French & Indian, etc. Yes, the got their ass kick in WWII & are a little whimpy now, but over the big picture they have fought well.

6) Africa was a waste of time in WWII!!! Who gives a rats ass about Libya & Egypt. If Germany was some smart, why didn't they go for the oil instead of dicking around in the sand (kitty box)?

They could have used those troops & resources in Russia.

7) Resistance Fighters are UNDER-RATED!!! Snipers, French Underground, Sabatours, etc. played a huge role screwing up the Germans.

8) Patton is the biggest STUD!!! Yes, the battlefield kill ratio & stats are questionable (do you believe everything you read), but this guy banged his way across France & opened up the front. He saved, or lets say "our blood, his guts" rescued alot of GI's at the Bulge.

9) The fire bombing of Dresden is UNDER-RATED. Everybody talks about "The Nukes" which makes sense. But hell, fire-bombing people to death worked.

10) And, finally, I think the Allies could have save alot of lives if a different attack was used instead of D-Day. It seems like the history books (& movies) emphasize the whole battle revolved about the landing areas & keeping them secret. Alot of allied body bags were used. Could there have been a better plan than D-Day?

Just sharing my thoughts. Let me know your 'takes'

jon_j_rambo

[Carl G. E. von Mannerheim]

In regards to the French being srong

Vietnam, Napolean, War of the Roses, Dark Ages crap, French & Indian

They lost all of those buddy, and the War of the Roses was an English Civil aristocratic dispute.

CvM

[jon_j_rambo]

Carl Van "Hammer" --- You're right, thanks for the correction on the "War of the Roses". Even the newspaper editorials are allowed corrections. I was tired of typing & on my way to Subway. Now I'm back & refueled.

You know what I meant about most of America's view on the French being pussies. Sure, the Little General lost a couple of times, but he was more of a badass than Hitler. He had a longer walk to Russia. Plus he went two rounds & didn't drink poison in a bunker...I think he got some disease on his pecker.

What are wars anyways? Just a bunch of dates, where a bunch of people killed a bunch of other people.

jon_j_rambo

[Kuniworth]

Germans overrated. Well definately not at operational level. You believe blitzkrieg-performance to be overrated? Rapid victories with limited resources not fall down from the sky you know....

[JerseyJohn]

[there should be a photo here of Hitler giving a speach]

"And I tell you not to listen to this Johanus Rambo treacherous fellow spreading these vile lies about us! First of all, it was Poland who attacked us -- everyone knows they raided one of our radio stations and fortunately we happened to have two army groups, including 10 panzer divisions, and two luftflottes on maneuvers along our borders with Poland.

"As for Poland being unarmed -- he obviously doesn't realize Poland had some of the finest lancers on earth, and several other kinds of cavalry while we had no cavalry ourselves -- just one mounted division which I kept in Berlin!"

"Regarding planes -- our planes had only one wing each, many of the Polish models had two wings -- so who had the advantage over whom?"

"As for the stukas . . .."

[there should be a photo of Eva Braun, partying]

"Oh, Wulfie -- please don'g get worked up again. Remember what they told us, the downside of HELL is having to hear your critics all through eternity; the upsiede is having so many party animals for friends -- and we all want you to come back to the party, Adolf, now that you drink and smoke hash in addition to doing drugs you're such a fun guy -- please come back, Wulfie, and leave that Rambo fellow alone, he isn't even dead yet!"

[ November 14, 2002, 02:24 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Kuniworth]

Originally posted by jon_j_rambo:

"

10) And, finally, I think the Allies could have save alot of lives if a different attack was used instead of D-Day. It seems like the history books (& movies) emphasize the whole battle revolved about the landing areas & keeping them secret. Alot of allied body bags were used. Could there have been a better plan than D-Day?

Just sharing my thoughts. Let me know your 'takes'

jon_j_rambo

What I really think is overrated is the importance of D-day. 10 000 americans die, horrible yes but comapre that with 1 300 000 casualties at Stalingrad. The proportions between

Through the american domination of media and culture people recognize USA and west to be the ones who truly won WW2 in Europe. Yes USA won the war BUT they were not the reason that Germany broke down. If we skip the pointless debate of wether or not the Soviet union could have won the war on it´s own lets us be clear with the fact where Germany suffered most casualties. The disasters of the east front remain the primary reason that Germany lost the war. Soviet union crushed the mainstand of the wehrmacht in less than 3 years, when west entered france in june 1944, Germany was already incapable of winning the war.

[General Billote]

GenBillote: "Lies, all that you say are lies.""The French have never won a 'war', and we have never lost a 'war'"." You see the reason is simple, we are a people that demands to be loved and respected.""Where does Hitler pose for photos when he occupies our fair city."" In front of the Eiffle Tower, yes?"" He walks through the "Arc De Triumph?"" This makes him believe he has supremacy over the people of France."" Why is Gay Paree still one of the most beautiful cities in the world?.""Because no one could bare to be the one who detroyed her, not even Hitler." All we need to man our defences are our fine chefs and our wonderful vineyards?"" There is a restaurant in Paris that serves food in a pitch black room with the curtains drawn, You can't even see what your eating and they don't tell you what it is.""I ask you, how can a people with so much imagination and spirit be defeated?""We can't, of course.""And that restaurant has a two year waiting list..... so you won't be dining there either."

American Tourist: "Yea, The palace is neat but why won't they let us eat at that wierd restaurant.""The French are such snobs."

[ November 14, 2002, 02:58 AM: Message edited by: General Billote ]

[Desert Dave]

AS originally posted by jon_j_rambo:

What are wars anyways? Just a bunch of dates, where a bunch of people killed a bunch of other people.

Not such an insignificant thing.

Well, sort through the idealogical BS and then figure out what YOU stand for, and then decide to be a bodhisattva after all, which, really ANYONE can do if they mean to, and help prevent them happening in the first instance, yes? :cool:

Dresden was madness, plain and simple, no studiously rendered rationale can change that. Ever. Never.

OF COURSE there are biological imperatives.

OF COURSE there are rogue nations states, with deranged leaders. (... I can think of several existant right now, East AND West)

BUT, human nature is not immutable. It is capable of ... ANYTHING... and that includes solving the lack of elbow-room, scarcity of food and water, and apparent lack of creative insights.

Reason has got us mired. Intuition and what surfaces out-of-heart WILL un-mire us.

Until then, we can do innocuous but helpful things (as catharsis)... like playing war GAMES.

Though, some Chicken-hawks, East and West, don't seem to know the difference, alas it's true.

[General Billote]

But, human nature is not immutable. It is capable of......ANYTHING...and that includes solving the lack of elbow-room,scarcity of food and water, apparent lack of creative insights

I like this Immers, it reminds me of Robert Heinlein....Talk about a guy with a crystal ball...

[ November 14, 2002, 02:55 AM: Message edited by: General Billote ]

[I/O Error]

Originally posted by jon_j_rambo:

1) The Germans were OVER-RATED !!! I'm tired of hearing all the bull-crap about their generals, equipment, planning, engineering, pretty uniforms, etc. ANYBODY CAN DEFEAT UN-ARMED COUNTRIES. Poland, Low Countries, & Baltic States don't count.

Countries like Norway and Yugoslavia were unarmed? (Plus half a dozen others) My, the things I learn! Okay, if attacking small countries doesn't "count" in your book, consider the success the Germans enjoyed in almost every situation where they achieved anything REMOTELY like parity in arms and numbers. Pound for pound, nobody liked fighting the Germans. If nothing else, consider how long it took to win the freakin' war! God's TEETH man, six years is a long bleeding time!

Remember: Everything from modern operational tactics to our standards of leadership to the military helmets of half the world (USA included) came DIRECTLY from the Germans. Overrated? I think not.

2) The SS were OVER-RATED !!! Big-deal shooting women & children. They hid behind the lines, until a nice soft spot was available.

Agreed... assuming you really ARE talking about the SS, and not the Waffen SS. Waffen SS, that's another story entirely. Some of the best soldiers in the entire war...

Random story: After the war, a lot of the surviving Hitler Young and Waffen SS types signed on as mercs for people like the Foreign Legion. (What else did they know to do? They were crack soldiers, but nothing else) My dad actually served with an entire base of these guys in Vietnam, after they were seconded to the US Army Special Forces from the French.

(Yeah, that's right. Count the years: Most of WWII, all through the 50's fighting in Indochina, and then with us up until the early 70's. Holy christ that's impressive, LOL) Best troops he's ever fought with, my father claims.

3) The Stukas were OVER-RATED !!! Anybody can bomb somebody who can't shoot back.

I disagree. It's hard for me to see the Stukas as being anything other than really quite extradinary dive bombers. If they had been better protected against air attacks, they would have been truly unstoppable. As it was, they were a fearsome opponent.

4) The War @ Sea is UNDER-RATED: It took brass balls to go out in the middle of the Atlantic in some U-Boat.

Oh hell yes, agreed there. Hate the side they fought for, but by GOD those German U-boat sailors are worthy of honorable memories.

5) The French are weak: UNTRUE!!! Look at all the wars they had been involved in over history. Vietnam, Napolean, <snip>, Dark Ages crap, French & Indian, etc. Yes, the got their ass kick in WWII & are a little whimpy now, but over the big picture they have fought well.

You know what's funny? All those past wars you mentioned in your "Big Picture" they LOST. Couldn't you at least have mentioned wars they did well in, for instance their experiences in the Hundred Years War?

Look, the French just do not have a good combat reputation as of late, and it's not JUST a recent phenomenon. (Don't worry, I'm not forgeting their successes after WWII in the colonial battles, but ya gotta admit their reputation is seriously tainted.) Although stereotypes are just that, some DO have a big grain of truth to them. I claim that the one about the French happens to be one of them.

9) The fire bombing of Dresden is UNDER-RATED. Everybody talks about "The Nukes" which makes sense. But hell, fire-bombing people to death worked.

The Dresden firebombings (and the Tokyo ones) still stand as being either War Crimes, or just one sliver away from that. Not to say I wouldn't have dropped the bombs myself if I felt it would do any good, but history has since judged that neither action really DID anything. It was an article of faith post-WWI that mass bombings on civilian targets would lead to rebellion and total civil collapse.

It was disproved many times in WWII, and thus we have one HELL of a lot of needless blood on our hands. The magic of 20/20 hindsight, it's a bitch.

10) And, finally, I think the Allies could have save alot of lives if a different attack was used instead of D-Day. It seems like the history books (& movies) emphasize the whole battle revolved about the landing areas & keeping them secret. Alot of allied body bags were used. Could there have been a better plan than D-Day?

There is little point in claiming something if you can not put forth a counter argument. Do YOU have any better suggestions? I don't. It was close to the supply lines in Britian, it was close enough to make a mass invasion possible with little warning, it was relatively poorly defended, and it enabled France to be retaken quickly, which was both a military and a political necessity.

[ November 14, 2002, 02:59 AM: Message edited by: I/O Error ]

[Flash Gordon]

1) The Germans were OVER-RATED !!! I'm tired of hearing all the bull-crap about their generals, equipment, planning, engineering, pretty uniforms, etc. ANYBODY CAN DEFEAT UN-ARMED COUNTRIES. Poland, Low Countries, & Baltic States don't count.

Actually, at the operational level, the Germans were very impressive. Even near the end of the war, when the Germans were literally scraping the bottom of the barrel when it came to manpower, drafting scared young boys and old men, many Allied soldiers conceded that the German soldier was superior to his Allied counterpart.

2) The SS were OVER-RATED !!! Big-deal shooting women & children. They hid behind the lines, until a nice soft spot was available.

The Waffen SS did not hide behind the lines but was very much on the front lines. However, it must be acknowledged that the average Waffen SS division was larger and better equipped than the average regular Army division, especially near the end of the war, as Hitler began to have doubts about the army. And much of the Waffen SS's prowess in battle no doubt came from their fanaticism. And while they may have been incredible soldiers in battle, they also committed some pretty terrible atrocities as well.

3) The Stukas were OVER-RATED !!! Anybody can bomb somebody who can't shoot back.

Stukas were very effective until the Battle of Britain where it became evident that they were very vulnerable in areas where the Luftwaffe did not have local air superiority. However, they were capable of placing bombs on target with amazing accuracy. And their vulnerability in areas where the enemy had air superiority is not confined to them alone - ALL bombers were vulnerable if their airforce had not established local air superiority.

4) The War @ Sea is UNDER-RATED: It took brass balls to go out in the middle of the Atlantic in some U-Boat.

It certainly took balls of steel to go to war in a U-boat but the Battle of the Atlantic has been consistently over-rated by historians. Even at the height of the U-boat menace, more than 99% of shipping from North America to Great Britain got through, i.e. the tonnage they sank was merely a drop in the bucket compared to the rest of the shipping that made it through.

5) The French are weak: UNTRUE!!! Look at all the wars they had been involved in over history. Vietnam, Napolean, War of the Roses, Dark Ages crap, French & Indian, etc. Yes, the got their ass kick in WWII & are a little whimpy now, but over the big picture they have fought well.

Agreed. The French got a bad rep in WWII. Basically, their political system was majorly FUBAR and much of her high command was old and ineffectual. That combined with "war dread" brought about by the horrendous casualties that they took in WWI resulted in an army which was fairly timid. No matter how good the man at the sharp end is, if the people running the show are bad, all of his efforts and sacrifices will be for nothing. This adage is also applicable to the German army as well as the US armed forces in Vietnam - the finest efforts of the fighting man at the front will come to nothing if poor or misguided leadership is the norm.

6) Africa was a waste of time in WWII!!! Who gives a rats ass about Libya & Egypt. If Germany was some smart, why didn't they go for the oil instead of dicking around in the sand (kitty box)?

They could have used those troops & resources in Russia.

Unfortunately, Germany didn't have much choice but to dick around in the sand. First of all, I don't think much of the oil in that region was even discovered during this period. Second, the Mediterranean and North Africa comprised Germany's southern flank. To just give it up and hand it over to the British would have been folly. Plus, much of Britain's shipping came through the Mediterranean so to give the British the run of the place would have set back Germany's war effort. As for whether they could have used those resources in Russia - the manpower and equipment that Germany committed to North Africa was NOTHING in comparison to what it had devoted to action in Russia. Most of the troops that Rommel commanded were Italian.

7) Resistance Fighters are UNDER-RATED!!! Snipers, French Underground, Sabatours, etc. played a huge role screwing up the Germans.

The French resistance really didn't play that significant of a role due to the harsh measures the SS took. It really didn't flare up until it was obvious that the Germans were on the way out.

8) Patton is the biggest STUD!!! Yes, the battlefield kill ratio & stats are questionable (do you believe everything you read), but this guy banged his way across France & opened up the front. He saved, or lets say "our blood, his guts" rescued alot of GI's at the Bulge.

Whether Patton is a stud or not is subject for debate. Ask ten different guys, you'll get ten different opinions.

9) The fire bombing of Dresden is UNDER-RATED. Everybody talks about "The Nukes" which makes sense. But hell, fire-bombing people to death worked.

Fire-bombing people to death worked? Yes, it certainly did. But as for bringing the war to a closer end, it didn't have the intended result. The rationale behind bombing civilian centers was to undermine civilian morale. Unfortunately, civilian morale had a tendency to actually go up as a result of bombings. The same thing happened in Great Britain when the Germans bombed London during the Battle of Britain and later the Blitz. And the same thing happened in Germany when RAF Bomber Command returned the favour in spades.

10) And, finally, I think the Allies could have save alot of lives if a different attack was used instead of D-Day. It seems like the history books (& movies) emphasize the whole battle revolved about the landing areas & keeping them secret. Alot of allied body bags were used. Could there have been a better plan than D-Day?

A lot of lives were lost at Omaha Beach. But the other landings that occurred at the same time came at a cheaper price in terms of human life lost. Basically, the guys at Omaha Beach drew the short straw in the bundle.

Landing troops on continental Europe had to be done. Trying to bomb the Germans to the point where they would have had to surrender was not working. Invading through the "soft underbelly" was an idiotic obsession of Churchills and cost a lot of lives which might have otherwise been spared had someone taken a closer look at the map of Italy and realized that the terrain and the shape of the country made it ideal for defense. So a landing at to be made on France. The only other alternative would have been to just sit it out until the Russians beat the Germans...which would have been unacceptable in light of the fact that post-war Europe would have been completely under the sphere of the USSR.

[Snall]

I believe and always will believe that if Germany had not attacked the USSR then...well, the war woulda have ended in a stalemate, especially since they were designing nukes 2. I mean, 2/3rds of his forces sent into that meat grinder of meat grinders..same with the Corsican, if he had not attacked Russia, theres no way that Wellington could have taken back Spain..anyway..you would think more generals at that level would read history books..if i was in either of their shoes..i woulda been sooo set..man...o well..

[Desert Dave]

Well, I just posted a post, only the striking bit of wit just... disappeared.

It's not here, where I intended it.

It's not on my work-desk, here handy to my right hand, where I keep the Z-files.

No. It's nowhere. And I looked. :eek:

That's probably a good thing, however, as I made further comments about Dresden and... hell, it's pretty late, better not to get so far into that kind of... strange insanity.

Say, maybe the post will show up one fine whistle-away day, and... well, cheese & crackers, it wouldn't REALLY matter if it did, or did not, true?

Enough. It's late. I apologize. For what I don't know. Something. Anything. I am...

[Rouge]

hitlers ultimate plan for rommel was to breakthrough egypt starve the suez cannal then sweep into the cremia captureing sovit oil and that was hitlers main objective.

i bear in mind that these are only opinions and everyone is intitled to theirs

[JayJay_H]

Thank you I/O Error and Flash

[JayJay_H]

Originally posted by jon_j_rambo:

My top-10 'takes' on WWII (like David Letterman)

Such a crap aint worth any more reply of mine

[Flash Gordon]

Actually, it is unlikely that Germany would have developed the atomic bomb before the USA.

There were many reasons but one of them was the fact that Hitler wasn't too keen on the idea because it relied on "Jew Physics".

[Artos]

1) The Germans were OVER-RATED !!! I'm tired of hearing all the bull-crap about their generals, equipment, planning, engineering, pretty uniforms, etc. ANYBODY CAN DEFEAT UN-ARMED COUNTRIES. Poland, Low Countries, & Baltic States don't count.

I don't know of any account from the people who fought the Germans who considered them underrated. While I work to avoid simple answers to complex questions, there is one certainty in WWII. It was a total war of attrition. The side with the most resources wins. The fact that the Germans withstood the combined industrial, technological, and poplulation power of the allies begs explanation. How does your statement advance this cause? Please also keep in mind, that the Germans did this with an army that was still horse based. This will strike many as fanciful. The German army was never even close to fully motorized in terms of supply. In most respects, their supply system was little different than that of the Franco-Prussian war and WWI (horses and trains). This could continue to a very long list, indeed.

2) The SS were OVER-RATED !!! Big-deal shooting women & children. They hid behind the lines, until a nice soft spot was available.

I/O and Flash have done a good job of responding to this.

3) The Stukas were OVER-RATED !!! Anybody can bomb somebody who can't shoot back.

At their time (all weapons have a time when they can shine) no opponent thought them over-rated. Precision tactical bombing starts with the Stuka (as does true combined arms capability). If it was so over-rated, the concept of and variations on the design have certainly stuck and been copied by every major military in the world.

4) The War @ Sea is UNDER-RATED: It took brass balls to go out in the middle of the Atlantic in some U-Boat.

Over-rated, perhaps. The other replies about the courage to go to sea and do battle in a U-boat are on the mark. The courage to keep going out is something incomprehensible to most (perhaps all of us). The actual opportunity for Germany to win a decision at sea was very small and Germany was not prepared to make the most of the opportunity, even if the leadership had been fully supportive. To illustrate, I will risk upsetting some people. Victory against Japan was not accomplished by island hopping (I say this as the nephew of a courageous and beloved uncle who was in the fifth wave at Iwo Jima.), carrier warfare (even though the U.S. had more than 100 carriers of all sizes by war's end), or through strategic bombing (even the atom bombs). Japan was defeated by the use of submarines against an island nation. (The reason this is frequently overlooked in the U.S. is that the post-war navy was dominated by carrier admirals.) What was the difference between Germany's failure and American success? Primarily it was time, four years of the steadily increasing pressure to strangle Japan, aided by a reversal of relative technological superiority from the Atlantic to the Pacific. In this regard, I agree the war at sea is under-rated.

5) The French are weak: UNTRUE!!! Look at all the wars they had been involved in over history. Vietnam, Napolean, War of the Roses, Dark Ages crap, French & Indian, etc. Yes, the got their ass kick in WWII & are a little whimpy now, but over the big picture they have fought well.

Big subject here. Prior to Napoleon, national armies, and the Empire, France had had periods of military success, even dominance. However, the Kingdom of France's primary weapon and reason for its success was diplomacy. The French, epitomized by Louis XIV were masters of manipulation. The fragmentation of Italy and Germany were triumphs of foresight and real politik. Of course there was a certain resentment to be expected, when their pawns got their act together. The 30-years war rings a bell here. As with any world power there are successes and failures. France has had a string of dramatic failures since that marvelous army of 1805 was destroyed. In these cases, national leadership has had an equal share of the responsibility as poor military leadership.

6) Africa was a waste of time in WWII!!! Who gives a rats ass about Libya & Egypt. If Germany was some smart, why didn't they go for the oil instead of dicking around in the sand (kitty box)?

They could have used those troops & resources in Russia.

A phrase comes to mind that I can picture being said by Yogi Berra (if he had ever had to reply to a statement like this): You fights wheres you have to. The initial decision to deploy to North Africa was more a political decision than a military one. The Italians had screwed up by the numbers and Hitler decided to bail them out. Was there a potential there to do more than just help an ally (burdend by poor equipment and an abysmal officer corps)? Certainly there was. Coherent German planning for long-term goals (even support for attainable mid-term goals, was non-existent at the national level. Was the use of (and waste of in some opinions) of fine formations worthwhile, in the end? Having those units and their supply train available for Russia would have made a difference, but it seems unlikely they would have made enough of a difference. (If you care to discuss the realities on the ground of supply in Russia, I will participate.) In my opinion, the Germans did gain from the debacle in the desert. First, it tied down significantly more military and national political resources of the British, than the Germans invested. You may recall that Churchill once said, "I did not become Prime Minister to preside over the dissolution of the British Empire." This is a telling statement and also explains why he did not contest Norway or attempt to retake it, when both were very feasible. The German involvement also kept Italy in the war for 12-24 months longer than was likely to be the case if the Italians had collapsed in North Africa. Such a collaps would have provided the allies with free reign in the Med, the freedom of movement to attack anywhere along the axis Med coast, early, undisuputed sea access (via the Suez Canal and Iran) to the Soviet Union, and freed huge forces and a long supply tail to support a possible early landing in northern France.

7) Resistance Fighters are UNDER-RATED!!! Snipers, French Underground, Sabatours, etc. played a huge role screwing up the Germans.

After the war, if you had polled the French, you would have found that a vast majority of Frenchmen and women had been part of the resistance. The reality is that no more than 50,000 French participated as part of the resistance at one time or another. Of this number a very small number were active regularly. When you look at their numbers, their accomplishments are without a doubt more impressive than we have been lead to believe by popular conception. They were very brave individuals. The story we do not get in more generalized readings of the history of the occupation and Vichy, is that far larger numbers of French were very, very active participants in supporting the German occupation and its policies. Compare .1% (.001) of the French population fought heroically, while somewhere between 5% and 10% were active collaborators. This number grows when we attempt to determine the number of French who supported the policies against the jews. There is another aspect of resistance fighting that applies to your post. The resistance fighting in the east was at least as much a product of Nazi policies and how the SS carried them out as a popular movement. Many in the Soviet Union welcomed the German army as liberators. In the Ukraine alone, Germany could easily have recruited more than 1,000,000 into its army, many of whom were of German ancestry and spoke German. In the rest of the Soviet Union (as we have seen since 1991) there were dozens of ethnic groups that just wanted to be free of Soviet domination (actually, any domination other than their own) and would have been at least quiescent to a light German hand. (The only hope Germany had of "conquering Russia, died stillborn due to Nazi policy.) On the heels of most Wehrmacht advances, came the SS. The terror began immediately with execution of leaders, teachers, etc. We might say that at least half of the partisan activity in the east was a self-inflicted wound.

8) Patton is the biggest STUD!!! Yes, the battlefield kill ratio & stats are questionable (do you believe everything you read), but this guy banged his way across France & opened up the front. He saved, or lets say "our blood, his guts" rescued alot of GI's at the Bulge.

In the earlier thread, I posted some thoughts on Patton. The things that stand out with Patton, that we can reliably state as positives: He was an apt student of history. He focused harder on training than almost any allied combat general. He could get a hard fight out of his men. He built an exceptional staff. He was a better combat general than he would have been an administrative general. He was adaptable and inventive with amphibious operations. The negatives: He was a glory-hound and used lives to obtain it. He did order/condone the execution of thousands of German prisoners. He was the driving force in the shortcomings of allied armored forces thanks to his ironclad insistence as the senior tank officer that the M4 be the only tank. This effectively killed the M26 which could easily have been the main tank used by the western allies in Europe. Patton, the leading U.S. tank man did not believe that tanks should fight tanks! There are areas I have not addressed, that can't be addressed with certainty: How would Patton have fared in the political climate in the Wehrmacht that his opponents faced? How would Patton have fought if he had been thoroughly handicapped in material, air support, political support, ally's (Italian, Rumanian, Bulgarian, Hungarian) officer corps, political considerations, equipment? How would Patton have fared after suffering a string of consecutive, crushing defeats? How would Patton have fared after loosing 80-90% of his army (his cadre of officers and NCOs disproportionately) and faced with the need to fight immediately? We can't answer these questions, and blanket statements seem unwise. Perhaps the most vexing question with Patton is, "Was his arrogance a positive or negative traint?".

BTW: To illustrate the attrition nature of the war, the pressure all German forces faced for years, and the courage of the American M4 tank crews, consider that in one year in Europe, the American 3d Armored Division took 580% percent tank losses.

9) The fire bombing of Dresden is UNDER-RATED. Everybody talks about "The Nukes" which makes sense. But hell, fire-bombing people to death worked.

I have been quoted as saying, "war crimes were invented by the winners so they can hang the losers." Not entirely accurate, but it contains some truth. By a very liberal definition, all war is a crime. By a very conservative definition, you can come to the same conclusion, with the caveat of "so what." Going back to the use of gas in WWI, many veterans of the fighting thought gas more humane than machine guns and massed artillery. At base, killing is killing for the most part. The offense many take of "weapons of mass destruction" is that they are easy and killing "shouldn't" be easy, and that attacking someone from inside their own body is deceitful. Please do not construe this as support or excuse for mass executions of civilians or surrendered enemies.

10) And, finally, I think the Allies could have save alot of lives if a different attack was used instead of D-Day. It seems like the history books (& movies) emphasize the whole battle revolved about the landing areas & keeping them secret. Alot of allied body bags were used. Could there have been a better plan than D-Day?

Another big topic. The decision to go into Normandy had many reasons, all valid to at least some degree; in total they were decisive. The Free French, the resistance, and the French people had been promised that France would be liberated. The British had a certain desire to redeem being driven out of France at Dunkirk. The size of the operation demanded very large, very secure (safe from detection and attack) staging areas, training areas, supply bases, and air bases. (Attempting to stage anywhere else would have been a dead giveaway.) All these required very large, numerous, and smoothly functioning port facilities to handle the enormous volume of cargo. The staging and deployment had to occur from bases very close to their targets to minimize detection, travel time to target, and keep the absolute maximum amount of airpower available in the critical hours. When successful, the supply chain could naturally (if not without difficulty) extend into France. In the end, any allied invasion of France, whether on the Channel or the Med, was going to need the support and supplies that could be provided from bases in England. The supply infrastructure was in place. Any other base with half the capability would have to have been built from scratch. Then there is the issue of how do you get the civilian support force in place in Corsica, Sardinia, Sicily, or North Africa. Normandy was a necessity. I have heard Normandy called the most planned military operation in history. I have seen nothing to dispute this. It was planned for 2 years with a marvelous (if sometimes comic) intensity. On the issue of surprise, surprise can be achieved in many ways. Did the Allies achieve surprise at Normandy, yes. Did the Germans make this easier for them, yes. Was it a challenge to achieve surprise when the enemy knew roughly where the attack would take place? Oh yeah. It was masterful deception and misdirection. B.H. Liddel-Hart has done some wonderful work on the nature of surprise. While his "Strategy of the Indirect Approach" is good, if dry, his WWI history, "The Real War, 1914-1918" provides a better discussion of the types of surprise, IMHO. Even if the German northern divisions had deployed immediately, it seems probable that as long as the allies had even one beach head, attrition and absolute air supremacy, would have been the deciding factor. (The Germans could move nothing safely in daylight with thousands of allied combat aircraft looking for anything that moved.) Let's not forget that one of the best combat generals the allies had was sitting on the sidelines (Patton) and that he had a certain skill with impromptu amphibious operations. Within days he could have organized and landed at any of perhaps a dozen sites along the channel and even Biscay coasts. (This flexibility also lends some credence to Hitler's fears that Normandy was a diversion.) The political reasons were strong, yet the military necessity justifies the decision.

My apologies for the length of my response.

[jon_j_rambo]

Artos --- "Nice take, rack 'em" -Jim Rome

[Norse]

Originally posted by Carl Von Mannerheim:

In regards to the French being srong </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Vietnam, Napolean, War of the Roses, Dark Ages crap, French & Indian

They lost all of those buddy, (...)

CvM</font>

[jon_j_rambo]

[ November 14, 2002, 07:54 PM: Message edited by: jon_j_rambo ]

[Rouge]

now the ****s hitting the fan............

as for the U-Boat one i recommend watching Das Boot.

BRILLIANT movie by wolfgang petersen.

You also say that the minor countries dont count. A man who lives in my grandfathers town and is a family friend was a Regular army soldier and was part of the invasion of poland- he said that their bravery was the same as anyone else fighting for their homeland.

Also this took courage:

In September 11 Polish CALVERY did a frontal assult on german armor, the german accounts say that they wore full dress uniform and had lances with them. Very minor indeed................. Polish Cavalry in full retreat.

[ November 14, 2002, 11:21 PM: Message edited by: Rouge ]

[Flash Gordon]

The charge of Polish cavalry against German tanks has been the subject of some controversy.

To some, it is the epitome of stupidity and backwardness...to others, the very definition of bravery and honour.

The fact is that the Polish committed their cavalry as a last ditch, hopeless effort. Also, it is my understanding that the cavalry men attempted to use satchel charges against the German tanks.

And for those who think that horses in an era of mechanized warfare is "backward", bear in mind that for the entire war, the majority of the German army depended on horses to get it from point A to point B...only a tiny fraction of the German army was actually mechanized.

And in the Phillipines, American cavalry men fought against the Japanese...on horseback.

[General Billote]

Perhaps it ( The Charge) was one of those truely historical moments...Like Pickets Charge or The Battle of Midway....In this case, it was made quite clear that Cavalry were finally and definatively irrelevant to modern warfare. Unless of course you are an Yugoslavian Partisan holding out in the hills ( in which case they come in quite handy!)

[Andre Bolkonsky]

Most of these have already been addressed, particularly the german myth of invincibility. So I'll take the leftovers.

3) The Stukas were OVER-RATED

Yes and No . . . It depends on what era you are talking about.

If you're talking about the Spanish Civil War, Poland and France; the Stuka is the meanest thing in the air, and is essentially a battlefeild sniper with a high explosive punch.

But, by 1947, the US P-47 Thunderbolt was the meanest assault bomber in the air. The Germans called it the Hunter Bomber, and hated it about as much as we hated their high velocity 75's and 88's. And it was NOT an overrated threat.

5)

The French are weak: UNTRUE!!!

I will agree with this, in part. Historically, Frankish and French army have always been considered the Creme de la creme of Europe. Throughout the Hundred Years war, the Isle de France around Paris was expanded to essentially the modern state of France we know now. During the Habsburg bid for power -- when Charles I controlled Spain, the wealth of the new world, and the Holy Roman Empire -- France stopped the Habsburgs from consolidating Europe under their control. And the armies of Louis XIV, and the engineering of men such as Vauban, made France a nation to be feared.

However, when Napoleon was broken at Waterloo, it is like the desire of the French to make war evaporated. They have had moments, but have lost their love of conquest. ANd their own colonial wars following WWII were purely hypocritical and unsound attempts to hang onto past glory.

6)

Africa was a waste of time in WWII!!! Who gives a rats ass about Libya & Egypt.

The goal is the Suez Canal, Check out a map sometime. Sure, England will destroy it; but this operation will deprive them of it.

Egypt is the front door of India, the gateway to the oil rich kingdoms of Persia, and the back door to the Caucus mountains. Indeed, you'll remember an entire army group is dispatched from the Stalingrad campaign to peirce the Caucus and shut down Baku; and to link up with Rommel in Egypt. Needless to say, the collapse at Stalingrad prevented this outcome. But it is said the greatest feat of generalship of the war was the march of the Caucus army group back to the rapidly shrinking German lines while harried by Russian forces.

7)

Resistance Fighters are UNDER-RATED!!! Snipers, French Underground, Sabatours, etc. played a huge role screwing up the Germans.

I will agree. Bravo, Victor Lazlo!

10)

And, finally, I think the Allies could have save alot of lives if a different attack was used instead of D-Day.

I completely and totally disagree with this statement.

The entire key to the operation was pinning down major German forces while a beachhead was established. There was no way they could force their way onshore against elite resistance, so they had to trick themselves into position against a second line position.

You want to call Patton the great stud, well, maybe. But he was the bait, because the Germans thought of him very highly. Patton called for an invasion at Pas de Calais, and the Germans (read that: Hitler) built his entire defense against Patton landing at Pas de Calais. And there were multiple intel ruses designed to support this theory.

Hitler and others demanded all armor be kept in a central reserve and brought to bear upon the point of attack. That place was just behind the Pas de Calais. It was frozen in place, held in reserve, giving Bradley valuable time to expand his beachhead. Monty failed to take Caan (not surprisingly), but the ruse worked nonetheless.

Rommel, who was well familiar with the Allied ability to interdict movement with tactical air power (see the comments on the P-47 above)had demanded the armor be kept close to the front lines in small packets to smash the landings on the beaches. And he was proven right.

First, Hitler freezes the German army to await Patton's landing. Later, the US air force shuts down the German's ability to move en masse to block Allied advances. All the while, Bradley crawls onshore and cannot be gotten rid of.

Indeed, it was Hitler's absolute fanaticism in his own correctness despite obviously being proven wrong that prompted Rommel to join the General's Bomb Plot following the Normandy landings.

The end result is, beyond all hope, the invasion succeded. The second front was opened, and the West gets its share of the glory in beating Hitler. The Russians do the heavy lifting in the war; but without allied Air superiority, control of the Atlantic, and Murmansk convoys (Coupled with US engineering marvels that allow the Ural industrial move); russia falls like a stone.