"It belongs to the very nature of a totalitarian system of the Fascist type that it is restless, dynamic, wanting action for its own sake and constantly devising imperatives."
Goebbels & National Socialist Propaganda
2. jexster - 3/2/2000 12:53:35 PM
Well the new computer is almost here. Should be set up either today or tommorrow so I decided to get started and see how this thread goes.
WWII, often characterized as a continuation of WWI after a 20 year cease fire, is a vast subject encompassing most of what forms the basis of modern war fighting strategy and incredible death and destruction born of the greatest ideological clashes in human history.
So it is that the scope of the Thread will be vast - from Hegelian dialectic to the Holocaust, from guerilla war to the massive battles of the Eastern Front; from Hitler to Tojo to Mussolini to Stalin, Churchill and FDR.
I will be setting up several links in the "butter bar".
Here is a bibliography, annotated courtesy Amazon.com. The ratings (***, **, etc) are mine.
1. Rise and Fall of the Third Reich : A History of Nazi Germany ***
by William L. Shirer
Before the Nazis could destroy the files, famed foreign correspondent and historian William L. Shirer sifted through the massive self-documentation of the Third Reich, to create a monumental study that has been widely acclaimed as the definitive record of one of the most frightening chapters in the history of mankind--now in a special 30th anniversary edition.
"One of the most important works of history of our time."
THE NEW YORK TIMES
3. jexster - 3/2/2000 12:53:52 PM
2. Inside the Third Reich : Memoirs **
by Albert Speer, Eugene Davidson (Introduction), Richard Winston (Translator)
From 1946 to 1966, while serving the prison sentence handed down from the Nuremburg War Crimes tribunal, Albert Speer penned 1,200 manuscript pages of personal memoirs. Titled Erinnerungen ("Recollections") upon their 1969 publication in German, Speer's critically acclaimed personal history was translated into English and published one year later as Inside the Third Reich. Long after their initial publication, Speer's memoir continues to provide one of the most detailed and fascinating portrayals of life within Hitler's inner circles, the rise and fall of the third German empire, and of Hitler himself.
Speer chronicles his entire life, but the majority of Inside the Third Reich focuses on the years between 1933 and 1945, when Speer figured prominently in Hitler's government and the German war effort as Inspector General of Buildings for the Renovation of the Federal Capital and later as Minister of Arms and Munitions. Speer's recollections of both duties foreground the impossibility of reconciling Hitler's idealistic, imperialistic ambitions with both architectural and military reality. Throughout, Inside the Third Reich remains true to its author's intentions. With compelling insight, Speer reveals many of the "premises which almost inevitably led to the disasters" of the Third Reich as well as "what comes from one man's holding unrestricted power in his hands." -- Bertina Loeffler
3. Hitler: A Study in Tyranny **
by Alan Bullock
Bullock describes with chilling specificity how through adroit manipulation of popular discontent, the control of information, and the politics of terror, a madman and a monster inspired Germany to perpetrate the defining horror of this century.
4. jexster - 3/2/2000 12:58:26 PM
4. Hitler's Vienna : A Dictator's Apprenticeship **
by Brigitte Hamann, Thomas Thornton (Translator)
Michael White, The New Yorker, August 2, 1999
Hitler's Vienna tries to penetrate the myths of the dictator's formative years as a frustrated painter in Vienna. Hitler, she says, detested the city's cosmopolitanism and restless avant-garde and took great pleasure in relocating its art reasures to other cities when he took power.
Meir Ronnen, Jerusalem Post, August 13, 1999
Hamann claims that the Hitler of Linz and pre-war Vienna was not yet an antisemite. She believes that antisemitism became a central issue for him when he decided to become a politician and first began addressing audiences in Munich in 1919 in aggresively antisemetic terms. It was then that Hitler, the once weak eccentric who, in his own eyes at least, had become a somebody during the war...began reinventing himself.
Stanley, Hoffmann, Foreign Affairs, September/October 1999
Hamann combines a careful, well-documented account of Hitler's life as a young man in Vienna before World War I with a sociopolitical history of the Hapsburg capital during those years....Hamann must be congratulated on her critical and discriminating approach to her sources and the fascinating double story she tells.
5. 1933 **
by Philip Metcalfe
If you can find it, do so! Fascinating account, almost an historical novel of 1933, the year Hitler came to power, from the standpoint of the US ambassador and other German liberals who witnessed events in Berlin.
6. Churchill, Roosevelt, Stalin : The War They Waged and the
Peace They Sought
by Herbert Feis (out of print)**
5. jexster - 3/2/2000 1:02:23 PM
7. Second World War
by Winston Churchill, John Keegan (Editor) ***
"After the end of the World War of 1914 there was a deep
conviction and almost universal hope that peace would reign in
the world. This heart's desire of all the peoples could easily
have been gained by steadfastness in righteous convictions, and
by reasonable common sense and prudence."
But we all know that's not what happened. As Britain's prime minister for most of the Second World War, Winston Churchill--whose career had to that point already encompassed the roles of military historian and civil servant with a proficiency in both that few others could claim--had a unique perspective on the conflict, and as soon as he left office in 1945, he began to set that perspective down on paper. To measure the importance of The Second World War, it is worth remembering that there are no parallel accounts from either of the other Allied leaders, Roosevelt and Stalin. We have in this multivolume work an account that contains both comprehensive sweep and intimate detail. Almost anybody who compiles a list of such works ranks it highly among the nonfiction books of the 20th century.
6. jexster - 3/2/2000 1:03:32 PM
8. The Second World War
by John Keegan **
The best one-volume treatment available, The Second World War by John
Keegan is an outstanding synthesis of an enormous amount of material on "the largest single event in human history." The book proceeds chronologically through the war, but chapters appearing at appropriate moments focus on particular themes, such as war production, occupation, bombing, resistance, and espionage. Keegan's ability to translate the war's grand strategies is impressive, and the battle descriptions are superb. Generals obviously play a key role in this narrative, but ordinary soldiers also receive proper credit, as do the often-overlooked merchant marines whose heroic efforts to supply Great Britain made the Allied victory possible. Keegan, author of the landmark book The Face of Battle, is without doubt one of our greatest military historians, and here his analytical powers and skilled writing are on full display.
9. The Road to Pearl Harbor; The Coming of the War Between the
United States and Japan.
by Herbert Feis (out of print)***
10. The Hollow Years : France in the 1930's
by Eugen Weber *
7. jexster - 3/2/2000 1:08:35 PM
From Kirkus Reviews , September 15, 1994
Weber (European History/UCLA; France, Fin de SiŠcle, 1986; etc.) skillfully paints a somber portrait of France in decline. War and the threat of war shaped France in the 1930s. Though the nominal victor of WW I, France never recovered from losing over a million dead and over three million wounded. About the inert Depression-era French economy, Weber reflects that ``the spirit of Thomas Malthus ruled over the land.'' With a less dynamic economy and a significantly lower rate of postwar population growth than Germany, Italy, or Britain, France produced a succession of leaders, such as Edouard Daladier and L‚on Blum, who reflected the country itself: conservative, backward-looking, irresolute, and determined to avoid another war with Germany at all costs. Weber notes the familiar diplomatic, economic, and political indicators of France's decline in the 1930s--its fractured politics, its failure to oppose a resurgent Germany, the repudiation of its American debt from WW I, its fatal pacifism in the face of German aggression. But he focuses primarily on social and cultural history. A significant drop in the servant population, greater urbanization of what had been a predominantly agrarian economy, the falling value of the franc, and labor legislation all had transformative effects. Nonetheless, some things changed very slowly. The emancipation of women, Weber notes, was ``slow, patchy, and indirect,'' with women receiving the ability to take legal action without their husbands' consent only in 1938, and the vote in 1945. With France's decline as a great power, people became preoccupied with sports, films, and religion (Weber describes the religious revival of the period as the ``Indian Summer'' of French Catholicism); xenophobia and anti-Semitism became more pronounced as economic conditions worsened.
8. jexster - 3/2/2000 1:11:50 PM
11. Hitler's Willing Executioners : Ordinary Germans and the
Holocaust ***
by Daniel Jonah Goldhagen
In a work that is as authoritative as it is explosive, Goldhagen forces us to revisit and reconsider our understanding of the Holocaust and its perpetrators, demanding a fundamental revision in our thinking of the years between 1933-1945. Drawing principally on materials either unexplored or neglected by previous scholars, Goldhagen marshals new, disquieting primary evidence that explains why, when Hitler conceived of the "final solution" he was able to enlist vast numbers of willing Germans to carry it out. A book sure to provoke new discussion and intense debate.
12. Goebbels & National Socialist Propaganda
by Ernest K. Bramstead (out of print) *
13. Goebbels
By Helmut Heider (out of print) *
9. jexster - 3/2/2000 1:12:43 PM
14. The 900 Days : The Siege of Leningrad (A Da Capo Paperback)
by Harrison Evans Salisbury ***
Reading this epic account of the Leningrad siege (written by an American journalist who lived in Russia for many years), I was stunned again and again by the horrors that the city endured. It is mind-boggling to realize that some of the siege's survivors are still around, almost sixty years after their ordeal. How long, I wonder, could an American city's populace hold out against such an onslaught? Salisbury makes his narrative compelling by tracking the lives of several citizens, utilizing their diary entries and letters. Their micro-histories allow the reader to imagine, briefly, the hell that Hitler and his minions created. Which is not to say that the Soviet leadership comes off much better-- Salisbury is absolutely blistering in his report on Stalin's incompetence and paranoid lunacy. Stalin was quite willing to sacrifice Leningrad to the German Army if it meant protecting his own position in Moscow. And many of the leaders and heroes of the Leningrad community were executed after the war on bogus charges of treason.
If you're curious about the Eastern Front, get this book.
10. jexster - 3/2/2000 1:15:49 PM
15. Kharkov 1942 : Anatomy of a Military Disaster
by David M. Glantz *
Examines the huge Russian offensive in May 1942 whereby Stalin hoped to split and destroy the German Army. The Germans, however, had planned to launch an offensive of their own and attacked at the root of the Soviet penetration, cutting it off and inflicting over 270,000 casualties on the Red Army. This is the most detailed work on the subject yet published.
About the Author
Colonel David M. Glantz is widely considered to be America's foremost effort on Soviet military studies.
16. When Titans Clashed: How the Red Army Stopped Hitler (Modern War Studies)
by David M. Glantz, Jonathan M. House ***
A full account of the Soviet army's triumph over the German army, from the Soviet perspective. Draws on formerly classified Soviet sources to place the war within its wider political, economic, and social contexts, and recounts the offensives and counteroffensives sweeping across a half-million square miles.
11. jexster - 3/2/2000 1:20:19 PM
17 Thunder on the Dnepr : Zhukov-Stalin and the Defeat of Hitler's
Blitzkrieg
by Bryan I. Fugate, Lev Dvoretsky (Contributor), L. S. Dvoretskii
The authors claim that the failure of the Wehrmacht to conquer Russia during the campaign of 1941 was due to the brilliant planning of Marshals Zhukov and Timoshenko.
Synopsis
The failure of the Wehrmacht to conquer Russia during the campaign of 1941 is commonly thought to be due to interference in the plans and operations of the German armed forces by Adolf Hitler. The truth, according to military historians Bryan Fugate and Lev Dvoretsky, is that the Soviets outfoxed both Hitler and the vaunted German General Staff.
18. Panzer Leader
by Heinz, General Guderian, Heinz Guuderian, Kenneth Macksey (Introduction) **
This is a great book by a brilliant strategist and soldier of WWII. Guderian tells his military life with straight forward bluntness that is typical of Generals who have seen the face of war and combat first hand. His tactics of "Achtung Panzer!" and of defeating and defending against the Soviet Army during WWII is rivoting. A loyal soldier to Germany Guderian makes no apology for fighting for the "Fatherland" yet you can tell that he was no "loyal Nazi" either. He was just a soldier doing his duty as he saw best. But overall this is the type of General and Panzer leader that the allies feared, especially the Soviets. As a final comment, it would of been very interesting to see how the allies would of done at Normandy, if Guderian was there and if he would of had full authority to let the tanks and Panzergrenadiers loose at the allies after DDay. The allies are indeed fortunate they never had to go against Guderian or the soldiers under his command.
12. jexster - 3/2/2000 1:22:28 PM
19. Barbarossa : The Russian-German Conflict, 1941-45
by Alan Clark ***
Many histories of the Second World War written by American and English
authors downplay Russia's critical role in the Allied triumph over Germany. Some of this has to do with the Cold War rivalry that emerged after 1945, and perhaps more of it comes from a lack of Russian source material and unfamiliarity with the Russian language. In any event, Alan Clark's classic study of the Eastern Front remains the best book on the subject, "the greatest and longest land battle which mankind has ever fought." These pages concentrate on four major events: Moscow in the winter of 1941, Stalingrad, the Kursk offensive in 1943, and the battles on the Oder at the start of 1945. The author, first a historian and later Margaret Thatcher's secretary of state, suggests that the Russians might very well have won the war on their own, or at least fought the Germans to a standstill, without American intervention. He also makes the provocative point that Hitler's military instincts were often quite good, and usually better than his generals'--contrary to received wisdom. Barbarossa is a reliable and readable account.
13. jexster - 3/2/2000 1:27:06 PM
20. The Longest Day : June 6, 1944
by Cornelius Ryan ***
A true classic of World War II history, The Longest Day tells the story of the massive Allied invasion of Normandy on June 6, 1944. Not only is The Longest Day a pleasure to read, but subsequent historians, dutifully noting its accuracy, have relied heavily on Ryan's research for their own accounts. In short, the book is a "must read" for anyone interested in the D-day invasion. --Robert McNamara
21. Citizen Soldiers : The U.S. Army from the Normandy Beaches to
the Bulge to the Surrender of Germany, June 7, 1944 to May 7, 1945
by Stephen E. Ambrose **
Stephen E. Ambrose combines history and journalism to describe how
American GIs battled their way to the Rhineland. He focuses on the combat experiences of ordinary soldiers, as opposed to the generals who led them, and offers a series of compelling vignettes that read like an enterprising reporter's dispatches from the front lines. The book presents just enough contextual material to help readers understand the big picture, and includes memorable accounts of the Battle of the Bulge and other events as seen through the weary eyes of the men who fought in the foxholes. Highly recommended for fans of Ambrose, as well as all readers interested in understanding the life of a 1940s army grunt. A sort of sequel to Ambrose's bestselling 1994 book D-Day, Citizen Soldiers is more than capable of standing on its own.
14. jexster - 3/2/2000 1:29:52 PM
22. The Two-Ocean War : A Short History of the United States Navy
in the Second World War
by Samuel Eliot Morison ***
A paper edition of Morison's rewrite (not a condensation) of his classic 15-volume History of the United States operations in World War II . A fine scholar, Morison possesses a good deal of poet: of the glorious 4th of June, 1942 at the Battle of Midway he writes that the carrier Kaga "sank hissing into a 2600-fathom deep".
Morison's concise history of U.S. naval operations in World war II is an outstanding contribution to military history. The author served on eleven different ships during the war, emerging as a captain with seven battle stars on his service ribbons. Illustrated with photos, maps and charts.
23. The Battle of the Atlantic, 1939-1943 : History of the United
States Naval Operations in World War Two
by Samuel Eliot Morison *
24. American Caesar
by William Manchester ***
15. jexster - 3/2/2000 1:30:57 PM
25. Marshal of the Soviet Union G. Zhukov : Reminiscences and
Reflections
by Georgi Zhukov **
26. The Waffen Ss : Hitler's Elite Guard at War, 1939-45
by George H. Stein *
27. Beyond 'Monsters and 'Clowns' : The Combat Ss. : De-Mythologizing Five Decades of German Elite Formations by Karl H. Theile
16. jexster - 3/2/2000 1:34:20 PM
Though not exclusively related I love:
The Arms of Krupp, 1587-1968
by William Raymond Manchester *** (out of print)
and for jollies:
The Neibelungenlied
17. CalGal - 3/2/2000 2:08:47 PM
Stephen Ambrose also wrote Band of Brothers, which follows the E Company in the 101st Airborne. If you have kids interested in WWII, the Ambrose books are all entirely suitable.
I watched A Bridge Too Far last weekend, and ordered Ryan's book as a result. Operation Market Garden strikes me as one of those classic cases of lousy decision making.
18. jexster - 3/2/2000 2:13:08 PM
Maybe someone will stand up for FM Montgomery. Maybe someone other than me!
19. jexster - 3/2/2000 2:19:16 PM
Recently read a book on WWII intel - Magic & Ultra - the title of which now totally escapes me.
One of the interesting things I learned, however, was that Market Garden was of a piece with a long history of heated dispute between the US and Brits on zones of occupation ending in the race for Berlin.
Monty's ego came into the picture rather late as a consideration. There were larger political disputes that gave rise to the ill-fated & misbegotten operation.
20. Wombat - 3/2/2000 2:26:23 PM
There are some newer histories of World War II that contribute a great deal that is new..if I could remember their authors/titles.
Other "popular" histories:
Shirer's Rise and Fall of the Thrid Republic. Does for France what he did for Germany.
Ambrose also wrote a book on D-Day. Drove home the role of close-in naval bombardment in a way no other studies have.
Ryan's Last Battle, the fall of Berlin.
Gordon Prange on Pearl Harbor.
21. Cellar Door - 3/2/2000 2:30:39 PM
Man -- what a reading list!
I can't say I'm a "war buff" on any level. I have, however, recently become aware from research I've been doing in other areas, of the enormous social and cultural impact the war had on American citizens on almost every level. So much so as to lead to a general unloosening of what Bill Bennett and similar pinheads would call "moral restraints." In fact I'm starting to believe that the immediate post-war period is shaping up as an "age" not at all that dissimilar from the "Roaring 20's." This is an undertone of several books I've been reading, including "Original Story By," the Arthur Laurents memoir I'm reviewing for the L.A. Times, Fred Kaplan's "Gore Vidal" bio, James Merrill's memoir "A Different Person," Paul Bowles' collected letters "In Touch," and several other things.
Ordinarily we see the McCarthy era, as bringing about its end. But the spirit of the late 40's gave birth to the Beats, and also by extreme contrast, the "Man in the Gray Flannel Suit" -- a "mainstream" culutral manifestation which was criticized the very moment it was first identified.
I hope this thread gets around to dealing with this area at some point.
22. jexster - 3/2/2000 2:44:08 PM
In fact I'm starting to believe that the immediate post-war period is shaping up as an "age" not at all that dissimilar from the "Roaring 20's."
I think so too.
23. Wombat - 3/2/2000 2:47:36 PM
The roaring twenties saw a loosening of some social mores through mass lawbreaking (because of prohibition). World War II's impact on US society was much more profound and far-reaching.
24. cigarlaw - 3/2/2000 3:03:30 PM
market garden was brilliant in concepton. alas, we left it to monty to impliment it.
25. Wombat - 3/2/2000 3:21:12 PM
Any plan that calls for a ground advance along one road to relieve advanced forces is not brilliant (unless there is no resistance). Monty didn't just implement it, he conceived it as well.
26. PincherMartin - 3/2/2000 3:26:49 PM
Jexter --
I appreciate the extended and detailed bibliography.
27. CalGal - 3/2/2000 4:18:22 PM
The third Shirer book I'd recommend is Berlin Diary.
28. cazart - 3/2/2000 4:30:25 PM
Goddamn it.
How can you Moteheads fuck up a WWII thread? Well, one way is to post a listing of an Amazon.com search of 'WWII.'
Jexster, get one the stick. Do an outline.
I. Genesis of War
II. War in Europe
III. War in the Pacific.....etc, etc.
You gotta get these cats to march, Jexster, or they'll be all over the landscape with favorite movies, books, and TV series.
29. cazart - 3/2/2000 4:37:46 PM
In the interest of moving this discussion in a coherent way, this might assist in developing a framework or outline for the discussion.
30. Angel-Five - 3/2/2000 4:46:19 PM
Well, Monty does get shorter shrift than he deserves -- and that's a hard thing to accomplish.
A lof of people don't realize that Churchill had charged Monty with keeping his army intact at all costs. It was Britain's last real field army and the Brits needed to have one of those when it came time to determine the balance of post-war power. The Brits also couldn't afford to be marginalized out of the effective balance of power DURING the war -- so you have Monty trying to walk a tightrope between demanding equal billing and not having the men and materiel available to press the attack.
Of course, this doesn't excuse Monty for Market-Garden. The attack required more than he was willing to give for it, and he wasn't willing to relinquish the full British end of the planning and execution. The result was the debacle that most people know about because they've seen A Bridge Too Far.
To be honest, I don't know how Monty ever got to be regarded as a master tactician. The man who beat Rommel? Hardly. The man who beat Rommel was a jumped-up quartermaster in the German high command -- I for the life of me cannot remember his name -- who for reasons that were strongly related to internal politics refused to support the Afrika Korps with men and materiel. And, I suppose, Rommel himself, who pressed the attack without sufficient supplies and backing from his superiors against a larger and better-supplied foe.
But Monty, wrongly, was a hero for 'outfoxing the Desert Fox'. And Britain had borne the lion's share of stopping Hitler early in the war, so Monty remained somewhat untouchable despite his sub-par generalship and the Brit inability to match the American pace.
31. Wombat - 3/2/2000 5:06:49 PM
Montgomery was exactly what the 8th Army needed after the disastrous Gazala campaign. He had been a highly competent division and corps commander in Britain, and was a master at raising troop morale, and implementing rigorous physical conditioning and training programs. He also did not subscribe to the languid "there's a good chap, why don't you go biff Jerry before tea" mind set that the British Army suffered from. He terrorized his subordinates, and demanded a great deal from them (often more than they were capable of giving). He was also able to stand up to Churchill, which was more than most British commanders could do.
Montgomery was the master of planning and organizing massive set-piece battles. El Alamein was superbly planned and supplied. Montgomery's subordinates, all holdovers from the previous 8th Army commanders, let him down badly.
32. cigarlaw - 3/2/2000 5:14:35 PM
i like rommel's discription of monty. 'he makes war like this...' stamps rt foot 6 inches in front of left and grinds it as if putting out a cigarette. 'i make war like this...' takes several long strides.
33. cigarlaw - 3/2/2000 5:18:30 PM
market garden needed a rommel it had montgomery.
btw, anyone read monty's history off wwii? hell, according to him he won the war and would have done it quicker if we had followed his advice.
34. Wombat - 3/2/2000 5:19:31 PM
Would Rommel's strides be forward or backward?
35. Wombat - 3/2/2000 5:22:20 PM
No one could have salvaged Market Garden. It was Monty trying outflash Patton.
36. spudboy - 3/2/2000 5:34:05 PM
Jex:
Nice start. I'll be mostly lurking, but hoping to chip in once in awhile. I'm not much of a goosestepper, so I'd urge you to ignore Cazart.
I note that your bibliography includes several books on Hitler. I'd also recommend the best survey of the various Hitler tomes, Ron Rosenbaum's Explaining Hitler.
Also, it'd be worth your while to check out what seems to be the best analysis of fascism, Roger Griffin's The Nature of Fascism.
37. jexster - 3/2/2000 5:56:53 PM
Cazart's an a--hole I know but that's OK. She'll never = Ace whom I've been missing BTW.
Buttholes notwithstanding, its probably a good idea to break the War into more manageable portions. Unfortunately, that's not really feasible with this set up as one huge subject thread. Readers would never know which part we were in.
And BTW asswipe, Cazart...the bibliography is no Amazon search. I've read each listed and welcome others to post their favorites so I can read more!
38. jexster - 3/2/2000 5:59:17 PM
Cigar -
I've seen Montgomery's book. From the sound of it I've made an excellent decision in passing it up. What a turd!
39. RustlerPike - 3/2/2000 6:24:50 PM
I remember a course in Tel Aviv U. by Shaul Friedlander, in which he said the Shirer book was unprofessional popular-reading and looked down upon in the academe.
40. jexster - 3/2/2000 6:48:07 PM
I know it has a poor reputation but its accuracy is unquestioned; its scope all you need, and its highly readable.
41. CalGal - 3/2/2000 6:54:10 PM
Shirer caught shit from historians for most of his career. I think that was due in large part to his popularity.
42. cigarlaw - 3/2/2000 7:18:35 PM
jex, yep. we all know it was john wayne won wwii. not some effette brit. my father-in-law was under monty's command for the battle of the bulge. he had some choice epithets for the brits.
i could have made margwt gard4en work. speed was of the essence. i'd have ordered anyone seen drinking tea would be summarily executed. of course, i am more concerned with killing the enemy than my own casualties. just so long as more of them die and i take real estate.
43. Angel-Five - 3/2/2000 9:24:36 PM
Market garden required more mobilization, more speed, more men, a more realistic timetable, and less Monty.
I disagree about El Alamein being a superbly planned battle. He had more force in better repair and better supplies. All he did was use them.
The effect Monty had on the Brits is much more akin to the effect a new coach will often have on a team with a streak of bad luck -- the change itself is much more efficacious than any abilities of the leader. And Britain at that time desperately needed a morale boost. 'Monty the war hero' is much more of a Hearst-like invention of the Brit press than anything remotely grounded in reality.
44. SnowOwl - 3/2/2000 9:34:38 PM
I disagree about El Alamein being a superbly planned battle. He had more force in better repair and better supplies. All he did was use them.
Isn't this what good planning's all about?
45. Angel-Five - 3/2/2000 9:35:48 PM
As to whether Rommel's strides were forward or backward:
There can be little doubt that Erwin Rommel had initiative, genius, and elan when it came to warfare. Those are generally the qualities that make or break a war leader and Rommel had all three in spades. I believe that he, MacArthur, Yamamoto, Patton, Guderian and possibly von Manstein were the only military leaders of true genius who achieved any stature during WWII, and I believe that order best reflects their abilities. (A caveat: I know comparatively little of the Soviet generals and even less of the Italians).
46. SnowOwl - 3/2/2000 9:37:33 PM
If you want to see what happens when you send ill-planned, badly supplied attacks against the German African forces, look westward to where Patton had his butt kicked at Kasserine Pass.
47. Angel-Five - 3/2/2000 9:38:44 PM
Isn't this what good planning's all about?
That would be a part of it but certainly not the majority. Examine any one of Lee's campaigns in the American Civil War, or examine the blitzkrieg into France against superior numbers with more and better armor.
48. SnowOwl - 3/2/2000 9:42:22 PM
Wavell and Slim are both notable by their absence on your list, Angel.
Zhukov's incredible skill as an organisational general is undeniable, and of the Americans I think Bradley ranks higher than Patton or MacArthur. And surely the most effective military leader in the entire war must be Eisenhower. I admit his skills were mainly in being a political general but war is an extension of politics as Clauswitz so rightly points out.
49. ScottLoar - 3/2/2000 9:45:41 PM
Or, look to Jackson's feints, rapid marches, and use of rail to gain a march on the enemy in the US Civil War, all to place the maximum force to bear upon his opposition's weakest or most critical point as badly outnumbered Jackson may have been. Or look to the Japanese race down the Malaysian peninsula - some of it through jungle and all of it fast and on short rations.
50. ScottLoar - 3/2/2000 9:47:03 PM
My comment was intended to support Message # 47.
51. ScottLoar - 3/2/2000 9:49:11 PM
Zhukov clobbered the Japanese in Asia, giving them such heavy losses that they never again took on the Russians, which allowed Stalin to later shift Zhukov and the Asian forces to the eastern front, much to the German's surprise when the massive counterattack by the Soviets was launched.
52. ScottLoar - 3/2/2000 9:49:34 PM
Rather, Germans'.
53. Angel-Five - 3/2/2000 9:51:41 PM
Bradley was beloved by his troops, undoubtedly. That was his charm. But he wasn't as much of a battle leader or a tactician as he was a leader of men, and that's not quite what I'm after.
Wavell is a good choice, but as for stature? Slim?
Eisenhower wasn't that effective of a leader. Sure, he juggled efficiently but his insistence on not doing anything to show up Monty prevented the AEF from achieving some major early victories in the ground war in Europe. Whole divisions escaped carefully planned pincer movements because Eisenhower insisted that US troops not move into areas that Brit troops were slated to occupy (and ended up occupying days late). We aren't talking about things that would have fractured the British/American alliance by any means.
Moreover, confusion as to where Monty stood and whether Monty took orders from SHAEF caused a lot of trouble for the Allies; given that the overall chain of command was Ike's purview, that too reflects badly on him.
54. SnowOwl - 3/2/2000 9:59:50 PM
w.r.t. the points made by ScottLoar and AngelFive on Monty's efforts in the Alamein, one has to remember that the African campaign was his to lose. As long as he could deny Rommel decisive victories, then Rommel's supply problems were going to defeat him. Thus by denying Rommel the opportunity to have the mighty breakthroughs and local superiority of forces that the outnumbered force needs to display, he demonstrated his analytical skills.
Conversely, Patton consistently risked his force for tactical benefit, but little or no strategic gain. With the situation on the Western Front in '44-'45 as it was, the preferable approach was the methodical genius of a Grant or a Bradley.
55. Angel-Five - 3/2/2000 10:02:19 PM
As far as Bradley versus Patton;
I think that the two of them needed each other -- the one to rein in the other, the other to spur on the one. Bradley was certainly cognizant of more political concerns than Patton was. But I think that if Patton had got his way more than Bradley the war would have been over more quickly and with fewer casualties. I think Patton was the only general on the Allied side who was truly feared by his enemies, much as Rommel was feared by the Allies.
AS for MacArthur -- well, it's much harder to draw a comparison between him and Bradley because the two fought in separate theaters in entirely different kinds of campaign. But Mac was clearly a master of where and when to strike and as such the Pacific theater was his chance to shine.
56. SnowOwl - 3/2/2000 10:08:34 PM
I always find it hard to judge MacArthur purely as a WWII tactical leader, he is overshadowed so heavily by Nimitz, and by his own later career.
57. Angel-Five - 3/2/2000 10:11:16 PM
Re: Monty -- I think that time was more of a pressing requirement to both sides than you credit it to be. The longer Rommel went on, the likelier he could convince his superiors to reinforce his victories. The longer the British went in Africa without a decisive victory, the more likely they would have found a replacement to give them one.
Re: Patton/Bradley:
Let's also keep in mind how important the postwar balance of power between East and West turned out to be, and that a quicker advance in Europe by Allied ground forces might have pushed back the Iron Curtain considerably... not to mention served to deny the Soviets the access to German research which propelled their space and armament research programs so far forward.
58. Angel-Five - 3/2/2000 10:12:40 PM
Re: Message # 56 Definitely.
59. Angel-Five - 3/2/2000 10:16:44 PM
I also wanted to add to Snowowl's Message # 54:
This may be true, but then again, such a realization on the part of Monty hardly proves him anything more than an officer of average military aptitude. And some hindsight is involved in this statement as well. Monty and the Brits couldn't know that Rommel wasn't going to be reinforced. In fact, as I recall, they were sort of incredulous that he hadn't been, and were expecting it.
60. Angel-Five - 3/2/2000 10:38:03 PM
There are a whole host of terrible WWII military blunders to be discussed in this thread. The US assault on Peleiu. The lack of decisive action at Anzio. Dieppe. Kursk. The reliance upon the Maginot Line. Market Garden. Kasserine Pass.
But I believe that the strong majority of blunders were committed by the Axis powers, an even greater number than one might deduce existed simply because the Axis lost. Most of these can be directly attributed to idiots like Hitler and Goering, but some of them -- such as the German failure to project enough power in the Mediterranean to enable the resupply of Rommel -- reduce to incompetence and petty politics, pure and simple.
Rommel's offensive wasn't in the overall plan -- Africa was sort of an exile for him arranged by his superiors who feared that while Rommel was around they no longer had Hitler's ear. He gained a clear tactical advantage right off the bat in Africa, despite the protests of his superiors, and with support he could have taken the Suez and beyond. He never got that resupply; while the Med wasn't exactly an Axis body of water at that time, the Germans still could have forced supplies to Rommel instead of sending trickles, much of which was sunk in transit.
While the German failure to resupply Rommel certainly ranks lower than their more colossal blunders (such as the timing of their attack in Russia, their lack of winter preparedness, Hitler's disastrous unwillingness to disengage at Stalingrad, the shifting of Luftwaffe targetings away from radar and fighter bases to centers of population and their subsequent failure to follow through on Sealion) one can't help but notice that it helped change the course of the war to the detriment of the Nazis.
61. Angel-Five - 3/2/2000 10:38:28 PM
Peleliu.
62. jexster - 3/3/2000 1:47:58 AM
WRT links, I highly recommend the Virtual Library one for those at all interested in the Eastern Front.
For the truly hardcore, checkout the section on books by David Glantz which includes declassified Soviet documents galore.
His When Titans Clashed is truly outstanding.
63. cazart - 3/3/2000 8:36:48 AM
The circle jerk continues.
It's a pity, this thread had some promise but has devolved into the usual look at me and the book I once read navel gazing exercise.
Also, let's get into the stereotypes--Monty was a bad, prissy Brit and Patton saved his ass--and the like.
Congratulations. This thread is to WWII history what People magazine is to journalism.
Wabbit, rename this thread to WWII Lite.
64. Indiana Jones - 3/3/2000 8:53:24 AM
Any of you WWII buffs into simulations of the war? Any favorites?
I used to enjoy Avalon Hill's "Rise and Decline of the Third Reich" and "Squad Leader."
65. Dusty - 3/3/2000 9:20:38 AM
cazart
Some have the capacity to lead by example, others are only able to whine.
66. cazart - 3/3/2000 9:25:17 AM
dusty:
There's no leadership here in 'WWII Lite.' I think you realize this.
To just throw out a book title really doesn't constitute a meaningful discussion. Additionally, with a topic as broad and rich as WWII, it is really meaningless if one pursues it without some kind of framework. Look at the posts to date--very, very little substance.
67. Dusty - 3/3/2000 9:31:06 AM
I've read all the posts. Many are fascinating. I'm learning a lot. True, some have very little substance, but they often have your name attached. If you can do better, show us.
68. cazart - 3/3/2000 9:34:24 AM
Not my thread, dusty. It is the responsibility of the moderator to set the framework and keep it moving in the same direction.
As to your learning 'a lot,' it's probably true given your general lack of knowledge on any subject.
69. Wombat - 3/3/2000 10:33:41 AM
Add Yamashita to your list of great WWII generals. Also take Slim over Wavell.
Any criticisms of Monty as 8th army commander must be taken in comparison to his peers in the British Army at the time. What an uninspired bunch! The British at Gazala outnumbered the Axis forces, were better equipped and supplied, and were routed by Rommel. There was a leadership deficit that Monty filled.
Most memoirs are self serving, particularly Churchill's, Zhukov's, and Speer's.
For those of you who like reading dense, academic books, there is a superb and highly detailed study of Khalkin Gol campaign (Nomohan to the Japanese) from the Japanese perspective.
70. jexster - 3/3/2000 12:27:00 PM
Cazart is as free as anyone to whine or to contribute something of substance or, indeed to fuck off and die if she would like.
Perhaps Cazart would favor us with her opinion of the dynamic of fascism as it found expression in pre-war Italy, Japan & Germany.
Was it in the nature of these fascist systems to bring on the conflagration it eventually did? Could these systems have survived with more limited aims? What impact did the imperialist legacies of the Western democracies have on the "have-not" fascist states' behavior? Was the subsequent overreaching of Germany, Italy and Japan a natural consequence of their systems? What of the coup d'etat in Japan circa 1936? Was rapprochement with China possible? Did the US contribute to the Asian War by its confrontational policies with Japan both before WWI and its immigration policies?
There's your assignment for the weekend Cazart!
71. jexster - 3/3/2000 12:33:20 PM
Wombat:
Not only are most memoirs self-serving but I can think of none that isn't. Zhukov's is worse because it had the additional constraint of the Soviet censors. Best to get the last edition - less censorship.
Still memoirs are useful for that very reason. The bias may be irritating but its revealing as well on some very important issues. Churchill in particular for if you read between the lines you learn a good deal about the politics going on in the UK.
Because of bias, however, I make it a practice to read memoirs only after reading 3d party historians so I can place the writer's comments in perspective.
Even then watch out. Most of the early histories of the Eastern Front are slanted because they are based in some measure on the recollections, testimony or memoirs of Germans.
That's why I recommend anything written by David Glantz. He relies heavily on his knowledge of Soviet strategic and tactical doctrine as well as recently declassified stuff to balance the earlier renditions.
72. jexster - 3/3/2000 12:34:13 PM
Cazart -
The fee for your Seminar on WWII is $50 per post. Please remit to Wabbit.
73. cazart - 3/3/2000 12:53:55 PM
Jexster:
Your answers in keeping with the best traditions of 'WWII Lite:'
1) It contributed but was part of a number of other factors.
2) A qualified 'yes.'
3) Again, a minor factor (with differing views)among many other factors.
4) Not necessarily a function of their systems. Depends.
5)Gave rise to dominance of 'total mobilization' faction.
6)Probably not, given the inconsistencies and irrationality of the Japanese Govt.
7)Prior to WWI? Or WWII? Both?
7)
74. Wombat - 3/3/2000 3:42:43 PM
A British professor named Erickson wrote a very good two-volume history of the war on the Eastern Front.
I tried rereading Morison's history of the US Navy in World War II and found it unbearable. So much cheerleading. Stephen Roskill did a much better job on the Royal Navy in WWII. Arthur Marder is another excellent naval historian. His book on the Mers-el-Kebir incident is an unbiased look at an apalling action.
75. jexster - 3/3/2000 4:42:43 PM
Cazart gets a "lite" grade = D-
Wemember to wemit to Wabbit. You should put more effort in if you wish to get the most of your $50
76. Angel-Five - 3/4/2000 7:43:12 PM
World War II has always been a fascinating subject for me, for reasons both personal and general. Preparations for it, and attempts to avoid it, and the fighting and denoument of it took over two decades; the outcome of WWII has exerted an unmatched influence on world history this century. The sheer human drama of the war and the clash of ideologies is fascinating and horrifying, but I suppose one of the things that I find so fascinating about WWII is not only its importance but the fact that we understand so many different ways it might have come out had there been a small change here or there.
IT is such a well-documented war that these 'what-if' guesses can have a great deal of legitimacy to them, because we can see what would have happened if one thing had gone differently here or there.
77. Angel-Five - 3/4/2000 8:13:06 PM
From today's Independent:
'Queen Mum wanted peace with Hitler'
78. jexster - 3/4/2000 10:29:54 PM
Thanks for the post A5. And how quickly she turned around! She and George were quite inspiring during the Battle of Britain.
Have to agree also that WWII what-if's are not only fun but fun because there were so many which are so realistic to play with.
If Japan had attacked Russia?
If Hitler had not gone to Mussolini's rescue?
If Hitler had supported Rommel and cut down his eastern ambitions?
If Goring were such a fat disgusting pig with power?
If GB had been able to re-arm circa 35-36?
79. ilyavinarsky - 3/4/2000 11:26:53 PM
Re the Siege of Leningrad. A novel translation that is gathering dust on my hard drive has this fragment:
Some ripples…. Yeah. Depends on how lucky. This depends on us not. We only have to think of what depends on us…. In Leningrad, we didn’t have any ripples, there was the cold, ghastly, savage, and the freezing ones would scream on icy stairwells – quieter and quieter, for many hours…. He would go to sleep hearing someone scream, and wake up to the same hopeless screams, and when in the morning he descended the stairs, slippery from frozen excrement, for water, wrapped up to the eyes, holding mother, who was pulling the sled with the bucket, by her hand, the screaming one would be lying downstairs by the elevator shaft, probably right where he fell yesterday, certainly right there – could not get up by himself, nor crawl, and no one must’ve come to his aid…. And no ripples were necessary. We only survived because mother was used to buying firewood not in the summer, but in the early spring. The firewood saved us. And the cats. Twelve grown cats, and a small kitten, so hungry that when I wanted to stroke it, it jumped at my hand and greedily gnawed and bit my fingers…. Wish you’d been there, bastards, Andrei thought about the soldiers, suddenly bitter. This ain’t the Experiment…. And that city was scarier than this one. I would’ve gone insane there, no doubt. What saved me was that I was little. The little ones simply died.
80. ilyavinarsky - 3/4/2000 11:27:00 PM
And the city, by the way, wasn’t surrendered, he thought. Those who remained were dying off. They were being piled up in wood warehouses, the living ones they tried to get out – the administration was functioning nevertheless, and life went on – horrible, delirium life. Some simply died, some made heroic feats and died anyway, some worked their asses off until the very end, and when the time came, died too…. Some would get fat on all this, would trade bits of bread for jewelry, gold, pearls, earrings, and then died too – were led down towards Neva and shot, and then the soldiers walked up, looking at no one, throwing rifles behind the flat backs…. Some would hunt with an axe in narrow alleys, ate human meat, even tried to sell it, but died anyway too…. That city had nothing more common than death. And the authority remained, and as long as the authority remained, the city stood fast.
I wonder whether they had any pity for us? Or did they simply not think about us? Simply obeyed the order, and the order spoke about the city, and nothing about us. That is, there was something about us too, of course, but in paragraph G…. On Finland Station, under the clear, white from the cold, sky, echelons of boxcars stood. Our boxcar was full of little ‘uns like me, aged twelve or so – some orphanage. Remember almost nothing. Remember the sun in the windows, and the steam of breath, and a child’s voice that kept repeating the same utterance over and over again, in the same helpless?vicious squealing pitch, “Get the fuck off ‘ere!” And again, “Get the fuck off ‘ere!” And again….
81. ilyavinarsky - 3/4/2000 11:29:27 PM
Has anyone read Total War by Wint, Pritchard and Calvocoressi?
82. jexster - 3/4/2000 11:52:54 PM
Thanks Ilya. I want to visit St. Petersberg more than just about any place on the planet.
And no I've not read Total War but will check it out.
83. jexster - 3/5/2000 12:19:31 AM
Total War 1989 edition is 1300 pages long.
84. Angel-Five - 3/5/2000 12:25:41 AM
I have read some about the siege of Leningrad; that is very moving, Ilya. Though I don't imagine any words can capture the enormity of what the citizens of Leningrad endured, those are very evocative.
It is amazing and heartbreaking to contemplate that a city of nearly three million, with food reserves of less than two months at the onset, survived a German siege that lasted 900 days; most of that time was endured without heat, running water, and any real amount of electricity or food. The citizens were held under the stifling heel of one tyrant -- their own leader -- while another tried to grind them away to nothing. In one winter (1942, where the temperatures dropped below -40 F) over two hundred thousand people died from the cold and the hunger alone. Perhaps eight hundred thousand died during the course of the siege.
85. jexster - 3/5/2000 12:31:00 AM
PISKARIOVSKOYE MEMORIAL CEMETERY
At this sobering place one can truly understand the scale of tragedy that this city (then called Leningrad) lived through during the Second World War (the 900-day Siege of Leningrad). For over 2 and a half years the Nazis kept Leningrad under siege, but its heroic defenders, both soldiers and civilians, did not surrender.
In St. Petersburg we take pride in the fact that during almost 300 years of the city's history enemy forces have never taken the city.
Hundreds of thousands of people died in the city (mostly of cold and starvation) during the siege. About half a million of them, including 420 thousand civilians, are buried in the cemetery's 186 mass graves. The slightly raised mounds are marked by year and a long alley leads the visitor to a monument with a statue of the Motherland, portrayed as a grieving woman. Many of St Petersburg families come to the cemetery once or twice a year to bring flowers and pay tribute to the city's defenders, perhaps to members of their own family, who died during the Siege, which the Russians call Blokada
Near the entrance there is an eternal flame, where everyone stops insilent mourning and two pavilions, with an exhibit of photographs that need no captions. During summer time Russians drop coins into the little ponds and the money goes for maintenance.
86. Angel-Five - 3/5/2000 12:40:55 AM
Five hundred thousand.
Imagine that. That's something like a solid stack of bodies five hundred feet wide, five hundred feet long, and fifty feet high. IIRC the Russians just left them stacked up until the ground would thaw enough to bury them in the spring, and then draft people to dig mass graves and throw the bodies in.
87. Angel-Five - 3/5/2000 12:45:30 AM
I don't think that either the Nazis or Stalin even gave the citizens and soldiers a chance to surrender, Jexter. I may be wrong, but I thought that Hitler ordered that no surrender from Leningrad be accepted, and I'm pretty sure Stalin ordered that anyone attempting to surrender would be shot.
88. jexster - 3/5/2000 1:16:00 AM
A5 -
You are correct as far as I have read. Hitler planned to massacre everyone and the Leningrad authorities had detailed plans - concrete works, tank barriers, trenches, lines of fire all in place for an expected assault.
Any talk of surrender would have been considered treason
89. Angel-Five - 3/5/2000 1:43:15 AM
Jexster:
Have you read Eisenhower's Lieutenants by Russell Weigley? Thick as rock but lots of good day-to-day info about the ground campaign in Europe.
Did you have a plan for where to first tackle WWII in this discussion?
90. jexster - 3/5/2000 2:23:33 AM
Did you have a plan for where to first tackle WWII in this discussion?
Short answer is "no". If there is enough interest Wabbit might break this up into something like, off the top of my head:
- Origins
-Military Campaigns - Europe
- Military Campaigns - Asia
- Big Three Relations
- Holocaust
- Immediate Post-War (Nurmberg, UN, NATO, Marshall Plan etc)
Otherwise its a free for all.
91. Angel-Five - 3/5/2000 3:44:35 AM
We ought to be able to hit those pretty well; there's lots of knowledgeable people for each topic here. But you don't need Wabbit to do that for you -- you should be able to change the heading yourself as suits your need.
92. jexster - 3/5/2000 11:53:11 PM
Damned if I can't!. Damned if I didn't.
We now speak of events leading up to WWII - personalities, politics, ideologies, sociological changes, economics, military whatever. Just don't go beyond 1939 please.
We'll see how this goes.
93. AytchMan - 3/6/2000 3:05:41 AM
jexster--
OK, here goes -- how's this for a radical notion?
The Maginot Line was a screaming success. With one forgotten exception (which gave me the idea), I've never read a defense of the Maginot Line anywhere. Indeed, everyone today uses the phrase as a synonym for costly failure. Well, I beg to differ. Here's the argument:
While it nearly bankrupted the moribund French economy, the Line brilliantly achieved exactly what it was built for: to deter and deflect a German attack. That the French failed miserably in the Ardennes and elsewhere is a separate issue. Except for a couple of feints to distract the French at the outset of the attack into the Ardennes, the Germans completely ignored the Line until the Battle of France was nearly over. Only then, with the French desperately drawing troops to shore up a ragged line south of Paris, did the Germans break into the Maginot forts.
During construction, I think the French actually considered extending the ML into the Ardennes. If they had been able to scrape up a few more francs for that, the course of the war would almost certainly have been very different.
Let loose the electrons of discussion. I'll chip in as I can but this week looks busy.
94. AytchMan - 3/6/2000 4:59:23 AM
A clarification:
Since the Maginot Line was built before the war, I posted the previous message. But since the results were not determined until 1940, you may want to postpone discussion until later. Please advise.
95. PelleNilsson - 3/6/2000 6:54:15 AM
Something I would like to discuss is Hitler's original plan. On the surface it looks simple: to restore Gemany to pre-WWI status and fulfill the unification by adding Austria. Hitler did not want a war with France and England, at least not in the near future. But how could he gain Alsace-Lorraine without a war?
If the above is a mimimum plan was there a maximum one too? Incorporate all of the former Austrian Empire? Take over all of Poland, and perhaps Ukraine?
Or wasn't there any plan at all? Was it all a question of opportunism?
96. cazart - 3/6/2000 8:49:35 AM
Message # 90
Hmmmm.....sounds familiar. Could it be an echo from Message # 28 or Message # 29?
Otherwise 'WWII Lite' continues in this vein:
Gee, I like Prange better than Toland
Toland's really good.
A lot of people died in WWII
I'll say. Did you see Saving Private Ryan?
I cried when Tom Hanks got shot.
97. Angel-Five - 3/6/2000 9:30:53 AM
I actually want to amend something I said earlier -- about Wavell and Slim being candidates for the group of best war leaders to come out of the combat of WWII. The more I think about Slim, even though he committed some embarrassing blunders early on, he probably deserves a nod. And the more I think about Wavell, the more I actually wonder what ever he could have done to deserve such an accolade. He lost to Rommel twice and he didn't accomplish much of anything in SE Asia that I can remember.
98. Angel-Five - 3/6/2000 10:01:38 AM
It's commonly accepted that WWII was an inevitable consequence of the incomplete resolution of WWI -- that the economic and social condition Germany found itself in following its incomplete defeat in WWI set the stage, sooner or later, for a second future war against the Germans. To me this seems obviously true.
What isn't true for me is that the campaign necessarily had to be against a fascist Germany, let alone a virulently anti-Semitic state which in the common imagination has come to personify unmatched cruelty and malice. And we have to ask -- if we had done things differently in the years between the world wars, would we have faced a tougher fight or an easier?
Germany in the years leading up to the second war was ripe for a demagogue to lead them. The point has been made in the past that most other leaders would not have taken the crazy gambles that Hitler did in the early years (occupying 'traditionally German' territory) and there's probably some truth to this. But one also has to realize that a) the core of German power and industry would have not been terribly weakened if they had never occupied the Rhineland or the Sudetenland,
b)there would have been much less of a push on the part of the Allies to rearm without such aggressive seizures, and c) even if Hitler gave the Nazi state a strong early advantage, his insistence on calling all the military shots was the Nazi death knell.
So it would seem that a Hitlerian Germany might have been our best bet for a beatable opponent in WWII. Hitler commanded fanatic loyalty, but other demagogues might well have done the same.
99. Angel-Five - 3/6/2000 10:06:36 AM
Let's not forget that if it weren't for the fascists in Germany there would have been little to stop the Communists from assuming control. People don't speak much of that now but it was a real possibility in those days that communist insurgency in Germany would triumph. It's one of the reasons that the fascists were tolerated.
As horrible as WWII was, I can only think that a second world war of Allies vs the communist Soviets and Germans would have been much, much worse -- and much, much longer. The only redemptive factor would be that maybe there would have been no Holocaust.
100. PelleNilsson - 3/6/2000 10:13:06 AM
I cannot accept your premise in the first para that WWII was an inevitable consequence of WWI. I don't believe in historical determinism, and I don't think any respectable historian does either.
101. Angel-Five - 3/6/2000 10:17:29 AM
Bully for you, then, Pelle. What do you perceive that could have been done to forestall a second world war where Germany fought against the bulk of the Allies?
102. Angel-Five - 3/6/2000 10:18:52 AM
A proviso: Assume that the resolution at Versailles, including reparations and strictures, does not change.
103. ScottLoar - 3/6/2000 10:24:05 AM
Would the learned historians find The World War, Phases I & II more palatable? Or do you believe the two events totally unrelated, independent in origin, just coincidentally again ranging the interests of Germany against those of Britain, France and Russia? And that the US would never have been involved in the European land war save the bombing of Pearl Harbor?
104. PelleNilsson - 3/6/2000 10:30:53 AM
Well, Angel, we cannot wade through all of German domestic policies 1919-1933, but there were a great deal of occasions when developments could have taken another turn, the last one when the foolish von Papen persuaded Hindenburg to appoint Hitler as Chancellor, in spite of the fact that the Nazis had lost voters (I think -- I don't have any reference available now).
We cannot, in my view, exclude that democracy could have taken hold in Germany and that it could have come to terms with its defeat in WWI, just as it did for WWII.
105. Angel-Five - 3/6/2000 10:48:01 AM
Von Papen convinced Hindenburg to make Hitler the Chancellor because everyone was deathly afraid of Communism. One way or the other it would have happened.
Germany after WWII had a bombed-out country, a thoroughly destroyed power structure that was busily being hunted throughout the world by international tribunals, and huge floods of Marshall money. It was also occupied by foreign troops, had had the Holocaust forcibly shoved into its face -- and even then it took the Germans a LONG time to deal with their guilt, as evidenced by the fact that many ex-Nazis were 'sanitized' and incorporated into the West German power-structure.
Compare that to post-WWI Germany with massive inflation, a toothless central leadership, war reparations and humiliating strictures upon its abilities to function on a sovereign state, a strong Communist insurgency AND the notion that Germany hadn't truly been defeated by its foes.
No. I'll accept that there's some very small probability that WWII would have been thorooughly avoided or even largely avoided through chance, but only a probability small enough that it makes little sense to even address it.
106. PelleNilsson - 3/6/2000 10:56:35 AM
Yes, the central leadership was "toothless". My point is that it didn't need to be. But you are right, as a discussion subject this is not very profitable. Any thoughts on Message # 95?
I have to go offline for a while now.
107. Jenerator - 3/6/2000 11:24:08 AM
Res,
"Let's not forget that if it weren't for the fascists in Germany there would have been little to stop the Communists from assuming control. People don't speak much of that now but it was a real possibility in those days that communist insurgency in Germany would triumph. It's one of the reasons that the fascists were tolerated."
I've never heard of this before. How much of a threat was the Communist presence in Germany? If anything, the social conditions seemed ripe for a totalitarian/fascist government more than anything else.
108. Jenerator - 3/6/2000 12:03:13 PM
>> An American soldier, serving in World War II, had just returned from several weeks of intense action on the German front lines. He had finally been granted R&R and was on a train bound for London.
>> The train was very crowded, so the soldier walked the length of
the train, looking for an empty seat. The only unoccupied seat was directly adjacent to a well dressed middle aged lady and was being used by her little dog.
>>The war weary soldier asked, "Please, ma'am, may I sit in that seat?"
>>The English woman looked down her nose at the soldier, sniffed
and said, "You Americans. You are such a rude class of people. Can't you see my little Fifi is using that seat?"
>>The soldier walked away, determined to find a place to rest, but
after another trip down to the end of the train, found himself again
facing the woman with the dog. Again he asked, "Please, lady. May I sit there? I'm very tired."
>>The English woman wrinkled her nose and snorted, "You Americans! Not only are you rude, you are also arrogant. Imagine!"
>>The soldier didn't say anything else. He leaned over, picked up the little dog, tossed it out the window of the train and sat down in the empty seat.
>>The woman shrieked and demanded that someone defend her and
chastise the soldier.
>>An English gentleman sitting across the aisle spoke up, "You know,
sir, you Americans do seem to have a penchant for doing the wrong thing. You eat holding the fork in the wrong hand. You drive your autos on the wrong side of the road. And now, sir, you've thrown the wrong bitch out of the window."
109. Angel-Five - 3/6/2000 12:10:51 PM
Zara
The Communist threat was about equal, a little less than equal actually, in most cases than the fascist threat. The two ideologies are natural enemies and fascism had an ideological edge in Germany but the Communists had the Comintern and the Sovs. People in favor of neither side generally abhorred both but trusted nationalist fascism a little more than the R
110. Angel-Five - 3/6/2000 12:11:17 PM
a little more than bolshevism.
111. Angel-Five - 3/6/2000 12:24:35 PM
As far as Hitler's plan, I think it was opportunism, plain and simple, informed by 'Ein Volk, Ein Reich ... Ein Welt, Ein Sonnensystem, Ein Galaxie ... Ein Fuhrer'. I think he genuinely wanted to rule everything he could reach and have it populated by ethnic Germans. I have seen people suggest that his attacks on some other countries were the fruit of his paranoia, but I think he at first set out to build a Greater Germany and then decided he wanted the whole enchilada.
112. Jenerator - 3/6/2000 12:32:18 PM
Res,
I know Zara personally, and yes we're two distinct people. She knows a whole lot more about WW2 than I do, but it is something I'm interested in, whether or not you persist in claiming we're the same person. I have questions. How are fascism and communism natural enemies in your opinion? And wouldn't you say that those Germans in favor of neither fascism nor Communism preferring "national fascism" actually preferred what they thought was German nationalism?
113. Jenerator - 3/6/2000 12:34:11 PM
"I have seen people suggest that his attacks on some other countries were the fruit of his paranoia, but I think he at first set out to build a Greater Germany and then decided he wanted the whole enchilada."
I agree, and didn't Hitler's nationalism include a concept of 'living space'?
114. Angel-Five - 3/6/2000 12:48:13 PM
Re: Zara
Whatever.
Re: 'national fascism'
Well, obviously, they preferred neither, but the fears of a fascist government were there all along. Maybe some thought they could just get away with a strongly nationalist government, but don't forget that Mein Kampf was already out then and it was pretty frickin' plain as to what Hitler wanted.
As to why fascism and communism are natural enemies -- economics.
115. Angel-Five - 3/6/2000 1:01:31 PM
Also keep in mind that fascism wasn't a German invention. The powers that be had Italy to examine. The Weimar rulership was toothless, the German economy was in tatters, and Hitler wanted to centralize power while jackbooted Sturmtruppen marched at his beck and call and fought with the Communists in the streets, both sides aching for a revolution.
No, I think that even the optimists knew that they were looking at a change a lot more profound than simply having a nationalist government when they considered Hitler as a compromise candidate for chancellor.
116. jexster - 3/6/2000 1:25:03 PM
Well it appears the more focused format's better.
Have fun.
117. jexster - 3/6/2000 1:28:06 PM
The Maginot Line was a screaming success.
It certainly was. The problem was with the false sense of security it gave the French and the ammunition it gave the Socialists and other opponents of re-armament in the 1930's.
The Line was enveloped from the rear, the main thrust of course coming through the Ardennes and through Belgium where for various reasons, primarily finanicial the Line did not exist.
118. jexster - 3/6/2000 1:29:21 PM
AM -
Its OK to talk off topic as it were. As I said, your Maginot Line Post can easily relate to what happened or didn't happen in France in the 20's & 30's
119. cazart - 3/6/2000 1:33:50 PM
Well it appears the more focused format's better.
Only took you about a week and 90 posts to figure that one out, Clausewitz.
120. Angel-Five - 3/6/2000 1:42:33 PM
That'd make him a much quicker study than you, Cazart. Anyone who's bitched about the content of a thread for that length of time and not though of one interesting or intelligent thing to say is definitely second place to someone who can change their mind as need be. Is it just that you're out of your depth in a WWII thread or are you only disposed to complain in this thread because you're generally despised here?
121. cmboyce - 3/6/2000 2:01:53 PM
I have the impression that the German Communists had pretty effectively shot their wad with the spate of "People's Republics" (and attempts at them) right after the first war. The left was then committed to Weimar, and fascism and its allies on the "old" right, fought to weaken this establishment through the 20s.
Incidentally, wrt the proposition that a Communist, and thus Hitlerless Germany—which I quite agree would have been harder to defeat, at least if allied with Russia—would have necessarily involved the (compensating) absence of the Holocaust, I don't think this follows with anything like inevitability. Communism, especially in Russia, has shown no marked indisposition toward pogrom-as-policy.,
122. cazart - 3/6/2000 2:18:05 PM
Really, A-5? You call a rote recitation of a syllabus an interesting or intelligent discussion? Or a disjointed and ill-advised precis of Montgomery's campaigns, which was likely based on a movie portrayal?
The new format--one which I suggested eons ago--has promise. And I will participate when the more simplistic views of WWII's origins are exhausted. Until then, you can put your head up your ass where it belongs.
123. Angel-Five - 3/6/2000 2:26:44 PM
You call a rote recitation of a syllabus an
interesting or intelligent discussion?
(laughing) Hardly what's happened here, but even so, that's much more interesting than a would-be village idiot mouthing such pithy aphorisms as 'WWII Lite' and 'Say, seen Private Ryan?' in a frantic attempt to be noticed. Such rapier-like wit and poker-faced subtlety is only matched in these parts by Rosettastone, who would be hard put to outsmart my dog, and that speaks poorly of you both indeed.
If you think Montgomery has been maligned in this thread, well, then, Herr Docktor, 'splain away. But don't think this 'I'm saving all my intelligent speech for marriage' tripe is fooling anyone, except maybe you.
124. cigarlaw - 3/6/2000 2:29:56 PM
how about the origins of wwii lay in germany's national infiority complex/give a derman a uniform and beat a drum and they wou;d do it again--hence the troops we still keep there. hell, against the russians in the 50s, 60s, 70s amd 80s a girlscout troop would have sufficed.
125. cigarlaw - 3/6/2000 2:29:59 PM
how about the origins of wwii lay in germany's national infiority complex/give a derman a uniform and beat a drum and they wou;d do it again--hence the troops we still keep there. hell, against the russians in the 50s, 60s, 70s amd 80s a girlscout troop would have sufficed.
126. cigarlaw - 3/6/2000 2:30:02 PM
how about the origins of wwii lay in germany's national infiority complex/give a derman a uniform and beat a drum and they wou;d do it again--hence the troops we still keep there. hell, against the russians in the 50s, 60s, 70s amd 80s a girlscout troop would have sufficed.
127. PelleNilsson - 3/6/2000 2:31:30 PM
The thread holds its collective breath waiting for cazart to explain wie es eigentlich gewesen war (what really happened -- program of Ranke and his school of historians).
128. cazart - 3/6/2000 2:34:00 PM
Take a look at the posts to date, A-5. I guarantee that over half are just book recommendations with no supporting explanation. It's navel-gazing; it's to say Look, I read a book on WWII. Look everyone.
This thread, until recently, has been 'WWII Lite.' Starting with the origins is a promising, if not a logical, step in the right direction.
So kiss my ass, A-5. You've not exactly lit up this thread with your brilliance.
129. cazart - 3/6/2000 2:34:49 PM
Ahhh....Farmor Pelle weighs in.
130. PelleNilsson - 3/6/2000 2:38:26 PM
I would say that Angel's description of the situation in the 20's and early 30's is correct (I'm not patronizing). The failure of the Weimar republic can be summarised as the centre didn't hold.
131. PelleNilsson - 3/6/2000 2:40:32 PM
Or, perhaps, Pelle, the Conqueror. Watch it mate.
132. cazart - 3/6/2000 2:44:08 PM
Message # 130 Well, no shit. This is pretty obvious whenever either extreme prevails. But it tells us nothing.
Message # 131 Watch what, Farmor?
133. PelleNilsson - 3/6/2000 4:16:30 PM
Hindenburg, Paul von, twice the agent of Germany's destruction.
134. Angel-Five - 3/6/2000 6:50:09 PM
Boyce:
Sorry, mised your post until just now.
I didn't suggest that a Communist Germany would have necessarily avoided a Holocaust. That and 'inevitability' are not in what I said -- I believe I mentioned that the Holocaust would possibly have been avoided.
But you have to look at it like this -- there were many more Jewish intellectuals for Communism in Germany than there were for fascism, and the Communist propaganda already had a wonderful set of scapegoats set up --'wreckers' and imperialists. They had very little impetus to do what Hitler did to the Jews. The Communist track record with Jews is admittedly not that great but I think one can say with reasonable assurance that 6 million plus Jews would not have died in a Communist Germany the way they did under the Nazis, let alone in the horrible callous way they did die.
Of course, you have to balance this against the number of other people who would have died in a world war between a communist Germany, Soviet Union, and in all likelihood a subjugated Eastern Europe on one side and the Allies on the other.
One wonders what would have happened to Italy -- would it have gone the way of Spain? And one wonders whether the Japanese would have attacked Pearl Harbor under those conditions.
135. Angel-Five - 3/6/2000 6:52:53 PM
In fact, I think it's really rather doubtful that the Allies could have won that war.
136. Angel-Five - 3/6/2000 11:47:31 PM
Pelle:
I think it's a little unfair to blame Hindenburg for Hitler's rise to the Chancellorship in Germany. Hindenburg loathed Hitler and indeed did just about everything he could to keep him from that post.
Out of all the people who vied for Chancellor -- Schleicher, von Papen, and Hitler -- only the last one appeared to have any real backing from the people. Schleicher was pretty much done politically because he'd tried to break Hitler's hold on power and failed, and von Papen was (though he really didn't know it yet) firmly in Hitler's grasp. There wasn't really anyone else primed at the moment to take power, and the stasis of government had the entire country at the boiling point.
In addition, the Nazis had the backing of German industry because they believed he'd make them all a lot of marks. And he had the backing of the military, because Hitler promised to tear up the treaty of Versailles and rearm. And he enjoyed popular support due to his skilled use of propaganda and public speaking techniques that bordered on brainwashing.
Hitler promised something for everyone -- he'd make Germany great again, rich again, mighty again, above all he'd keep the Communists down and he'd punish the Jews, who were of course his convenient scapegoat for most of what was internally wrong with Germany -- and in the terrible depression when governments kept dissolving and new votes kept being called and government (thanks largely to the machinations of the Nazis under Goring) had ground to a standstill, those promises resonated in a lot of German ears. There was little food, little work, less hope, and the everpresent fear of Bolshevism (which was, along with the accompanying unionization, something that the industrialists feared a great deal).
137. Angel-Five - 3/6/2000 11:48:17 PM
The Nazis had indeed lost ground in the last election for several reasons relating to Hitler's state of mind and internal strife within the party, but they hadn't lost enough -- and Gobbels was quite adept at making Hitler's support seem much stronger than it was.
Faced with no real alternative and the popularity of Hitler, Hindenburg (who was an old, old man who didn't have the strength or political will to fight Hitler anymore against the apparent odds and Hitler's constant machinations) really didn't have much of a choice but to agree to von Papen's proposal of a dual chancellorship. The final straw was that von Papen had convinced Hindenburg that they could outwit Hitler and consign him to failure, ruining his appeal.
I really don't think that post-WWI Germany had any real chance of true democracy. Hindenburg was too old a leader to offer any permanence in the perceptions of the Germans. Bruning (I think that's his name) -- the last chancellor Germany had with any intent at democratization -- tried to do the right thing but his reforms were too slow and to ineffectual to win the support of the German people -- and I really don't know what else, under Versailles, he could have done to speed things up. There isn't really anything anyone could have done to stave off a popular demagogue who was intent on telling the people any lie he had to in order to discredit the Republic and gain their support.
138. Angel-Five - 3/7/2000 12:13:05 AM
The question then becomes -- what could somebody else outside of Germany had done?
And that's a tough call. Certainly the terms of the Treaty of Versailles could have been much less punitive -- they were later lessened out of both sheer necessity and a growing consciousness that something was rotten in Denmark, but by then Hitler's party had too much power and could manipulate the collapse of the Weimar republic.
I personally like to think that the only thing which might have prevented the Second World War is the successful formation of the League of Nations with the US playing its expected role and a Wilson who had gotten his way in Europe over the likes of Lloyd George and Clemenceau.
You can look at the two world wars, in a sense, as the struggle for a world body politic with the power to control and influence aggression between nations. The League was probably never going to get full support in America -- but I think it might have, if Wilson had played some of his political cards back home better and hadn't turned the Republicans in Congress further against him, losing both the House and the Senate to them.
Wilson or a similar type, as opposed to Warren Harding, and a real League of Nations instead of one that was broken from the start, might have made a large difference. Maybe. Yet I don't think that was in the cards. Moreover, once the fascist ball started rolling in Germany I don't think much could have been done to stop it. No one was up for a military intervention (god, what a mess that would have been) and the Soviets weren't much help. No one wanted Bolshevism to spread further into Europe; moneyed people were willing to forgive a lot to keep that from happening. And Germany was in economic ruins as demagogues vied to wrest power away from the former democratic-minded leaders in Weimar. The combination was disastrous.
139. cmboyce - 3/7/2000 2:31:23 AM
A5: You're right, I overstated your case about the communist non-holocaust. Actually, I did not so much mean to address that point as to inquire (for I'm not well versed in this history) as to my feeling, based on decades old and not intensive reading, that the German "revolutions" of 1918-19 were Pyrrhic insofar as they were victorious at all, which was, of course, only here and there and very very briefly. The Freikorps found their being in suppressing them, and I recall them as predecessors and recruiting grounds for Hitler's SA. And virtually all the Communist leadership was either dead or in exile in consequence of them. That the Bavarian People's Socialist Republic (or whatever it may have been called) was doomed in any case is surely so; but my question is: having made the attempt in the wake of the war, had not the Communists simply insured that they would not be around to potentially take power in the event of Weimar's fall (let alone do so electorally).
140. cmboyce - 3/7/2000 2:35:25 AM
But had they succeeded (the German Communists) then, yea verily, an ensuing war would have been, not just very difficult for the west to win, but very probably lost. Consider how difficult it was with Russia on our side. (Of course, Russia outside of Russia might well have been less imposing.)
141. cmboyce - 3/7/2000 2:39:05 AM
Back in the F place, I recall, there was a discussion of a battle fought between Japanese and Russian troops in Manchuria, in the late 30s. Can someone more knowledgeable than I reprise that subject and suggest how it may have influenced the balance of power in Asia at the time?
(Perhaps in the event of the hypothesized Bolshevik Axis between Communist Berlin and Stalinist Moscow, we'd have allied with Japan.)
142. Angel-Five - 3/7/2000 3:05:08 AM
cmb:
No, the Communists were a force in Germany for some time -- in fact, until the Nazis banned them.
Right now I don't have access to numbers, so I could be wrong -- but I do know that the SA and the Communists had equal power on the street and used to get into frightfully huge streetfights.
And in the level of government, they held enough of a bloc that once the Nazis started moving on their agenda (once Hitler was firmly the Chancellor) the first thing they did was take the Communist politicians into 'protective custody' to isolate them from the voting processes so the Communists couldn't block the voting. They then sent them off to the camps and confiscated all their holdings. This was in, I think, '33.
There was a great deal of bother over it all -- way too much bother for a unimportant political minority, even counting that the Nazis would want to make as much out of stamping out the Marxists as they could.
It's important to remember that the Communists didn't exist in a leftist vacuum in Germany, either. The Social Democrats were there as well and a coalition between the two was a strong possibility in the face of Nazi domination of the parliament. It didn't take the Nazis long to lose the Social Democrats, either.
143. Angel-Five - 3/7/2000 3:29:03 AM
In fact, the communist insurgency never left Nazi Germany. Well-hidden Marxists, who had blended into the nationalist movement, operated one of the best and most thorough espionage operations ever conducted. It was known as the Red Orchestra and even included high-ranking Nazi officials, and it spent the entire war radioing secret messages into the Soviet Union. The Red Orchestra was so efficient that Soviet spymasters reportedly got a lot of their data from the Germans before the German OKW got it.
Of course, Stalin didn't always make use of it (he didn't trust it). So while the Red Orchestra was busy burning up the airwaves trying to warn Stalin of Barbarossa, Stalin looked at the other indicators of attack, and saw none. The Germans weren't taking the preparations any sensible army would have taken, like issuing winterized clothing which required wool and sheepskin which would mean a sudden drop in the price of mutton as more sheep were slaughtered.
So Stalin figured that he was getting disinformation, and got a very bad shock when the Germans launched Barbarossa.
At least that's one version. Some German officers claimed that Stalin had cold-bloodedly planned it all out, had indeed known of the coming invasion, had calculated his army was too poor and untrained to stop the offensive, and had hurriedly begun conscripting troops to go train in icy cold Siberia so they'd be fresh and winter-hardened when the Nazi attack bogged down -- which is where a lot of those fresh troops used in the big counterattack came from. And Stalin, to preserve the surprise, didn't tell any of his forward commanders, many of whom were becoming politically inexpedient anyway... I personally doubt it, but if anyone was cold enough to make that sort of call it was Ole Joe.
All of this is really fascinating to me but I'm getting a little ahead of the ballgame so I'll stop.
144. PelleNilsson - 3/7/2000 3:39:35 AM
The last possibility for the Allies to do something decisive was probably when Germany reoccupied the Rhinelands in 1936. But I would be surprised to learn that any action was seriously considered, What the hell they gave away the Czechoslovakia's Sudetenland two years later.
In my opinion, we must conclude that the stage was set in the 1920's when a strong democratic leadership, alternatively a more benign strongman-rule (like in Poland, failed to emerge.
145. Angel-Five - 3/7/2000 3:53:46 AM
This link, for CMB, breaks down the constituency by party of the Weimar house. The Communists are usually in third place behind the Social Democrats and the nationalists (first the NDVP and then the NSDAP).
Pelle: The last chance for a 'benevolent strongman' was probably in '32 in response to the threat of Hitler gaining control of the government. An autocratic system suited many peoples' needs and was seriously considered alternately by Schleicher and von Papen with Hindenburg's interest as well. Of course, that was a risky proposition... but I don't know how much riskier it could have been than going with Hitler and watching the government get destroyed in a few months.
146. Angel-Five - 3/7/2000 3:57:10 AM
And, again, noting that a strong democratic government failed to emerge in 1920s Germany is sort of like noting that a strong Communist government failed to emerge in 1960s America. I really don't think it ever had any chance -- not with the economy as bad as it was, not with so few fruits of democracy available to offer the people.
147. Angel-Five - 3/7/2000 4:00:18 AM
sorry, DNVP. DeutschNationale VolksPartei.
148. PelleNilsson - 3/7/2000 4:25:12 AM
Thanks for the link. In an earlier post I said that NSDAP lost votes in the 1933 election. That was wrong. It was in the second election in 1932 they went down from 37.8% to 33.6%. The 1933 election was forced by Hitler because the Centre Party refused to join the NSDAP-DNVP coalition and was preceded by a violent intimidation campaign conducted by Röhm's SA.
It is an interesting question why the number of Reichtag seats increased from 584 in November 1932 to 647 in March 1933. A quick check indicates that NSDAP took 52 out these 63 additional seats. Gerrymandering perhaps.
149. PelleNilsson - 3/7/2000 4:38:16 AM
I looked around that site a bit more. Quite nice. My #148 reads as if lifted from there, but in fact it has its origin in Britannica.
150. PelleNilsson - 3/7/2000 5:24:45 AM
The crumbling centre 
The graph shows the outcome of the German elections from January 1919 to November 1933 (the intervals were irregular). The left staple in each series represents the Communists, the middle one the centre parties and the Social Democrats, and the right one the Nazis and DNVP.
151. stostosto - 3/7/2000 8:54:00 AM
A-5
I think your contention that German dictatorship was unavoidable is way too influenced from how events turned out. No doubt there was a large alienated middle class in Germany. No doubt the various Weimar parliaments were unstable and bred a lot of popular frustration. No doubt Hitler also due to mass unemployment was able to appeal to a lot of working class voters who should normally identify with the Social Democrats.
But consider Hitler's falling support in the 1932 election, down to only just third of the vote. Consider the bottoming out of the Great Depression around 1932-3. Consider the fact that German unions were dominated by Social Democrats, a party which was by no means a newcomer to German politics but one which had established its influence as early as during Bismarck, and was most decidedly a force of moderation. (In fact, maybe so much so that some of its core consistency considered it worn out).
My perceptioin is that Hitler's power seizure came in the last moment, just as the political tide was going to turn against him as the political situation de-radicalised. Nor was there any other player at the German political scene at that time (or ever) with such unadulterated reckless cynicism as to pull a coup d'etat. Hitler was, singlehandedly, a radicalising force. He consistently wrong-footed all his opponents by actually believing in his own bull-shit and acting on it. This goes for his German political opponents as well as for the various Chambarlains in the western countries.
152. stostosto - 3/7/2000 8:56:51 AM
The communist thread you talk about is surely exaggerated. In fact, I would write it off as mere fantasizing, again as seen through the mirror of subsequent events. At least, I have never heard that speculation before. In light of the communist's electoral backing such as can be gauged from the link you provided, it doesn't appear much more likely. Do you have some good sources to back up your claim of an imminent communist power seizure?
The communists did play a destabilising role, of course. Like everyone else they mis- and underestimated Hitler. Therefore their prime political focus was their rivalry with the Social Democrats, forcing these to defend its left flank rather than aiming for an appeal to middle-of-the road Germans, thus sapping the power of the left.
The communist calculus was that Hitler was bound to fail, making Germany ripe for the proletarian revolution. (Such is my understanding, but don't ask for sources. I once had a "Hitler's road to power" obsession, but I was only 12 or 13 at the time...)
153. Raskolnikov - 3/7/2000 12:10:59 PM
I don't think the Great Depression has been emphasized enough here. Surely, a major factor in Hitler's election was the economic situation. In the absence of a depression, there would have been a lot more time for Germany to become a stable democracy. And I think it is hard to argue that the Great Depression itself, and its international scope, were inevitable, considering the extent to which they were the result of a series of bad decisions.
154. Dantheman - 3/7/2000 12:47:54 PM
Rask,
I agree, and more particularly, I suspect the hyperinflation of the Weimar era did a lot to weaken the existing political parties, allowing a fringe group like the Nazis to be heard.
155. cigarlaw - 3/7/2000 12:58:16 PM
Regarding the Holocaust . I think in his time after 50 years to look at this was some other standpoint. I do not wish to diminish in any way what happened to the European Jews. It was horrendous. Alas, although people always think of the Jews in the Holocaust, they represented probably only about half those were killed or died in concentration camps. About 12 million people including Jews, Gypsies, Socialists, Communists, mentally retarded, disabled for other reasons, homosexuals, and others were killed. The Jews were the most notable example of those and had the biggest play in the history books. But they did not die alone. The Nazis killed 12 million people in death camps, not counting the uncounted millions killed in war itself. If Hitler had his way Europe would have been devoid of anyone but blue-eyed Aryans.
Do you think the killing wouldn't have stopped if Hitler had succeeded killing every Jew in Europe? Ultimately his philosophy would require the elimination of the slavs, the Greeks, the Italians, Spanish, and every other dark skined person on the planet. Of course at a certain point Hitler would have been eliminated himself. Hitler was an interesting person, but he was certainly not Stalin.
156. cmboyce - 3/7/2000 1:09:30 PM
A5, thanks. All that clears up my misapprehension quite thoroughly. I had never heard of the Red Orchestra, a fascinating development. I suppose its major players (first oboe and all) ended up in East Germany.
Looking at the figures, I tried to dope out just where the votes went that Hitler lost between July and Nov 1932, and while it's evident the Communists got a lot of them, I couldn't make the numbers come close to adding up, just eyeballing them, and then I noticed that the number of delegates changed. In fact, in no two elections throughout the period was the number of delegates elected the same. Sometimes the difference is slight, once ('28-'30) almost 20%. Why is this?
I have to go off-line now, probably until late tonight, but I'll look in when I can. This lead-up to the war is fascinating in detail, especially since it is for me, as no doubt for other Moties, the least familiar aspect of it.
157. jexster - 3/7/2000 1:15:36 PM
Message # 150
Thanks Pelle!
This thread is taking off. Now if we can just figure out how to keep Cazart out of here......
158. Raskolnikov - 3/7/2000 1:18:03 PM
well, if A5 keeps baiting him, he may either go away, or post something more substantive than a link to some lecture notes he found from an Internet search.
159. Jenerator - 3/7/2000 1:20:15 PM
Res,
Message#114,115
"No, I think that even the optimists knew that they were looking at a change a lot more profound than simply having a nationalist government when they considered Hitler as a compromise candidate for chancellor."
"but don't forget that Mein Kampf was already out then and it was pretty frickin' plain as to what Hitler wanted."
I tend to think that the majority of Germans believed more in the nationalistic slant and focus of the Nazi party. Just as Hitler said in Mein Kampf about the stupidity of the masses, I doubt that the majority knew what they were really voting for. If anything, the social classes were ready for a strong leader, opposite of the former Chancellor, and Hitler with his strong persuasive speaking abilities and his call on German unity and German spirit was able to 'fool' the people into believing one thing about his party when it really stood for other ideals. He clearly infused new meanings all of the time into his words. He kept the masses in the dark about much of what his party stood for, and much of what it did.
160. jexster - 3/7/2000 1:20:25 PM
The book 1933, which I cited in one of the intro messages, is a good read, if you can find it.
The author tells the story of Germany's "crumbling centre", as Pelle would have it, from the perspective of various liberal/moderate Germans, cosmopolitcan Berliners mostly, and the US Ambassador. The book is interesting because its also, in effect, an extended annotated bibliography of various memoirs of people living the times in Germany.
Long and short - there were still substantial numbers of people who in 1933 thought Hitler a clown who'd soon collapse and portrays others who were beginning to see the light - too late.
161. cazart - 3/7/2000 1:22:52 PM
Is that any way to treat the guy who saved this thread from extinction?
Hell, I could probably save Rosie's fucked up thread.
BTW, Raskolnikov's Message # 153 succinctly summed up -- correctly--what others have only guessed at or nibbled around for the previous 150 posts.
162. Jenerator - 3/7/2000 1:27:10 PM
Also, I expected more than one word out of you regarding the natural enemy status of communism/fascism. They have some weird similarities... racism, anti-intelligentsia, elitism, and so on.
163. PelleNilsson - 3/7/2000 1:43:58 PM
cigarlaw
Hitler was an interesting person, but he was certainly not Stalin.
Please expatiate. You find Stalin more "interesting"?
Jenerator
If you find that some aspect has not been adequatly covered I suggest you fill in the gap rather than complaining about others.
164. PelleNilsson - 3/7/2000 1:47:42 PM
cigarlaw
Also, I question the figure of 12 million exterminated. There is a touch of revisionism here -- exaggarate the total to reduce the Jewish share.
But we should save this for the Holocaust discussion that Jexster has scheduled for later.
165. PsychProf - 3/7/2000 1:48:08 PM
Stalin was directly responsible for the murder of some of my wife's family members. How interesting.
166. Dantheman - 3/7/2000 1:50:54 PM
Pelle,
The 12 million number is on the high end of the range that I've seen, but not outside the realm of possibility. I don't recall seeing any number lower than 9-10 million.
167. Jenerator - 3/7/2000 1:56:32 PM
Pelle,
"If you find that some aspect has not been adequatly covered I suggest you fill in the gap rather than complaining about others."
First of all, I wasn't complaining. Secondly, I asked Res a question about his opinion and he responded with a vague one word answer. Res never answers with one word, so that is why I was surprised. I asked for his opinion, and that is what I was waiting for.
168. cazart - 3/7/2000 2:17:57 PM
Jexster:
Time to get the cats marching in the same direction. They are straying in light of cigarlaw's idiotic post.
169. Jenerator - 3/7/2000 2:23:32 PM
I don't think Cigarlaw's post was dumb. I disagree that it was only half of the Jews that were killed in his 12 million figure, and I'm not sure what he meant with mentioning Stalin, but his post is interesting and gets you thinking in different directions.
170. cazart - 3/7/2000 2:28:29 PM
Jenerator:
Sure. It gets you thinking in different directions; so would a post on the statues of Easter Island--but it is hardly germane, certainly at this point in the discussion. Moreover, cigarlaw's conclusion (that Hitler would have to kill himself because he wasn't an Aryan posterboy) is superfluous and shallow.
171. Jenerator - 3/7/2000 2:33:54 PM
Well, what I think he meant was that after awhile, the critera for murder wasn't just in being Jewish. There were plenty of people killed for having brown hair and looking Jewish. If aryanism were taken to the extreme, it could have been possible for everyone who wasn't blonde and blue eyed to be killed. Nietzsche's monster, ya know?
172. jexster - 3/7/2000 2:42:09 PM
Caz -
Not really off topic. Stalin was doin some major purging in the '30's . No doubt one reason for Hitler's overconfidence in '41
173. Angel-Five - 3/7/2000 3:00:31 PM
Sto:
For me, this list pretty much sums it up:
Government was, due to the Communists and the Nazis sabotage, at a standstill
The economy was in ruins, unemployment and hunger were great
The Nazi party had the largest percentage of votes of anyone
The army and industrialists both favored a strongman
the people had lost faith in government.
To me, those circumstances leave little doubt as to the consequence of their union. You say that Hitler grabbed power while he had the chance -- of course he did. If Hitler hadn't grabbed power, von Papen or Schleicher would have -- if they hadn't, if nobody stepped up to the plate, then maybe Germany would have avoided a dictatorship. The point is that there's absolutely nothing chancy at all about the prospects of a Hitler seizing control in a 1933 Germany. Those are the sort of situations that it happens in. Might it have taken a little longer than the lightning speed with which Hitler dismantled the old Republic? Of course. The point is, though, that it wasn't chance that it did happen.
Re: Communism
Please bear in mind that I originally said that were it not for Fascism the Communists would have taken over. And I meant that. The primary block against Communists in Germany, the people that constantly went around discrediting them, outfoxing them, fighting them in the streets and above all giving people a hard-edged alternative to them and their Revolution, were the fascists. Their success is reflected in Pelle's graph. Without the Fascists, or with the Fascists discredited, their power would only have waxed.
174. Angel-Five - 3/7/2000 3:00:43 PM
It's also important to realize that the Communists might have been losing overall share of the votes, but they were swimming upstream very hard to maintain their position. And -- like the Nazis -- people constantly assumed that they were bigger than they were. Look at McCarthyism in America -- how many communists do you think were actually in America then? How many did Joe McCarthy have them believing were in America then? The scare was real. It's why the Nazis made such a campaign point out of stopping Marxism; it's why the Social Democrats took care to make sure that their Communist neighbors on the Left weren't used against them.
175. PelleNilsson - 3/7/2000 3:30:22 PM
Jenerator
There were plenty of people killed for having brown hair and looking Jewish.
Please substantiate.
If aryanism were taken to the extreme, it could have been possible for everyone who wasn't blonde and blue eyed to be killed.
This is just plain silly. You don't know what you are talking about. A majority of Germans are not blond and blue-eyed. A significant minority of Slavs (e.g Poles and Russians) are blond and blue-eyed.
176. PelleNilsson - 3/7/2000 3:39:05 PM
Angel
Please bear in mind that I originally said that were it not for Fascism the Communists would have taken over.
I disagree on two accounts:
177. PelleNilsson - 3/7/2000 3:44:02 PM
cazart
The thread is waiting for your masterful analysis promised in Message # 122.
178. stostosto - 3/7/2000 4:41:09 PM
A5
Sure, the circumstances were there for Hitler's takeover - I mean, duh. They presented Hitler with a "window of opportunity", which he jumped at. My point is, the window may have been about to close at the time he jumped, making it a last minute call.
There is a risk that we rationalise about historic events and make them seem inevitable, given the particular circumstances. But if you think about it, what, besides Hitler's energetic political manoeuvering, was so much worse about the situation in 1933 than, say, 1918-19 when the war had just been lost and returned soldiers were running loose, some of them staking communist uprisings, or in the wake of the killings of Karl and Rosa Liebknecht, or 1922-3 when France occupied the Ruhr, and the terrible German hyperinflation took place? (In fact, why is this last episode so often pointed to when explaining Hitler's rise to power a full decade later?)
Circumstances were ripe, yes. That was a necessary condition for the Nazi takeover. But they were not sufficient. To get at that, Hitler's vast evil energies were needed. And I actually think that had he not been there, personally, everything else being unchanged, the Weimar republic might well have stabilised and survived.
You are right in that the commie scare was more real than the actual commie threat. But that was not what you said in your earlier post.
179. stostosto - 3/7/2000 5:06:31 PM
Jenny
You need to read up on communism and fascism. Many people tend to lump them together as 'totalitarian' because they displayed a number of similarities in the way they exerted power. But their social and political origins are very different, indeed anathema, as A5 said. Briefly put, communism wanted a radical break with basic economic and social values and institutions like private property, religion, traditional authorities, even family. Fascism was very much a reaction against this - hence the term 'reactionary'. Its objective was to not only protect what it saw as True, Traditional, National, Social norms, but also forbibly, by use of the state, impose them on people and spheres where they didn't otherwise prevail. Hence the paranoid and sickly fascist obsession with 'normalcy' as opposed to 'decadence' promoted on the back of existing national myths (plus some newly fabricated ones, like in the German case the Dolkschuss legend). Communism, on the other hand, was internationalist in outlook. Stalin actually had to articulate the doctrine about 'socialism in one country' to expressly free himself from the tiresome obligations of having to help the rest of the world extricate itself from capitalism.
Thus, Stalin gained 'fascist' elements in that he bred a kind of Soviet nationalism (complete with the infamous 'cosmopolitan' (= anti-Soviet)labelling of Jews). He also completed the non-aggression pact with Hitler, as you may know. But this was to the huge dismay and embarassment of communists in western countries who had a tough job explaining away this move. (The faithful's line was to blame it on the western powers).
180. Angel-Five - 3/7/2000 5:09:01 PM
Please bear in mind that I originally said that were it not for
Fascism the Communists would have taken over.
I disagree on two accounts:
1.The revolutionary moment was over. The
Communists would have been contained by the
Social Democrats.
Pelle:
Why, exactly, do you think that the Communists were containable in the first place? Who do you believe expended the most energy to contain them?
Imagine Germany at this time period; a breaking republic, massive inflation and unemployment, reparations and a bar to rearmament. 'Democracy' was new and was offering little immediate return to the populace.
There was a strong feeling against the Weimar leadership. This is evident in the fact that so many people voted for parties which were openly against the continuation of the Republic and spent their time in Parliament openly sabotaging the function of government. This is a pool of massive discontent -- primarily populated by Germany's younger unemployed and marginalized citizens. Right?
These people wanted a change. And the two groups who fought tooth and nail to win this large disaffected group over were the fascists and the Communists. It's why they were natural enemies -- they were competing for the same resources for divergent purposes.
Now, compare this conflict to the larger political picture in Germany --there are plenty of moderates, but the radical base is growing as people become more and more disaffected with the status quo of Weimar. The radical base can't be ignored. It's getting bigger and bigger and demanding more and more attention -- so swiftly the issue becomes which side to court and which to scorn.
181. Angel-Five - 3/7/2000 5:09:40 PM
That wasn't much of a choice to the conservative industrialists, who feared Marxism and labor unions and wanted a leader who would kick-start the industrial base back into motion. This is why the Nazi political and economic power base grew along with their popular power base. No one wanted the Communists to have the chance to take power via coalition.
So, you see, the Fascists were instrumental to the entire attack and partial supression of Communism in the years leading up to 1933. That suppression would not have occurred without a fascist group to sap the power base of the Communists in Germany. Don't forget, moreover, that German Communism was an internationally supported political faction. The Soviets had as much interest in making Germany a Communist state as did the German Communists.
You are assigning Fascsism a heroic role in history:
Fascism saved Germany from Communism. I
dispute that
This is addled crack-pipe talk. No one is making 'heroes' out of the Fascists -- I'm merely explaining how the mechanism functioned. Germany saved itself from Communism -- it's just that the means they had at hand were the Fascists, to the eventual massive detriment of the world.
182. Angel-Five - 3/7/2000 5:27:20 PM
Sto:
My perceptioin is that Hitler's power seizure came in the
last moment, just as the political tide was going to turn
against him as the political situation de-radicalised. Nor
was there any other player at the German political scene
at that time (or ever) with such unadulterated reckless
cynicism as to pull a coup d'etat.
No. Schleicher wanted a coup; so did the Communists. Von Papen even argued at the last minute for establishing an autocratic government -- to keep the Nazis out of power. The Weimar Republic was being dragged towards Golgotha and everyone knew it.
Circumstances were ripe, yes. That was a necessary
condition for the Nazi takeover. But they were not
sufficient. To get at that, Hitler's vast evil energies were
needed. And I actually think that had he not been there,
personally, everything else being unchanged, the Weimar
republic might well have stabilised and survived.
I'm not so sure of that either. Schleicher was discredited largely because Hitler and Goering did it. Let's not forget Strasser.
Let's also not forget that part of the reason Hitler had to work so hard to get the Chancellor's chair is that -- well, he was Hitler. Everyone knew what he was about, he was a horrid demagogue who lied his ass off and had openly stated that he wanted to change the government. Hindenburg didn't trust him. Von Papen didn't trust him. No one among the elite trusted him at all -- they just thought they could co-opt him or force him out if they had to.
183. Angel-Five - 3/7/2000 5:27:45 PM
So perhaps Hitler at that time was the only person with enough twisted political skill and amorality to pull off the feat of getting Hitler into office, but then again, no one else needed that much skill to get themselves into office from that position except perhaps the Communists.
You say 'all else being equal' but for me that's where it gets a little slippery and vague, because although I disagree with your 'all else being equal' outcome and have demonstrated why -- well, all else couldn't in all probability have been equal without Hitler being there. Certainly some other demagogue would have filled in, yet it's less certain that they would have had enough of a charismatic effect upon their target audience to pull off what Hitler was unfortunately able to achieve.
184. Angel-Five - 3/7/2000 5:32:05 PM
BTW: Pelle's graph is misleading in that it lumps the Social Democrats in with the centrist parties. I don't think it's fair to call the Social Democrats 'centrist'.
185. PelleNilsson - 3/7/2000 5:39:26 PM
Angel
Your line of argument is not credible. As I said -- and sto --supported -- the revolutionary moment had passed. The Communists did not attract many votes. You talk about coalition. With whom? The Social Democrats. No way. You suffer from the usual American ignorance about the history of the marxist/socialist movement. The two were mortal enemies. And the numbers in the table you linked shows that such a coalition would not have gained power anyhow.
And before you bring out the big sledgehammer called "Popular Front": I know. Ineffectual window-dressing.
I have to log out now.
186. stostosto - 3/7/2000 5:45:12 PM
A5:
You do make some sense. Especially in pointing out the distrust facing Hitler. And while I agree with Pelle that painting the Nazi takeover as a defence against a communist takeover can have apologistic connotations, that doesn't necessarily make it untrue.
I happen to think it is untrue, though. The communists simply weren't in a position to make a revolution at that time, nor were they likely to be later anymore than, say, French communists were in France. But the fear of the communists and the sheer out-of-touchness of the leading politicians in Germany probably made the possibility a factor.
Fall of the Weimar Republic
A handy summary from the link A5 provided earlier.
Ecerpt (speaking of out-of-touchness):
June 1932: Hindenburg fed up with issuing unpopular decrees on Bruning's behalf replaces him by von Papen. Papen, reactionary, stupid and arrogant, was however an officer and fine horseman and so the ideal Chancellor in the eyes of the ageing President.
187. stostosto - 3/7/2000 5:54:49 PM
Going to sleep. Night.
188. Angel-Five - 3/7/2000 6:52:33 PM
Schto:
And while I agree with Pelle that
painting the Nazi takeover as a defence against a
communist takeover can have apologistic connotations,
that doesn't necessarily make it untrue.
Well, if more than one person thinks so, then I retract my suggestion that Pelle was sucking on a crack-pipe before he posted so. I might have been unlear, although I think that the 'apologistic connotations' have unfairly been read into this in the way that 'Democratic sympathies' are often unfairly read into an attack on a Republican.
Let me be clearer. The Nazi takeover is not a heroic example of German patriots taking over a disintegrating government in order to save their country from Communism. The Communists and Nazis were natural political adversaries and the Nazis certainly intended to stomp out communism in Germany, but that's hardly their intended reason, or a justification, for their seizure of power in Germany. And it is, as I've said, not the entire reason that people who otherwise should have known better supported Hitler's ascension to power. Nationalist pride and the promise of a strong economy did a lot to shape the circumstances which enabled Hitler to first subvert and then replace the German government.
However -- whether or not you and Pelle agree that the Communists were a legitimately perceived threat in Germany, and whether or not you acknowledge my argument about how the emergence of Communism in Germany was hampered and stalled primarily by the political aggression of the Nazis -- one must agree that the question of breaking the Communists was one which diverted a lot of political support in Germany into the Nationalist, fascist right. It's not a justification of why it happened, just a mechanism by which it occurred.
189. Angel-Five - 3/7/2000 6:55:04 PM
Campaign statements and propaganda of the time are laden with reference to the Communist menace. There was a strong Communist insurgency in Germany at that time, which was, demonstrably, fertile ground for the seeds of revolution. Moreover, the voting patterns alone do not paint a remotely complete picture of the political strength of Communism in Germany any more than they did in the decades before the October Revolution in Russia.
Voting patterns do not record the existence of crypto-Marxists or Marxist sympathizers within the German power structure, just as they didn't in Russia. The term 'bolshevik' means 'majority man' -- but that was a brilliant political ploy at the time, because Bolsheviks didn't represent anything like a majority at the time the phrase was coined.
I think that the non-Communist members of the German government and power structure were very much aware of what had happened in the years leading up to 1917 and Lenin's eventual ascent to power in the new Soviet Union. I think that awareness did much to inform their decision-making WRT the Nazis.
Ultimately that was for the worse, because it wasn't necessary to give the Nazis control in order to stop Communism in Germany. The existence of the Nazis as a well-organized minority was probably in hindsight enough to keep the Communists down. Yet that's the sort of hindsight which allows us to pronounce comfortable decisions in the modern era. It wasn't present then when the question came up.
190. Seguine - 3/7/2000 8:59:08 PM
Martin Girder's review of Dark Continent in The Sun's Eye may contribute to this discussion.
191. cigarlaw - 3/8/2000 1:27:51 AM
first, I didn't say that Hitler and would eliminate himself. I said he would be elevated. Next, evil is always interesting, don't you think? Otherwise we would not be discussing this topic . As to Hitler had not being Stalin, I don't see a problem with making the comparison. Stalin was far more competent, and not quite as insane is Hitler. Plus Stalin had a long history of European philosophers to support his position. Lastly, the figure of 12 million dead was not put forth to any way revise or diminish what happened to the European Jews. If there any revisionism it, he should be laid at the doorstep of those who emphasized that Holocaust killed 6 million use and forget the non-Jewish 6 million who died. who claim that the Holocaust only killed Jews. The figure of 12 million murders was used in the Nuremberg trials..
192. PelleNilsson - 3/8/2000 2:03:13 AM
Angel
Just to pick a nit. The term "bolsheviks" comes from the party split-up at its London congress in 1903. The other side became known as "mensheviks".
193. Stumbo - 3/8/2000 2:33:56 AM
Pelle:
And the nit you're picking is... ?
194. Angel-Five - 3/8/2000 2:42:19 AM
Pelle:
I know.
Yet it was Bolshevism that came to rule the Soviet Union, not the 'minority men'. Correct?
BTW in regards to Cigarlaw:
I think the 12 million toll also takes into account POWs who died in German custody, but yes, I've heard that too. The Nizhkor site mentions nearly twelve million deaths. But if the justification for the number is that it was cited in the Nuremburg trials, it has to be looked at a little more closely: some of the mass murders the Soviets charged to the Germans, such as the murders at Katyn, were actually committed by the Sovs.
195. PelleNilsson - 3/8/2000 2:42:25 AM
Hello Stumbo! Long time.
It seems to me that Angel's "at the time" refers to the late 20' - early 30's and that he implies that the term "bolshevik" was some kind of propaganda ploy used during that period.
196. Angel-Five - 3/8/2000 2:42:47 AM
Hey, Stumbo.
197. Angel-Five - 3/8/2000 2:49:51 AM
Pelle:
It seems to me that Angel's "at the time" refers to the
late 20' -early 30's and that he implies that the term
"bolshevik" was some kind of propaganda ploy used
during that period.
Every once in a while you make it painfully clear that English isn't your first language.
'Bolshevik' was indeed a propaganda ploy -- carried out by the Bolsheviks. When they coined the term. I'll reprint the text for you:
Voting patterns do not record the existence of
crypto-Marxists or Marxist sympathizers within the
German power structure, just as they didn't in Russia.
The term 'bolshevik' means 'majority man' -- but that
was a brilliant political ploy at the time, because
Bolsheviks didn't represent anything like a majority at
the time the phrase was coined.
The bold is used for emphasis of time placement. Read it again; I trust this clears up the alleged basis for your attempt to nit-pick.
198. Angel-Five - 3/8/2000 2:57:12 AM
Stumbissimo:
The nit he's picking is nonexistent. Pelle has a rather uninformed penchant to imagine that Americans are ignorant on any given topic upon which he disagrees with them, and a decided fetish for 'correcting' their ignorance as a means of discrediting their arguments. I think he comes by this by way of studying and emulating PE, but PE usually manages to correctly divine ignorance when he comes across it, whereas poor Pelle is forced all too often to pounce only upon his own misconceptions.
199. Stumbo - 3/8/2000 3:24:59 AM
.. And I was only away for about 2 weeks, heh. Thanks, all, for the nice reception; perhaps I should go get sunburned more often.
200. Stumbo - 3/8/2000 3:43:18 AM
* but check the Sports thread for even better news!
201. PelleNilsson - 3/8/2000 4:25:13 AM
Angel
We seem to be locked in some kind of semantic misunderstanding here. As you correctly point out English is not my first language although I feel that I have a reasonable command of it.
Let me also say that I didn't pick the nit as an attack on you but in order to clarify a point that seemed a bit obscure to me. In a thread like this there are usually many more lurkers than posters.
Now to the semantics and I hope that your reply will finally clarify this issue. You say:
"Bolsheviks didn't represent anything like a majority at the time the phrase was coined."
The time the phrase was coined was 1903 and the context was the congress of what was then Russia's Social Democratic party. "Majority" refers to "majority within the party" not to "majority among the population" or anything like that. Your reference to "crypto-Marxists and Marxist sympathizers" led me to believe that you used it in the latter sense. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
In order to preempt more nitpicking I hasten to add that Lenin's line lost the vote among the delegates but he later won the majority on the central committee.
202. PelleNilsson - 3/8/2000 5:11:55 AM
I would like to put in another 2 cents before our genial host decides to move forward. We have not mentioned the "knife-in-the-back" legend which played an important role.
It emerged at the end of the war and was based on the fact that the German army was never properly defeated in the field (or the perception that it wasn't). At the time of the surrender it still stood on foreign soil. So if the war hadn't been lost at the battle front, then where? The legend points to the home front and a communist/Jewish conspiracy that undermined the army's ability to fight and was out to destroy Germany.
For its proponents, this conspiracy was still around and that was one of the reasons why the fear of communism was much higher than its performance in the elections would warrant.
Another point that is perhaps not generally known is that there were several proposals by the Allies to reduce the burden of the war reparations. The last of these plans was the Young Plan of 1929, named after the American Owen D. Young. The plan would reduce the reparations from 123 to 37 billion gold marks. It was accepted by the government but the nationalist right led by the DNVP party forced a referendum arguing that its acceptance would be tantamount to acceptance of the Versailles Treaty - anathema to the nationalists. The nationalist position won only 15% of the votes, but there were other effects. The following is from Britannica.
To run the opposition's anti-Young Plan campaign, Hugenberg [the leader of DNVP] engaged Adolf Hitler, the leader of the apparently moribund NSDAP (National Socialist German Workers' Party.
An unintended effect of the anti-Young Plan campaign was to give widespread public exposure to the little-known Adolf Hitler. Hitler used his access to the Hugenberg-owned press empire and to its weekly movie newsreels to give himself and his Nazi movement national publicity.
203. Angel-Five - 3/8/2000 6:13:44 AM
Pelle: The hardliner bloc wasn't a majority when the phrase was used, which was one of the reasons its etymology is noteworthy. And that bloc did suddenly seize power. Lenin's crew, as Gobbels and Hitler did later, managed to portray their bloc as being much more in line with the majority wish than it really was. They didn't control the party by majority -- as I recall, it wasn't even close at that time. That's the whole slant of 'majority man'.
204. Angel-Five - 3/8/2000 6:17:40 AM
BTW: That's taken from Radzhinsky's biography of Stalin, if you want a source.
205. Angel-Five - 3/8/2000 6:18:48 AM
I should have said -- The hardliner bloc wasn't a majority when the phrase was first coined.
206. PelleNilsson - 3/8/2000 6:44:07 AM
That issue is not in dispute and I mentioned it in Message # 201.
In case somebody wonders what it was all about, Lenin wanted an elitist party with a small memmbership which would be the "vanguard of the workers". His opponents wanted a broad-based popular party. There was also the question whether the pary should be revolutionary or act within a democratic framework. The eventual losers, the Mensheviks, became to origins of the Social Democratic parties of Europe.
To bring this to the edge of topicality, the Nazi party was also elitist. Party membership had to be earned. Another similarity between the Soviet Union and Germany was that high positions in the civil service and other government bodies usually required party membership, a fact that many ex-nazis and ex-communists used to justify their membership (I had to join because I wanted the promotion ..).
207. stostosto - 3/8/2000 7:12:30 AM
a-5 Message # 188
In your declared attempt to dispel apologism, you only further it.
I really think your firm conviction that if it hadn't been for Hitler or some other fascist/right wing dictatorship, Germany would have fallen prey to communism is far fetched. You may be echoing the view of some players in Germany at the time, who were thus motivated into backing Hitler, but that doesn't in and of itself make the ghost of a communist revolution more of a reality. Please cite some sources for this imminent communist power seizure. I have never heard or read this theory anywhere, save perhaps in more openly apoligistic contexts. I am honestly interested.
You point to the Russian example and seem to think that the situation in Germany 1932-3 was parallel to the Russian one in 1917. I don't see very clear parallels.
cont.
208. stostosto - 3/8/2000 7:13:56 AM
I think it's noteworthy that there hasn't been a communist takeover in any western capitalist country ever that could underpin an assertion that such a thing was unavoidable in Germany if it hadn't been for Hitler. And Germany was very much a capitalist country, and a highly developed one at that - in stark contrast to Russia 1917. This line of yours strikes me as being similar to the cold war thinking and perception of the communist threat. Perhaps that's what leads Pelle to call your perspective American.
Moreover, I don't follow your political logic when you say that an extremist right wing party such as NSDAP was the best defence against a communist takeover. It most patently was not. In fact, it's the opposite: The stronger the Nazis, the better the communist's appeal - and vice versa. The two reinforced each other, rather than weaken each other. But any vivid scare images of communist takeovers were most certainly the working of Hitler's superior propaganda techniques much more than anything the communists themselves were capable of.
Indeed, he had to orchestrate the Reichstag fire farce and blame it on the communists to justify assuming dictatorial powers.
The communist thread was not real. Far from it. Where did you get that idea?
209. stostosto - 3/8/2000 7:16:17 AM
(Oops. The communist thread was not real. Nor was the communist threat).
210. PelleNilsson - 3/8/2000 8:33:42 AM
I made another chart with higher resolution among parties. 
Event 6 is the election in May 1928; event 7 is September 1930.
This fits very nicely into the Britannica cites in my Message # 202, i.e that Hitler used his position as leader of the fight against the Young Plan to great effect. He and Goebbels gor paid-for on-the-job training in propaganda techniques by DNVP leader Hugenberg, whose reward was to see his party's vote shrink from 15% to 7%.
211. Jenerator - 3/8/2000 12:24:07 PM
Pelle,
Message# 175
"There were plenty of people killed for having brown hair and looking Jewish.
Please substantiate."
I guess the strongest 'evidence' I have hear is from the stories of Holocaust survivors, but that probably doesn't count here, right?
"If aryanism were taken to the extreme, it could have been possible for everyone who wasn't blonde and blue eyed to be killed.
This is just plain silly. You don't know what you are talking about. A majority of Germans are not blond and blue-eyed. A significant minority of Slavs (e.g Poles and Russians) are blond and blue-eyed."
Again, knowing people with several members killed because they looked Jewish doesn't count here either, right?
A very good friend of mine's mother survived the Holocaust, barely. She and her family were from Poland, and had no religious affiliation. With the German occupation of Poland, their home was raided and the family was separated. The mother and the three daughters were marched in one direction and the father in another. After spending THREE years in concentration camps, the mother was shot (brown hair, brown eyes) and the daughters were eventually liberated in Russia.
I have German friends as well who claimed that in the latter sweeps on the storm troopers, many civilains were assassinated in a half-hazard manner. Why the hell would they make this up?
I believe their stories
212. Adrianne - 3/8/2000 12:26:51 PM
Jenerator
The word you're looking for is 'haphazard'
213. Jenerator - 3/8/2000 12:31:35 PM
Sto,
I appreciate you taking the time to give me 'Communism/Fascism 101'. I was merely asking for Res' response. I know that Fascism and Commuinism are opposite ideologies, I was simply pointing out that they had interesting similarities, too. Is this yet another thread where only a select few can talk with everyone? I have always been really interested in a WW2 thread, is it okay if I participate every now and then?
Oh, and on a side note, in a 1929 issue of The Times, the word 'totalitarian' was used to describe Germany and Russia.
214. Jenerator - 3/8/2000 12:36:43 PM
Adrianna,
Thank you for the spelling correction once again.
215. Adrianne - 3/8/2000 12:39:27 PM
Jen
It's not a *spelling* correction, obviously.
216. Jenerator - 3/8/2000 12:43:34 PM
half-hazard/haphazard
"It's not a *spelling* correction, obviously."
???
217. cigarlaw - 3/8/2000 1:10:59 PM
sorry about the garbage in my post. i meant eliminated, not elevated and jews, not use. sometimes dragon works and sometimes it don't. but it spells impecably.
218. PelleNilsson - 3/8/2000 3:25:24 PM
cigarlaw
Don't worry for a moment about your posts and don't apologise. We know the difficulties you have.
219. PelleNilsson - 3/8/2000 3:43:52 PM
Jenerator
There is no dispute that Russia and Germany were totalitarian states. Italy, Portugal and Spain too, all in their different ways.
There are at least two similarities between Communism and Fascism. First, a disdain for democracy but for different reasons. The communists regarded democracy as a sham, a tool employed by the bourguoise to control the masses. Fascists saw it as mob rule; the great unwashed would compromise la gloire of the nation. The other similarity is the insistence that the party should be made up by an elite (you mentioned this in an earlier post) , whose task it was to interpret and implement "the true will of the people".
Just a very brief comment on the Holocaust because jexster has scheduled it for later. It was not about religion. It was about race. Many Jews in Germany were completely assimilated and had adopted the Protestant faith. But that didn't make any difference to the Nazis.
As far as I'm concerned you are more than welcome to post here and challenge the conventional wisdom that I for one is an exponent of.
220. Jenerator - 3/9/2000 11:35:23 AM
Pelle,
Thank you for your reply, it was very kind and I appreciate it. The differences and similarities of ideologies interest me, as do their creation and destruction. I've enjoyed reading the opinions and points of view of Communism, National Socialism, and Fascism. It's all very interesting to me.
"Just a very brief comment on the Holocaust because jexster has scheduled it for later. It was not about religion. It was about race. Many Jews in Germany were completely assimilated and had adopted the Protestant faith. But that didn't make any difference to the Nazis."
I know this. It's a mistake to think that it was strictly religious. Hitler had an interesting hypocritical view related to religion. He felt that the "Church" was an invention of the Jews, yet he was raised a Christian. He also has been reported to say that the Christian church was good in that it taught people a certain level of discipline, which was good. Yet, it was a blemish. How he could embrace both Nietzsche's outlook on weakness, yet support the Church in other ways, all the while blaming its creation on the Jews, is a mystery to me.
221. jexster - 3/9/2000 12:46:03 PM
Pelle -
There was an important difference between the Soviets and Fascists IMO. While each pursued some version of world conquest, the Soviets having adopted the "socialism in one country" idea were far less impelled in that direction.
The quote I began the thread with bears repeating:
"It belongs to the very nature of a totalitarian system of the Fascist type that it is restless, dynamic, wanting action for its own sake and constantly devising imperatives."
Goebbels & National Socialist Propaganda
222. PelleNilsson - 3/9/2000 2:31:09 PM
You are right. I don't have the English terminology for this, but here we use the term "vitalism" to describe this urge of action for the sake of action. This includes the notion that war is a good thing in itself. It is essential to subject the nation to periodical "steel baths" to strengthen its will and preserve its spirit.
The discussion about origins has been very interesting and I think everybody has picked up something new. But maybe it has run its course by now?
223. jexster - 3/9/2000 3:57:23 PM
OK Pelle.
Lets switch hemispheres.
224. jexster - 3/9/2000 4:03:49 PM
Pelle's wish, my command
On topic here:
- development of Japanese militarism (I'm curious and largely ignorant of how Japan changed from a British ally and emulator with the Meijii Restoration)
- Japan's War in China & Manchuria
- US pre-war efforts to thwart Japan (extending all the way back to the Boxer Rebellion & immigrant bashing)
- The attack on Pearl (Did FDR know?)
- Japan's relations with Hitler
- Military campaigns generally
- The decision to nuke 'em
225. cazart - 3/9/2000 4:08:58 PM
See, Jexster?
Just follow my advice and you will prosper.
BTW, you should have developed a summary for the 'Origins' segment.
God. I've got to think of everything.
226. PelleNilsson - 3/9/2000 4:39:46 PM
jexster
You are too gracious.
I hope the change of subject will draw in some more posters. I know very little about the Asian theatre. But I will lurk and maybe put in a question or two.
cazart
Your idea of a summary is good. Why not go ahead and do it?
227. jexster - 3/9/2000 8:56:32 PM
The Mighty Yamato!
228. cmboyce - 3/10/2000 12:30:28 AM
Jexter, I'm curious about the mention of the Boxer Rebellion. Did the US keep Japan off the suppression army? Why? Simple racism (like the immigrant bashing impulse, though this applied to a great many others as well, including the Chinese, later our ally and Japan's enemy)?
229. jexster - 3/10/2000 1:17:25 AM
CM -
The US sent troops to the Boxer Rebellion in part to make sure that the Great Powers did not further dismember China but also and chiefly to keep Japan from getting involved there.
The same motivations resulted in US troops being sent to Vladivostok after the Bolshevik revolution.
230. cmboyce - 3/10/2000 1:24:09 AM
Who decided on this policy, anent the Boxers? TR?
231. PelleNilsson - 3/10/2000 2:54:11 AM
Hold on there. The Japanese were very much involved in putting down the Boxer Rebellion. More about this when I get home and can access references.
232. jexster - 3/10/2000 3:00:01 AM
Yes the Japanese were very involved in putting down. That is why the US got involved - to keep them at bay. The Japanese-US rivalry had a long history before WWII. In fact, it caused friction with the Brits who had an alliance with Japan.
233. PelleNilsson - 3/10/2000 3:06:27 AM
In WWI the Germans were called 'Huns'. They got that nickname in connection with the Boxer Rebellion. It's an amusing little anecdote which I will post later.
234. RickNelson - 3/10/2000 8:09:54 AM
hmm... change of thread topic...
I've some knowledge of this theatre. Novice at best, but I know what happened in general.
This is my qualifier, take it as one wishes.
The Greater East Asian Co Prosperity Sphere was Japan's master plan. In my humble opinion this is the best way to focus on Japan's mentality and expanssion ambitions during the 20's to the end of the war.
The systematic expanssion of power was well planned and in many cases well executed. Not perhaps to the wests standards but, hey, we're talking the 40's here. And it's too presumptuous of me to even think we could take on the Japanese if they hadn't attacked Pearl Harbor. We would have been sorely stretched if the incentive of Pearl Harbor had not taken place. This again is my morbid humble opinion.
Our national war manufacture and building was put to it's maximum after Pearl Harbor and that's my point.
I assume the same can be said for Australia, New Zealand and Great Britian. Though I've no idea what ship, plane, etc... manufacture capability Aussies and kiwi's had or have.
Back to Japan...
235. RickNelson - 3/10/2000 8:10:15 AM
The Manuchurian, Korean and Chinese campaigns of the 30's were all the testing grounds for Imperial Japans expanssion plans. They prepared the nation for everything south and whatever else they could get away with in the people's minds. Too bad the Imperial system allowed such blatant demagogary as world military expanssion.
When the focus turned south to Vietnam, Cambodia, Burma, Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, Phillipines, and Islands of the entire South East Pacific, the world came ablaze with Japanese military might.
They were left nearly unchallenged and all points that fought were the few strongholds, like Singapore and the hills of New Guinea. Oh, and I must mention the Island of Borneo. Inland was taboo I'm told. Too many patrols disappeared. I'm told there are still skulls to be found of Japanese soldiers caught in ambush by the local tribes. Though I've not been shown any examples yet.
Well, there's so much to say, I guess I'll wait to hear from others.
Ciao.
236. RickNelson - 3/10/2000 8:13:37 AM
Nearly unchallenged means that the might of Japan overwhelmed the defences of all that tried to stop them.
237. ScottLoar - 3/10/2000 8:53:35 AM
Before slinging charges of racism and impugning US motives:
The Boxers killed the German ambassador and beseiged the foreign legations at Peking, so the command of the multi-national relief force was necessarily given to a German (with the command from the Kaiser to treat in such a way that "a Chinaman will never again look askance at a German") and those countries having a legation under seige were of course allowed to participate. It was their right, and a unified command as a single force only made good sense. The first to enter and relieve the compound were Indian forces under the British who crawled through the sewers for that right.
The US used their part of the reparations paid each power to endow a scholarship for Chinese students, the only government to do so.
The Empress Dowager was later obliged to meet with the wives of foreign missionaries who described her as charming (photos testify to the meeting), this old and bitter woman who swore she'd never let Chinese dogs rule and after having the nose, ears and hands of her son's favourite concubine chopped off and the girl thrown into a pit invited her son to come and look at the "human pig".
Without knowing the events, cause, and nature of the people involved dismissing the affair as simple racism is... words fail me.
238. cmboyce - 3/10/2000 10:08:28 AM
Jesus, Loar, you're a crabby sonofabitch. And reading challenged to boot. I (who mentioned racism, applying it to "immigrant bashing") did not dismiss anything. I asked a question. Historically, American attitudes to Japan and the Japanese do not make the question at all untoward.
For Christ's sake, man, try to be a little civil. I don't know what time of day it is for you, but perhaps you need a drink. Or an enema.
239. ScottLoar - 3/10/2000 10:47:48 AM
I criticized your assumption as being shortsighted.
240. ScottLoar - 3/10/2000 10:48:32 AM
And, I admit, uninformed as well.
241. ScottLoar - 3/10/2000 10:52:08 AM
Message # 227how romantic! Battleship under full steam, guns ablaze, the Yamato in fighting trim.
Erh, Jexster, can you recount the battle record of the Yamato? Exactly how many times were those big guns fired?
242. ScottLoar - 3/10/2000 10:54:53 AM
Fired in combat, that is.
243. stostosto - 3/10/2000 11:27:55 AM
Was WWII really two wars in different parts of the world which just went on at the same time?
244. cmboyce - 3/10/2000 12:41:42 PM
Message # 239 There was no assumption being made.
Message # 240 I established that. That's why I asked a question. That I might become informed.
245. jexster - 3/10/2000 1:18:54 PM
Scott -
The Yamato was the most feared, most powerful battleship afloat. She was spotted by aircraft and sunk in 1944 I think in the Battle of the Sevian Sea.(sp)
I'll see if I can grab a photo of the blessed event.
All GOOKS must die :)
246. jexster - 3/10/2000 1:23:05 PM
God Bless America! 
247. ScottLoar - 3/10/2000 1:32:26 PM
The Yamato engaged the enemy (US) but once. Spotted by a few US Corsairs the Yamato loaded a round similar to flechettes in three of her big guns, and fired, the first and only time in combat. No effect, the Yamato was promptly sunk and the gunnery officer who had argued for loading such rounds going down with the ship in humiliation. The Yamato might never have well existed for all the effect that ship had upon the war.
And yet Japanese aircraft had sunk that most modern British warship Prince of Wales just beyond Singapore some three years earlier under similar conditions - and had learned nothing.
248. ScottLoar - 3/10/2000 1:36:05 PM
The Prince of Wales had come into Singapore and after two days the captain put to sea "looking for some trouble" as he said. He found it. So, not only was the newest and best of the Royal Fleet lost the most modern and expensive military port in the world - Singapore - was also to be lost.
249. PelleNilsson - 3/10/2000 3:40:20 PM
I promised to tell the story about how it came about that the Germans were nicknamed 'Huns' during WWI. I thought I had the source but I was mistaken, so this is from memory.
In his speech to the departing troops (presumably the same as ScottLoar quotes from in Message # 237), Kaiser Wilhelm said words to the effect that
Go make yourselves feared as the Huns under Attila were feared.
So the Kaiser did it to his own troops.
250. PsychProf - 3/10/2000 3:43:33 PM
251. cmboyce - 3/10/2000 4:08:11 PM
PP, what's that? (Besides cute, in an odd, charcoal-burner's-daughter way.)
252. cmboyce - 3/10/2000 4:09:37 PM
Pelle, were these troops going to Peking? Or WW1 troops?
253. PsychProf - 3/10/2000 4:10:16 PM
"That" is in reference to both Kaiser and Pelle...
254. PelleNilsson - 3/10/2000 4:14:50 PM
cm
Going to to suppress the Boxer Rebellion. I do wish I had that source, maybe it is hidden away in some shelf. In any case the Boxer incident produced the first international, multi-lateral intervention force under a unfied command (German in this case).
255. Wombat - 3/10/2000 4:27:15 PM
Scott Loar:
I think you are getting the Yamato and her sister ship Mushashi mixed up. Both were in the Japanese forces approaching the Philippines, but the Yamato survived--and presumably fired her guns in anger at US escort carriers. Mushashi was sunk in the Sibuyan Sea. Yamato was sunk as she was attempting to approach Okinawa as a naval Kamikaze.
256. Wombat - 3/10/2000 4:29:09 PM
Pelle:
Unified multilateral forces fought the Barbary Corsairs in the early 1800s.
257. PelleNilsson - 3/10/2000 5:26:30 PM
Wombat
You are right.
258. ScottLoar - 3/10/2000 5:38:10 PM
Wombat, I have confused them.
259. PelleNilsson - 3/10/2000 5:41:47 PM
Wombat knows.
Please stick around.
260. jexster - 3/10/2000 5:53:37 PM
Scott -
The Japanese were in a bit of a straight WRT the Yamato. It was sunk at the end of the war when most of Japan's aircraft carrier and long torpedo armed destroyer fleets no longer existed.
The Yamato was sent out in a desperate attempt to engage the USN close in to Japanese waters but just beyond air cover. It was all they could do.
261. Wombat - 3/10/2000 5:58:42 PM
Jex:
The Yamato's mission was to get as close to Okinawa as possible, beach itself and blast away. Good to know that the Japanese retained a strong grasp of reality at the end of the war. The Captain of the cruiser Yahagi, which accompanied the Yamato (and was quickly sunk) survived and wrote his memoirs. He spent most of the war in submarines.
262. jexster - 3/10/2000 6:11:50 PM
Wombat - out of curiousity are you an historian by vocation or by avocation?
263. jexster - 3/10/2000 6:13:40 PM
Was WWII really two wars in different parts of the world which just went on at the same time?
I think so. Primary evidence the complete lack of coordination between the Japanese and the Germans WRT Russia. This even though the 2 Axis powers maintained very close liaison. The only area they came close to working together was South America
264. ButterfieldSwire - 3/10/2000 9:28:54 PM
Does anyone know where I could find somewhat reliable info on the number of civilians killed in the Asian countries affected by World War II?
265. jexster - 3/10/2000 10:52:05 PM
Can't help. I have the numbers on the Great Patriotic War tho.
Bet its more of a wild ass guess in Asia
266. ButterfieldSwire - 3/11/2000 2:31:11 AM
Thanks anyway, Jexster. Wild ass guesses are fine as long as its by someone with some credibility.
267. RickNelson - 3/11/2000 6:48:59 AM
I've watched "Snow Falling On Cedars" and wonder if Jexter has?
Why the snotty racist remark about asian people Jex? Even in jest it hurts. I'm pained to read the blurb you posted. My wife and daughter are not animals to be smeared with blurbs! They are my family and they are human beings I love. Remarks of them is a remark of me.
I've read about the Japanese internment years ago and pretty much forgot about it until my wife met a woman who was interned. I'm told that woman was an inspiration to many in Minnesota. Of course I don't have her name at the moment. She passed away just recently. But, the point is knowing about the internment and it's affect upon a group of U.S. citizens whose rights were unjustifiably stripped because of the color of their skin. They lost jobs, homes, property, possessions, friends, family seperations, and their feeling of humanness. A disgusting display of ignorance within U.S. history. And that history is to recent for my taste.
Its recent occurance allows that many citizens involved or in agreement are still living. And it allows that their warped belief systems were passed to their offspring. A truely horrible thought to me.
Well, 'nuf of that.
268. RickNelson - 3/11/2000 7:10:08 AM
The Japanese I believe were also victims of the bomb because of race. Though they were forcing our hand. I wonder why another week wasn't ok? I suppose I would hear that whose American life is to be spent during that week? Yeah I suppose. But, 1000 American lives lost in a week doesn't come close to 100,000 lost in an instant. And the thousands lost after to radiation. Also who knows if another week would have made a difference, so it could have been a month.
I don't see how we even thought we would have to invade the main Islands? We would have been able to warn them with an atoll bomb warning, no? Of course not, they aren't humans who would fear such an aggressive test meant as a warning to surrender. The civilians of Hiroshima and Nagasaki had to be murdered in order to show the might of the bomb to the world. Didn't matter that the huge majority of people were non-combatants. Sure they had military production, but, what large, city in the war didn't? Doesn't matter, they were summarily executed for being Japanese. They were warned to surrender and the Emperor wasn't yet completely ready. He wanted to know what would happen to him, his role and the role of government.
Note: I don't know what the Emperor wanted, I'm inferring most of the above. Based upon reading, The "Rising Sun", and some other books that recount battle tales of individuals and their units. Oh, and that complete "Time Life" series of the war.
269. RickNelson - 3/11/2000 7:10:25 AM
The bomb. The biggest racist tool ever.
Just think about how the pres. thought it out.
It'll stop the war. Sure.
It'll save American lives. Sure.
It'll kill an entire city.
It's a city of Japanese.
They don't want to quit yet.
We don't want to continue.
That's it then, bomb them.
The above isn't enough. So, My process is just to time consuming and extensive to relay a good idea of the thoughts. And I'm being silly to think anyone cares.
The final point to be that a warning shot was not fired. Should it have been? In the name of humanity, yes! Why wouldn't one shot be ok? We had two. If they refused, then reality would force its use upon a military target. Say, a military target, wouldn't that have been a novel idea?
270. Wombat - 3/11/2000 10:16:14 AM
Jex:
Avocation, not vocation.
The Japanese and the Germans tried to work together: the Japanese supplied at least one German surface raider, and German U-boats also made the long trip to Japan. The Germans supplied the Japanese with samples and designs for the for Daimler Benz in-line aircraft engine that powered the ME-109. The Japanese used the design to build the "Tony" interceptor fighter, one of the only Japanese fighters able to fly high enough to attack B-29s. The Japanese attempted to send their submarines to Germany, but I don't believe any made it. Before Germany attacked the Soviet Union, the two countries held staff talks, and came up with the usual fanciful plans for the Afrika Korps to link up with Japanese forces invading India...yadda yadda. Once the Soviet Union was in the war, that ended. The reason...Nomonhan demostrated that the Japanese were not able to fight the Soviets on equal terms, and would never be able to.
271. jexster - 3/11/2000 1:51:26 PM
Nomonhan demostrated that the Japanese were not able to
fight the Soviets on equal terms, and would never be able to.
True enough based on experience before the German invasion of the USSR. As Wombat correctly states, there was a great deal of liaison between the 2 but very little coordination. The Germans were forever seeking, in the most strikingly tentative terms, to enlist the support of their allies, this according to Magic intercepts of Japanese diplomatic traffic.
The German enthusiasm for joining hands over the British Empire's corpse in India was indeed fanciful but in reading the material, one can't help get the impression that most of it came from a desire to molly coddle their allies. Zhukov's success in fighting the Japanese seems to have cemented the position of the Greater East Asian Co-prosperity sphere fanatics for whom the strike at Britain, a former ally, was a deeply racial thing.
272. jexster - 3/11/2000 1:51:50 PM
toys
273. jexster - 3/11/2000 2:03:52 PM
In August of 1939 with 57,000 troops and 500 tanks, GK Zhukov attacked forces of the Imperial Japanese Army in the Battle of Kahlkin Gol. Zhukov's forces quickly encircled the Japanese inflicting 60,000 casualties ending the debate in Japan over whether to attack the Soviets or attack to the South.
This had a tremendous psycho-political effect in Japanese miltarist ruling circles. To date, the Imperial Army had enjoyed the prestige. Per force the Imperial Navy was denied the glory of conquest in Manchuria and China. A debate over which direction to attack and expand was raging. This can easily be appreciated in schoolyard terms.
Navy - yayayayaya. The Emperor demands bettter. We await His call to strike the White Imperialists with our mighty fleet. The Army has proved its impotence.
Army - The Navy cannot prevail without our forces. Put up or shut up.
This battle between the Army and Navy continued even through the decision to strike South. The Army was ever ready to rub the Navy's nose in shit with each defeat.
274. jexster - 3/11/2000 2:05:01 PM
In point of fact, the Imperial Army lacked the equipment, mobility and tactical sophistication to fight the white man. The Navy suffered no such handicap.
275. jexster - 3/11/2000 2:06:33 PM
"I've watched "Snow Falling On Cedars" and wonder if Jexter has?"
Rick - I read the book. The "snotty" racist remark was intentional. It captures American and Japanese views of each other at the time. The allusion was also to John McCain's recent remarks.
276. jexster - 3/11/2000 2:08:54 PM
For the record, I negotiated business deals with Japanese. I've lunched with the Director General of Mitsubishi Corporation in his private dining room overlooking the Imperial Palace and was treated to a tour of Hiroshima by my hosts.
I harbor no anti-Jap sentiments. Not so my father or grandfather who both served as US Naval officers in WWII.
277. jexster - 3/11/2000 2:15:56 PM
Even though it was several years ago (16 to be precise), I will never forget my visit to the Museum and Memorial Park in Hiroshima. I happened to be there the weekend before the Anniversary. I was the only American there, naturally towering over the other visitors. Sticking out like a sore thumb.
The exhibits of the A-bomb's destruction were very unnerving as was being the only American there that hot August morning, a morning much like that the day the bomb was dropped I imagine.
With my phrase book Japanese, however, I was able to express and share something of my feelings with one or two Japanese.
Never forget it.
278. PelleNilsson - 3/11/2000 4:31:43 PM
For me, the Asian scene from the Russian-Japanese war 1905 to Pearl Harbour is an almost complete blank.
I would be glad if somebody could provide a precis of Japanese ventures during that period.
279. jexster - 3/11/2000 9:31:38 PM
I'm with Pelle. I learned about all that in my Mod East Asian History course in college but that was 30 years ago.
Japan had a liberal regime at the turn of the century and looked to emulate GB not only in govt but in colonialism. When the Western Powers shut down her ambitions at Versailles, Japan started to get more radical, eventually going over to Manchukuo. The decisive moment occured, as it did in the West, circa 1936 when a faction led by a guy whose name I forget lost out to the militarists.
280. Wombat - 3/11/2000 9:58:23 PM
Meiji Japan was only "Liberal" when compared to what came before it. The traditional feudal barons, samurai, and ronin were coopted into a modern military force, which offered them glory in a newly expansionist foreign policy. There were a few barons who resisted, but their forces were crushed by the new Japanese armed forces. The Japanese army was modeled on and trained by the French, while the Navy was modeled on the British. Most of Japan's early warships were constructed in Britain.
The Japanese seized Korea, fought and defeated the Chinese in 1899, and the Russians in 1905. They sided with the Allies in World War I, but contributed little materially to the war effort, other than hunting German commerce raiders and snapping up German possessions in the Far East.
The thing to bear in mind is that Japan was consistently expansionist, once it achieved internal unity.
281. RickNelson - 3/12/2000 8:13:28 AM
Jex,
The sentiment of old is understood. Bless you for your participation and concern during your visit some 16 yrs ago. I'm sure your presence represtented a standard for the U.S. as well as your personal journey.
I've seen some documentories of such visits. Healing visits, for the participants. One was the recent uncovering of the Korean bridge massacre. A soldier of the unit concerned went to a memorial sevice set up in Korea. He gave his best and received thoughtful consideration. It's hard for everyone. I teared up for the Korean stories and for the poor soldier who followed horrific orders while fearing for his life.
Bless you.
282. RickNelson - 3/12/2000 8:23:00 AM
Do any of us know a Japanese who can contribute to this? I do not, but would find it most generous if a Japanese national had the time to share.
Concerning the mood, as Wombat is looking at could really be focused.
I fear the mood that such societal cohesion can create. cohesion that is brought about by fear is even more scary. That is what I think of when I think of Imperial Japan during the 20's-45. People who must believe in their Divine Emporer and follow the lead of said emporer unquestioningly. It's a recipe for what occured. It's not much different than Hitler with respect to fear and following orders. Ruthlessness would reign. As it did.
Who can expand upon the infighting of the Japanese Imperial Navy and the Army? That's a bit interesting.
283. Wombat - 3/12/2000 5:02:13 PM
The rivalry between the Japanese Army and Navy was one over resources and glory. The Navy had the deserved reputation for both tactical skill and mastery of modern technology. The Army often did not.
This first became apparent in the Russo-Japanese War, when the Navy won a string of victories ending with the annihilation of the Russian fleet at Tsushima. The Japanese suffered very few losses. The Japanese Army in Manchuria maneuvered skillfully against against the poorly-led Russian field forces, defeating them in a series of hard fought battles, taking and inflicting heavy casualties. At Port Arthur, the Japanese suffered horrific casualties against a Russian garrison whose leadership was either incompetent or treasonous. After the failure of one attack, Japanese losses were so heavy that the Japanese commander had to be dissuaded from committing suicide. Fortunately, a lucky shell killed the Russian officer who was actively leading the defense, and the Japanese--after again suffering huge casualties--seized a key defensive position. The Russian garrison commander surrendered not long after, in spite vehement protests from his subordinates. When the garrison surrendered, there were still six months' worth of food and ammunition remaining.
Ironically, the Japanese needed the peace treaty signed in Portsmouth even more than the Russians. The Army had suffered losses in men and materiel that were becoming unsustainable. The Russians could replace their their losses, the Japanese could not. Also Japan's victories had unsettled countries that had initially sympathized with Japan, and they began to pressure Japan to end the war.
284. Jonesy - 3/13/2000 12:16:30 AM
I agree with the analysis comparing Japan's Navy to the British and the Army to the French. I believe that it was a conscious decision to emulate the most sucessful western powers at their greatest strengths. In a remarkably short period of time in historical terms, Japan had gone from an inward looking fedual system, to a modern nation-state. I do not think that colonial ambition was intrinsic in the Japanese character, or world view; but was rather adopted from their interpretation of what a modern nation should be as modeled on the most "advanced" countries of western Europe. With the exception of the Americans, the most agressive colonial powers in the late 19th and early 20th centuries were the newest nations. The Italians, Germans and Japanese did their best to grab what opportunties remained. The Americans were ambivalent colonialists- although certainly agressive in indirect and economic colonialism.
285. Jonesy - 3/13/2000 12:30:01 AM
There is something to be said for the short time period from the Meji restoration to the events of the 20's and 30's and the militarists rise to power. Obviously the political power and social status of samuri class was lost with the end of the shogunate, but the culture was obviously shaped by the long experience with a martial class operating the political system in service to a remote god-emperor. It was more of a return to the norm than a new experience when the militarists regained power. It could be viewed as a sign of national maturity and and cultural nativization when the militarists gained power in Japan, rather than a rejection of a well established monarchy.
286. Wombat - 3/13/2000 9:57:24 AM
The rise and power of the militarists was helped by the fact that Meiji's successor Taisho was "mad," and that Hirohito (Showa)was young and unprepared to rule when he ascended the throne in the late 1920s.
287. jexster - 3/13/2000 8:00:00 PM
The Imperial Japanese Navy [Nihon Kaigun] was a fearsome war machine. The supposed glory of the Royal Navy paled quickly in comparision and in combat. The US Navy found itself in combat with which was, until 1943, the best navy the world has ever seen.
288. Jonesatlaw - 3/14/2000 12:38:45 AM
Nelson- While I do not doubt that there was no small amount of racism driving American actions regarding Japan during the war (compare the propaganda efforts against Italy and Germany with that directed at the Japanese- the European enemies were targeted as politcal parties, a nation held captive by a evil cabal, the Japanese were targeted more as a nation) I have to defend Truman. In hindsight, a warning shot would seem rational, but given the difficulty that Japan had in surrendering even after both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were wiped out, I do not think that any demonstration would have been effective. I read a text concerning a plot to kidnap Hirohito on the day that his recorded message was to be broadcast calling for surrender. I believe that it is "Japan's Longest Day."
289. RickNelson - 3/14/2000 7:58:30 AM
Jonesatlaw,
Yes, the difficulties surrounding a Japanese surrender were well propagandized at that time.
I'm sure the Emporer was at the end of his rope and feared all things. I feel bad for those people who had to be sacrificed because of the system set up around them.
I cannot think of a parallel for such nationwide fear for their Emporer/leader and it's system With exception of Germany during WWII. Cambodia, China and Myanmar are/were close but, they didn't attempt world expanssion. It's like a weird silence that has all exhaulted power over them. They follow this psuedo silence like cattle and gave themselves to it to the end. It must have been a horrific time during surrender. Especially for surrndering to racist American military personnel. And don't try for examples, or tell me they weren't. I don't want to change my mind about who Americans were then.
Race played a role in how America decided it was the Japanese nation and not it's rulers that wanted the G.E.A.C.P.S. How, America would determine that the German people weren't the same as the Japanese with respect to national fervour for the war is beyond my ability to comprehend. I know the fervour for war was extremely high in Germany at the time. So, that would mean to me that the German peoples of America at the time, if all were equal would also need to be interred. Well we know they were not.
So, does that mean it was revenge for Pearl Harbor? Perhaps.
cont.
290. RickNelson - 3/14/2000 7:58:47 AM
But, it is race that allowed the internment and nothing else. The Japanese nation at the time was exactly like Germany with respect to its people having no choice to follow what they were told to do. Only those who understood what was happening diccented and I'm sure many of those sacrificed their lives for it. And then there are heros like Shindler. Well, there were probably heros in Japan too. But, we whites don't have time to share their stories. I know I've never heard of any Shindler like types out of Japan.
Could there have been some instances of compassion for humanity and those sufferiing under Japanese rule? Of course. Not to think there was, is to make a close to racist assumption imho. At the least it's an ignorant assumption to believe there were no Japanese who tried to help the suffering of other countries and races. I'm not speaking of the home Islands, but of the conquered lands.
cont.
Now I'm not considering you are mentioning any of what I'm stating above Jones. I'm just expanding upon my ideas a bit. And I understand what you've presented.
I still have my belief that a warning shot upon the military directly would have been equally effective as Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I cannot tell you where this would be, but, we missed an opportunity with all the Island hopping America did. We could have settled upon Iwo perhaps. A very problematic attack indeed. Would not a bomb have ended the necessary attack? Was it something we had to do when we did? Well who can truely say for sure? What other possible military targets could be thought of. I would have to research for such answers. I cannot imagine we had no military options for a target. That is why I've a problem with civilians being sacrificed/murdered by the bombs.
The bomb is very difficult!
291. PelleNilsson - 3/14/2000 3:16:38 PM
When we come to the bomb I have a long and eloquent piece by PE which I got from Dusty. The thing is that PE asked it to be deleted from archives, possibly because he wants to use it in some journal, so I would have to ask him before publishing.
Things are slow around here so I thought I could bring up a strange conspiracy theory that came up when I hosted Political Ideas some months ago. The occasion was a discusssion of FDR's policies in order to try to fit them into the traditional European political spectrum. I was surprised to learn how hated FDR still is by right-wingers.
Anyhow, the theory was very simple and went like this. FDR somehow co-conspired with the Japanese to achieve the bombing of Pearl Harbour. His motive was to provide a justification for declaring war on Japan and Germany in order to be able to help his buddy Joe Stalin who, at the time, was in a bit of a trouble with Hitler.
Has anyone else heard about this stuff?
292. Dantheman - 3/14/2000 3:18:59 PM
Pelle,
I've heard that from time to time, and usually dismiss it as coming from cranks. You're right, though, that there's still a large number of conservatives who despise FDR for creating the welfare state.
293. Raskolnikov - 3/14/2000 3:28:15 PM
Pelle: there are quite a lot of people who believe that FDR knew about Pearl Harbor in advance. It is a frequent topic for the conspiracy-minded. However, your description is a bit more out there than most I have heard. I haven't heard anyone say that FDR conspired *with* the Japanese, or argue that FDR's goal was to help Stalin in particular. The standard line is that FDR knew the Japanese were coming, and sent a good share of the fleet out of port, in order to get us into the war and help fight the Nazis.
I have never looked too deep into the conspiracy theories, but surface examination leads me to believe that they are bunk. The logic doesn't make a lot of sense, and the evidence is lacking.
294. ScottLoar - 3/14/2000 3:33:41 PM
How could the President of the United States, a quite public position and one utterly reliant on a cadre of advisors and staff, secretly advance to treason and the destruction of the American Pacific fleet? As we well know, not even the sexual peccadilloes of Presidents remain unknown; discretely avoided perhaps by an indulgent or sympathetic staff and press, but treason yet remains a more serious matter than fornication.
295. PelleNilsson - 3/14/2000 3:36:18 PM
Dan
I haven't read about the events leading up to Pearl Harbour for a long time and I have no good sources here at home. But I do remember that there are uncertainties in the time line like what was decrypted at what time, who knew and when, exactly when were telegrams delivered and how were they distributed, and so on. I guess it would be possible to work in a conspiracy.
I wonder if spudboy, our conspiracy connoisseur, ever lurks here and if he knows something interesting.
296. ScottLoar - 3/14/2000 3:39:57 PM
Or chance, which insinuates itself in affairs much more deftly than conspiracy.
297. Wombat - 3/14/2000 3:50:07 PM
The Pearl Harbor conspiracy fails the same logic test that most conspiracy theories do.
That is not to say that there weren't warnings before. The Army received warning to be alert for some potential Japanese action. Since an air attack was deemed inconceivable by General Walter Short (CiC US Army in Hawaii), when he ordered a heightened alert, it was directed against potential saboteurs. The result was that USAAF aircraft were placed where they could be most easily guarded: in closely packed rows on the runways. When the air attack came, the USAAF was easy pickings, losing almost all of its fighters and its bombers.
The Navy presumably received similar warnings, but Admiral Kimmel did nothing. Fortunately the Pacific Fleet's aircraft carriers were out of port delivering aircraft and supplies to US posts (Wake Island, Midway). This should have provided Kimmel a hint that war was expected.
However, the most colossal intelligence breakdown was in the Philippines. They had working radar, the knowledge that the US was at war with Japan, and yet the air force still managed to be caught on the ground. Why General Brereton was not cashiered for that lapse escapes me (McArthur also bears some responsability).
298. ScottLoar - 3/14/2000 3:56:32 PM
And even though the Japanese gauged the attack on Pearl Harbor a success (victory codeword: tora) they missed the carriers. So, the next strategy was to lure those US carriers into combat and sink them.
299. Raskolnikov - 3/14/2000 3:57:38 PM
Well, the usualy "evidence" for the conspiracy theory is a handful of intercepted messages, and US intelligence reports, which collectively could indicate that an attack was imminent. One major logical leap that the conspiracy-mongers make is that all of these reports must have been taken at face value and deemed important enough to call to FDR's attention, amidst all of the other intelligence reports floating around. Separating intelligence wheat from chaff is *still* a damned tricky business, nevermind that this was in the days before the *Central* Intelligence Agency, which was eventually formed as a result of frequent problems with coordinating intelligence information.
And it doesn't make sense that FDR would have needed a surprise attack. Any attack, even if it had been disastrous for the Japanese, would have justified a declaration of war.
Not to mention Scott's point about the inability of the government to keep a secret. There are too many steps in the chain of command. A large number of people would have had to have the same information FDR had. It is almost inconceivable that this could be kept secret for so long.
300. PelleNilsson - 3/14/2000 4:50:41 PM
Look. I didn't advance the conspiracy theory because I believe in it but to provide a topic for discussion in a slow thread. So far, so good.
Raskolnikov:
The standard line is that FDR knew the Japanese were coming, and sent a good share of the fleet out of port, in order to get us into the war and help fight the Nazis.
Wombat:
Fortunately the Pacific Fleet's aircraft carriers were out of
port delivering aircraft and supplies to US posts (Wake Island,
Midway). This should have provided Kimmel a hint that war was
expected.
Could design and fortune be mixed up?
The attack on Pearl Harbour was a clear threat to US interests in the Pacific. The declarion of war on Japan was logical. But was it necessary, from the US point of view, to go to war with Germany at the same time?
301. ScottLoar - 3/14/2000 4:55:11 PM
I believe America didn't want Britain gobbled up by the Nazis and so looked to the relief of Britain as the first step in the prosecution of the war.
302. PincherMartin - 3/14/2000 4:55:41 PM
Jonesy --
I agree with the analysis comparing Japan's Navy to the British and the Army to the French. I believe that it was a conscious decision to emulate the most sucessful western powers at their greatest strengths. In a remarkably short period of time in historical terms, Japan had gone from an inward looking fedual system, to a modern nation-state.
303. Dantheman - 3/14/2000 4:56:11 PM
Pelle,
My (fallable) memory is that the US declared war on Japan only, and Germany and Italy then declared war on the US.
304. PelleNilsson - 3/14/2000 4:59:00 PM
Dan
My memory is fallable too. Maybe someone can enlighten us.
305. Raskolnikov - 3/14/2000 4:59:47 PM
"The attack on Pearl Harbour was a clear threat to US interests in the Pacific. The declarion of war on Japan was logical. But was it necessary, from the US point of view, to go to war with Germany at the same time?"
Germany declared war on the US after the US declared war on Japan. I have seen some scholarly debate about what FDR would have done if Hitler had not made what is usually considered a foolish move. But given that declaration of war, I think it was quite necessary for the US to go to war with Germany. I don't think it is controversial to argue that the US had a stronger national interest in the outcome of events in Europe. FDR had pushing the US toward war for a couple of years. The only thing stopping FDR from getting involved was public sentiment, which was promptly washed away by the outrage following Pearl Harbor.
306. stostosto - 3/14/2000 5:00:26 PM
Pelle
If I am not mistaken, it was Hitler who declared war on the USA immediately after Pearl Harbor. I have always thought this highly strange. What could Germany possibly gain from that? They were attacking American convoys to Britain already. Of course, it would have likely been a matter of time before America sided with Britain. But why rush things? (Sorry, I realise this spills over to the 'European Theater').
307. Raskolnikov - 3/14/2000 5:02:40 PM
I have never seen a convincing explanation for why Germany declared war on the US. Obviously, they *did* declare war, but I have never seen a reason for it which makes it remotely look like a sensible plan. Given that US outrage was aimed at the Japanese, absent a provocation, the US would probably have been politically required to focus on the pacific theater.
308. stostosto - 3/14/2000 5:09:01 PM
Dan, Rask
You beat me to it.
Rask: Is Hitler's war declaration usually considered a foolish move? Then it's not just me? I am glad. (Strange as it may sound, I have never heard or read this peculiar war declaration commented upon, only registered...)
309. Raskolnikov - 3/14/2000 5:12:37 PM
"Rask: Is Hitler's war declaration usually considered a foolish move? Then it's not just me? I am glad. (Strange as it may sound, I have never heard or read this peculiar war declaration commented upon, only registered...)"
I haven't done a vast historical exploration of the arguments around it. I am largely going by memory from a couple of 20th century diplomatic history classes I took, but my understanding is that it is usually regarded as a bad move.
310. PelleNilsson - 3/14/2000 5:13:05 PM
I hate to reveal my ignorance but if one doesn't one doesn't learn, does one?
Was there a formal treaty between Japan and Germany so that the US declaration of war on Japan automatically triggered the German response, just as Germany's attack on Poland triggered the declarations of war by France and the UK?
311. Raskolnikov - 3/14/2000 5:15:36 PM
That I can't remember, but given Hitler's trail of broken agreements and willingness to pull a 180 on an ally when it suited his purposes, the existence of such an agreement wouldn't explain his decision.
312. Wombat - 3/14/2000 5:18:21 PM
Hitler was never one to let rationality and logic affect his decisionmaking. He did it impulsively, although with no little provocation from the United States. Nazi leadership thought that the United States was "soft" and too busy producing consumer goods to quickly switch over to war production. No doubt they also believed that the "mongrelized" Americans would be unable to match the "pure" and militarized German and Japanese forces.
313. Wombat - 3/14/2000 5:20:00 PM
There was a treaty, which all parties ignored when it suited them.
314. stostosto - 3/14/2000 5:25:39 PM
Wombat #312
Then I'd say Germany declaring war on the US was a mistake of incredible proportions.
315. Wombat - 3/14/2000 5:28:05 PM
I don't think it would have made much difference in the long run.
316. Raskolnikov - 3/14/2000 5:29:12 PM
Global rules of thumb:
1) Don't get in a land war in Asia.
2) Don't fuck with Uncle Sam.
Sorry, I share that peculiar American trait of puffing up with national pride when WWII gets discussed, despite the fact that I wasn't born until 22 years after it ended.
317. Raskolnikov - 3/14/2000 5:31:06 PM
"I don't think it would have made much difference in the long run."
I have seen this mentioned as a counter-argument for the "Hitler's declaration was a fuck-up" argument. What is your reasoning? Do you think FDR would have quickly found an excuse to enter the war anyway?
318. ScottLoar - 3/14/2000 5:42:45 PM
To that most excellent Message # 316 I'd pointedly include Russia in 1).
319. Wombat - 3/14/2000 5:44:39 PM
The declaration would have come eventually. The US was already at war with Germany de facto if not yet de jure. I don't know if Roosevelt would have tried to ask Congress for a declaration of war lacking one from Germany. It would have been a messy process, with a lot of dirty laundry aired. Hitler's action allowed the United States to go to war politically unified.
320. PelleNilsson - 3/14/2000 5:53:21 PM
i don't think demonizing Hitler, or relieving him of rationale and logic will contribute to our understanding of WWII. If there was a treaty and Hitler acted within its provisions it was no more irrational or stupid than the Allies acting on their treaty with Poland.
Wombat
Nazi leadership thought that the United States was "soft" and too busy producing consumer goods to quickly switch over to war production. No doubt they also believed that the "mongrelized" Americans would be unable to match the "pure" and militarized German and Japanese forces.
Can you source that? In particular the second sentence.
321. Raskolnikov - 3/14/2000 6:01:51 PM
"i don't think demonizing Hitler, or relieving him of rationale and logic will contribute to our understanding of WWII. If there was a treaty and Hitler acted within its provisions it was no more irrational or stupid than the Allies acting on their treaty with Poland."
It certainly can be. With Poland, you can at least make the argument that it was a line in the sand, after evidence of German expansionism in Czechoslovakia. If Britain and France had backed down, their credibility would have suffered further.
But Hitler didn't have much credibility in the first place, in December of 1941. He had already violated several treaties and agreements, including Versailles, Munich, and the Molotov-Ribentropp Pact.
Leaving Japan hanging high and dry wouldn't have hurt him in the slightest.
Not to mention that Japan hadn't really lived up to its side of the bargain, after German invaded the USSR.
322. PincherMartin - 3/14/2000 6:32:59 PM
I have to correct my own Message # 302
Here is what Importing the European Army: The Introduction of European Military Techniques and Institutions into the Extra-European World, 1600-1914 has to say about the matter:
In their efforts to set up a military establishment capable of meeting contemporary standards of performance, the leaders of the Meiji regime turned to the West for help and guidance. During the mid-nineteenth century, France was considered to be the leader in matters pertaining to land warfare, so the shogunate sought the assistance of that country when in the 1860s it set about trying to improve the state of its armed forces. The government of Napoleon III, eager to extend its influence to the distant corners of the world, had been glad to accede to Japanese requests, but by the time a French military misson had arrived and set to work in 1867, it was probably too late to prevent the military defeat and political collapse of the Tokugawa regime. Following the overthrow of the shogunate, the new Meiji government continued to make use of the services of France, even after 1870, despite that nation's military reputation having been somewhat tarnished in the Franco-Prussian War.
Down through the 1870s the French mission worked at educating the Japanese in the fundamentals of modern military practice, and its accomplishments were considerable. The men of the French mission -- six officers and six NCOs -- taught the Japanese how to organize, train and command units from the size of a company on up to brigade. They also set up a school for N.C.O.s and established an academy for officer candidates, which opened its doors in 1875. Apparently the Japanese government was satisfied with the work of the mission, since the contracts of the French officers were renewed in 1876.
323. PincherMartin - 3/14/2000 6:33:18 PM
The Satsuma Rebellion, demanding the commitment to battle of all the meager and still relatively untrained military forces the government had available, revealed a number of deficiencies in the Japanese army. It also had an unfortunate, disruptive effect on work of the French mission. Essential services such as the organization of the reserves and the regular provision of supplies functioned badly. These were matters the French mission had hardly touched upon, possibly because their own army was deficient here, as had been demonstrated in the recent war against Prussia. In any case, the French incurred some of the blame for the difficulties encountered in suppressing the Satsuma rebellion, while the ultimate success of the government after some six months of hard fighting gave the Meiji leaders asense of confidence in thier own abilities and that they no longer needed the tutelage of the French or of any other nation on an exclusive basis. With much tact and diplomacy, the Japanese set about negotiating the termination of the French military mission. It went home in 1880. To the degree that the Japanese utilized the services of any one European country for the rest of nineteenth centruy, they turned to Germany.
324. PincherMartin - 3/14/2000 6:48:21 PM
So, according to this source, it was not the Franco-Prussian of 1870 war that lessened the French influence on Japan's army, as I claimed, but the 1877 Satsuma rebellion.
A very interestng note on the German influence on the Japanese Army (from the same source):
By instituting the General Staff and endowing it with wide-reaching authority over the army, the Japanese were clearly following the Prusso-German example. In fact, the Japanese were some years ahead of the Germans, who did not free the General Staff from the official, if nominal control of the Ministry of War until 1883.
325. cmboyce - 3/14/2000 7:03:26 PM
Jexter, as publican here, you should know that I just clicked on "WWII '39-'45" in the butter bar and got.... the Mote Home Page.
326. cmboyce - 3/14/2000 7:04:36 PM
And, I just realized, it's target was "new"; ie, I now have two screens, with this thread on it.
327. spudboy - 3/14/2000 7:20:37 PM
A couple of helpful references:
German Declaration of War
Hitler's announcement to the Reichstag
328. cmboyce - 3/14/2000 8:16:15 PM
Wow, Spudboy, those are some great sites!! For those who haven't looked, the first of them, with the German Declaration of War, is to a vast trove of documents pertaining to international relations, and the second (Reichstag speech) is to a ditto concerning the Holocaust.
Anyone: how much truth is there to the German allegations that FDR had announced in Sept.'41 a policy of firing on German warships, and that the USN had in fact done so throughout the fall?
329. Wombat - 3/15/2000 9:59:38 AM
After the Bismark, and after the attack on the Kearney and the sinking of the destroyer Reuben James, Roosevelt declared a "shoot on sight" policy in waters extending hundreds of miles off the US coastline. The US was already escorting lend lease convoys in that area, before turning escort duties over the Brits.
330. Wombat - 3/15/2000 10:57:00 AM
Pelle:
Check out the section of the Nazi Propaganda Archive on the United States.
331. PelleNilsson - 3/15/2000 2:25:58 PM
I will if you can be a little more specific. What site are you referring to?
332. Jenerator - 3/15/2000 2:36:41 PM
Jexster,
I sat through an interesting lecture on Fascism yesterday. It started off with a minimal history on the political climate of Italy and Germany after WW1 and worked it's way up to it's 'definition'. The lecturer (actually a post grad. student working on her Ph.D) gave us these very distinct features of Fascism:
1) the 'corporate' state- all functions of the state both private and public are under the state and state run.
2) extreme nationalism- a fascist state is not respectful of individualism or tradition, rather emphasis is placed on nation and collectivism.
3) hostility towards democracy
4) anti-rationalism
5) elitism
My question of her was HOW ARE THESE CHARACTERISTICS DIFFERENT FROM COMMUNISM?
What makes Fascism different from Communism? In theory Fascism is supposed to be exclusive, the revolution coming from the top, its strength resting in the state, a hierarchy of classes, and 'relative autonomy'.
But, Fascism in practice seems to be more like Stalin's Communist Russia.
333. Wombat - 3/15/2000 2:39:25 PM
It is one of the links alongside this page. It has a whole section devoted to Nazi perceptions of the United States, its materialism and the disadvantages of a ethnically polyglot nation versus an ethnically pure one.
334. PelleNilsson - 3/15/2000 2:41:40 PM
Wombat
Sorry for having oberlooked the obvious. I will read.
335. PelleNilsson - 3/15/2000 2:52:16 PM
jenerator
The principal differences between communism and fascism are (a) the ownership of property and (b) the ultimate goal of societal development. In communism (b) is the completely egalitarian state where all property is a common resource and everyone works for the common good. In fascism, the goal is the national state which has fully developed all its inherent possibilities. I don't know if your studies have brought you into contact with Hegel. If so you would find similarities between fascism and Hegel's concept of the Volksgeist which strives to realise its own potential.
You are absolutely right that in practice, many if not most of these philosophical differences disappear from view.
336. Raskolnikov - 3/15/2000 3:00:45 PM
Just based on the criteria you list, the biggest difference is "elitism". Communism is pretty contemptuous of elitism. Additionally, Communism was not nationalistic in nature. It was international in nature. "Workers *of the world* unite". It required some post hoc rationalizations to explain how a communist USSR could exist by itself in the world.
337. PelleNilsson - 3/15/2000 4:22:50 PM
Raskolnikov
No, no, no. Communists were very elitist. What was the Social Democratic party of Russia split at the London Congress of 1903 over this very issue. The "Bolsheviks" (majority) led by Lenin enforced a structure where the party encompassed "the vanguard of the masses", the elite who could divine the "true will of the people".
You are right that at its inception the marxist movement was international: "Workers in all countries unite", but it became downgraded with Stalin's line "Socialism in one country". It didn't disappear though and I said earlier, extreme nationalism is one of the fundamental demarkation lines between fascism and communism.
338. spudboy - 3/15/2000 4:24:43 PM
Pelle and Rask are right about key differences between fascism and communism. (I might reformulate "elitism" as "contempt for the weak.") Another feature of fascism absent in communism is its core myth: palingenesis -- that is, the belief in a Phoenix-style rebirth from the ashes of the order it intends to destroy. In this sense it is quite different from communism, which aims to create an entirely new international order of workers. The palingenetic myth tends to be both backward-looking, focused on resurrecting the glory of days gone by, and nationalistic in nature. If it has international aspirations, they are of the imposition of the subject nation's ethos on the rest of the world, rather than creating an entirely new society.
Probably the chief difficulty here is that fascism generally has been difficult to analyze because it arose in essence as a reaction *against* communism. Its ideology has always been easier to describe in negative terms --that is, by what it is against -- than positive. (Thus, you still see "anti-democratic" and "anti-intellectual" as consistent traits.) And more than a few observers have noted that fascism inevitably becomes a kind of parody of its original intent. German and Italian fascists started out calling themselves "socialists," but were devoutly, murderously anti-socialist by the time they obtained power. American fascists declaim at length about "freedom" and rant about looming totalitarianism, but one can only imagine what their regime might look like -- and it wouldn't be pretty.
339. Raskolnikov - 3/15/2000 4:29:40 PM
"No, no, no. Communists were very elitist. What was the Social Democratic party of Russia split at the London Congress of 1903 over this very issue. The "Bolsheviks" (majority) led by Lenin enforced a structure where the party encompassed "the vanguard of the masses", the elite who could divine the "true will of the people".
I take your point, and have made it myself in other forums, but do you agree that this is a very different sense of elitism than is used by fascists? Anyone could be a member of the Communist vanguard party. It was elitism regarding ideology, not the racial elitism of the fascists.
340. spudboy - 3/15/2000 4:34:07 PM
Actually, Rask, if I'm not mistaken, there was also a real ethno-religious elitism at work with the Soviets, in the shape of that nasty anti-Semitism that lingers in Russia even today.
341. PelleNilsson - 3/15/2000 4:40:46 PM
Rask
In the Soviet Union not everyone could become a member of the Party. It was a privilege that had to be earned, and which carried with it benefits such as access to special shops with western goods, superior health care, vacation at exclusive resorts and so on. Furthermore, the scale of benefits was was tied to part rank. Very elitist.
342. Raskolnikov - 3/15/2000 4:42:17 PM
"Actually, Rask, if I'm not mistaken, there was also a real ethno-religious elitism at work with the Soviets, in the shape of that nasty anti-Semitism that lingers in Russia even today."
Certainly, but this isn't part of Communist ideology.
343. Raskolnikov - 3/15/2000 4:44:20 PM
"In the Soviet Union not everyone could become a member of the Party. It was a privilege that had to be earned, and which carried with it benefits such as access to special shops with western goods, superior health care, vacation at exclusive resorts and so on. Furthermore, the scale of benefits was was tied to part rank. Very elitist."
I should have said "everyone could potentially be a member". There was nothing in communist ideology which excluded specific racial or ethnic groups. For instance, there were many high ranking Communist Jews.
344. PelleNilsson - 3/15/2000 4:59:13 PM
Now I agree. The most famous Jew was Leon Trotsky. On the other hand there was an ambivalence. "Cosmopolitans" was a code word for Jews, an indication that their loyalty to the nation was suspected. This is extremely odd since the communist creed, as we have noted, was cosmopolitan in the sense that it was not bound to one country.
345. PelleNilsson - 3/15/2000 5:18:11 PM
Wombat
I have read:
During a war, only a people can fight for its future, not a mere population that is racially, religiously, linguistically, ideologically and governmentally disunified. Given all that has been said, the USA has no unified people, only a population.
This is of course in perfect harmony with Nazi ideology. I would like to say more on this but it's growing late at this end of the wire. Perhaps tomorrow.
But here is a cite from the same source, the sentiments of which still survive in vulgar European criticism of America:
This resulted in the desire for records and gigantomania that always amuses us. Lacking a significant political and intellectual history, the American is forced to build his national pride on technology.
346. Wombat - 3/15/2000 5:24:32 PM
Pelle:
I was amused by the number of Nazi "perceptions" of the United States that sound not unlike those of contemporary critics of the United States.
347. stostosto - 3/16/2000 4:47:23 AM
The Nazis may have thought that the USA wasn't all that much of a military threat. Hence, a state of war wouldn't seem terribly dangerous. What baffles me is whatever they figured they could gain by taking on the US. Did they really, truly fancy a German invasion of the North American continent??? It looks like such a one-sided proposition to me: Germany could never, ever win a war against the USA. The best they could hope for was that the American weighing in in the European war wouldn't cause too much trouble. That seems like something like the weakest possible argument for declaring war on anyone: "We can't harm them in the slightest, but nor can they us..."
Sure, I doubt the US would have kept out of Europe's war, and I also suppose the outcome would have been the same.
I am just amazed that the Germans so readily relieved FDR of a cumbersome political struggle for US participation - with apparently nothing to be gained in return.
348. PelleNilsson - 3/16/2000 7:13:36 AM
One thing the declaration of war did for the Germans: They could now freely sink US vessels.
349. stostosto - 3/16/2000 7:25:36 AM
Well, I don't think they acted as if terribly constrained in that respect prior to the war declaration. There was a reason for the American "shoot on sight" policy and attacking German subs with depth charges.
350. PelleNilsson - 3/16/2000 7:43:30 AM
sto
Vidi.
I sort of anticipated that objection and I have an answer in the works. But I'm desperatly short of time right now, not because of office duties, but because I have an exam coming up and I need to understand a piece of work by Hegel. If you've ever been in that situation you would pity me.
Watch this space though.
351. stostosto - 3/16/2000 7:53:11 AM
352. stostosto - 3/16/2000 7:53:50 AM
This would appear to refute my assertion
"With the japanese surprise attack on Pearl Harbour on Dec 7, 1941 Hitler was bound by a promise to Japan to also declare war on the US. He did so promptly on Dec 11 and after that all restrictions on German U-boats (which had been attacked and hunted by US convoy escorts in the North Atlantic for the last 5-6 months of 1941 anyway without permission to attack the US escorts) not to attack American shipping were removed. This opened up a whole new field for Dönitz which immediately drew up plans for a devastatingly swift blow on the US eastern seaboard. "
The sentence with the parenthesised clause nails me.
353. Raskolnikov - 3/16/2000 10:44:04 AM
Since unrestricted submarine warfare against the US in WWI did so much to keep the US out of the war and assure a German victory, it makes complete sense that they would try it again.
/sarcasm
At least in WWI, Germany could hope that they could have conquered France before the US had time to mobilize. By December of 1941, Germany had already turned its attention away from Britain, and was getting bogged down in Russia.
Still, the more I think about it, the less difference I think it would have made. After Pearl Harbor, the US was already mobilizing for war. I can't see how a several month delay in a war between the US and Germany would have affected things much.
354. Indiana Jones - 3/16/2000 10:49:39 AM
"With the japanese surprise attack on Pearl Harbour on Dec 7, 1941 Hitler was bound by a promise to Japan to also declare war on the US."
Jumping in here, so I hope I've not overlooked something previous. Technically, Hitler was bound only to aid the Japanese if the U.S. had attacked Japan. Since Japan was the instigator, he was off the hook. (Cf. Japan's failure to declare war on Russia in June 1941.)
I also wonder how easy it would have been without Hitler's blunder (deciding to declare war on the U.S.) to mobilize U.S. public opinion for a "Europe first" campaign--given the anger Americans felt over Pearl Harbor.
355. Jenerator - 3/16/2000 11:01:44 AM
I really enjoyed the brief discussion on fascism. Thank you Pelle, Rask, and Spud for commenting on it. I guess why I am always so curious about fascism when it's used to describe a movement, is because the characteristics are always so blurry. Whether it was an organic reaction of the times or whether it was created, I'm still wondering if it truly was a distinct ideology. So much of it seems to be borrowed from other ideologies. For example, I could describe Nazi Germany as a totalitarian dictatorship which was anti-capitalism, anti-communism, anti-democracy, anti-rational, anti-intellectual, elitist, and racist. How would describing it as fascist make it distinctly different?
356. Indiana Jones - 3/16/2000 11:03:21 AM
Actual Tripartite Pact
"Germany, Italy and Japan agree to co-operate in their efforts on aforesaid lines. They further undertake to assist one another with all political, economic and military means when one of the three contracting powers is attacked by a power at present not involved in the European war or in the Chinese-Japanese conflict."
357. PelleNilsson - 3/16/2000 12:39:08 PM
jenerator
It is difficult to get a handle on fascism but it is important to try, because as we know it is a movement that is alive and well in many places.
I found Walter Laqueur (ed.) Fascism; A Reader's Guide very helpful. It is a hefty scholarly work with several contributors. Laqueur has also published Fascism: Past, Present, Future. I haven't read it, but it is a later work (1997) and available in paperback. Probably a rewarding read.
The site I linked to is the e-commerce arm of WH Smith so you should be able to step in to your local branch and order any of the books.
358. Jenerator - 3/16/2000 12:49:18 PM
Thank you Pelle, I feel bad for having been mean to you previously.
359. Wombat - 3/16/2000 2:27:27 PM
The first incident between a U-boat and a US destroyer as almost certainly an accident, although not an unprovoked one. The destroyer, the USS Greer, was in the area of a British convoy, and had apparently detected a U-boat. As it was tracking it, a RCAF Catalina flying boat dropped depth charges nearby. The U-boat commander drew the logical, if mistaken, conclusion and fired torpedoes at the Greer, which promptly responded.
Hitler went out of his way to avoid provoking US wrath over submarine actions. U-boat commanders were given strict instructions to avoid US waters and to avoid attacking US flag ships. This did not apply to other neutrals, nor did it apply to US vessels sailing in (or escorting) convoys to Britain.
German U-boat long-term goals were based on racking up a high aggregate tonnage of sinkings. Thus, an empty tanker sailing from Philadelphia to Houston had equal value to a fully loaded freighter sailing in convoy to Britain. The assumption was that the Germans would sink more shipping than could be replaced by new construction. Once the United States was in the war, this assumption became fatally flawed. German attacks on shipping in US waters sank large numbers of ships, with virtually no loss to the U-Boats (the "happy time" for U-boat commanders), horrified the United States, and shocked the Navy and Army Air Force out of their complacency. One wonders whether it would have been more useful to have concentrated attacks on convoys to Britain, possibly overwhelming the outmanned British escort forces, or the inexperienced US escort forces. German U-boat attacks on convoys to Britain did not peak until 1943, by which time the United States escorts were both numerous and experienced, and new technologies had been perfected that negated the earlier German tactical expertise. Although many ships were sunk, German submariners suffered appalling casualties, which they never recovered from.
360. Ronski - 3/16/2000 2:36:31 PM
Just as Russia and Japan did not declare war on each other in the first few years following Pearl Harbor, the United States never declared war on Finland (the only democratic ally of Nazi Germany, which entered the war to attempt to regain territory taken from them by the USSR in 1940), though Great Britain did declare war on Finland.
I remember being taught in a NY public school that Finland was the only country to repay its debts to the United States. I wonder if such things are ever mentioned in any schools today.
361. ScottLoar - 3/16/2000 2:40:57 PM
The "happy time" was illuminated by the lights from the large coastal cities of the US silhouetting offshore targets for U-boat commanders.
362. Wombat - 3/16/2000 2:41:16 PM
By contrast, the other victim of submarine warfare, Japan, was incredibly poorly prepared for the US attack on their shipping. The Japanese did not even institute regular convoys until 1943. Convoy duty was perceived as lacking the cachet of fleet duty by Japanese naval officers and commanders, so subpar performers tended to find themselves on escort duty. Japanese escort vessel design and construction recieved a similarly low priority, as did long range aircraft. For a country whose new conquests necessitated increased maritime commerce to bring raw materials to the home islands, this negligence was staggering.
The Japanese submarine force was equally mishandled. The Japanese Navy had excellent submarines, superb commanders and crews, and of course the Long Lance torpedo. Throughout the war, merchant ships were given the lowest priority for attack by Japanese planners, forcing submarines to attack well-defended and well-protected targets.
Most merchant shipping losses in the Indian and Pacific Oceans were attributed to the handful of German submarines that operated in the region. One wonders what far-ranging Japanese submarines could have done in the Indian Ocean and off Southern Africa had they not been so idiotically hamstrung.
363. PelleNilsson - 3/16/2000 4:26:37 PM
wombat
I have a somewhat different view of the Battle of the Atlantic. My sources are in Swedish and off-net so you have to take me at my word.
In 1942 the situation was critical for the Allies. The U-boats sank 1160 ships which was above the replacement rate. This continued in early 1943 with March being the worst month ever - 108 ships sunk. The tide started to turn in May, 1943 and by the autumn more U-boats were sunk than Allied surface vessels.
364. ScottLoar - 3/16/2000 5:03:38 PM
Yes, exactly because intercepts were being "read" by the British descrambling machine, and so the U-boats were targeted at their gathering points and sunk in large numbers. Churchill told the Admirality to do this even at the risk of the Germans suspecting their coding machines were being read as the toll on convoys was unsustainable to Britain. The Germans did not doubt the infallability of their coding machines, and the tide of the Battle of the Atlantic turned dramatically to the Allies favour.
365. ScottLoar - 3/16/2000 5:05:14 PM
May, 1943, is the direct consequence of the British decoding machine being turned to use against the U-boat campaign.
366. ScottLoar - 3/16/2000 5:08:56 PM
That would be the Enigma machine (housed in a wooden cabinet I believe) at Bletchley Park.
367. PelleNilsson - 3/16/2000 5:15:37 PM
ScottLoar
I think the British "decoding machine" was always turned to the U-boat campaign but a series of fortunate circumstances enabled them to break the Einigma code. First, an Enigma machine was captured revealings its mechanical layout. Second, Turing was a true genius. Third, for a while the U-boats transmitted identical weather reports in Enigma code and in a simpler code the British had broken. All this enabled Turing to build a kind of reverse Enigma ("bombes" as they were called in Cheltenham) but it still took hours, even days to break the messages.
368. ScottLoar - 3/16/2000 5:21:54 PM
You may be right... or wrong. I had read in a book (titled Enigma?) that came out in the early 70's as the first exposition on the British descrambler that information gleaned was used sparingly should the Germans doubt the infallability of their encoders. A casualty of this precaution was Coventry, England, I believe, bombed into well-nigh obliteration despite British knowledge of the forthcoming attack. Such precaution was cast aside by reason of the unsustainable losses to allied merchant convoys on direct orders of Churchill, and so the dramatic reversal in the Battle of Atlantic - by reason of the direct application of superior intelligence against the U-boats.
369. ScottLoar - 3/16/2000 5:23:16 PM
I welcome any incontrovertible evidence that supports or refutes my recollection.
370. ScottLoar - 3/16/2000 5:26:05 PM
German supplies to Rommel's Afrika Corps. were also intercepted based on British decoding, and Rommel in a despatch questioned if the ciphering machines were somehow being read. They were, but his question was dismissed by his superiors as conjecture.
371. PelleNilsson - 3/16/2000 5:32:43 PM
No, Scott, you are right. But the U-boats and the Luftwaffe did not use identical versions of Enigma. And the situation in 1942-43 in respect of sunk tonnage was really serious, so when Cheltenham broke the U-boat code, the British, as you say, cast caution overboard although they tried various deception techniques such as sending out spotter planes after U-boat locations had been discovered from Enigma messages.
372. Wombat - 3/16/2000 6:02:28 PM
Pelle/Scott:
Allied new construction began to exceed losses in late 1942. Many of the sinkings in 1942 were of unescorted shipping in US waters, not the crucial transatlantic convoys.
There were a number of advances that were introduced in 1942-43 that had a cumulatively devastating impact on the German submarine arm:
1-Introduction of radar to the escort forces: Eliminated the night surface attack that U-boats used so effectively against convoys.
2-HFDF (High Frequency Direction Finding): U-boat wolfpacks were closely controlled from Fleet headquarters. HFDF allowed convoy escorts to home in on U-boat transmissions to base, making it easier to locate wolfpacks before they attacked.
3-Airborne radar. This allowed aircraft to locate and attack submarines as they transited the Bay of Biscay on the surface to the Atlantic. Used on converted B-24s and Halifaxes based in Northern Ireland, Iceland, Recife, and the Azores, it made it difficult for U-boats to operate on the surface in principal convoy routes. Since a U-boat's speed underwater was about six knots (19 knots on the surface) this had a marked effect on the ability of U-boats to find and attack convoys; not to mention less fighting efficiency from excessive time underwater.
4-Mass produced, prefabricated escort vessels. The Destroyer Escort was inexpensive to make, and better suited to escorting convoys than the destroyer. Working with escort carriers (converted merchant ship hulls, carrying fighters and torpedo bombers), the augmented escort forces were able to escort convoys, and to set up hunter-killer groups to disrupt wolfpacks before they could attack, and to hunt them down afterwards.
German attempts to counter the allied advances were usually too little, too late.
373. ScottLoar - 3/16/2000 8:21:16 PM
Wombat, yours is the traditional read, prior to the revelation of the decoding machine. It is the decoding which intelligence has been credited with knowing where the U-boats would gather and sinking them. To the end of the war the Germans employed their cipher machines and, excepting the sole example of Rommel, never suspected the messages were being read by their enemies.
In other words, what devastated the U-boats was not a "number of advances" but one - knowing where the U-boats would be in a vast ocean.
374. ScottLoar - 3/16/2000 8:22:55 PM
re Message # 371, but I agree, as I said previously.
375. Jonesy - 3/17/2000 1:22:31 AM
Ronski- I believe that the only country to fully repay its war debt to the US was Norway. Or so my father said he was proudly told by the Mayor of the Norwegian port that he visited on an midshipman cruise with the atlanic fleet in summer 1951.
376. cmboyce - 3/17/2000 1:27:43 AM
It certainly makes more sense that Norway, rather than Finland, might have had such debts. How much aid could we have given a country that was or had recently been a belligerant toward each of our two major allies? Or could it have been hidden from them?
377. PelleNilsson - 3/17/2000 6:26:33 AM
I have found out that code breaking was also one of the reasons behind the huge losses of Allied shipping in 1942 and early -43. The Germans hade broken first the code of the British merchant fleet and then its Naval code.
The fact that the British had broken Enigma already in 1939 (at Bletchely Park, not Cheltenham which was the listening station) remained secret until 1974 when F. W. Winterbotham published The Ultra Secret. Obviously there were rumours which had to be countered by disinformation campaigns. In Herman Kahn's book The Code Breakers published in 1973 and something of a standard work on the history of cryptography, he dates the break-through in the Enigma decryption to May 1944 following the capture of a German U-boat with intact machine and code-book, a clear piece of disinformation (either by Kahn or by his sources).
It follows that all works on WWII written before 1974 will overemphasize the importance of the techniques Wombat lists in Message # 372.
378. PelleNilsson - 3/17/2000 6:35:09 AM
I now recall that one of the sub-plots in Neil Stephenson's Cryptonomicon concerns the mounting of deception operations in order to conceal that the Allies had information from Enigma decrypts. In one episode this involved the setting up of a dummy huff-duff receiver on a remote island.
379. Indiana Jones - 3/17/2000 8:58:32 AM
The war debt that Finland alone repaid was from WWI and is part of the reason Americans were very sympathetic to Finland when the latter was invaded in 1940.
Link
380. ScottLoar - 3/17/2000 9:14:32 AM
re Message # 377, yes! That's it! The Ultra Secret is the book I tried to remember and haven't visited the subject since until this yesterday.
381. Wombat - 3/17/2000 9:38:01 AM
The information Ultra provided to Allied antisubmarine forces allowed convoys to avoid known concentrations of U-Boats. Remember that Ultra could not provide the real-time information most needed by convoy escorts operating in U-boat infested waters. HFDF and radar could. I suggest you find Gerhard Weinberg's excellent one volume history of World War II, which makes excellent use of the Ultra revelations of the last decade. While not wanting to underemphasize the importance of Ultra, one must also be careful not to overemphasive it, either.
382. PelleNilsson - 3/17/2000 11:49:09 AM
Indiana
So Finland assumed a share of Russia's war debt and repaid it? Very interesting I didn't know that.
383. janjon - 3/17/2000 12:30:09 PM
I recall having read The Ultra Secret some time ago, although I too had forgotten its title until reading the above.
Is my memory also suspect in terms of vaguely recalling that there was a movie made about the breaking of the Enigma code and the resultant subterfuges, the sacrifice of Coventry, etc.?
Damned thing, memory, at times.
384. ScottLoar - 3/17/2000 4:35:38 PM
I recall no such movie; I do recall the book.
385. RickNelson - 3/18/2000 8:05:42 AM
Scott and Janjon,
I'm sure there is a movie. I know I've seen it. Probably in the early 70's and it would be a fifties production I think. It was a british film whose title I will not recall after so much time has passed. But, I know I've seen a film which recalled some valiant hero solving enigma for the greater good. A personal sacrifice film, showing how one works for the common good. You know, stay up all night sacrifice ones health until the mystery is solved, damn the torpedoes full steam ahead.
Very similar to the film showing a chap who had to build a better airplane to fight the Nazi's. This film also had to be from the late 40's or early 50's. The hero sacrificed his life in this film. Staying up all hours days in a row, going on to weeks and months. Then finally, he comes up with wing, propeller and fusilage designs that create the famous Spit-fire. At least I think it was the Spit-fire.
386. stostosto - 3/20/2000 6:51:19 AM
Before completely ending the discussion of the submarine war, I have to recommend Das Boot. In my humble opinion (as well as that of many others) it's one of the best war movies ever made, and if you haven't seen it, you should.
One of its attractions is that it's German, and so, among other things, avoids that incredibly grating feature of English speaking actors affecting German accents. Needless to say, it affects the perspective as well, freeing it from any implied victorious heroism. This boat is on the losing side, fighting for a wrong cause (as some of the men clearly suspect), it's destined to going down, and its crew knows it. But they take an immense pride in what they do nevertheless, and the suspense is devastating.
Highly recommended.
387. Indiana Jones - 3/20/2000 8:38:00 AM
Pelle: I guess that must have been how it worked, as there was no independent Finland before the war (which makes Finland's sense of fiduciary obligation all the more remarkable).
388. Wombat - 3/20/2000 10:33:12 AM
Sto:
As long as it's the uncut, subtitled version of Das Boot. There is a dubbed and edited version as well.
389. Raskolnikov - 3/20/2000 11:39:47 AM
Not to distract the thread into a movie discussion, but one of my first DVD rentals was Das Boot. It is a film which takes great advantage of the sound quality available on DVD. Those sonar pings become even more terrifying with a decent sound system. Great commentary track as well.
Wombat, have you read "Seizing the Enigma"? It makes a pretty strong case for the impact of decryption on the course of the war. It doesn't mention the other technological developments you discussed (it is a book about how decryption, not submarine warfare), so it may be incomplete.
390. Wombat - 3/20/2000 1:12:32 PM
Rask.:
No I haven't, I have read the Hinsley book, RV Jones' book, and the new one by Singh on cryptography (highly recommended) and others too numerous to mention.
Note that I am not denigrating the impact of Ultra--and codebreaking in general--in the conduct of strategy and operations. However there does appear to be a sentiment, often propounded by highly sensationalist and self-serving authors (Stephenson springs to mind) that Ultra singlehandedly won the war. Its impact on future operations was measured in days, at best.
To reiterate: Ultra could provide information on the location of wolf packs days in advance, which was extraordinarily useful in routing convoys to avoid them. However, Ultra could not provide the real time intelligence necessary to deal with U-boats once engaged. HFDF and radar (and sonar) could.
391. ScottLoar - 3/20/2000 1:17:37 PM
I first read the English translation of the book Das Boot, then some while later saw the movie. Read the book, noting that it is the accumulated experiences of the author who served as a war correspondent to the German Navy and after the war he became a dealer of modern art.
In fact, I cannot immediately recollect any instance in which a movie surpasses the book.
392. cazart - 3/20/2000 1:41:01 PM
Echo the good reviews of Das Boot. An opening graphic says it all: During WWII, 40,000 men served in the U-boat service; only 10,000 survived the war.
BTW, get the director's cut on DVD. It takes the movie to nearly 3 and 1/2 hours.
I've had occasion to meet several U-boat skippers over the years, fascinating men. I was chatting with one several decades ago and we were discussing New York city. I asked if he had ever been to a certain location and he said he had. I asked his impression of the place and he said he'd only visited--through his periscope.
393. Raskolnikov - 3/20/2000 6:13:36 PM
"To reiterate: Ultra could provide information on the location of wolf packs days in advance, which was extraordinarily useful in routing convoys to avoid them. However, Ultra could not provide the real time intelligence necessary to deal with U-boats once engaged. HFDF and radar (and sonar) could."
That is the conclusion in "Seizing the Enigma" as well, except that he argues that Ultra shortened the war by much more than days. More like several months or a year, as I recall. But the conclusion in the book is explicit that the allies would have won the submarine war anyway. The author's emphasis is on the lives saved by that shortening.
394. Raskolnikov - 3/20/2000 6:14:09 PM
"In fact, I cannot immediately recollect any instance in which a movie surpasses the book."
I'll take this on in the movies thread, if you want to restate it there.
395. stostosto - 3/20/2000 6:19:35 PM
Wombat #388:
I have only seen the German language version, but I'd imagine the dubbing unbearable.
396. Wombat - 3/21/2000 9:23:38 AM
Rask.:
I was referring to Ultra's impact on individual operations. Add enough of them up, and I am sure that one would get a cumulative impact of at least months in terms of shortening the war.
397. Raskolnikov - 3/21/2000 11:14:55 AM
I have seen parts of the dubbed Das Boot, and it isn't completely horrible, simply because it is the original actors doing most of the dubbing, including Jurgen Prochnow (sorry, don't know how to do umlauts on a computer). The DVD presents both options.
398. Jenerator - 3/21/2000 1:48:32 PM
Breaking the enigma code at Bletchley Park
"In Bletchley Park, Alan Turing, a leading mathematician, developed the 'Bombe', electro-mechanical machines that greatly reduced the time required to break daily Enigma keys. One was fully in operation in August 1940. At least six machines were housed in Hut 11, where a 'Bombe' is currently being rebuilt. More were housed in villages around Bletchley and then concentrated at Stanmore and Eastcote.
Other buildings were added as the war expanded into the Far East. By 1942, work started on planning the invasion of Europe, leading to yet more building in the Park. Block D was erected and became the major intelligence gathering building for D-Day.
H Block which housed the world's first computer complex is still standing in Bletchley Park and is now the home of a rebuilt Colossus.
By 1944, the Bletchley Park intelligence network was almost worldwide. Decrypt stations in Malta, Cairo, Nairobi, Mombasa, Delhi, Colombo and Brisbane were revealing enemy secrets, passing them on to operational theatre commanders, and then sending them back to Bletchley Park for an overview of the war. The raw material came from thousands of wireless intercept operators, the 'Y' Service, without whom Bletchley Park and its outstations would have been deaf, dumb and blind. Any nation from which useful intelligence might be obtained was the subject of wireless intercept action: German, Italian, Japanese, Vichy French, Swedish, Spanish, Portuguese, Russian, Chinese, Hungarian, Bulgarian, Rumanian and many other cyphers were intercepted and broken."
399. PelleNilsson - 3/21/2000 2:17:23 PM
Thanks for the link, jen, but it doesn't work.
This one does.
(You had somehow gotten 'www.themote.com' into the URL)
400. Jenerator - 3/21/2000 2:18:37 PM
Thank you! I've been having some strange technical glitches lately.
401. jexster - 3/22/2000 10:23:16 PM
Before I RIP this, I've a computer game which might be of interest to some.
Close Combat III: The Russian Front (15 bucks from Egghead.com) alows you to replay major battles and campaigns from the Eastern Front and play "what-if" games.
Its cool. Check out the trial version Here
402. PelleNilsson - 3/23/2000 1:43:52 AM
RIP??
What the hell do you mean? We drifted from Asia to the U-boat war and code-breaking. That subject is more or less exhausted which is why activity has dropped.
I cannot speak for others, but I at least wait for you to set a new subject.
403. cmboyce - 3/23/2000 2:42:13 AM
I'll second that. There are dozens of subjects within the topic, even still within Asia. The CBI theater. The Indian Nationalist Army. Was the Coral Sea as crucial as it seemed, or had the war been won at Midway? (I've no idea; just asking.) Anzac. CHINA. Vinegar Joe Stilwell. The Soong Brothers. As you knew when you started the thread, WW2 just goes on and on.
404. jexster - 3/23/2000 2:03:18 PM
OK Pelle...
Let's get to the real war. Europe.
405. jexster - 3/23/2000 2:05:58 PM
CM -
I know next to nothing about the "Indian Nationalist Army" or anything much about India's internals during the war. I am vaguely aware that there was an Indian nationalist that the Japanese used but, according to Magic intel intercepts, didn't really trust.
I'll keep the thread going as long as there's some interest or until Rose decides to RIP the Kosova Liberation Thread, whichever occurs first. :)
406. cazart - 3/23/2000 2:06:51 PM
An effective moderator would have made an outline of discussion....
407. jexster - 3/23/2000 2:11:51 PM
Pelle:
I'd like to know a bit more about Sweden's role in the war. Its relations with the Germans while Norway was being overrun for instance.
Also what did Sweden do when the Brave Finns were fighting the Ruskies??? Did Sweden send volunteers to the Waffen SS legions? Did any Swede aryans fight with the SS Viking Division???
408. Wombat - 3/23/2000 2:33:08 PM
Jex:
I am sure that Pelle will respond in detail at some point, but until then...As Norway was being overrun, Sweden apparently offered to take over the port of Narvik to ensure iron from northern Sweden could continue to be exported. Germany said "thanks, but no thanks." Sweden supplied Germany with iron, ball-bearings, ships. They also allowed German troops to transit Swedish territory. According to G. Weinberg, this Swedish favoritism to Germany continued well after it was clear that the Germans were going to be defeated.
On the plus side, the Swedish government and citizens did good deeds on the humanitarian front, taking in Danish Jews, and giving Raoul Wallenberg a large amount of freedom to use Swedish papers and influence to assist Jews in Hungary.
Swedish volunteer units were formed to assist the Finns in the "Winter War." I don't know whether or not they saw action.
409. PelleNilsson - 3/23/2000 4:47:12 PM
jexster
I'd like to know a bit more about Sweden's role in the war. Its relations with the Germans while Norway was being overrun for instance.
Funny you should ask. During the past year I have published, at irregular intervals, instalments of a concise history of Sweden. The next instalment due is about Sweden and WWII. I'll have to put my act together and produce.
Wombat's outline is essentially correct, although the Narvik question was a bit more complicated.
410. jexster - 3/23/2000 4:59:00 PM
Hey tnx Pelle!
I've bookmarked for later study.
411. Jonesatlaw - 3/25/2000 10:24:05 AM
A somewhat topical issue given Pope John Paul's recent apology and the drive to beatify Pius XII- What, if anything could the church have done to stop Nazi genocide?
412. ScottLoar - 3/25/2000 10:35:11 AM
Only to the degree Nazi adherents, sympathizers and anti-semites would be open to moral suasion by the Catholic church.
413. PelleNilsson - 3/26/2000 2:24:06 PM
Pelle's Concise History of Sweden
Part 14. Sweden and WW2
Sweden was neutral during WWII. The meaning of neutrality is defined in the 5th and13th Hague conventions of 1907, which regulate the rights and obligations of both the neutral states and the belligerent ones. As with all international treaties, there is some room for manoeuvre, and it is important to note that the conventions do not deal with trade policies. Generally speaking, Sweden leaned towards Germany until its defeat at Stalingrad after which followed a re-orientation towards the Allies. There were, as we shall see, two outright breaches of neutrality in favour of Germany.
Normal party politics were suspended during the war. The country was governed by a coalition of "the four democratic parties" (meaning that the Communists were excluded) with the Social Democrat Per-Albin Hansson as prime minister and Christian Günther, a career diplomat, as foreign minister. Its mandate was to keep Sweden out of the war.
The first challenge to the neutrality policy came with the Soviet Union's attack on Finland at the end of November, 1939. This was the start of the so called Winter War, which has almost achieved legendary status as David against Goliath. The Finns managed to stop the Soviets but had give up territories in the east and the south when peace was concluded in March, 1940. 414. PelleNilsson - 3/26/2000 2:28:11 PM The Winter War was an emotional issue in Sweden because of the old ties between the two countries, and there was popular support for an intervention. The government solved this by giving covert support to a "volunteer force" of 12,000 men, including armaments and air support. England and France wanted to send an expeditionary force to Finland from Narvik in northern Norway through Sweden. However, this was rejected, ostensibly because it would be a breach of neutrality, but there were other reasons as well.
Near the centre of this map you find Malmberget which translates as Ore Mountain. The vast iron ore fields of north Sweden are located there and in Kiruna a bit further north. There are two ways to get the ore out by rail: to Luleĺ on the Baltic or to Narvik in Norway. However, the north Baltic Sea is normally frozen for several months each year, while Narvik is ice free due to the Gulf Stream.
The fear in Sweden was that the real purpose of the expeditionary force proposed by England and France was to occupy the iron ore fields. This would have led to war on Swedish territory, and if the Swedes could not repulse the occupation, Germany would certainly interfere, because it was dependent on Swedish ore.
415. PelleNilsson - 3/26/2000 2:31:22 PM
The export of Swedish ore to "feed the German war machine" has been much criticised. I don't intend to enter that debate, but there is one thing you should know. As I have noted earlier, the German-dominated Hansa trade organisation, had Sweden in a strangle-hold during the late middle age because its control of the trade in salt, a commodity that does not exist in Sweden. In the industrial age its role was taken by coal. The whole of Swedish industry was completely dependent on coal; it was heavily used for heating in the cities and for the production of household gas. Germany had ample supplies of coal of its own, and from the start of the war it controlled the main coal mining districts in Poland.
I don't know if it would have been possible to shift the coal against ore trade to England and France, but one must assume that any attempt to do so would have met with German wrath.
416. PelleNilsson - 3/26/2000 2:37:42 PM
From the start of Germany's invasion of the Soviet Union in June, 1941 (Operation Barbarossa) Sweden's situation was at its most precarious. Germany occupied Denmark, Norway, Poland and the Baltic states and had troops in Finland. The country was completely encircled. It was in this situation the two clear-cut breaches of the Hague conventions took place.
The first was the transport, through Sweden, of German soldiers to and from leave in Germany. There were daily trains from Finland and Norway. Swedish ice breakers assisted troop transport vessels in the Baltic.
The second and more serious breach was the permission to transfer an entire army division of 18,000 troops and all equipment from Norway to Finland in July, 1941.
417. PelleNilsson - 3/26/2000 2:38:50 PM
All in all there is nothing courageous or heroic in Sweden's conduct during WWII. But that was not the purpose. The purpose was to stay out and not risk a German occupation. Some good deeds were done such as assistance to the Norwegian and Danish resistance movements and the breaking of the German naval blockade in order to get critical machine parts, e.g. roller bearings, to the west.
Life in Sweden was dominated by the massive calling-up of males for military duty, forcing (or allowing) women to play a greater role in the national economy, and by the rationing of virtually all foodstuffs. During WWI rationing had been a shambles and a scandal. It was much better during WWII ,but of course there was some black marketeering, and city dwellers with relatives in the countryside could live a little better than others.
418. Wombat - 3/27/2000 11:26:53 AM
Thanks, Pelle. You encapsulated the dilemma faced by all the Neutrals.
Jones:
My impression is that Pope Pius was handicapped by several factors:
1) The catholic church had no divisions (to paraphrase Stalin), and thus could not influence events in Germany and areas occupied by Germany (which, from 1942-44, included Rome).
2) Pius hated Communism more than Nazism.
3) He lacked the transcendent moral sense of a truly great pope (John Paul II springs to mind).
The most charitable analysis (short of actual support for his policies) of Pius' actions--or lack thereof--was that he felt powerfully constrained not to act forcefully by the perceived threat to his "flock" in Germany, and later to the church itself in Italy.
That said, he failed to criticize or discipline the Catholic leadership in Croatia when they encouraged brutal progroms against Greek Orthodox Serbs in territory controlled by Ante Pavelic's Ustasha regime. He failed to discipline Monsignor Tiso for taking a leadership post in the German-created puppet state of Slovakia. There is little--if any--evidence that he overtly or covertly encouraged those brave catholics who did act to save Jews and others from the Nazis in occupied countries. Finally, the so-called "rat line," which enabled a number of Nazi war criminals to escape the Allies' hunt, was apparently supported by elements within the Vatican, if not Pius himself.
He is no candidate for sainthood, and it reflects badly on John Paul II to try and beatify him.
419. Jonesatlaw - 3/27/2000 1:08:34 PM
toys.
420. Wombat - 3/27/2000 1:11:37 PM
Toys? What means toys?
421. Indiana Jones - 3/27/2000 8:57:36 PM
Wombat: "Toys" signifies the message is just to clean up a missing HTML tag. I'm not sure why my lawyerin' cuz posted it after yours.
422. Jonesy - 3/28/2000 12:41:47 AM
Wombat- my toys post was only to undo the bold typeface that had not been turned off in previous posts.
It was not intended to respond to the content of your post, which I found to be well reasoned.
I think that the Church's early tolerance, if not support, of Mussolini, and the agreements with Italy and later with German occupation forces probably figure prominately in the criticism of Pius XII as well. It is also true that there were factions at work within the church were active in opposition to facism, and in some instances in smuggling and hiding Jews. There has been speculation that the Nazi's infilitrated the Vatican. It is possible that this is correct, but I have no information to discredit it, or to prove it.
Sadly, many seem to have made Pius and the Church a symbol of the utter failure of "Christian" nations and leaders to act to halt the holocaust much earlier.
423. PelleNilsson - 3/30/2000 4:02:49 PM
jexster
With all due respect may I suggest you take some time off from rehashing old arguments in Politicics to attend to your own thread.
Before I posted this the thread languished at the bottom together with Balkan Wars. Is that how it should be? Is that something to be proud of?
Please pick a subject: Blitzkrieg, Battle of Britain, Barbarossa, Waffen-SS, whatever you fancy, provide a brief intro and throw out a few questions.
424. janjon - 3/31/2000 5:46:01 PM
Yes, this has been far too good a thread to have it languish.
425. PelleNilsson - 4/3/2000 11:21:51 AM
I had decided not to post untl Lazy Jex posted first, but I just read something that intrigues me. It appears in this obituary of defence lawyer Warren Magee who defended three war criminals at Nuremberg All three were sentenced to death but Magee " tirelessly took on their appeals against their sentences, fighting on their behalf for years in the American courts" and "he saved his pariah-defendants from the rope for four years, until the United States Supreme Court decided that it would accept no more delays of their executions".
I didn't know that the verdicts of the Nuremberg Tribunal could be appealed in American courts, and I find it somewhat strange.
Any comments?
426. Wombat - 4/3/2000 11:51:15 AM
Pelle:
I will look at a history of the Nuremburg Trials and see.
427. PelleNilsson - 4/4/2000 4:37:16 PM
The Waffen-SS was arguably the most miserable lot in the German army. They did do a nice goose step but fucked up every battle they were involved in.
428. Wombat - 4/4/2000 5:32:36 PM
Pelle:
Those convicted by the Nuremburg tribunal did not have recourse to the Supreme Court. After the Nuremburg Tribunal completed its work and disbanded, each of the powers were free to conduct war crimes trials against the lesser fish in their jurisdiction. Apparently, an appeal to the Supreme Court in capital cases was permitted. I do not know what legal precedent permitted it. I believe General Yamashita also had recourse to appeal to the Supreme Court after his conviction.
429. stostosto - 4/9/2000 1:57:19 PM
Today, 60 years ago, Denmark was occupied by the Germans in an operation codenamed Weser-Übung which also encompassed the occupation of Norway. Norway was the strategic motivation for occupying Denmark due to the need to protect those iron ore transport from northern Sweden which Pelle talked about. Denmark was little more than a stepping stone to this end, although an indispensable one. Also, the country the key to controlling sea traffic to and from the Baltic Sea.
There was only minor skirmishes at the border and at Amalienborg, the King's resident castle in Copenhagen, because the government surrendered immediately having been shit scared at the escadres of German bombers flying over the city. The government and the King stayed put "under protest" as they declared in an effort to avoid German law and police in the country, thus making the best of the situation under the circumstances. This meant that any Danish resistance fighters were officially being denounced in greave language as terrrorists and criminals, and were prosecuted by Danish police and authorities. This state of affairs lasted until August 1943 when popular strikes and growing sabotage led the Germans to demand harsh measures from the Danish authorities which they couldn't stomach.
430. stostosto - 4/9/2000 1:58:11 PM
From then on - but not before - it was clear to all that Denmark wasn't happy about the occupying forces. Resistance grew, not to any overwhelming proportions but enough that a few thousand men - with covert and overt backing from the population at large - just managed to save our reputation. But all in all Denmark was - after Sweden - the country that was least affected by the war. You can say what you want about lacking heroism, but the policy worked as intended.
By contrast, Norway put up an angry resistance for several months, the Norwegian government stepped down and the king fled in exile in London. The Germans put in a marionet regime led by the Norwegian Nazi Führer Qvisling, thus coining a new derogatory term.
431. Wombat - 4/9/2000 3:55:53 PM
Denmark was treated comparatively well because of the lack of resistance, but also because the Danes were considered racially akin to Germans. (For the same reason, the Dutch were initially treated with forebearance.) In addition to its strategic value, Denmark was also a major source of foodstuffs to the Reich.
Danish Jews who were unable to flee to Sweden were sent to Thereisenstadt, the comparatively "cushy" concentration camp that eventually fed them into Auschwitz. The Danish government insisted on the former, was helpless to prevent the latter. Contrary to legend, King Charles did not wear a yellow star in protest of the German insistance that Jews wear them.
"Happy" anniversary, Sto!
432. stostosto - 4/9/2000 4:49:50 PM
Wombat, I am impressed.
The king's name was Christian X, but that's the only quibble I have.
I would also like to add that the major part of the Danish Jews escaped to Sweden due to a well organised rescue action by the Danish resistance and many other good people (plus, inevitably, some who charged a price for the risk of transporting Jews to Sweden).
Regarding the strategic role as food stuff provider, a new study by a German historian shows that this was actually much more important than one would be inclined to think. Danish farmers happily took good money for their produce to sell to the Germans (money which the Germans printed in the Danish Central Bank), so much so that Germany was actually the second-best fed European nation almost to the very end of the war. Only surpassed by - Denmark. Or so the study claims.
One more thing: Only today I heard a brief discussion in the radio over the occupation (60 years anniversary, right). One piece of information startled me. It was said that more Danes died fighting voluntarily for the Germans than died in the Danish resistance. The Germans encouraged young Danes to join their cause, and they set up a unit called the "Frikorps Danmark". This was, at least officially, with the support of the government. After the war the survivors from this were jailed and some were lynched on charges of treason - retroactively, of course. It was claimed that they must have known all along that they were seen as traitors by every true patriotic Dane.
There were other dark spots immediately after the liberation in 1945. One was the mobbing of girls who had fraternised with Germans. They had their hair cut off and were publicly spit upon and humiliated in various ways. Another was the lynching of other collaborators, which, perhaps inevitably, included many instances of people turning in old personal enemies to get rid of them. Etc., etc.
433. stostosto - 4/9/2000 5:03:04 PM
One more thing: June 22nd 1941 when the Germans broke the non-aggression pact with the Soviet, the Danish communists were hunted down and arrested. This operation was carried out with great efficiency and zeal by the Danish police who had on its own initiative kept records on the communists. Hans Scherfig, a writer who was one of them, later wrote a biting satirical novel about this and other examples of dubious Danish conduct during the war. I have mentioned Scherfig before here at the Mote (in Books) and I recommend him highly.
434. jexster - 4/9/2000 5:03:28 PM
Message # 423
Well hell Pelle, we are in the midst of a political campaign here. I know it may seem repetitive but political education mostly is.
Therefore it is vital to get the message across that the Compassionate Conservative, the Reformer with Results is little but a Goober Sans Gravitas
(or gravlax) for that matter.....
Now on with the show.....
435. Wombat - 4/9/2000 5:08:46 PM
The fall of Denmark allowed the United States to occupy Greenland and the Danish Virgin Islands.
The Norwegians had at least a day's warning of invasion when the Polish submarine Orzel sank a German transport off the Norwegian coast. The survivors that made it ashore were in full combat array, but a lack of communication (deliberate?) to other Norwegian defense installations led to suprise in Stavanger and Narvik.
436. Wombat - 4/9/2000 5:10:57 PM
Jex:
Frankly, most of your contributions to the politics thread are obvious and predictable (to anyone who reads the newspaper).
437. jexster - 4/9/2000 5:11:17 PM
From Fueherer Directive No. 21:
The mass of the [Red] army stationed in Western Russia is to be destroyed in bold operations involving deep penetrations by armored spearheads (schwerpunkt), and the withdrawal of elements capable of combat into the extensive Russian lands is to be prevented.
By means of rapid pursuit, a line is then to be reached from beyond which the Russian air force will no longer be capable of attacking the German home territories
And the world will hold its breath....
438. stostosto - 4/9/2000 5:11:32 PM
Wombat:
The Danish Virgin Islands? Which would those be?
439. stostosto - 4/9/2000 5:14:06 PM
I can think of Iceland and the Faroes. But I don't actually know whether the USA occupied them. The former Danish possessions in the Caribbean were sold to the USA in 1917.
440. jexster - 4/9/2000 5:17:22 PM
Aaa Mein Furhrer how your words stir my Aryan soul even today!
But how was it that you fucked things up so?
- Was it the excursion into the Balkans to teach the Yugos a lesson and save Il Duce's fat ass?
- Was it that your F.Directive was too vague, your program too ambitious, your resources too limited?
- And why oh why did you declare war on the US when those slit eyed rice eating devils didn't (wouldn't) do sheisst for us?
- And why did you have to make so many enemies among admittedly lesser creatures, beasts even, yet beasts like the Poles, Ukrainians and White Russians who hated Stalin and his Asiatic band of commissars?
- And what was that old fox Stalin up to any way? Did you really fool him or did he wish all along to have us waste our precious resources trying to crush pockets with insufficient and insufficiently mobile infantry? Was it always his plan to sacrifice millions and millions of square miles of territory just to prepare a proper defensive land thousands of km from our dear fatherland?
441. Wombat - 4/9/2000 5:18:29 PM
Saint Croix, for one, with towns named Christiansted and Frederiksted. I have no idea how Denmark ended up in the Caribbean.
442. jexster - 4/9/2000 5:18:39 PM
Yes Wombat they are..but most don't. It is also vital to crush the morale of the Joezan's, Niners Beiners and Indys of the world.
Its the Gravitas Stoopid and don't forget it!
443. Wombat - 4/9/2000 5:21:00 PM
Sto:
The US occupied Iceland in 1941, I believe. I didn't know that Denmark sold its Caribbean possessions in 1917.
444. stostosto - 4/9/2000 5:27:26 PM
A brief on Danish WWII history
It's commendably short. Just in case anyone would be interested.
I feel it's my patriotic duty to provide the link on this day of dark national commemoration.
445. jexster - 4/9/2000 5:28:01 PM
Wombat -
Your intellectual gifts and historical knowledge to the contary notwithstanding, you have forgotten the ancient wisdom of Dr. Goebbels
The masses are stoopid - repetition is the key to mass propaganda!
446. jexster - 4/9/2000 5:30:50 PM
- And why oh why did you declare war on the US when those slit
eyed rice eating devils didn't (wouldn't) do sheisst for us?
The lessons that I learned early on in dealing with Japanese business types was lost on the Germans.
All that "hai, hai" smiling and bowing doesn't mean they like you much less agree with you.
It means you're about to get it up the ass!
447. jexster - 4/9/2000 5:42:14 PM
and make no mistake Wombat, Goebels was a man worthy of listening to
Should the German people lay down their arms, the Soviets … would occupy all eastern and south-eastern Europe together with the greater part of the Reich. Over all this territory, which with the Soviet Union included, would be of enormous extent, an iron curtain would at once descend.
Joseph Goebbels Das Reich (23 Feb. 1945).
The Columbia Dictionary of Quotations is licensed from Columbia University Press. Copyright © 1993, 1995, 1997, 1998 by Columbia University Press. All rights reserved.
448. Indiana Jones - 4/9/2000 5:46:37 PM
Jexster: It's useless to attempt to crush my political morale. I look at a glass and drink it.
Then there's no doubt that it's empty.
449. stostosto - 4/9/2000 5:46:41 PM
Danish volunteer soldiers for the German war. Note the Danish national flag.
The source from which the picture is taken (which is actually Swedish) says that the Germans had problems recruiting Danes at all for the Frikorps Danmark. They had to offer special privileges to get men.
It also says that its commander wasn't a member of the DNSAP nor Nazi. The soldiers swore an oath of allegiance to the leadership of the Wehrmacht instead of to Hitler like every other Waffen-SS unit.
So, they took some pains to make it appear as a Danish venture.
Still, when the Frikorps men were home on leave for four weeks in 1942 - after having lost 78% of their ranks in tough battles at the eastern front - they were mocked by their country men and got mixed up in a large number of trouble incidents.
It is estimated that 2,000 Danes died serving in the German forces, the site also says.
450. stostosto - 4/9/2000 5:56:59 PM
I was looking for a propaganda poster for joining the Waffen-SS. I remember one I have seen with a text saing something like "Common blood - common enemy" illustrating Wombat's remark on the German view of the Danes a racially correct.
But until now I only managed a Norwegian poster: 
He is one mean looking skier, huh? Almost ghost-like in his white drapings.
The text (in Norwegian): Join us northwards! The Norwegian Ski Batalion.
451. stostosto - 4/9/2000 6:10:47 PM
Hey, I found it: 
"Same kind of blood fighting jointly against the same enemy"
Small type: "Volunteers from Germany, Norway, Denmark, Netherlands, Flanders report for the Waffen-SS."
452. stostosto - 4/9/2000 6:22:39 PM
This one has a comic quality, I think: 
Yes, yes. I'll stop now.
453. jexster - 4/9/2000 7:22:42 PM
Thanks Sto!
There is no doubt in my mind that I had been born 50 years earlier I'd have been a member of Die Friewilligen
Indeed in those less lucide moments when I sense reincarnation as possibility, I envision wearing the proud insignia of 2d SS Pz Div "Das Reich"
Meine ehre heisst treue!!!
454. jexster - 4/9/2000 7:26:50 PM
One of the most amazing aspects of WWII, and one of the least well known, is the incredibly large number of foreign volunteers that joined the German Armed Forces between 1939 and 1945. During WWII, nearly 2,000,000 foreigners served within the German fighting forces, many as willing volunteers, others through varying degrees of conscription. The reasons these volunteers joined the German Wehrmacht were varied, but a simple look at the numbers begins to tell the story - in the East alone nearly 1,000,000 men volunteered for service with Germany. This number is a direct result of the situation millions faced under the brutal rule of the Soviet Empire. Many foreign volunteers and conscripts were anonymously intergrated into all areas of the military, while a great number of others formed distict units consisting either partly or entirely of volunteers of specific ethnic, cultural or political backgrounds.
455. jexster - 4/9/2000 7:27:12 PM
These units were employed in all varieties of combat tasks from carrying wounded and supplies, to fighting partisans, to serving on the front line. Some of these units would prove to be tenacious and elite formations - the match of any regular German units - while others would prove worthless in serious combat. Some units even mutinied and resisted the Germans after having been fully trained and armed! In the end, many volunteers were openly slaughtered by the partisans, and in some cases by the Allies themselves, while most others were handed over to their respective former homelands. In most cases, as with those sent to the former Soviet Union, these volunteers would never be seen again.
456. jexster - 4/9/2000 7:33:39 PM
width=300>
Mote Moderator on his Tiger At Kursk
457. jexster - 4/9/2000 7:40:09 PM
Voelkischer Beobachter "Man of the Year - 1942"
458. jexster - 4/9/2000 7:42:14 PM
459. jexster - 4/9/2000 7:43:13 PM
< i>toys
460. jexster - 4/9/2000 7:45:04 PM
WRT the continuing interest in foreign legions etc, there is a section in the German Propaganda Archive link that has a wealth of foreign propaganda, Hitler's image handlers hard at work :)
Very interesting, very detailed website
461. jexster - 4/9/2000 7:45:39 PM
shit TOYS!!! what did I do to screw this up???
462. cmboyce - 4/10/2000 1:04:50 AM
Some toys.
463. stostosto - 4/10/2000 7:05:18 PM
jexster:
There is no doubt in my mind that I had been born 50 years earlier I'd have been a member of Die Friewilligen
You really fall for that crap?!
Do you also go for humongous tits, cheap perfume and six layers of makeup? I mean for real???
464. stostosto - 4/10/2000 7:06:18 PM
toys
465. DocBrown - 4/20/2000 11:37:58 AM
Good morning, World War II!
This is a great thread, but it has hit a slump of direction and ideology. Jexster, does Die Friewilligen have something to do with the concept of Free Will?
How silly of you.
Anyway, I am sorry I have to read so much of this thread as history (pardon the pun). I would have liked to comment on several subjects. But while this thread is here, I want to ask for opinions and analysis on something that has long intrigued me.
In my high school days, I played a lot of War Games. Many of them involved WWI and WWII. Those familiar with such games already know their names, and those unfamiliar do not care, so I will not give them.
WWII was particularly well suited for exciting games because the technology was "just right" . . . a high level of mechanization that allowed for realistic simulation, but no nuclear weapons that make for a short and unsatisfying game. WWII came along at the perfect point in history to fill my teenage years with many hours of exciting battles.
Unfortunately, in both strategic and tactical camaigns, the Allies usually have a distinct advantage. The ultimate war gaming challenge would be to fight WWII on even terms. For example, if Russia or the United States had become a stable, dedicated, and reliable ally to Germany.
I can imagine many radical twists of history that might have lead to such a scenario, but I have no idea how close we actually came to this. I often wonder about the minimum event that might have lead to it. Perhaps if Stalin had died in the 1920s . . . ?
Does anyone have an analysis to share?
466. Indiana Jones - 4/20/2000 11:55:27 AM
Doc: I think I mentioned upthread my two favorites were Squad Leader and Avalon Hill's Third Reich.
IMO the best the Germans could have hoped for was the U.S. maintaining neutrality. Or if Edward hadn't abdicated, a better relationship with Great Britain. Everything else appears too far-fetched.
Clearly, Stalin helped the Soviet-Nazi relationship. Hitler was totally opposed to communism, and it took someone like Stalin to believe any kind of "deal" was possible between the two.
467. Indiana Jones - 4/20/2000 11:58:34 AM
Doc: Another thought is technology helping even the odds. My understanding is that many of Hitler's decisions slowed up the technology the Germans were developing. Suppose anti-Semitism hadn't driven out men like Einstein. Suppose Germany had jets and/or rockets a year or two earlier.
Give the Nazis short range nuclear missiles and yes, history might be a little different.
468. DocBrown - 4/20/2000 2:18:15 PM
Wow, that would be a frightening scenario. It could make a great video game . . . the player flies a Spitfire against nuclear tipped buzz bombs. Ouch.
But I think it is too far-fetched to be a "minimum event." As we saw earlier in the thread, the Nazis had a number of security problems. Not only would Hitler (and possibly other German leaders) need to make different technological and ideological decisions, but the Germans would also need to do a much better job of keeping secrets.
Hitler did develop a number of secret weapons during the war. How was he to know that The Bomb would turn out to be the most important? He built gigantic guns, jet planes, rocket planes, and ballistic missiles. The Allies knew enough about these projects that they were able to do things to thwart them. A larger and more successful Atom Bomb project would probably have attracted lots of Allied bombers.
By my assessment, the biggest problem that Germany had was maintaining its fuel supply. By the 1930s, Germany's plentiful coal was no longer good enough. If Hitler was going to fight a war with jets and rockets, then he needed oil badly. He had to either make a reliable ally to the east, or wage the war on an Eastern Front.
Perhaps the technology that would have most helped Germany would have been the invention of the offshore oil rig. There is a lot of oil in the North Sea.
469. DocBrown - 4/20/2000 2:29:36 PM
Now that would make a good game! The German Navy and Luftwaffe have to defend a series of offshore oil rigs! British and American ships and bombers lead the attack! This scenario would give the Bismark and Tirpitz a useful reason to exist. The oil rigs would also be protected by vast underwater minefields.
In this scenario the Germans have plenty of fuel, so they operate their ME 262s at their leisure. The Luftwaffe could modify the Me 163 Komets to launch from the oil rigs and land in the water. Or they might develop an aircraft carrier.
This battle would probably require the Americans to transfer a few aircraft carriers from the Pacific . . .
470. Indiana Jones - 4/20/2000 2:34:47 PM
Doc: If you are interested in that aspect of the war (fuel, industrial planning and production) and you haven't already read it, you should read Albert Speer's Inside the Third Reich. As I recall, he goes into great detail about such matters.
471. DocBrown - 4/20/2000 3:02:17 PM
Thanks for the recommendation, Indiana.
472. SpenceMirrlees - 4/20/2000 3:07:25 PM
also check out any books on game theory and management science/operations research written before 1960.
473. Wombat - 4/20/2000 9:48:56 PM
Doc:
You should try France 1940 by Avalon Hill. If you play the "historical" scenario, it is very difficult for the Allies to avoid defeat.
Offshore oil platforms did exist in the 1940s. However the Germans had access to plentiful oil from Romania from 1941-44.
474. jonesatlaw - 4/20/2000 11:05:42 PM
Wombat- Re oil- I agree. I have never understood the shift to the south on the eastern front. The given rationale has been to obtain oil for Germany, but it seems that trying to deny it to Stalin is more accurate.
475. Wombat - 4/21/2000 1:42:06 PM
Doc:
I just love your imagination. The ME 163 had enough (rocket) fuel to get to the high altitude that the US heavy bombers flew at. Then a few minutes to shoot through the formation firing at the bombers before gliding down to earth. It could barely maneuver (assuming it didn't explode when taking off). Any planes attacking an oil rig would do so at low level, most likely firing rockets at it.
Of course, the Germans did attempt to build an aircraft carrier, the Graf Zeppelin. It was to carry ME 109s and Stukas. The Germans never did get around to building a single-engine torpedo bomber. I cannot thing of a plane less suited for carrier operations than the ME 109, with its skinny, close-set landing gear. The Stuka was an invitation to suicide against any modern fighter craft.
The ME 262 saga encapsulates the strengths and weaknesses of weapons procurement in the Reich. By the time the ME 262 was ready for final development and testing, Goering (who was a bona fide airman under all his fat and medals) had lost all credibility with Hitler over his failure to resupply forces trapped at Stalingrad and to prevent air attacks on the Reich. He was in no position to resist when Hitler got it into his head that the ME 262 would make a great high speed "blitz" bomber, and demanded that it be so reconfigured (hanging bombs off the ME 262 reduced its speed dramatically, and ruined its aerodynamics, making it even more difficult to fly). At great personal risk, Luftwaffe staff and Messerschmidt ignored Hitler's directive and continued building and testing the ME 262 as fighter. When Hitler discovered this, he blew his stack and forbade any production of the ME 262 as a fighter. He was eventually talked into permitting some ME 262 fighter production, but only after the projected bomber production quotas had been met. All this to-ing and fro-ing set back production significantly.
476. jexster - 4/21/2000 2:11:01 PM
Doc: I think I mentioned upthread my two favorites were Squad
Leader and Avalon Hill's Third Reich.
Indy:
I'm not familiar with those. Just got the Combat Trilogy. Its fun but much too tactical level.
Am interested in getting a real computer wargame of the Eastern Front like the one's you used to get with cardboard cutouts back in the olden days. Something at a more strategic level
Can you recommend?
477. Wombat - 4/21/2000 2:20:54 PM
From what I have read, the ME 262 was an overrated aircraft. It had a very high landing speed, and a very high stall speed. Its Jumo turbojets were not very reliable, and were prone to falling off the wing. The ME 262 could not fly on one engine. It gobbled fuel. It could not withstand minor battle damage. The Allied strategy for dealing with them was to use P-51 Mustangs to follow them to their airfields, and attack them as they landed.
Had they been built in greater numbers and deployed agianst bomber formations sooner, they would have had an initially devastating impact on the strategic bombing campaign. However the strategic bombing campaign was not central to the Allied war effort by 1944, the tactics used against the ME 262 were still valid, and if need be, the Allies would have sped up development and production of their own jet aircraft, particularly the Gloster Meteor and the Lockheed Shooting Star.
478. Indiana Jones - 4/21/2000 2:41:49 PM
Jexster: Sorry, but games aren't something I'm able to devote any time to anymore (unfortunately). The last computer game I've played at all was Civilization II, which I thought was superb.
If you find out anything, please let me know. The biggest drags to those games were setting them up, keeping track of things, and finding an opponent. If someone made a computer version of Squad Leader with decent artificial intelligence, that would be fantastic. (Or Magic Realm, which wasn't a WWII game but was very nice.)
My little experience with computer simulations, though, is that it's difficult finding a match between good programming and the charm of the board games (realism, detail). Most good programmers seem to be video game junkies, rather than simulation specialists.
Maybe it's because the problem space is still too large for most AI (or at least AI that can exist on a PC). The rules of chess, for example, while producing many, many possibilities, are still fairly few. Most Avalon Hill rulebooks are about 32 pages and in a game like Third Reich, a single turn is extremely complex.
BTW, Civilization II does have a WWII European-theater scenario in it, though it's more impressionist than realistic. The game in general held my interest for a fairly long time.
479. Indiana Jones - 4/21/2000 2:51:39 PM
Jexster: I did a little research, and it appears that Avalon Hill came out with both a Third Reich and Stalingrad among others for the PC. Apparently, the company has been purchased by Hasbro, though, and is now in limbo.
480. jexster - 4/21/2000 7:19:51 PM
Most good programmers seem to be video game junkies, rather than simulation specialists
Sad but my limited experience is same. Too bad because the computer makes it possible to do some serious and seriously entertaining war gaming.
I have located something called The Operational Art of War by Gathering of Developers. Unfortunately, OAW I covering period to end of WWII or thereabouts seems to be out of print or whatever the digital equivalent is.
481. ScottLoar - 4/21/2000 8:22:52 PM
Goering (who was a bona fide airman under all his fat and medals) was not only that but an ace and last commander of Richthofen's Flying Circus.
482. ScottLoar - 4/21/2000 8:22:53 PM
Goering (who was a bona fide airman under all his fat and medals) was not only that but an ace and last commander of Richthofen's Flying Circus.
483. AytchMan - 4/23/2000 1:24:23 PM
Jexster--
The original OAW is out of print but there's a newer version called the Elite Edition that's still around. There's also a combo pack that includes OAW 1 and 2 (covering the entire modern era from 1939 on).
The OAW series is a pretty detailed and complex treatment of modern warfare. Not perfect but very good. There are some good scenarios floating around the Web that cover specific battles and even the entire Eastern Front.
484. CalGal - 4/23/2000 1:25:51 PM
Hey, Aytchman, welcome back.
485. AytchMan - 4/23/2000 1:36:12 PM
CG--
Hi. Haven't had much time lately. There's a couple of threads I'd like to really jump into (including this one) but c'est la vie.
486. AytchMan - 4/23/2000 2:55:40 PM
Jexster--
Some more info on strategic computer games. If you're looking for a good one on the Eastern Front, I think OAW is your (current) best bet. The game includes a couple of short campaigns from the Eastern Front. There's also a 1941-44 scenario at the Talonsoft website. Talonsoft published the game, not Gathering of Developers. OAW also includes a killer scenario design tool. Stay away from the Avalon Hill stuff. Their computer games are an unrelieved string of disasters. On the horizon, Road to Moscow may become the new champion strategic game if it's ever released.
487. lou - 4/27/2000 1:04:51 PM
Microsoft has a couple of pretty decent war games, the "Close Combat" Series, I - IV. Blow off I, but II - IV are pretty good. The AI works because each game is based on limited scenarios. CC II for example is based on the 19 day "Operation Market Garden" Campaign, remember "A Bridge Too Far."
488. AytchMan - 4/27/2000 11:49:43 PM
lou--
True enough. The CC series captures platoon level combat very well (in real time) but it's definitely not strategic which is what Jexster is looking for, I think.
489. ilyavinarsky - 4/27/2000 11:56:12 PM
Question.
The Battle of Berlin cost the Soviet Union hundreds of thousands of soldiers' lives.
Would the Berlin garrison have surrendered on its own, besieged?
Perhaps it would have surrendered more eagerly to Ike than to Zhukov... but who cares, the lines of control were already drawn at Yalta.
490. AytchMan - 4/28/2000 12:16:53 AM
By "surrendered on its own", do you mean without Hitler? If so, they didn't (surrender). After Hitler died, the defenders battled on until the Chancellery (arguably the very center of Germany) was captured a couple of days later. Of course, I'm not sure how long it was before the troops knew Hitler was dead.
491. stostosto - 4/28/2000 4:36:50 AM
Ilya
Do you mean from the point of view of the Soviets, could they have settled for a siege, waited until the Germans surrendered to the Western powers and thus spared tens of thousands of Soviet soldiers' lives while still gaining everything that was agreed to in Yalta?
As far as I can see, and bar the possible short-cutting event of Hitler's death, this could have happened - on one condition: That Stalin trusted the Western allies enough that he'd let them take Berlin and expect them to hand it over afterwards. I don't think he did. He lived by Lenin's dictum: Trust is good - control is better.
492. PelleNilsson - 4/28/2000 5:44:21 AM
I think that the motive for the Allied landing in Normandie was not only to defeat Germany but to stop the Soviets from overrunning major parts of Western Europe.
493. Wombat - 4/28/2000 10:48:03 AM
Sto & Ilya:
Stalin's MO did not concern itself with the possibility of huge casualties. They were expected in order to achieve an objective.
Pelle:
Nonsense. A "second front" in Western Europe was planned from Dec. 1941 (actually earlier) on. The objective was not only to liberate territory, but to take pressure off the Soviet Union, which was hardly in a position to fight an offensive war at the time. Indeed, Stalin continually harped on the necessity for a second front.
494. stostosto - 4/28/2000 11:11:59 AM
Wombat:
What does 'MO' stand for? Actually, I was thinking the same thing about the importance Stalin attributed to his soldiers' lives (and human lives in general).
Regarding Pelle's "nonsense", I tend also to agree. Stalin's march into Western Europe was hardly a major concern in the summer of 1944, though the Soviets' westward push had begun. But the concern possibly grew stronger towards the end of the year (and the war), possibly contributing to the desire to make an orderly deal with the Russians at Yalta rather than let chance, military muscle, and war luck decide the outcome.
495. Wombat - 4/28/2000 11:17:14 AM
Sto:
Sorry about that. MO=Modus Operandi.
There was quite a lot of ex post facto quibbling over where the Allied forces would meet up. Are you familiar with the "Broad Front/Narrow Front" controversy?
496. AytchMan - 4/28/2000 10:46:49 PM
Pelle & Sto--
While I think that the Soviet drive into Central Europe *was* a serious Allied concern by the summer of '44, the decision to assault Northwest Europe (at least in the Americans' minds) arose in the early days after Pearl Harbor. America's perennial optimism and 'can do' attitude (as reflected in the thinking of high Army and civilian leaders) led to the belief that the shortest and quickest way to end the war was to take the shortest and quickest route to Berlin. This, of course, immediately clashed with the Brits' aversion to casualties and desire to chip away around the fringes of Axis power.
On the threat to Central Europe: By the summer of '44, the Soviets were far closer to Berlin (in terms of actually getting there) than the Allies. Indeed, until the closing days of the war, the Soviets were always closer to overrunning all of Germany than the Allies. So, I think that the landings in Normandy represent the start of serious concern by the Allies on this issue.
497. AytchMan - 4/28/2000 10:52:15 PM
Clarification on last sentence: The *time* of the landings (June, 1944) represents the start of serious concern, not the landings themselves or the choice of Normandy.
498. jexster - 4/29/2000 1:59:08 AM
499. jexster - 4/29/2000 2:00:36 AM
The above is from a great site - WWII in sounds and pictures. Pics etc from every country including propaganda broadcasts.
Here!
500. jexster - 4/29/2000 2:02:50 AM
Thanks Atych...and UR correct...i already have Close Combat Trilogy which as you say is very tactical. Cute but not the good shit. I'll look around for the OAW Elite Series...
501. jexster - 4/29/2000 2:04:20 AM
Ilya - UR probably correct about Berlin...anything will surrender to seige eventually and/or the Brits were chomping at the bit to take Berlin and we could have done it before the Soviets if Stalin hadn't insisted
502. jexster - 4/29/2000 2:15:49 AM
I cannot recommend the sounds site highly enough. Lotsa shit, the sound of the Iowa's 16" guns and little known shit like Lord Haw-Haw's propaganda broadcasts to England including his final one - he was drunk.
This one is for Ilya Stalin's broadcast to the Nation 7.03.41
503. jexster - 4/29/2000 2:22:07 AM
Hitler & Ernst Roehm 
504. jexster - 4/29/2000 2:34:09 AM
505. jexster - 4/29/2000 3:17:36 AM
We've barely mentioned the Holocaust so..... 
506. jexster - 4/29/2000 3:22:33 AM
The "Eternal Jew" was a seminal Nazi Propaganda film....Much, most of what transpired in the German polity towards Jews can be appreciated from this film.
Introduction
Der ewige Jude ("The Eternal Jew") is the most famous Nazi propaganda film. It was produced at the insistence of Joseph Goebbels, under such active supervision that it is effectively his work. It depicts the Jews of Poland as corrupt, filthy, lazy, ugly, and perverse: they are an alien people which have taken over the world through their control of banking and commerce, yet which still live like animals.
Though unquestionably vicious, many would say that, by today's standards, it is also crude and transparent. The narrator explains the Jews' ratlike behavior, while showing footage of rats squirming from sewers and leaping at the camera.
507. jexster - 4/29/2000 3:25:58 AM
More, much much more at The Holocaust History Project
508. jexster - 4/29/2000 3:44:12 AM
I'm on a roll..... width=350>
509. jexster - 4/29/2000 3:50:41 AM
try again.. _jk.jpg)
Siegfried Kills Fafnir
510. jexster - 4/29/2000 3:53:18 AM
and more I know
even more I can tell
how once by his violent hand a mighty dragon fell
he bathed in its blood
grew strong and can't be slain
and many have seen this again
and yet again
The Niebelungenlied
511. jexster - 4/29/2000 4:25:42 AM
512. jexster - 4/29/2000 4:30:14 AM
The Horst Wessel Song...Die Fahne Hoch
and good night....
513. uzmakk - 4/29/2000 9:26:04 AM
I have a typically ignorant comment to make on Jexster's 511, but I don't want to disturb him.
514. PelleNilsson - 4/29/2000 10:38:45 AM
#511 is not well translated. Too timid. But then English doesn't serve well for martial poetry, I don't think, Kipling notwithstanding.
515. pseudoerasmus - 4/29/2000 10:40:16 AM
English doesn't serve well for martial poetry? Nilsson, have you read any English poetry?
516. uzmakk - 4/29/2000 10:47:08 AM
Henry the Fifth? Not martial poetry?
517. PelleNilsson - 4/29/2000 10:50:38 AM
What do you think of the Latin translation?
518. uzmakk - 4/29/2000 10:53:09 AM
I will have to get my son to read it to me.
519. uzmakk - 4/29/2000 10:53:51 AM
In Latin, ofcourse.
520. PelleNilsson - 4/29/2000 11:00:55 AM
It's not only about words. It's about sounds too.
Wo Heldengeister niederschau'n,
Und schwört mit stolzer Kampfeslust
521. pseudoerasmus - 4/29/2000 11:06:48 AM
I've a classical bias in my Latin, but the rhythm of the Latin translation is more appropriate to a medieval love lyric in corrupted Latin. Martial poetry in Latin must be in dactylic hexameters, but that could just be my classical straitjacket from school.
522. uzmakk - 4/29/2000 11:11:08 AM
Tha mon o' micht, he rade o' nicht
Wi' neider swerd ne ferd ne licht.
He socht tha Mare, he fond tha Mare,
He bond tha Mare wi' her ain hare,
Ond gared her swar by midder-micht
She wolde nae mair rid o' nicht
Whar aince he rade, thot mon o' micht.
523. jexster - 4/29/2000 2:44:15 PM
Jeez yoos guys is smart!
524. jexster - 4/29/2000 2:44:39 PM
toys
525. Wombat - 4/29/2000 6:59:04 PM
"half a league, half a league, half a league onward,
into the valley of death rode the six hundred."
(Tennyson)
526. jexster - 4/29/2000 7:20:43 PM
from the Horst Wessel site, a yuk:
The low-life Horst Wessel (b. September 9, 1907, Bielefeld, Germany -- d. February 23, 1930, Berlin, Germany) joined the Nazi party in in 1926. He was killed by political enemies (probably degenerate communists) in a fight in his filthy squalid rooms in Berlin. Glorified as a martyr to the Nazi cause, his song became the official Nazi anthem
527. jexster - 4/29/2000 11:14:50 PM
Operation Bagration
was an obscure operation to Westerners and is not discussed in most histories of the war this side of the Iron Curtain.
Perphaps the Cold War has something to do with this, perhaps too because Allied forces were hacking their way out of the hedgerows of Normandy at the time it was launched on June 21, 1944 - three years to the day after the Germans invaded Russia.
528. jexster - 4/29/2000 11:15:58 PM
But this Operation, named after a hero of the War of 1812, provided Hitler with more than he could handle and definitely prevented him from reinforcing his forces in the West. The Russians attacked German Army Group Center in Belorussia with 4 Fronts that included 14 combined arms armies, 1 tank army (5th Guards Tank), 4 air armie, 118 rifle divisions, 7 fortified regions, 12 calvary divisions and 8 mechanized tank corps. The combined force totaled 1,250,000 men; 4070 tanks and assault guns, 24,363 artillery pieces and 5300 combat aircraft. A neighboring attack from the South included another 400,000 men, 1800 tanks, 8400 artillery pieces, and 1500 aircraft.
The attack was conducted along a 300+ mile front and suceeded in driving the Germans back over 300 miles back into Poland. The nearly 800,000 Russian dead and wounded bought not only 900 square miles but probably saved thousands of American, British, Canadian and French lives too.
In our fascination with D-Day and Normandy we forget that our sucess was due in no small part to the Russians.
529. jexster - 4/29/2000 11:23:42 PM
Source: Glantz & House, When Titans Clashed
530. PelleNilsson - 4/30/2000 3:50:12 AM
There can be no doubt that the Germans were defeated by the Soviet Union. D-day and waht followed was essentially a mopping-up operation.
531. PelleNilsson - 4/30/2000 3:50:57 AM
... what followed ...
532. pseudoerasmus - 4/30/2000 3:55:31 AM
I have read and heard many Americans argue that the Soviet Union could not have won the war without allied material assistance. Alexander Werth, in his excellent Russia at War has a fairly impressive tally of this assistance to the Soviet Union, and although he doesn't speculate either way, I would say that the external aid was not the difference between victory and stalemate/defeat.
533. PelleNilsson - 4/30/2000 5:18:06 AM
Can allied material assistance have been more than a drop in the ocean compared to the needs of the Soviet army? Although it could have been a high-quality drop, I suppose. Bomb sights and stuff like that, I mean.
534. PelleNilsson - 4/30/2000 5:22:43 AM
jexster
In launching Operation Bagration, Stalin evidently fulfilled a promise made at the Teherean conference in December, 1943:
Took note that Operation OVERLORD would be launched during May 1944, in conjunction with an operation against Southern France. The latter operation would be undertaken in as great a strength as availability of landing-craft permitted. The Conference further took note of Marshal Stalin's statement that the Soviet forces would launch an offensive at about the same time with the object of preventing the German forces from transferring from the Eastern to the Western Front.
Source.
535. PelleNilsson - 4/30/2000 6:43:18 AM
It seems lend-lease may have been a bit more than a drop in the ocean. I found this:
American, British and Canadian Lend-Lease made a significant difference in the progress of the Soviet armies against Hitler's armies. However, the USSR tried to keep this information limited and the role of Lend-Lease is generally not well known although it constituted about 15 per cent of the total equipment used by the USSR, particularly almost one-half million American trucks. It was said that the only thing that moved through the mud towards Germany were the Ukrainian T-34 tanks with their wide tracks and the American Studebaker trucks.
The USA supplied the USSR with 6,430 planes, 3,734 tanks, 104 ships and boats, 210,000 autos, 3,000 anti-aircraft guns, 245,000 field telephones, gasoline, aluminum, copper, zinc, steel and five million tons of food. This was enough to feed an army of 12 million every day of the war. Britain supplied 5,800 planes, 4,292 tanks, and 12 minesweepers. Canada supplied 1,188 tanks, 842 armoured cars, nearly one million shells, and 208,000 tons of wheat and flour. The USSR depended on American trucks for its mobility since 427,000 out of 665,000 motor vehicles (trucks and jeeps) at the end of the war were of western origin.
I have no idea about the reliability of the source
536. pseudoerasmus - 4/30/2000 6:50:20 AM
The Werth book has an exhaustive tally of the material sent to Russia. I once painstakingly typed and posted the tally somewhere in suite101, which I could lead to if I knew where it was.
537. Wombat - 4/30/2000 2:18:04 PM
One could probably argue that without the massive infusion of trucks, the Red Army would not have had the mobility necessary exploit the armored breakthroughs that destroyed Army Group Center (and subsequent offensives). Other favorite Lend-lease items were P-39 Aircobras and P-63 Kingcobras, which were used for ground attack (the P-39, which was a failure against the Japanese, was apparently able to hold its own against German fighters at low altitudes).
538. jexster - 4/30/2000 2:46:49 PM
, I would say that the external aid was not the difference between victory and stalemate/defeat.
Hard to say. Glantz makes the argument that Western aid was most valuable in 2 areas - trucks and air power. The Soviets never developed much in the way of truck transport during the war, this in contrast to producing arguably the best armor of the period. Without the jeeps and truck provided, the Soviet "deep battle" concept could never have been attempted.
The air power contribution, according to Glantz, was more indirect though not less valuable for it. Aircraft, like most combat materiel the West provided was inferior, second-line stuff. However, Allied bombing of the German homeland forced the Luftwaffe to divert massive resources and effectively surrender combat air superiority early on - by 1942.
How much all of this affected the outcome in the East will always be fruitful ground for speculation and debate. The answer lies somewhere in between the Russian view "The war was won on American Spam and Russian blood" and the highly prejudiced view we or at least I learned in school that they never have prevailed without us.
Parenthetically, this is something I'd like Ilya to weigh in on if he's of a mind to. What was the school line on the Great Patriotic War, the Molotov Ribbentrop pact etc. I had an e conversation with a Russian on the subject of what he was taught v. what I was....would be interesting.
Clearly though, Hitler made a huge strategic error by declaring war on the US after Pearl Harbor.
539. Indiana Jones - 4/30/2000 2:50:41 PM
"There can be no doubt that the Germans were defeated by the Soviet Union. D-day and waht followed was essentially a mopping-up operation."
Pelle once more falls into the classic mistake of underestimating the Swedish contribution.
540. PelleNilsson - 4/30/2000 3:00:53 PM
Indy
hahaha!
I have written about Sweden and WWII. Here.
541. Ahab42 - 4/30/2000 3:40:15 PM
539. Indiana Jones - 4/30/00 7:50:41 PM
"There can be no doubt that the Germans were defeated by the Soviet Union. D-day and waht followed was essentially a mopping-up operation."
**This is the sillyest assertion I have heard since debating a Cper on this subject. Without Allied aid the Soviet Union would have been pushed permanetly back to the Ural Mountains.
The massive diversion of German recources-primarily air assets was absolutly pivitol in the Soviets ability to weather the German torm.
Admittedly Hitler's allmost fanatic ability to wreck his own Militarys opperations is as great a contributor. The idea that Soviets could have beaten germany without Allied intervention is a historical and smacks of Soviet disinformation..not that i'm accusing anyone of spreading disinformation. Just reading brithsh scholl of military history perhaps.
Carl Military Historian
John Toland Ridiculed for a Small Fee
542. PelleNilsson - 4/30/2000 4:10:14 PM
Ahab42
If you had read a bit more carefully you would have realised that the assertion is mine not Indiana's.
The remainder of your post is indecipherable.
543. PelleNilsson - 4/30/2000 4:26:49 PM
jexster
Clearly though, Hitler made a huge strategic error by declaring war on the US after Pearl Harbor.
In an early post I argued that the real purpose of the declaration of war was to allow the U-Boats to attack the lend-lease transports.
544. AytchMan - 4/30/2000 7:03:18 PM
It seems to me that the contribution of Lend-Lease in winning the war has two components. First how much materiel was delivered in the first eighteen months of Soviet participation (June 41 to November 42) to keep them from losing the war and, second, how much was delivered after that to enable them to drive back toward Germany.
I'd guess that relatively little was delivered until US industry started to hit its stride (about June 42 at the earliest?). Thus, it seems clear that the Soviets survived the initial German onslaught almost entirely on their own. So, Lend-Lease can't claim much credit here.
As for the winning of the war, the numbers posted by Pelle make a good case that a substantial part of the Soviet offense (certainly the mobility) was generated in Detroit. Does anybody have a breakdown of Lend-Lease by month or year?
545. jexster - 4/30/2000 11:41:12 PM
Sweden's decline began at Poltava. They reached rock bottom when Ford purchased Volvo. Now their squalor is manifest by billboards featuring a queer couple bitching over furniture (IKEA).
546. jexster - 4/30/2000 11:44:02 PM
Atych -
Don't look at me for those facts and figures on Lend Lease. WRT turning the corner in '42 on their own, you neglect the very crucial impact of the North Africa campaign on the German offensive that year. Hitler's North African diversion of fighter and transport planes was substantial.
I do have figures on that.
547. jexster - 4/30/2000 11:45:17 PM
Most of my shit BTW comes from David Glantz whose link I've put up in that little yellow bar.
Glantz is God Amen.
548. jexster - 4/30/2000 11:49:19 PM
Pelle, you may be right about Hilter's purpose in declaring war. Though the first I can recall hearing of it, that doesn't make it so. It does have sort of a "rational actor" plausibility about it. As far as I know though, his decision was made rather quickly and without much if any input from his government.
My comment was 20/20. At the time, most, regardless of which side they were on, thought that the Allies were kaput
549. jexster - 4/30/2000 11:49:55 PM
"make it so" = "make it not so"
550. jexster - 4/30/2000 11:54:47 PM
There can be no doubt that the Germans were defeated by the
Soviet Union. D-day and waht followed was essentially a mopping-up
operation."
Definitely an overstatement but one that contains essential truth. The German army was incapable of sustained offensive operations by the end of Citadel in Summer 1943.
Further, on June 6 '44, the Soviets had some 3,000,000 Germans and other assorted Axis forces tied up on the Eastern Front.
In my opinion, Russia was far and away the prime reason Germany was defeated (makes me want to cry)
Off to compose myself.
551. jexster - 5/1/2000 12:01:30 AM
[sobbing]
I just noticed that for some reason I screwed up the link to the review of When Titans Clashed. The Journal of Slavic Military Studies link is good I hope.
Here's the review
552. Ahab42 - 5/1/2000 2:57:30 PM
542. PelleNilsson - 4/30/00 9:10:14 PM
Ahab42
If you had read a bit more carefully you would have realised that the assertion is mine not Indiana's.
The remainder of your post is indecipherable.
*** Gee next time I will use smaller words so you can decipher what i say. Yes I do owe INDIANA an appology. Boy do I owe him an appology.
543. PelleNilsson - 4/30/00 9:26:49 PM
jexster
553. Raskolnikov - 5/1/2000 3:16:25 PM
How about the allied bombing campaign of Germany? What is the current assessment of the impact it had on the war, and Germany's ability to fight on the Eastern Front?
554. PelleNilsson - 5/1/2000 3:21:29 PM
Ahab42
You don't need to use smaller words. You need to learn to spell.
And I'd like you to elaborate on
The massive diversion of German recources-primarily air assets was absolutly pivitol in the Soviets ability to weather the German torm.
555. AytchMan - 5/1/2000 11:55:54 PM
Pelle 543--
I think you're correct but I also think that a substantial part of the declaration of war stemmed simply from Hitler's ego. From all accounts I've read, he grossly misunderstood and underestimated the US. Since he thought a US declaration was imminent, he wanted to be first for prestige.
Jexster 546--
I think our arguments are diverging. The phrase that started this was, I think, 'allied material assistance'. Whether one takes that to mean the smaller concept of Lend-Lease or the larger one of 'everything the Western Allies did to draw off German power" probably determines the outcome of the discussion.
At any rate, I think that the use of airpower meant two different things on the Eastern and Western fronts. In the West, airpower was notable for its presence in most engagements while in the East, it was notable for its absence.
To really oversimplify it (just to get the point across), I think that dividing the number of planes by the square area of active combat would give two very different numbers in the two theaters. Thus, I think that drawing off x number of planes to North Africa made a dramatic difference there while not having a great effect in the East. So, I don't think an argument that "x percent of aircraft were moved out of the East" makes the case.
556. AytchMan - 5/2/2000 12:21:37 AM
Jexster 548--
>>As far as I know though, his decision was made rather quickly and without much if any input from his government.
I think that's right but, almost from the beginning, Admiral Raeder never missed an opportunity to beat up on Hitler (as much as anyone could) about loosening the restrictions on the U-boats. So, I think it contributed to his decision. Nevertheless, I think a lot of it was simply megalomania. He had to declare first.
557. Wombat - 5/2/2000 9:40:30 AM
Aytch:
The difference in the use of air power between the Eastern and Western Fronts was that the former did not see strategic bombing as used by the Allies. Tactical air power was widely used in the East, and the Germans certainly terror-bombed the cities that its bombers could reach.
558. jexster - 5/2/2000 12:49:22 PM
What is the current assessment of the impact it had on the war, and Germany's ability to fight on the Eastern Front?
The strategic bombing campaign destroyed most of the Luftwaffe's tactical fighter force. The remainder was eliminated in the Western Front operations of 1994. Germans had air superiority in the East in 1941 began to lose it in '42, lost it in '43 as a result.
559. jexster - 5/2/2000 4:24:25 PM
On the 50th anniversary of the Normandy invasion, a US news magazine featured a cover photo of General Dwight D. Eisenhower, who was labeled as "the man who defeated Hilter". If any one man deserved that label it was not Eisenhower but Zhukov, Vasilevsky or perhaps Stalin himself. Glantz & House (1995) p. 282.
560. jexster - 5/2/2000 4:35:18 PM
To really oversimplify it (just to get the point across), I think that dividing the number of planes by the square area of active combat would give two very different numbers in the two theaters. Thus, I think that drawing off x number of planes to North Africa made a dramatic difference there while not having a great effect in the East. So, I don't think an argument that "x percent of aircraft were moved out of the East" makes the case.
On those terms it doesn't of course. But consider Stalingrad. Consider Fat Boy Goering's boast that he could resupply Paulus. Consider then the fact that 400 Luftwaffe aircraft redeployed from the east to the west between November and December 1942 to meet the Allied threat in North Africa. German losses in the Mediterranean between Nov 42 and May 43 totalled 2,422 40.5 percent of the entire Luftwaffe strength.
"Hardest hit was the Luftwaffe's transport arm. IN addition to the vain effort to resupply Stalingrad, the transport pilots were called upon twice for major surges of supplies and reinforcements to North Africa (Malta blocked most sea resupply). In May 43 when German forces were destroyed in Tunisia 177 Ju-52's and 6 of the scarce Me-323 "giants" were whoped out....Taken together, these three major airlifts in six months destroyed the Luftwaffe's transport force taking not only planes and pilots but instructors as well....Without these transports, future parachute and resupply operations were impossible.... From March 43 onward, German fighter losses in the West consistently exceeded those in the East...even in July 43 at the height of the Kursk offensive, 335 German fighters fell over Germany but only 201 over Russia..." G&H p. 149
561. Ahab42 - 5/2/2000 5:24:36 PM
And I'd like you to elaborate on
The massive diversion of German recources-primarily air assets was absolutly pivitol in the Soviets ability to weather the German torm.
Well, posts following yours seem to have elaborated quite succintly on this subject. Suffice it to say that the massive deversion of ait assets from East to West crippled Germany's ability to provide even minimal amounts of tactial and supply air assets. Both of which are crucial to successful ground operations.
Carl
562. AytchMan - 5/3/2000 2:54:48 AM
Wombat 557--
Strategic bombing was clearly a qualitative difference between East and West. As for tactical, I think there was a significant difference in degree between the two fronts. I would agree that tactical air power was 'widely' used in the East but not to the extent as in the West. The Eastern front was much bigger (the actual front was much longer), flight distances were somewhat longer from fewer airbases) and there were (I think) fewer planes. Plus, the weather was generally worse. Thus, it stands to reason that, for the typical engagement, substantially fewer missions were flown. I don't have any citations for this but if you guys ain't buying it, I may try to dig something up. Whaddaya think?
563. AytchMan - 5/3/2000 3:21:39 AM
jexster 560--
Assuming our discussion centers on the diversion of airpower affecting the turning point of the Russian campaign, your numbers for Nov 42 to May 43 make the argument about six months too late. I would argue that the actual turning point was in September and October 42 as the Russians were able to build up their counterstroke north and south of the city. Obviously, it was unrecognizable as such at the time. But I think that the actual siege at Stalingrad (Nov to Jan) was a foregone conclusion even if the encircled troops could have been supplied by air. If I recall correctly, neither Manstein nor Hoth held out much hope that they could get through. A dramatic anticlimax but an anticlimax nonetheless.
By the way, as an American, it pains me to argue that we weren't very useful in the early going but I think that's the case.
564. AytchMan - 5/3/2000 3:36:18 AM
jexster 559--
I certainly agree that the 'one man' wouldn't be Ike. And either Zhukov or Stalin are solid candidates. But I also think Churchill could be argued. Not on purely military grounds, of course, but rather political, psychological and even grand strategic. If the Brits had folded in 1940...
565. PelleNilsson - 5/3/2000 9:32:23 AM
uzmakk -- Message # 522
I read that late at night and couldn't make sense of it. Then I forgot. Now I have read it again and couldn't make sense of it. What is it? Old English?
566. uzmakk - 5/3/2000 10:05:46 AM
Well, Pelle, the reason that I posted it was because you mentioned the "sound" of the words being lost in translation. That poem immediately flashed into my mind because of the "sound". I translate what I can and leave untranslated what I cannot in the following:
A fuller account of Odin's feat is given in the North Country Charm against the Night Mare, which probably date from the fourteenth century:
That man of might, he rode of night
Wi' neider swerd ne ferd ne light.
He sought the Mare, he found the Mare,
He bound the Mare with her own hair,
Ond gared her swear by midder-might
She would no more ride of night
Where once he rode, that man of might.
The Night Mare is one of the cruellest aspects of the White Goddess. Her nests, when one comes across them in dreams, lodged in rock-clefts or the branches of enormous hollow yews, are built of carefully chosen twigs, lined with white horse-hair and the plumage of prophetic birds and littered with the jaw-bones and entrails of poets. The prophet Job said of her: "She dwelleth and abidith upon the rock. Her young ones also suck up blood."
I am certain you know where I got this stuff.
567. PelleNilsson - 5/3/2000 10:27:56 AM
Uzmakk
The second line might be:
With neither sword, nor fear, nor light
And the fifth:
And made or swear on [???]-might.
No, I don't know where you got it from. Is it very simple to guess
? If so Beowulf perhaps.
Offhand I don't recall anything similar in the Edda but I will check. The White Goddess is not part of Norse mythology, at least not under that name.
568. PelleNilsson - 5/3/2000 10:29:06 AM
If we have more to say on this we should probably do it in Poetry lest the wrath of Jexster smite us.
569. uzmakk - 5/3/2000 10:55:13 AM
I fear the wrath of Jexster. Oh, and my typically ignorant comment is that the poem that he cited could be that of any chosen people jealous of their land.
570. jexster - 5/3/2000 12:36:40 PM
Atych - you are correct that when Fat Man made his resupply boast, the die was cast. But it was in no small part because of transport diversions which were then occurring. Further, the Kursk operation, I would argue, was made necessary and predictable (the Russians knew it was coming both from the map and from spies) because that was the only point that the Germans could attack given the fact that they no longer had the air assets to do anything else.
What if's are fun because they cannot be definitively answered but I would say that the 6th army might not have been lost if we had not been in North Africa/Sicily at or about that time.
571. jexster - 5/3/2000 4:49:56 PM
What poem Uzzie, before I rip you a new asshole about which do you bitch?
The passage from the Niebelungenlied?
Its an ominous prophecy of great things to come from the Vaterland!
572. PelleNilsson - 5/3/2000 4:56:31 PM
jexster
Check Message # 522
573. jexster - 5/3/2000 4:57:25 PM
droll how very droll
574. Wombat - 5/3/2000 5:20:45 PM
Aytch:
I don't think enough is known about the Soviet use of tactical air power to come to concrete conclusions. I doubt that it was as well organized as the Typhoon "cab ranks" and ground based air liaisons that were used in the West.
575. PelleNilsson - 5/4/2000 1:19:45 AM
Wombat
What were Typhoon "cab ranks"?
576. AytchMan - 5/4/2000 2:47:15 AM
Wombat--
I'm *confident* that Soviet air was not as well-organized as in the West. I read somewhere that, early in the war, only flight leaders had radios. The wingies had to simply follow the leader and/or respond to hand signals. I would guess this eventually changed but I don't know at what point.
577. AytchMan - 5/4/2000 3:07:45 AM
jexster 570--
I think we're at the point where we agree to disagree. I am curious about your Kursk statement, however. The operation was certainly obvious and well-telegraphed, as you point out. But why was Kursk the only point at which the Germans could attack? Are you making a geographical argument based on German air power or a strategic one based on other factors? I always thought that Kursk arose out of one of those Hitler screeds where his unshakeable will engendered an irrevocable decision for a supreme effort (I love those transcripts where he harangued everybody into exhaustion).
578. Wombat - 5/4/2000 9:32:22 AM
Aytch:
Early in the war, French fighters didn't have radios at all.
Pelle:
Hawker Typhoon squadrons were assigned to patrol over Allied ground forces. When requested by RAF controllers traveling with front-line units, a Typhoon or two would attack pockets of resistance, tanks, bunkers with bombs, cannon, and rockets. The remaining aircraft would remain on call and available for use, ergo "(taxi) cab rank."
579. PelleNilsson - 5/4/2000 9:47:22 AM
Thanks, Wombat.
580. jexster - 5/4/2000 4:16:20 PM
Atych -
Lack of air transport, lack of tactical air, lack of airborne capability made a concentrated ground attack on the salient as opposed to a deeper encirclement or attack along other fronts the only feasible choice - not a very good one at that.
581. AytchMan - 5/5/2000 2:34:07 AM
Wombat--
By my comment, I meant the US and Brits during the comparable period. If they didn't have any radios, I may have to surrender the point. But I didn't know that the French didn't have them. Thanks.
582. AytchMan - 5/5/2000 3:20:00 AM
jexster--
Since you seem to be making the airpower argument, I confess I still don't understand. You seem to be attaching a great deal of importance to the air arm in dictating the '43 offensive. Is this from the Glantz book? I'm not so much looking for an argument here as for information. Frankly, I don't know as much about Kursk as other areas of the war. However, it does seem that other factors would take precedence, that is, "air' would be a supporting factor in the decision rather than a driver. Yes/no?
583. stostosto - 5/5/2000 4:40:19 AM
5th of May 1945: Liberation of Denmark.
The 'message of liberty' was heard from BBC London the evening before:
'Det meddeles netop i dette řjeblik, at feltmarskal Montgomery har oplyst, at de tyske tropper i Holland, Nordvesttyskland og Danmark har overgivet sig. Jeg gentager...'
'At this moment it's reported that field marshall Montgomery has informed us that the German troops in Holland, Nort-West Germany and Denmark have surrendered. I repeat...'
And all heaven broke loose. People burned their curtain shades and put candle lights in the windows. Many people still do so every year on the eve of May 4th (though it's inevitably a fading tradition).
Of course, in the uproar, the easternmost part of the country, the Baltic island of Bornholm was forgotten. The local German commander refused to surrender to anyone but the British, and they didn't see fit to send over a couple of officers. So Bornholm was bombed by the Russians who also occupied it for a number of days (weeks? months?) before eventually relinqushing it. I think historians are still debating why the Russians did this without further ado... Are there any other instances in which the Russians conceded areas to the west that the Red Army had conquered from the Germans?
(I should provide a map, but that will have to wait).
584. AytchMan - 5/5/2000 5:13:50 AM
Sto--
>>Are there any other instances in which the Russians conceded areas to the west that the Red Army had conquered from the Germans?
There were some minor adjustments along the line near the Elbe where the Allies met. But the big withdrawal was from Austria. The Soviets overran most of the country in April '45 (including Vienna) but pulled back to a Soviet zone in the eastern part. They finally withdrew completely in the early '50's, as I recall. Big of 'em.
585. PelleNilsson - 5/5/2000 5:47:37 AM
Here is Denmark with the island of Bornholm at the bottom right. 
586. PelleNilsson - 5/5/2000 5:59:03 AM
And here you can see Bornholm's strategic position in the Baltic. 
sto
Are there NATO installations on Bornholm? Submarine pens and that sort of stuff?
587. PelleNilsson - 5/5/2000 6:11:40 AM
sto
Here is a site in English with key dates and events in the history of Denmark. It is maintained by the university of Linköping.
588. uzmakk - 5/5/2000 10:07:11 AM
571Jexster:
or, the Gotterland.
589. stostosto - 5/5/2000 10:39:15 AM
You're a pal, Pelle! Thank you. Interesting link too, even though it's from Linköping. I have bookmarked it for future reference.
590. uzmakk - 5/5/2000 12:45:13 PM
And please mistuh Jexsta, don't rip me a new asshole.
591. stostosto - 5/5/2000 5:40:48 PM
Pelle, I don't think there are submarine pens (pens...?) on Bornholm. But there are certainly naval and air force observation posts as well as a land based defense force. This force has a somewhat special position in the Danish army, btw. For some reason they are the ones recruited for the missions in Bosnia and KFOR. (The DIB, Danish International Brigade). But this may have as much to do with Bornholm being a poor peripheral region which needs the revenue generator of a military facility as it has to do with the island's strategic importance...
592. PelleNilsson - 5/5/2000 5:51:05 PM
Main Entry: 2pen
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, perhaps from pennen
Date: 14th century
1 a : a small enclosure for animals b : the animals in a pen < a pen of sheep>
2 : a small place of confinement or storage
3 : a protected dock or slip for a submarine
593. stostosto - 5/5/2000 6:32:02 PM
AytchMan #584
Thank you. That's fascinating. I have large holes in my WWII knowledge, that's becoming painfully clear to me in this thread. (But then, there are many other holes. In fact, my ignorance is fairly all-encompassing when I think about it. But the Mote helps punch holes in it).
594. uzmakk - 5/5/2000 7:02:14 PM
Now this thread is developing a bit of pizzaz with those etymological derivations.
595. AytchMan - 5/8/2000 8:29:59 PM
Two what-if questions:
First, what would have happened if Hitler had died in July 1939? The default answer is that (a) there would have been no war and (b) Hitler would have gone down in history as one of the greatest Germans of all time. Yes/no? Other answers encouraged. Bonus points for etymological derivations.
Second, what would have happened if Hitler had died in May 1941 (that is, after the overrunning of Yugoslavia but before the attack on Russia)?
596. AytchMan - 5/9/2000 9:45:25 PM
I've always been fascinated by the Doolittle raid on Tokyo and consider it one of the more amazing events of the war. Mainly for the role such a shoestring operation played in changing the course of the war. I'm wondering what other minor operations or events you guys think are in the same category. I can think of at least one other candidate.
597. spudboy - 5/9/2000 10:24:35 PM
Aytch: The China-Burma airlift campaign clearly qualifies in that category.
598. AytchMan - 5/9/2000 10:50:59 PM
spudboy--
Interesting. The airlift certainly used minimal resources and qualifies on that count but I'm not sure whether it qualifies as pivotal. I have to think about that a bit. Do you think it held the Chinese in the war?
If, on the other hand, you're referring to the whole CBI theatre, then that's a bit large for what I'm trying to draw out. Sorry if I didn't make that clear.
599. spudboy - 5/10/2000 12:13:25 AM
Aytch: No, I just mean the airlift. I’ve been fascinated by it because it was such an aviation feat, and there’s still a bunch of hardware (and bones) scattered over those mountainsides from it. Stillwell really used baling wire and gum to keep the operation going, but it managed ultimately to achieve the Allies' objectives: Keep China in the war, divert Japanese resources over a wider theater, and provide some strategic leverage.
However, I agree on further consideration that it probably doesn’t quite qualify as pivotal. It did prove to be important in the latter stages of the war, when the Pacific theater advances had outrun those in SE Asia. It enabled the Allies to retake Burma and the Ledo Road in the fall of 1944, and the supplies proved crucial in halting the Japanese advances at Chihchiang in April 1945, after which they retreated to a full defense of their home islands. But it wasn’t pivotal by that point.
As a substitute, let me offer up the rescue of the “Lost Battalion” by the 442nd Regimental Combat Team, which was cited by an Army commission as one of the 10 most significant land battles in U.S. military history, ostensibly because it marked a turning point in the German resistance. It wasn’t really a baling-wire operation, but it wasn’t very well conceived or executed, either; mostly it involved pouring in a horde of “expendable” troops into a meat grinder. And it worked.
600. Wombat - 5/10/2000 9:37:29 AM
Aytch:
The crash of a light aircraft carrying a German General Staff officer in Belgium during the Winter of 1940. Against orders, he was carrying a copy of the plans for the attack on France and the Low Countries. He attempted to burn them, but enough was salvaged to fatally compromise them. As a result, the Germans re-did the plans, and changed the axis of the primary attack from a modified Schleiffen plan, which the Allies were prepared to counter, to an armored strike through the Ardennes forest. We all know happened as a result.
601. stostosto - 5/10/2000 9:51:15 AM
Aytchman
Your question made me think of the commando attacks on the Norsk Hydro plant in Rjukan producing heavy water (deuterium), a crucial component in the Germans' effort at the atomic bomb. Norwegian resistance, trained in and directed from Britain, carried out the operations at extreme personal risk. (Hitler had ordered any captured commando soldier executed - and so they were).
Here is a book about it at Amazon. Dan Kurzman's Blood and Water : Sabotaging Hitler's Bomb.
It was a truly heroic effort but whether it qualifies as a "pivotal" operation hinges upon its effect on the German project. The Germans might not have succeeded in beating the Allies to the bomb regardless. But nobody could know at the time.
Clips from two reviews at Amazon:
"..large numbers of both British special-operations troops and Norwegian resistance fighters attacked the heavily defended, nearly inaccessible plant during the course of two years, and sustained heavy casualties. Finally, success came when the ferry carrying most of the heavy water was sunk by the resistance, but by then the Allied bomb program was far ahead of the Germans'. "
"When the Nazis attempted to move heavy-water stocks from Norway, saboteurs destroyed a ferry bearing the cargo, killing 26 civilians in the process. Kurzman quotes OSS official (and later CIA chief) William Casey as estimating that at war's end the Germans were 700 liters of heavy water short of developing an effective nuclear reaction. Spellbinding and deeply sobering military history"
602. Wombat - 5/10/2000 10:45:02 AM
Aytch:
The Winter of 1939-40.
603. Wombat - 5/10/2000 10:48:55 AM
Subsequent studies of the German nuclear effort, led by Heisenberg, indicate that they lacked the technology needed to miniaturize the components for a bomb, and that using heavy water was a scientific blind alley. It has been speculated that Heisenberg deliberately pursued the use of heavy water in an effort to ensure that Hitler would never get the bomb.
604. stostosto - 5/10/2000 12:18:03 PM
Wombat
Your insight is awesome. So heavy water isn't necessary? Is it useful at all? Or is it just that it's not the smartest technology?
605. Wombat - 5/10/2000 1:00:10 PM
The British and the United States experimented with heavy water, but quickly found it impracticable. Since they had access to uranium, they focused their efforts in that direction. They were also able to benefit from the pool of knowledge that Hitler so thoughtfully provided the Allies when his anti-jewish policies in academe stripped Germany of some of its best scientists.
606. AytchMan - 5/10/2000 5:10:59 PM
spudboy--
Facinating story about the 442nd. I'd never heard it before. Did it take place in Belgium in 1944? I didn't see the date or location in the story.
607. AytchMan - 5/10/2000 5:17:43 PM
Wombat 600--
Excellent example. As I recall, the plans were so complete (and, obviously, authentic) that the Allies agonized mightily over whether or not they were a plant.
608. AytchMan - 5/10/2000 5:35:45 PM
sto 601--
I've also read what Wombat refers to so I think the operation qualifies as a near-miss. I've always wondered whether Heisenberg really misdirected the Germans or whether it was just an after-the-fact apologia.
609. AytchMan - 5/10/2000 5:46:13 PM
Another example I thought of was the navigational error that inadvertently sent a small German air raid directly over London in August 1940. In retaliation, the British sent a small raid over Berlin the next night. Since it was the first raid on Berlin, the Germans came unglued. Either Hitler or Goering ordered the Luftwaffe to switch priorities from airfields and radar stations to the city of London. Since the RAF was on the ropes at that point, the relief probably turned the Battle of Britain around.
610. Wombat - 5/10/2000 5:48:49 PM
Aytch:
The Dieppe Raid in 1942. The failure of the attack persuaded the US that the time was not ripe for a cross-channel invasion (which they had been pushing) and convinced the Allies that an attempt to sieze a port immediately upon invading was not the way to go. It also caused the British to develop its "funnies:" flail tanks for clearing mines, kangaroos (flame throwing tanks), Churchills equipped with spigot mortars for busting bunkers, bridging tanks and fascine tanks for crossing trenches and streams, which allowed them to subdue beach defenses with comparative ease.
611. AytchMan - 5/10/2000 5:55:12 PM
Wombat 602--
I think you're probably right but possibly for a different reason. How do you see its effect?
612. Wombat - 5/10/2000 6:01:07 PM
Aytch:
I was correcting an ambiguity in message #600. The Winter of 1940 took place after the fall of France. I wouldn't call the Russo-Finnish War a minor event, although it caused the Germans to underestimate the Soviets; and taught the Soviets some valuable lessons in winter fighting that the Germans would regret.
613. AytchMan - 5/10/2000 6:20:17 PM
Ha!
The funny thing is that I was actually considering the Winter of 39-40 on the Western Front. Some have argued that the severe winter weather forced a postponement in the attack until the spring. Hitler was certainly itching to go. I think a reasonable assessment holds that the Germans simply weren't ready.
But the what-if's of whether or not the Germans could have gone, what the results would have been and what a difference six or eight months would have made could perhaps be construed as pivotal.
614. Wombat - 5/10/2000 6:23:43 PM
Aytch:
The severe winter also stymied French attempts to extend their fortifications to the Belgian border and beyond. Whether they would have been enough to stop the Germans...who knows?
615. AytchMan - 5/10/2000 6:42:33 PM
Wombat--
On Dieppe, I'm still coggin'. It certainly qualifies as a minor event with serious consequences and, thus, passes the test.
But I'm also trying to factor in unintended consequences (which was unstated in my original post). On that (unfairly changed) basis, it probably doesn't. From what I've read, the Brits were inclined to mount the attack knowing full well that it was doomed. The purpose was, as you said, to dissuade the Americans from an early cross-Channel invasion as well as to gain experience for the eventual assault. Sorry to switch gears on you.
616. AytchMan - 5/10/2000 6:49:30 PM
Wombat 614--
Is that right? Into the Ardennes? I didn't know that. I guess it makes sense that they'd do that in the time available. But I figured that they were just sitting on their defeatist duffs (Sitzkrieg and all that).
Do you know if they were trying to build Maginot-quality fortifications or just 'normal' defenses?
617. Macnas - 5/11/2000 11:15:31 AM
A bit off the current thread I know, but could anyone tell me, does the city that was Stalingrad still exist under a different name? or has it been levelled?
Myself and a mate were wondering about this the other week, and neither of us has a clue..
618. stostosto - 5/11/2000 11:20:12 AM
Macnas
It's called Volgograd. I don't know when it was renamed, but it was probably in the aftermath of Khruschev's 'secret speech'. (1954? -5? -6?)
619. Macnas - 5/11/2000 12:04:15 PM
stostosto,
Thank you very much, I might win a pint out of that, if I do I'll have one for you.
620. Wombat - 5/11/2000 2:05:28 PM
Aytch:
Moving the goalposts, eh. One unintended consequence of Dieppe was that it allowed the Germans to become complacent about successful resistance to amphibious landings. This lasted until Rommel took command in 1944.
McNas:
The Belgians, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, felt that if they did not provoke the Germans by coordinating their defensive efforts with France and Britain, they would be spared invasion. As a result, Belgian troops were stationed on the French border, as well as the German, no staff talks were held to assist and coordinate an Allied response to a German invasion, and no attempt was made to coordinate the construction of fortifications.
In answer to your question, no the defenses would not have been on the scale of the Maginot Line; they would have been more along the lines of interconnected bunkers, pillboxes, and anti tank defenses. The only fortifications extant at Sedan were a few pillboxes that were poorly sited and useless in the fighting that took place.
621. Indiana Jones - 5/15/2000 11:13:39 AM
622. jonesatlaw - 5/18/2000 11:17:54 AM
WWII hardware quiz in the quiz thread.
623. jexster - 5/19/2000 3:50:54 PM
Where are we?
Where am I?
Anyone need "re-education"?
624. PelleNilsson - 5/19/2000 3:57:17 PM
I do.
625. jexster - 5/19/2000 4:01:33 PM
"Ivan built up its strength with incredible speed. A pocket with insignificant numbers of Russians at dusk, were a battalion in well prepared defence positions at dawn the day after. Then - at the last moment - the "Za Rodinu!" could be heard as Ivans poored out of the fog, shoulder by shoulder, wave after wave. We shot them down in heaps, but there were always more and more of them who stormed the field."
- Memories of an unknown German soldier.
626. jexster - 5/19/2000 10:44:22 PM
627. jexster - 5/26/2000 11:03:07 PM
What say we RIP this?
Comments?
628. arkymalarky - 5/26/2000 11:06:18 PM
This has really been a wonderful thread, Jex. I hope everything is being archived or saved somewhere.
629. jexster - 5/26/2000 11:08:05 PM
Before I do though, I'd like to e-salute the true heroes of WWII, the Russian people, especially the citizens of Leningrad:
This was certainly the most tragic period in the history of this city. It was full of suffering and heroism. For everyone who lives in St. Petersburg the Blokada (the Siege) of Leningrad is an important part of their heritage and for the older generations it brings the memories that they will never forget.
Less than two and a half months after June 22,1941, when the Soviet Union was attacked by NaziGermany, German troops were already approaching Leningrad. The Red Army was outflanked and on
September 8, 1941 the Germans had fully encircled Leningrad and the siege began. It lasted for about 900 days, from September 8, 1941 till January 27, 1944. Two million 887 thousand civilians (including about 400 thousand children) plus troops didn't even consider any calls for surrender. Food and fuel stocks were very limited (1-2 months only). All the public transport stopped. By the winter of 1941-42 there was no heating, no water supply, almost no electricity and very little food.
630. jexster - 5/26/2000 11:09:55 PM
In January 1942, in the depths of an unusually cold winter, the lowest food rations in the city were only 125 grams (about 1/4 of a pound) of bread per day. In just two months, January and February, 1942, 200 thousand people (!!!) died in Leningrad of cold and starvation. But some of the war industry still worked and the city did not surrender.
Several hundred thousand people were evacuated from the city across Lake Ladoga via the famous "Road of Life" ("Doroga Zhizni") - the only route that connected the besieged city with the mainland. During the warm season people were ferried to the mainland, and in winter - carried by trucks that drove across the frozen lake under constant enemy bombardment.
Meanwhile, the city lived on. The treasures of the Hermitage and the suburban palaces of Petrodvorets, Pushkin, etc. were hidden in the basements of the Hermitage and St Isaac's Cathedral. Most students continued their studies and even passed finals. Dmitry Shostakovich wrote his Seventh "Leningrad" Symphony and it was performed in the besieged city.
In January 1943 the Siege was broken and a year later, on January 27, 1944 it was fully lifted. At least 641 thousand people had died in Leningrad during the Siege (some estimates put this figure at 800 thousand). Most of them were buried in mass graves in different cemeteries. The Piskariovskoye Memorial Cemetery, where almost 500 thousand people are buried, became one of the most impressive national war memorials.
631. PelleNilsson - 5/27/2000 5:05:00 AM
Some time ago, somebody (aytchman? wombat?) invited us to speculate on the course of events if Hitler had died before Barbarossa. This is my version.
Göring would have taken over. He would not have launched Barbarossa. He would have tried for an accommodation with France and the UK based on the following:
632. AytchMan - 5/30/2000 2:15:38 PM
Pelle--
Interesting scenario. All points sound reasonable but there's a big "if" -- how likely were the British to negotiate? They had turned down Hitler flat in 1940 when they had already "lost" the war. A year later, they were much stronger -- still on the ropes strategically and with no immediate prospect of winning but not in imminent danger of losing.
Minor point: would Goering have assumed power or would it have been Hess? For a long time, Hess was the designated successor to Hitler. But by May 1941 (when he left for Britain), he may have already been out of the loop. Anybody know? Incidentally, that would have been a novel trait on which to base a line of succession: insanity.
633. PelleNilsson - 5/30/2000 2:27:17 PM
I think the change of leadership in Germany would have given the Brits the opportunity the change their minds - if they wanted to.
Your point about Hess is well taken. But it doesn't force any change in the scenario, does it?
634. Wombat - 5/30/2000 2:54:50 PM
By the time WW2 started, Hess had become what he always was, a nonentity (and nuts, too). Although I usually find "what if" scenarios to be intellectually masturbatory, here goes (aah!)
There was no guarantee that Goering would have been able to take over. Himmler and his SS organization would have proved a formidable actor in any post Hitler power struggle. The Army was also a powerful force internally, and the high command had no liking for either Himmler or Goering.
635. AytchMan - 5/30/2000 3:07:51 PM
>>I think the change of leadership in Germany would have given the Brits the opportunity the change their minds - if they wanted to.
Definitely. Although, as long as Churchill was leading the government, I can't envision the Brits changing their position on a complete withdrawal from Poland at least (and, most likely, everywhere else as well). The whole history of the shift from the 1930's MacDonald-Baldwin-Chamberlain appeasement to the 1940's nationwide determination argues against it. But then that's the fun of "what-if's". Incidentally, for those interested, some of the histories of the period provide fascinating accounts of the mindsets (collective and individual) that fostered appeasement. It seems unthinkable now, not so much then.
>>Your point about Hess is well taken. But it doesn't force any change in the scenario, does it?
I'd have to do some digging to venture a serious guess but I think by 1941 Hess was probably certifiable. Thus, almost anything would have been possible with him in charge.
After reflecting a bit, I think it unlikely that Hess would have come to power. Even if his succession was legal, the nature of the regime would have eaten him and Goering probably would have taken over. If I recall correctly, Hess measured up as one of the "innocents" (relatively speaking, of course), clinging to some of the outdated idealistic (!) notions of the early Nazi era. So I think your choice of Goering is right on target. It was too early for either Himmler or Bormann. Goebbels would never have had a shot.
636. AytchMan - 5/30/2000 4:01:26 PM
Wombat--
>>There was no guarantee that Goering would have been able to take over.
Agreed. But, in May 1941, Goering still maintained most of his reputation (his mishandling of the Battle of Britain notwithstanding) and his interest in power. I think his decline began with the first reverses in Russia.
The Army would have been a factor, as you point out, and it seems to me they would have supported Goering over Himmler. While they were contemptuous of the Luftwaffe, they feared the growing power of the SS and considered it (thus, Himmler) their mortal enemy. In any event, whoever the Army supported would have had to pursue a negotiated settlement since they overwhelmingly favored such a course.
Had he come to power, I think Himmler would have been a question mark. Like many who toiled in the lower realms of Nazidom, he combined two unsavory traits: intellectual sadism and physical cowardice. How this would have played out in international politics escapes me.
Aaahhh.
637. PelleNilsson - 5/31/2000 7:25:55 AM
But what if Barbarossa hadn't happened? Would WWII have been winnable for the Allies? (Using conventional forces)
638. AytchMan - 5/31/2000 2:44:21 PM
Perhaps the ultimate what-if.
It might have taken ten years but I think the Allies would ultimately have prevailed. Assuming a neutral USSR.
First, the Allies had superior economic strength. The US, Britain and the Commonwealth, the Free French possessions plus the rest of the United Nations had several times the economic strength of the Axis (even including the reluctant occupied territories). As much equipment as the Americans produced, the US never fully exerted its economic muscle -- the US was the only country to raise its standard of living during the war.
Second, the Allies controlled the seas after the first six months of US participation. In a world war, this amounted to the equivalent of interior lines. The Germans and Japanese never came close to the ability to shift troops between them. A corollary to this is that, short of nuclear weapons, the Axis did not possess the means to strike at the heart of the Allies. They couldn't mount an invasion of Britain, much less the US.
cont.
639. AytchMan - 5/31/2000 3:00:29 PM
Third, the Allies built and maintained a centralized command structure to direct the war. As much as the Brits and Americans fought with each other, there was never any doubt that they were in it together. The Germans, Italians, and Japanese failed to coordinate their efforts and often worked at cross-purposes. As an example, the Italian invasion of Greece in December 1940 infuriated Hitler and probably changed the course of the war. On top of this, Hitler simply could not (indeed, refused) to think strategically except for the USSR (which has been removed from this particular equation). While, at times, his maniacal determination saved the day in Russia, I think this strategic flaw would have doomed the German to flounder even worse on a global stage.
Fourth, the Allies were the good guys. While rather intangible, I think this would have delivered a significant advantage in a longer, more closely-run war. In the actual war, this was manifest by the various resistance organizations, the reduced rates of production by workers in the occupied territories and the flow of technical workers from Axis to Allied countries (largely pre-war).
There are a couple of other reasons I can think of but those are the main ones. About the only real advantage the Axis had was that the Germans and, to a lesser extent, the Japanese were, man for man, better soldiers.
640. Indiana Jones - 5/31/2000 3:24:24 PM
Superb analysis IMO AytchMan, though without the Russian involvement the U.S. might have contented itself with handling the Japanese...seeing a European invasion as undoable.
Probably any alternative history along these lines quickly becomes absurd because it was almost impossible for Germany and Russia to avoid confrontation.
641. AytchMan - 5/31/2000 4:00:43 PM
Good points. I think the US dilemma over Germany or Japan would have been much tougher in this scenario. While FDR would probably have continued to favor action against Germany (as the more dangerous opponent threatening Britain and as the only foe who might actually be able to win the war), his generals and the American public would probably have swung even further toward a punchout on Japan.
As you point out, Russia becomes the great, imponderable basket-upsetter. Although, even as a neutral, they would have tied down (I guess) well over a hundred divisions. What Hitler would have done with the rest -- Spain, the Middle East, Bali, who knows?
642. Indiana Jones - 5/31/2000 4:25:19 PM
I do think Hitler was right in that the Reich and Soviet Union were doomed to face each other and that (as your analysis shows) over the long haul his relative position was going to weaken. His best bet IMO would have been sticking to his original timetable for Barbarossa and not declaring war on the U.S. after Pearl Harbor.
643. AytchMan - 5/31/2000 5:07:04 PM
>>...the Reich and Soviet Union were doomed to face each other...
Absolutely, for a couple of reasons -- Hitler himself and politics. Many people in the pre-war years discounted Mein Kampf as a simple rant. Yet, amid all the turge, Hitler telegraphed in no uncertain terms the two major preoccupations of his life: the Jews and lebensraum (i.e. Russia). As for politics, the contention between the two powers is obvious, both geopolitical and systemic.
644. AytchMan - 5/31/2000 5:14:48 PM
>>His best bet IMO would have been sticking to his original timetable for Barbarossa and not declaring war on the U.S. after Pearl Harbor.
I agree but this is less clear. Not so much because it was a bad idea as that it was impossible to carry out. While there will always be a dispute over the six-week delay in the start of Barbarossa, I think it was inevitable (Italian invasion of Greece --> German invasion of Yugoslavia/Greece/Crete --> rainy season --> redeployment delays of panzers). This is where Hitler's lack of a strategic vision killed him (literally, four years later).
As for the declaration of war, he certainly should have foregone the pleasure although I think it unlikely that war with the US could have been avoided for long.
645. AytchMan - 5/31/2000 5:20:30 PM
jexster 627--
While my haphazard rl schedule results in my sporadic posts, I'd hate to lose the thread. Is there any way to maintain it in the background, so to speak? Keep it as another 'leisurely' thread?
646. Indiana Jones - 5/31/2000 5:24:30 PM
AytchMan: I agree with the general inevitability of most history, but we're talking hypotheticals here. He probably would have lost in Russia anyway, but those extra six weeks would have helped.
The declaration of war is an event in which I think the individual does come into play because mobilizing American public opinion for a "Europe first" campaign would have been difficult IMO without it (considering how riled we were about Pearl Harbor).
From a post-war perspective, it's also easy to wonder how things might have gone if we had concentrated on the Japanese and let the Nazis and Communists bleed each other even worse than they did. Britain and the U.S. were for a time afraid that Stalin would sign a separate peace, but in hindsight that looks really unlikely. How would Churchill's timetable of a continental invasion have changed things? (I think he wanted D-Day in about 1946, and maybe in a different location.)
647. Wombat - 5/31/2000 6:03:27 PM
The Allies would have dropped the A-Bomb on Berlin, instead of Hiroshima.
648. Wombat - 5/31/2000 6:05:21 PM
While we are on hypotheticals...what if the Japanese had not attacked the United States, but had limited themselves to British, Dutch, and French possessions in Asia?
649. AytchMan - 5/31/2000 6:17:48 PM
Indy--
Holy Cow! We're raising some issues now.
The general inevitability of history -- there's a subject for a whole 'nother thread.
Six extra weeks for Barbarossa -- if we stipulate (as you stated) that the timetable was simply adhered to, then the Germans almost certainly would have fared better. My bad. Point to Mr. Jones.
>>...if we had concentrated on the Japanese ... -- Why do I always get the hard questions? I concur that Stalin would never have signed a separate peace. Deep down, each regime simply considered the other as pure evil. However, in the absence of any European pressure from the Allies, Stalin might have signed a sham treaty to buy some time before a counter-stroke. But I think that the most significant result is that Pelle would now be speaking Russian. That is, while the Allies were grinding the Japanese to powder and then turning back to Europe, the Soviets would have prevailed and driven across most of Northern and Western Europe. As it was, even with the Allies concentrating on Europe, the Soviets reached Berlin and Vienna first.
650. AytchMan - 5/31/2000 6:20:46 PM
Wombat--
From Pelle's initial hypothetical, nuclear weapons are excluded. I'm not sure if this restriction continues in Indy's scenario.
651. AytchMan - 5/31/2000 6:57:00 PM
Indy--
On Churchill's invasion timetable, I'm unclear as to whether you mean with the Allies concentrating on Japan or just accepting his plans within the actual Europe-first strategy. Clarification?
As for wanting D-Day in about 1946, well, he did and he didn't. He has himself given different accounts at different times so it's no wonder that the historians have ranged even farther afield. He certainly favored waiting longer than the Americans wanted. He was also very much aware of British manpower limitations and thus favored his sometimes fanciful 'underbelly' operations around the margins of Europe as a primary strategy in the first couple of years after the US came in. This would, of course, have pushed the main invasion to '44 or even '45. But, always cynical about the Soviets, he began to realize that they were closer to overrunning most of Europe than the Western powers were. Thus, he came to favor and then champion the 1944 plans although he never gave up on the various Yugo/Greek/Dardanelles/Turkish sideshows. But I don't think he ever literally felt the Allies needed to wait until '46 for the main invasion.
652. AytchMan - 5/31/2000 7:21:17 PM
Wombat 648--
Very tough (and intriguing) question. All I can come up with is that FDR would have eventually found a pretext for entering the war. By pretext, I don't mean a manufactured incident. Rather, he would have continued his two-pronged strategy of supplying ever-increasing aid to the Brits et al and supplying ever-increasing evidence of the worldwide threat to a still-skeptical American public. In executing the former, he would have placed Americans increasingly in harm's way. Eventually, either the Germans or the Japanese would have said "Enough" and either declared war or blundered into the incident FDR needed. It was in the nature of the two regimes.
I guess my main point here is that FDR, like Churchill, was far, far ahead of everybody else in recognizing the magnitude of the threat. And, in so doing, he resolved to oppose it however he could. Full stop. Thus, as long as FDR was President, the US was on a collision course with World War II.
653. Indiana Jones - 5/31/2000 9:17:28 PM
AytchMan: In his six volume series, I think Churchill included a letter he sent to Roosevelt where he mentions a timetable for the rest of the war and advocates a 1946 date for the landing on the continent (this was very early on). My impression was that he was always dragging his feet on the invasion, whereas the Russians were pushing hard for it (obviously) and Roosevelt tended to side more with Stalin. I also seem to remember Stalin at one point even suggesting the allies commit troops to the Russian front, if nothing else.
As far as poor Pelle, I think the Western Allies could have still invaded later (provided they weren't siphoning off Germany in Italy and Africa and weren't supplying the Russians--so I guess that means an Asia first strategy) and still resulted in a pretty similar or better partition of Europe. All just guess work, of course, but I think the Germans and Russians would have been throwing everything at each other they had, grinding each other to a powder, and we could have landed later and encountered even less resistance. Plus, like Wombat says, we would have had the bomb.
All things considered, I think it worked out in real life about as well as it could have...though doubtlessly a lot of Eastern Europeans wouldn't agree. And I think you have to concentrate on Germany as the least risky strategy (someone else I believe pointed out that Japan was almost certainly not going to win, whereas Germany, while doubtful, might have).
654. Wombat - 6/1/2000 9:28:26 AM
Aytch:
I agree, but there may well have been no decisive act like Pearl Harbor to unite the US. And in the months--or more likely--years that it would have taken to reach that point, the Brits would have been unable to launch large-scale offensives in Africa, would have been rolled up in Asia (with India under a real threat), and would have been unable to provide much material assistance to the Soviets.
Hitler would have been able to devote far more resources to the attack on the Soviet Union, weakening it considerably--possibly fatally.
655. Indiana Jones - 6/1/2000 9:36:47 AM
Wombat makes me think of one other thing, though, re the British. How much longer could they have held out from German bombings, especially once the V rockets came into play. Suppose the Germans had rockets and maintained their grip on the low countries and northern France with no end in sight.
Even Churchill might have become a little keener about an amphibious assault!
656. PelleNilsson - 6/1/2000 11:48:33 AM
Very interesting discussion.
657. jexster - 6/1/2000 11:48:49 AM
nuclear weapons are excluded.
Raises an interesting point, one I've not thought of. Would the US/GB have dropped an A-bomb on Europeans?
658. Indiana Jones - 6/1/2000 12:07:24 PM
I don't have any doubt they would have. There's an essay by Fussell(?) called something like "Thank God for the Atomic Bomb" that I think addresses the issue of choosing to use the bomb very thoroughly. (There are also rebuttals to it.)
I think it's very difficult decades later to put yourself in the mindset of the people at the time, but IMO the fabric of civilization had been so torn by 1945 that just about any human atrocity was possible. If Truman had a button that would have "disappeared" Germany entirely, there would have been many people fine with his using it.
Look at some of the comments re Serbia on Stone's RIP'd thread.
659. Wombat - 6/1/2000 12:49:34 PM
The British and Americans had no problem killing hundreds of thousands of white people with conventional bombing during World War II. I see no reason to doubt that they would have used a nuke or two on Germany.
660. Indiana Jones - 6/1/2000 1:21:01 PM
Fussell's essay
(PDF)
661. AytchMan - 6/1/2000 1:32:03 PM
Wombat 654--
Under your very plausible scenario, I fall back on that great intangible: American public opinion. As much as we snipe amongst ourselves, hold the great issues at arm's length and steadfastly avoid painful decisions until the last possible moment, I think we would have been reacting to Axis successes. That is, as the Allies declined, it would have taken less and less to scare us into the war. We seem to possess a talent (?) for showing up awfully late at the really big parties; nevertheless, it's always just in time. For various reasons, this national trait has always been misread and misunderstood by the bad guys from the Kaiser to Hitler to Tojo to Saddam.
662. Wombat - 6/1/2000 1:49:35 PM
Aytch:
As long as Britain's short-term survival was not in doubt, I don't see the sentiment rising.
Without the stimulus of a German declaration of war, it would have taken a very far-sighted American public to get past the spectacle of Stalin and Hitler fighting it out, and recognizing that one side is the "good guy."
British, French, and Dutch attempts to get military support against Japan because their colonies were being taken, didn't get much sympathy from Roosevelt in the real war, and would have gotten even less absent Pearl Harbor.
The situation would have presented a self-fulfilling prophesy for the isolationist movement, which had the wind knocked out of its sails by Pearl Harbor. No Pearl Harbor, a continued strong isolationist movement, the eventual discovery of Roosevelt's subterfuges, and a congressional investigation that would have made Watergate or Clintongate look like tempests in teapots.
663. AytchMan - 6/1/2000 2:07:03 PM
jexster 657--
On Germany, unquestionably. On Italy, highly unlikely (not that the issue ever would have come up).
Indy's point in 658 about hindsight is right on although I question whether many would have considered the bomb an atrocity at the time! Since the bomb had never been used, I think a first use was more or less inevitable.
664. AytchMan - 6/1/2000 2:30:36 PM
Wombat--
>>As long as Britain's short-term survival was not in doubt, I don't see the sentiment rising.
I agree although I'd say I don't see the sentiment rising much. In the absence of a mortal threat to Britain, I think I overstated the importance of public opinion. In that case, I can easily see the war going on with us sitting on the sidelines, somewhat oblivious. I would quibble a bit about equating Hitler and Stalin as bad guys. I think that, even in '41, there was still a residual fondness for the Soviets among a substantial number of Americans. Not good guys certainly, perhaps not-so-bad guys. I think it took our wartime dealings with them and the immediate postwar period to completely quash this sentiment.
665. Indiana Jones - 6/1/2000 2:53:32 PM
AytchMan: That is part of my point (that at the time it wouldn't have been considered an atrocity or likely even an eye blink). What I meant about putting oneself in their position is that I don't believe the average American in 1945 would have entertained indecisiveness at all about using the bomb. I think we have an erroneous tendency to invest those from the past with our own sensibilities.
It's like thinking the Conquistidadors lay awake at night wondering whether they were showing proper respect for indigenous cultures.
And BTW, I think Truman made the right call (though I wouldn't want to have something like that on my conscience).
666. AytchMan - 6/1/2000 2:58:30 PM
Indy 655--
Even in the absence of direct American participation, I think the Brits would have held out indefinitely. At least as long as they believed that the Yanks would get there eventually. As painful as both the bombers and V weapons were, they never directly threatened Britain's survival. I think Churchill's rhetoric at the time accurately captured the national mood --"fight on the beaches, in the hills...even if the island or a large part of it were subjugated".
667. AytchMan - 6/1/2000 3:02:25 PM
Indy 665--
Complete and utter karmic agreement.
668. janjon - 6/1/2000 3:06:25 PM
I think there can be little doubt that the Bomb would have been dropped on Berlin. There would have been very little thought given to radioactive dispersion by air in those days and, to the extent so given, it would have been concluded that the easterly wind patterns thus posed no threat to Western Europe/Britain. This decision would have been made even easier if, as would have been probable, made in a context where the ground war was much more of a stalemate than it was. Add to this the distinct possibility that news about the Holocaust would have begun to seep out, which inevitably would have raised hatred of the Germans to even higher levels, and the justification for the Bomb would have been one/two/three (in the context of the mentality of late WWII days).
669. AytchMan - 6/1/2000 3:41:24 PM
janjon--
Agreed. I think the key point is the one made by Indy -- the morality (if that's the right word) was simply light-years different in those days. Does anybody know if a Mote thread ever discussed the morality of dropping the bomb?
On a related issue, the hatred and fear of Germany led to some drastic plans for the reduction of German power. These assumed that Germany would remain united, of course. Most notable was the Morgenthau plan (I think) which practically reduced them to agrarian serfdom. While seriously considered for a time, it never got far in light of the growing Soviet threat.
670. Wombat - 6/1/2000 3:51:35 PM
Aytch:
There have been a number of discussions about the A-bomb and Japan in the old Fray. Check the Fr'Archives.
671. AytchMan - 6/1/2000 3:56:54 PM
Thanks. Will do
672. AytchMan - 6/1/2000 5:57:24 PM
I remember a discussion from way back about the best generals of the war. Who were the five worst generals?
673. Wombat - 6/2/2000 9:35:29 AM
Aytch:
Five is kind of limiting, isn't it?
General Georges (France). Responsible for day to day supervision of the French forces in May-June 1940. Terrified by the Germans, did absolutely nothing.
General Percival (Britain). Lost Singapore even though he had superior numbers and supplies.
Marshal Budenny (Soviet Union). As a front commander, was repeatedly defeated by the Germans, losing hundreds of thousands of men.
General Brereton (USAAF). In spite of a day's warning after Pearl Harbor, and working radar, most of the USAAF Philippines was caught on the ground at Clark Field and destroyed.
Marshal Graziani (Italy): Discovered that fighting the British was much different from slaughtering Ethiopians. Forces under his command were chased out Egypt and most of Libya by an undermanned and underequipped British force. Tens of thousands of prisoners lost.
674. Indiana Jones - 6/2/2000 10:30:38 AM
AytchMan: Since I'm post-Fray, I don't know what's in the archives, but I really do recommend the Fussell essay I linked in post 660 if you've never read it.
Also, here are some other online sources on the subject.
675. jexster - 6/2/2000 2:51:04 PM
Wearing the prestigious gold medal from a yellow ribbon placed around his neck, the president addressed an admiring audience in a sunny courtyard outside the cathedral where the body of Charlemagne, the eighth-century ruler of the Holy Roman Empire, is interred.
I am not disputing the claim that Charlemagne is buried in Aachen but didn't Hitler believe in some myth that he was buried in a mountain near Obersalzburg destined to return in some sort of Second Coming myth????
676. jexster - 6/2/2000 2:56:05 PM
WRT A-bombing Europe you guys are probably right. What we did to Tokyo we did to Dresden with scads less strategic justification and we did spare Kyoto.
What clicked in my mind was the post war and even current concern that Europe would become a battlefield, a nuclear wasteland for superpower disputes.
I suppose that if Hitler and Stalin could have settled their differences thereby making an invasion of Fortress Europe impossible or extremely problematic at best, we probably would have nuked Berlin.
677. AytchMan - 6/2/2000 7:04:36 PM
Indy--
I tried the Fussell link and got what looks like a 3-page study guide. Is there a separate link to the actual essay? What am I missing?
678. AytchMan - 6/2/2000 7:57:06 PM
Wombat--
With the possible exception of Brereton, that's a good list. I agree about his Phillipines performance but didn't he redeem himself later on? I'm not familiar with his career.
Five probably is too limiting since you mentioned a couple I hadn't even considered. Hell, we could probably get five from the French General Staff alone. But if we can get one or two more lists, we can argue about the all-time worst.
My favorites (from worst to...less worst):
1. Volume Discount Pack 1: Gamelin and Weygand (French). Poster boys for paralytic defeatism.
2. Himmler (German). Although he only assumed direct command in the last few months of the war, he was as hopeless as the German cause at that point.
3. Percival.
4. Volume Discount Pack 2: The Kimmel and Short Show (US) at Pearl Harbor. I tend to discount a lot of the later revisionist history that exonerates them. I think they had enough information to alert the fleet and disperse the aircraft.
5. Graziani. Probably the one with the longest career. As you point out, the worst thing that ever happened to him was moving up from Class A ball at Addis Ababa to the bigs.
The only thing that saves Soviet generals (Budenny, Mehklis, Popov and the rest) from my list is that, with the purges and Stalin's idiotic early-war directives, much of the carnage wasn't their fault. Most of them should have been Majors attached to divisional staffs.
679. Indiana Jones - 6/2/2000 9:32:22 PM
Damn, my bad, AytchMan. The computer I was on when I posted the link didn't have Acrobat Reader, and I assumed it was to the actual essay. Since it's still under copyright, maybe it's not on the Web, but if I come across it, I'll post the link.
680. Wombat - 6/5/2000 10:04:41 AM
Aytch:
The story behind Brereton and his subsequent career was that MacArthur felt he couldn't fire him for the Clark Field fiasco because he would demand a court martial, which would doubtless reflect badly on MacArthur's own preparations for war.
Brereton's subsequent career was lackluster.
I am inclined to treat General Short a little better than Kimmel, in that he received and acted on a war warning from Washington. Unfortunately, since he could not imagine hostile action by Japan as anything other than sabotage, the precautions he took made USAAF planes sitting ducks for the air raid.
Budenny was a successful commander in the Russian Civil War. By the time World War II broke out, times had long since passed him by.
On the scale of lower-ranks incompetence: I wonder what the career of Lt. Kermit Tyler was during the rest of World War II. He was the officer in command of the radar post that detected a large force of planes approaching Hawaii from the North. When queried by the radar operators about the "blip," he told them "don't worry about it." They then shut down the radar, and it was not reported up the chain of command. Tyler thought that the blip was a flight of B-17s flying in from the mainland that were scheduled to arrive that day. They did arrive, right in the middle of the attack on Pearl Harbor!
681. Jack Vincennes - 6/5/2000 12:00:52 PM
I noticed the recent discussion of the use of the atom bomb. I recalled an hour long interview given by Charles Sweeney, to Don Imus. I could not find the text, but I did find an interesting New York Post story:
August 7, 1997
REMEMBERING IT LIKE IT WAS
Dennis Duggan
Less than a month after the B-29 he was piloting dropped the atomic bomb on Nagasaki on Aug. 9, 1945 that led to the Japanese surrender in World War II, Gen. Charles Sweeney visited the devastated city and checked into a small country inn on the city's outskirts.
"It crossed my mind that perhaps the better part of valor would be to avoid signing the hotel register," he said yesterday in Manhattan.
But then even Col. Paul Tibbets, pilot of the Enola Gay that had unloaded the first atomic bomb over Hiroshima on Aug. 6 signed his name in a clear hand. So, Sweeney says he wrote "Major Charles W. Sweeney, USAAF" into the hotel book.
"But when I went to bed that night," says Sweeney "I took out the bullets I carried in my map pocket and put a clip into my .45 pistol. Then I hung it over the bedpost a few inches from my head."
And then, says the 77-year-old Bostonian, "I had a good night's sleep."
He is the only American pilot who flew both the Hiroshima and Nagasaki
missions. His plane was about 30 feet from the Enola Gay's right wing when the bomb called Little Boy, dropped out of the bomb bay doors on Aug. 6.
"I watched it falling," he says, "and I thought It's too late now. There are no strings or cables attached. We can't get it back but if it works, it might just end the war.' "
It didn't, though. That same night Tibbets told Sweeney that "if this doesn't work - if the Japanese don't surrender, you are going to command the next mission."
682. Jack Vincennes - 6/5/2000 12:01:20 PM
The Americans had just one bomb left. They felt they had to convince the Japanese they had many more atomic bombs. Sweeney was the last military officer to command an atomic bombing mission.
"I hope there is never going to be another such mission," he says, adding that "I make no apologies for that mission though."
He is a big, barrel-chested man who smokes cigars imported from the Dominican Republic. He is as sharp as a razor's edge and he has written a new book called "War's End," (Avon Books) that has gotten praise from all the right places. I talked to him yesterday in a 14th-floor midtown suite after he had made an hour-long appearance on the Don Imus radio and cable TV show. He is clearly an Imus favorite, which bodes well for the book's sales. One reason is that he tells a significant and historic story calmly and clearly.
Aside from that, he is the father of 10 children and 21 grandchildren. He joined the Army Air Force as a cadet in 1941 and he retired in 1976.
Why did he wait this long to write the book?
"Because I got sick and tired of hearing revisionists blame this country for destroying those two cities in Japan," he says. His anger reached a boiling point in 1995, the 50th anniversary of the two bombings when the Smithsonian Institute presented an exhibit which featured mostly the photographs of wounded and dying Japanese.
"Look, I don't celebrate atomic bombs," he says. "But I want to set the record straight on why we had to drop those two bombs, and I hope they are the last we will ever have to deploy."
683. Jack Vincennes - 6/5/2000 12:01:48 PM
CBS newsman Dan Rather describes Sweeney as a "revisionist historian's
nightmare," and it is easy to see why. Sweeney is clearly a patriot but he is just as clearly not a scoundrel. He was awarded the Silver Star for leading the mission which will have its 52nd anniversary Saturday. He recalls the bombing mission so graphically he could be talking about it as if it happened yesterday.
He says he had no qualms about leading the mission. The Japanese had started the war by bombing Pearl Harbor. Sweeney had seen the awful firefights where thousands of American soldiers were killed in places like Iwo Jima and Okinawa. He was ready to fight but also recalled what Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee had said: "It is good that war is so terrible, or we might grow to like it."
When Sweeney had been accepted into the inner circle of men and women who could be trusted with the atomic bomb secret, he was taken to a remote southwestern desert by a security officer.
"Our new bomb," Sweeney recalls the officer telling him, "will turn a city into this," and picking up a handful of sand and throwing it into the air.
Sweeney was cautioned to talk about the new atomic bomb project to no one but that if he had questions he would be taken to a secure, lead-lined room and briefed there.
Sweeney practiced for his mission dropping concrete-filled bombs over the desert for ballistics tests and when his plane flew from an island in the Pacific called Tinian at 2:45 a.m. the morning of Aug. 9, 1945, he was aware that if he didn't deliver the bomb the war might continue on with more lives lost.
684. Jack Vincennes - 6/5/2000 12:02:17 PM
At 11:15 a.m. on Aug. 9, he unloaded a bomb that caused his plane to shudder and to react violently to the concussions that flowed around it. "My bombardier called out, Chuck, I've got it.' He had seen an opening in the clouds over Nagasaki, a city Sweeney says was often called the "San Francisco of Japan."
"You own it," Sweeney told him.
And so a bomb born in the mind of Albert Einstein and sanctioned for use by President Harry S. Truman, fell through the clouds and exploded with such intensity that Sweeney recalls walking through the city several days later and noticing a fire truck "that had been flattened as if a giant had stepped on a child's toy."
The first bomb on Hirsoshima killed closer to 80,000 people and injured 70,000 others. The bomb that hit Nagasaki killed some 40,000 people and injured the same number, devastating 1.8 square miles.
While I am with him in his Manhattan hotel, Sweeney talked with a radio station in Seattle. When he hangs up the phone he turns to James and Marion Antonucci who co-wrote the book with him. Both are lawyers in Boston and James was a prosecutor there.
"That was a good one," he says.
Sweeney ends our interview telling me about meeting President Truman in the late 1950s. Truman had come up to Boston by train from New York to make a speech. Sweeney says that he had been asked by Cardinal Cushing of Boston to escort the president around the city.
"The train stopped outside Boston where we were waiting with a limousine to take him to his hotel," Sweeney says.
685. Jack Vincennes - 6/5/2000 12:02:40 PM
"Truman sent an aide out to ask me to come into the train. He asked me there if I wanted coffee and then he said to me: I hear you were the man who flew that plane.' "
"I was," said Sweeney. Truman had come under fire for dropping the two atomic bombs.
"Mr. President," said Sweeney to Truman, "you made the right decision."
686. Jack Vincennes - 6/5/2000 12:02:58 PM
And a different view:
January 11, 1998
A HERO'S RECEPTION FOR TRUMAN'S WILLING EXECUTIONER
Philip Nobile
Maurice Papon, a former Vichy functionary, is on trial in Bordeaux for
helping to deport 1,560 Jews to Auschwitz in 1942-44. Meanwhile, a retired U.S. Air Force pilot directly involved in the massacre of 70,000 civilians at Nagasaki is getting a hero's welcome on his book tour.
Last month, Don Imus lavished a hunk of prime simulcast time on former Gen. Charles Sweeney, the 77-year-old co-author of "War's End," a banal memoir from Avon, surprisingly blurbed by Dan Rather. Later the same day, he was cheered at a Borders bookstore in White Plains. This was where I caught up with one of the least wanted criminals of World War II.
(Author's note: Since the concept of Allied atrocities is as popular in the United States as the Rape of Nanking in Japan, let us take a Nuremberg timeout. The Nuremberg Charter, an Allied legal document designed to punish the monsters of the Axis, outlawed "the indiscriminate destruction of cities, towns and villages, and devastation not justified by military necessity." Despite the
Allied terror bombing of German and Japanese cities and the universal moral condemnation of the Bombs of August, it is considered historically perverse in certain British-American circles to impute criminality to our side excepting, of course, to the Soviet Union.
Yet no less an authority than Telford Taylor, a former U.S. Army prosecutor at Nuremberg and later a Columbia Law School professor, has pointed the finger at Gen. Sweeney and his boys. "It is difficult to contest the judgment that Dresden and Nagasaki were war crimes . . . ," Taylor wrote in "Nuremberg and Vietnam." If Robert Oppenheimer, the scientific director of the Manhattan Project, thought that he had blood on his hands, how about the Nagasaki pilot?
End of timeout.)
687. Jack Vincennes - 6/5/2000 12:03:17 PM
Tall, burly and brimming with Boston Irish brio, Sweeney offered no
contrition at his Borders flyby. Instead, he dished out a straight
Japan-made-us-do-it line, explaining that he came out of the cold in the wake of the "Smithsonian fiasco." He was referring to the controversial script that Smithsonian curators had drafted to accompany a 50th anniversary exhibition of the Enola Gay, the B-29 that dropped the first atomic bomb on Hiroshima.
Although the 300-page script exonerated Truman for nuking two defenseless cities without warning, noting that "alternatives were clearer in hindsight," this searching examination of history proved unacceptable to the Washington establishment. Having acquired a copy of the original uncensored script, I arranged for unauthorized publication under the title of "Judgment At The Smithsonian" in 1995. Thus my avid interest in Sweeney's book.
Standing casually at a lectern, the general unashamedly stated his
pro-atrocity position. Japanese leaders were evil, beautiful American boys were dying in droves on Iwo Jima and Okinawa, a land invasion of Japan would be even bloodier, and no surrender was in sight. As he wrote in his foreword, "We had a job to do, a war to end. I never questioned President Truman's decision to use every weapon at his disposal to end the bloody conflict - nor do I now." After this too-abreviated briefing - which omitted Truman's hard-hearted refusal to
alter the terms of surrender, to wait for Stalin's imminent declaration of war or to demonstrate the bomb's apocalyptic power on an uninhabited area of Japan - the author asked the audience for questions.
688. PelleNilsson - 6/5/2000 12:03:28 PM
Wombat --- Message # 662
No Pearl Harbor, a continued strong isolationist movement, the eventual discovery of Roosevelt's subterfuges, and a congressional investigation that would have made Watergate or Clintongate look like tempests in teapots.
What subterfuges were these?
689. Jack Vincennes - 6/5/2000 12:03:38 PM
The general and I had crossed swords before - in August on WBUR, Boston's public radio station. Chris Lydon, host of "The Connection," had invited me to confront Sweeney on his book. (Apparently, Son-of-Sam laws do not apply to war crimes and, to be fair, the general whom Rather called "the best kind of warrior" is only an alleged war criminal.) After hearing him tell Lydon that he did not have "any qualms" about the 70,000 victims, including an estimated 250 Allied POWs, I endeavored to prick his conscience by citing the Catholic
casualties.
In his mad dash to drop the billion-dollar bomb anywhere on Nagasaki, which was shrouded by clouds on Aug. 9, 1945, Sweeney missed his main target by two miles. Instead, he obliterated the packed Catholic suburb of Urakami. He not only destroyed the largest Catholic church in Asia but sent some 30,000 of his co-religionists to their reward. Piling on the guilt, I mentioned Vatican II's fatwa against city-bombing - "a crime against God and man." Yet the general, a
practicing Catholic, was not provoked. After laughing nervously, he replied, "I don't want to listen to anymore, really. I just want to say, Say a prayer for me.' "
Dissatisfied with the general's answer on WBUR, I raised the religious angle once more at Borders. "Do you know how many Catholics you killed in Nagasaki?" I asked when he recognized me.
"No, I don't," the general replied, apparently unperturbed by my bluntness. "But you sound as if you do."
"You killed a quarter of the Catholics in Japan, which was surely a war crime under Nuremberg rules," I remarked.
"Are you saying that Harry Truman was a war criminal?" he riposted, reading my mind.
"General, I'm saying that you are a war criminal."
690. Jack Vincennes - 6/5/2000 12:03:51 PM
Instantly, the crowd turned hostile. Overreacting to the sudden emotion, the Borders woman in charge of the event accused me of disrupting the presentation and had me removed.
To Borders' credit, this un-Jeffersonian rupture of speech was quickly atoned by management, which readmitted me to the Nagasaki party. Borders' politesse contrasted with the usual incivility that greets the case for judging Allied war crimes. Smithsonian officials banned me from the press conference at the opening of the Stalinesque Enola Gay exhibit in 1995, lest I pose an impolitic query. Lydon promised an hour with Gen. Sweeney on WBUR, but he disconnected me after five minutes.
Nobel Peace Laureate Shimon Peres, who knew one or two things about crimes against humanity, spoke of two World War II holocausts - "the Jewish holocaust and the Japanese holocaust." The perpetrators of the former are proper game for prosecutors and historians, but Truman's willing executioners, like Gen. Sweeney, are wrapped in impious patriotism and surrounded by a bodyguard of lies.
691. PelleNilsson - 6/5/2000 12:12:05 PM
This Philip Nobile sounds like a cheap shot. And what does it matter if Catholics rather than others died?
692. Wombat - 6/5/2000 12:13:05 PM
Is Nobile sure that Peres was not referring to what the Japanese did in their conquered territories?
Pelle:
One of the subterfuges that I am familiar with was to tow aircraft to the Canadian border and leave them there for Canadian personnel to cross over and pull into Canada. That way the US could not--technically--be accused of violating the Neutrality Act by transferring weapons to a belligerent.
693. PelleNilsson - 6/5/2000 12:29:12 PM
Wombat
Do you remember Ranheim and AlDavis, two very conservative gentlemen who used to post in the Mote? They advanced the notion that Roosewelt used any excuse to get into the war to help "his pal Joe Stalin", even going as far as accusing FDR of setting up Pearl Harbour.
694. Wombat - 6/5/2000 12:50:57 PM
Pelle:
Of course I remember. Roosevelt was trying very hard to involve the United States...against the Germans, and it was to help his pal Churchill. In the year leading up to December 1941, the United States occupied Greenland and Iceland, instituted Lend-Lease, escorted arms convoys half-way across the Atlantic, declared a "shoot-on-sight" policy over much of the North Atlantic, and swapped destroyers for British bases.
The US also transferred modern weapons (after labeling them "obsolete") to Britain. This came at the expense of modernizing the rapidly-expanding US Army, and would have certainly been a major scandal had not Pearl Harbor been attacked.
The one action that Roosevelt haters and conspiracy theorists claim as the catalyst for the Japanese move against the US was the extention of the US trade embargo to include oil. This presupposes that the Japanese had no aggressive intentions beforehand, which is arrant nonsense.
695. janjon - 6/5/2000 3:33:49 PM
Not that I would expect him to hit the bottom five or ten list (the number of worthy candidates is ample), but I would be curious to learn what the various gentlemen (making an assumption as to gender, not as to demeanor) who post here think about Montgomery.
696. stostosto - 6/5/2000 6:57:29 PM
Montgomery is a hero in Denmark. Not only did the Germans here surrender to him, he visited Copenhagen after the liberation and paraded through Copenhagen hailed by the wildly cheering masses.
And not only that, he also, thoroughly cementing his place in the pantheon of people known by Danes for through-and-through goodness, declared to us, in public, that the Danish resistance - listen now, carefully - had been, and I quote: "Second to none!" These words were repeated over and over and prominently inscribed into the official, and unofficial, Dansih recording of events during WWII. Probably, I imagine, as much to convince ourselves of our respectability as anyone else. And in many cases, I further dare to assume, on a very personal level.
There was a Danish resistance, people who daringly risked their lives, and with a high casualty rate indeed, in order to put sand in the German war machine for all they were worth. But even if they had the unquestioned backing of 97% of the population (meaning opportunities for shelter and hiding, etc.), they were not many, by no means. And before August 1943, there were almost none. The Danish politicians, remember, had resolved to appease the Germans, stay in power and keep the administration on Danish hands. The Germans were satisfied with the smooth running of things, and the Danes got a mild treatment, possibly uniquely mild among the German-occupied countries.
Until August 1943, the Danish politicians officially and harshly condemned all anti-German activities, and the Danish police zealously persecuted the few perpetrators, notably communists who were effectively rounded up and put in a prison camp on June 22nd 1941.
697. stostosto - 6/5/2000 6:58:39 PM
After 1943, the resistance gained momentum, and by 1945 there was enough of them that some of them had a sense of being in charge of the country. There was a large circulation of partly home-made hand guns and so-called stenguns, and there was a spiralling lawlessness towards the end, so that in some cases it was hard to distinguish patriotic resistance from outright criminals.
But Montgomery presented a straw of approval which was much appreciated, even cherished, and duely placed in the national shrine of True Danish History for several generations to behold. Until the events became distant enough that young historians start looking with more critical - and critisised - eyes on these dark years.
698. stostosto - 6/5/2000 7:16:40 PM
Field Marshal Bernard Law Mongomery.
Incidentally, the photo is from a piece portraying Montgomery as a certified racist.
Montgomery's racist plan for Africa
699. Indiana Jones - 6/5/2000 9:39:12 PM
Regarding Jack's posts, here was one link I thought particularly interesting at the resource I posted upthread: Interview with Leo Szilard, scientist who helped develop but opposed use of the bomb. This comment is especially apropos Nuremberg:
"Let me say only this much to the moral issue involved: Suppose Germany had developed two bombs before we
had any bombs. And suppose Germany had dropped one bomb, say, on Rochester and the other on Buffalo, and
then having run out of bombs she would have lost the war. Can anyone doubt that we would then have defined the
dropping of atomic bombs on cities as a war crime, and that we would have sentenced the Germans who were
guilty of this crime to death at Nuremberg and hanged them?"
"But, again, don't misunderstand me. The only conclusion we can draw is that governments acting in a crisis are
guided by questions of expediency, and moral considerations are given very little weight, and that America is no
different from any other nation in this respect."
700. AytchMan - 6/5/2000 9:39:30 PM
JV--
Two very interesting stories. Do you know the origin of Philip Nobile's account? That is, is it a story from a newpaper or from a book written by Nobile? I agree with Pelle that it's a very prejudiced version. While a reasonable argument can be made against the use of the bombs, I don't think we'll ever hear it from Nobile.
701. AytchMan - 6/5/2000 9:52:48 PM
janjon--
I'd rate Monty as average overall. But that's sort of like saying you're standing in water of average temperature when one foot's in boiling water and the other's freezing.
I think Monty was a superb organizer and administrator, he fought set-piece battles brilliantly (when he could get them) and his men respected and admired him. But he couldn't improvise, he was inordinately cautious unless he was perfectly prepared and his monumental ego cost him dearly in his interactions with senior commanders both British and US.
702. Indiana Jones - 6/5/2000 9:52:58 PM
Of course history is written by the victors. Moreover, 70,000 people destroyed in a second is, as I said earlier, nothing I would want on my conscience, but nonetheless a miniscule fraction compared with the total loss of human life in the war...both combatants and civilian.
To me the more questionable position was the self-righteousness of Nuremberg, and especially the hunting down of war criminals fifty years after the fact. Should these people "get away with it"? I don't know in every case...an 18 year old concentration camp guard who might have taken advantage of the power of his situation to kick some of his prisoners but later on leads a model life for five decades? Should he still be punished? Beats me.
Should Himmler and Goering and that bunch have walked? Hell no!
Just because we're not always sure of right and wrong and make mistakes, that doesn't mean we have to wring our hands and let the bad guys slide.
"The best lack all conviction while the worst are filled with passionate intensity."
703. AytchMan - 6/5/2000 10:01:43 PM
Indy--
Szilard sums up the dilemma very well. I'd never thought of it that way before. Having said that, I'd still have dropped at least the first one. I guess I'd classify it as a necessary evil.
704. Indiana Jones - 6/5/2000 10:10:44 PM
AytchMan: I think we see eye-to-eye on this. And IMO Nobile is a cretin.
705. AytchMan - 6/5/2000 10:20:30 PM
Indy--
Do you know anything about Nobile or are you just basing it on JV's item? I'm wondering if he's American or French.
706. Indiana Jones - 6/5/2000 11:48:56 PM
AytchMan: Just basing it on JV's item. Nobile's questions don't seem particularly thought-provoking--just harassing--and his belief that he's "crossing swords" with an old man on a book tour...Chris Hitchens-Roger Moore "journalism" at its worst.
707. Indiana Jones - 6/5/2000 11:49:35 PM
Ha-ha. Roger Moore should be Michael Moore, but I sort of like it as it stands.
708. Jack Vincennes - 6/6/2000 11:19:08 AM
The "war crime" aspect of the dropping of nuclear weapons on the civilian populations of Nagasaki and Hiroshima misses the mark, and to a certain degree, so does the discussion in the thread. You cannot separate the decision from the decisionmaker, though modern historical analysis strives for this inadequate approach. The result is as follows:
1) One group labels the act, no matter the actor, a war crime. Killing civilians in mass bombing is a war crime. Curtis LeMay is kin to Himmler. Dresden is family to Treblinka.
2) One group differentiates without reference to morality or cause, "We saved lives by doing this act." The problem with this is, in all likelihood, had Germany dropped atomic weapons in 1942 (were they available), when all was said and done, lives probably would have been saved given the expected quick capitulation of those nations in mortal fear. Saving lives in a vaccuum is meaningless.
3) This is the only viable alternative. We were right in cause, and when right in cause, you can make no. 2 work properly.
We dropped bombs on Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Tokyo (see the introduction to "The Soul of Battle" for an interesting assessment of those jellied-gasoline raids) because the Japanese were wrong in cause and it saved not just lives, but the more precious lives of just Americans.
709. DocBrown - 6/6/2000 11:25:27 AM
Indeed, Jack Vincennes, the "right in cause" argument is the only thing that prevents almost every moment of every war from being some sort of war crime. Unless the victor considers itself right in cause every shot fired in every battle might be called into question.
This was a problem for the United States in both Korea and Viet Nam.
710. PelleNilsson - 6/6/2000 2:13:33 PM
Mr Vincennes
.... misses the mark, and to a certain degree, so does the discussion in the thread.
Eight out of ten on the pompousity scale. Well done.
711. jexster - 6/6/2000 2:24:50 PM
Pelle - should we be offended?
712. jexster - 6/6/2000 2:26:16 PM
June 6, 1962...a young jexster steps off Air France flight at Orly from Idlewild.
"Layfayette, je suis ici!!!"
Happy D-day!
713. jexster - 6/6/2000 2:27:10 PM
"Lafayette"...the young man had spelling problems
714. PelleNilsson - 6/6/2000 2:29:57 PM
jexster
Not offended, maybe ... amused in a sort of superior
715. PelleNilsson - 6/6/2000 2:32:10 PM
superior way.
716. Jack Vincennes - 6/6/2000 2:35:01 PM
Jexster, Pelle
No need to apology. Just strive for better.
Indy
The Szilard interview gave me great belly laughs. This in particular:
"A It is easy to see, at least in retrospect, how an effective demonstration could have been staged. We could have communicated with Japan through regular diplomatic channels - say, through Switzerland - and explained to the Japanese that we didn't want to kill anybody, and therefore proposed that one city - say, Hiroshima - be evacuated. Then one single bomber would come and drop one single bomb.
But again, I don't believe this staging a demonstration was the real issue, and in a sense it is just as immoral to force a sudden ending of a war by threatening violence as by using violence. My point is that violence would not have been necessary if we had been willing to negotiate. After all, Japan was suing for peace."
717. Indiana Jones - 6/6/2000 2:48:39 PM
Jack: There are several good guffaws there, alright, but what do you expect when an egghead discusses policy? At least two and maybe three inanities:
Japan's cooperative evacuation of a city so we can demonstrate the effectiveness of a new weapon we've developed. Moreover, they'll let a single plan with this weapon fly in unmolested and deliver it.
"It is just as immoral to force a sudden ending of a war by threatening violence as by using violence." (What's presumably moral is to stick to old-style WWI wars, in which neither side can force the other to quit.)
I've never heard that the Japanese were already "suing for peace." If someone has some primary source links, I'd like to see them.
718. Jack Vincennes - 6/6/2000 3:51:35 PM
"May I have your attention. Everybody, please vacate your homes. In two days, we will be dropping a weapon of such awesome destruction that it will make our recent firebombing of your asses with jellied gasoline pale in comprison. This has been an announcement from the United States Government. Thank you for your cooperation."
719. Ronski - 6/6/2000 4:08:11 PM
Well, that would have gotten my attention.
720. janjon - 6/6/2000 4:13:34 PM
The Government probably would have put up blockades, arrested (at the least) those weak, panicked, unpatriotic people trying to leave, and called us bluffing infidels.
721. Wombat - 6/6/2000 4:34:06 PM
I believe elements in the Japanese government (Marquis Kido) were making back-channel attempts to determine what it would take to end the war on terms other than unconditional surrender. I very much doubt that these approaches were sanctioned by the military, who were in de facto control (barring direct intervention by the Emperor). The only thing approaching a concession that Kido received was that the Emperor might not be held responsible for Japan's entry into the war. (This assurance was made more explicit after Japan surrendered.)
It is instructive to note that even after the two bombs were dropped, and the Emperor had intervened and ordered the Japanese military to surrender, elements of the military (a new generation of fanatical junior officers, supported by an equally fanatical clique in the high command) attempted to prevent the Emperor from recording his surrender message, and attempted to assassinate cabinet members who they supsected of supporting an end to the war. The coup was halted by the War Minister, General Anami, who after strenuous arguments, ordered the participants to obey the Emperor. Anami committed seppuku shortly thereafter.
722. AytchMan - 6/6/2000 4:36:01 PM
Let me see if I can sum this up. Consider the following slightly oversimplified assumptions:
1. Some people (probably including Nobile) believe that the use of "terroristic" weapons (for lack of a better phrase) such as the bomb is immoral and worthy of condemnation regardless of circumstance.
2. Some people (including myself) believe that the use of such weapons is moral in certain very restricted circumstances. We also consider them to be a necessary evil and agonize over their use even as we use them.
3. Some people believe that the rightness of a cause justifies the use of virtually any weapon. They sleep well at night and are untroubled by their use.
If we construct a morality scale from 0 to 10, my guess is that the above positions come in around 0, 7 and 10, respectively. Where do you place yourself on the scale? Where should the US government have been in 1945? Where should the US government be today?
723. janjon - 6/6/2000 4:41:54 PM
7 7 7
724. AytchMan - 6/6/2000 4:42:50 PM
sto--
Just a wry observation on Monty's remarks to the Danish people: His statement of "second to none" could be interpreted as meaning next to last.
Just kidding. Hey, It's Just A Joke.
725. janjon - 6/6/2000 4:43:23 PM
with the emphasis on restricted circumstances. Very restricted. In fact, today, probably so restricted and hypothetical as to push me to a 0.
726. janjon - 6/6/2000 4:44:43 PM
Aytch - I was going to make a comment to sto along the lines that, well it was just another example of Monty's occasional great lapses in judgment, but thought better of it.
727. CalGal - 6/6/2000 4:46:36 PM
Aytch,
I'm more of a 10, actually, except I don't think that "rightness of a cause" matters much. Once in a war, you do what you need to to win. I see no other way for a government (as opposed to individuals) to behave.
That's different from atrocities that aren't necessary (raping women, killing people who have surrendered rather than imprison, etc).
728. AytchMan - 6/6/2000 4:47:46 PM
janjon--
3Ha!
729. stostosto - 6/6/2000 4:51:56 PM
Oh, come on. I can take it. If for nothing else, I was born 19 years after the war ended. But the elder generation has some qualms. I witnessed many times my father (born 1944) holding my grandmother - somewhat unfairly, the poor woman - personally responsible for the poor and shameful Danish showing during that war. She emphatically denied that they should or could have acted differently.
I remember one time he harrassed her so much she burst into tears. But that, I suppose, had as much to do with a strange mother-son relationship as with anything else.
730. Wombat - 6/6/2000 4:55:28 PM
Those who condemn the immorality of Allied terror bombing should remember that the Allies did not initiate terror attacks on civilian targets. The Allies did not commit deliberate mass atrocities against religious or ethnic groups (or subjugated populations, in the case of Japan). Well the Soviets did, but after what they went through at the hands of the Germans, I find it hard to blame them...too much.
Does anyone here doubt that the Germans or the Japanese would have used such weapons against the Allies if they had been able to produce them?
For the present, I cannot envision any circumstances in which the United States should use nuclear weapons (since the collapse of the Soviet Union rendered MAD moot).
731. CalGal - 6/6/2000 4:58:03 PM
Oh, in the case of nuclear weapons, it's easy. I can't think of any situation that we would use them and be able to declare the results a win. Therefore, I can't see myself ever buying off. My objections wouldn't be moral, but pragmatic.
732. janjon - 6/6/2000 4:58:12 PM
sto - before I read your last paragraph of 729, I found myself thinking Wow, what kind of mother-son relationship would THAT one have been. That is such a guilt trip being laid on that it is laughable. Unless your Grandmother was the Queen.
733. AytchMan - 6/6/2000 5:01:41 PM
CG--
If you say you're a 10 (more or less), what would you have done in the Korean War IF you had received ultra-reliable intelligence that the Chinese would not intervene under any circumstances. Would you have used everything in the arsenal? Nukes, chemical weapons, biological weapons, deliberate bombing of purely civilian targets?
734. janjon - 6/6/2000 5:01:58 PM
let me get this straight - use of nuclear weapons would not result in a situation where we would not be able to consider the result a victory. But not because of the morality involved due I assume to the widespread horrible immediate and secondary effects of using nukes, but for other pragmatic reasons. What pragmatic reasons.
735. janjon - 6/6/2000 5:04:03 PM
scratch the second not in the first sentence. It should read "let me get this straight - use of nuclear weapons would not result in a situation where we would be able to consider the result a victory."
736. Wombat - 6/6/2000 5:05:34 PM
Montgomery was not as good a general as he thought he was, but, considering the overall quality of British generals in the war, he was pretty damned good. His personality was such that only "Vinegar Joe" Stilwell could rival him for unpleasantness. Had he been more emollient, he would have been as well-liked as Lord Alexander of Tunis, who was not his equal as a strategist or a tactitian.
Incidentally, after Montgomery had antagonized Eisenhower once too often, and the latter had demanded that he be fired, Montgomery remarked to his chief of staff that Eisenhower could not fire him because there was no British commander of his stature that the British government would accept. His chief of staff replied that Eisenhower had requested that Alexander take over for Montgomery. Monty's apology went to Eisenhower immediately thereafter.
737. AytchMan - 6/6/2000 5:10:02 PM
janjon--
>>with the emphasis on restricted circumstances. Very restricted. In fact, today, probably so restricted and hypothetical as to push me to a 0.
I think the US's current status as uncontested big kid on the block probably compresses the scale such that 0 is very close to 7. A rather unusual historical circumstance, possibly unique.
738. janjon - 6/6/2000 5:12:27 PM
aitch - without getting chauvinistic about it, a unique circumstance that I hope continues ad infinitum.
739. CalGal - 6/6/2000 5:20:50 PM
Aytch,
"Doing what you need to win" would mean just that. I would need to know more about the specifics to say what I thought that would be in any given circumstance. If the >only way to get out without a prolonged engagement was nuclear bombing and (unlikely) there would never be any risk of escalation, then I might support it. I find that situation unlikely, though.
I'll use a hypothetical based on something I'm (only marginally) more familiar with: the Kosovo bombings. Suppose we deemed it utterly necessary that we "win" and suppose we determined that the massive support demonstrations that took place in the country (standing outside, daring us to bomb them) were causing the war to be prolonged. Military experts said that we could shorten the fight and reduce our own losses considerably if we caused the civilians some serious pain and caused them to feel the heat. The best way to do this, military experts say, is to bomb the civilians directly. No other option will be anywhere near as effective and would prolong the war, casualties, costs, etc.
Boom. Do it, as far as I'm concerned.
So if you give me a hypothetical and the military assessments, I can tell you what I'd probably do, if that helps. I would never support deliberate overkill, but I accept that sometimes the best assessments can be wrong. Provided that you go in with only an end to the war in mind and no dishonesty, I accept outcomes as they fall.
I should throw this in as well: I am very much the isolationist, and think most wars/conflicts are idiotic in the extreme. So my approach is, given that it is all nonsense, fight to win and get the fuck out.
740. AytchMan - 6/6/2000 6:11:36 PM
To clarify the Korean example: The war had see-sawed back and forth wildly for a year. Finally, the front had stabilized near the starting line and everybody settled down to trench warfare. In the next two years, the US would suffer tens of thousands of casualties (as could easily be forecast). The US government wanted to win very badly. The American people were not overly enthusiastic about the war but wanted to win given the fact that we were in it. With essentially no risk since the only real danger (the Chinese) has been eliminated from the hypothetical, it seems clear to me that this is the perfect situation for a 10 to throw everything in. No trick questions here, I'm just trying to understand the position of a self-described 9.8. Release the hounds?
741. CalGal - 6/6/2000 6:18:07 PM
Aytch,
Yes. This is the sort of situation that I can't even see any rationale for being there in the first place--but once there, get the hell out.
I would do whatever was needed to get us out as cleanly and quickly as possible--with the minimum loss of life on both sides (even if that meant civilians). For example, if they said, "Nothing but a nuclear detonation will get us out. Anything less is just a waste of time and will actually cost more of everyone's lives"--then go straight to that. If they said, "We're having too much problem with civilian resistance--we'll be in a better position to end this quickly without nuclear arms if we bomb the shit out of three cities," then do that. And so on.
742. CalGal - 6/6/2000 6:25:07 PM
I apologize for the TV reference here, but there was an early episode of The West Wing in which the President angrily told his military advisers after a plane was destroyed that he wanted to knock the shit out of the country that did it--not spank them. He then got all gray and backed down when told what that would mean, and deferred to the advisers recommendation to provide a "proportional response" (three hangars and two runways, or something like that).
I always thought this was rather silly. Let's be a giant and play fair--thumb wrestle with the Lilliputians. No, if someone thinks they can fuck with you, strike back much harder and make them dearly regret it. And let there be no joy in the doing, either. Just a simple intolerance for idiots who misunderstand forbearance.
The argument I would accept in return would not be moral ("eek! We can't use our power in anger!") but pragmatic ("Hey, it'll make all the other countries very nervous and you'll spend all your time in meetings reassuring the Europeans.").
Incidentally, it occurs to me that this might be a subject for future war? I don't know if SheRex had it in mind, but if moving it is appropriate that's fine by me.
743. AytchMan - 6/6/2000 6:25:21 PM
CG--
Thanks, now I understand. Being a 7 myself, I would have taken a different route but I appreciate your explanation.
744. AytchMan - 6/6/2000 6:27:16 PM
CG--
743 referred to the nukes over Korea. I'm now coggin' on the West Wing item.
745. CalGal - 6/6/2000 6:28:43 PM
I knew which you were referring to, no prob.
746. AytchMan - 6/6/2000 6:35:16 PM
CG--
West Wing episode -- "I always thought this was rather silly."
I completely agree in this area. I think that, as a general policy, disproportionate response is the way to go. As always, there are exceptions. But, if they bend your finger back, don't bend their finger, break a kneecap.
I did see the episode and remember shaking my head when the Prez knuckled under.
747. AytchMan - 6/6/2000 8:01:19 PM
Another Subjective Question.
The Nazi era lasted from 1933 to 1945. How honorably did the major non-Axis players conduct themselves throughout this period? Honor is herein defined as a combination of the individual trait of honor (not lying, cheating or stealing) as applied to nations plus the classic standards of national honor (whatever that means exactly -- your choice). As a benchmark, Germany's conduct was horrendous (endless deceit, broken treaties, atrocities, ultimatums, aggressive war, the Holocaust, selling out allies, you name it). Assign a letter grade (A-F) to the following countries:
Belgium
Britain
Denmark
Finland
France
Norway
Poland
Soviet Union
Spain
Sweden
US
Please post in white. With a worldwide contingent, I'd like to see how far some of the rankings diverge. Remember to consider the entire period from 1933-45. I'll post shortly.
748. AytchMan - 6/6/2000 9:40:48 PM
National Grades:
Belgium -- C-. Fearing Germans, refused to coordinate defenses with Allies, folded up tents early in May 1940. At least they were on the right side.
Britain -- B+. Dreadfully shortsighted in the 30's but rallied Europe. Supported every ally even when it hurt. Churchill Man of the Century.
Denmark -- C. Couldn't do much, didn't do much.
Finland -- B-. Humiliated the Red Army but picked the wrong side.
France -- D-. From the appeasement of the 30's to the defeatism of 1940 to the widespread collaboration under the occupation, a pretty sorry record.
Norway -- A-. Refused to knuckle under, went down fighting. Small but active resistance. But they did coin the term 'Quisling'.
Poland -- B+. Profited from Germany's pre-war dismemberment of neighbors but drew the line in the sand, went down fighting, active resistance, many fought for Soviets and in the West.
Soviet Union -- F+. Not much better than the Germans in many ways but they fought magnificently.
Spain -- D. Sat it out but they were wrung out from the Civil War. Favored Axis, provided bases.
Sweden -- C--. Sat it out, traded with the Germans, slowly relented under intense Allied pressure as the tide turned.
US -- B-. Isolationism, foot-dragging on accepting refugees but foresight by Roosevelt, wholehearted prosecution of the war, LendLease, leader of the good guys. Saved the world for Britney Spears.
Done.
749. iiibbb - 6/6/2000 9:53:45 PM
I think there are two important things to consider about morality the Americans dropping the bombs on Japan.
First, we didn't _ask_ for the war (although theories abound about what FDR knew and when). I do honestly believe that a conventional invasion of Japan would have been far more costly in human life.
Be that as it may, Germany and JApan were intent on world conquest. I don't believe for an instant that Hitler planned to stop... or if he did, once he had secured enough power, he would have eventually turned on North and South America as well. So our mission was to end it, with any and all means at our disposal. That was our sole responsibility in the war, not to worry about the morality of the method... particularly when fighting for what was a clearly just cause as WWII was.
A second, and more subtle consideration, is that we are fortunate that we were able to learn what horrible weapons nuclear bombs are while the technology was in its infancy. If we had not dropped the bomb, then I think it is entirely likely it would have been used by some country eventually in a later war with far more devestating effects; Korea or the Cuban crisis comes to mind. By that time the technology had grown to the point where far more horrible scenarios could have evolved. Admittedly some in our own military fully thought that a nuclear war was winable, and without Hiroshima, the counterview may not have been strong enough to resist.
From that standpoint I think it was good that we used the bomb.
750. AytchMan - 6/6/2000 10:16:25 PM
iiibbb--
>>From that standpoint I think it was good that we used the bomb.
Do you literally mean 'good' or rather something along the lines of 'the right decision'?
At any rate, at the risk of an electronic bop on the head from somebody or other, I'd say that most of the posters on this thread are in rough agreement.
I'm trying to get the morality issue picked up over in the Future War thread. You might want to check that out. We're kinda hitting around it over there.
751. iiibbb - 6/6/2000 10:16:54 PM
Belgium - C - Granted, they were stuck in the middle, but they didn't seem to care much for either side.
Britain - A minus -Never gave up, but their pandering to the Nazi's early in the war smacks of how we treat China now. Should have stood up taller, earlier.
Denmark -Incomplete - Did they attend?
Finland - B - Really didn't want to be on either side. The only reason they picked the Germans was to regain territory lost to the Russians. Once they had reacquired this territory, they refused to advance the German cause. Only nation that paid off its war debts.
France - D - Very poor planners. Brown noses to the German occupation. Fair weather allies.
Norway - B+ - Never quit
Poland - I - Out sick due to german measels. They never had a chance. Resisted Germany early on… truthfully, I don't know much about Poland.
Soviet Union - C - They get a B because they Kept the Nazi's from bringing their full effort to the West. Without their efforts the Western front would have been too difficult to overcome, the nazi's would have had time to developed their myriad of super-weapons, and potentially turned the tides of war. However, they get a D since Stalin was virtually as bad as the Nazis as far as genocide goes.
Spain - F - F is for fascist.
Sweden - C minus - At least they weren't the French.
US - A - Face it, we basically supplied virtually everyone, we liberated everyone, we rebuilt virtually everyone. We may have been slow to get into the war, but at first we had the lowest stake and there was a chance that Europe would have worked it out themselves. However, the US sacrificed quite a lot for the sake of many other nations.
752. iiibbb - 6/6/2000 10:23:58 PM
I mean 'good' as in 'better then than later' because I think if it had not been used then, the stigma associated with the bomb would not have prevented its use later. It didn't take long for the technology to advanced beyond its infancy and far more horrible weapons could have been used in Korea, or Cuba... and without the knowledge of the magintude of these weapons destructive power from the world's experience with Hiroshima and Nagasaki, those that held the belief that a nuclear war was winable may very well have prevailed with that opinion.
That's what I mean by 'good'.
753. AytchMan - 6/6/2000 10:56:03 PM
iiibbb--
I just reread your original post and I think you explained it just fine the first time. Sorry about that.
You raise an interesting issue with your second reason. What are the implications of this for all new technologies? Use them at the first reasonable opportunity to evaluate them? I don't think you're advocating this, I'm just asking an open question.
You may want to reply in Future War since I think it's more appropriate there. Let's let SheRex worry about it.
754. iiibbb - 6/6/2000 10:59:14 PM
I will post response to that specific question 753 in Future War...
755. Wombat - 6/7/2000 10:21:53 AM
Belgium: D Refused to cooperate with Britain and France before 1940. Surrendered prematurely. Elements of Flemish and Walloon communities collaborated, formed SS units. Resistance became active.
Britain: B- Appeased Germany 1936-39. A more forceful stance with France in re the Rhineland could have ended Hitler's career. Fought well.
Denmark: B Unprepared, overwhelmed. Active, effective resistance. Some collaboration.
Finland: B One lucky country! Fought Soviet Union, allied with Germany (but fought Germany at the end). Survived as independent state.
France: C- Prewar governments were actively anti-German. Constrained not to act during Rhineland, Sudeten crises because of lukewarm British support. Succumbed to defeatism. Fought poorly in 1940, redeemed by Free French, post 1942 military. Much resistance, much collaboration.
Norway: C Quisling was Defense Minister in prewar government. Extremely poorly prepared. Elements fought well during German invasion. Active resistance movement.
Poland: C+ Prewar government appeased Germany, seized territory from neighbors. Fought hard, active resistance.
Soviet Union: F Hitler's ally 1939-41. Subverted Allies 1939-41. Unreliable ally. Fought hard (once betrayed by Hitler). Inflicted and took massive losses.
Spain: C- Maintained neutrality. Made concessions to Germans, Allies, depending on who was winning. Permitted recruitment of forces to fight against Soviet Union.
Sweden: C Maintained neutrality. Made concessions to Germans, Allies, depending on who was winning. Permitted German troops to transit Swedish territory. Active on the humanitarian front.
US: A- Nation divided until Pearl Harbor, policy reflected this division. Led anti-Axis effort, once in.
756. stostosto - 6/7/2000 5:13:32 PM
Intriguing poll, Aytchman! These are my opinions - before having looked on the others. And without ever having given the subject much thought - and my opinions are not very educated, anyway. (How about Switzerland, by the way? Holland? Czechoslovakia? Hungary? Romania? Bulgaria? Yugoslavia? Greece?)
Belgium ?
Britain: A
Denmark: D
Finland: B
France: E
Norway: A
Poland: C
Soviet Union: B
Spain: F
Sweden: D
US: A
Done.
757. stostosto - 6/7/2000 5:42:00 PM
Re: The Soviet Union and honor: You gotta give the Soviets a huge credit for having faced and beaten Hitler's ultimate, savage and highly devoted aggression on the eastern front, wasting perhaps 20 million Soviet people in the process. That stands out as the most monumental raw effort of the war, even if Stalin must take some blame for recklessly destroying the Soviet army's organisation on the eve of the war, thus possibly raising the cost in lives unnecessarily. And they can't have an A because of their non-aggression pact, division of Poland, and their annectation of the Baltic countries and Karelia.
758. Wombat - 6/7/2000 5:42:46 PM
Switzerland: D+ Neutral. Made concessions to Germany, Allies, depending on who was winning. Permitted transhipment of war equipment to Italy from Germany. Accused of laundering Jewish assets seized by Nazis. Served as conduit for communications between Allies/Germans.
Holland: C+ Badly prepared, fought hard. Active resistance, some collaboration.
Czechoslovakia: No Grade, No chance. Once the Sudetenland was gone, they were defenseless.
Hungary: D+ German Ally. Fought half-heartedly, attempted to back out in 1944. Germans staged coup, kept Hungary in the war.
Romania: C- German Ally. Fought badly, changed sides in 1944, didn't do much better.
Bulgaria: D+ Neutral. Collaborated with Germany. Permitted German forces to use its territory. Declared war on Germany after Soviet invasion.
Yugoslavia: C+ Poorly prepared, fought poorly when invaded. Extremely effective resistance marred by civil war, collaboration.
Greece: B Might have avoided war had not Italy invaded. Repulsed Italian invasion, counterattacked into Albania. Poorly equipped forces overwhelmed by Germany. Effective resistance marred by internecine strife.
Turkey: B- Neutral. Leaned toward the Allies.
Ireland: B- Neutral. No matter what the Brits say, Ireland leaned toward Allies.
759. AytchMan - 6/7/2000 9:29:15 PM
Thanks for the responses so far. Let's keep it in white for one more day so maybe we can get one or two more. By the way, I held it down to ten or twelve to keep it manageable; the additions are all good choices. Although it's been discussed before, how does the Vatican rate?
760. AytchMan - 6/8/2000 1:32:53 PM
National Grades:
...............iiibbb...wombat...stostosto...aytchman
Belgium.........C.........D..........?...........C-
Britain..........A-........B-.........A...........B+
Denmark........I.........B..........D...........C
Finland..........B.........B..........B...........B-
France..........D.........C-.........E...........D-
Norway.........B+........C..........A...........A-
Poland...........I.........C+.........C...........B+
Soviet Union..C.........F..........B...........F+
Spain............F.........C-.........F...........D
Sweden.........C-........C..........D...........C--
US...............A.........A-.........A...........B-
Sorry about the alignment. With a couple of glaring exceptions (the B/D on Denmark, the A/C on Norway, the B/F on the Soviets (!), and maybe the A/B- on the US), the grades are pretty close. Interesting stuff.
761. Indiana Jones - 6/8/2000 1:42:45 PM
I agree with the general consensus, siding with those who rate the U.S. more highly and the Soviet Union less so. In addition to Stalin (IMO every bit as bad as Hitler), the conduct of Soviet soldiers also left something to be desired in many cases.
762. CalGal - 6/8/2000 1:56:56 PM
| Country | iiibbb | wombat | sto | aytch |
| Belgium | C | D | ? | C- |
| Britain | A- | B- | A | B+ |
| Denmark | I | B | D | C |
| Finland | B | B | B | B- |
| France | D | C- | E | D- |
| Norway | B+ | C | A | A- |
| Poland | I | C+ | C | B+ |
| Soviet Union | C | F | B | F+ |
| Spain | F | C- | F | D |
| Sweden | C- | C | D | C-- |
| US | A | A- | A | B- |
763. stostosto - 6/8/2000 4:19:18 PM
Cal, you show-off you!
764. CalGal - 6/8/2000 4:56:59 PM
I'm sorry, I didn't mean to show off. I thought it'd be easier to read, and that Aytch could copy it if he got more responses.
765. stostosto - 6/9/2000 4:06:53 AM
Sure, you didn't mean to show off. Uh-huh.
766. AytchMan - 6/13/2000 2:06:39 PM
With the lazy summer months stretching out before us, would anybody be interested in some sort of a wargame tournament? I'd be happy to moderate as required.
767. Indiana Jones - 6/13/2000 2:22:23 PM
AytchMan: What's your poison?
768. AytchMan - 6/13/2000 2:34:02 PM
Well, there are a couple of possibilities. For PBEM, I think the best choice is Operational Art of War. There are various versions available but the WW2 version is most relevant here. For those who don't have it, it's under $25 these days.
For online, Close Combat 3 and 4 are excellent real-time tactical sims.
769. PelleNilsson - 6/13/2000 2:48:00 PM
I just read an article in the IHT about a new museum in New Oreleans devoted to Andrew Higgins and his WWII landing craft. William Cohen and NATO colleagues were there. At the peak of production Higgins's yards turned out 700 crafts per month. Total production was 20,094.
The article originates from Washington Post. My connection makes it difficult to search and link.
770. Wombat - 6/13/2000 3:02:44 PM
Pelle:
I think it's a Museum devoted to World War II.
771. Indiana Jones - 6/13/2000 3:02:49 PM
AytchMan: I've never played either. What do you mean by PBEM (play by email)?
Let me see what I think of 'em and I'll let you know. Also, I'd been thinking about running some kind of role-playing trivia-based puzzle on the Mote, but so far it hasn't attracted a lot of interest. I can probably swing only one of them, though, especially since I have two trips scheduled in the next two months.
772. AytchMan - 6/13/2000 3:30:24 PM
Indy--
Right, play-by-email. I was thinking to round up six or eight players (if there are that many) in some sort of playoff tournament or round-robin, whatever. Even a short-scenario game would take a fair amount of time (chronologically) but a relatively small amount per week.
I like your idea of a Murder party although I'm not sure how it would work on the Web. I hosted one a few years back that was a stitch. Great fun.
773. AytchMan - 6/13/2000 3:35:19 PM
Pelle--
I may have read the same article if it's the one that reports Ike(?) as mentioning Higgins as the man who won the war for the Allies. A bit of an overstatement perhaps but remarkable nonetheless.
774. AytchMan - 6/13/2000 5:39:37 PM
Indy--
Check out those games on Games Domain (gamesdomain.com). They're a good site posting solid reviews.
775. jexster - 6/15/2000 3:24:07 PM
I'm re-reading The Road to Pearl Harbor by Princeton historian Herbert Feis.
I originally read it 30 years ago in a college history course. The book was published in 1950. I guess it can be called a classic as from the check-out list at the University library indicates heavy use even today.
Feis meticulously examines the internal debates in the US and Japan from 1936 through the Day That Lives in Infamy and as such, gives the reader not only a good picture of the events leading up to war but more siginifantly serves as a great casestudy of how domestic and bureaucratic politics interact at the international level.
Not an easy read but worth it.
776. jexster - 6/15/2000 3:28:39 PM
Atych -
I'm up for an e-game.
I've mentioned one I played in before which was run by a bored USMC lt. in Okinawa which was far too ambitious for his abilities - some 25 nations making econ. and purchase decisions and military strategies to the division level.
I was the PM of Great Britain. It took me days to deploy and instruct the Fleet (we had to research all ship names to actual). It took hours and hours to do all of the diplomacy.....
At bottom, I don't see how such can be effectively monitored but I am game.
It was fun before it disintegrated before the sheer volume of information involved.
777. AytchMan - 6/15/2000 10:06:04 PM
jexster--
As I mentioned to Indy, I think the best choice at present for a WW2 game is Operational Art of War as a turn-based operational game (regiments/divisions) or one of the Close Combat series (3 or 4) for real-time tactical. If you've never played any of the above, they're all rewarding for different reasons. I think both Close Combat 3 and OAW are around 20 bucks now.
Let's see who else is interested in general and then home in on the game of choice. I've written reviews of both games elsewhere so I can give everybody a good rundown as required.
778. Karl Northman - 6/19/2000 12:36:48 AM
re Jexster 776:
"It was fun before it disintegrated before the sheer volume of
information involved..."
And interestingly, that's probably the thing that ultimately won the war for the allies: sure, it's true we loaded something like 5billion tons of iron ore out of Duluth down the lakes to the smelters and forges and foundries, but every damn ton of it would have sat offshore for week without the planning. And they would have sat another week, if the coal and limestone weren't there.
My father, (2nd Armored, 1941-1945) used to say when I was a kid and asked about these things, that a single top-end German tank was worth 5 M-4 Shermans. We won, he said, because each of them was up against 12 or 15 Shermans.
779. AytchMan - 6/20/2000 1:27:45 PM
Indy and jexster--
Seems like it's the three of us. For starters, since I've played OAW a lot, the best plan might be a short-to-medium length game between you two. Perhaps with a few status reports and maps posted here.
780. Cellar Door - 6/23/2000 8:18:52 PM
Pinocchio Bore: Guilty as hell
Pinocchio Bore: Guilty as hell
Pinocchio Bore: Guilty as hell
Pinocchio Bore: Guilty as hell
Pinocchio Bore: Guilty as hell
Pinocchio Bore: Guilty as hell
Pinocchio Bore: Guilty as hell
Pinocchio Bore: Guilty as hell
Pinocchio Bore: Guilty as hell
Pinocchio Bore: Guilty as hell
Pinocchio Bore: Guilty as hell
Pinocchio Bore: Guilty as hell
Pinocchio Bore: Guilty as hell
Pinocchio Bore: Guilty as hell
Pinocchio Bore: Guilty as hell
Pinocchio Bore: Guilty as hell
Pinocchio Bore: Guilty as hell
Pinocchio Bore: Guilty as hell
Pinocchio Bore: Guilty as hell
Pinocchio Bore: Guilty as hell
Pinocchio Bore: Guilty as hell
Pinocchio Bore: Guilty as hell
Pinocchio Bore: Guilty as hell
Pinocchio Bore: Guilty as hell
Pinocchio Bore: Guilty as hell
Pinocchio Bore: Guilty as hell
Pinocchio Bore: Guilty as hell
Pinocchio Bore: Guilty as hell
Pinocchio Bore: Guilty as hell
Pinocchio Bore: Guilty as hell
Pinocchio Bore: Guilty as hell
Pinocchio Bore: Guilty as hell
Pinocchio Bore: Guilty as hell
Pinocchio Bore: Guilty as hell
Pinocchio Bore: Guilty as hell
Pinocchio Bore: Guilty as hell
Pinocchio Bore: Guilty as hell
Pinocchio Bore: Guilty as hell
Pinocchio Bore: Guilty as hell
Pinocchio Bore: Guilty as hell
781. iiibbb - 6/24/2000 10:38:18 AM
What's with this frigging spam?
782. Cellar Door - 6/24/2000 11:00:02 AM
IT'S WAR!
783. PelleNilsson - 6/24/2000 1:52:04 PM
Cellar
Talking about war, I invite you - end everyone else - to read the infamous Wannsee Protocol.
784. CalGal - 6/25/2000 11:37:40 AM
Pelle,
Bleah. I always have trouble remembering how relatively late in the game the "final solution" came into being.
785. AytchMan - 6/25/2000 12:03:20 PM
Pelle--
I'd always heard of the Protocol but never read it. It's a commonplace that the Holocaust is the worst blot on the record of Mankind. But it's still a shock to read the sheer bureaucratic cold-bloodedness of the document.
786. CalGal - 6/25/2000 12:31:40 PM
I know. All the various cases--if a Jew is married to an Aryan, case 1. If a Jew is married to an Aryan, case 2. If a Jew is married to an Aryan and there are kids, case 1. If a Jew is married to ....
And then that coldblooded bit--"Hmm. This is complicated. Perhaps it'd be simpler just to enact a law that dissolves all the marriages."
787. CalGal - 6/25/2000 12:39:00 PM
Actually, that's wrong, what I said. It's not that the consideration of the law is any more coldblooded, it's that it reinforces how easy it was for them to just wipe away laws that made the case by case necessary. The case by case was horrifying, but it's only after they casually consider wiping away the need for it that it really sinks in how much power they had. It wasn't enough that they had the power to take people away and determine whether or not the children of Jewish marriages were sufficiently human to warrant consideration--it was that they then found this all too much trouble.
788. Indiana Jones - 6/25/2000 11:04:36 PM
My reaction is similar to 785-786. Ironically, it's easy to fall into racial stereotyping when reading it. I caught myself thinking "how typically German," which is just the sort of mindset that can lead to final solutions.
789. PelleNilsson - 6/26/2000 4:32:26 PM
And the bureacratic cold-bloodness continued into the "implementation phase". The many bureucrats involved were able to shield themselves from the human dimension by looking at the thing as a production process with its own peculiar problems of logistics (vide Eichmann) and productivity.
- Hello liebling, how was your day at the office?
- Quite good. We have a productivity problem in Treblinka but I think I have the solution. I have written a memo about it.
- How clever you are, Karl!
- Yes. It will probably go to the Sturmbannfűhrer. Could be quite a feather in my hat. What's for dinner?
¨- Your favourite, liebling, Eisbein mit Sauerkraut.
- Good, good, good. I think I'll indulge in a Jägermeister before the meal.
- I'll get it for you, liebling. The Sturmbannfűhrer! I'm so glad for you.
790. AytchMan - 6/26/2000 4:52:31 PM
Pelle--
True enough. I think there are actually official memos that document the strategy: parse and subdivide the bureaucratic process to fool the intended victims and ease the task of those carrying it out.
"Always leave a residue of hope; this step will be the last".
791. AytchMan - 6/26/2000 4:57:27 PM
I'm also reminded of that famous pyschology experiment in which the subject administers (fake) shocks as part of a "teaching" exercise. Very sobering.
792. PelleNilsson - 6/26/2000 5:01:06 PM
Aytchman
Very sobering, indeed. I don't for a moment think that this is a particular German trait. Sometimes when I'm in a black mood I look at my fellow travels on the bus and ask myself who whould be a concentration camp guard? Who would be a torturer?
793. AytchMan - 6/26/2000 5:13:27 PM
I always say to myself "I would never, could never do that". And yet, ridiculously high percentages of the subjects went right along to the end. Somewhere between 60 and 80%, as I recall. It makes me wonder: if the economy collapsed, if there was major civil unrest, etc. etc., maybe it's not so unthinkable. As I said, very sobering.
794. CalGal - 6/26/2000 5:21:01 PM
The sort of people who would never, ever do things like that are generally considered a monumental pain in the ass in every day living.
795. PelleNilsson - 6/26/2000 5:22:20 PM
Please expatiate.
796. CalGal - 6/26/2000 5:38:36 PM
It seems to me that the sort of person who would be able to resist would be someone who was fairly immune to social and peer pressure, whose internal judgment matters more to them than the number of people who think they are wrong. Generally, such a person would also be a moral absolutist, one who can hold on to their values because they don't think, "Well, it depends on the situation". No, what is wrong is just flat out wrong.
In general, people who aren't prone to change their mind based on how many people agree or disagree with their pov, people who are moral absolutists, and people who won't take actions based on what is convenient are a serious pain in the ass when the future of the free world isn't at stake.
797. PelleNilsson - 6/26/2000 5:43:23 PM
CalGal
Are you familiar with the experiment Aytchman referred to?
798. CalGal - 6/26/2000 5:46:50 PM
Pelle,
I'm not familiar with the specifics, but I've heard the generics before.
799. PelleNilsson - 6/26/2000 5:53:45 PM
OK, maybe we'll come back to this. Now it's midnight here and I'm signing off.
800. Slackjaw - 6/26/2000 7:00:25 PM
The experiment was conducted by a white coat named Stanley Milgram. A search on "Milgram, experiment, authority" should yield no less than 500 results at any respectable search engine, I'd guess. Find one with a .edu that dispassionately presents the results and is light on overarching implications, is my advice.
801. Slackjaw - 6/26/2000 7:13:26 PM
which is to say, it's hard to learn anything of great import and lasting value from that sort of experiment.
802. CalGal - 6/26/2000 7:47:30 PM
I read up a bit on it just now. Here is an overview, although I'm sure there are others.
I wasn't trying to make any greater point than this: given the constructs of the experiment as described, I think the majority of people who would refuse to do it--or who would say, "Whoa, this is enough." after minimal shocks--are those who don't mind being rude or contrary, and don't have any real objection to pissing people off. These are attributes acquired with practice. I don't think that most of the people who pride themselves on questioning authority necessarily fall into this category.
From what I can gather, Milgram's experiments were used to make claims about the value (or lack thereof) of obedience, conformity, etc. I wasn't making any claims or observations about that. It was more of an intuitive observation, but one that I think would prove true.
803. Indiana Jones - 6/26/2000 10:49:54 PM
I agree with what CalGal said in 796. There are also people like that who are "quiet" about it, and therefore not as likely to be viewed as pains in the ass, but in general, the Thoreaus of the world are often pains in the ass to those who have to deal with them on a daily basis.
804. PelleNilsson - 6/27/2000 3:30:32 PM
But in terms of participating in the Holocaust those who you so easily dismiss as "pains in the ass" would be akin to heroes, would they not?
805. Indiana Jones - 6/27/2000 3:45:14 PM
Absolutely, Pelle. One of the RL people I admire the most is viewed as a pain in the ass by his family and co-workers, even though he serves other people about as much as anyone I know. He just never bothers to say the right thing or go along with the crowd.
One of the reasons he is able to get so much done is he doesn't waste time with courtesy. He'd help you plow a field in broiling heat, but he wouldn't mind for a minute to just tell you "bye" in the middle of a telephone conversation about your sick mother, then click the receiver before you had a chance to say a word.
One time I had the pleasure of watching him deal with a real estate agent and the contrast between his lack of sham and her attempts at artifice was something to behold.
And because he cares so little for what other people think, I'd bet on him to tell a bunch of Nazis to grow screw themselves.
806. CalGal - 6/27/2000 3:47:04 PM
Pelle,
They would be in absolute sense, yes. Would they be known for it? They might be, yes. If they survived.
But my point is that the sort of trait that would cause one to resist or refuse to participate is also the sort of trait that makes one difficult to live with. I think we can agree that resisting the Holocaust and/or speaking out against German political leaders (while in Germany) is of an entirely different order than being an Irish revolutionary, a slavery abolitionist, or protesting the Vietnam War. Not only was the penalty for non-compliance much, much higher, but worse, in a way--the expectation of compliance was exceptionally high (this is where I think the Milgram experiment has some degree of similarity).
It takes an unusual person to go against the expectation of compliance, and this person usually doesn't reserve it for just a few special occasions. They also aren't necessarily rabble-rousers. Rabble rousers are usually those who like crowds (hence the term). The sort of person who would object in the face of all this expectation is the sort of person who doesn't care whether or not people agree with him.
I think you might not have found many of these people in Nazi Germany. Most of them would have left in disgust long before there would have been a need for them to resist.
807. CalGal - 6/27/2000 3:59:53 PM
Karl Northam brought up a relevant example in ethics. In the Vietnam War, he went to jail rather than get a deferment, run to Canada, or go underground.
There are lots of people who would protest by one of the other methods, or rebel against Daddy's mean corporate sponsors until Daddy's pull could get them out. But these people are rebelling in large part because it's trendy, because it's in, because it makes them feel like they belong. In short, they are complying with one set of expectations. There are many ways of joining in. What Karl describes is the sort of thing that comes with the territory if you are someone who is not willing to comply.
808. PelleNilsson - 6/27/2000 4:55:14 PM
So we should then excuse all those minor participants in the Holocaust and put it down to "human nature"?
809. CalGal - 6/27/2000 5:12:00 PM
Pelle,
I don't think it comes down to excusing people or not. I'm only making an observation. It seems inherent to most humans to want to belong, to want to avoid ostracization, to win approval. Those who don't want this are generally going to have a harder time of it--because most humans don't like the aggravation that comes along when people don't wish to comply.
But if instead of excusing them, I think it is fair to say instead that humans almost by definition are at some small risk for something like the Holocaust occurring because most people don't have the personality necessary to resist. Fortunately for us, the conditions would have to be "perfect"--in this case, no outlet for compliance by resistance, near total agreement on desirable goal, no disapproval (or even attention) from an outside party with something the offenders wanted, a victim that was used to being ostracized and didn't resist, and so on.
810. PelleNilsson - 6/27/2000 5:28:06 PM
CalGal
I substantially agree. And it brings me back to the point that this willingness to conform and to avoid looking at the ultimate consequences of one's action (or to suppress what one knows) is a human trait, not a German one.
811. AytchMan - 6/28/2000 1:25:24 PM
>>...this willingness to conform and to avoid looking at the ultimate consequences of one's action (or to suppress what one knows) is a human trait, not a German one.
I agree but now I'm going to stir things up. Let us stipulate that all humans are subject to the potential for evil deeds. Having said that, I think there was a peculiar set of conditions in German culture in the '30's that engendered their descent into the abyss. It would take a voluminous post even to sum it up but I believe that the late creation of Germany (1860's -- the last of the major European nations) led to the strong anti-democratic nature of their governments up to that time (even Weimar). Couple that with the residue of their pagan myths (Siegfried et al, bloody revenge and conquest, Armageddon-class destruction), a well-absorbed authoritarian tradition, a rigid class structure and the historic North European work ethic...and the seeds are planted.
So, while we're all capable of it, it doesn't happen just anywhere. A fine point but an important one.
812. Indiana Jones - 6/28/2000 1:34:42 PM
"there was a peculiar set of conditions in German culture in the '30's that engendered their descent into the abyss"
"Peculiar" (though perhaps not unique)--and I agree. Also, in reading the memo that started this discussion, I think that there was something about German culture that would allow such a matter-of-fact discussion about the Final Solution. I just don't see Italian "gangsters" (the word Churchill used frequently to describe the Nazis) acting in the same fashion.
I remember watching a Sixty Minutes report on Switzerland one time in which they mentioned that one of the worst things you could call someone there was translated into English as "troublemaker." So again it's probably not unique to Germans, but they had a culture that was fertile ground for socially engineered madness.
813. AytchMan - 7/11/2000 8:44:11 PM
If anybody is still interested in either an online or email wargame, I'm ready to give it a shot. Since I've played OAW and the Close Combat games quite a bit, I'd be glad to play a friendly, informal game with an inexperienced player just to help them learn.
814. Indiana Jones - 7/11/2000 10:47:42 PM
AytchMan: I'm going on another trip in the next couple of days that will last about two weeks. Please post a link or some info about OAW (where I can get it, for example), and I'll try to look into it between now and when I get back. If you're still interested and available then, maybe we can give it a whirl.
815. AytchMan - 7/12/2000 1:04:36 PM
Indy--
Here's a good review of the game (with embedded links to the original)
OAW1 Elite Edition
plus one I wrote a while back on OAW2 (with an embedded link to OAW1)
OAW2
There are several versions of the game out. I think the best best is the OAW 1 Elite Edition. It's $18 at Chips & Bits. I've dealt with them before, they're reputable. You may be able to find it even cheaper elsewhere.
816. AytchMan - 7/14/2000 10:27:21 PM
Who was the greatest leader of the 20th century? "Greatest" is herein defined as having the greatest effect on the planet's history.
I'm posting the question in this thread since several of the leading candidates were directly involved in the war. Also, it's been slow.
817. angel-five - 7/14/2000 11:29:51 PM
We actually did this once upon a time. My vote is for Stalin.
818. AytchMan - 7/14/2000 11:44:04 PM
A solid choice and clearly in the top five. I think he wins over Hitler, another classic candidate. Sometimes I argue for Lenin and sometimes I argue for one of the leaders of the French Revolution (three-quarters seriously). Sometimes I just argue.
819. CalGal - 7/14/2000 11:53:57 PM
Actually, we discussed Person of the Century (see here for the archive). Leaders figured heavily.
820. AytchMan - 7/15/2000 12:07:54 AM
cg--
Thanks for the link. People seemed to put a much different spin on it there (to be charitable) but thanks anyway.
821. angel-five - 7/15/2000 12:17:14 AM
You can pretty much rule out any US president due to a lack of tenure. The closest is obviously FDR; he and his legacy did a lot to shape world history, so it's debatable whether or not you include him in your top four. The same goes for Win Churchill -- Churchill's policies arguably changed the entire course of WWII. Obviously, though, Churchill has less peacetime contributions than someone like FDR. So, too, another good candidate but a beatable one.
Hitler obviously changed the structure of the world. The argument can be made that the structure was just waiting to change and Hitler was merely a catalyst but I think that's a little short sighted. Very few people, through the accidents and vagaries of history, could have done what Hitler did, and the world is supremely unlucky that he was in the wrong place at the wrong time. There is a clear and lasting effect from his reign, both direct and indirect. He's still a household word today. Adolf is clearly in the top four.
For my money, though, Stalin left a longer legacy, and a bloodier one, and had overall much more of an effect upon the nations of the world than Hitler ever did. Stalin singlehandedly rewrote the book of Communism and changed Russia into a brooding, inscrutable and violent monolith in the affairs of world politics. Like Hitler, and indeed like Churchill and FDR, he didn't merely do what might have been expected of a man in his position but rather changed things in a manner that was hardly expectable. And you can certainly argue that while Hitler's direct legacy died some year or so after the end of WWII, Stalin's lasted until the nineties (and even, in some cases, still is in effect). I think he heads the list.
822. angel-five - 7/15/2000 12:18:16 AM
Some other candidates: Chairman Mao (middling candidate -- limited sphere of influence, very influential within it though)
Lloyd George (weak candidate -- set, with Clemenceau, the stage for WWII)
VI Lenin ( average to weak candidate -- influential at the time but his effects were quickly changed by Stalin)
Mikhail Gorbachev (weak candidate -- there was a lot of pressure upon the USSR to reform and Gorbachev merely heeded the pressure)
Gandhi (weak candidate, found an entire modern tradition of nonviolent colonial resistance)
Ho Chi Minh (weak to average candidate, represented the inability of colonial powers to oppress their colonies in the modern era)
JFK (weak candidate -- arguably ensured that the US would become entangled in Vietnam, which changed the entire shape of superpower doctrine and internal US politics)
Nikita Khrushchev (weak candidate -- allowed detente).
823. AytchMan - 7/15/2000 12:33:25 AM
Stalin's a pretty solid choice. Although I'd rate Lenin more highly than you did (based more on legacy than direct effect), I agree that Stalin trumps him. I'd also rate Churchill very highly although probably not the winner. He had a direct and strong influence on both World Wars. He probably has to settle for Most Influential Good Guy of the Century.
I'm glad you rated most of your later choices as weak. I find choices in the second half of the century very shaky -- there's no time in which to factor in a legacy on top of the direct effect.
824. angel-five - 7/15/2000 1:48:53 AM
Lenin certainly was a focal point for intellectual Communism in his day; he was charismatic and quite bright. The thing about Lenin's legacy is simple, though -- it wasn't his legacy at all. Lenin died early; the Lenin of Marxism-Leninism, sort of the Christ figure of Communism, really wasn't much more than what Stalin wanted people to think of when they thought of Lenin. Really, I think Trotsky had more of an effect upon Communism in the long run, and Trotsky's influence wasn't all that great.
I also don't think that Lenin really did anything all that out of the ordinary to achieve the position that he did -- you cannot, for example, convincingly argue that the Bolsheviks would have attained power in Russia without Lenin. You can argue about the NEP and the five-year plan, or machinations with Germany, but in my book Lenin really didn't do anything that far out of the ordinary unless you count the fact that he made 'Koba' Stalin his Gensek and failed to understand what an awful mistake that was until it was far too late to change it.
In the past iterations of this discussion (prolly because PE was in most of them and therefore economics was always on the table) there was mention made of the people who championed the Marshall plan. They, too, if taken as one, deserve real consideration for the top five -- the problem is, no one person can take most of the credit for the Marshall plan.
825. angel-five - 7/15/2000 1:49:33 AM
It is a shame that the top two most influential people of the 20th century were such bastards. I'd like to rate Winston and FDR more highly -- FDR, I think, a bit more so than Churchill simply because of the tremendous effect he had on American society and politics -- but the sad fact is that their accomplishments just didn't have as lasting an effect upon the world as those of Hitler and Stalin, even considering that the former two won and the latter two eventually lost.
There's one story about Churchill of dubious verity that I cherish anyway. The easily contestable story has Churchill making his 'never surrender' speech; when he gets to the point where he's going on about how the English will fight on the beaches and so on, he covers the microphone with his hand and says, 'and when they land we shall throw our flagons of beer in their faces, for that is in fact all we Have.'
As the man once said, if it ain't true, it ought to be. And, true or false, it illustrates just how gutsy of a stance Churchill was taking, because the 'flagons of beer' comment would have been pretty accurate at the time.
826. angel-five - 7/15/2000 2:50:40 AM
you cannot, for example, convincingly argue that the Bolsheviks would have attained power in Russia without Lenin.
This should read 'you can'. Sorry for the confusion.
827. AytchMan - 7/16/2000 6:42:48 PM
angel-five --
The thing about Lenin's legacy is simple, though --it wasn't his legacy at all.
To an extent, I agree. But I think Lenin was instrumental in instituting the modern totalitarian state -- Soviet Russia was, of course, the first. The result has been the engine for most of the century's history. Lenin only presided over it actively for five or six years but created many of its lasting features: the centralized command economy, government by terror, collectivization (admittedly perfected by Uncle Joe), and omnipotence at the top (far more than the Tsar). One could, arguably, call this the Totalitarian Century.
At any rate, I agree with your position that Stalin outpoints him.
I also don't think that Lenin really did anything all that out of the ordinary to achieve the position that he did -- you [can], for example, convincingly argue that the Bolsheviks would have attained power in Russia without Lenin.
Rather than argue your immediate point (we could go on for days about it), I'll give you a "perhaps". But I think the all-important point here is that, without Lenin, the course of events would almost certainly have been far different. For one important reason: Much more than his associates, Lenin was the great believer in government by terror. He always wanted to enlarge the boot on the neck of the people for its own sake. A thoroughly regrettable impulse, of course. But that is the essence of modern totalitarianism.
828. AytchMan - 7/16/2000 6:52:29 PM
angel--
On the Marshall Plan, I find the idea unpersuasive (I realize you're not making the case). Even putting aside the lack of a single author. While the Plan undeniably had a large effect on Europe after the war, it stemmed from the war. In addition, I hardly think that the economic effects of the Plan were greater than the war itself.
829. AytchMan - 7/17/2000 4:09:22 PM
The second half of PBS's Finest Hour: The Battle of Britain is on tonight at 9c. The first half was superb; it took a slightly different tack from other documentaries on the subject. The show also included some fascinating first-person accounts which is surprising since these are often the kiss of death. Highly recommended.
830. Jack Vincennes - 7/24/2000 10:43:15 AM
I recently finished Victor Davis Hanson's The Soul of Battle, a three part book that deals with three armies - that of the Theban Epaminondas, Sherman and Patton. In reading the section on Patton, I highlighted a rebuttal to the sometime-repeated view that the Soviets did the bulk of the work at the end of the war and/or that the Western effort was secondary to that of the Russian push:
"Yet despite the undeniable contributions of the Russians, and the horrendous German losses incurred on the Eastern front, the idea that the Western front was somewhat a subsidiary theater is simply not true. Patton and the Americans, in fact, destroyed an enormous veteran army and did it far more quickly and efficiently-in time and losses incurred-than did the Russians. The Russians lost millions and killed millions; the Allies lost thousands and had millions of Germans simply surrender. German armies transferred from the
Eastern front to the West quickly learned that they could no longer advance with tanks in massed formations as they had against the Russians, inasmuch as American fighter aircraft and mobile artillery-by 1944 in constant radio communications with armored columns-would obliterate Panzers within minutes after they appeared in daylight on major roads.
Second, the Americans were fighting on far more fronts, against far more enemies, at much greater distances from their sources of supply, and were doing it with far greater skill than the Russians, who were engaged on a single linear front, supplied by industries to their immediate rear, and augmented by generous American equipment. American global commitments and the obstacles to their success were far greater than those challenges that confronted either Russia or Germany."
Hanson devotes an entire chapter to this argument.
831. DocBrown - 7/24/2000 1:43:10 PM
A Liberty Ship is coming to my town:
I will be excited to visit the SS JOHN W. BROWN, when she comes to Cleveland from her home in Baltimore. I believe that Hanson is correct in assessing the American achievement in moving men and material. It was an incredible accomplishment, made possible by the Liberty Ships.
832. jexster - 7/24/2000 7:51:55 PM
Thank God for Henry Kaiser!
833. AytchMan - 7/25/2000 9:43:51 PM
jv--
Does his argument pertain primarily to the overall war-long effort or "the bulk of the work at the end of the war" as you state above? It makes rather a difference since an argument for the latter is somewhat easier.
834. Indiana Jones - 7/28/2000 12:15:20 PM
For once I'm in general agreement with A-5 about Stalin and Hitler as having as much influence as any 20th century leader on the 20th century (though I find even the mention of JFK fairly laughable). Trying to look with non-Western eyes, I'd throw Gandhi in there.
I didn't see him mentioned (and he's not one of my favorite presidents), but the geopolitical philosophy of Wilson has probably had as much of an effect as any American. To the degree that he forced America into the international arena, I rank TR pretty important, but then he's probably my favorite President, so I'm a little biased.
And if we just choose the 20th century person (instead of leader) who affected events the most, my dark horse would be Princip (can't recall his first name now and not going to search while on a 28k line)--the guy who assassinated Archduke Ferdinand. He sparked WWI, which led to both the Russian Revolution and the rise of Hitler, resulting in WWII and the Cold War. Now those events may be seen as inevitable, but if we view history as predestined, then it's hard to judge any individual as especially significant.
835. Indiana Jones - 7/28/2000 12:31:10 PM
Jack makes some good contrarian arguments, but I still find the number of German troops tied down on the Eastern Front vs. Western highly persuasive. I've never subscribed to the belief that the Russians could have won single-handedly, but as much as I would like to give it to them, I don't think the Americans deserve the most credit for ending the Third Reich.
OTOH, we never signed a pact with Hitler, carved up Poland, grabbed the Baltic States, and chewed on Finland. IMO if you give Hitler a 100 on the pure, unadulterated evil scale, Stalin qualifies as a 99.9 with an overbar. And in all honesty, though I'm fascinated by both men, I think Hitler's motivation wasn't purely selfish, whereas Stalin seemed totally driven by ego and paranoia. The end results of Hitler's racism and nationalism were terrible for the German people, but that's not how he envisioned it. Stalin, OTOH, appears to have practiced terror purely for its own sake. (And that's all the keystrokes I wish to devote to distinguishing between the evil of one monster versus another, so if another Motier's mileage varies, have at it. It's probably more useful and entertaining--certainly lighthearted--trying to compare who's worse misunderstood: Dracula or Godzilla.)
836. Indiana Jones - 7/28/2000 12:35:18 PM
AytchMan: Regarding the war game, what would you think about designing some kind of small game ourselves that could be played over the net?
I have the impression you're a techie. What kind of programming skills do you have?
837. AytchMan - 7/28/2000 4:35:52 PM
Indy--
Designing our own sounds interesting but way too complicated to get a decent game. In a different direction, some sort of detective/mystery game with multiple players might be feasible. It would also appeal to a wider audience.
I am a tekkie, I suppose, but my programming skills are not well suited to the Net -- FoxPro is the only thing I've done in the last few years.
I can also search around a bit to see if there are any decent online games for the general Mote audience.
838. amax - 7/28/2000 7:19:14 PM
Hey guys&gals,
I'ts been awhile since I've been to the mote, so I don't know if I recall talking to some of ya. Looks like some of the old regulars are still here. Indy, Aitchman, pleasdtametcha. I'd be up for a game or two of CC-whatever, and I'd be interested in trying OAW, altho I've been shying off buying the game 'cause I don't really have time to learn the UI. I hear it's based on the old Squad Leader boardgame by Avalon Hill, and that was a mother of a game to learn to play well.
839. amax - 7/28/2000 7:28:27 PM
Getting more to the point of the thread, tho, I recently got into an discussion w/a friend over the topic of how the Americans stacked up against the Germans. I tend to believe that the US was basically pitting numbers, bravery, and firepower against superior soldering, generalship, and technology. The irony being, that is not how we portray the conflict -- rather the reverse. Movies like Saving Private Ryan show American forces wiping out large numbers of the enemy while taking very slight losses relative to the damage they do. Seems to me that it would take much more heroism&dedication to go through that and keep pushing instead of the other way round.
I am currently trying to track down an incident that I saw mentioned in a review of the movie: something like two or three squads of German infantry holding an entire American army group for four or five days. Anyone know of the incident? I'd appreciate any leads.
840. AytchMan - 7/28/2000 10:06:11 PM
Hi amax--
I am currently trying to track down an incident that I saw mentioned in a review of the movie: something like two or three squads of German infantry holding an entire American army group for four or five days. Anyone know of the incident? I'd appreciate any leads.
This is probably not what you were looking for but somewhere way back upthread there's a link to a battle in Belgium in 1945 in which a small number of Americans reportedly held off a huge German force for a week or two. If you can't find it, let me know and I'll track it down for ya.
841. AytchMan - 7/28/2000 10:37:22 PM
I tend to believe that the US was basically pitting numbers, bravery, and firepower against superior soldering, generalship, and technology.
Well, sort of. I certainly agree that the Germans fielded better soldiers and better generals. On technology, however, I think it goes to the US. The Germans developed some superb weapons (the all-purpose 88, several models of aircraft and some of their small arms) but the P-51, the B-17, the Higgins boat, the Liberty ship and even the Sherman (large numbers are a triumph of technology, too) arguably tip the scale to the US. In addition, the German insistence on developing a huge number of weapon types worked against them. Throw in the A-bomb and where are ya?
As for numbers, if you mean materiel, I agree. If you mean troops, the US fielded a pretty small army until the last year of the war. The success of Americans attacks was usually due to artillery, air strikes and mobility, not numbers of troops.
I also think bravery goes to the Germans but it's a pretty subjective argument either way. German troops rarely deserted or routed until the last few months and routinely fought for and held positions against overwhelming odds throughout the war.
842. angel-five - 7/29/2000 4:42:03 AM
I hope that bit about the Higgins boat was a joke.
German tech was superior until about 1944 or so. In once sense Aytch is correct -- the Nazis squandered a lot of resources on dubious projects that didn't benefit their war effort. Yet much of the reason their tech was eventually surpassed by the Americans is very simple -- they chose to stick with and improve older weapons and weapon systems (the Me-109 being an excellent example) that were superior in the early war years but later couldn't keep up with evolving technology. Such a practice was a hallmark of the centralized Nazi war industry and the later innovative new assets like the 262, the A-series rockets, and the Nebelwerfer were too little too late, not to mention often misused. So in that sense the Nazi military-industrial system was too static, not too dynamic, to keep fielding cutting-edge weapons.
To be fair, the Brits had this problem too, and it's probably natural in any military industry that's under severe duress to stick with tried and true platforms. The Nazi war machine had the added disadvantage of having the snot bombed out of it around the clock whereas the American war machine labored away in complete safety.
American technology in the field wasn't that great. The P-51 (once they added the bubble canopy) was arguably the best prop-driven fighter produced in the war but the development of long range drop-tanks had much more to do with their effectiveness over Europe than the fighters did themselves. The B-17 could take an incredible amount of punishment but didn't have great range or payload capacity. American artillery wasn't that stellar either, it was just that there was a ton of it available, and while American forces in Europe did have strong air-to-ground attack capability American commanders had a really hard time with combined arms.
843. angel-five - 7/29/2000 4:43:09 AM
The Sherman was usually at the mercy of whatever German armor or artillery happened to be in town at the moment, so even though there were a lot of them I'd hesitate to list them as a triumph of American technology. Being in a Sherman tank more or less meant that you were in a mobile and immediately visible foxhole, only foxholes provided better protection, and weren't explosive.
And American small arms sucked. The Garand was a dependable carbine but there's no comparing the Thompson to the Schmeisser or the .45 to the Luger.
Because the Nazi armies introduced the concept of lightning war to the world, we think of them as being highly mobile, but aside from their armor they weren't. German infantry, even 'mechanized' infantry, wasn't terribly mobile at all compared to American infantry, but ironically was much more suited to defensive engagements. There's an old Brit saying -- 'he does not know war who has not fought the Germans' -- but in the Allied campaign in Europe, German defensive tenacity had as much to do with their lack of mobility as it did with the competence of Nazi soldiers.
It's so common to hear the vaunted bravery and superiority of German soldiers and the skill of the German General Staff mentioned, and there's indeed a reason why you hear it so often. but I think it's well to bear in mind that for much of the ground conflict the Allies were actually rather outnumbered by their foe, and you can't attribute the Allied victory to technology or superior production capability alone.
844. angel-five - 7/29/2000 4:47:13 AM
It's kind of fun for me to sit back and count all the different instances where Indiana's said something like 'For once I'm in agreement with A-5'...
This curious contradiction is, no doubt, simply explained: Indiana worships the ground I walk on, but is too bashful to admit it. Cheer up, Indy, there's a twelve step program available, and once you get past denial the rest is easy.
845. Jack Vincennes - 7/29/2000 9:19:45 AM
Aytch
I think you have to discern between contribution and sacrifice. There is no question that Russia sacrificed a great deal more than the United States in its WWII was effort, but, as Indy points out, that sacrifice was in part destined under the leadership of a madman like Stalin, and in part earned by Russia's pact with Germany.
As for the end of the war, many other factors point up the sad but true fact that the Russian advance in the East, while massive and critical, was bereft of tactics. Had there been no press in the West, the Germans would have in all likelihood repelled the crude Soviet advance interminably. Another argument can be made that the Allied advance in the West was bungled badly - thereby lengthening the war by 9 months - due to Eisnenhower's bureaucratic timidity, the silliness that was Market Garden, and the murderous wandering about in the Hurtgen Forest.
846. Jack Vincennes - 7/29/2000 9:34:34 AM
A salient statistic:
The Russians had over 5 times as many divisions as the Allies in Europe by late 1944 (500 to 76). Still, the Germans had half their divisional strength in the West.
847. Jack Vincennes - 7/29/2000 9:41:14 AM
amax
That statistic somewhat undermines your numbers, bravery and firepower v. superior soldiering, generalship and technology.
The numbers were even in the West, as was the bravery (if that can be measured) and firepower. I agree that the Germans had superior soldiers and vastly superior leadership (except, of course, at the political top from the Little Corporal).
848. Indiana Jones - 7/29/2000 2:00:38 PM
"Still, the Germans had half their divisional strength in the West."
I'm looking around for confirmation of this, because it's not my impression. An interesting link I did find on another board contains a post by some fellow named "pseudoerasmus" (heh-heh).
It has the following statistics:
Pct manufacturing output during the war--
US = 27.7
USSR = 17.6
Tank production in 1943 (peak for all powers)
US = 29,500
USSR = 29,000
Aircraft production in 1944 (peak for all powers)
US = 96,300
USSR = 40,300
Of course some US effort was going in the Pacific, and of course the Russians were fighting a few months before we were (albeit losing a whole lot of weapons and men). I'll keep looking for those numbers on how many Germans were tied down by whom, but that's where I give the Russians the edge.
The other argument--that they lost so many more men than we did--doesn't cut it as much with me. To paraphrase Patton, you win a war by making the other sonuvabitch die for his country.
849. angel-five - 7/29/2000 5:29:15 PM
No, the Nazis didn't have half their divisional strength in the West.
Here is the Nazi order of battle for their Western forces in 1944. (interesting site all around)
Compare this to the starting order of battle for Barbarossa, and then bear in mind that the Nazis kept pulling divisions out from their posts and sending them into the meat grinder of the Ostfront.
850. Jack Vincennes - 7/29/2000 5:30:14 PM
Indy
My reference is Davis Hanson. The Soul of Battle, pp. 325-26. He cites for comparisons of the German forces in the East and West, the respective size of the Allied and Russian armies, and their relative accomplishments, the following sources: Weigly, Eisenhower's Lieutenants, pp. 572-73; Keegan, Six Armies, pp. 313-33; Wilmot, Struggle, p. 621 ("The Western Allies were now directly engaging 100 German divisons, 76 in the West and 24 in Italy. A further 27 were tied down in outlying areas, 10 in Yugoslavia and 17 in Scandinavia. Thus on the Eastern front, where Hitler had been able to commit 157 German divisions when the Normandy invasion began, he now had . . . barely half the total strength of his ground forces").
851. Jack Vincennes - 7/29/2000 5:33:41 PM
Regardless of whether the German divisional strength was half or near half, the remarkable statistic is the fact that the German force was close to evenly split while facing 76 Allied divisons in the West, and 500 Russian divisions in the East.
852. angel-five - 7/29/2000 5:40:35 PM
27 divisions in the outlands don't matter. Your source might be taking into account all the stripped divisions left behind in Germany, many of which weren't real fighting forces at all, JV. IAC most of the divisions in the West were static.
It is of course correct to list the army in Italy when considering the warfare between the Allies and the Axis. But I'm not sure you can say that they were in the West -- a minor quibble at any rate.
The statement about having barely half the total strength of the ground forces is interesting; I'm not sure whether he's referring to divisonal count or total number of fighting men. The Nazi armies kept paring down the size of their divisions in order to keep more units operational -- this almost always consisted of shaking down Western and Home divisions and sending men to the Eastern front.
853. angel-five - 7/29/2000 5:43:32 PM
The commonly quoted statistic is that when the tide turned in the East, there were six Russian divisions on the line for each Nazi division, and to boot a majority of those divisions were much fresher than their Nazi opponents.
However, I'm not really sure it's useful to compare the firepower, equipment, and effectiveness of a Russian division to that of a German division, so the six to one figure is a little misleading.
854. angel-five - 7/29/2000 5:49:16 PM
Had there been no press in the West, the Germans would have in all likelihood repelled the crude Soviet advance interminably.
Now, this I'll take much more exception to, Sally, unless you meant to say 'had there been no threat of a press in the West'. And even then I'm not so sure, once you consider the spectacularly ill timing of the Barbarossa offensive, the failure of the German forces to prepare themselves adequately for a winter combat, and the horrible debacles of Leningrad and Stalingrad.
855. Jack Vincennes - 7/29/2000 5:56:12 PM
angel
I'm not sure of the usefulness as well, unless one is rebutting a claim that the Eastern effort was primary and the Western effort was subsidiary. In fact, both efforts were critical, and given the air and tactical superiority, as well as the better quality of command and troop effectiveness in the West, it makes sense that approximatley half the German divisional strength (give or take 10 divisions) matched up against 500 Soviet divisions, as opposed to 76 Allied divisons. Hell, by the end, the Germans were sticking silverware in the anti-aircraft batteries and firing at ground-level trajectory, and the Soviets were still coming.
It is fair to say that the Allies in the West tried to emulate Sherman (at their best; at their worst, the Allied armies were positively Mclellanesque) while the Soviets held Grant closer to heart.
856. Jack Vincennes - 7/29/2000 6:00:21 PM
angel
Except away. Had the Allies not conducted either Normandy or the Italian campaign, I think it a fair bet that the Germans would have been able to distribute the other roughly half of their divisional strength, hunker down in classic defensive repose, and mulched the Soviets interminably.
857. jonesatlaw - 7/29/2000 6:04:04 PM
And American small arms sucked. The Garand was a dependable carbine but there's no comparing the Thompson to the Schmeisser or the .45 to the Luger.
The Garand was a bit long in the tooth by WWII, but it beat the shit out of the standard issue German weapon, which was still the bolt action '98. The M1 "Thompson" was a fine weapon whose real problem was in production, not in performance. It was a better weapon than the Schmeisser, but not nearly as good as the MP43 or MP44. The Schmeisesser certainly was a more influential design than the M1 Thompson because it was simpler to manufacture.
As for the .45 vs. the Luger, are you nuts? The 1911A1 is arguably the most successful pistol design ever. The Luger is beautiful, and balances well. It shares the same sort of problems as a military weapon as the Thompson. It was popular in civilian use, and well made. However, the Germans replaced it with the P-38 in '42-43. The Colt had superior stopping power, was more rugged, and was very accurate. It's design is still the foundation for automatic pistols around the world.
858. Jack Vincennes - 7/29/2000 6:05:27 PM
As for the Nazi failures in the Soviet Union due to Russian resourcefulness and the do-or-die last-ditch pitches, they are irrelevant to the point of whether the Soviets would have been able to transform their defensive coup into a successful offensive without the Allied press from the West.
In short, the Allies ignore Normandy, bag the Italian campaign, choose to lick their wounds, and negotiate a peace with Hitler (something quite hoped for by those in the Bunker).
Even with this premature political truce, under the scenario, the Allies still equip the Soviets at exactly the rate and tonnage they were equipped for their offensive in the West.
So, for every 6 Soviet divisions, there are 2 to 2.5 German divisions.
I'll take the Germans and I'll lay odds.
859. Jack Vincennes - 7/29/2000 6:06:23 PM
"equipped for their offensive in the West" should state "in the EAST" under my hypothetical.
860. AceofSpades - 7/29/2000 6:09:10 PM
Given that the 1911 Colt .45 is still one of the most popular designs in the world today -- scarcely modified over the years; only replaced as the standard-issue sidearm in the late 1980's (though the Marines kept the Colt, I think) -- I'm at a loss to understand how one can say the 1911 "sucked" in comparison to the obsolete Luger.
861. angel-five - 7/29/2000 6:12:08 PM
Well, the obvious point is that those divisions couldn't have been pulled out and sent East unless there was absolutely no threat of an Allied landing, and even then a fair portion of them would have had to remain in the West simply to keep their conquest under control. If there had been a threat of an Allied landing, pulling those forces out would have converted it into a certainty. The primary problem Nazi forces had in the east, besides being horribly outnumbered by a foe willing to sacrifice enormous amounts of men and material, was one of resources, and the resource problem was primarily caused by Allied bombing. So you'd pretty much have to say, 'Without any threat of conflict with the Western Allies at all, Nazi Germany would have mulched the Soviet' in order to correctly state your case, I think.
That's so far off into the realm of speculation that it's really irrelevant mental masturbation (i.e. perfect for the Mote) but IAC I'm inclined to agree with it, with the above qualifications.
862. angel-five - 7/29/2000 6:19:55 PM
The Luger was lighter, better balanced, and more accurate. It also had a marginally faster rate of fire. This is probably why so many Allied soldiers appropriated and kept Lugers even though the ammunition was a lot harder for them to find than .45 shells.
The Colt .45 is easy to manufacture, dependable, and relatively accurate. It was a fine weapon. It just wasn't as good as the Luger.
The Luger wasn't replaced because it was obsolete, it was replaced because it was much easier to manufacture the P-38.
863. Jack Vincennes - 7/29/2000 6:23:57 PM
angel
I think you took the right bet, even if takling it was like having a wisdom tooth pulled.
Allied bombing was vastly secondary to the presence of 76 divisions taking ground in the West. Indeed, you certainly can't make the argument that it significantly augmented German industrial and hardware output in late 1944, early 1945. What the Allied air superiority did do, however, was devastate the Germans in the West, thus making advance easier and requiring even more siphoning from the German divisions in the East, who otherwise would have more comfortably massacred the advancing Soviet armies.
864. Jack Vincennes - 7/29/2000 6:30:12 PM
I do enjoy - if not agree with - Patton's non-politically correct assessment of the Soviet solider. As Carlo D'Este writes in "Genius for War":
"Although he admired their fighting qualities, Patton thought Russian soldiers little better than robots, and described the hero of the red Army, Marshal Georgei Zhukov, as apelike, "comic opera, covered with medals."
Typically, Patton concluded, "They are a scurvy race and simply svagaes. We could beat hell out of them."
865. AceofSpades - 7/29/2000 6:34:17 PM
"The Luger wasn't replaced because it was obsolete, it was replaced because it was much easier to manufacture the P-38."
Please explain why civilian gun-buyers aren't snapping up this "superior" weapon today. Please explain why no police departments use this superior weapon.
Please explain why it isn't even being manufactured. (Except, perhaps, in tiny runs by a licensor in Brazil or something.)
866. Jack Vincennes - 7/29/2000 6:34:59 PM
More D'Este, Patton and Hap Gay:
"Patton was both impressed and distressed at the severe discipline of the Russians: 'The officers with few exceptions give the appearance of recently civilized Mongolian bandits. The men passed in review with a very good imitation of the goose step. They give me the impression of something that is to be feared in future world political reorganization.'
Gay's diary recorded: 'Everything they did impressed one with the idea of virility and cruelty.' Patton's verdict was that 'in addition to his other amiable characteristics, the Russian has no regard for human life and is an all out son of a bitch, barbarian, and chronic drunk.'"
867. Jack Vincennes - 7/29/2000 6:35:56 PM
I'll never understand why Patton didn't flourish as Military Governor of Bavaria.
868. AceofSpades - 7/29/2000 6:38:51 PM
Here's a bit of politically incorrect stuff from Patton:
Said to a group of 8 year old boys and girls in 1946:
"You will be the soldiers and nurses in the next great war. And there will be another great war. There always has been."
869. angel-five - 7/29/2000 6:47:35 PM
Please explain why civilian gun-buyers aren't snapping up this "superior" weapon today. Please explain why no police departments use this superior weapon.
Ace, you're so funny when you don't know what the hell you're talking about.
Lugers are very collectable indeed, and they're fun to shoot. May people do own them. They're excellent examples of craftmanship.
They're also much harder to manufacture than a Colt, and consequently more expensive. I could turn your analogy around and ask you why it is that police departments don't use Maseratis despite the fact that they're a superior automotive design.
As for why they aren't made today... well, the old-model Volkswagen Beetle is still manufactured today, for the same reason that the Colt is. It's a cheap and dependable car that's easy to service. If you'd thought for a second before you jerked your knee looking for a counter argument, I'm sure this would have occurred to you, because you're at least marginally bright if a tad frothy in the brain.
870. angel-five - 7/29/2000 7:02:49 PM
I mean, this from the guy who claims to be afraid of shooting a firearm.
Have you ever fired a Luger, Ace?
No? How about, say, a precision crafted original .50 caliber Hawken rifle? You know, one of the most accurate and famed hunting weapons ever? Why is it that no one manufactures them anymore, favoring instead mass-produced Hawken knock-offs from CVA and such places? Wow, I guess these knock-offs are superior to the original, because, hell, no one makes them anymore, or hunts with them.
And, you know, cops don't carry Browning match pistols, so I guess they must be inferior to .357s and Glocks.
Whatta maroon.
871. angel-five - 7/29/2000 7:09:10 PM
Anyway.
Jones. I've never heard the Thompson mentioned as superior to the Schmeisser. Most of what I heard about the Thompson in WWII was that they jammed easily and were very hard to properly clean -- that people died trying to field strip them, in fact, because if it was done hastily the firing spring assembly had a nasty tendency to rip right through your throat. But I might have made a hasty generalization. Do tell me, if you would, why the Thompson was so highly regarded -- aside from the fact that it was the only light SMG that was really available to the average GI.
872. jonesatlaw - 7/29/2000 10:18:29 PM
Angel-Ace
1. The Luger did have fine balance, and has a bit of mystique to it, thus it's desireability amoung GI's. It is an elegant looking design and harkens back to the days of officers as "gentlemen" and the Red Baron.
2. The Luger has one more cartridge per magazine than the Colt, but otherwise I don't understand your "rate of fire" comment. It's not human possible to pull the trigger on either fast enough to outrun the action of the pistol, so its a wash. If you are referring to the Luger as better balanced and lighter in recoil and thus easier to bring back to target, I guess I would refer you to modern combat shooting competitions where modified 1911's still dominate.
3. The Luger was removed from service for more than machining problems. The toggle recoil action is prone to jams in cold weather, is highly sensitive to dirt, and variances in ammunition. The P38 was a superior military weapon.
4. As for the Thompson, it was always a popular weapon with the troops, more so than the Sten or M3 which replaced it in allied forces. The Marines were still using it in Korea, and it was sought after, especially by tank crews, who tried to avoid the "grease gun" and the M-2. It had a higher rate of fire than the MP38/40 and was less prone to jams. The .45 ball was also harder hitting than the 9mm.
Finally, the Luger is still in civilian production under an old American license that pre-dates WWI.
873. angel-five - 7/29/2000 10:29:14 PM
If you are referring to the Luger as
better balanced and lighter in recoil and thus easier to bring back to
target,
Yup.
I guess I would refer you to modern combat shooting
competitions where modified 1911's still dominate.
I guess a key word here would be 'modified'.
The toggle recoil action is prone to jams in cold weather, is
highly sensitive to dirt, and variances in ammunition.
Thanks. I'd never heard that.
874. Indiana Jones - 7/29/2000 10:37:13 PM
One aside about the Russian troops...can't remember the source, but it was one of those "a soldier's story" personal recollections. (I would think it was "Eyewitness to History," but it seems to me I remember the guy speaking it, so more likely a book I've listened to on tape.)
Anyway, it was when the Americans were meeting up with the Russians along the Elbe and so everyone was gladhanding and celebrating all around, knowing the war would be over in a few short days. The Russians and Americans did the slap each other on the back thing, swap cigarettes for vodka, and as evening fell returned to their respective positions. In the middle of the night according to this GI, the Russians had become totally plastered and begun to shut off their guns...in the direction of the Americans.
He said he remembered hunkering down all night and thinking, "Damn, made it through the entire war to get killed like this."
875. Indiana Jones - 7/29/2000 10:51:00 PM
Jack (850): Thanks for the actual numbers. That's more reasonable, though still not the impression I had previously. I'm pleased to see the Allies weren't facing a small fraction of what the Russians dealt with, even if the Russians still faced more.
One other stat I came across, which I wish I'd bookmarked but didn't, mentioned that the Germans on the Russian front dropped by about 900,000 between Jan and Dec 1944. Some of that was losses, I'm sure, but some of it had to be the result of Normandy and the Bulge offensive.
Also, for general info in comparing, I saw a note that mentioned German divisions were about 1.5 to 1 in manpower vs. Russian.
876. jonesatlaw - 7/29/2000 10:53:13 PM
Re "modified 1911A1's"
Most of the modifications are to the trigger, thumb spur and grips. Usually in order to trim some weight and to mold the weapon to the hand. Everyone that shoots in these things does the same to their weapons, unless they have those sorts of modifications already done by purchasing a model already set up for the sport. Even so, they are almost always based on the 1911. Only recently have some of the more modern weapons begun to replace the 1911.
Auto-Ordnance, Colt, Entreprise Arms, Kimber, Llama, Para-Ordnance, Safari Arms, and Springfield all still produce 1911's or clones of the .45.
Stoger arms produces the Luger, in one caliber, with a choice of 4" or 6" barrels.
877. jonesatlaw - 7/29/2000 10:57:31 PM
Finally, the Sweedes and the Finns did produce pistols that looked like the Luger but had a totally different operating system because of their climate. They had fine balance as the parent weapon did, but because of their construction were more reliable in the field, and had a better trigger pull.
878. Cellar Door - 7/29/2000 11:56:03 PM
Required Reading: "A Court of No Appeal" by Renata Adler in the August "Harper's" magazine.
879. angel-five - 7/30/2000 1:52:55 AM
Just to clarify, Jones:
Are you saying that the only difference between the match pistols and the standard issue sidearm for American officers in WWII is in the grip, trigger, and spur?
880. jonesatlaw - 7/30/2000 2:22:32 AM
A-5:
The standard issue has a military non glare finish, early models had a long spur trigger, a solid trigger and narrower grips. The current combat match versions have custom sights, sometimes target style and sometimes other exotics, skelltonized triggers and fatter grips. The machining and fitting is more exacting than military weapons.
The real question is, why don't people do the same with Lugers, if it is a superior weapon? Or for that matter, just use Lugers without modifications?
881. jonesatlaw - 7/30/2000 2:29:35 AM
Don't take my word for it- try Ian Hogg'sand John Weeks "Nothing succeeds like success, and the Colt M1911 pistols are without doubt amongst the most successful combat pistols ever invented. Incredibly robust and with more than enough leathality and stopping power from the 230 gr. bullet- which delivers 380 ft.lbs of energy at the muzzle,the Colt has, since its inception in 1911 armed the US Army and Navy and has been used by many other forces." Military Small Arms of the Twentieth Century, 1973 Digest Press.
882. AceofSpades - 7/30/2000 2:32:21 AM
Match pistols are made with more demanding tolerances, aren't they?
883. jonesatlaw - 7/30/2000 2:55:37 AM
re 822- Yes, thus the machining and fitting comment above. However, with mass production, some guns will naturally have the same qualities by chance as a match weapon, while others may be "lemons."
884. AceofSpades - 7/30/2000 3:03:15 AM
Jones--
I didn't read that part of your post.
885. angel-five - 7/30/2000 1:03:03 PM
The real question is, why don't people do the same with Lugers, if it is a superior weapon? Or for that matter, just use Lugers without modifications?
Why do .357s and 9mm pistols dominate at police shooting competitions?
Am I wrong in the knowledge that the majority of people who shoot at places like Camp Perry learned to fire a weapon in the military and therefore learned pistol skills with a .45 and are more likely as a consequence to develop mastery with them?
I mean, don't get me wrong, this has been educational and the 1911 is probably a better weapon than I gave it credit for, but your arguments aren't really convincing.
886. AceofSpades - 7/30/2000 1:07:35 PM
angel--
his arguments are quite convincing and you know it, you occasional objection aside.
Browning developed a hell of a gun in 1911. (Yeah, it was good old Browning.) The simple fact that the 1911 colt .45 is still a best-selling weapon design should back you off any notions of the weapon's "inferiority."
I mean, come on-- a weapon design which has remained extremely popular with military and civilian users for 89 frigging years.
887. amax - 7/30/2000 9:17:20 PM
I have no direct proof of this, but from a lot of the accounts that I have read of the post-D-Day campaigns, most of the german units were in the western front were there to rest-n-refit, and only incidentally to resist the A-B's. F'r instance, the German armored regiments that took part in the Market-Garden campaign had been transfered there from the eastern front, where they had suffered 60-80% casualties. I recall reading that if an American armored unit suffered more than 40% casualties, it was considered destroyed and would be disbanded. Well, I just recieved a copy of a book called Invasion!:They're Coming! purportedly about the Normandy campaign from the German point of view. I'll post a review in about a week or so.
888. amax - 7/30/2000 9:23:13 PM
In terms of technology, yeah, I know that the Garand was a much better weapon than the Krag-98's the german infantry was issued with, but in total everything else the Germans had - from the MG42 up to Armor - was better than the American's unit. While I found the discussion on the m1917 interesting, I would lay a bet that pistol wounds were a pretty small % of the total casualties on either side. I suppose you could make a case for the proximity fuses the Americans had as being technologically superior, but from what I read, the German artillery spotter system more than compensated --making the Germans again the victors in the broad sense of technology.
889. amax - 7/30/2000 9:24:17 PM
er, make that the m1911 in the post above.
890. Wombat - 7/31/2000 4:12:18 PM
Some of the German units defending Normandy were foreign conscripts and reserve units with men in their 40s and 50s.
I would suggest that, in terms of weapons technology and logistics, the Allied triumph was due to a superabundance of the "good enough" against scarce amounts of the "superior." That said, there were a number of Allied weapon systems that were superior to their German equivalent. The T-34 (76mm and later 85mm) was a better design than the Pkw IV and Panther. The Garand M-1 was the only semiautomatic rifle used by any army for most of the war. The P-51 and Spitfire were superior to the BF-109, and the latter was easily upgraded in response to the advent of the FW-190.
The other area in which the Allies were superior was in operational and tactical flexiblity, and interservice cooperation.
891. DocBrown - 7/31/2000 4:52:27 PM
The Germans used U Boats very effectively.
The Americans had pretty good submarines with defective torpedoes and a bureaucracy that insisted on blaming the Captains and crews for their failure.
Another great Allied advantage was America's propaganda machine: Hollywood. Once Moe Howard started playing him, Hitler never stood a chance.
892. Wombat - 7/31/2000 5:11:47 PM
Doc:
The Germans had similar problems with their torpedoes at the beginning of the war. The failure of magnetic detonators saved the British carrier Ark Royal when it was attacked by a U-Boat while out on an antisubmarine "sweep."
893. Jenerator - 8/1/2000 11:16:55 AM
Take the Internet Addiction Quiz in the Internet Thread!! 894. marshame - 8/1/2000 11:56:40 AM
895. AytchMan - 8/2/2000 1:51:44 PM
Assuming access to a reasonably comprehensive and honest news source, what would the average German citizen see as the high point of the war (event and/or month and year)?
896. AytchMan - 8/2/2000 1:56:36 PM
clarification: a German citizen during the war, not today.
897. Indiana Jones - 8/2/2000 1:58:27 PM
I'd say an intelligent German citizen would probably think sometime around June-July 1940, with the crushing of the French.
Your average German citizen, maybe Sept. - Oct. 1941, while the push into Russia was going so well.
I think after Dec. 1941 (and declaring war on the U.S. only six months after doing the same to Russia), you'd have to be a fool not to know what the outcome was going to be. Which I guess includes Adolf.
898. AytchMan - 8/2/2000 2:11:22 PM
That's a pretty shrewd analysis although I'd probably lump the smart guy's high point in with the average guy. In the fall of 1941, many (most?) intelligent observers still thought Russia was finished. Since it's the perception that's important here (based on available info), the fact that they were wrong is beside the point.
899. Indiana Jones - 8/2/2000 2:37:43 PM
Aytch: I guess I come down on the air of caution. If I'd been living in Germany during the time under discussion, I'd have been ecstatic when the French were crushed...and likely never breathed an easy moment after June 1941.
900. AytchMan - 8/4/2000 1:38:36 AM
With benefit of hindsight, I think most observers would declare something close to a tie between Hitler and the Nazis and Stalin and the Communists in the Reprehensibility Sweepstakes. Certainly, both were evil entities. Yet, throughout the 1930's, many people in the West (including some well-known, well-respected personalities) supported and sympathized with the Soviet government and communism in general. On the other hand, a much smaller number (including very few personalities -- Lindbergh being the best-known, I suppose) favored the fascists.
Why? I've got a couple of theories but I'd like to hear what you guys think.
901. Jack Vincennes - 8/4/2000 9:07:39 AM
The Nazis had better attire.
902. PelleNilsson - 8/4/2000 9:25:19 AM
The professed goal of the communists was noble, that of the nazis was not.
903. Jack Vincennes - 8/4/2000 9:31:11 AM
Pelle
Absurd. The "professed" goal of the Nazis was to strengthen Germany and unshackle it from the chains of the WWI terms. The "professed" goal of the communists was a change in social and economic conditions.
The sick and dark heart of those goals was the slaughter of millions of innocents.
904. CalGal - 8/4/2000 9:34:21 AM
Jack,
You've just stated the "professed goals" fairly nicely. Now, if you were an outsider, and focusing only on "professed goals", which sounds more interesting and attractive?
Nothing absurd about it.
905. Jack Vincennes - 8/4/2000 9:41:02 AM
Cal
If you were a German, no. 1 sounds better than no. 2. If you were a Russian, no. 2 sounds better than no. 1. If you were a Finn, I can't imagine you would care all that much.
906. DocBrown - 8/4/2000 9:52:25 AM
AytchMan, I would not say that Lindbergh "favored the fascists." He simply believed that the Allies could not defeat Germany. He did refer to Germany as the enemy.
I expect that those Americans who favored the communists were disenchanted with capitalism. After all, this happened during the Great Depression.
907. CalGal - 8/4/2000 10:06:31 AM
Jack,
But clearly the intelligentsia in other countries--if not Finland--did get involved, else Aytch wouldn't have had any basis to ask the question.
Communism was quite the thing among certain circles in the US. Fascism was not quite as in. Aytch was asking why. Pelle's response was, I think, accurate as to much (if not all) of the reason--the Communists did indeed want to change the social and economic structure, and this appealed to their inner drama queens.
908. glendajean - 8/4/2000 10:12:53 AM
The Polish were probably more nervous than the Finns.
909. Wombat - 8/4/2000 10:58:43 AM
Lindbergh was a political idiot of the first order. Against the express wishes of the US Military Attache in Berlin, he accepted a decoration from Goering, and was extremely impressed (as his hosts meant him to be) by German air power.
He then returned to the US and stated that the British and French would not be able to resist Germany's might (he was half right), and that the US should stay out of a European war. As a leader of the isolationist America First movement, which brought together sincere isolationists and unsavory American fascists, Lindbergh spoke of the tragedy of the Jews in Germany, but then went on to say that the Jewish community in the US was seeking US entry into the war for parochial reasons that were not in the US national interest (his wife apparently begged to not to say that). That cooked his goose with the administration, and with many other Americans.
910. PelleNilsson - 8/4/2000 12:51:20 PM
Jack
Your POV is anachronistic in the extreme and without merit.
The question was why more prominent figures favoured communism over nazism in the 1930's.
In addition.
The "professed" goal of the Nazis was to strengthen Germany and unshackle it from the chains of the WWI terms
That's only part of it (and you contrive to give it a noble slant: "strengthen", "unshackle"). The overriding goal was to ensure Aryan dominance (with Germany at the lead) at the expense of the untermenschen, foremost among them the Jews. I'm not anachronistic. This was clearly in evidence in the 30's.
911. DocBrown - 8/4/2000 1:10:02 PM
Wombat, I think that Lindbergh's foolishness was more strategic than political. After all, he never advocated the adoption of Nazi ways in America. Quite the contrary, he felt that war with Germany was inevitable, but that Germany was so powerful and America was so unprepared that we were destined to lose.
I believe that this is only half of what Goering hoped to accomplish with Lindbergh. The Lone Eagle came away fearing Germany, but not friendly to Germany.
Lindbergh's bad judgement lead him to believe in a false situation, and he tried to solve the problem strategically. The strategy that he favored was to spend a few years building up America's military to defend against the coming German invasion.
Perhaps Goering did want Lindbergh to come home and rally America toward a huge military buildup, but I doubt it.
912. AytchMan - 8/4/2000 1:11:49 PM
Good points, kids.
Doc--
Strictly speaking, you may be right; I doubt that Lindy ever uttered the words "I favor the fascists". But, as Wombat points out, he took some actions that clearly paid tribute to them. I'm getting a little fuzzy on his biography now but I think he admired them in certain ways through the 30's, came under increasing fire for it and slowly shifted his stance. It's interesting that your 'enemy" link is dated April, 1941. By then, he was largely discredited.
Doc et al:
I expect that those Americans who favored the communists were disenchanted with capitalism. After all, this happened during the Great Depression.
I think you're right. But why turn to the Soviets; was that enough? Even in the 30's, many of Stalin's grander transgressions were known -- Soviet oppression of their own minorities, aggression against their neighbors in the "Civil War", starvation of the Kulaks, the great show trials. Were their noble goals sufficient to obscure all of this?
913. DocBrown - 8/4/2000 1:24:18 PM
No, AytchMan, I do not think that the "noble goals" of Stalin found so much admiration that his transgression could be overlooked. Few Americans would consider life under Stalin to be ideal.
But life in America was no picnic, either. This was the era of The Grapes of Wrath. The system in this country was also very cruel, and some Americans may have considered capitalism to be a greater demon than Stalin.
914. PelleNilsson - 8/4/2000 1:28:19 PM
Aytch
Even in the 30's, many of Stalin's grander transgressions were known.
Yes, they were. But hard as it is to believe know, but I think that back then the fellow-traveller dismissed it as rumour-mongering and anti-communist propaganda. On shouldn't understimate the powers of denial. In the 70's many on the left here dismissed the reports of Pol Pots genocide in Kambodja in the same way. Facts are not facts until they are believed.
915. CalGal - 8/4/2000 1:32:52 PM
The one interesting argument I've heard on Lindbergh's attachment to Germany was the control they had--on the press, on the public. An important man in Germany could live his life pretty much as he pleased, without having every move constantly scrutinized and criticized.
Lindy's life had been incredibly damaged by his fame--as a private man, the incessant hounding must have seemed even worse. And of course, he had to think his fame and exposure as a result of it contributed to the kidnapping and death of his son.
So I could see someone being enthralled and enchanted by the relative security that he would have in Germany.
I don't say this to excuse him--obviously, his attachment to the freedoms that were sacrificed as a result of Germany's control had to be fairly weak, which suggests very much an "I got mine, Jack" mentality. But I think that it explains his attraction to Germany more than anything else I've read.
916. Wombat - 8/4/2000 1:50:15 PM
Doc:
Between his statement about US Jews, and his failure to recognize that some of his colleagues in America First were pro-German, Lindbergh discredited both himself and the movement he was involved in. It also made it impossible for him to make a meaningful contribution to the war effort. Lindbergh was apparently puzzled by the Roosevelt administration's emnity, which is symptomatic of his political stupidity.
917. DocBrown - 8/4/2000 1:52:01 PM
I'm getting a little fuzzy on (Lindbergh's) biography now but I think he admired them in certain ways through the 30's, came under increasing fire for it and slowly shifted his stance.
If this is true I have never heard of it. After the kidnapping the Lindbergh's moved to England and Charles hardly said a word in public until 1939, after his 1938 visit to Germany. At that time he did advocate isolationism. I believe it was his isolationist stance plus his acceptance of a medal from Goering that got Lindy branded anti-semitic.
If Lindbergh had an opinion about the Nazi movement during the 30s, he kept quiet about it. Or perhaps you know something that I don't?
918. Wombat - 8/4/2000 1:55:05 PM
I supsect that Lindbergh, like David Lloyd George, admired how the Nazis "restored" Germany, while downplaying or ignoring some of the methods used.
919. CalGal - 8/4/2000 2:00:26 PM
Apropos of nothing much except that not too many people have been there, here is Lindy's grave and headstone: 
It was late in the day and I was tired, so the pictures aren't that great. The headstone is hard to read even in fullsize.
920. PelleNilsson - 8/4/2000 2:12:35 PM
CalGal
Where is it?
921. CalGal - 8/4/2000 2:20:35 PM
He is buried just south of the town of Hana in Maui, which is extremely remote even now. At the time, I don't even think there was a road--you had to fly in.
It is now a three hour drive on a very windy road (I posted on the road to Hana in Stories a while back).
This also isn't a particularly terrific shot, but it is the view just a few feet from his tombstone: 
When Lindbergh was diagnosed with terminal cancer, he was told he could extend his life by staying in New York and getting the best medical care. He rejected this advice, saying that one day in Hawaii beats 30 in New York, and flew home.
922. AytchMan - 8/4/2000 3:52:04 PM
But hard as it is to believe now, but I think that back then the fellow-traveller dismissed it as rumour-mongering and anti-communist propaganda.
I think that's the key point. I guess that many people brushed the pigeon droppings off the Canvas of Ideals so as not to mar a beautiful painting. Still, it's hard to understand why people can't/won't make a distinction between an admirable goal and a severely flawed vehicle to transport them there.
923. stostosto - 8/4/2000 4:06:57 PM
I think Americans have a completely different perspective on communism and socialism than Europeans. It seems so - almost literally - foreign to them.
924. AytchMan - 8/4/2000 4:12:09 PM
sto--
I think you're right although I'd say "rather" vice "completely". What specifically did you mean?
925. stostosto - 8/4/2000 5:41:06 PM
H-Man
No, I'd say "completely". I'd like to expand on this phenomenon - its symptoms, and possible causes - but it's a huge issue. I have read somewhere that "communist" was a fairly unqualified derogatory term in the USA as early as the 1920s. In Europe that would only apply in limited social circles.
One difference I have noticed - a symptom - is that Americans are far more liable to lump communism and Nazism together in the same category, sometimes even to equate them.
One personal observation, illustrating Pelle's point about people dismissing horror-stories from the Soviet Union as capitalist, or - during the Cold War - American propaganda: After the fall of the Berlin wall and the dissolution of the Soviet Union when archives were opened and people generally were free to speak up, many atrocities and incredibly cynical acts of the regime were documented.
One of those was not new to me: The shooting down of the Korean passenger plane in 1983. I had once come across and read a detailed description in the Reader's Digest. But I had dismissed it as pure American propaganda. I knew the Reader's Digest's singleminded right-wing anti-communist slant, you see.
cont.
926. stostosto - 8/4/2000 5:41:25 PM
cont.
And I was really astounded to learn that everything the Reader's Digest had reported was in fact true.
I guess the real question in this and other instances - such as Soviet support for Germany's Rote Arme Fraktion and Bulgarian/Soviet involvement in the attentat at the Pope - was not why nobody believed what sources like Reader's Digest were reporting.
It was why the main stream media didn't report them. Or, when they did, routinely added caveats and disclaimers like 'alleged', 'purported', 'claim' etc.
The main stream assumption was that there was a propaganda war on in which neither side was to be believed.
It allowed people plenty room for choosing the version that fitted their particular pet views.
927. Wombat - 8/4/2000 5:45:37 PM
Sto:
There was a reflexive anti-Americanism in Europe that colored the media's perception of things in the '70s and '80s.
928. CalGal - 8/4/2000 5:46:00 PM
Sto,
Are you saying you didn't believe the jetliner was shot down, or what?
And I'm not quite sure I follow your point. Americans don't equate nazism and communism unless we are discussing political extremes.
Or perhaps that's your point.
929. stostosto - 8/4/2000 5:52:12 PM
CalGal, yes, as I recall, the plane was only 'purportedly' shot down. The Soviets denied any knowledge of it at all I think. And - don't forget - this was during Reagan, the quintessential anti-communist, cold and propaganda warrior. Who could belive that ludicrous figure's fulminations?
930. stostosto - 8/4/2000 5:53:50 PM
Wombat: What you say is true, and those were my formative years.
931. CalGal - 8/4/2000 5:54:21 PM
Wow.
I mean.
Wow.
I could see believing that we demonized what might have been an honest mistake, but not believing it at all? Fascinating.
I suppose you believed the Vincennes incident without question?
932. stostosto - 8/4/2000 5:58:37 PM
CalGal
I've seen several (American) posters in these forums equate communism and Nazism/fascism. Most don't do that, however, they just label them both 'totalitarian' and give no further thoughts to their possible distinctions. They were un-democratic and murderous regimes who used mass-media and terror to whip up active popular support. Period.
933. CalGal - 8/4/2000 5:58:38 PM
Semi-amusing story about how clued out I was at the time.
I was going to school and working full-time in 1983, and early in the week I had heard the rumor that the Russians had shot down a Korean airliner but that probably it was an exaggeration, that it had just been forced down somewhere.
I was very very busy and figured I'd catch up on the details later and never thought of it again until my first free evening, which was Friday. I was watching the news and they were showing a graphic representation of what happened, and I watched the little drawn missile go from the Russian plane to the Korean plane, trying to see when it missed, or where it hit, or how the rumor had gotten started.
The little graphic missile hit the plane. Right smack in the center of the plane.
"Mom," I called. (I was 21, living at home to help pay the family's expenses). "So the Russian missile actually hit the plane? Right in the middle? How the hell did it land, then?"
My mother walked out of the kitchen into the family room, just to give me that look I get a lot when I'm not paying attention.
"Oh."
Until that moment it had never occurred to me that the Russians had actually and deliberately blown the plane apart, that the rumors were true.
934. CalGal - 8/4/2000 6:00:27 PM
They were un-democratic and murderous regimes who used mass-media and terror to whip up active popular support.
Yes, pretty much. I think most people accept that one is far out on the left and the other on the right, but in general once you get out past a certain level of extremism we lose our ability to distinguish.
As we discussed in an earlier thread, we 'muricans have a very narrow political range.
935. Indiana Jones - 8/4/2000 6:01:10 PM
"the Vincennes incident"?
You mean the one with Niner and the woodchopper?
936. CalGal - 8/4/2000 6:02:12 PM
Ha, I didn't see that context until you mentioned it.
937. stostosto - 8/4/2000 6:12:27 PM
CalGal
That's really semi-amusing!
938. CalGal - 8/4/2000 6:28:44 PM
Yeah, yeah. Sorry.
But did you believe the Vincennes incident?
939. stostosto - 8/4/2000 6:30:35 PM
CalGal
I don't know what the Vincennes incident is.
940. CalGal - 8/4/2000 6:31:34 PM
Oh.
A US Navy ship shot down an Iranian airliner. Guess it didn't make the news in Yurrup.
941. Slackjaw - 8/4/2000 6:37:38 PM
I think most people accept that one is far out on the left and the other on the right
I think this is more sophisticated than what you'll hear in your average bingo hall. I think sto is correct about American non-understanding of the distinction, even on an ideological level, and CalGal evidently hangs out with too savvy a group. I know many people who believe communism and fascism are closely related ideologically.
942. stostosto - 8/4/2000 6:39:15 PM
CalGal
Of course I believed that. But who is Vincennes?
943. Slackjaw - 8/4/2000 6:39:17 PM
And in fact as a kid I got that impression from both WWII-era family and from school.
944. stostosto - 8/4/2000 6:40:48 PM
Didn't the USA acknowledge it fairly quickly, btw, if perhaps gently prodded?
945. CalGal - 8/4/2000 6:50:43 PM
Slack,
That's quite possible--not that my family was all that savvy, but then I don't remember them mentioning either communism or fascism much. Still, I submit that our inability to distinguish is due to our narrow political bandwidth. Any country that recognizes a great deal of difference between Dems and Republicans is bound to have problems recognizing distinctions between systems that are far outside their range.
Sto,
Well, the Russians acknowledged it fairly quickly, too. We're talking about a week instead of a day, maybe, but it's not like it was secret for years and years, was it?
946. CalGal - 8/4/2000 6:51:06 PM
Vincennes was the name of the ship.
947. stostosto - 8/4/2000 6:52:29 PM
Slackjaw,
That's nice!
It confirms my thesis and simultaneously positions you above the ignorant mass-Murcans.
Deservedly, in both cases, of course.
948. Slackjaw - 8/4/2000 6:57:14 PM
Are you suggesting we recognize a great deal of difference between D and R, Cal?
949. CalGal - 8/4/2000 6:58:16 PM
We as in all 'murricans? Yes.
We as in you and me? Naw, we're too savvy.
950. Slackjaw - 8/4/2000 6:58:53 PM
when you put it that way, sto, I may just take it all back.
951. Slackjaw - 8/4/2000 6:59:47 PM
But Cal, this is a country where "tweedle dum and tweedle dee" resonates and has for some decades.
952. CalGal - 8/4/2000 7:04:14 PM
????
I'm not grokking.
I would agree that recently, there are more people who throw up their hands and say, "A pox on both your houses!" but that's recent. And even so, I'm not sure that this translates to a recognition that there ain't much difference between the two.
I agree that ignorance plays a part, but this is a country that is perfectly clear on the difference between the Luftwafte and the Gestapo. Sure, the movies made it easier to distinguish because of their uniforms, but the point is that we are perfectly capable of making distinctions, even if they are ignorant ones. We just need to care about the distinction.
953. Slackjaw - 8/4/2000 7:09:11 PM
I guess it depends on how you define "recent" then. Do you agree that this notion has been around for a matter of several decades now? At least?
And I'm not necessarily saying the belief, that I consider common, of indistinct parties is a matter of ignorance. Indeed there is some truth to it. And it makes sense, given the centralizing (in the sense of ideology) pressures created by representative democracy with plurality rule elections.
954. Slackjaw - 8/4/2000 7:11:13 PM
We probably should continue this elsewhere.
955. stostosto - 8/4/2000 7:16:31 PM
Slack: Your place or mine?
956. Slackjaw - 8/4/2000 7:18:36 PM
I posted on it in the Slow Thread. mintcar's away so we can use his waterbed.
957. AytchMan - 8/6/2000 8:43:37 PM
sto--
I'd like to hear more on the differing political perceptions between Americans and Europeans. I agree that there are significant differences but you seem to think they're even greater.
Who knows, I might learn something. It's happened before.
More comments to follow.
958. AytchMan - 8/6/2000 10:16:01 PM
One difference I have noticed - a symptom - is that Americans are far more liable to lump communism and Nazism together in the same category, sometimes even to equate them.
For starters, I assume we're referring to people with some minimum level of knowledge and interest in such matters, not as involved as a political analyst but not Joe Sixpack either. Maybe Joe Zinfandel.
Now, I think your statement is true at some levels, not others. But before we can actually compare Yanks to Euros, let me 'splain a little more from our (my?) perspective. Please excuse the slipping back and forth between the 30's and today. It seems almost inescapable since the Nazis are long gone. Let's look at three areas:
Fundamental Ideology. Although Joe understands in a vague way that the bedrock ideologies are substantially, even radically different, he neither thinks about it much nor cares. Instead, he focuses on what we may call Applied Ideology. The fact that both ideologies are shot through with contradictions is problematic to this discussion.
Applied Ideology. This, Joe understands. He knows that both ideologies relied on different-sounding sets of revolting and unacceptable Standards and Practices that produced similar results. One regime's Stakhanovite collectivization was the other's Arbeit Macht Frei labor camp. Quite different (to Joe) but very the same.
cont.
959. AytchMan - 8/6/2000 10:21:52 PM
Professed Goals. Not actual goals, mind you -- a far, far different thing in both cases. This is where many American Joes have been terribly confused (and snookered), much more so by the Communists than the Nazis. Particularly in the 30's (which is where this discussion began). Here Americans drew significantly different conclusions about the two regimes. In the 30's, Joe's dad probably pegged the Nazis for what they were (if slowly) but dreadfully underestimated them. But Dad may well have been taken in by the Communists' Big Lie. Today, Joe's left-leaning friends recognize this but are still reluctant to admit it publically. His right-wing friends are too busy congratulating themselves to remember that most of their dads were isolationist ostriches in the 30's.
Whoa. This is a huge issue. There's lots I haven't covered. Anyway, contrast where the Euros think differently. I consider this more an education than a difference of opinion.
960. AytchMan - 8/6/2000 10:34:56 PM
To add one more data point, my current favorite political analogy for the relationship among Communism, Fascism, and Democracy (only) is the horseshoe.
Democracy sits at the top of the curve at the center. As one goes out to the left or right, the horseshoe bends around until Communism and Fascism are close to each other, but not connected, at the bottom. This preserves the distinction that they are two separate entities but are very close in many ways. Frankly, I have no feel for whether Joe Zinfandel would characterize it this way or not.
961. stostosto - 8/7/2000 8:37:23 AM
H:
I think this discussion is worth having, but I don't think this is the place for it. Slackjaw has expanded on it in the Slow Thread. I - surprise -see it as a perfect subject for the Interntional thread. Hence, I have officially declared the issue open for debate. Here.
962. CalGal - 8/7/2000 12:30:20 PM
Isn't today the anniversary of Hiroshima bombing?
963. CalGal - 8/7/2000 12:30:55 PM
Oh, wait. Today's the seventh. I thought it was the eighth. Of course, I might have the dates mixed up anyway.
964. DocBrown - 8/7/2000 1:08:14 PM
CalGal, I believe it is the eighth in Asia. The international date line is between us and them.
965. PelleNilsson - 8/10/2000 5:36:06 AM
Here in Europe there are still apologists for communism. Their line is that communism embodies noble a lofty ideals, but the Lenin/Staling way of achieving them was wrong. By contrast, they say, nazism achieved what it set out to do in its racial politics, but -luckily - did not win the war. So we have the contrast between the unsucessful implementation of noble ideals and the successful implementation of abominable ideals.
In addition they seem to say (the reasoning becomes a bit contorted here) that the killing of a large number of people in the course of the class struggle, while deplorable, is somehow less serious than killing another large number because of their ethnicity.
966. Indiana Jones - 8/10/2000 8:49:06 AM
Their line is that communism embodies noble a lofty ideals, but the Lenin/Staling way of achieving them was wrong.
Pelle: Some neo-facists apologize for Nazism too. Something like well, you know those boys did make the trains on time, black uniforms and swastikas are bitching, the Holocaust was way exaggerated, and the U.S. was duped into being on the wrong side by the international Jewish conspiracy.
Before the fall of the Soviet Union, communists tried to act like Stalin was the anomaly and that Lenin wasn't so bad. The more we discover about Lenin, the less defensible he was.
Marx was okay only because he wasn't in power.
I recommend Paul Johnson's The Intellectuals.
967. stostosto - 8/10/2000 9:13:31 AM
"Some neo-facists apologize for Nazism too"
But they are not saying: "Hitler betrayed the Nazi ideals by persecuting people because of their beliefs, instigating a world war by attacking Poland, murdering six million Jews, and committing sundry other atrocities in order to purify and elevate the Aryan race. "
I have never heard a neo-Nazi say: If the Holocaust really happened, I would not be a Nazi. For a very simple reason: Basically, Holocaust was what Nazi was about.
968. Indiana Jones - 8/10/2000 9:20:41 AM
Sto, I have no intention of defending Nazism. My point is that if you kill someone because of their race or you kill someone because of their class, the person is still just as dead.
Read about the romanticized Spanish Civil War. Communism doesn't happen without breaking a few eggs.
And--can't remember who said this originally--I have yet to see a communist omelette.
969. stostosto - 8/10/2000 9:33:14 AM
Indiana Jones
Communism is about abrogating private ownership to the means of production. You seldom get to carry that through without stepping on the feelings of the owners. They even actively resist it. Then, when communists press ahead regardless, they are liable to inflict violence and death. But in their minds, they set out to free society from an institution that is oppressive and unjust in order to reach a socially much more desirable situation: The classless society in which no one is exploiting anyone else.
Of course, as most people realise by now, that ideal is unobtainable, and the process of pursuing it quickly turns sour one way or the other.
When we are talking about whyever western intellectuals could identify themselves as communists, even in the face of the horrors that communist regimes have perpetrated, this, I submit, is basically the explanation.
970. stostosto - 8/10/2000 9:36:32 AM
er, I think I bungled the last sentence;
"... this, I submit, is basically the explanation"
the word "this" referring to the fascination with the utopian ideal of a classless society.
971. Jack Vincennes - 8/10/2000 12:14:05 PM
I'm reading Liddell's The History of World War II.
Some things I did not know or I had since forgotten:
The numerical superiority of experience troops between Poland and France vis-a-vis Germany in September 1939 was markedly in the favor of Poland/France. Liddell attributes the utter failures of both the French and Poland to their military leadership, which was resting on outdated principles based on long-ago victories (France over Germany in WWI; Poland over the Soviet Union in 1920).
Also, remember that the poor Poles, eaten up between Germany and the Soviet Union, had made a similar land grab when Germany went unchecked into Czechoslovakia.
972. Wombat - 8/10/2000 12:24:07 PM
Poland's air force was tiny and obsolescent, and its tank force almost nonexistent. Germany's force multipliers easily made up for any disparity in numbers. French passivity before Germany's vestigial western fortifications during the Polish campaign tilted the odds even more in Germany's favor.
973. Indiana Jones - 8/10/2000 12:27:36 PM
But in their minds, they set out to free society from an institution that is oppressive and unjust in order to reach a socially much more desirable situation: The classless society in which no one is exploiting anyone else.
Sto: All true believers are right "in their minds." Communism is a nebulous thing--some believe the original Christians were communist--but if we mean by communism Marxism, I don't think unjust or just enters into it:
"Where the Utopian Socialists were imbued with moralisms (Robert Owen is perhaps the classic case), Marx saw revolutionary praxis (practice). Marx detested romanticism, emotionalism, sentimentalism and humanitarianism of any kind. They were bourgeois. He did not want to appeal to the idealistic feelings of his audience. The manifestoes, histories, outlines and critiques which he wrote make little or no reference to moral progress, eternal justice, the rights of man, the fight for civilization or any other species of bourgeois rhetoric. The class war must and will be fought."
Both Marx and Hitler took Darwinism and extrapolated its amoral principles of human evolution to the social interaction of human beings, Marx through economics, Hitler through race.
974. PelleNilsson - 8/10/2000 12:28:32 PM
One often sees the story that the Poles attacked with cavalry brandishing lances but I don't know it that is apocryphical.
Anyhow, if I remember right, it was in Poland that Guderian first practiced Blitzkrieg which he then also used against the French, hunkered down in the Maginot line.
975. Indiana Jones - 8/10/2000 12:29:00 PM
Link for previous cite.
976. DaveM - 8/10/2000 3:36:19 PM
Indiana -
Your take on Marxism is woefully incomplete. I don't have the time at the moment to prepare a complete response, but I would like to point out that some of the fiercest critics of Stalinism were Western Marxists such as Lukacs, Gramsci, Marcuse, Adorno, Horkheimer, Benjamin, Habermas, Jamison, and Merlau-Ponty. To say that Marxism logically entailed Communism is to ignore everything except the writings of one of Engel's disciples, whose name conveniently eludes me now.
977. PelleNilsson - 8/10/2000 3:40:31 PM
Indy
To connect back to an earlier phase of this discussion. An important difference between Europe and the US is that here communism appeared as a real political force after the war. In France and Italy they gained 15-20% of the vote. After the overthrow of the Salazar and Franco regimes they were strong in Portugal and Spain too.
When I refer to apologists of communism (I'm now talking about Sweden, but I think it is similar elsewhere) I'm talking about prominent intellectuals who made their mark in the heady leftist days of the 70's. Their words are in print and the ones that they scorned then are now coming back accusing them of being badly informed, naive, or, the worst slur of all, led by the nose by Soviet propagandists. These are the people who are desperately searching for a "Yes, but ..." to the accusation that communism was just as evil as nazism.
978. Indiana Jones - 8/10/2000 3:53:20 PM
DaveM:
Your take on Marxism is woefully incomplete. I don't have the time at the moment to prepare a complete response...
While awaiting your complete response, I apologize in advance that my three-paragraph post (the majority of which wasn't written by me) was an insufficent summation of Marxist thought.
I never should have represented it as such.
I would like to point out that some of the fiercest critics of Stalinism were Western Marxists
I'm glad you pointed that out, but I'm not sure what it's a response to.
979. PelleNilsson - 8/10/2000 4:01:32 PM
DaveM
Yes, these people were Marxists although I think Adorno and Horkheimer changed their thinking in later years, and nobody has really been able to understand Marcuse. But they were theoretical Marxists, who applied a Marxist analysis to contemporary events. They couldn't have cared less about about the mediocre thinkers Lenin and Stalin.
980. Indiana Jones - 8/10/2000 4:18:00 PM
These are the people who are desperately searching for a "Yes, but ..." to the accusation that communism was just as evil as nazism.
Pelle: Pardon my bluntness, but let 'em search. If you've read Spandau and Inside the Third Reich by Speer, you know that "intellectual" Nazis had to do some soul-searching, too.
My feelings are this: Evil has an attractive face and a hideous face. The Holocaust allowed the hideous face of the Nazis to be exposed, and I don't think anyone will make that mistake again (look at the uproar over Haider, for example). But communists don't want to come to terms with all the evil their ideology yielded. They still try to put its old wine in new bottles.
Not being a European, I can't offer much of an opinion about the "told you so" attitude toward fellow travelers that you describe. We have a little bit of it here--people like Jane Fonda, for example--and my take on those who repudiate what they said before is "let bygones be bygones." But I have no tolerance for communist apologists.
It cost too much in too many ways to ever let that weed take root again.
BTW, I'm not particularly enamored of the out-of-control commercialistic capitalism that's resulted with communism's demise, either. I think communes are great, when they're voluntary, but as Sto pointed out earlier, on a big scale such voluntary cooperation rarely happens.
Once before you and I had a similar discussion and you used a very good phrase to describe how it works in Scandinavia, but I can't remember the wording now. Anyway, that sounded fine to me because I remember it as emphasizing voluntary cooperation.
981. Indiana Jones - 8/10/2000 4:23:29 PM
"how it works in Scandinavia" = "how socialism works in Scandinavia"
Not communism, of course.
982. DaveM - 8/10/2000 4:41:59 PM
Pelle -
I think Adorno and Horkheimer changed their thinking in later years
I don't know about this, though Critical Theory gradually tended to hide its Marxist foundation. The speculation is that this was due to growing anti-Communism, though, not to any change in their philosophical perspectives.
nobody has really been able to understand Marcuse.
It's true that he is an enigmatic person, but Habermas, for example, has done an excellent job of desribing his position in the overall Frankfurt School.
they were theoretical Marxists, who applied a Marxist analysis to contemporary events. They couldn't have cared less about about the mediocre thinkers Lenin and Stalin.
This is not true. They were virulent critics of Stalinism and what was going on in the Soviet Union. Perhaps they didn't care about the writings of Lenin and Stalin, but they certainly did care about their country.
Indiana -
But communists don't want to come to terms with all the evil their ideology yielded.
If by this you mean Communism, or Stalinism, or Leninism, then fine - but if you mean Marxism, you are simply wrong. Marxism, though, did not yield any evil.
But I have no tolerance for communist apologists.
Neither do I. Being a Marxist, though, does not make one a Communist apologist.
Both Marx and Hitler took Darwinism and extrapolated its amoral principles of human evolution to the social interaction of human beings, Marx through economics, Hitler through race.
I don't know if this is from you or your cite, but "On the Origin of Species" was published in 1859, and the majority of Marx's work was published before then (Das Kapital wasn't published until 1867, but Marx's notes indicate that it under progress long before then).
983. stostosto - 8/10/2000 4:50:27 PM
I don't think Marx was beyond unjust or just, or that his theories were Darwinistic and amoral. He did, perhaps grandiloquently, dub his thinking "Scientific Socialism", though. But he devoted much of his energy to demonstrate how capitalism exploited workers, and he framed the revolutionary class struggle as an aspiration for mankind to free itself from alienation and social submission. It wasn't merely descriptive theorising. It was clearly theory with a purpose, even a moral purpose.
(I have concocted a small lecture in the slow thread, don't ask me why).
984. Indiana Jones - 8/10/2000 5:05:50 PM
Dave M: Marx mentions Darwin in Das Kapital.
From Johnson's Intellectuals (p. 51):
Marx was a child of his time, the mid-nineteenth century, and Marxism was a characteristic nineteenth-century philosophy in that it claimed to be scientific. 'Scientific' was Marx's strongest expression of approval, which he habitually used to distinguish himself from his many enemies. He and his work were 'scientific'; they were not. He felt he had found a scientific explanation of human behaviour in
history akin to Darwin's theory of evolution. The notion that Marxism is a science, in a way that no other philosophy ever has been or could be, is implanted in the public doctrine of the states his followers founded, so that it colours the teaching of all subjects in their schools and universities.
Toys
985. stostosto - 8/10/2000 5:15:38 PM
Indy: Marx may have mentioned Darwin in Das Kapital, but your quote doesn't prove it. It mearly demonstrates that Johnson mentions Darwin in the same paragraph as Marx.
986. Wombat - 8/10/2000 5:21:50 PM
Johnson is a polemicist, not a scholar. He was also a socialist in his "salad" days, and either saw the error of his ways or decided he could do better as a critic.
On a tangent: I get really cheesed off by former extreme leftists who see the error of their ways, and swing completely over to the other side, without losing their extremist viewpoint. Horowitz and Olaski spring to mind.
987. Indiana Jones - 8/10/2000 5:36:13 PM
Sto: He does mention him. My Johnson cite was a separate statement.
988. Indiana Jones - 8/10/2000 5:40:12 PM
From Das Kapital, Part IV, Chapter 15, Note 4.
A critical history of technology
would show how little any of the inventions of the 18th century are the work of a single
individual. Hitherto there is no such book. Darwin has interested us in the history of Nature's
Technology, i.e., in the formation of the organs of plants and animals, which organs serve as
instruments of production for sustaining life. Does not the history of the productive organs of
man, of organs that are the material basis of all social organisation, deserve equal attention?
989. DaveM - 8/10/2000 5:44:38 PM
Sorry about the long quote:
Such connections between Darwin and Marx have been effectively refuted by historians for quite some time. The myth of the link between the two figures was created after Marx’s death by Friedrich Engels’ graveside oration to Marx, and supported by later Marxists such as Filippo Turati, Edward Aveling & Ludwig Büchner as evidence for the ‘scientific’ nature of their worldview. In particular, it has been proven that a letter evidently written by Darwin to Marx, apparently asking that Marx not dedicate the second volume of Das Kapital to him, was in fact addressed to Aveling asking that his A Student’s Darwin (1881) not be so dedicated, Darwin being opposed to Aveling’s vehement anti-Christian rhetoric and not wishing to have his name associated with such radicalism. While it is true that Marx sent Darwin a copy of the second German edition of the first volume of Das Kapital upon its publication (1873), Darwin’s lack of linguistic ability prevented him from reading more than a small amount of the book and only pages up to 105 (of 822) were cut. The question however remains as to how Marx was (if at all) influenced by Darwin, for Morris informs us that Marx “became profoundly committed to Darwinism” and Rajca (quoted earlier) sees Marx as saying that it was from Darwin that he got his ideas. While he initially described The Origin as containing “the natural-historical basis of our outlook”, he eventually would view Darwinism as a bourgeois ideology which mirrored the bourgeois competitive struggle in capitalist society.
990. DaveM - 8/10/2000 5:44:50 PM
Marx twice mentions Darwin’s theory in Das Kapital, both as footnotes, and both in a negative context. These are the only published references of Marx to Darwin. More importantly, Marx chastised a number of his followers, in particular Büchner and Friedrich Lange for attempting to link his ideas with those of Darwin. Büchner’s work was described as “superficial nonsense” and Lange lead Marx to describe the struggle for life as “the Malthusian population fantasy”. Clearly, Marx was no Darwinist.
As Ball notes, “Marx clearly admired and agreed with Darwin’s having finished off teleology in the natural sciences … [In Marx’s view] Darwin’s theory of natural selection applies, at best, only to prehuman, preconscious natural history; it does not apply to the epoch of human history in which men consciously transform nature and therefore themselves."
In other words, whatever Darwin had to say about natural history he had, in Marx’s view, nothing important to say about human history. For Marx, humankind, at least as far as its social development was concerned, lay outside of nature.
toys
991. DaveM - 8/10/2000 6:22:38 PM
The two main sources for a historical connection between Marx and Darwin appear to be Isaiah Berlin's "Karl Marx: His Life and Environment" and Stephen J. Gould's "Ever Since Darwin: Reflections In Natural History." (1977)
The article which claims to debunk Berlin and Gould is: Margaret A. Fay, "Marx and Darwin: A Literary Dectective Story," _Monthly Review_, March 1980
992. Indiana Jones - 8/10/2000 10:48:33 PM
Dave M: It appears to me that you are trying to refute a stronger case than what I made. Here's my original statement:
"Both Marx and Hitler took Darwinism and extrapolated its amoral principles of human evolution to the social interaction of human beings, Marx through economics, Hitler through race."
Note that the subject of the sentence is both Marx and Hitler, so it's not an implication that Marx was a scientist who built his work from Darwin's and should have included him as a main bibliographic source. Was Hitler a rigorous scientist? Was his thinking based firmly in Darwinism? Rather, the relationship described is more general and one that I think my quotation from Marx clearly supports:
"Darwin has interested us in the history of Nature's Technology, i.e., in the formation of the organs of plants and animals, which organs serve as instruments of production for sustaining life. Does not the history of the productive organs of man, of organs that are the material basis of all social organisation, deserve equal attention?"
If you don't think the quotation from the dude himself supports exactly what I said, well...
BTW, I came across the same paper your quote comes from, but decided not to use it to support my case because the copy I found didn't provide a bibliography, so I had no idea who "Ball" was. But note this part of what you quoted:
"Marx clearly admired and agreed with Darwin’s having finished off teleology in the natural sciences … [In Marx’s view] Darwin’s theory of natural selection applies, at best, only to prehuman, preconscious natural history; it does not apply to the epoch of human history in which men consciously transform nature and therefore themselves."
That sounds to me like what I said.
993. Indiana Jones - 8/10/2000 10:50:08 PM
Incidentally, I can see why a Darwinist might want to distance Darwin from Marx, but I don't really understand why a Marxist wants to distance himself from Darwin.
994. AytchMan - 8/10/2000 11:04:36 PM
Indy 993 et al--
Exactly the observation I wanted to make. I've never read the sixth Marx brother directly but I can't think of a reason to eschew Darwin. Is there a contradiction in Marxism -- as if(!) -- that Darwinism illuminates and, therefore, Darwin must be refuted?
995. DaveM - 8/11/2000 12:03:10 AM
Indiana -
"Both Marx and Hitler took Darwinism and extrapolated its amoral principles of human evolution to the social interaction of human beings, Marx through economics, Hitler through race."
I object to this statement for a couple of reasons. First, it wrongly implies that Marx was familiar with Darwin before he developed his theories of political economy. That is not true - he had the themes that would be contained in Das Kapital broadly sketched well before the publication of The Origin of Species.
Second, Marxism, and particularly critical Marxism, and perhaps even Leninism, though maybe not Stalinism, can be fairly characterized as the opposite of social Darwinism, broadly defined as the notion that economic roles are in some sense biologically or naturally determined. Marxism argues that the "ruling class" assumes and maintains power by propagating a reifying, coopting ideology - for Marx, it was primarily religion, the "opiate of the masses," and secondarily nationalism. Awareness of "ruling class ideology" would eventually allow for the formation of class consciousness, thereby allowing the delegitimation of the apparently natural role divisions. Perhaps it is a failing on my part, but I really don't see any Darwinism in here.
I really think that both of the quotes you mention in Message # 992 actually say the opposite of what you are arguing in the italicized quote above. Perhaps this is a misunderstanding - would you mind explaining what you mean by the quote above? Or perhaps what you mean by "amoral principles of human evolution?"
996. AytchMan - 8/11/2000 12:22:11 AM
This Communism/Fascism/Marxism/Socialism stuff has been very interesting (across all three threads).
Dave--
If you mentioned this elsewhere, I missed it: are you a political science type or have you just read up a lot on Marx and related matters?
997. DaveM - 8/11/2000 12:36:10 AM
Aytch -
I have a political science undergraduate degree and am currently in law school. I am interested in radical currents in American Law and have tried to familiarize myself with European radical movements.
998. AytchMan - 8/11/2000 12:43:24 AM
Well, you're a pretty knowledgeable dude. Your interest in "radical" -- is it to study (as from a historical perspective) or to reform (or whatever it is you young crazies are up to these days)?
999. Indiana Jones - 8/11/2000 12:54:27 AM
Dave M.: It is clear by Marx's own reference to Darwin that he was aware of the latter's work before publishing his own. Regardless of what his ideas had been eight years earlier, Marx himself in Das Kapital makes the comparison between what he is doing and what Darwin did. (You are drawing an awful lot of meaning from and a strong reaction to a single statement by me.)
I ask you to look once more and what I said and what you quoted by the unknown Ball side by side (I've omitted some extra phrasing to make it clearer):
"Marx took Darwinism and extrapolated its amoral principles of human evolution to the social interaction of human beings...through economics." (emphasis added)
"Marx clearly admired and agreed with Darwin’s having finished off teleology in the natural sciences … [In Marx’s view] Darwin’s theory of natural selection applies, at best, only to prehuman, preconscious natural history; it does not apply to the epoch of human history in which men consciously transform nature and therefore themselves."
If the reason you them as saying it means the opposite is based on the phrase "does not apply," then yes, I agree that Marx certainly didn't say these social interactions were based on genetics or natural selection. I said he extrapolated Darwin's method to economics (i.e., the economy evolves, there are immutable--and amoral--laws that dictate the evolution, and therefore someone who understands those laws can predict the evolution).
Aytch (994): None that I'm aware of, but I'm guessing Dave has read more Marx than I.
1000. CalGal - 8/11/2000 1:07:49 AM
Indy,
hahahahaha. You think?
1001. DaveM - 8/11/2000 1:14:37 AM
Aytch -
Thanks. I just like being able to see an issue from multiple sides.
Indiana -
What is "Darwin's method?"
1002. PelleNilsson - 8/11/2000 1:17:30 AM
Sneaky girl, that CalGal.
1003. PelleNilsson - 8/11/2000 1:20:45 AM
Dave -- Message # 982
This is not true. They were virulent critics of Stalinism and what was going on in the Soviet Union.
You are right. I remember now.
1004. PelleNilsson - 8/11/2000 1:37:59 AM
To my mind there is no merit in trying to claim that Marx was influenced by Darwin in the sense that he incorporated some kind of "social darwinism" in his political theory. The one who launched this -ism was Herbert Spencer in his work A system of Synthetic Philiosophy, the furst volume published in 1883.
1005. Indiana Jones - 8/11/2000 8:50:40 AM
Dave M: I think I said that in the previous post (the construction "Darwin's method, i.e."). If yet unclear, perhaps my post to Pelle below will make it so.
Pelle: Both you and Dave M have used the term social Darwinism in this debate, not I, so you will have to decide what you mean by it. What I have described (and what three sources have agreed with me including Marx himself) is that Marx was influenced by--or at least saw his own work as comparable to--Darwin's schema. In the same manner that understanding heredity and natural selection can lead to understanding the evolution of biological history, Marx theorized that understanding economics and class struggle can lead to understanding the evolution of social history. Both men saw the functioning of these systems as inexorable laws of science and therefore no more moral or immoral than gravity.
Finally, I again ask the question, what is to be gained by distancing Marx from Darwin? Suppose Marx was not influenced by Darwin? So what?
That speaks well of Darwin, not Marx.
1006. stostosto - 8/11/2000 12:32:03 PM
Indy
I think DaveM gave an articulate explanation as to why Marx' theorising differed from Darwin's. Even if he called his theory "Scientific Socialism". In the Slow thread I have tried to explain why I don't think Marx was amoral. What provoked responses to your original post - at least mine - was the juxtaposition of Marx with Hitler because of their supposedly common foundation in Darwin.
Herbert Spencer's Social Darwinism is mentioned because this, in fact represented an explicit application of Darwin's theory on social matters. It has often been used by proponents of what I think in America is commonly dubbed "economic conservatism" (plus myriad of self-interested millionaires) to justify capitalism's resultant inequality.
Hitler was a power fetichist whose murky Darwinistic thinking amounted to something like 'Aryans are the strongest race, therefore Aryans have a right to dominate other races and obliterate them if they so choose, which they should, because its no more than a rightful expression of their true pure strength, and because they do this, they are the strongest, healthiest, and best, so they ought to just trample on all the others and especially the filthy Jews, because that's what make them strong and good. Besides, Wagner is the best and most Aryan opera composer'.
I really don't think Hitler's take on Darwinism was comparable to Marx' as you seem to imply. Not even if Marx should happen to have liked Wagner too (which he might though I doubt it).
1007. pseudoerasmus - 8/11/2000 1:10:31 PM
I don't think there is anything more tedious than when these Herring people start pontificating about political ideology.
1008. CalGal - 8/11/2000 1:15:34 PM
We missed you, too.
1009. janjon - 8/11/2000 1:21:43 PM
I thought his website said he had abandoned the Mote.
1010. PelleNilsson - 8/11/2000 1:23:32 PM
Hi PE! You will love this next one.
About Social Darwinism
Social Darwinism is about extending Darwin into the interaction between humans, emphasizing the term "survival of the fittest" (coined by Spencer, not by Darwin) which in its vulgarized form became "the survival of the strongest" or "the law of the jungle". Social Darwinism was applied in two areas. On was one the individual level. To put it simply, success in academia or - above all -in business proved fitness. It was right, therefore, that capitalists and professors should lead the less fit people. This became a "scientific" argument against extending the franchise which would inevitably lead to "mob rule". This thinking has not died out. Sometimes you hear people say that they are tired of the "political squabble" and would prefer a "government of experts".
Another line of thought on the individual level was that the improvement of health care had voided the mechanisms of natural selection. "Misfits" could now survive and procreate which would inevitably lead to a degeneration of the "human material". This lead to rather massive programmes of sterilization in the US and Sweden (and probably in other countries too) which continued into the 1940's.
1011. PelleNilsson - 8/11/2000 1:24:43 PM
On another level Social Darwinism came to be applied on the relation between races. Apart from Spencer, the seminal work was Joseph Arthur Gobineau's Essaysur d'inegalité des races humaines (On the Inequality of Human Races (four volumes, 1853-55) in which he ranked the human races with the white, Nordic, race at the top. The Gobineau and Spencer theories came together in in Houston Stewart Chamberlain's Grundlagen des 19th Jahrhundert (Basic Issues of the 19th Century), 1899, in which he emphasized race as the basic force in history and argued that the Aryan race, being the most advanced (the most fit), must assert its leadership. (Trivia: Chamberlain married a daughter of Richard Wagner). Whether Hitler read Chamberlain is not known (I think) but Chamberlain's book was printed in mass editions and his thoughts practically became part of popular culture in Germany and Austria.
1012. stostosto - 8/11/2000 2:45:28 PM
Well pontificated, my fellow herring.
1013. DaveM - 8/11/2000 2:52:58 PM
PE - Feel free to enlighten us.
Pelle -
I am pretty sure that Spencer was originally a Lamarckian and didn't incorporate Darwinism until the very end of his life, though his work has definitely been pointed to as the foundation of social Darwinism.
I also think that you are granting Darwin too much credit in social history. Hobbes' bellum omnia contra omnes is generally pointed to as "the law of the jungle," supporters of Calvinism were some of the original advocates of the notion that material success proves social value (with predestination, material success was evidence that God was smiling on you), and the notion of "a government of experts" has had supporters since at least Aristotle (republic/democracy, monarchy/despot, oligarchy/aristocracy).
Indiana -
If I understand you, you are saying that Marx's analysis was descriptive rather than prescriptive? I think that Marx's assumption that there is a "true consciousness" belies that argument, but if this is what you are saying, I can see where you're coming from.
I said he extrapolated Darwin's method to economics (i.e., the economy evolves, there are immutable--and amoral--laws that dictate the evolution, and therefore someone who understands those laws can predict the evolution).
I think that this is not at all an accurate rendition of Darwinian evolutionary theory. There are no immutable laws that "govern" biological evolution - it is profoundly ad hoc. It is impossible to predict the future path of evolution.
Aside from the historical disjunct, how do you think Mill or Adam Smith relate to Darwin?
Jexster - Sorry to take the thread so far off topic.
1014. stostosto - 8/11/2000 3:02:57 PM
DaveM
I hereby nominate you Honorary Herring.
1015. DaveM - 8/11/2000 3:12:39 PM
Thanks. Will my inability to operate a chainsaw be a hindrance?
1016. PelleNilsson - 8/11/2000 3:26:49 PM
Dave
Yes, Spencer was a Lamarckian. But if you posit a contradiction between Lamarckianism and Darwinism at the time you are wrong. Spencer was the most vociferous propandist for Darwin's theory, Darwin himself being a shy man.
You are generally right in what you say in the second paragraph, and these ideas must have influenced Spencer. But if you look at the actual situation in the fight for and against universal franchice 1890-1920 I doubt if you find anyone referring to Hobbes, Calvin and Aristotle. Their ideas were mediated through Spencer and his followers.
1017. PelleNilsson - 8/11/2000 3:48:10 PM
And Dave, don't worry about Jexster. He will do as he is told.
1018. DaveM - 8/11/2000 3:54:42 PM
Pelle -
I agree. I just think that maybe
"Social Darwinism is about extending Darwin into the interaction between humans, emphasizing the term "survival of the fittest"
is too strong. There are lots of ways that Darwin can be extended into the interaction between humans that are less invidious than the historical Social Darwinism. Social Darwinism is about masking a particularly virulent ideology by reifying race as a scientifically grounded classification.
About Lamarck and Darwin - I was just trying to point out that theories of evolution existed prior to Darwin. You are, of course, correct, that Darwin was not familiar with Mendelian genetics.
1019. PelleNilsson - 8/11/2000 4:42:26 PM
Dave
I think we have arrived at "a complete harmony of views" as they say after political summits in the Middle East.
1020. stostosto - 8/11/2000 4:53:43 PM
In Denmark we say SKĹL!
1021. Kristjan - 8/11/2000 11:23:11 PM
only if there is alcohol involved somehow Stosto - is there any alcohol involved?
1022. stostosto - 8/12/2000 8:47:45 AM
Kristjan
You know as well as I that if Danes reach a "complete harmony of views", there is going to be alcohol involved.
1023. Kristjan - 8/12/2000 12:23:11 PM
true Stosto, true - my fault.
BTW is there any place here where you're supposed to introduce yourself? I haven't seen any logical place for that.
1024. CalGal - 8/12/2000 12:28:50 PM
Usually we just say, hi! Nice to see you! and it goes from there. The Cafe is our social thread.
1025. RustlerPike - 8/12/2000 2:17:35 PM
I believe in survival of the shittiest.
1026. stostosto - 8/12/2000 3:27:28 PM
Kristjan
Don't mind the CalGal, she's the epitome of Northern Californian informality. I remember in her first post to me, she called me "baby". I was shocked. Shocked!
Anyway, drop by at the Mote Cafe if you want to introduce yourself and acquaint yourself with a variety of Moties in a friendly manner.
1027. CalGal - 8/12/2000 3:36:36 PM
Was I inadvertently rude? Apologies if so. Welcome, Kristjan!
1028. Indiana Jones - 8/12/2000 5:38:32 PM
There are no immutable laws that "govern" biological evolution - it is profoundly ad hoc
David M.,
If you look again, I didn't use the term "biological evoluton" in the context to which you refer, but rather natural selection and genetics. Certainly natural selection and genetics follow immutable laws. For example, a pig won't give birth to a horse. Two recessive parents will give birth to a recessive offspring. In the larger, more general scheme, an organism less suited for a particular environment will be supplanted by an organism that can thrive there.
There is mutation, of course, just as there are unexpected events in history and economics. By saying predictable, I don't mean in the sense of psychic 100% prediction, but in the sense of reasonably predictable and therefore explainable. For example, it's reasonably predictable that introducing a population of rabbits into an area free of predators will lead to lots of rabbits. Moreover, again in context, I was talking about what Marx thought--not necessarily how either biology or history works. At least until the present, Marx's theory of the predictable unfolding history hasn't proved to be correct either.
Since I think a discussion of evolution is even farther afield from the thread's subject and I don't want to quibble about the meaning of "predictable," I'm going to post some further references about Marx and Darwin and be done with what I consider a very lengthy discussion over a five- or six-word phrase.
1029. Indiana Jones - 8/12/2000 5:38:47 PM
From Karl Marx: His Life and Thought, McLellan, 1973, pp. 423-424:
Marx had always had a great admiration for Darwin's work. He had read "On the Origin of Species" in 1860, a year after its publication....Marx certainly used biological metaphors to express his ideas and considered his method in the study of economic formulation more akin to biology than to physics or chemistry.
This author goes on to say that Engles' "equating the views of Marx and Darwin in his famous speech at Marx's graveside is highly misleading," but OTOH, who knew Marx better, the author or Engles?
1030. Indiana Jones - 8/12/2000 5:38:58 PM
From various letters:
Marx to Engles, 19 December 1860: "[During the past 4 weeks] I have read all manner of things. Inter alia Darwin's book on Natural Selection. Although developed in the crude English fashion, this is the book which, in the field of natural history, provides the basis for our views."
Marx to Ferdinand Lasalle, 16 January 1861: "Darwin's work is most important and suits my purpose in that it provides a basis in natural science for the historical class struggle. One does, of course, have to put up with the clumsy English style of argument. Despite its shortcomings, it is here that, for the first time, 'teleology' in natural science is not only dealt a mortal blow but its rational meaning is empirically explained."
Marx to Engles, 18 June 1862: "It is remarkable how Darwin rediscovered among the beasts and plants, the society of England with its division of labour, competition, opening up of new markets, inventions and Malthusian struggle for existence."
Marx to Engles, 7 August 1866: Marx praises Pierre Tremaux's book as preferable to Darwin's because "it represents a very significant advance over Darwin....Progress, which Darwin regards as purely accidental, is essential here on the basis of the earth's stage of development." (I include this because of your statement about evolution's predictability to show that Marx apparently preferred such a theory of evolution.)
1031. Indiana Jones - 8/12/2000 5:39:13 PM
Finally, I would recommend for defenders of Marx as a "humanitarian," that they browse Karl Marx: Racist. The last letter I cited from Marx concludes with the phrase "he shows that the common negro type is only a degeneration of a far higher one." The words the author actually used were "the backward negro is not an evolved ape, but a degenerate man."
This is the scientist whose theory of evolution Marx thought was "a significant advance over Darwin."
(BTW, I'm not recommending Karl Marx: Racist so much on its own merits as that it does use primary sources quite a bit.)
1032. stostosto - 8/12/2000 6:17:57 PM
Cal, you weren't rude in the least. You are fabulous, you know that. I just wanted to introduce you to Kristjan.
Sweetie.
1033. stostosto - 8/12/2000 6:37:02 PM
Indiana;
"...I think a discussion of evolution is even farther afield from the thread's subject...
I actually tried to move our discussion to the Slow Thread without much luck.
"...I'm going to post some further references about Marx and Darwin and be done with what I consider a very lengthy discussion over a five- or six-word phrase..."
A lengthy, and in my opinion, very interesting discussion. I certainly have learned something from DaveM, Pelle, Jürgen Huber (Slow Thread) and you, so I don't know why you seem a little annoyed at the debate. I think you should be proud of having initiated it.
Who has called Marx a "humanitarian", by the way?
He wasn't as deterministic as you portray him. His philosophical program was the "material dialectism" (see Huber's post in Slow), which acknowledges the role of conscious human actions in the various guises of historic class struggle. Indeed, entering a class struggle against the establishment presupposes an awareness on the part of the rising class.
By the way, Karl Popper has - to my knowledge - put in a good effort to debunk any claim to "science" that Marx or Marxists have made.
Again, I take exception from your juxtaposition of Marx with Hitler. I don't know why that seems to be so important to you.
1034. Kristjan - 8/12/2000 6:44:02 PM
actually I'm pretty sure I've run into CalGal over in TT as well, but hi everyone (now I need to go say hi at the cafe).
If people hadn't guessed it by now, I'm another Dane posting. No relationship to Stosto though.
1035. Indiana Jones - 8/12/2000 7:04:45 PM
Again, I take exception from your juxtaposition of Marx with Hitler. I don't know why that seems to be so important to you.
sto: I mentioned Hitler in the same breath as Marx in post 973. Since then my points have been about Darwin and Marx, so I'm not sure what you mean by its being so important to me. I don't think Marx was equivalent to Hitler, but Stalin certainly was. At the same time, when a battle begins and the killing starts, I think the drummer ought to share some of the blame with the infantryman.
By the way, Karl Popper has - to my knowledge - put in a good effort to debunk any claim to "science" that Marx or Marxists have made.
I suspect you'll have more of an argument with Dave on this one than with me. I think my opinion of Marxism should be pretty clear by now and "scientific" isn't part of it.
Who has called Marx a "humanitarian", by the way?
I don't suppose anyone here has, but there seems to be an undercurrent in some of the posts that, even though Marx was an atheist, his work was moral because it had humanitiarian goals.
I haven't yet read your posts in the Slow Thread (that thread is usually too academically "deep" for a grazer such as myself) but I'll take a look at them now.
1036. Indiana Jones - 8/16/2000 10:46:28 PM
I came across this link while looking for info on the battle of Kursk...
WWII through Russian Eyes
1037. alistairconnor - 8/20/2000 11:05:42 AM
Indy :
Marx and Hitler in the same breath sounds dopey to me. Stalin and Hitler : now you're talking.
Sorry to come in late on the discussion and rake up something you probably wish you'd never said, but...
Both Marx and Hitler took Darwinism and extrapolated its amoral principles of human evolution to the social interaction of human beings, Marx through economics, Hitler through race.
What a meaningless construct! Darwin was a scientist. His work greatly expanded the field of scientific understanding. Marx read it, and was influenced by it, as were most intelligent people of his time (except the obscurantist rearguard). Hitler, decades later, was undoubtedly influenced by racist pseudo-scientists who had read Darwin.
You can find other things which Marx and Darwin have, more convincingly, in common. For example, they both breathed air and ate food.
I don't think Marx was equivalent to Hitler, but Stalin certainly was.
Yes, they both caused millions of deaths. I agree that Stalin's regime and Hitler's were functionally equivalent to a great extent, and both can be called fascist.
1038. alistairconnor - 8/20/2000 11:12:23 AM
At the same time, when a battle begins and the killing starts, I think the drummer ought to share some of the blame with the infantryman.
Oooooh, we're in trouble with this one. "Stalin = Marx" won't wash. I think a chronology of events can be established to show that the millions of deaths (Civil War apart) can be laid at Stalin's door, rather than assigned to the previous Bolshevik regime (I would establish a cut-off date of 1928 for the Stalinisation of the Soviet Union, i.e. when he eliminated the historic Bolsheviks from power, though creeping Stalinisation had gone on since Lenin's death).
Stalin can't be described in any meaningful way as a Marxist. All his acts were centred on obtaining and consolidating his personal power; in order to do so, he progressively and completely put a stop to all Marxist/Leninist thinking, by the simple expedient of having all the thinkers locked up or shot.
Stalin, like Hitler, was a non-thinker. But Hitler was an ideologue, and undoubtedly sincere. Stalin was amoral.
A trivial example of the Stalin method (but one which pre-empts any discussion as to whether Stalin was influenced by Darwin!) was the canonisation of the scientific doctrine of Lysenko, who claimed that characteristics acquired by plants or animals could be passed to their offspring. The whole thing was a scam, of course, but that didn't matter in the slightest to Stalin. It suited his doctrine : see, humanity can be improved!
1039. alistairconnor - 8/20/2000 11:16:27 AM
I don't suppose anyone here has [called Marx a "humanitarian"], but there seems to be an undercurrent in some of the posts that, even though Marx was an atheist, his work was moral because it had humanitiarian goals.
It gets worse and worse... Looking for a fight, Indy? Even though Marx was an atheist? You seem to subscribe to the incredibly common fallacy that anyone who doesn't buy into the God scam is necessarily amoral.
I think I'll give you a chance to retract that implication before I go on... [Insert inane "Smiley" icon here]
1040. alistairconnor - 8/20/2000 11:38:47 AM
To go back to the beginning of this discussion, H's Message # 900 : why was Stalin's regime more popular than Hitler's? : I've got a couple of elements to suggest.
The Bolshevik revolution was carried out by a small group of dedicated, ruthless, idealistic humanists, who voluntarily subjected themselves to the iron discipline of the Party. They had their counterparts in each European country. The communist parties and their sympathisers were the wellspring of support for the notion of communism as it was projected by Stalin (as opposed to the reality).
Fascism is inherently nationalistic; no such international network existed or could exist in its case.
1041. alistairconnor - 8/20/2000 12:06:09 PM
Also, to contribute to the (long past) discussion as to the differences in perception of Communism by Americans and Europeans :
Communism as a political movement has a century of history in Europe. Each European country has its local history of communism, and the propensity of Europeans to favour or oppose it tends to be based much more on the doings of its domestic Communist party than on what was happening in the Soviet Union. (I'm talking about countries where communism has had significant popular support, i.e. excluding Britain and probably Greater Herringland.)
For example (please sit down before reading on, 'Murcans, I don't want to be responsible for any broken bones), the French communist party still pulls around 10% of the vote, and has several ministers in the current government.
Sure, the European communist parties were mostly pretty late in de-Stalinising (it took a long time for the truth about the Soviet Union to sink in and be believed by the rank and file), but the attitudes of most people to them are/were more determined by their domestic political records and bread-and-butter issues.
1042. PelleNilsson - 8/20/2000 4:13:25 PM
alistair
I might have something to say about this, but given your irregular attendance in the Mote, it might be a waste of time to write it down.
1043. alistairconnor - 8/20/2000 5:16:31 PM
Consider me humbly chastised. I lurk a bit. I may be a bit more assiduous in future. Fire away...
1044. DaveM - 8/20/2000 6:49:01 PM
Indiana -
Marx's over-reliance on class-based demarcations of power is his primary error, in my opinion.
Re: Message # 1035
I certainly don't think that Marxism is scientific in the traditional sense. Neo-marxist approaches (including things like critical theory and post-structuralism) are useful heuristic devices, though.
Re: Message # 1031
Citing Ayn Rand to call someone a bigot is kind of funny, Indy - even Milton Friedman called Rand an "an utterly intolerant person." Does Herbert Spencer's racism, which was a major part of his theoretical work, in contrast to Marx, impugn all of libertarianism? How about Thomas Jefferson's republicanism? Marx's failure to see the iniquity of racism doesn't mean that he wasn't a humanitarian.
At the same time, when a battle begins and the killing starts, I think the drummer ought to share some of the blame with the infantryman.
Is Christ the drummer of the Crusades?
1045. DaveM - 8/20/2000 6:50:08 PM
AlistairConnor -
re: Message # 1037
A quick semantic question - do you consider "fascism" to be the same as "totalitarianism"? I would call Stalinism totalitarian, but not fascist.
re: Message # 1038
The relationship between Lenin and Stalin is an interesting topic. Trotsky's 1937 Bolshevism and Stalinism:
Scientific thinking demands a concrete analysis: how and why did the party degenerate? No one but the Bolsheviks themselves have, up to the present time, given such an analysis. To do this they had no need to break with Bolshevism. On the contrary, they found in its arsenal all they needed for the explanation of its fate. They drew this conclusion: certainly Stalinism 'grew out' of Bolshevism, not logically, however, but dialectically; not as a revolutionary affirmation but as a Thermidorian negation.
I know, though, that Habermas, for one, has argued that Stalinism is an outgrowth of Bolshevism.
Pelle -
People other than Alistair are also following the discussion - I would appreciate hearing your comments.
1046. alistairconnor - 8/21/2000 5:28:59 PM
No, Dave, I was playing fast and loose with the definition of fascism. Fascist regimes are quite up-front about what they believe in : Might is Right and all that : and their acts are coherent with their professed ideology. Stalin's regime was functionally fascist : oppression of minorities, totalitarianism, police state, etc : but professed a different ideology, very often in flat contradiction with its acts.
I can't agree that Stalinism was an outgrowth of Bolshevism, unless you want to call it a malignant growth.
The Party, which was the essence of Bolshevism, functioned in a democratic and transparent manner, everything was open to debate. Once a decision was made by the Central Committee, then that decision was absolutely binding on all party members, not to the extent that they were expected to abandon their own opinions, but they were required to set those opinions aside and carry out the party line without reservation.
Perhaps it can be said that this iron self-discipline carries the seeds of destruction of bolshevism; because it created a mindset which enabled absolute obedience to continue, even when all traces of contradictory debate and effective democracy had been wiped out.
This discipline thing caused many of the bolshevik leaders to literally sign their own death warrant : by accepting the absurd confessions that were written for them, they were subjecting themselves once more to the discipline of the Party, which, even though wrong this time, would surely return to the path of correctness.
Trotsky could have staged a military coup to oust Stalin, at any time until 1929 or 30 at least, but didn't do so because it was unthinkable to revolt against the Party. Because Stalin always respected the appearance of Bolshevik legality.
1047. DaveM - 8/21/2000 6:30:28 PM
Alistair -
The Party, which was the essence of Bolshevism, functioned in a democratic and transparent manner, everything was open to debate.
This sounds much more like Menshevik ideology that Bolshevik. I doubt that any coherent critic has ever claimed that Trotsky was a "cause" of stalinism. Habermas Theory and Praxis (1971) is the work I was referring to, but I don't have it handy.
1048. jexster - 8/21/2000 10:48:03 PM
Damn Jurgen Habermas! Jumpin Jimminie!
This place is getting to interlektule!
Let's bring things down a bit.
I don't know how many saw the recent Dateline piece on Chase-Manhattan's fundraising efforts for Adolph Hitler 1936-41 but here's a parallel and somewhat timely item:
Prescott Bush, the father of the former President and the grandfather of the current candidate, spent more than a decade helping his father-in-law George Herbert Walker finance Adolf Hitler from the Wall Street bank, Union Banking Corporation.(Union Banking Corp. was eventually seized under the Trading With The Enemy Act. See Office of Alien Property Custodian, Vesting Order No. 248; Filed,November 6, 1942, 11:31 A.M.; 7 Fed. Reg. 9097 (Nov. 7, 1942).)
1049. jexster - 8/21/2000 10:48:29 PM
Walker was one of Hitler's most powerful supporters in the United States, and landed
Prescott Bush a job as a director at the firm. From 1924 to 1936, Bush's bank invested heavily in Nazi Germany, selling $50 million of German bonds to Americaninvestors. In 1934, a congressional investigation believed that Walker's Hamburg-America Line subsidized a wide range of pro-Nazi efforts in both Germany and the United States. One of Walker's employees, Dan Harkins, delivered testimony to ongressional leaders regarding Walker's Nazi sympathies and business
transactions. According to US Government Vesting Order No. 248, many of Union Banking's assets had been operated on behalf of Nazi Germany and had beenused to support the German war effort. The U.S. Alien Property Custodian vested the Union Banking Corp.'s stock shares and also issued two other Vesting Orders (nos. 259 and 261) to seize two other Nazi-influenced organizations managed by Bush's bank: Holland American Trading Corporation and Seamless Steel Equipment Corporation. Many major firms had dealings with Nazis in the years leading up to World War II, but relatively few engaged in such extended cooperation
with Hitler's Germany after Pearl Harbor. (The Secret War Against The Jews by John Loftus and Mark Aarons. New York; St. Martins Press, 1994.) "
1050. alistairconnor - 8/22/2000 8:59:12 AM
Dave : I doubt that any coherent critic has ever claimed that Trotsky was a "cause" of stalinism.
I don't think that's what I was saying... in my confused way, I was more or less agreeing with you (or your sources?) that Stalinism could be seen as an outgrowth of Bolshevism, in that the internal functioning of the party contained the seeds of its own nemesis.
I think it can be demonstrated, at least my readings converge on this, that the party functioned in a democratic manner at least up until Lenin's death (already at that stage, the problem of the colonisation of the party by opportunists was posed, with Trotsky and others campaigning for the de-bureacratisation of the party).
There was a fundamental cultural problem, in that Russians were predisposed, since the Mongol invasion, to live in an absolutist regime ruled by terror. Also the fact of Lenin's pre-eminence, which was purely due to his intellect and perspicacity, undoubtedly conditioned many Bolsheviks into unconditional acceptance of the leader's semi-divine directives... So that, although in theory, no Bolshevik was indispensable, in practice, Lenin's death led to a classic imperial succession problem which the party dismally failed to manage.
1051. PelleNilsson - 8/22/2000 3:25:32 PM
alistair
You paint a highly idealised picture of the bolshevik party. Maybe you have forgotten why it is called "bolshevik". The Russian comunnist party split at the conference in London, 1905, over Lenin's proposal that the party should be an elitist one, made up of chosen members, that would lead the unwashed down the Right Path. It was never democratic in any meaningful sense of the word. It was a self-recruiting elite and like in all such bodies, conformism was the chief virtue, and the surest way to advancement was to back the right horse. And because the party was in possession of the Truth, no sacrifice in the near term was too great. What does it matter if a generation of kulaks is slaughtered, or starved to death, if that guarantees a full and rich life for an untold number of yet unborn generations? And because the party has the Truth, any person who deviates from the party line deviates from the Truth and must be liquidated.
People say "if it hadn't been for Stalin ..." They are wrong. Such a system produces such leaders. It's not a bug, it's a feature. It will be taken over by ruthless men who walk over corpses to get to the top and employ terror to stay there.
Some lines in your post suggested to me that you have read Arthur Koestler's Midnight at Noon. Is that so?
1052. alistairconnor - 8/22/2000 4:14:22 PM
No, Pelle, I haven't read any commentators, analysts nor historians to speak of. Neither Koestler nor the revisionists of recent years, when it has become fashionable to pontificate on Lenin being quite the same as Stalin. Most of my reading is accounts by purged Bolsheviks.
Certainly, the party was elitist, and co-opted its members (even then, that didn't save it from being inundated with opportunists once the dangerous work of revolution and civil war was over). Nevertheless, its internal functioning was democratic in the Bolshevik period - or can you point to sources that contradict that?
The rest of what you describe (forced collectivisation of peasants with millions of deaths, conformism) are characteristic of the Stalin era, not the Bolshevik era.
Such a system produces such leaders - well, that's easy to say, since that particular system at that particular time did produce such a leader. But can you point to a Bolshevik that would have taken over that Stalin role, had Stalin never existed, for example, or been killed during the civil war? I think not. I don't dispute that the revolution would have gone horribly wrong, one way or another, but to treat Stalin as a sort of historical inevitability sounds... sort of Marxist to me. The idea that historical evolution is programmed, and that the influence of individualities is negligeable, seems to me rather contrary to all the evidence.
For example, was it inevitable that the French revolution should produce Napoleon, or someone like him? I think not. Like Stalin, he was an opportunist who seized his chances when events were in flux and institutions were weak or non-existent.
1053. alistairconnor - 8/22/2000 4:22:26 PM
... On the other hand, if Koestler agrees with me, maybe I'll read him...
I think that your opinions about the bolsheviks are anachronistic, in that they are coloured by perceptions of the communist party of the Stalinist era. It was Stalin who erected the (edited and deformed) words of Marx and Lenin as Universal Truth, as self-serving doctrine to consolidate his own legitimacy. He was a former seminarist after all, he pretty much created the religion of Marxism, something that was completely foreign to the party in Lenin's time.
Certainly, had Lenin lived, say, another twenty years, Russia and the entire world would be a very different place now... the Soviet Union would have been a very different animal. Though I doubt that we would have witnessed the "withering away of the State" that Lenin theorised!
1054. glendajean - 8/22/2000 4:33:14 PM
It's been 20 years since I read the first two books by Solzhenitsyn in his Gulag Archipelago series, but I remember that his thesis was that the terror existed from the beginning, and the logic behind Stalin was firmly in place during Lenin.
1055. Wombat - 8/22/2000 4:42:09 PM
The main difference between Lenin and Stalin was that the former was enough of a pragmatist to recognize that Russia was not ready for more collectivist measures at the time. The Gulags, the Cheka, and the underpinnings of what followed Lenin were all in place when he died.
1056. PelleNilsson - 8/22/2000 5:03:24 PM
Alistair
This discipline thing caused many of the bolshevik leaders to literally sign their own death warrant : by accepting the absurd confessions that were written for them, they were subjecting themselves once more to the discipline of the Party, which, even though wrong this time, would surely return to the path of correctness.
It was these lines than suggested to me that yo had read Koestler. He describes this process very well (IMHO). I first read it in my late teen or early twenties. But it is still in print.
I will return to the larger subject tomorrow.
1057. sincerity454 - 8/22/2000 8:19:30 PM
Hello, everybody. I'm a newcomer over here and I must say I have been enjoying your discussion enormously.
It's a fallacy to think of Bolshevism and Lenin as having been anything less than brutal and appalling -there were countless atrocities committed under Lenin. I think people tend to get confused on this issue because the violence, brutality, and murder that preceded Stalin's reign of terror and genocide tends to somewhat pale by comparison. Lenin himself drafted this paragraph which remained the basis of Soviet criminal law until the demise of the USSR:
Propaganda or agitation or partipication in an organization or cooperation with organizations having the effect...of helping in the slightest way that part of the international bourgeoisie which does not recognize the equal rights of the Communist system coming to take the place of capitalism, and which is endeavouring to overthow it by force,whether by intervention or blockade or by espionage or by financing of the press or by any other means - is punishable by death or imprisonment.
1058. sincerity454 - 8/22/2000 8:28:19 PM
PelleNillson -
Koestler's novel is called
Darkness at Noon, a wonderful portrayal of a good party man imprisoned during the Stalinist purges - so good that he betrays himself rather than questions the party and signs a confession, thereby sealing his fate and, in essence, sentencing himself to death.
Any here a Robert K. Massie fan? He wrote
Nicholas and Alexandra and The Romanovs: The Final Chapter. The latter book brings home in graphic detail the brutality of the execution of the Romanov family - the destruction of the bodies was so horrendously thorough that the pathologists who went about examining and identifying the remains were emotionally affected by the experience.
1059. sincerity454 - 8/22/2000 8:29:48 PM
Please excuse my messed-up formatting. I'm unaccustomed to this software.
1060. sincerity454 - 8/22/2000 8:31:28 PM
Testing to see if italics are gone yet --- please bear with me.
1061. CalGal - 8/22/2000 8:48:31 PM
Not a problem. Happens to all of us. Well, not me. Not very often. But I'm special.
Is sincerity so rare that we can number it? What a depressing notion.
Welcome!
1062. PelleNilsson - 8/23/2000 2:42:18 AM
Hi there Sincerity and welcome!
Alistair
I think you belong to the "regrettable-mistakes-were-made" school of thought. I don't buy that. I think that any system run by a self-recruiting elite with an utopian vision and pretensions of infallibility will end up in totalitarianism and repression. It need not be of the Stalin type. There is "softer"repression, like under Breshnev, but it is repression all the same.
1063. stostosto - 8/23/2000 5:54:58 PM
Lenin was no bleeding heart. Here is a Hanging order he personally composed and issued in 1918.
There was also the Kronstadt incident.
And here is a text with some background on the question
Did Lenin lead to Stalin?
1064. stostosto - 8/23/2000 5:55:44 PM
Hello Sincerity454. Are you British, by any chance?
1065. DaveM - 8/23/2000 7:46:19 PM
Sincerity -
Nice to meet you. Your quote from Lenin in Message # 1057 is interesting, but I'm not sure how clear of a connection it establishes between Bolshevism and Stalinism. Consider, for instance, the parallels between that paragraph and the U.S. Espionage Act of 1918. When did Lenin write your quote?
I found a couple of interesting books on the subject. The first is Robert Daniels' Trotsky, Stalin and Socialism (1991). Chapter 9 begins:
It is currently fashionable on both sides of the Atlantic to say that Marxism is dying and that socialism has failed. Actually, as far as the Soviet Union is concerned, socialism in the original Marxian sense has long been dead. Joseph Stalin killed it. He killed it more than half a century ago, in the course of the revolution from above and the purges that he carried out between 1929 and 1938.He outlines a dialectical theory of revolution which involves revolution-thermidorean reaction-Bonapartism. He compares the relationship between Stalin and Lenin to that between Robespierre and Napolean.
To suggest this antagonism between Stalin and his ideological heritage is immediately to become involved in the long-standing debate among scholars and polemicists alike as to whether Stalin betrayed Lenin's revolution or merely carried it to its logical conclusion. Actually, there are both truth and error in each position; there were both continuities and contrasts as the Lenin phase of the Russian revultionar experience led into the Stalin phase.
The simplistic argument that Stalin was merely the continuator of Lenin's vision of totalitarian socialism...rests on a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of revolution as a long process of related but contradictory stages...
1066. DaveM - 8/23/2000 7:52:18 PM
As an aside, a common allegation is that Leninism attempted to achieve a totalitarian form of government in which the power of the state had no ideological or theoretical competitors - a state with no religion, no dissent, etc. Ignoring the unsophisticated conception of power in this argument for the moment, this interpretation of Leninism seems to ignore the constraint imposed on state action by the very ideology which legitimates it - Communism.
1067. sincerity454 - 8/23/2000 10:13:21 PM
Thanks very much to all of you for the cordial welcome. Stostoso, to answer you inquiry, no, I'm not British. By the way, my handle, "sincerity", is somewhat paradoxical, since I tend to be facetious and ironical, so don't take everything I say too seriously. Some of my friends on the NYT forums, my usual hangout, have dubbed me "sin" for short, but I prefer "sindoll".
Whoa! You guys came up with some stuff today it will take a while for me to comment on - particularly your commentary, DaveM. I'm terrified of humiliating myself again with this software and my clumsiness with its formatting --- nevertheless, I shall endeavour to respond to your posts of today in due time. I'm going to do a bit more reading tonight. My source right now on all commentary, including the direct quote I cited last night written by Lenin himself, is Paul Johnson's Modern Times. However, Johnson's source for that quote was Lenin's Collected Works, p296 - sorry I can't answer the question as to the exact date it was written since I don't have the original source handy. However, it was more than likely written in 1922, because the section I was reading went on to attribute the following quote to Lenin, in which he explains the purpose of the paragraph previously cited to the Commisar of Justice on 17 May 1922, as follows:
The paragraph on terror must be forumulated as widely as possible, since only revolutionary consciousness of justice and revolutionary conscience can determine the applications of its practice."
1068. sincerity454 - 8/23/2000 10:13:52 PM
I want to read the links you guys provided today now. This is a wonderful discussion.
Would any of you be interested in discussing a specific book on the subject? I personally want to bone up on Lenin's regime vs Stalin - I'll tell you what I've been dying to read for the past year, and I wonder if any of you have indulged in or would care to read it, with me, is Alan Bullock's Hitler and Stalin.
1069. sincerity454 - 8/23/2000 10:26:27 PM
DaveM - 1070. Indiana Jones - 8/23/2000 10:27:39 PM sincerity: I've read it and think it's excellent. 1071. sincerity454 - 8/23/2000 11:24:04 PM Indianajones - 1072. sincerity454 - 8/23/2000 11:26:02 PM Pelle - 1073. sincerity454 - 8/23/2000 11:27:36 PM Pelle - 1074. Cellar Door - 8/24/2000 12:16:37 AM GAYS RULE! 1075. Ronski - 8/24/2000 2:15:30 PM Not in the USSR they didn't. 1076. Indiana Jones - 8/24/2000 2:22:46 PM sincerity: It's huge, but I don't own a copy of it. 1077. stuart crow - 8/24/2000 2:53:36 PM A much-thumbed paperback copy of 1078. RosettaStone - 8/25/2000 11:48:03 AM From the cable program "Great Blunders in History," I just learned somthing that I hadn't thought about before. 1079. Ronski - 8/25/2000 11:58:38 AM What would have made it possible for Hitler to finish off Britain in 1940? I thought the manner in which he planned for the Battle of Britain contained the seeds of the Nazis defeat there. Wasn't it another example of Hitler believing, wrongly, that he was a military genius and not listening to his generals and admirals? (Hitler also believed he was an economic genius, and he wasn't that either.) 1080. RosettaStone - 8/25/2000 12:07:36 PM Hitler didn't have the ships to move his troops across the English Channel. And his air force didn't attack the radar stations or air fields enough in the early days of the campaign to rid his bombers of the RAF. 1081. DocBrown - 8/25/2000 1:44:46 PM I can think of plenty of ways that Germany could have hurt the English seriously in 1940 . . . but finish them off? That I cannot imagine. 1082. RosettaStone - 8/25/2000 2:28:39 PM One would think that they could have destroyed much the Trans-Siberian railroad (especially bridges) and taken over the port of Vladivostok and Sea of Okhotsk (sp?), since they were attacking the U.S. in the Aleutian Islands. 1083. stuart crow - 8/26/2000 7:10:35 AM This site discusses the undeclared war fought by the Russians and Japanese along the Amur in the 30s. 1084. PelleNilsson - 8/26/2000 7:49:55 AM Interesting, albeit a bit sycophantic in its praise for Zhukov and the Red Army. 1085. Wombat - 8/28/2000 11:32:51 AM Rosie: 1086. angel-five - 8/31/2000 7:39:10 PM No, the Battle of Britain started out great. The Nazis just stopped targeting airbases and radar installations, which was amazingly dumb. I don't know that the Nazis could have eliminated the British Empire; in fact I sincerely doubt they ever could have. I don't think Hitler ever intended to try. However, I'm reasonably sure they could have taken Great Britain, or enough of it to force a cease-fire if not an outright Vichy-style capitulation. The old chestnut about the lack of landing craft is just that. The Nazis didn't have enough transport and landing craft in 1940 to achieve a decisive Overlord-style landing... but then again neither did the Allies. 1087. Wombat - 9/1/2000 4:19:25 PM If Hitler had not allowed Goering to use the Luftwaffe to "destroy" the British at Dunkirk, but had ordered his ground force commanders to do so, the BEF might well have been trapped and wiped out. With little in the way of trained and experienced troops remaining in Britain, this would have had calamitous results, possibly leading to a separate peace or a successful invasion. 1088. jexster - 9/4/2000 12:08:37 AM Hitler made a terrible mistake by declaring 1089. jexster - 9/4/2000 12:10:20 AM Yes WRT Hitler's indulgence of his fat friend. Have to remember though that the magic of air power had yet to wear off anywhere in the world from the height of its terror in the 20's & 30's. The popular imagination conceived air attack much as we do nuclear holocaust. 1090. jexster - 9/4/2000 2:13:41 AM 1092. jexster - 9/4/2000 2:20:41 AM The Japanese were not only influenced by their unfortunate encounter with Zhukov, they were flim flammed by the Germans. Initially, you'll recall the Soviet non-agression pact. 1093. jexster - 9/4/2000 12:53:04 PM Only 6 Sick Japs Remain in San Francisco 1094. jexster - 9/4/2000 12:57:46 PM Thanks for the link Stuart! 1095. jexster - 9/4/2000 9:40:31 PM The Elefant 1096. Wombat - 9/5/2000 10:40:01 AM Jex: 1097. PelleNilsson - 9/5/2000 11:37:24 AM 1098. Wombat - 9/5/2000 11:47:08 AM The Elefant (see picture) was rushed into production to offset teething problems in the Panther tank, and difficulties in producing the Tiger tank (which was slow and unreliable as well). Equipped with an 88mm cannon, the Elefant could destroy any Soviet tank it came up against. However, the 88mm cannon was in a fixed mount, and so depended on the vehicle's movement to traverse and fire at moving objects. The Elefant also lacked a machine gun, so that it could not fight off infantry with antitank weapons. The result was that Soviet tanks ran rings around them, obviating their heavy armament, and that infantry overrun by Elefants could disable them with land mines, hand grenades, molotov cocktails, etc. 1099. PelleNilsson - 9/5/2000 11:55:08 AM Thank you. It is interesting that the Swedidh army fielded a fixed mount tank in the 60's. I think it was in service until som time in the 90's. The rationale was to hold a low profile. I'll see if I can find a pic. 1100. Wombat - 9/5/2000 12:01:14 PM Pelle: 1101. PelleNilsson - 9/5/2000 12:06:02 PM Here it is. As you can see there is no mount at all. The gun is incorporated into the body. The front and rear ends of the tank could be lifted hydraulically to control elevation. It's big weakness was that it had to stop to fire the gun. 1102. jexster - 9/5/2000 12:15:52 PM Wombat's right about the Ferdinand's weaknesses. The Germans had, until '43, a huge problem with undergunned armor. They had to get closer to Soviet tanks than the Soviets did to theirs in order to effect kills. 1103. Wombat - 9/5/2000 12:17:05 PM Pelle: 1104. jexster - 9/5/2000 1:31:18 PM Its about time to ask the question again, what's the view of continuing this thread. 1105. DocBrown - 9/5/2000 1:31:54 PM Perhaps the Elephant might have experienced success if deployed with different tactics. To me it does not appear suited for the type of battlefield tactics used in that period. 1106. DocBrown - 9/5/2000 1:32:49 PM Jexster, personally, I never tire of discussions about hardware. 1107. jexster - 9/5/2000 1:34:20 PM Well there's a ton of material in the Links section. 1108. PelleNilsson - 9/5/2000 2:07:49 PM What I find curious is that the issue of Guderian and the Blitzkrieg has not come up. I don't dare to start because my knowledge is limited to a book of the same name by Len Deighton, the famous spy thriller author, who was also a WWII buff. 1109. PelleNilsson - 9/5/2000 2:11:00 PM I should say that a recurrent supporting cast figure in Deighton's early novels is a retired Soviet general who lives with his daughter in a vast, gloomy Moscow appartment, forever gameplaying the Battle of Kursk on a vast playboard. 1110. Wombat - 9/5/2000 2:15:05 PM Jex: 1111. PelleNilsson - 9/5/2000 2:31:22 PM Not the Gulf war please! And absolutely not the Yugoslav thing. We had a WWI thread long ago, but the subject is inexhaustible, 1112. Wombat - 9/5/2000 2:50:30 PM Pelle: 1113. DocBrown - 9/5/2000 3:04:09 PM Wombat, I think a handful of Elphants could be excellent support units for a tank-on-tank melee, especially against the Soviets. In this role they would have been self-propelled artillery. But then, all heavy tanks of the period were self-propelled artillery. 1114. PelleNilsson - 9/5/2000 3:28:40 PM Wombat 1115. Wombat - 9/5/2000 3:45:45 PM Pelle: I suggested 945 to make a thousand year period to 1945. i don't think anything signficant happened in 945. 1116. jexster - 9/5/2000 6:12:20 PM I think we ought to have a thread on Serbia: The History of a Backward Race 1117. jexster - 9/5/2000 6:18:27 PM What I find curious is that the issue of Guderian and the Blitzkrieg has not come up. 1118. jexster - 9/5/2000 6:19:09 PM Ein Volk, Ein Reich.... 1119. jexster - 9/5/2000 6:19:25 PM das toys 1120. rubberducky - 9/6/2000 9:41:49 AM No idea if any of this is true, but it was in an e-mail of "trivia", and thought i'd pass it along (it'll take a couple posts to get it all - please delete if this is annoying) 1121. rubberducky - 9/6/2000 9:42:38 AM 8. It was a common practice on fighter planes to load every 5th round with a tracer round to aid in aiming. This was a mistake. The tracers had different ballistics so (at long range) if your tracers were hitting the target 80% of your rounds were missing. Worse yet the tracers instantly told your enemy he was under fire and from which direction. Worst of all was the practice of loading a string of tracers at the end of the belt to tell you that you were out of ammo. This was definitely not something you wanted to tell the enemy. Units that stopped using tracers saw their success rate nearly double and their loss rate go down. 1122. rubberducky - 9/6/2000 9:43:16 AM 15. When the US Army landed in North Africa, among the equipment brought ashore were 3 complete Coca Cola bottling plants. 1123. rubberducky - 9/6/2000 9:43:30 AM and finally ... 1124. DocBrown - 9/6/2000 12:33:18 PM 1125. Wombat - 9/6/2000 1:42:27 PM Ducky 1126. PelleNilsson - 9/6/2000 2:32:31 PM 1127. Wombat - 9/6/2000 2:38:09 PM Pelle: 1128. PelleNilsson - 9/6/2000 2:57:56 PM I know. There were about two hundred Swedes. But that Germans should have been a minority in the Reich's elite troops is just unbelievable. 1129. stuart crow - 9/6/2000 6:57:23 PM The main difficulty about firing tracer was that it heated up the gun barrels far more than ordinary ammunition, leading to accuracy problems. 1130. Wombat - 9/6/2000 9:08:21 PM Good work Stuart! 1131. JRoth - 9/12/2000 9:03:11 AM Jexster, Pelle, et. al., 1132. JRoth - 9/12/2000 9:18:19 AM Considering that the Korean War is now 50 years old perhaps we can take some time examining that conflict. It was actually a quite interesting period with seesawing advantages, strategic ineptitude and occasional brilliance, a competition between Western and Eastern styles of warfare, etc. As a former Marine, of course, I was brought up on tales of tales of the Chosin Reservoir campaigns. 1133. Wombat - 9/12/2000 10:30:47 AM JRoth: 1134. JRoth - 9/12/2000 10:56:49 AM Wombat, 1135. JRoth - 9/12/2000 11:04:54 AM Wombat, 1136. DocBrown - 9/12/2000 11:05:15 AM 1137. JRoth - 9/12/2000 11:18:09 AM Doc, 1138. DocBrown - 9/12/2000 11:42:36 AM 1139. JRoth - 9/12/2000 11:52:38 AM Doc, 1140. DocBrown - 9/12/2000 12:02:50 PM 1141. JRoth - 9/12/2000 12:08:39 PM Doc, 1142. DocBrown - 9/12/2000 12:22:53 PM Perhaps, JRoth. But because I still believe that armor is useful in urban warfare, I think it has an important role in the era of peacekeeping missions. 1143. JRoth - 9/12/2000 12:37:01 PM Doc, 1144. Wombat - 9/12/2000 1:23:31 PM The march into Austria was in 1938, so the tanks were probably Pkfw Is and maybe IIs. 1145. JRoth - 9/12/2000 1:39:40 PM BTW, the Soviets did produce large numbers of BTRs and BMPs (essentially APCs) that are wheeled or hybrid (like our WWII/Korea half-track). Its a basic tradeoff: Wheels are faster but limited in operations. Tracks are go anywhere but require lots of maintenance. 1146. DocBrown - 9/12/2000 3:23:31 PM 1147. vonKreedon - 9/12/2000 4:43:42 PM 1148. AytchMan - 9/15/2000 7:21:57 PM In WW2, bringing armor into urban areas was very foolish. The narrow streets, buildings and rubble turned every block into a heavily fortified bunker. Experienced infantry armed with flamethrowers, panzerfausts, sticky bombs, molotovs and the like routinely shredded tank units in big cities. Too many hiding places. 1149. DocBrown - 9/18/2000 11:53:05 AM AytchMan, I was suggesting armor to defend cities, not attack Stalingrad and Leningrad. 1150. Wombat - 9/18/2000 12:23:43 PM Doc: 1151. jexster - 9/18/2000 12:31:48 PM AytchMan, I was suggesting armor to defend cities, not attack 1152. PelleNilsson - 9/18/2000 12:32:05 PM If armor was not good for this mission, then it seems to me that WWII armor was ill-suited for any application, except as a target. 1153. jexster - 9/18/2000 12:35:01 PM Armored defense of cities is best as point defense or was in WWII and probably still is for that matter. 1154. DocBrown - 9/19/2000 2:21:30 PM Wombat said: 1155. Wombat - 9/19/2000 2:47:29 PM Doc: 1156. PelleNilsson - 9/19/2000 2:48:42 PM DocBrown 1157. DocBrown - 9/19/2000 3:58:44 PM 1158. PelleNilsson - 9/19/2000 4:10:01 PM DocBrown 1159. Wombat - 9/19/2000 4:26:26 PM Look, Doc: 1160. DocBrown - 9/20/2000 4:34:27 PM You can speculate hither and dither . . . 1161. JRoth - 9/21/2000 9:18:25 AM Gentlemen, 1162. JRoth - 9/21/2000 9:27:49 AM Doc, 1163. DocBrown - 9/21/2000 4:34:02 PM BTW, which types of aircraft would you have had the Germans produce in greater numbers? And which armor would you have had them sacrifice? 1164. DocBrown - 9/21/2000 4:40:01 PM 1165. PelleNilsson - 9/21/2000 4:55:10 PM 1166. Wombat - 9/22/2000 8:34:19 AM Doc: 1167. Nostradamus - 9/22/2000 9:02:59 PM Christ, you guys, I've been waiting months to tell you this. I'm sorry you've wasted so much time in here, but you must be told ... 1168. Nostradamus - 9/22/2000 9:03:41 PM Oh shit, I forgot to put SPOILER at the top and write in invisible ink, sorry 'bout that. 1169. DocBrown - 9/25/2000 10:29:44 AM PelleNilsson said: 1170. DocBrown - 9/25/2000 10:42:54 AM 1171. Wombat - 9/25/2000 10:51:12 AM Doc: 1172. Wombat - 9/25/2000 10:54:01 AM Doc: 1173. DocBrown - 9/25/2000 11:53:27 AM 1174. JRoth - 9/27/2000 8:22:38 AM Re. Nostradmus's point: 1175. Wombat - 9/27/2000 8:29:42 AM I would argue that what you call the US way of war was very much shaped by its experience in WWII. 1176. JRoth - 9/27/2000 8:40:23 AM Wombat, 1177. Wombat - 9/27/2000 9:08:00 AM JRoth: 1178. JRoth - 9/27/2000 9:57:42 AM Wombat, 1179. Wombat - 9/27/2000 10:11:54 AM JRoth: 1180. DocBrown - 9/27/2000 10:33:03 AM 1181. JRoth - 9/27/2000 11:30:38 AM A CVBG is impressive, but costly. The two criteria are effectiveness (can it do the tasks required?) and efficiency (ratio of inputs to outputs).The original raison d'etre, control of the sea, is less relevant with the decline of the Russian Navy. Its other roles, esp. power projection, are hampered by the antiquated avaiation assets embarked. Forget that Tom Cruise crap, the F-14 is old and was designed for fleet defense. The Hornet is more versatile but the avionics have not kept pace. The USAF is better at precision bombing. 1182. Wombat - 9/27/2000 1:20:08 PM Couldn't the size of a CVBG be reduced a bit? How much of a factor are elderly avionics in F-18s given the capabilities of our likely enemies? Can F-14s in their current state defend a battlegroup against the assets of our likely enemies? 1183. JRoth - 9/27/2000 1:55:58 PM Once again the size of a Carrier Battle Group is largely determined by the defensive requirements. Naval formations are inherently flexible, but usual practice is two Aegis cruisers and two Aegis destroyers to provide integrated defense and some offensive capability (it depends which missiles are loaded into the VLS). Then there are sometimes lesser capable DDs and Frigates- though most of those classes are retired. These latter provide submarine defense. Lastly, one or two of our subs tag along to provide additional antisub capability. Next, there are numerous support ships. Lastly there may be a contingent of amphibious ships with embarked Marines and some organic combat support air. 1184. DocBrown - 9/27/2000 2:35:31 PM JRoth said: 1185. DocBrown - 9/27/2000 2:53:02 PM 1186. JRoth - 9/27/2000 3:50:30 PM Doc, 1187. DocBrown - 9/28/2000 10:50:14 AM JRoth, the Future War thread (I think) spawned from this one, then faded from existence in the middle of the summer. It discussed mostly technology, nt much strategy or doctrine. 1188. AytchMan - 9/28/2000 1:01:27 PM jroth (or anybody)-- 1189. Wombat - 9/28/2000 1:14:40 PM Doc: 1190. AytchMan - 9/28/2000 1:36:14 PM wombat and doc-- 1191. Wombat - 9/28/2000 1:43:55 PM Aytch: 1192. AytchMan - 9/28/2000 2:00:04 PM wombat-- 1193. Wombat - 9/28/2000 2:04:43 PM Aytch: 1194. AytchMan - 9/28/2000 2:06:06 PM wombat-- 1195. Wombat - 9/28/2000 2:09:24 PM Aytch: 1196. AytchMan - 9/28/2000 2:12:11 PM wombat-- 1197. Wombat - 9/28/2000 2:17:23 PM Actually, Aytch, I said that one could make the argument that German R&D was markedly inferior, and you gave an explanation of why this may have been so. 1198. AytchMan - 9/28/2000 2:24:09 PM Oh, just funning. 1199. Wombat - 9/28/2000 2:29:45 PM Sorry, Aytch, I just went into a "Heavy Pedantry" zone. 1200. JRoth - 9/29/2000 8:34:22 AM Not to beat a dead horse here, but the Germans did have an impressive missile program (cruise and ballistic), good jet fighters, snorkelling, long-endurance submarines. Thje problem was they lacked the industrial base to fully exploit all the possibilities. But when they manufacture the results were unpleasant; at some point this thread has probably discussed how much the ALLIED strategy in '44-45 was influenced by the rocket launches. If the subs had gotten out in larger numbers they might have had some influence- probably not enough to make a difference. We all know the story on the fighters; if Hitler had not demanded a jet bomber they could have probably got enough jet fighters up to make a difference- although the bombing guys will swear that the POL situation by late '44 was hopeless. 1201. DocBrown - 9/29/2000 10:23:12 AM AytchMan how can you say this: 1202. AytchMan - 9/29/2000 3:05:43 PM Doc-- 1203. Wombat - 9/29/2000 3:17:03 PM Doc and JRoth: 1204. PelleNilsson - 9/29/2000 3:55:51 PM Here is something for the panzer freaks among us. 1205. AytchMan - 9/29/2000 4:28:31 PM Pelle-- 1206. Wombat - 9/29/2000 4:32:46 PM The Russians are also selling rides in some of their hottest jet fighters. You don't get to fire anything, though. 1207. DocBrown - 9/29/2000 4:39:05 PM 1208. AytchMan - 9/29/2000 5:01:27 PM Doc-- 1209. JRoth - 10/2/2000 8:09:07 AM I respect the several attempts to make this thread relevant to taday's issues. That said, I think the historical record certainly shows the advantage held by the Allies as regards R&D. America had/has the largest and most productive industrial plant, available labor and specialists, theoretical centers, well-developed infrastructure, etc. All these were required for the Manhattan Project, an undertaking I don't believe Germany, Russia or the UK could have done. 1210. JRoth - 10/2/2000 8:14:59 AM Pelle, 1211. DocBrown - 10/2/2000 10:27:04 AM Aytch said: 1212. Wombat - 10/2/2000 11:30:00 AM Doc: 1213. PelleNilsson - 10/2/2000 12:05:43 PM A new book about Hitler getting a good review in the Economist. 1214. JRoth - 10/2/2000 3:23:41 PM Pelle, 1215. JRoth - 10/2/2000 3:33:52 PM Prior to WWII here was the R&D scorecard in America: Army was extremely hidebound and conservative. No formal ties to munitions makers (remember the hearings on War Profiteering?). Best development was the M-1 Garand to replace the '03 Springfield. 1216. Wombat - 10/2/2000 3:40:42 PM As I recall, it took a helluva long time to get the Garand approved and into production, thanks to the hidebound attitude of the ordinance types. 1217. JRoth - 10/2/2000 4:01:30 PM Wombat, 1218. JRoth - 10/3/2000 8:40:11 AM Doc, 1219. Wombat - 10/3/2000 8:59:44 AM I see the USAF and its rented politicians going for that in a big way--not! 1220. JRoth - 10/3/2000 12:52:30 PM Wombat, 1221. DocBrown - 10/3/2000 2:00:45 PM 1222. JRoth - 10/3/2000 3:22:30 PM Are you sure it didn't hit the intended target? 1223. DocBrown - 10/3/2000 4:11:35 PM 1224. JRoth - 10/3/2000 11:16:32 PM secure communications reduce the need for onboard intelligence. Remember the movie 'Fail-Safe"? My point is that manned aircraft have total cycle costs which are a multiple of what drones could cost IF the realtime communication problem could be solved. Since lasers are line of sight you'd probably need a series of drone satellites. 1225. PelleNilsson - 10/4/2000 12:55:16 AM The wreck of Scharnhorst has been located in Barents Sea. She was sunk at Christmas 1943. 36 of the crew of 1,968 were saved. 1226. JRoth - 10/4/2000 10:42:18 AM Yes, sunk in a brilliant little action. Well well Pelle, any word on whether there will be a televised special? 1227. Wombat - 10/4/2000 10:53:49 AM I can't wait. Perhaps Ballard should get out of the Black Sea and up to the Barents Sea. 1228. PelleNilsson - 10/4/2000 1:38:00 PM It was a brief notice in the newspaper. But, yes, there will probably be a televisiom special because Norwegian television was there. 1229. msgreer - 10/4/2000 2:15:00 PM 800-973-2211 Curious? Go to Health Thread. 1230. DocBrown - 10/4/2000 4:04:33 PM Scharnhorst: 1231. Wombat - 10/4/2000 4:38:04 PM German use of capital ships in WWII was almost uniformly ill-conceived. 1232. DocBrown - 10/5/2000 10:49:05 AM 1233. Wombat - 10/5/2000 11:28:16 AM Doc: 1234. Wombat - 10/5/2000 1:04:33 PM If there was a real weakness in terms of coordinating activities, it was between the Navy and the Luftwaffe. The Luftwaffe had effective torpedo planes (HE-111s) and crack Stuka dive bomber squadrons (in the Mediterranean) that were very effective in antishipping operations. However Goering refused to allow the Navy any control over these or air reconnaisance forces. 1235. LohrM - 10/5/2000 2:47:07 PM I'm glad to see Scharnhorst found. The Channel Dash was always one of my favorite sea combat tales. (Years and years ago, I read a book called "Twilight of the Sea Gods" by an author with a Finnish-sounding name...good book on the Kriegsmarine) 1236. DocBrown - 10/5/2000 3:25:13 PM When Hitler was informed of the results, he became so furious that he ordered the surface fleet to be dismantled and used for shore batteries. 1237. Wombat - 10/5/2000 3:41:04 PM Doc: 1238. DocBrown - 10/5/2000 4:03:23 PM 1239. DocBrown - 10/5/2000 4:08:48 PM 1240. Wombat - 10/5/2000 4:25:34 PM Doc: 1241. JRoth - 10/6/2000 10:40:12 AM I agree with the above discussion. The Germans lacked a good overall strategy for their use of the surface navy. Note that by sacrificing 10 destroyers in the Norwegian affair they had even fewer forces available for Sealion. In fact, I've often wondered if Hitler truly expected the Brits to join in a condominium or surrender to the Luftwaffe. He must have known what a factor the British Fleet would have been in repulsing an invasion. 1242. LohrM - 10/6/2000 12:42:01 PM In retrospect, the Germans seem to have had very little overall strategy. The Luftwaffe lacked long-range heavy bombers to do any serious damage in Britain's industrial heartland or in the Urals, the army lacked the trucks and troop carriers to support its panzer thrusts out East (so encircled Soviet infantry could often slip away), the Navy was badly handled. The Germans seem in many ways to have just improvised. 1243. labwabbit - 10/10/2000 9:04:01 PM LANDMINES SUCK! 1244. JRoth - 10/10/2000 9:10:19 PM Actually, 1245. labwabbit - 10/10/2000 9:14:14 PM As a device in war ...effective. 1246. JRoth - 10/10/2000 9:35:17 PM BTW, 1247. labwabbit - 10/10/2000 9:49:50 PM Haha.. 1248. DocBrown - 10/11/2000 9:41:15 AM Wombat, what was the mission of the Admiral Scheer, if not to destroy the convoy? 1249. LohrM - 10/11/2000 3:42:47 PM The Kriegsmarine surface fleet was in the end a prestige item and a way for Hitler to win political support from the older admirals. The idea there at Hitler's desk was that the British either wouldn't fight or would be cowed by aircraft quite quickly and reach a political settlement. No real attention was paid to fighting a long war, let alone a naval war. 1250. AytchMan - 10/12/2000 12:01:46 PM Doc-- 1251. JRoth - 10/12/2000 7:28:45 PM Well Hitler had history as a guide. Napolean and Wilhelm (Tirpitz) had both attempted to challenge British maritime supremacy, at great cost and futilely. That whole Anglo-German naval race which reached apogee in Jutland ended with the expensive German battle fleet scuttled. On the other hand, Hitler could regard Germany's performance on land with a certain measure of satisfaction. 1252. jexster - 10/12/2000 9:00:27 PM The huge issue for Hitler was time circa 37-39. He knew politically that he'd gone about as far as he could in holding the German people in rapture of him without war. The Army and financial types were deathly afraid that Adolph was pressing the envelope with his war plans. 1253. JRoth - 10/12/2000 11:33:04 PM Largely true. The problem with naval construction is the long lead times and the need to produce a whole variety of ancillary supplies. I agree that construction of a large surface navy would probably have constrained other efforts. 1254. vonKreedon - 10/13/2000 1:30:53 AM 1255. JRoth - 10/13/2000 9:10:07 AM You are correct that the Israelis initially position the armor to control intersections and roads and also put them in elevated positions to control areas. However, if the I sraelis need to relieve any of the Jewish settlements they will have to transit through built-up areas. 1256. LohrM - 10/13/2000 9:49:13 AM The scuttled High Seas Fleet does serve a modern purpose, Its steel--protected by all that water from late 20-c. radiation levels --makes excellent casings for NASA sensor equipment that would be thrown off by ambient radiation. 1257. jexster - 10/13/2000 9:06:27 PM WRT the Kriegsmarine 1258. jexster - 10/13/2000 9:08:20 PM 1259. Wombat - 10/13/2000 10:14:59 PM Lohr: 1260. JRoth - 10/16/2000 8:51:25 AM The Germans have always been good tool and die guys, so the build quality overall was good. The Panzerschiffe were light on armor due to the need to extend the cruising range. Conversly, the Bismarck was stoutly built since it didn't have to devote as much space and weight to fuel as the longer-legged Brit ships. That and better steel in the armor. Third great advantage, continued from WWI, was superior optics and fire control. 1261. Wombat - 10/16/2000 10:56:01 AM JRoth: 1262. DocBrown - 10/16/2000 12:10:40 PM 1263. jexster - 10/16/2000 12:58:48 PM Great news! Amazon.com's put this one on their "recommended for me" list. Glantz and House are THE BEST when it comes to the Russian Front. At 40 bucks, not exactly a bargain tho 1264. jexster - 10/16/2000 1:01:14 PM If the Germans had not attacked Russia before eliminating GB - a move which would have entailed considerable risk IMO, they could have beefed up their surface fleet (aircraft carriers???) and made great use of their new geographic advantages. With time, Churchill would have been in Dachau. 1265. Wombat - 10/16/2000 1:09:18 PM Doc: 1266. Wombat - 10/16/2000 1:11:42 PM Jex: 1267. DocBrown - 10/16/2000 3:29:29 PM Nice analysis, Wombat. 1268. Wombat - 10/16/2000 3:37:38 PM Doc: 1269. jexster - 10/16/2000 10:34:03 PM Wombat - a naval construction program would have been nice. Carriers wouldn't have had to been much to stop US/Brit hunter/killer efforts, German capital ships and subs would have ruled the Atlantic and we'd all be singing either the Internationale or Die Wacht Am Rhein 1270. jexster - 10/16/2000 10:37:45 PM It was a British strategic victory, and came very close to being a British tactical victory as well. 1271. jexster - 10/16/2000 10:41:18 PM With respect to the German navy in WWII, I beg to differ. With the 1272. RosettaStone - 10/16/2000 10:41:22 PM You should be congratulated for such a good thread, jexster and company. I love the history and the writing is terrific. 1273. jexster - 10/16/2000 10:43:47 PM Wombat- 1274. jexster - 10/16/2000 10:48:41 PM 1275. jexster - 10/16/2000 10:49:41 PM Yea thanks Rose. 1276. Wombat - 10/17/2000 8:20:24 AM Jex: 1277. DocBrown - 10/17/2000 10:51:05 AM I'm glad you like the Warships1 website, Wombat. It is one of my favorites. 1278. DocBrown - 10/17/2000 10:52:00 AM I mean Tirpitz may have had a high tech RADAR. 1279. Wombat - 10/17/2000 11:06:46 AM Doc: 1280. DocBrown - 10/17/2000 2:37:50 PM 1281. PelleNilsson - 10/17/2000 4:11:23 PM This discussion is now a news item on the home page. 1282. Wombat - 10/18/2000 8:16:38 AM Doc: 1283. DocBrown - 10/18/2000 9:57:46 AM You're right abour my terminology misuse. I typed too fast. 1284. DocBrown - 10/18/2000 10:29:57 AM As I understand it, the British had trouble identifying the Bismark. It's silhouette was very similar to the Prinz Eugen, and initially the British fired on the wrong ship, leaving Bismark unmolested. This British disadvantage does not show up on paper. Neither do the mechanical problems aboard Prince of Wales or the design flaws that doomed the Hood. 1285. DocBrown - 10/18/2000 10:32:04 AM 1286. Wombat - 10/18/2000 10:37:15 AM You make a good point, Doc. My understanding was that Hood was coming about onto a parallel course when it was hit and exploded. 1287. DocBrown - 10/18/2000 1:58:53 PM This map shows the battle of Bismark & Prinz Eugen vs Prince of Wales & Hood. It is in German, but if you follow the timeline you can figure it out. 1288. JRoth - 10/22/2000 10:04:32 PM The German surface fleet accomplished 3 things: Invasion of Norway; attacks on, and threat to, Russian convoys; and tying up British assets. This last point impacted the war in two areas; the British could send few ships to the Far East, and the actions in the Mediterranean were often razor thin. Now it can be argued that the Japanese would have simply sunk more British ships had they been sent, and the British did prevail in the Mediterranean. Could more surface ships have changed much? Perhaps more threat to the Murmansk supply line (which fed the Red Army) and a closer outcome in the Med. But longer term the combined weight of the british and American fleets would have prevailed. 1289. JRoth - 10/22/2000 11:48:09 PM Sorry everyone. Posted my last before reading the excellent discussion of the Bismarck action(s). It is a measure of how strapped the Brits were that the Prince of Wales had to be sortied while barely out of builder's trials. The Prince's 14 inch projectiles could do damage as was proved by the waterline hit on Bismarck. The Germans purposely made their ships' silhouettes similar in order to cause tactical confusion. It worked. As I remember, the original plan was for Lutjens to command a squadron which was to have included Scharnhorst and Gneisau. If all 4 ships had been able to slip into the North Atlantic and subsequently operated semi-independently the Brits would have had a very troublesome time of it. I think someone mentioned the reduced flash on the German ships. I believe that was due to the increased length of barrel- an advantage that also provided better accuracy and time in flight. Overall, the German ships had better guns. BTW, when caliber is used in describing naval guns (as in 5 inch/54 caliber) it refers to the multiple of the barrel diameter that the barrel is long. Thus the 5"/54 has a barrel length of 270 inches. 1290. Wombat - 10/23/2000 10:22:02 AM JRoth: 1291. JRoth - 10/23/2000 10:27:15 AM Wombat, 1292. Wombat - 10/23/2000 10:56:03 AM The plan was to use ME-109s and JU-87s that had been converted for carrier operations (folding wings and arrestor hooks). No torpedo planes, though. 1293. PelleNilsson - 10/23/2000 12:07:20 PM Wombat 1294. Wombat - 10/23/2000 1:23:35 PM Pelle: 1295. AytchMan - 10/23/2000 1:41:59 PM Regarding the German aircraft carrier: 1296. PelleNilsson - 10/23/2000 1:50:13 PM Aytch 1297. AytchMan - 10/23/2000 1:58:14 PM I think that was meant for Wombat. I second the motion. 1298. Wombat - 10/23/2000 2:04:47 PM Aytch: 1299. AytchMan - 10/23/2000 2:27:06 PM Wombat-- 1300. Wombat - 10/23/2000 2:56:01 PM Aytch: 1301. AytchMan - 10/23/2000 3:41:06 PM Wombat-- 1302. Wombat - 10/24/2000 8:37:07 AM Aytch: 1303. JRoth - 10/24/2000 10:55:03 AM Not to mention the time and effort required to develop aircraft tactics and procedures. It took the Brits, Americans and Japanese a good 15 years to work up their carriers fur der Weltkriege. 1304. LohrM - 10/26/2000 9:17:53 AM Why do I recall that there was *another* Kriegsmarine carrier planned-- named after a Zeppelin commander shot down in WW-1? "Peter Something..." Does anyone else recall this? 1305. Wombat - 10/26/2000 9:24:18 AM Lohr: 1306. DocBrown - 10/30/2000 4:55:50 PM German carriers. Apparently the Peter Strasser was to be of the Graf Zepplin class, and several other classes were planned but never built. 1307. DocBrown - 10/31/2000 10:13:42 AM 1308. glendajean - 11/1/2000 9:19:52 AM BOOKS OF THE TIMES 1309. DocBrown - 11/1/2000 11:54:12 AM Can anyone enlighten me about Germany's "Z Plan?" I know it began around 1938 and was supposed to build up the Kriegsmarine before the war started, but Hitler invaded Poland while the plan was still in its early stages. 1310. DocBrown - 11/1/2000 11:55:04 AM The second link I provided above explains the design of the Panzerschiffe. They were started before Hitler abrogated the Naval Treaty, intended to make innovative and powerful ships within the weight restrictions. I think they made excellent commerce raiders, but due to their operational idiosyncrasies I would have deployed all three together in a squadron. 1311. Wombat - 11/1/2000 1:58:17 PM Doc: 1312. Wombat - 11/1/2000 2:00:28 PM Glenda: 1313. DocBrown - 11/1/2000 2:32:13 PM 1314. PelleNilsson - 11/1/2000 2:46:49 PM 1315. DocBrown - 11/1/2000 2:52:18 PM It would have been possible to conver the Panzerschiffe to very small aircraft carriers, using their main guns for coastal defense. I think this would have been a poor use for them, though. 1316. DocBrown - 11/1/2000 2:53:30 PM 1317. Wombat - 11/1/2000 2:58:22 PM Kill it, or broaden it to include armed conflict from time immemorial. 1318. PelleNilsson - 11/1/2000 3:18:30 PM Wombat 1319. Wombat - 11/1/2000 3:30:28 PM What do I have to do? 1320. PelleNilsson - 11/1/2000 3:47:24 PM Wombat 1321. Wombat - 11/1/2000 4:06:15 PM Pending your consultation with Jexter, OK. 1322. PelleNilsson - 11/1/2000 4:25:58 PM 1323. JRoth - 11/2/2000 9:09:25 AM Great idea to have an inclusive thread on armed conflict. for better and worse war has been a central human experience. The unintended and ancillary consequences of war are fully as interesting as the direct results. I nominate the following as a Thread Name: Vom Kriege 1324. amax - 11/2/2000 8:02:18 PM Getting my licks in late: 1325. amax - 11/2/2000 8:09:08 PM Got that from Paul Johnson's Modern Times , and it got me interested in Bismark himself & bought a bio of him. Unfortunately, there appears to be a rather rabid ideological war going on between pro and anti Bismark historians. I drew an anti. Can anyone recommend a good pro bio for balance? I'm more interested in a life and times type of book, not one that is constantly making points against academic rivals, or making the assumption that you know what some obscure event in the unification process is. 1326. labwabbit - 11/2/2000 9:43:59 PM LANDING DIFFICULTY 1327. jexster - 11/2/2000 9:46:19 PM Just got a message from Pelle suggesting we RIP this and morph into a general military discussion with Wombat as moderator. 1328. DocBrown - 11/3/2000 9:33:47 AM 1329. PelleNilsson - 11/3/2000 10:13:54 AM Wombat 1330. DocBrown - 11/3/2000 10:24:54 AM 1331. rubberducky - 11/3/2000 10:25:06 AM 1332. rubberducky - 11/3/2000 10:26:44 AM 1333. Raskolnikov - 11/3/2000 10:27:56 AM What is this thread good for? 1334. DocBrown - 11/3/2000 10:35:09 AM 1335. Wombat - 11/3/2000 10:58:07 AM Absolutely nothing (say it again). 1336. Wombat - 11/3/2000 11:02:46 AM Doc: 1337. PelleNilsson - 11/3/2000 11:03:53 AM Wombat 1338. Wombat - 11/3/2000 11:08:46 AM Pelle: 1339. DocBrown - 11/3/2000 11:43:16 AM 1340. DocBrown - 11/3/2000 12:00:15 PM Pelle: 1341. PelleNilsson - 11/3/2000 1:14:46 PM Thanks Doc and Wombat. 1342. DocBrown - 11/3/2000 2:01:29 PM My plan should have included the Germans finishing the Graf Zepplin aircraft carrier. They came pretty close. 1343. DocBrown - 11/3/2000 3:20:38 PM Has the world changed so much? Have we reached a new era, in which the old roles of the armed forces 1344. labwabbit - 11/3/2000 3:28:12 PM Ship - $1 billion 1345. labwabbit - 11/3/2000 3:30:37 PM "Finding" = making. 1346. RustlerPike - 11/3/2000 3:37:53 PM 1347. Wombat - 11/3/2000 11:57:52 PM Doc: 1348. JRoth - 11/6/2000 10:39:56 AM I wouldn't mind inaugurating this revised thread with a discussion of the orgins of war. Essentially, what are the nature and nurture aspects of organised conflict? Evidentally our primate cousins go beyond intra-personal conflict and organise into 'war bands' which embark on raids against 'rival' bands. At what point did war activity take on a recognizably human character? Was it contemporary with the organised 'hydraulic' societies of Mesopotamia? Was it linked to the establishment of a distinct warrior class? 1349. Wombat - 11/6/2000 11:23:38 AM JRoth: 1350. cmboyce - 11/6/2000 11:34:12 AM I'd be inclined to say that war is pre-human. A variety of animals engage in what is quite clearly intra-species warfare: wolves are especially notable for their ferocity in driving neighboring wolf-packs away, often killing them entire, except for captured females. Primates have a range of intimidation behaviors that occasionally extend to physical combat sufficient to kill, though for the most part they are content with establishing territorial boundaries. 1351. Wombat - 11/6/2000 11:53:31 AM Recent research indicates that Chimpanzees can use sticks as tools. Why not sticks and/or rocks as weapons? 1352. Uzmakk - 11/6/2000 11:58:02 AM It just so happens that I have been reading Alexander the Great by Robin Lane Fox and described to Igor Alexander's prowess on the battlefield. A most invigorating and demonstrative demonstration. 1353. DocBrown - 11/6/2000 12:25:57 PM The earliest things that we might recognize as a war would be clashes between wantering tries of hunter/gatherers. If two tribes find themselves competing for the same resource they might behave as the wolf packs described by cmboyce. 1354. DocBrown - 11/6/2000 12:36:28 PM Wombat asked: 1355. DocBrown - 11/6/2000 12:37:30 PM BTW I don't know what happened to post #1353. A problem on my end, no doubt. 1356. cmboyce - 11/6/2000 12:57:00 PM DocBrown, Message # 1353 (what there is of it) sounds right to me, except that I think war predates agriculture and nationhood. But nevermind, you're absolutely right that those developments raise the stakes to the point where conflict begins to resemble the massive recruitment and movement of historical wars, even the industrial warfare of more modern times. 1357. PelleNilsson - 11/6/2000 2:15:13 PM This is to amplify DocBrown's point that war predates agriculture. 1358. JRoth - 11/7/2000 10:09:47 AM Pelle, 1359. JRoth - 11/7/2000 10:11:14 AM Uzmaak, 1360. Uzmakk - 11/17/2000 12:16:49 PM Jroth: 1361. PelleNilsson - 11/18/2000 8:07:25 AM Wanted. Preferably alive. 1362. Wombat - 11/20/2000 8:57:04 AM Yes? 1363. Wombat - 11/21/2000 10:44:09 AM What was it about Alexander that made him (and his armies) conquer all before him? Was it his leadership? Was he the first to successfully integrate the various forces available to a bronze age military leader? 1364. PelleNilsson - 11/21/2000 1:49:57 PM 1365. Wombat - 11/21/2000 1:53:08 PM Alright, early Iron Age. 1366. aytchman - 11/21/2000 2:01:05 PM As ignorant as I am of the period, I can only guess: military tactics. Didn't Alexander (or his father, no military slouch himself) either invent or perfect the phalanx? 1367. aytchman - 11/21/2000 2:27:21 PM Was he the first to successfully integrate the various forces available to a bronze [Iron] age military leader? 1368. Wombat - 11/21/2000 2:44:04 PM Aytch: 1369. PelleNilsson - 11/21/2000 3:04:15 PM 1370. AytchMan - 11/21/2000 3:08:47 PM If the phalanx was in use before Alexander's time, then my guess is that his application of combined arms won his battles. The source I reviewed does not mention whether Darius (Alexander's enemy at Arbela) used the phalanx or not. 1371. AytchMan - 11/21/2000 3:11:21 PM Pelle-- 1372. Wombat - 11/21/2000 3:25:10 PM Link here for Plutarch's biography of Alexander (Pelle: I tried to put this on the butterscotch bar, but I got an error message) 1373. Wombat - 11/21/2000 3:36:04 PM Polybius (Roman Historian) on the phalanx: 1374. PelleNilsson - 11/21/2000 4:29:45 PM Wombat 1375. vonKreedon - 11/21/2000 4:44:16 PM 1376. JRoth - 11/28/2000 8:10:45 AM Alexander was also adept in his sense of timing. Since tactical, much less strategic, reserves were not a feature of contemporary warfare, the decision of when to committ various formations was of crucial importance. 1377. Wombat - 11/28/2000 8:49:56 AM JRoth: Thanks for stopping by! Your insights are always valuable. 1378. JRoth - 11/28/2000 11:24:07 AM All valid points. Gustavus did create a new combined arms synthesis which rebalanced weapons systems and took advantage of improvements in casting technology (lighter cannon) that some suggest were due to the Swedish access to higher grade ores. Perhaps most interesting, he furthered the decline of cavalry as the decisive weapon system. Of course massed pike squares resist direct cavalry assault, but they are themselves vulnerable to missile weapons launched either by light infantry or light cavalry and can be cast into confusion by turning maneuvers. The Gustavian synthesis reduced the need for expensive, difficult to provision cavalry while reducing his formations vulnerability to cavalry disruptions of his rear and flanks. Perhaps only the resource constraints of the Swedish economy and manpower pool were his greatest weakness. Certainly Wallenstein knew how to manage a wartime economy. 1379. Wombat - 11/28/2000 11:32:22 AM Among the attempts made by the Swedes to lighten cannons was the so-called "leathern" gun, which--I beleive--attempted to reinforce the gun's iron tube with leather, rather than additional layers of iron. 1380. PelleNilsson - 11/29/2000 10:22:14 AM The leather cannons were no success. They were tried once and then taken out of service. The whole piece tended to explode. 1381. PelleNilsson - 11/29/2000 10:52:43 AM The above reminds me of a funny episode that took place in Poland in 1991. We were a team working for the World Bank and we were going to a town south of Warsaw to have a look at the satellite earth stations who were (and are) located in the vicinity. The control room of the one working on the Russian Intersputnik system looked like a transformer station with massive switches and devices under grey cast-iron covers. The whole capacity was leased to Spain for traffic to Cuba. Clever fellows, the Poles. 1382. Wombat - 11/29/2000 10:57:41 AM In the 30 years War, Sweden received large annual subsidies from France. It is interesting to note that Sweden's military prowess waxed and waned upon the arrival of new recruits from Sweden that were able to "leaven" the mix of retreads and mercenaries that made up the bulk of its forces after Nordlingen. 1383. Wombat - 11/29/2000 11:02:55 AM The relationship between the rise of the nation-state and the introduction of professional, "standing" armed forces is worthy of comment. There seem to have been a number of cycles of this over the millenia. 1384. PelleNilsson - 11/29/2000 11:15:16 AM Do you recall the name of the Swedish commander. I have a vague feeling he was a court favourite. I can probably look it up somewhere. 1385. Wombat - 11/29/2000 11:20:33 AM According to the web site on the butterscotch bar, it was (Count?) Horn. 1386. PelleNilsson - 11/29/2000 11:33:52 AM You know, Wombat, I hadn't seen that link. Thanks for putting it up. 1387. JRoth - 11/30/2000 10:41:16 AM Wombat, 1388. PelleNilsson - 11/30/2000 3:41:47 PM As I mentioned earlier it was a costly business to maintain an army. A country which has a standing one must do so in its own territory in peacetime. This implies that the country must generate a sufficient surplus, must have a strong central administration able to collect it, and that the army is the first priority when it comes to spending it. 1389. JRoth - 11/30/2000 5:10:54 PM We could consider an entire spectrum delineated by the degrees to which societies are organised for war. We would probably want to exclude certain tribal units, such as the "fierce people" of the Amazonian rain forest since the cycles of raid and revenge occupy a central position in the culture. Or perhaps we use them to mark the furthest extreme of societal organisation for war. If they are 10, I would put Sparta at 8 and Imperial Rome at 6.5. Imperial Britain perhaps 4. Contemporary America, 3 to 4. Any inputs? 1390. AytchMan - 11/30/2000 11:24:25 PM JRoth-- 1391. DocBrown - 12/1/2000 11:07:30 AM We could look at America two ways, fraction of Americans devoted to warlike efforts vs fraction of American budget devoted to warlike efforts. 1392. PelleNilsson - 12/1/2000 2:29:39 PM Nazi Germany was certainly Prussian in terms of mobilizing its resources for war, but being more affluent it could allocate money for other purposes as well. The Soviet Union did not have a war economy in the 30's. 1393. Wombat - 12/1/2000 2:38:18 PM Nazi Germany didn't institute a war economy until 1941-42. 1394. PelleNilsson - 12/1/2000 3:00:57 PM Is that so? And from where emerged the army that conquered France and penetrated far into Russia. Did it exist prior to the Nazi take-over? 1395. Wombat - 12/1/2000 3:07:37 PM Pelle: 1396. AytchMan - 12/1/2000 4:24:04 PM Doc-- 1397. AytchMan - 12/1/2000 4:35:19 PM Wombat-- 1398. DocBrown - 12/1/2000 5:21:10 PM AytchMan, obviously I mean comparing current America to the lowest practical militarization (0) and the greatest practical militarization (10). 1399. AytchMan - 12/1/2000 5:39:57 PM Doc-- 1400. DocBrown - 12/1/2000 5:49:55 PM 1401. AytchMan - 12/1/2000 6:02:06 PM Doc-- 1402. cmboyce - 12/1/2000 7:07:33 PM I don't think the United States can attain (or fall to) the level of 8 or 9 on a 1-10 scale of "organized for war"(Message # 1389); there are simply too many politically and socially active elements in the society who are not and don't want to be so organized. Short of defending against an invasion—a great improbability, possibly simply impossible in the foreseeable future—I don't see that changing at all. 1403. AytchMan - 12/1/2000 7:19:42 PM I don't think the United States can attain (or fall to) the level of 8 or 9 on a 1-10 scale of "organized for war 1404. AytchMan - 12/1/2000 7:25:07 PM I don't think the United States can attain (or fall to) the level of 8 or 9 on a 1-10 scale of "organized for war 1405. AytchMan - 12/1/2000 7:27:10 PM Doh! 1406. cmboyce - 12/1/2000 7:31:58 PM You are then of the opinion that the US right now has the political will to be regarded as very highly organized for war, when at the same time you believe the country "would not currently tolerate a major expansion in defense spending." from the 2 or 3% level, let alone the 6 or 7% that you also called "nowhere near a practical maximum"?? I don't get it. 1407. AytchMan - 12/1/2000 7:42:37 PM You are then of the opinion that the US right now has the political will to be regarded as very highly organized for war 1408. cmboyce - 12/1/2000 7:52:45 PM Aah. Well, it seems to me that setting up a 1-10 scale implies the consideration of the theoretically possible. There seems little point in observing that, being near the public's tolerance for social commitment to war now, we are near the top of the scale—when we were also near the top of the scale in, say, 1943 (when, of course, that public's tolerance was much much higher). 1409. AytchMan - 12/1/2000 8:02:22 PM In terms of theoretically possible, I'd put the US at a 2 or 3 in terms of both materially and psychologically. Doc put the US at a 4 or 5 and away we went. You said 3 to 5 which still seems high to me (obviously). That implies that we could,at most, triple our "war organization" which seems low. All very subjective, of course. 1410. cmboyce - 12/1/2000 8:09:06 PM Well, I was sort of thinking (insofar as I actually was thinking) to reserve 1 and 2 for the likes of Vanuatu [sp?], Togo, Surinam, et al. 1411. cmboyce - 12/1/2000 8:18:15 PM Of course, simple technical capacity—however intended (our capacity to move goods to marker is convertible to moving munitions to the front, etc.)—renders a country well-prepared for war, and thus arguably (perhaps inarguably) organized therefor. Thus, our technical military superiority, along with our general technologically superiority (as anent, say, Russia or China) ought to put us pretty high on the list in terms of materially. But psychologically, 2 seems fair, to be sure. 1412. AytchMan - 12/1/2000 8:18:21 PM Boy, this is tough. At first, I thought that was an excellent argument. But, if we're talking theoretical maximums, this implies that Togo could expand their military and organizational strength by 5 or 10 times. I kinda doubt this but I don't really know. 1413. cmboyce - 12/1/2000 8:18:58 PM "...goods to market..." 1414. AytchMan - 12/1/2000 8:25:33 PM It seems like there is still some sort of definitional disconnect, at least in my own mind. 1415. AytchMan - 12/1/2000 8:26:10 PM toys 1416. AytchMan - 12/1/2000 8:27:16 PM xposts 1417. cmboyce - 12/1/2000 8:27:30 PM No, I meant theoretical maximum for any, for all. Thus, Togo, more or less unorganized for war (I', assuming) and (incidentally) unlikely to become so, is near the theoretical minimum. Prussia near the max. Not its own max, but as nearly organized for war as a society can be. 1418. AytchMan - 12/1/2000 8:35:41 PM 1411-- 1419. AytchMan - 12/1/2000 8:43:44 PM 1417-- 1420. PelleNilsson - 12/2/2000 4:21:53 AM If we think in terms of the national economy beeing subordinated to the needs of the army, as in Prussia under Fredrik I, I think North Korea is the most militaristic country today. 1421. cmboyce - 12/2/2000 10:51:21 AM "Amazonian Wild Men ... could not get anywhere near a 10 because they are nowhere near the theoretical max for any and all." 1422. cmboyce - 12/2/2000 10:53:15 AM Toys. 1423. cmboyce - 12/2/2000 10:54:57 AM Fwiw, little enough, in #1421, I had intended "societal organization" to be in italics. 1424. AytchMan - 12/2/2000 2:11:10 PM pelle-- 1425. AytchMan - 12/2/2000 2:34:54 PM Based on all posts so far, should we define "societal organization for war" as follows? It measures a nation's current status with respect to its theoretical maximum for two components -- The Hard Stuff (a mix of industrial might, troop counts, material numbers and quality) plus The Soft Stuff (popular and political will, level of aggressiveness, readiness for war). 1426. ranheim - 12/3/2000 12:52:03 AM I lurk in this thread occasionally. I usually say nothing due to the fact that WW I is much more interesting to me than WW II. 1427. PelleNilsson - 12/3/2000 7:45:17 AM 1428. AytchMan - 12/3/2000 1:29:09 PM ranheim-- 1429. AytchMan - 12/3/2000 2:11:47 PM ranheim-- 1430. ranheim - 12/3/2000 4:25:30 PM AytchMan 1431. PelleNilsson - 12/3/2000 4:55:42 PM ranheim 1432. ranheim - 12/3/2000 5:10:20 PM What is it? A truism? 1433. AytchMan - 12/3/2000 8:38:52 PM The USA should not have entered WW I. 1434. ranheim - 12/3/2000 10:07:09 PM I have done some - not a lot - of reading in regard Germany of 1918. As I mentioned earlier, Kaiser Wilhem II, a man famous for vacillating, would have been ruler of a country that was broke. At the end of the war his people had insufficient diets. At the end of the war, 14 year olds - sometimes even younger - were being called to serve in the military. 1435. AytchMan - 12/3/2000 10:26:14 PM If one postulates that, even without US entry, Germany would have lost the war, then it's no contest -- the US would clearly have been better off staying out. Why fight a war if you don't have to. 1436. ranheim - 12/3/2000 10:32:36 PM The war would have ground to a halt under slightly more horrible conditions that actually obtained in Nov., 1918. And lasted a few months longer than it actually did. 1437. AytchMan - 12/3/2000 10:40:20 PM Under those circumstances, in which Germany is effectively a loser if not officially so, then the US would have gained nothing and solved little by entering. 1438. ranheim - 12/3/2000 10:48:53 PM I spent 9 years as a USAF Flight Surgeon. I know nothing about Army tactics. Thank God! 1439. AytchMan - 12/3/2000 11:14:47 PM Of course we're speculating so everything's arguable but: 1440. ranheim - 12/3/2000 11:35:43 PM In the USA we continue to be a rural country for a good many more years. War artificially speeds up technology; as well as the power of Washington. AND that is my main concern! Less power in Washington! 1441. AytchMan - 12/3/2000 11:52:17 PM As far as the US goes, I think that industrialization and urbanization would have continued at about the same pace. Perhaps a bit slower but not much. War does accelerate the advance of technology but only in certain areas and only at the cost of slower development in other areas. Since war is a net drain on a nation's resources, I don't think it helps the overall pace of technological advancement much if at all. What do the Professional Economists say? 1442. ranheim - 12/4/2000 12:15:18 AM All of that sounds better than what actually happened. 1443. AytchMan - 12/4/2000 12:35:41 AM All of that sounds better than what actually happened. 1444. ranheim - 12/4/2000 1:23:44 AM Avoiding Hitler, no matter how, would, of course, been a plus. 1445. AytchMan - 12/4/2000 1:34:05 AM Night. C'mon back. 1446. Wombat - 12/4/2000 8:07:41 AM Ranheim, Aytch: 1447. Wombat - 12/4/2000 8:12:56 AM Ranheim's dream of an agrarian, Jeffersonian United States ended in 1812, when it proved unable to defeat the British. 1448. ranheim - 12/4/2000 8:14:56 AM Wombat 1449. Wombat - 12/4/2000 12:29:53 PM Well, no. A united communist Germany, France in an even weaker position than it was in reality (and perhaps subverted by the left as well) and a much weaker Britain, fighting a series of national liberation wars in the 1920s. Add an isolationist and unprepared US, and you may have had a McCarthyite's fear coming true. 1450. PelleNilsson - 12/4/2000 2:02:58 PM The US entry into WWI and WWII (in Europe) was not critical as to the outcome, but decisive for the peace and its aftermath. 1451. ranheim - 12/4/2000 4:03:26 PM Wombat 1452. jexster - 12/4/2000 8:56:25 PM . "They ran through the bushes and ran through the briars". 1453. jexster - 12/4/2000 8:59:49 PM Last Vestige of NSDAP Disappears From Face of the Earth 1454. jexster - 12/4/2000 9:02:52 PM In Memoriam - Das Trees 1455. ranheim - 12/4/2000 9:05:24 PM Thanks for the accurate words, Jexster. 1456. jexster - 12/4/2000 9:16:05 PM The Battle of New Orleans 1457. jexster - 12/4/2000 9:19:44 PM Pretty good memory for an aging fuck! 1458. jexster - 12/4/2000 9:33:29 PM Gen. Packenham, British commander, was killed. His body returned to Britain via Mobile in a barrel of pickle brine. 1459. jexster - 12/4/2000 9:34:33 PM Ranheim 1460. ranheim - 12/4/2000 9:39:40 PM again thanks! 1461. jexster - 12/4/2000 9:42:11 PM Good read on the War of 1812, this historical novel 1462. arkymalarky - 12/4/2000 10:01:41 PM Driftwood was from AR, was responsible for the Folk Center at Mountain View, where he lived, and died a year or so ago. Thanks for the site, Jex. 1463. ranheim - 12/5/2000 2:10:13 AM arky 1464. Wombat - 12/5/2000 8:44:58 AM Jexter: 1465. Wombat - 12/5/2000 8:45:18 AM Some notes on the battle of New Orleans, which is often held up as an exemplar of the US militia-based system defeating a regular army. 1466. arkymalarky - 12/5/2000 11:01:51 AM Hit and miss so far, Ran. 1467. Wombat - 12/6/2000 11:24:40 AM Enough on the War of 1812 (however fascinating some of us find it). 1468. Wombat - 12/6/2000 4:00:21 PM Frederick William I, not Frederick I. 1469. Electric Slide - 12/6/2000 4:35:36 PM Tomorrow night on ABC, 9 pm est. The Dec. 7th program has gotten good reviews. 1470. Wombat - 12/8/2000 8:57:21 AM Yesterday, in Baltimore, a ceremony was held on the USS Taney, a Coast Guard cutter now a museum in the Inner Harbor of Baltimore. On it were gathered several hundred veterans of WWII, some of whom here at Pearl Harbor when the Japanese attacked it on December 7, 1941. As it happened, the Taney was also at Pearl Harbor on that day, and played an active role in defending against the Japanese attack. The Taney is probably in better shape than the veterans attending, who are reportedly dying off at a rate of 1,000 a day. 1471. Electric Slide - 12/10/2000 8:19:38 PM 50 Years Ago This Week: Recalling how U.S. forces faced disaster and overcame it in North Korea 1472. Jonesatlaw - 12/10/2000 11:28:09 PM Here's to the Chosin Few. God love them and keep them. 1473. AytchMan - 12/15/2000 1:01:13 AM Where will the next major war occur? Something on the order of the Falklands or worse. Does anybody think there will be no major war within the next ten years? 1474. CalGal - 12/15/2000 1:02:23 AM Do Pakistan and India count as an existing war, or one that could break out? 1475. AytchMan - 12/15/2000 1:07:22 AM I'd say that where they are now doesn't count but clearly they are credible candidates. 1476. CalGal - 12/15/2000 1:12:34 AM Well, they were my nomination, but I wasn't sure if my sense of them not being at war right now was accurate. 1477. AytchMan - 12/15/2000 1:23:14 AM Because of the lousy economies, it would be quite an achievement for sub-Saharan Africa to mount a major war. Maybe if Nigeria and South Africa bordered each other. 1478. CalGal - 12/15/2000 1:29:18 AM Oh, does a major war mean it has to be high tech? I was thinking number of people dead. 1479. AytchMan - 12/15/2000 1:41:23 AM Not high-tech necessarily but maybe middle-tech. Most African dustups seem more to resemble civil wars even if they're between different countries. I guess I was thinking more of conflicts with a major international effect (on Japan or Europe, not necessarily just the US). 1480. Wombat - 12/15/2000 8:43:17 AM Bosnia: 1481. AytchMan - 12/15/2000 8:59:18 PM A vote for India-Pakistan and a vote for The Balkan Free-For-All. Nobody thinks the Arabs and Israelis are the most likely? 1482. stostosto - 12/15/2000 9:03:15 PM 1483. Wombat - 12/18/2000 9:02:51 AM And he has been doing so for the last six to nine months.... 1484. DocBrown - 1/2/2001 2:27:57 PM 1485. Wombat - 1/2/2001 5:01:15 PM There are a number of technical problems that make it very difficult to make a war movie that has versimilitude. 1486. Wombat - 1/3/2001 9:39:46 AM The worst war movies, when seen today, are those made in or just after World War II, such as Bataan or Wake Island. The special effects are cheesy, and they are appallingly racist. 1487. DocBrown - 1/3/2001 2:33:40 PM Wombat, you like Sink the Bismark!? . . . using 21st century digital technology (and Germans who speak German). 1489. Wombat - 1/3/2001 3:26:10 PM Doc: 1490. Raskolnikov - 1/3/2001 4:07:28 PM The story of the Bismarck could make for a great modern movie. The challenges for Hollywood would be: 1491. DocBrown - 1/3/2001 4:11:20 PM 1492. CalGal - 1/3/2001 4:16:22 PM Zulu is an outstanding war film. I am reminded that the DVD is now out. 1493. Raskolnikov - 1/3/2001 4:16:37 PM Waterworld, Cutthroat Island, The Abyss, and Speed 2 were also water pictures. And Jaws, Titanic, and Perfect Storm were extremely expensive (particularly the first two) - had they bombed, there would have been hell to pay. 1494. Raskolnikov - 1/3/2001 4:17:35 PM I still need to see Battleground. I think it shows up on TCM periodically, but I never seem to find it until after it has started. 1495. CalGal - 1/3/2001 4:21:56 PM I first saw it when I was 8, on the late late late show. Commercials and all. Didn't understand half of it, but I loved it. I watched it ten years ago and still enjoyed it; I'd like to see it again. 1496. CalGal - 1/3/2001 4:31:08 PM Which of the Ford Western trilogy had Henry Fonda in it? That's a good war movie. 1497. Raskolnikov - 1/3/2001 4:32:12 PM Fort Apache. 1498. CalGal - 1/3/2001 4:34:43 PM I really enjoyed They Were Expendable, particularly the abortive romance. Very un-Hollywoodish. 1499. DocBrown - 1/4/2001 10:50:31 AM Raskolnikov, I agree that water pictures are risky. When I said they were becoming more practical I meant less risky. With digital special effects, it is possible to make much more realistic water pictures than they could ever make with models of any scale for less than the cost of an outer space picture. 1500. Wombat - 1/5/2001 11:27:18 AM I don't think the British were terrified by the Bismark. However, once it sank the Hood (which was considered by the British public to symbolize the Royal Navy) sinking the Bismark became a national and moral imperative. 1501. CalGal - 1/6/2001 1:17:47 PM This may have been mentioned earlier--is Knight's Cross a good bio of Rommel? 1502. AytchMan - 1/8/2001 6:19:35 PM Worst recent war movie for historical realism: U-571. Dreadfully inaccurate. 1503. Jonesatlaw - 1/9/2001 12:42:20 AM I loved Tora Tora Tora. I liked the cutting back and forth between the Japanese and Pearl Harbor before the attack. The Yammamoto character is played a little too fearful of the Americans, but all in all a good war film. 1504. LohrM - 1/9/2001 8:43:32 AM "A Walk In The Sun"... brilliant ww-2 film... And "Go And Tell The Spartans"-- excellent early Vietnam film... 1505. Wombat - 1/9/2001 9:46:12 AM Cal: 1506. LohrM - 1/9/2001 10:57:40 AM I just did a project about the new military technologies and the laws of war, and I'm always interested in discussing the effect of social structures (technology, nationalism, ethnicity) on armies and warfare... 1507. Wombat - 1/9/2001 11:12:37 AM Lohr: 1508. DocBrown - 1/9/2001 12:03:22 PM Wombat, sorry for starting the "War Movies" tangent. My intent was to find accurate depictions of various wars, and discuss what made them accurate. I believe that is perfectly suitable for this thread, but it is your thread I never meant for people to just list their favorite war movies. 1509. Wombat - 1/9/2001 12:10:58 PM Doc: 1510. Wombat - 1/10/2001 10:36:36 AM Urquhart: 1511. Francis Urquhart - 1/10/2001 10:41:25 AM Wombat 1512. Wombat - 1/10/2001 10:53:06 AM Lee's main sin in western Virginia was to draw up an overly complicated plan for fighting Federal troops, and his inability (which continued through the war) to master logistics. The actual fighting was done by untrained and poorly armed forces under incompetent and politically poweful commanders. Lee was unfairly blamed for the campaign's failure. Ironically, MacLellan commanded the victorious Federal forces. 1513. Francis Urquhart - 1/10/2001 11:08:04 AM Wombat 1514. Raskolnikov - 1/10/2001 11:17:25 AM I recall something of that nature out of Shelby Foote's books, but it wasn't The Wilderness. 1515. CalGal - 1/10/2001 11:42:50 AM Grant was reported to have cried after the first day of Wilderness, and I believe Shelby Foote has mentioned it. However, it was hardly a breakdown and even the crying incident has been questioned. There are several other stories about him at Wilderness that belie anything other than being overcome by emotion, rather than nerves (assuming the story is true). 1516. Wombat - 1/10/2001 12:09:57 PM Indy: 1517. DocBrown - 1/10/2001 12:21:34 PM Wombat asked: 1518. Wombat - 1/10/2001 12:33:26 PM Doc: 1519. Francis Urquhart - 1/10/2001 12:39:02 PM The harshness of Sherman's March was borne by the South mostly by loss of slaves, which had a deep psychological impact, and property, which struck at the heart of the stark Southern economic dichotomy. Sherman was never seriously challenged militarily during his march to the sea, and while there were abuses by his troops in the form of injury to Southern civilians, these abuses have been inflated by Southern lore. 1520. Raskolnikov - 1/10/2001 12:39:05 PM I think what Doc is getting at is the whole ethos of "total war", with Sherman as an early proponent. I don't know enough military history to know whether Sherman really was that important a figure in the formation of "total war" strategies, but I do see that he is very frequently mentioned as such in mainstream histories. 1521. Indiana Jones - 1/10/2001 12:41:43 PM Wombat: That's why I posted the followup that said "served with" instead of "served in." As soon as I posted the original I thought I'd better qualify it. I expect that to answer that question specifically we would have to distinguish between slaves and freed blacks and also what constitutes "black" in terms of bloodlines. 1522. janjon - 1/10/2001 12:42:16 PM I was tought that Sherman's march was intended in its severity to "bring the South to its senses", in that continuing the War would only mean much more devastation throughout the South. 1523. Indiana Jones - 1/10/2001 12:42:22 PM As soldiers. 1524. Francis Urquhart - 1/10/2001 12:46:40 PM Relevant 1525. Wombat - 1/10/2001 12:47:43 PM Sherman believed in ending the war as quickly as possible, and using extreme (for the time) means of doing so. He also believed in an easy peace, with early readmission of the former Confederate states into the Union. This got him in a great deal of trouble as the war ended. 1526. Francis Urquhart - 1/10/2001 12:50:14 PM Daily Press 1527. Francis Urquhart - 1/10/2001 12:50:34 PM "The numbers are vastly overinflated," said William Blair, director of the Civil War Era Center at Pennsylvania State University. "There are people who want to distance slavery as the cause of the war. This feeds nicely into that whole view." 1528. Francis Urquhart - 1/10/2001 12:50:52 PM 1529. Francis Urquhart - 1/10/2001 12:51:36 PM "When you do get a battle commencing it all becomes a big blur," said 1530. Francis Urquhart - 1/10/2001 12:51:47 PM Major historical sites, including the National Museum of the Civil War 1531. Wombat - 1/10/2001 12:55:56 PM I think a more accurate--and factual--view of Confederate's views toward blacks in uniform is found in the rejection of Cleburne's proposal to enlist blacks into the CSA, and the practice of enslaving or executing Federal black soldiers taken prisoner. Note to Urquhart: Lee went along with this until Grant threatened retaliation against Confederate PoWs. 1532. Indiana Jones - 1/10/2001 12:58:02 PM Good stuff, Francis. 1533. Wombat - 1/10/2001 1:05:32 PM Interesting. But far short of Confederate apologists' claims. 1534. Francis Urquhart - 1/10/2001 1:08:48 PM Wombat 1535. Wombat - 1/10/2001 1:15:54 PM Urquhart: 1536. PelleNilsson - 1/10/2001 1:50:09 PM 1537. DocBrown - 1/10/2001 1:50:23 PM 1538. Raskolnikov - 1/10/2001 2:09:41 PM Doc: I don't think Sherman's march is controversial in the way you are describing. I haven't seen any mainstream argument that it was ineffective, counterproductive, or desperate. It is usually credited with breaking the back of Confederate resistance at a time when Grant and Lee were stalemated in Virginia. 1539. Raskolnikov - 1/10/2001 2:14:55 PM "If they wanted to "bring the Confederacy to its senses" or "bring to war to the Confederate citizens" they could take control of the waterways, railroads, and various government facilities." 1540. Wombat - 1/10/2001 2:36:58 PM Doc: 1541. Wombat - 1/10/2001 2:45:12 PM The problem was that the Confederacy did not realize it was "finished." By 1864, US forces controlled the Mississippi and its tributaries, large stretches of the Atlantic coastline, and were blockading the few remaining southern ports. Union forces had been destroying government installations and war industries in areas they passed through. 1542. DocBrown - 1/10/2001 2:49:55 PM Rask, you seem to base your arguments on the fact that Sherman was successful. I have not questioned that he was, and I certainly do not think it is controversial. 1543. janjon - 1/10/2001 2:53:59 PM I have read at least one commentary analogizing the strategy behind Sherman's march to that of the decision to drop the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Awfully broad, of course, but it holds up well on that level in that in both instances you had populaces who were perceived as being prepared to fight on and on and on to the bitter end (at much greater loss to both sides, but certainly to the putative "victors") and in that the march/bombings were intended to provide sufficient shock to those populaces and their leaders to bring the war(s) to an end. 1544. glendajean - 1/10/2001 3:07:03 PM The carriages with picnicers were at the First Battle of Bull Run (or Manassas). 1545. Wombat - 1/10/2001 3:07:29 PM The result of Sherman's march may have devastated the Confederacy economically, but it did not have much effect on the US after the war. The south was impoverished, but the rest of the country boomed. 1546. Raskolnikov - 1/10/2001 5:06:47 PM "From the Union's perspective, the American Civil War was not like 1547. Raskolnikov - 1/10/2001 5:06:55 PM 1548. Raskolnikov - 1/10/2001 5:08:39 PM Quick poll: Greatest American Military commander of all time? 1549. glendajean - 1/10/2001 5:11:36 PM Rask -- I read somewhere that it was Union soldiers voting absentee that swung the election towards Lincoln. I've always been curious to know if that was true, but haven't looked it up. 1550. Fielding - 1/10/2001 5:21:33 PM 1551. Francis Urquhart - 1/10/2001 5:29:18 PM Raskolnikov 1552. Wombat - 1/10/2001 5:57:48 PM Winfield Scott. Or (ugh) Douglas MacArthur. 1553. Raskolnikov - 1/10/2001 6:32:03 PM "Does he have to be an American at the time he was in the Military? " 1554. Raskolnikov - 1/10/2001 6:36:48 PM "I read somewhere that it was Union soldiers voting absentee 1555. Wombat - 1/11/2001 7:48:36 AM There was concern that Democrat-run states would make trouble over the use of absentee ballots by soldiers in the field. Thousands of furloughs were granted to allow soldiers to return to their home states to vote. My understanding is that the soldiers voted overwhelmingly in favor of Lincoln. 1556. Fielding - 1/11/2001 8:06:51 AM 1557. DocBrown - 1/11/2001 10:00:03 AM Rask said: 1558. Indiana Jones - 1/11/2001 10:23:31 AM I'm not sure how much Washington would qualify as a great general, but he'd be hard to beat for choice as greatest "commander." 1559. Indiana Jones - 1/11/2001 10:34:02 AM Between gutting the South and the prolonged stalemate, I think you have to go with gutting the South (and I say this as someone with sympathy to the "perverse" Southern cause--heh). The same way I can see that American history would have been totally different without the evil of slavery, I believe it would have been totally different (and perhaps world history too) had the U.S. fragmented. 1560. Wombat - 1/11/2001 10:46:58 AM Both Scott and MacArthur had a number of things in common, in positive and negative terms. 1561. Raskolnikov - 1/11/2001 10:49:50 AM Also, as I understand it, by far the two most significant economic "destructions" heaped on the south were the freeing of the slaves, and the destruction of the railroads. I don't have a problem with either of them, and I find Doc's implied preference for human destruction over the destruction of equipment rather odd. 1562. Jonesatlaw - 1/11/2001 10:53:14 AM For strategy and tactics- Alfred Thayer Mahan, Patton and Washington. 1563. cmboyce - 1/11/2001 10:56:48 AM What do you guys think of Marshall as a nominee? Did he do much field commanding, or is his reputation (about which, obviously, I know little) based entirely on his overseeing the war for FDR, as I understand his role to have been, at least after a certain date? 1564. Wombat - 1/11/2001 11:02:23 AM Short of a decisive defeat of the Army of Northern Virginia, an alternative would have been a more conventional campaign through the South, with attempts to occupy and administer the territory that they passed through. Slaves would have been freed regardless, and resistance would have degenerated into guerilla warfare, which would have probably led to worse devastation than ultimately occurred. Sherman's forces would have been stretched to defend supply lines and to combat guerillas. 1565. Wombat - 1/11/2001 11:06:42 AM Marshall was a superb staff officer in WWI and WWII. He played a vital role in the run-up to WWII, shaking up a stultified and underfunded Army organization. His brilliance as a staff officer made him too important to be given a field command, although he was offered a chance to command US forces for D-Day. He graciously--and I think wisely--declined. 1566. cmboyce - 1/11/2001 11:11:30 AM Was he not in command of the whole shooting match, both theaters? I realize this would be more of a policy thing, a distribution of resources, etc. and I suppose a massaging of personalities, not just Ike v. Monty, et al, but King and MacArthur as well. But surely not to be considered as a staff officer's role? (Unless FDR's staff, maybe.) 1567. Fielding - 1/11/2001 11:16:46 AM 1568. Wombat - 1/11/2001 11:18:43 AM He was Chief of Staff. As such he was responsible for oversight of the Army's (and AAF's) operations world wide. His most important--and more informal--role was as Roosevelt's military advisor. Roosevelt literally could not bear to have Marshall out of easy contact. 1569. Raskolnikov - 1/11/2001 11:20:27 AM Really? I have generally just heard criticisms of Washington's tactical abilities, such as with the Battle of New York and the Battle of Trenton. But based on his leadership qualities, Indy's distinction of "Commander" vs. "General" is a fair one. 1570. cmboyce - 1/11/2001 11:29:58 AM Wombat, I guess all that won't put him up there with Washington et al, but maybe he could be considered (w/o respect to "greatest commander" ranking) the most important military figure in WW2. And, after the Big Four, the most important military or civilian. 1571. Wombat - 1/11/2001 11:30:09 AM Fielding: 1572. Wombat - 1/11/2001 11:37:23 AM Washington's main attribute as a commander was as a leader of men. His battle plans were usually overcomplicated, and he was almost always let down by his subordinates or by his soldiers. 1573. cmboyce - 1/11/2001 11:41:03 AM Sheesh! I just reread my last post: for "Big Four" read "Big Three and Hilter". (In my head, I just did a little addition, forgetting that I was in language, I guess.) 1574. Fielding - 1/11/2001 11:42:47 AM 1575. glendajean - 1/11/2001 11:49:54 AM Who was the best war comander-in-chief? 1576. Indiana Jones - 1/11/2001 11:59:39 AM GJ: IMO, Lincoln, hand's down. 1577. lisajolie - 1/11/2001 12:05:25 PM FDR for best Military Commander-in-Chief 1578. DocBrown - 1/11/2001 12:08:17 PM My Dark Horse candidate for America's greatest military commander: Brigadier-General William "Billy" Mitchell. 1579. cmboyce - 1/11/2001 12:09:38 PM I'll join Indiana. Lincoln. 1580. cmboyce - 1/11/2001 12:10:29 PM Clinton has Kosovo, of course. How quickly we forget. And Reagan has Panama, etc. 1581. lisajolie - 1/11/2001 12:12:23 PM Billy Mitchell is a good choice. Unfortunately, he couldn't seem to navigate the political channels. 1582. Raskolnikov - 1/11/2001 12:15:13 PM I think the only choice is between Lincoln and FDR. I am tempted to give it to FDR due to Lincoln's early problems micromanaging the war, but Lincoln had a much tougher task, so I'll give it to him. 1583. Raskolnikov - 1/11/2001 12:16:28 PM Although part of me wants to say Truman, due to his early management of the Cold War and the integration of the armed forces. 1584. Indiana Jones - 1/11/2001 12:23:06 PM Between FDR and Lincoln, I'd give it to Lincoln for some of the same reasons I'd say Washington was the greatest commander (situational duress). Once the U.S. entered WWII, it was a fair certainty the Allies were going to win. (Some Motiers have even argued that the Axis would have lost without our entry.) I think Lincoln may have been the "essential man" in the Civil War. Certainly had we had a president similar to those immediately preceeding him, the Union would not have survived. 1585. Indiana Jones - 1/11/2001 12:26:39 PM Polk did a fine job but in a not very difficult situation. 1586. Raskolnikov - 1/11/2001 12:27:34 PM "(Some Motiers have even argued that the 1587. Indiana Jones - 1/11/2001 12:28:11 PM Addendum to Reagan comment: As far as Greneda. I think in the bigger picture RR's administration had mucho foreign policy challenges. 1588. lisajolie - 1/11/2001 12:28:40 PM I would disagree that Lincoln had the tougher task. 1589. Indiana Jones - 1/11/2001 12:35:25 PM lisajolie: 1590. Raskolnikov - 1/11/2001 12:38:00 PM I think the political situation in the North was much more delicate than you seem to think. The material advantages are indisputable, but it wasn't a given that the political situation would have allowed a bloody four year war. 1591. lisajolie - 1/11/2001 12:56:29 PM Raskolnikov 1592. Wombat - 1/11/2001 12:56:56 PM I would argue FDR. The scope of WWII was so much larger, involving a number of allies with aims that were not congruent with that of the US, but who had to still fight willingly in concert, and not do things like negotiate separate peace agreements. FDR had to provide direction to the military without micromanaging, and he was more successful in doing so than any of the other leaders. He also had to plan and begin to implement the peace that followed. 1593. Indiana Jones - 1/11/2001 1:04:13 PM Another topic for the "What if" thread: 1594. glendajean - 1/11/2001 1:14:37 PM Lincoln and FDR had a divided electorate that was unsure about war. FDR sensed that US needed to be involved and gently led the country toward involvement with lend-lease. Lincoln had abolitionist Republicans from New England, Democrats in New York, key border states to contend with. 1595. lisajolie - 1/11/2001 1:23:47 PM Glendajean 1596. Indiana Jones - 1/11/2001 1:36:41 PM The more I think about it, look what did happen in each man's case. FDR died at almost the end of the war, Truman took over, and the war continued to a successful conclusion. (One criticism is that Truman was much to blame for the Cold War, but I don't subscribe to that.) 1597. PelleNilsson - 1/11/2001 2:39:42 PM lisajoilie 1598. Fielding - 1/11/2001 2:49:51 PM 1599. jexster - 1/12/2001 12:42:35 AM Greatest American Commander? 1600. Francis Urquhart - 1/12/2001 10:13:22 AM Wombat 1601. Wombat - 1/12/2001 11:17:50 AM Thanks for your legwork on this, Urquhart. Apparently Wilson had messed up a cavalry reconaissance mission during the battle, and was adopting a self-serving attitude. 1602. Indiana Jones - 1/12/2001 12:06:50 PM Apparently the Civil War caused a fair share of nervous breakdowns: 1603. Wombat - 1/12/2001 12:12:10 PM Sherman was a highly emotional, tightly-wound type of fella. Photgraphs notwithstanding. Anyway, you had to sit still for several minutes in order to avoid blurring the photo, back then. 1604. Wombat - 1/12/2001 12:13:56 PM Lincoln's alleged response to criticism for appointing Sherman to a corps command was: "Sherman is mad, is he? Well I hope he bites some of my other Generals!" 1605. Indiana Jones - 1/12/2001 12:21:17 PM Wombat: I was being tongue-in-cheek. 1606. Wombat - 1/12/2001 1:34:11 PM Thanks Indy! 1607. janjon - 1/12/2001 6:42:32 PM Well, better late than never. At any rate, here is my two cents' worth: 1608. jexster - 1/15/2001 1:07:12 PM Our foreign policy mandarins huddled and announced it couldn't be done. A parade of retired generals took to the airwaves with the same verdict. Congressional Republicans even tried to surrender. But in Kosovo Bill Clinton confounded everyone--probably even himself. For reasons having to do less with strategy than with domestic politics, he may have even stumbled onto a new precedent for the use of American military power. Not only did he win a war, he did it without an army. 1609. jexster - 1/15/2001 1:07:44 PM 1610. Fielding - 1/15/2001 1:52:34 PM 1611. jexster - 1/15/2001 8:28:37 PM Interesting facts from the Kosova article 1612. LohrM - 1/16/2001 10:32:17 AM Does anyone have any thoughts on Edward Luttwak's "post-heroic war" thesis? After all, Kosovo was *designed* not to risk Allied lives. Do Kosovo and Mogadishu argue that the US is no longer capable of action that would result in US casualties? 1613. Wombat - 1/16/2001 10:44:09 AM Lohr: 1614. jexster - 1/16/2001 12:24:32 PM I find the notion that we should look to maximize casualties a bit curious. 1615. Wombat - 1/16/2001 12:31:10 PM Jex: 1616. jexster - 1/16/2001 12:37:38 PM No disagreement there, esp. from one who advocated Apache Death from Above.... 1617. AytchMan - 1/17/2001 2:54:21 PM Do Kosovo and Mogadishu argue that the US is no longer capable of action that would result in US casualties? 1618. Wombat - 1/18/2001 10:09:00 AM The last few posts discuss contemporary US military policy/actions. It might be useful for Motiers to assess developments in weapons, tactics, threats, and doctrine that have occurred in the last eight years. 1619. DocBrown - 1/18/2001 3:46:04 PM Wombat, are you so certain that the last eight years are more significant than the last nine or ten? 1620. DocBrown - 1/18/2001 3:49:14 PM 1621. AytchMan - 1/19/2001 2:32:05 AM Does anybody know what the current assessment of the Patriot missile is? During the Gulf War, the Pentagon reported fantastic success with them. Later, some critics forced a reevaluation and, ever since, the performance assessments have been bouncing between acceptable and dreadful. 1622. Adrianne - 1/19/2001 6:51:35 AM 1623. Jadegold1 - 1/19/2001 9:31:48 AM Prepare to be astounded, Ad. 1624. Francis Urquhart - 1/19/2001 9:38:54 AM The disparity is alarming, but given DOD's inflated claims of success in just about any realm (see the devastating hit rate in Bosnia of tractors), I'm inclined to go with the lower numbers. Even the Army revised its numbers downward after Postol looked at the videotapes. 1625. Jadegold1 - 1/19/2001 9:46:20 AM The Israelis were monitoring Patriot performance very closely, for obvious reasons. Their conclusions were that the Patriots performed very poorly. 1626. Adrianne - 1/19/2001 9:52:20 AM 1627. Adrianne - 1/19/2001 10:01:26 AM 1628. azazel - 1/19/2001 10:24:51 AM In 1991-92 testimony before congress, the Army "believed" the Patriot SYSTEM success rate to be as high as 52%, although they gave a figure of 25% "with high confidence". This rate, as you have aluded to, is for the system, in that they shot approximately four Patriots at each incoming Scud. 1629. AytchMan - 1/19/2001 3:49:40 PM Thanks, everybody, especially for the links. I'm glad we cleared this up. 1630. Indiana Jones - 1/19/2001 11:42:08 PM TableTalk has a pretty good thread going about NMD. 1631. LohrM - 1/23/2001 9:39:16 AM A topic I'm always interested in-- the future of the manned bomber. That opens up a whole area about the effectiveness of area bombing v. 'pinpoint' strikes... and a discussion about the need for long-range strike aircraft in a world where overseas basing is no longer a given... 1632. DocBrown - 1/23/2001 12:33:00 PM That is an interesting topic, Lohr. 1633. Wombat - 1/24/2001 10:12:44 AM Lohr: 1634. LohrM - 1/25/2001 10:21:48 AM I think that may be part of my point. Area bombing of troop concentrations is something that 'dumb' bombs do very well (e.g., in the Gulf or in the last few days of the Kosovo war), and battlefield bombing requires 'bomb trucks'... Precision attacks on infrastructure by cruise missiles have tremendous *political* advantages (in the CNN world, killing enemy civilians or even enemy officials is regarded as a Bad Thing) and don't require risking crews over well-defended enemy cities (which is part of the 'post-heroic warfare' debate). But isn't there still a need for large platforms that can carry substantial numbers of cruise weapons or JDAMS? 1635. Wombat - 1/25/2001 11:15:47 AM Lohr: 1636. LohrM - 1/26/2001 9:39:52 AM Hmmmm... you still have the problem of bringing a ship (a far more expensive platform than a bomber) within range of shore-based missiles. And I do think that 'area' bombing has a role that can't be filled by smaller strike aircraft. 1637. ranheim - 1/27/2001 8:06:01 PM I was in the USAF for 9 years; but, as a Flight Surgeon. I have no idea how a plane is designed. 1638. labwabbit - 1/27/2001 8:21:42 PM Long-Range bombers have been made impractical because of their vulnerability to AAM and SAM weapons systems. You can see them coming a country-mile...particularly the cumbersome B-52. They are maintained mostly for sustaining an element of multiple-direction quick-strike capability in an all-out situation. Close combat and defined-theater aircraft are most practical as witnessed in the Gulf War. Nevertheless as a deterrent, the long-ranged bomber cannot afford the consistency of capability in a planned-strike scenario as a well stationed carrier group, or submarine force. 1639. ranheim - 1/27/2001 8:33:20 PM Wasn't it the B52s' pounding the Iraqui troops that made the ground war such an easy proposition in the Gulf War? 1640. labwabbit - 1/27/2001 8:35:46 PM F-117 AND B-2 Stealth technology was used. 1641. labwabbit - 1/27/2001 9:00:31 PM I have been led to believe that the cost of a carrier and its accompanying ships is horrendous. And nearly as vulnerable as a B52. 1642. labwabbit - 1/27/2001 9:28:05 PM In addition, under combat conditions, where a "stay the hell out of this area or it's your stupidity" zone. The vunerability of a carrier group is about as low as any force is to date with regards to penetrability of that zone and/or negation of its functionality. A pigeon couldn't get through if it was the intent of a fully mobilized group under combat alert. When these systems are most vulnerable, are when they are out cruising their "beat" and have to deal with a very-high multitude of various movements and objects of which 99.99% of the time can be friendly....or not. The recent Cole, the Stark, or the SammyB are three examples of three different vulnerabilities. 1643. ranheim - 1/27/2001 9:42:50 PM Thanks 1644. LohrM - 1/29/2001 2:12:10 PM Although a carrier group's vulnerability extends not just to the loss of the carrier, but to any damage that prevents flight operations. And most of the planes aboard any carrier are not strike aircraft but there to support and defend either the strikers or the carrier itself. 1645. DocBrown - 1/31/2001 1:18:59 PM The B-52's vulnerability to anti-aircraft systems presumes the presence of such systems. There are plenty of governments out there that would have trouble shooting down a squadron of them. If we have decided that we need Stealthy ot Smart weapons, we may have already picked our targets. 1646. ranheim - 1/31/2001 1:52:08 PM The nine years that I spent in the USAF during the '60s showed me more than I wanted to see of turf battles. e.g. all the USAF wanted while I was on active duty were planes that could fly high and fast. Cargo airplanes such as the C130 and later cargo planes were necessary; but, the Air Force powers-that-be seemed only to grudgingly accept that fact. Air/sea rescue operations were handled by planes and choppers that could not find a home elsewhere. 1647. Adrianne - 2/1/2001 9:02:08 AM 1648. LohrM - 2/1/2001 10:40:43 AM ranheim-- you're not all that far from me... I used to see F-100s at England AFB when I was a kid... 1649. ranheim - 2/1/2001 12:15:30 PM LohrM 1650. LohrM - 2/3/2001 11:45:47 AM Ranheim-- I'm about an hour from Alexandria these days. I used to drive through a couple of years ago on my way to teach classes at Fort Polk and once at Barksdale. 1651. PelleNilsson - 2/5/2001 5:12:37 AM 1652. LohrM - 2/5/2001 11:57:30 AM I hate to see it go... I'd like to see a few more discussions of current military actions, strategies, and equipment. 1653. PelleNilsson - 2/5/2001 12:18:45 PM Lohr 1654. Wombat - 2/5/2001 12:43:09 PM Sorry that I have been inactive for so long. I spent most of last week giving birth to a kidney stone. 1655. CalGal - 2/5/2001 12:46:19 PM Are you okay? That's a definite ouch. 1656. Wombat - 2/5/2001 12:51:42 PM Cal: 1657. janjon - 2/5/2001 12:54:58 PM Mistake - big mistake - to get rid of this thread. It adds a distinct flavoring to the place overall. So what if it is relatively sporadic in terms of activity. As far as I know, it isn't a matter of the "space" being needed for something else. 1658. PelleNilsson - 2/5/2001 12:57:14 PM Wombat 1659. CalGal - 2/5/2001 1:02:10 PM Did I say it was irreversible? I'm delighted to see you've changed your mind. 1660. Wombat - 2/5/2001 1:02:57 PM Pelle: 1661. cmboyce - 2/5/2001 1:04:10 PM Well, I'll add my voice to supporters of this thread. I don't post much, not being especially knowledgable, but I certainly enjoy lurking. I think of it as resembling the Slow Thread. It doesn't just sit at the bottom of the list; it just occasionally sinks (doubtless digesting), only to return to terrorize the beach. (I don't know where that came from!) 1662. AytchMan - 2/5/2001 1:58:30 PM pelle-- 1663. AytchMan - 2/5/2001 2:00:19 PM Wombat-- 1664. labwabbit - 2/5/2001 5:24:20 PM It was the pounding by B-52s that disabled Iraqi ground forces in 1991 1665. labwabbit - 2/5/2001 5:29:41 PM And most of the planes aboard any carrier are not strike aircraft but there to support and defend either the strikers or the carrier itself. 1666. ranheim - 2/5/2001 7:29:11 PM labwabbit 1667. labwabbit - 2/5/2001 8:00:11 PM ranheim 1668. ranheim - 2/6/2001 8:13:56 AM "We" should have killed one more person in the Gulf War! 1669. Wombat - 2/6/2001 8:52:20 AM Ranheim: 1670. LohrM - 2/6/2001 8:54:00 AM Back to the carrier group discussion. Of all the aircraft on a carrier, how many will actually be dropping bombs on an enemy, and how many will be providing ECM, SEAD, CAP, and re-fueling? 1671. DocBrown - 2/6/2001 9:56:47 AM LohrM, I think you overstate the case. A Smart weapon can do a lot of damage to a low tech society. Take out the police stations and any utility (powerplant, water treatment plant, etc.) and you can plunge any city into choas. 1672. LohrM - 2/6/2001 10:14:33 AM A low-tech city/village can survive without power or water far better than, say, Chicago, and there may be no computer nets to cripple. Third World societies are used to constant failure of power and water, used to transport nets that don't work. Armies without modern heavy equipment are far harder to target except with a hammer. 1673. LohrM - 2/6/2001 10:15:46 AM By the way-- wht do people here think of Ralph Peters' articles in Parameters over the last few years-- about his vision of the future of war? 1674. Wombat - 2/6/2001 10:32:59 AM Matt: 1675. PelleNilsson - 2/6/2001 11:29:06 AM 1676. Wombat - 2/6/2001 12:04:10 PM The Rwandans launched the equivalent of a blitzkrieg in the Congo, using nothing but lightly-armed infantry. Of course, the opposition was incompetent. 1677. LohrM - 2/6/2001 12:07:25 PM Go look for Parameters: The Journal of the US Army War College on-line... They've done some very excellent articles over the last few years on the need to restructure the US army for peace enforcement and regional conflicts. 1678. LohrM - 2/6/2001 2:30:41 PM In early fall 2000, PBS did a very interesting piece on the future of the US military-- wheels or tracks? 2 wars, 1.5 wars, 1 war planning? light or heavy? They put the Frontline scripts on line, and there are some nice interviews. 1679. Wombat - 2/6/2001 2:36:36 PM Matt: 1680. DocBrown - 2/6/2001 3:12:43 PM LohrM said: 1681. PelleNilsson - 2/6/2001 3:19:00 PM 1682. labwabbit - 2/6/2001 5:46:25 PM Remember Vietnam? What good did B-52s and helicopters do there? 1683. LohrM - 2/7/2001 9:04:38 AM Actually, a B-52 (or B-1) erasing a village or base camp is exactly what I had in mind. 1684. LohrM - 2/7/2001 12:09:19 PM Okay-- wheels or treads? Let's hear some thoughts. 1685. Wombat - 2/7/2001 12:22:18 PM Lohr: 1686. ranheim - 2/7/2001 1:33:44 PM Pelle 1687. LohrM - 2/7/2001 2:21:31 PM Wombat-- that's part of the debate about a new, lighter army: should armoured vehicles have treads (tanks: heavier weapons, more protection, but slower, harder to repair, difficult to transport rapidly) or wheels (faster, more portable AFVs, though with less protection). The debate turns on what kinds of enemies and battlefields the US will be facing in, say, 2010. 1688. Wombat - 2/7/2001 2:43:26 PM Ranheim: 1689. PelleNilsson - 2/7/2001 3:29:00 PM 1690. ranheim - 2/7/2001 7:33:35 PM I know all of that. 1691. PelleNilsson - 2/8/2001 2:54:07 AM 1692. LohrM - 2/8/2001 9:23:31 AM Well, I can't fault McNamara for bringing in better procurement systems at the DoD (e.g, Alain Einthoven and other analysts)-- though the proposed F-111B version for the Navy was a disaster --or for bringing some order into strategic planning. But he was a disaster as a wartime defense minister... (I blame Dean Rusk maybe more, though). 1693. ranheim - 2/8/2001 2:59:09 PM World Bank or IMF - I can never keep the two straight. And living in the boondocks of Louisiana, I have no personal experience with either. 1694. labwabbit - 2/8/2001 3:02:51 PM ranheim 1695. DocBrown - 2/8/2001 3:32:10 PM 1696. PelleNilsson - 2/8/2001 4:46:57 PM 1697. ScottLoar - 2/8/2001 4:53:11 PM PelleNilsson; 1698. PelleNilsson - 2/8/2001 5:00:19 PM 1699. ScottLoar - 2/8/2001 5:05:03 PM You're gonna' trip on body parts when you enter. 1700. Wombat - 2/9/2001 8:27:43 AM Interesting news out of Washington, DC. President* Bush has ordered SecDef Rumsfeld to conduct a review of US defense policy and priorities; and the man who Rumsfeld has tapped to conduct it has views that go very much against the grain of conventional US defense policy. The Washington Post has the full story. If only Rumsfeld wasn't so keen on NMD... 1701. ranheim - 2/9/2001 8:38:36 AM McNamarra went to work for Ford upon his discharge from the Army Air Corps at the end of WW II. He, ostensibly, was hired (along with his "whiz kids") to make the company profitable by organizational changes and streamlining. He was instrumental in pushing through some of the smaller cars that Ford made; changes that the old guard (that had been around Ford since the Model T) were opposed to. One of those cars was the Edsel. 1702. Wombat - 2/9/2001 9:10:24 AM Ranheim: 1703. DocBrown - 2/9/2001 9:28:28 AM I try to stay abreast of automotive history, and I have read a few books on the history of FoMoCo. Off the top of my head I can think of a few names I associate with the Edsel project (Henry Ford II, Ernie Breech, Crusoe, and the President of Edsel, Dick Krafve. 1704. Wombat - 2/9/2001 9:31:12 AM The Edsel sites I checked have MacNamara playing an instrumental role in killing the Edsel, possibly by devious means. There is plenty that MacNamara got wrong, but it appears that the Edsel is not one of them. 1705. DocBrown - 2/9/2001 9:36:36 AM "MacNamara's Brand?" For a period, Robert MacNamara was Edsel's Vice President of Vehicle Operations. Would that make him "responsible" for the Edsel? 1706. LohrM - 2/9/2001 12:19:56 PM Oddly enough, most owners thought it wasn't a bad car-- for what that's worth. It's certainly a majorly valuable collectible these days. 1707. ranheim - 2/9/2001 1:17:42 PM McNamara became Secy of Defence in 1961. That was my senior year in med school. I joined the USAF in 1962. Following internship, my first fighter squadron was a F102 interceptor squadron. 1708. Fielding - 2/9/2001 1:22:11 PM 1709. Wombat - 2/9/2001 1:47:28 PM Based upon what Ranheim says, it's easy to see why jet-jocks and their commanders wouldn't like MacNamara. However, creating multi-task airframes was a good idea, and as played out in the F-4 and F-16, was very successful. 1710. PelleNilsson - 2/9/2001 2:01:47 PM Fielding 1711. PelleNilsson - 2/9/2001 2:11:27 PM ranheim 1712. ranheim - 2/10/2001 12:02:59 PM Personally, I liked the 1950s - and felt more comfortable in the environment then - more than I do now. I will make no apology for that. 1713. LohrM - 2/10/2001 5:25:39 PM The F-4 did work out very well as both a carrier-based and land-based plane--in the end. The F-111B was a fiasco, though maybe no more so than the A-5, and some of the work on the Navy F-111 went into the basic design of the F-14. 1714. aunaturel - 2/10/2001 9:06:40 PM Hard to say who was the best US general. Anyone else like Chief Red Cloud? 1715. wonkers2 - 2/10/2001 11:14:33 PM McNamara was president of Ford when the Edsel was developed. He was also responsible for trying to lead the industry toward safer vehicles by making seat belts and/or other safety features standard. Unfortunately GM and Chrysler didn't follow suit, instead building "muscle cars" like the Pontiac GTO and Chevrolet Camaro, and the consumers didn't want to pay extra for safety features. They didn't become universal until required by federal law some years later. 1716. PelleNilsson - 2/11/2001 3:58:54 AM wonkers 1717. LohrM - 2/12/2001 11:53:36 AM So what will the Bush defense review reveal? 1718. labwabbit - 2/12/2001 12:33:40 PM So what will the Bush defense review reveal? 1719. Wombat - 2/12/2001 2:02:16 PM Lohr: 1720. PelleNilsson - 2/12/2001 4:24:17 PM Some time ago, before Christmas I think, we discussed the apparent foolishness of Hitler declaring war on the US. During the weekend I have read up on the German economy between the wars, as part of an assignment, and I found a possible angle that we did not discuss then. 1721. Wombat - 2/12/2001 4:30:59 PM My understanding of the US-sponsored reparations loan plans is that they were pretty much written off when the depression hit. I seriously doubt whether the US pressured Germany to repay them after Hitler's rise to power. However it is worth a second look. 1722. ScottLoar - 2/12/2001 4:40:04 PM So Adolf Hitler, preoccupied with war in Europe and the North African coast, who before the Reichstag publicly reviled a letter written to him by Franklin Roosevelt asking that Hitler recognize the inviolability of certain countries borders (Hitler choked upon reading out loud "Palestine"), whom by all accounts was surprised by the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, declared war on the US just so he wouldn't have to pay a bill? Absurd. 1723. ScottLoar - 2/12/2001 4:42:27 PM Wombat surely knows more than I about the dynamics and particulars but I think a second look is ridiculous save to persons not of that generation who look to WWII as a variant of Dungeons and Dragons. 1724. PelleNilsson - 2/12/2001 4:55:05 PM ScottLoar 1725. labwabbit - 2/12/2001 5:22:48 PM So why did he declare war, a patently stupid thing to do? 1726. labwabbit - 2/12/2001 5:23:11 PM which "sandwich" ? 1727. ScottLoar - 2/12/2001 5:33:55 PM Good God, PelleNielsson! Labwabbit answers it, which answer has been known for decades: the US was an ally in substance to the UK and participant in all but name - "Japan was the switch that was thrown". That is common knowledge. I've told you Hitler had a low opinion of the America and the US military, but to obfuscate that decision by Hitler to follow his Japanese ally and declare war against the US on grounds that Hitler was looking for a way to cancel a debt is absurd. Or, as I said, an exercise by those who see WWII as a variant of Dungeons and Dragons. 1728. ScottLoar - 2/12/2001 5:40:51 PM Great question marks of WWII - just from the top of my head and restricting myself to the European theatre: 1729. RustlerPike - 2/13/2001 1:43:47 AM 1730. jonesatlaw - 2/13/2001 2:00:11 AM I recently saw someone comparing Sharon with DeGalle, someone strong enough to make an unappetizing settlement possible. I agree with you Pike, the new government is preparing for the worst. Comparisons with Churchill might be more apt. 1731. PelleNilsson - 2/13/2001 2:14:23 AM wombat Message # 1721 1732. DocBrown - 2/13/2001 10:54:38 AM Pelle, I am glad you mentioned those loans. They may have played some role in someone's decision making process along the line, but I doubt they made any significant difference. 1733. LohrM - 2/13/2001 11:15:59 AM Some of the WW2 issues here have been given a new look by John Ellis in his "Brute Force" in 1990... A good book for taking a hard look at what chances the Luftwaffe had in the Battle of Britain and at what chances the Wehrmacht had in Russia... 1734. LohrM - 2/13/2001 11:20:43 AM It does amaze me that the US military wants to configure itself to fight the Gulf War again, just as it tried for 40 years to be ready to fight WW-2 again. There seems to be a severe unwillingness by US commanders to re-vision the US Army as a mobile force for fighting in the Third World and enforcing the peace. There's almost a longing for a 'real' war? (But where? North China? Against the evil Hindoos? Once more into the Iraqi desert?) The costs of being the world's only real forc for sability-- long deployments, close quarter action, urban combat, weekly casualties among peace enforcers --seem to outweigh the costs of fighting a 'real' war. 1735. janjon - 2/13/2001 11:29:04 AM FWIW my favorite way to think of The Second World War is as an irresistable orgy of cool military hardware. 1736. DocBrown - 2/13/2001 11:41:48 AM but I for one don't think that it was the fascination with toys that turned the German war command's collective lets-go-switches on. 1737. janjon - 2/13/2001 11:48:27 AM Oh I hear you, Doc, and perhaps I mis/overread your comment. And the point I was trying to make is perhaps more narrow than I stated. In short, I am still and have always been fascinated that, notwithstanding the orgy of toys that was created or came to fruition as the war went on, it started out on the backs of or behind horses. 1738. labwabbit - 2/13/2001 1:01:47 PM Hitler wasn't the true evil. 1739. labwabbit - 2/13/2001 1:02:04 PM Most of us like to envision ourselves as more the Socrates/Christ/Ghandi types when we address our own humility. You know, honor and sanctity above personal desire and material possession. (We stand aghast when our neighbors do not uphold those ethics and moralities we do..everyday when we read a newspaper.) But the point here is that perception is more readily perceived in relation to oneself when one has nothing or little in the first place. (Not sure where or if there is a next meal.) But in truth we harbor instinctual desires to secure our comfort beyond the present moment/day/year/lifetime/genetic lineage. The driving need to acquire the next level is nearly irresistable in human nature. We are all potential Hitlers. However, it is the contradiction of each perception, (based on divsions of secured comfort), that eventually allow Hitler(s)s, Stalin(s), Khan(s), Nero(s) to be nurtured. In truth, for the promise of the next meal, the next level of security, a society becomes blind as to how it is achieved...or by whom. As long as that sense of security and safety is maintained so shall the desire to protect it and/or build upon it. Given the propensity of peoples and their governments to have this "need" in common...competition for the resources to do so intensifies. When particular systems of security acquisiton finally collapses, the stunned, newly reborn Socrates/Christ/Ghandi etc, turn and say what an evil person he/she was. HYPOCRITES! We are the evil. Leaders/herders of that evil eventually take the blame, when in effect they were given license to do so. 1740. AytchMan - 2/13/2001 1:53:42 PM pelle-- 1741. PelleNilsson - 2/13/2001 2:14:20 PM 1742. AytchMan - 2/13/2001 2:21:23 PM pelle-- 1743. PelleNilsson - 2/13/2001 2:31:59 PM 1744. Wombat - 2/13/2001 3:23:58 PM I did a little looking around following Pelle's suggestion that one of the reasons Hitler declared war on the US was to avoid paying back loans made to pay WWI reparations. The US-sponsored--or more accurately J.P. Morgan-sponsored--Dawes and Young plans came about after Weimar Germany was unable to make its scheduled reparation payments in the early 20s. The French and Belgians took the unbelievably idiotic and counterproductive step of occupying the Ruhr and attempting to extract the payments in kind. This failed in the face of mass civil disobedience. 1745. Wombat - 2/13/2001 3:28:40 PM After World War II ended, the Allies offered to waive the reparation debt until Germany was united. West Germany paid off the principal of the debt in 1953, and I believe Germany is still making interest payments. 1746. Wombat - 2/13/2001 4:25:28 PM Re Hitler and Franco's Spain: 1747. Wombat - 2/13/2001 4:51:22 PM Had Germany wished to take Spain on board as an ally, the Germans would have had to meet Franco's aid requests, in essence to do what they were already doing with Italy, only on a larger scale. 1748. AytchMan - 2/13/2001 4:52:55 PM Wombat-- 1749. janjon - 2/14/2001 10:41:03 AM There is a long review in this week's New Republic of Burying Caesar: The Churchill-Chamberlain Rivalry by Graham Stewart. (The review does not appear to be on TNR's website, ergo no link.) 1750. LohrM - 2/14/2001 12:16:41 PM VERY good book on the Division Azul in Russia-- Payne's "Hitler's Spanish Legion". I want to know more about Miguel Ezquerra of the Brigade Ezquerra-- the last unit (Spanish!) that defended Berlin! 1751. LohrM - 2/15/2001 9:47:09 AM Beyond WW-2, can we discuss the military possibilities of the new century? 1752. DocBrown - 2/15/2001 11:01:03 AM 1753. janjon - 2/15/2001 11:13:57 AM Anybody have any idea how many "civil wars" are on-going at this time? 1754. Wombat - 2/15/2001 11:27:02 AM Doc: 1755. janjon - 2/15/2001 11:48:08 AM Wombat - the review itself was so exhaustive and detailed, it is hard to know what surprises are left in the book. Having said that, is it one you now intend to read? 1756. Wombat - 2/15/2001 12:17:31 PM Janjon: 1757. LohrM - 2/15/2001 5:33:43 PM The age of the para-state and the breakdown of state authority in various areas of the world will make "civil war" an increasingly difficult concept... 1758. RustlerPike - 2/16/2001 4:27:28 AM 1759. LohrM - 2/16/2001 8:50:43 AM That relates to Niall Ferguson's "Pity of War" argument that had Britain not enetered WW-1, a Europe after of a quick German victory in 1914 would've been reasonably free of major border changes and that Britain could've kept the Empire... 1760. Wombat - 2/16/2001 10:26:22 AM Lohr: 1761. LohrM - 2/16/2001 12:17:10 PM A German victory in September 1914 (annexation of Luxembourg, naval rights in Antwerp) would've been very different from a victory of the desperate 1917-18 Germany, which would've annexed huge chunks of eastern Europe and Russia and perhaps parts of the Caucasus. And of course-- no November 1918, no National Socialism. And just possibly-- stability in eastern Europe as the Habsburg Monarchy federalized and peacefully came apart. 1762. PelleNilsson - 2/16/2001 1:16:37 PM Lohr 1763. Wombat - 2/16/2001 1:37:42 PM Lohr: 1764. LohrM - 2/16/2001 3:51:58 PM A quick victory in 1914 in the West... the Germans did state their demands: Luxembourg, naval rights at Channel ports, permanent transit rights through Belgium. (Bethmann-Hollweg speaking to the Reichstag) Hypotheticals are always so house-of-sand, but I suppose I'd argue that Germany had had problems in Alsace in 1912 (the Zabern affair)that had soured any dreams of aggrandizement in France proper. Now in the East-- a Germany free to send its armies east might have forced Russia to make peace, and without Russian support, even Serbia might have been less bellicose. 1765. Wombat - 2/16/2001 4:06:08 PM Lohr: 1766. PelleNilsson - 2/16/2001 4:34:04 PM 1767. LohrM - 2/19/2001 2:43:18 PM My theory is that in the early fall of 1914, as opposed to the desperate Germany of 1917, prudence would have counted. 1768. Wombat - 2/20/2001 9:26:31 AM This is getting into the "would have, could have, should have" area. Suffice it to say, given the lack of prudence that the Germans displayed in the years leading up to the outbreak of WWI, to suddenly expect prudence--and to base a historiographic hypothesis on it--seems...er...imprudent. 1769. LohrM - 2/20/2001 9:42:50 AM German attitudes up to 1914 were based on fear and an increasing sense of desperation. The naval race wasn't working-- the Brits just built more battlecruisers rather than negotiating. There wasn't enough money to keep up with both France and a modernizing Russia. The attempt to become the Turks' protector wasn't working. I rather think they'd have been happy in fall 1914 to just get out from under. By 1917, though, any German victory would be more Fritz Fischer-like. 1770. Wombat - 2/20/2001 10:32:02 AM It was certainly imprudent of Germany to attempt to challenge British seapower. It was done for reasons of prestige more than anything else (a backward reading of Mahan helped). Building a modern, blue-water battle fleet was/is horrifically expensive monetarily and in terms of resources used. Better they should not have attempted the naval race and concentrated on their land forces. Since Britain was not necessarily predisposed against Germany (even with the naval race), this might have assured British neutrality in any war that broke out. 1771. AytchMan - 2/20/2001 3:30:35 PM German attitudes up to 1914 were based on fear and an increasing sense of desperation. 1772. AytchMan - 2/20/2001 3:32:02 PM German attitudes up to 1914 were based on fear and an increasing sense of desperation. 1773. AytchMan - 2/20/2001 3:33:01 PM oops. 1774. LohrM - 2/20/2001 7:47:36 PM Not by 1908 or so... Their real fear by then was that they'd failed at everything they'd tried-- no colonies, an ally as likely to pull them into war as support them, a botched naval race, not enough money to keep the army up to meet a growing Russian threat (let alone the French)... Take a look at the chapter on Germany in Ernst May's anthology "Knowing One's Enemy" vol. 1... 1775. ranheim - 2/20/2001 7:55:23 PM I think Franz Josef was too old; his empire too weak militarily; too poor; too little interest in trade (that was beginning to expand at that time); with a ponderous bureaucracy; and a heavy handed, poorly informed diplomatic corps to attempt to be a major player in Europe of the early part of the century. (In either of the two Balkan wars). And we now know what happened in WW I to Austria-Hungary. 1776. AytchMan - 2/21/2001 12:24:22 AM LohrM-- 1777. Wombat - 2/21/2001 10:35:48 AM Germany's fears before WWI were almost entirely self-inflicted. After his succession, Kaiser Wilhelm did the following: Failed to renew the reinsurance treaty between Germany and Russia, which turned Russia from a friend to a potential rival; Got involved in the colonial race in Africa, with a degree of adventurism and brutality that annoyed Britain--and infuriated France; inaugurated a naval race with Britain that turned a disinterested observer into a rival; tied Germany so closely to Austria-Hungary that the latter's weakness and misadventures in Balkans made Germany a participant in an area where it had little interest before. These actions, combined with an almost unceasing rotomontade of bellicose statements and actions (fawningly reported in the German press and trumpeted abroad), placed Germany in the situation it was in by 1914. 1778. LohrM - 2/22/2001 5:27:32 PM I've been waiting to get back to the thread today, but I've only just now been able to open the Mote, and now I'm on my way home. *But*-- 1779. LohrM - 2/23/2001 11:29:22 AM And also-- Samuel L. Williamson, 'Austria-Hungary and the Origins of the First World War'; Joachim Remak, 'The Origins of World War One'; Laurence Lafore, 'The Long Fuse'. 1780. Wombat - 2/23/2001 1:27:13 PM Lohr: 1781. PelleNilsson - 2/23/2001 1:34:17 PM I enjoy this. A real high-quality discussion. 1782. Wombat - 2/23/2001 1:45:08 PM For starters, the Kaiser could have zipped his lip on supporting the Boers (which infuriated Britain) and either not permitted or disavowed the Agadir incident (which reminded France who the real enemy was). 1783. LohrM - 2/25/2001 5:51:49 PM I think what most infuriated the Brits about Wilhelm's behavior during the Boer War was that when he decided to give them military advice, it actually was decent advice.... 1784. Wombat - 2/27/2001 10:39:53 AM Lohr: 1785. RustlerPike - 2/28/2001 2:27:06 AM Does a person being persecuted for his political affiliation in another thread have the right to seek asylum in another? 1786. PelleNilsson - 2/28/2001 3:43:18 AM 1787. RustlerPike - 2/28/2001 5:24:47 AM Thank you, Pelle. It's reassuring to know the weapon I will be issued on Friday serves as a collector's item in the US. 1788. RustlerPike - 2/28/2001 5:27:02 AM (I'm joining Katzir's Border Guard volunteer brigade. The M1 is the standard issue). 1789. Wombat - 2/28/2001 8:44:38 AM I've got a photo of my dad with an M-1 carbine, taken in 1945, when he was in an engineering battalion in Germany. 1790. PelleNilsson - 2/28/2001 12:28:24 PM Surplus soldiers - surplus arms. Watch out for the recoil Rustler. At your age osteoporosis can be a real problem. 1791. LohrM - 3/1/2001 9:48:57 AM I had an M-1 carbine once-- a 70s replica. My father (who'd carried one in WW-2) spent a great deal of time deriding my purchase. My own memory is that the damn' thing never fed right, but that as a short-range piece it wasn't, well, as appalling as the 6.5mm Italian piece I also had. Still-- jeez, Rustler-- can't they outfit you guys with captured AKs? 1792. LohrM - 3/1/2001 9:56:33 AM Hmmmm... Poor Wilhelm II. Now-- I'm not so sure that his father would've been the liberal people afterwards assumed he would've been, but at least he lacked the insecurities (the withered arm, the fear-- shared by lots of post-unification Germans --of not being as manly or strong as their grandparents or parents)of Wilhelm. Wilhelm was never stupid-- I've seen sketches for cruiser designs he did in his own hand in the Bundesmarine Archives, and he did have a decent intellect. He just never got to be more than 11 years old in many ways... 1793. Wombat - 3/1/2001 12:49:22 PM Apparently William adored Britain, and always wore tweeds there (when he wasn't wearing his honorary colonel's uniform). Queen Victoria found him bumptuous; Edward VII detested him (Danish momma); it's not clear what George V thought of him since his thought process was either so deep that it was obscure or so shallow that there was not much there. Wilhelm was certainly a psychohistorian's delight with a manly yet "liberal" father and a domineering, non-German mother, crippled arm, etc. 1794. RustlerPike - 3/1/2001 2:08:15 PM What do they expect you to do with it? Shoot molotov cocktail throwers? Engage in longe-range firefights with AK-armed gunmen? 1795. Andonly - 3/1/2001 2:12:42 PM "Does a person being persecuted for his political affiliation in another thread have the right to seek asylum in another?" 1796. RustlerPike - 3/1/2001 2:22:47 PM I have also applied for a license for a private firearm. 1797. RustlerPike - 3/1/2001 2:37:00 PM (The hagmar batallion is a bona fide military reserve batallion and is issued IDF weapons. Whatever we are given, it will be automatic. At worst, it will be an Uzi. At best - a shortened M16 or shortened Galil). 1798. PelleNilsson - 3/1/2001 3:19:40 PM When we opine about the events and decisions leading up to WWI it is lamost impossible to do so without thinking about the eventual outcome: the mud-drenched trenches, the 48-hout bombardments, the useless attacks, a generation of young men lost. Yet we know that the actors believed in a short war, "back home for Christmas", and one must really see things in that perspective. 1799. RustlerPike - 3/2/2001 4:14:25 AM We held our first firing range practice session this morning. The M-1 is a modern version of the WW2 gun: it's all plastic and stuff and has a folding whatchamacallit. It's US made. 1800. RustlerPike - 3/2/2001 4:15:48 AM It was weird - I couldn't get a shot on target at first. Then I imagined the cardboard figure was ScottLoar and they all went in! 1801. RosettaStone - 3/2/2001 8:29:07 AM RP: My dad, who served in WWII, gave me his M-1 rifle. Back then, American soldiers loved it, although it made an unique sound after the clip was finished which the Germans used to their advantage. 1802. Wombat - 3/2/2001 8:55:49 AM Rosie: 1803. RosettaStone - 3/2/2001 9:05:53 AM Who brought up Zionism? It's imperialism, pure and simple. 1804. Wombat - 3/2/2001 9:17:13 AM Rosie: 1805. LohrM - 3/2/2001 9:38:01 AM Pelle-- not even US observers, who had the example of the US Civil War at hand, imagined a long war... The examples of 1859 and 1870 were there at hand--a couple of hard but quick battles, then a victory (not like anyone remembered the chaos in France after Sedan...or the trench war in Manchuria in 1904-05)... 1806. LohrM - 3/2/2001 9:43:06 AM My favorite Wilhelm story (yes, after the war at Doorn he did wear tweeds and play the English squire...and became very paranoid about Freemasons)is that once, before the war, on a trip to England [I think this is in Richard Hough's "Dreadnought" from the late 1960s]he showed up at Portsmouth in his British admiral's uniform and wanted to take a new battlecruiser out for a spin... I don't know if he got to leave the harbor, but I love the thought of some poor RN (or Foreign Office) type on the phone to London explaining that Willi had run off with a battlecruiser... (And one imagines Bulow back in Berlin wondering why in God's name he hadn't run off to the Argentine as a boy rather than growing up to deal with Wilhelm...) 1807. Wombat - 3/2/2001 10:11:12 AM The French also anticipated a short war, beginning with a series of offensives that would overwhelm the Germans by the courage and ferocity of their attacks, followed by a quick march from Mainz to Berlin. This "strategy" was fully endorsed and encouraged by the French supreme commander Joffre. 1808. LohrM - 3/2/2001 11:56:23 AM I recall that the French had worked out on their own map tables much of what German strategy would have to be, but that Plan 17 conformed better to the cultural ethic of the French Army... 1809. RustlerPike - 3/4/2001 2:58:27 AM Do you know the difference between the M-1 rifle and the M-1 carbine? 1810. RustlerPike - 3/4/2001 3:07:50 AM Another terror bomb in Netanya. I dropped my wife and daughter off a few dozen meters away from the spot yesterday, on their way to Tel Aviv. 1811. Uzmakk - 3/4/2001 1:24:01 PM Pike: 1812. Wombat - 3/4/2001 2:21:04 PM Rustler: 1813. RustlerPike - 3/4/2001 3:40:17 PM Uzmakk: 1814. RustlerPike - 3/4/2001 3:46:22 PM Wombat: 1815. Uzmakk - 3/4/2001 4:19:46 PM btw, I was going to mention that I thought that "magazine" was of arabic derivation. Hasn't this been discusses on the Mote somewhere before? 1816. LohrM - 3/4/2001 4:22:27 PM Wombat raised an issue some posts back-- actual study of the tactics of the Arab-Israeli Wars. I've read a fair amount about the Sinai front in '67 and '73, but what's good on the Syrian front in '73 and the Beka'a in '82? 1817. Uzmakk - 3/4/2001 4:23:44 PM Pike, how am I to take you seriously when you tell me that you are going to talk to Santa. Few people get to talk to Santa, but a Jew from Katzir...almost impossible. 1818. Uzmakk - 3/4/2001 4:24:51 PM The reindeer? Well,...that may be possible. 1819. LohrM - 3/4/2001 7:10:45 PM Okay-- who recalls a war poem (post-1945) called "The Ash and the Oak and the Willow Tree"? I recall a verse of it from high school, but I haven't been able to find it in twenty years... 1820. ScottLoar - 3/4/2001 9:23:37 PM RustlerPike visits and in traipses Israel. I can only hope he shoots his thumb off; maybe then he'll have two topics to sound off on. 1821. PelleNilsson - 3/5/2001 5:10:03 AM Is it time to fast-forward to the present and future for a change? Here is an article by LohrM which discusses what we may call "the US Yugoslav strategy" in the context of international law. 1822. RustlerPike - 3/5/2001 8:36:05 AM Wombat raised an issue some posts back-- actual study of the tactics of the Arab-Israeli Wars. 1823. LohrM - 3/5/2001 11:37:18 AM Note: oh, yes-- I'll certainly e-mail anyone who asks a copy of the paper--with full notes (which, alas, make up a substantial part of the paper) 1824. RustlerPike - 3/6/2001 4:38:07 AM Ok, here's an English version of that Flash reconstruction. Please opine. 1825. Wombat - 3/6/2001 9:38:37 AM Rustler: 1826. RustlerPike - 3/6/2001 11:41:22 AM You need Flash, sir. 1827. RustlerPike - 3/6/2001 11:43:18 AM Or maybe it's a very slow load? I didn't bother to make that 'loading' screen. 1828. PelleNilsson - 3/6/2001 12:55:33 PM Nothing happens. I have Flash. And Panache too. 1829. Wombat - 3/6/2001 1:26:09 PM Pelle: 1830. PelleNilsson - 3/6/2001 1:54:33 PM That is a cruel and unusual question. 1831. Wombat - 3/6/2001 4:38:02 PM Flash, panache, and style. 1832. CalGal - 3/6/2001 4:41:30 PM Lohr, 1833. PelleNilsson - 3/6/2001 5:01:45 PM CalGal 1834. RustlerPike - 3/7/2001 3:55:25 AM How could nothing happen? 1835. PelleNilsson - 3/7/2001 7:21:31 AM Rustler, you flaccid bastard, the second link produces a Fatal Error. The first one works but is slow. 1836. marjoribanks - 3/7/2001 9:54:52 AM Pikester, 1837. RustlerPike - 3/7/2001 9:55:16 AM That's very strange, Pelle. And what did you say happened at http://www.katzir.com/nahel.html? Nothing at all? 1838. RustlerPike - 3/7/2001 10:00:52 AM Thanks marj, and yes that's me, and I did the whole thing meself. I was always good at drawing and I dabbled at animation but I never did anything professional with it. But somehow this internet-and-Flash thing has caught me. It's a lot easier than traditional, 20th century animation, which was quite tedious, and it's a lot more fun than being a professional illustrator, which never attracted me. Also, the fact that one has a great deal of control over the entire creation - the website - makes it more fun than being told 'draw this' or 'draw that'. 1839. marjoribanks - 3/7/2001 10:03:14 AM Still don't understand Hebrew, but I now gather the blond woman does the graphics including the flattering drawing of Pike. She must like you Pike, you're so much uglier than she makes you out to be. 1840. marjoribanks - 3/7/2001 10:05:36 AM I take it back. Who's the blond girl Pike? 1841. LohrM - 3/7/2001 12:16:22 PM Not so much a "Serbian strategy", Pelle (I don't see the post-1991 state as 'Yugoslavia'), but a methodology that says that by targeting "information" broadly defined, you can win a war in a 'sanitary' way-- which is (1) not true and (2) very suspect under international law. 1842. RustlerPike - 3/7/2001 12:25:43 PM Marj: 1843. marjoribanks - 3/7/2001 12:34:35 PM Pike, 1844. RustlerPike - 3/7/2001 12:44:55 PM Thanks Marj. That is very nice to hear. 1846. PelleNilsson - 3/7/2001 2:08:48 PM iiibbb 1847. Wombat - 3/7/2001 2:23:01 PM I have deleted the Amazon link. The author and title will do in the future. 1848. iiibbb - 3/7/2001 2:35:11 PM Between 1939-1940 the Russians invaded Finland in an attempt to gain territory grab lost with the Finns declared independence from Russia 20 years prior. 1849. PelleNilsson - 3/7/2001 2:58:43 PM Which book do you refer to? 1850. Indiana Jones - 3/7/2001 3:06:20 PM Rustler: Your dog link crashes Netscape 4.74 for Windows. 1851. iiibbb - 3/7/2001 3:11:44 PM Sorry... I just posted the link... 1852. iiibbb - 3/7/2001 3:14:23 PM I also said that I don't usually read this Genre, but I liked the book. 1853. RustlerPike - 3/7/2001 3:14:42 PM Indy: Sorry. The other ones work OK? Or were you too traumatized by the dog to try? 1854. RustlerPike - 3/9/2001 7:21:22 AM Can people try this and tell me if it works? 1855. ycmeehan - 3/9/2001 7:37:04 AM excellent. 1856. RustlerPike - 3/9/2001 7:58:19 AM Wombat? Others? 1857. Wombat - 3/9/2001 9:58:13 AM Rustler: 1858. RustlerPike - 3/9/2001 10:10:51 AM Wom: 1859. Wombat - 3/9/2001 10:18:42 AM I dunno. Should I wait until something happens? 1860. iiibbb - 3/9/2001 10:21:32 AM What browser you using? 1861. Wombat - 3/9/2001 10:21:56 AM Netscape 4.75 1862. iiibbb - 3/9/2001 10:26:37 AM Does the flash work through Internet Exploder? 1863. Wombat - 3/9/2001 10:33:50 AM Rustler: 1864. RustlerPike - 3/9/2001 11:35:26 AM Wom: 1865. RustlerPike - 3/9/2001 11:40:13 AM In any case, the single tanks on the zoomed level usually represent a unit referred to in Hebrew as gdud, which I translated as battalion (though it can also be called a regiment, according to my dictionary). On the zoomed-out level, the single tank would usually represent a hativa, which I would translate as regiment, I think, though the dictionary also has it as a brigade. 1866. arkymalarky - 3/9/2001 8:05:11 PM Your site looks great, RP! 1867. RustlerPike - 3/9/2001 10:26:39 PM Thanks ark! Did you see the post where I asked if I could call you Urkymalurky? It was, like, a witticism. 1868. arkymalarky - 3/10/2001 12:21:33 AM Yes, I did, and I thought it was, like, witty. Something about "Urk" doesn't sound quite as dignified as "Ark," though, somehow. 1869. RustlerPike - 3/10/2001 3:59:39 AM Oh yeah, I know. Steve Urkel. 1870. iiibbb - 3/10/2001 9:21:39 AM arkymalurky? 1871. arkymalarky - 3/10/2001 11:57:44 AM That would work. 1872. LohrM - 3/10/2001 12:46:44 PM Okay, humans-- any opinions here on the (non-fiction) work on Ralph Peters--esp. the papers from Parameters that he collected in "Fighting For Freedom"? 1873. RustlerPike - 3/11/2001 6:29:18 AM Thanks, Ark. 1874. RustlerPike - 3/12/2001 2:43:55 AM Do you still lark in other threads? 1875. Uzmakk - 3/12/2001 6:04:26 AM Pike: 1876. Uzmakk - 3/12/2001 6:06:05 AM I'm sure you people have been discussing it for weeks, but I can't keep up with everything. 1877. RustlerPike - 3/12/2001 6:40:58 AM Uzz: we people have been bickering. You've missed nothing. 1878. Wombat - 3/12/2001 8:42:27 AM Uz: 1879. RustlerPike - 3/12/2001 9:52:03 AM I disagree, Wom. When there is a prediction by Pike - then pay attention. This enlistment is only one of many belligerent moves and statements, including troop movements, this guy has made recently. Uzz is right. 1880. Wombat - 3/12/2001 10:02:28 AM So, Saddam is going to fight his way through Jordan? 1881. RustlerPike - 3/12/2001 12:55:58 PM If you're asking me, Womb, I doubt it. But he does have scuds. 1882. RosettaStone - 3/12/2001 2:37:10 PM Another reason for SDI. 1883. Wombat - 3/12/2001 2:49:57 PM Rosie: 1884. PelleNilsson - 3/12/2001 3:07:33 PM How many Scuds do the Iraqis have? I've seen estimates of less than ten. 1885. LohrM - 3/12/2001 7:23:50 PM It's not enough just to shoot Saddam and his two sons (each of whom is relentlessly psychotic). There would have to be a thorough purge of the Ba'ath and the military. 1886. arkymalarky - 3/12/2001 10:31:38 PM RP, 1887. RustlerPike - 3/13/2001 2:28:11 AM How many Scuds do the Iraqis have? I've seen estimates of less than ten. 1888. RustlerPike - 3/13/2001 2:37:10 AM Pike called up for reserve duty training... Training exercise to be held on March 22nd... Pike to be issued automatic weapon (?)... Arabs: "should we start packing now?"... 1889. LohrM - 3/13/2001 8:52:26 AM Arky-- thanks! 1890. Wombat - 3/13/2001 9:09:47 AM Pike: 1892. Wombat - 3/13/2001 9:33:58 AM I have deleted post 1891 as not being germane to this thread. 1893. LohrM - 3/13/2001 9:52:10 AM A good book for those interested in a neglected area of WW-1 and the earlier era of the Great Game: Firuz Kazemzadeh, "Russia and Britain in Persia 1864-1914" (Yale, 1968). Excellent book by an author who's a great teacher (he taught me Russian nationality problems) and a fine man. I ran across it yesterday while looking for things on the South Persian Rifles (Percy Sykes' unit) and WW-1. Worth finding if you're around a decent university library. 1894. RustlerPike - 3/14/2001 3:17:17 AM Wombat: 1895. RustlerPike - 3/14/2001 3:43:07 AM This is the third straight day that hardly an hour goes by without an IAF jet rumbling northwards overhead. Is something happening in Lebanon that was not happening before? 1896. RosettaStone - 3/14/2001 6:54:04 AM When you delete something, wombat, you make it sound much more interesting than it probably was. 1897. Wombat - 3/14/2001 8:26:41 AM I deleted your Rush Limbaugh gun control joke, Rosie. Unless someone else is posting under your name, you must be so logorrheic that you don't keep track of your posts. 1898. RosettaStone - 3/14/2001 8:33:58 AM You deleted my post, wombat? 1899. RosettaStone - 3/14/2001 8:35:21 AM Oh, now I remember. I didn't realize this thread was that slow. 1900. RosettaStone - 3/14/2001 8:40:15 AM My bad. I thought it was something on the serfs fighting for their homeland in Palestine/Israel since you already said those types of posts sympathic to the underdogs without weapons would be deleted. 1901. Wombat - 3/14/2001 8:47:07 AM Rosie: 1902. RosettaStone - 3/14/2001 8:47:57 AM Your #1890 post was a gun joke, wombat. Why didn't you delete that one too? 1903. Wombat - 3/14/2001 8:50:33 AM Because, you moron, it was in reference to Rustler's personal experience in military service. Are you so obtuse that you cannot see the difference? 1904. RosettaStone - 3/14/2001 8:53:40 AM But my recycled Rush Limbaugh gun-control joke didn't, grasshopper? 1905. Wombat - 3/14/2001 8:59:33 AM No, it didn't, so I deleted it. If you are unhappy about it, please complain to the "powers that be" and see where it gets you. 1906. RosettaStone - 3/14/2001 9:10:07 AM Sure it did. Why can you tell a gun joke, but others can't? 1907. RustlerPike - 3/14/2001 9:26:22 AM I wouldn't mind reading that joke, unless there was something unconscionably gross about it. 1908. RosettaStone - 3/14/2001 9:29:52 AM No, Wombat has problems with the success of Rush Limbaugh, and used that dislike to erase a gun joke that I recycled. 1909. JudithAtHome - 3/14/2001 9:33:57 AM Delusion is great, isn't it? Masks a multitude of denial... 1910. RosettaStone - 3/14/2001 9:41:54 AM Bite Fielding, blue-eyeshade lady. 1911. Wombat - 3/14/2001 11:00:07 AM Rosie: 1912. RosettaStone - 3/14/2001 11:07:10 AM No can do. Trying to explain a joke to a dried-up prune who needs a haircut such as yourself is practically impossible. 1914. Wombat - 3/14/2001 11:20:10 AM If you can find a Rush Limbaugh joke involving the military, I will not delete it. 1915. RosettaStone - 3/14/2001 11:33:26 AM Almost everyone dodged Vietnam, Wombat. Totally useless. No dominos, no nothing. Why fight a civil war that the Democrats were afraid of winning and who engineered the murder of the Catholic leaders in the south who wouldn't be puppets of the Kennedy clan. 1916. RosettaStone - 3/14/2001 11:34:14 AM So you deleted the RL joke again, wombat? 1917. JudithAtHome - 3/14/2001 11:36:38 AM Almost everyone dodged Vietnam, Wombat. 1918. CalGal - 3/14/2001 11:42:10 AM Did anyone read the New Yorker article by Jan Gross on the Jedwabne massacre? 1919. Wombat - 3/14/2001 11:58:20 AM Cal: 1920. vonKreedon - 3/14/2001 12:23:34 PM Wombat - Gwynne Dwyer said something about the Isreali/Palestinian issue that has always stuck with me: 1921. CalGal - 3/14/2001 12:28:35 PM Thanks for pointing me to the article. I had read there was a memorial blaming the Germans, but hadn't been able to find an article on it this morning. I searched the Post--must have spelled it wrong. 1922. Wombat - 3/14/2001 12:28:54 PM VonK: 1923. RustlerPike - 3/15/2001 2:22:40 AM Isn't Gwynne Dwyer the vocalist for that group that sings 'Don't Speak'? Isn't Santanaya that Latin guitarist? Does this show that I am in a highly militaristic mindset, or just that I am a nut? 1924. RustlerPike - 3/15/2001 2:29:02 AM Whoops, that was the Hebrew version. This is the English one. 1925. RustlerPike - 3/15/2001 2:31:17 AM (Did I say 15% commission if you find me a client? And that I charge ridiculously low Israeli rates?) 1926. RustlerPike - 3/15/2001 3:48:23 AM The Nazis taught the Jews the extreme danger of not having ones own state and army, and the Isrealis are now teaching that lesson to the Palestinians. 1927. Wombat - 3/15/2001 7:46:20 AM Rustler: 1928. Wombat - 3/15/2001 8:45:35 AM A new book has come out that purports to "revise" perceptions surrounding the fall of France in 1940. The author, Ernest May, is a historian whose past writings have dealt with the role of intelligence assessments in determining foreign policy and the conduct of war. 1929. LohrM - 3/15/2001 12:17:35 PM His claims are quite serious, though I think you're exagerrating his views on the French. Certainly the Wehrmacht in Spring 1940 was suffering from lack of heavy tanks, aircraft (like the Stuka) that were obsolescent, and internecine fights about the war. 1930. Wombat - 3/15/2001 1:26:12 PM Lohr: 1931. RustlerPike - 3/16/2001 2:23:14 AM I just wanted to point out that we are in the War thread, and we have entered the 1930's, post number wise. 1932. AytchMan - 3/16/2001 2:34:38 AM 1932 was, of course, the critical year in Hitler's ascension to power. 1933. ycmeehan - 3/16/2001 4:45:45 AM It certainly seemed to paralyze the high command both in September, 1939 and in May, 1940. 1934. Wombat - 3/16/2001 8:06:55 AM May points out that the upper reaches of the French military was riven by personal, class and political rivalries. Gamelin, who appeared to be a highly competent administrator, and was politically acceptable to the center-left and center-right governments in France, spent considerable effort to ensure that Maxime Weygand--a monarchist--was kept as far away from metropolitian France as possible. This is ironic, since Weygand was probably the only officer in his generation who had successfully commanded large numbers of troops in a fluid, mobile warfare situation (Warsaw), and who was neither complacent nor lacking the personal dynamism needed to inspire--or strike fear into--his subordinates. 1935. Wombat - 3/16/2001 8:43:32 AM May's point that the Allies' equipment was superior also bears a second look. The Somua S-35, and the Char B-1 were heavily armored and had a powerful main armament (47mm in the Somua; 75mm and 47mm in the Char B-1). They also had a number of serious handicaps. The Somua had a one-man turret, meaning that the commander was also the gunner and loader. When they had radios, they were too fragile to withstand the rigors of campaigning. The Char B-1 was s-l-o-w. The commander was also responsible for loading and firing the 47mm gun in the turret, while the 75mm gun was mounted in the hull and thus could not traverse. The Somua and the Char B-1 were also difficult to maintain. The remaining French tanks were distinctly inferior. 1936. LohrM - 3/17/2001 1:34:55 PM Though the presence of the Czech tanks exacerbated an already pressing maintenance problem for the Germans. 1937. RustlerPike - 3/18/2001 1:55:08 AM It is 1937. If Britain and France had hit Hitler now he would have still been a pushover. 1938. RustlerPike - 3/18/2001 5:16:58 AM Anschluss, right? Sudetenland? 1939. RustlerPike - 3/18/2001 5:18:32 AM 1939: Nothing unique, war wise. 1940. Wombat - 3/19/2001 8:13:03 AM Turning now to May's comparison of the air forces involved. May provides numbers that purport to show the allies had more and better aircraft than the Germans. On paper, this is true. The British Spitfire and Hurricane were on par with or slightly superior to the German ME-109. The French Dewotine 520 and perhaps the Bloch 152 were as well. No French heavy or medium bomber was suited to daylight operations without a fighter escort; the British Wellingtons and Whitlys were even less suited for these operations British Fairey Battle aircrew might as well have committed suicide upon receiving their mission orders, such was their impact over the battlefields. German bombers may not have been much better, but they were not routinely sent up without fighter escorts until they had gained command of the air. 1941. LohrM - 3/19/2001 11:56:21 AM I'd be interested in coordination between fighter and bomber forces by the Germans. I'd always been under the impression that the bomber forces were the unloved stepchildren of the Luftwaffe and given short shrift by the fighter planners. 1942. Wombat - 3/19/2001 12:45:58 PM Lohr: 1943. Webfeet - 3/19/2001 2:32:43 PM wombat 1944. Wombat - 3/19/2001 2:54:42 PM Webfeet: 1945. Webfeet - 3/19/2001 8:42:50 PM wombat 1946. Wombat - 3/20/2001 8:51:19 AM May's book is not excessively technical, although the maps are truly awful. 1947. LohrM - 3/20/2001 9:50:48 AM Of course there *were* fights within the Wehrmacht high command. "Easterners"-- those who'd served in the east in WW-1 --tended to be more open to ideas of mobile warfare and risk-taking than 'Westerners'. Seeckt had molded a remarkably skilled and unified officer corps, but there were sharp divisions about just how much the new technology really would change things-- and about whether Germany could afford risky moves. 1948. Wombat - 3/20/2001 10:07:44 AM Lohr: 1949. PelleNilsson - 3/20/2001 12:24:23 PM I was under the impression that Hitler did not start to micro-manage the war until Stalingrad. 1950. Wombat - 3/20/2001 12:29:06 PM Pelle: 1951. Jenerator - 3/20/2001 12:30:20 PM Wombat, 1952. Wombat - 3/20/2001 12:42:45 PM Jenerator: 1953. LohrM - 3/21/2001 11:38:05 AM I find John Ellis' "Brute Force" to be a good reconsideration of wartime strategy... On the Pacific War, Ron Spector's "Eagle Against The Sun" is a good introduction, and Calvocoressi has a good Pacific War one-volume that gives space to the British and Commonwealth forces in the Pacific, something that's often overlooked. We're all awaiting a revisioning of the war in Russia once the old Soviet archival material is fully assimilated. There are several books on the development of personal automatic weapons that focus on a particular weapon, but I don't know of a good general history. Maybe James Dunnigan will have something, or maybe in the bibliography for Martin van Creveld's "Fighting Power" there's something... 1954. Wombat - 3/21/2001 11:49:54 AM Lohr: 1955. Jenerator - 3/21/2001 4:12:28 PM Thank you Wombat and Lohr! 1956. LohrM - 3/22/2001 8:59:03 AM Y'know, I recall the Ballantine series from the days of my misspent youth... But while I think one or two were reprinted in the late 80s, the series as a whole is defunct. 1957. CalGal - 3/22/2001 4:19:33 PM I like Keegan's history of WWI, even though my reading of it has stalled. Descriptions of campaigns rely on geography and I'm just bad with all that spatial shit. Retreat south, flanking something to the north, boggy terrain east, met up with Von Helsing's 57th in the west, ack. 1958. Wombat - 3/22/2001 4:22:24 PM Cal: 1959. janjon - 3/22/2001 4:50:07 PM Most of the charts and maps in Keegan's book on WWI are indeed suited only for a certain type of person who relishes all the detail about troop movements, etc. (Same problem I have with a lot of the books on the Civil War.) 1960. PelleNilsson - 3/23/2001 12:37:55 AM Tuchman's The Zimmermann Telegram is a good read on America's entry into the war. 1961. RustlerPike - 3/23/2001 2:18:22 AM I hear Pike's '3 Miles From Armageddon: How I Started World War Three' is about to come out. Should be provocative, if nothing else. 1962. RustlerPike - 3/23/2001 2:41:33 AM Katzir's Territorial Defense Battalion had its first practice yesterday. From Pike's diary: 1963. RustlerPike - 3/23/2001 3:02:52 AM >>> 1964. Wombat - 3/23/2001 8:30:25 AM Keep it coming, Private Rustlerpike! 1965. LohrM - 3/23/2001 8:51:11 AM I do like "The Zimmermann Telegram", but "Guns of August"....*ack*! It's well-written, but it suffers from being written still in the shadow of World War 2... My own advice on the origins of WW-1 would be... Certainly Goodspeed's "The German Wars", Sam Williamson's "Austria-Hungary and the Origins of World War One", and maybe Lafore's "The Long Fuse". And the little books by Joachim Remak and Holger Herwig. 1966. RustlerPike - 3/23/2001 8:53:01 AM I will, Wombat (sir!), later today or tomorrow. Besides, I am a 1st sgt.! 1967. LohrM - 3/23/2001 8:57:24 AM Hmmmm... Is it suspicious that Pike rhymes with Schweik? I suspect that the Good Soldier Schweik's techniques in the k.-und-k. army will work anywhere, anytime... 1968. Wombat - 3/23/2001 8:57:42 AM Sergeant Rustlerpike. A frightening thought. Keep on doing officers' thinking for them, and you'll either be demoted or end up command. 1969. Wombat - 3/23/2001 9:00:07 AM Lohr: 1970. LohrM - 3/23/2001 9:34:06 AM Wombat-- it's an old favorite of mine, too. And whenever I babysit my 4 year old nieceling, it occurs to me that just maybe Schweikism is programmed into them at that age! 1971. Wombat - 3/23/2001 11:22:33 AM Ernest May, Strange Victory: France 1940 1972. LohrM - 3/23/2001 11:31:09 AM Check the article on French military intelligence in vol. 2 of "Knowing One's Enemy"-- it's quite good on the failures of intelligence analysis in 1938-40. 1973. Wombat - 3/23/2001 11:44:18 AM Where May is most provocative--to me--and insightful is his discussion of the role Belgium played in the unraveling of the Allies effort. He suggests that the Allies' defence of France would have been more successful had Belgium been allied with Germany. 1974. AytchMan - 3/23/2001 3:13:43 PM He suggests that the Allies' defence of France would have been more successful had Belgium been allied with Germany. 1975. Wombat - 3/23/2001 3:19:05 PM Perhaps the Allies should have taken Belgium's neutrality at face value, and let them fight the Germans alone. 1976. AytchMan - 3/23/2001 3:56:39 PM In light of what happened, it would have been smarter militarily. But, politically, Churchill could never have done that (I'm not so sure about the French). 1977. LohrM - 3/24/2001 11:06:12 AM Just a note. I'm reading a new book-- Mark Cornwall's "The Undermining of Austria-Hungary" about the use of propaganda by both the Habsburg Monarchy and its enemies during WW-1 and the effect of Allied propaganda on troop morale. Excellent book-- especially because of my own interest in nationality problems and the Monarchy's armies. The book also delves into the role British intelligence played in trying to manufacture propaganda and into the way the use of what is now unhappily called "psywar" developed over 1914-18. 1978. RustlerPike - 3/24/2001 12:10:12 PM >>> 1979. RustlerPike - 3/24/2001 12:38:37 PM >>> 1980. RustlerPike - 3/24/2001 12:42:55 PM >>> 1981. Wombat - 3/24/2001 3:00:10 PM Great stuff! Are you sure you shouldn't be booking a ticket to the States for when it hits the fan? You could always yell "bang, bang, you're dead!" at your attackers. 1982. Uzmakk - 3/24/2001 5:52:40 PM I lurk. 1983. PelleNilsson - 3/25/2001 5:06:49 AM Good work, Rustler! I didn't laugh but I chuckled. It's so very ..... Middle East. It seems you are not so very different from your cousins after all. 1984. RustlerPike - 3/25/2001 7:31:32 AM Wom, Pelle: 1985. RustlerPike - 3/25/2001 7:49:45 AM The most ridiculous thing, if you ask me, is that we are supposed to be the first fighting force to assemble in an emergency, seeing as we are residents of the area. However, most of Katzir's battalion is made up of non-Katzirites. If there is another flare up that includes Israeli Arabs, the road to Katzir will be blocked and they won't be able to join us anyway. If you subtract the non-Katzirites and the Katzirites who work outside of Katzir from the unit, you get - that's right - me! Granted, even I alone am a formidable fighting force, yet even I won't have a weapon on me, since those are collected from the rallying point in Hadera. So I will be shouting bang-bang at the attackers! 1986. PelleNilsson - 3/25/2001 12:03:10 PM Rustler 1987. AytchMan - 3/25/2001 1:42:52 PM rustler-- 1988. joezan - 3/25/2001 4:50:36 PM Pike: 1989. RustlerPike - 3/26/2001 9:35:44 AM Pelle: 1990. LohrM - 3/26/2001 12:16:02 PM I'm sure Pike knows the old, old joke about the soldiers taught to go "bang! bang!" in combat-- which seems to actually work...until they meet the enemy soldiers chanting "tank! tank!" 1991. joezan - 3/27/2001 12:55:11 AM Pike: 1996. Wombat - 3/27/2001 8:19:49 AM Posts 1992-95 have been moved to the International Thread. If you want to score points on whether the Israelis or Palestinians are more evil, do it there. If you want to discuss the efficacy of the strategies and tactics used by either side, do it here. 1997. RosettaStone - 3/27/2001 8:24:22 AM Amazing. Civil wars are taking places in the Balkans and Palestine, and Wombat would rather talk about tank tactics of World War II. 1998. RosettaStone - 3/27/2001 8:25:34 AM strike s in "places" 1999. Wombat - 3/27/2001 8:33:55 AM Rosie: 2000. Oceans11 - 3/27/2001 8:45:22 AM Is this thread about war or not? 2001. RosettaStone - 3/27/2001 8:46:48 AM I think Wombat, being Jewish, is embarrassed about what the Israelis are doing to the Arabs. 2002. Oceans11 - 3/27/2001 8:53:00 AM There is plenty of blame to go around, Rose. 2003. Wombat - 3/27/2001 8:54:59 AM OK, Ocean: 2004. RosettaStone - 3/27/2001 9:01:15 AM Absolutely, Oceans. For years and years I supported Israel. And still do. But its gone on too long, and Isaeli is going to have to share the land with the locals. 2005. Oceans11 - 3/27/2001 9:04:45 AM God, you are an idiot, Wombat. 2006. Oceans11 - 3/27/2001 9:06:04 AM Rose, the issue is more complex than you paint it. 2007. RosettaStone - 3/27/2001 9:21:16 AM Palestinian "human" bombs have just attacked Israel in two locations this morning killing more Jews. 2008. Oceans11 - 3/27/2001 9:25:47 AM It didn't serve the Japanese well in WWII, Rose. 2009. Wombat - 3/27/2001 9:27:25 AM Ocean: 2010. Wombat - 3/27/2001 9:31:06 AM Rosie: 2012. LohrM - 3/27/2001 9:37:18 AM The only strategy I can see that would work really does come down to clearances-- driving out any suspect population. But of course-- where do they go? And doesn't that just move the problem one stop down the line? 2013. RosettaStone - 3/27/2001 9:37:35 AM Oceans: A better comparison would be if the Japanese hadn't surrendered in August 1945, but instead our troops had to fight among the citizens/military for every inch of the mainland islands. 2014. Wombat - 3/27/2001 9:44:01 AM Lohr: 2015. Wombat - 3/27/2001 9:47:57 AM Good thing for the bomb, eh Rosie? My father turned down a promotion in order to avoid being sent to the Pacific for the invasion. Of course, we don't know what might have actually happened. A successful invasion of Kyushu and a Russian invasion of Hokkaido might have ended things pretty quickly. 2016. RosettaStone - 3/27/2001 9:55:12 AM might have 2017. LohrM - 3/27/2001 10:30:32 AM Two good studies of the Olympic/Coronet plans-- Polmar and Skipps, each entitled "The Invasion of Japan". The Skipps is, I think, the better study. 2018. RosettaStone - 3/27/2001 10:42:18 AM The latest news is that PM Sharon is about to strike hard. But it really won't solve anything,. and God help the innocences who will suffer. 2019. LohrM - 3/27/2001 10:51:55 AM I must correct myself: it's Coppel's "The Burning Mountain". 2020. Wombat - 3/27/2001 10:52:20 AM Lohr: 2021. LohrM - 3/27/2001 11:17:19 AM I can see the reasoning, but I do want to look at the plans. My impression had been that there was really very little naval capability at Vladivostok and that there had been severe shortages of barges for the invasion of Manchuria. I'll see what I can find. 2022. RosettaStone - 3/27/2001 11:41:34 AM It was a flanking operation on the part of the Soviets. The Japanese had to move troops around mainland Asia, keeping them from depending the home islands. 2023. Wombat - 3/27/2001 12:04:09 PM Lohr: 2024. RosettaStone - 3/27/2001 12:06:05 PM depending=defending 2025. RosettaStone - 3/27/2001 12:12:27 PM I'm always impressed by your history, Wombat. 2026. RosettaStone - 3/27/2001 12:14:37 PM talk=talked 2028. RosettaStone - 3/27/2001 12:22:51 PM Jex: Remember the bad old days in fray when we had the Balkan Civil War to fight about? 2029. RosettaStone - 3/27/2001 12:23:47 PM Hey, what happened to Jex's slav post? 2030. jexster - 3/27/2001 12:27:14 PM Yea Rosie..I remember those days..and I was right again! 2031. Wombat - 3/27/2001 12:30:27 PM Rosie: 2032. RosettaStone - 3/27/2001 12:41:52 PM Now that's an interesting story. 2033. Wombat - 3/27/2001 12:46:05 PM I don't think anyone was searching for gold when it was first discovered in California. 2034. Oceans11 - 3/27/2001 12:54:17 PM I maintain that Wombat is a petty asshole. 2035. PelleNilsson - 3/27/2001 12:57:05 PM Oceans 2036. jexster - 3/27/2001 12:57:43 PM Say thank you Rose...Wombat is on guard to save you from another drubbing... 2037. RosettaStone - 3/27/2001 12:58:09 PM Get real. People are always searching for gold, Wombat. 2038. Wombat - 3/27/2001 1:09:00 PM Ocean: 2039. Fielding - 3/28/2001 10:31:17 AM Wombat" 2040. Wombat - 3/28/2001 10:49:14 AM Fielding: 2041. Fielding - 3/28/2001 10:51:33 AM Wombat: 2042. ScottLoar - 3/28/2001 10:55:51 AM The destruction of Tokyo was methodical as lines of B-29's dropping firebombs crossed their bombing paths, creating a huge X of fire which blossomed into a firestorm. All within that radius would be burnt. 2043. Francis Urquhart - 3/28/2001 10:56:23 AM Fielding 2044. Wombat - 3/28/2001 10:57:02 AM Fielding: 2045. ScottLoar - 3/28/2001 11:00:57 AM You can still see the effects of firebombing on the outskirts of Sendai, while visiting the few reconstructed buildings on the Lord of Sendai's grounds of the Tokugawa period. The limestone steps had partially melted. The sign says in English and Japanese that the buildings were largely destroyed by bombing during WWII, and I suspect - given the distance of the grounds from the city and coastline which was a Japanese naval headquarters and staging area - the bombing was errant. 2046. ScottLoar - 3/28/2001 11:03:02 AM The firebombing of Japanese cities was calculated by Curtis LeMay to advance the greatest possible destruction, thus the weapon (firebomb) and its application (the Xs). 2047. Fielding - 3/28/2001 11:04:18 AM What about casualties? I understand that 800,000 people died in one day in Dresden. 2048. Wombat - 3/28/2001 11:09:04 AM The US initially sought to mount a "precision" bombing campaign against Japanese war industries, but discovered that high altitude day bombing was hampered by the presence of the jet stream over many parts of Japan. These high winds apparently blew the falling bombs off-target. 2049. Francis Urquhart - 3/28/2001 11:11:17 AM From the Boston Globe 2050. Wombat - 3/28/2001 11:11:29 AM The high casualty figures given at Dresden have been questioned for some time now. No one really knows how many people were in Dresden at the time. The highest death figure I am familiar with is around 100,000; and as noted, is open to question. 2051. Francis Urquhart - 3/28/2001 11:13:54 AM Fielding 2052. ScottLoar - 3/28/2001 11:15:54 AM I was also under the impression that precision bombing of industrial sites did not significantly reduce industrial output. This, first suspected form aerial surveys, was confirmed by analysis of the bombing of German industry for four years, and so the US Army Air Force adopted a different strategy for Japan late in the war. 2053. PelleNilsson - 3/28/2001 11:21:01 AM The problem was of course that the fire bombing didn't break the Germans, nor the Japanese. 2054. Francis Urquhart - 3/28/2001 11:21:58 AM Pelle 2055. ScottLoar - 3/28/2001 11:23:24 AM Nor did the bombing break the Brits. But 30 years later bombing did force the North Vietnamese back to the negotiating table, and that at the loss of surprisingly few civilian lives by reason of advanced technology allowing accurate bombing. 2056. Wombat - 3/28/2001 11:26:53 AM This thread will now be called the History Thread. 2057. ScottLoar - 3/28/2001 11:29:31 AM One suggestion. Please do not substitute the stroke (/) for simple conjuctions. 2058. PelleNilsson - 3/28/2001 11:31:16 AM No, FU, the A-bomb did for the Japanese. Even if it didn't do more damage than a sustained fire bombing attack, it was a completely new weapon with awesome destructive power (and high cost effectiveness once development costs were written off). 2059. Francis Urquhart - 3/28/2001 11:35:09 AM Pelle 2060. Wombat - 3/28/2001 11:39:26 AM To extend on Urquhart's boxing analogy, Allied planners were not sure whether Japan was truly on the ropes or just "rope-a-doping." 2061. marjoribanks - 3/28/2001 11:40:21 AM One thing is clear to me about Santayana's dictum, it is actually those who are obsessed with history that are condemned or condemn others to relive it. 2062. Wombat - 3/28/2001 11:45:54 AM Marj: 2063. marjoribanks - 3/28/2001 11:59:59 AM Well put, Wombat. 2064. Wombat - 3/28/2001 12:05:40 PM Marj: 2065. PelleNilsson - 3/28/2001 1:05:04 PM I've just been reading a book about the creation of a Swedish identity since the 17th century. The focus of this identity has shifted ove time but it is always founded on a heroic,glorious past, sometimes warlike, sometimes peaceful. 2066. ScottLoar - 3/28/2001 1:10:30 PM Without belittling your comments that description can apply to any people's view of themselves at any time. 2067. Wombat - 3/28/2001 1:14:30 PM Scott: 2068. ScottLoar - 3/28/2001 1:16:46 PM What is remarkable is that a people can look upon their past, truly or contrived as heroic and glorious, and imagine themselves to be of those same folk. By blood and the land they occupy, maybe, but that's about it. 2069. ScottLoar - 3/28/2001 1:17:47 PM Most clever, Wombat, most clever. I shall use that without attribution, thank you. 2070. Wombat - 3/28/2001 1:19:08 PM Given Sweden's population, how many of Charles XII's cavalrymen were Swedish? 2071. ScottLoar - 3/28/2001 1:21:59 PM True, but I used cavalrymen as a pointed example of the martial Swedes who at the time were damned near invincible on the field, fantastically disciplined (each rider knees were just behind the rider next to him presenting a solid phalanx)and motivated that no man would die before his time (conversely, you died when you time came due). 2072. ScottLoar - 3/28/2001 1:22:51 PM Corrigendum: you died when your time came due 2073. CalGal - 3/28/2001 1:24:59 PM "our pedigree is only of dogs and cats, we are as the doormat for our neighbors, we have the hearts of mice and sparrows, and of invention, intellect and art we have none. " 2074. pseudoerasmus - 3/28/2001 1:33:51 PM Sporadic fighting in Manchuria between Japanese and Soviets continued nearly a month after the Imperial Rescript of Surrender, which should tell you something about what the Japanese might done against the western allies invading Japan if there had been no surrender. 2075. Wombat - 3/28/2001 1:34:00 PM The US has been around long enough to have placed its heroes above their origins. Anyway the ethos of the adventurer and trailblazer can be found in the US's origins, along with the noble--and persecuted--idealist. As for Australia...you have a point. 2076. ScottLoar - 3/28/2001 1:34:09 PM On the contrary, myths of the minuteman, the pioneer, and the hard-working made heroic (recall aspirin and beer commercials featuring rugged workmen at labour) are strong in America as is the pioneer, and hard-working hard-riding drover in Australia. Both of these types are specifically anti-establishment, particulary perverse as titles honorific or inherited and "noble" surnames commonly impress American and Australians and quite easily. Hell, Americans and Australians are still bowled over by the acquired British standard pronunciation and display a deference to titled persons that borders on the sycophantic. 2077. ScottLoar - 3/28/2001 1:34:36 PM I intended "received pronounciation". 2078. ScottLoar - 3/28/2001 1:37:14 PM Australians bitch and moan about "winging Poms" then grovel at the feet of those same Poms socially. This affects all classes, as the Australian labour unions have long been the refuge of British labour leaders. 2079. RosettaStone - 3/28/2001 2:29:10 PM Good topic. I love history and look forward to reading this thread. 2080. PelleNilsson - 3/28/2001 3:08:49 PM ScottLoar -- Message # 2066 2081. PelleNilsson - 3/28/2001 3:10:30 PM For the last 20 years = For the last 80 years. 2082. LohrM - 3/29/2001 9:30:51 AM On Japan's surrender-- even after a couple of decads, Herbert Feis remains invaluable as a source. 2083. Wombat - 3/29/2001 11:25:00 AM There are a number of countries that resemble Sweden; Switzerland springs to mind. Neutrality and military readiness have become part of the national ethos (and myth). 2084. PelleNilsson - 3/29/2001 12:54:08 PM Lohr 2085. jexster - 3/29/2001 5:50:16 PM What happened to WAR??? 2086. jexster - 3/29/2001 5:51:43 PM Anyway, I was screwin around the University web sites and ran across the History Dept's list-o-links... 2087. jexster - 3/29/2001 5:51:53 PM Valley of the Shadow: Civil War 2088. jexster - 3/29/2001 5:53:28 PM SFSU History Dept Internet Resources 2089. RosettaStone - 3/29/2001 7:28:22 PM Peter the Great destroyed Sweden's military. It was one of the few things that Russia did right. 2090. ScottLoar - 3/29/2001 9:01:15 PM I have begun Crucible of War: The Seven Years' War and the Fate of Empire in British North America, 1754-1766 (Fred Anderson, Vintage Books Edition, January 2001), in which the author posits the French and Indian War as not only prologue but initiating events leading to the Revolutionary War by "the decisive defeat of one belligerent and a dramatic rearrangement of the balance of power". 2091. Wombat - 3/30/2001 8:00:52 AM Jexter: 2092. LohrM - 3/30/2001 8:24:39 AM Great list of links... 2093. LohrM - 3/30/2001 8:35:09 AM Now-- I'm busy reading lots of books on the post-1978 Afghan war (both the Soviet phase and the civil war afterwards). Yes, I have my last set of law school finals to do, but I'm majorly attracted to books on Afghanistan (and the neighboring Tajik wars). I've read a good dozen things-- Isby, Sikorski, Hodgson, Bonner, Olivier Roy... But I'm quite open to suggestions. Any reading suggestions out there? 2094. vonKreedon - 3/30/2001 8:48:37 AM 2095. LohrM - 3/30/2001 8:53:15 AM There's also Gary Nash's "Urban Crucible", where he talks about the economic effects of the Seven Years War-- the postwar depression in British North America --as a cause of disaffection... 2096. jexster - 3/30/2001 8:47:13 PM Since its economically useless to get a graduate degree in history, I decided best to just read on my own... 2097. jexster - 3/30/2001 8:48:27 PM 2098. PelleNilsson - 3/31/2001 4:22:48 AM jexster 2099. PelleNilsson - 3/31/2001 4:58:23 AM Rosetta 2100. ScottLoar - 3/31/2001 10:27:51 AM Charles XII also lost half a foot for his efforts. 2101. jexster - 3/31/2001 11:22:45 AM Proud Tower yes..great book! 2102. jexster - 3/31/2001 11:23:46 AM Malia's stuff isn't bad either but Gellner's on nationalism is a great supplement to Sword... 2103. jexster - 3/31/2001 11:26:54 AM Francois Furet's works on the French Revolution are also good..... 2104. LohrM - 3/31/2001 2:48:21 PM Well, there's no major financial future in a History degree, but I did it anyway... 2105. LohrM - 3/31/2001 2:58:06 PM I've noticed how slow the Mote can be on weekends, which leads me to wonder how many people sit at work and post here... 2106. jexster - 3/31/2001 4:37:24 PM yes ineed Lohr...noticed that too eh? 2107. LohrM - 4/2/2001 8:20:41 AM Productivity is highly overrated! I'm a believer in dolce far niente, myself... 2108. vonKreedon - 4/2/2001 8:48:04 AM 2109. alistairconnor - 4/2/2001 10:06:29 AM I have a slightly different perspective... I was a sometime heavy user of the Fray, back in my salaryman days, and I programmed the Mote partly on my employer's time... It's amazing how little time I can find for it now that I'm self employed. 2110. Wombat - 4/2/2001 3:05:03 PM Does Crucible of War add anything new to the thesis connecting the outcome of the French and Indian War with the development of revolutionary (or seccessionist) sentiment in the Colonies? 2111. ScottLoar - 4/2/2001 5:31:30 PM To overthrow one's king was revolution before and throughout most of the 19th century. And we're talking 18th century. Moreover, I thought secession could only be effected by members in a league or union, which surely cannot describe the British colonies in North America ruled as they were by agents of the King. 2112. ScottLoar - 4/2/2001 5:34:05 PM The separate colonies constituted no union or league or organization, neither were they at leave to act independently of their individual governours. 2113. ScottLoar - 4/2/2001 5:40:08 PM It is exactly for this reason that the import of acting contrary to the wishes of their king and against the directives of his appointed governours so profoundly affected those in the colonies who reluctantly came to the conclusion that independence from Great Britain was the only route by which they could safeguard their properties and liberties. And they well understood the price of their "treason" - 2114. LohrM - 4/3/2001 8:57:00 AM I never believed the "safeguard their properties and liberties" line of propaganda about the American Rebellion. I've seen the underlying disaffection as based on the unwillingness of the colonial elites to pay for their share of imperial defense and their unhappiness at being part of a post-1763 economic downturn throughout Europe and its dependencies. 2115. LohrM - 4/3/2001 11:44:35 AM Having just read that Hitler's personal schedule corresponded to my own dream schedule-- show up around 10.30, read the paper, lunch, nap, dinner, films --and that he rarely bothered with supporting evidence for decisions and often worked on the "most things will usually work out all on their own" principle (he always told his intimates how lazy he was)... is it possible that he wasn't really aware of the war until 1941 or so...? 2116. Jenerator - 4/3/2001 12:03:06 PM Well, he didn't seem too aware of defeat until last minute, either! 2117. Jenerator - 4/3/2001 12:06:24 PM I've really enjoyed this thread and have appreciated all of the discussion on relevant authors, etc. 2118. LohrM - 4/3/2001 12:20:50 PM No small thing, Jen! There are some excellent things out there (though, oddly, WW-2 is lacking)... I showed Terry Jones' Crusades series to a class once and had a fair amount of success with it. 2119. Jenerator - 4/3/2001 3:53:08 PM Within three weeks I've shown The Black Fox: The Rise and Fall of Hitler, The Papers: From Krushchev to Stalin, and All Quiet on the Western Front. 2120. LohrM - 4/3/2001 4:02:47 PM Look for the 1994 Showtime "Hiroshima", the old BBC series "Fall of Eagles", and Jacob Bronowski's "Ascent of Man" series. Michael Woods' "In Search of the Trojan War" is a delight, too. 2121. Jenerator - 4/3/2001 4:05:00 PM I know that we have Hiroshima, but I'm not sure about the others. 2122. LohrM - 4/3/2001 4:06:08 PM I get them from the local public library, actually-- good videotape collection. And almost any good collection should have "Morgenrot" and "Aleksandr Nevskii"... 2123. ScottLoar - 4/3/2001 6:31:34 PM re Message # 2214 And I had always thought the underlying disatisfactions, mostly a tyranny contrary to the natural and customary rights due Englishmen, were recounted in The Declaration of Independence. Yet you tell me it was all economic and if any believe otherwise they've swallowed propaganda. 2124. RosettaStone - 4/3/2001 11:38:15 PM For my birthday, my kids gave me "books on tape" audio of Ghosts of Everest: The Search for Mallory & Irvine (from the Expedition that Discovered Mallory's Body) 2125. ScottLoar - 4/4/2001 7:49:25 AM Some few years ago a Chinese team discovered the body of a Westerner dressed in thick woolens, without the gear or dress contemporary to modern expeditions. It is thought that this is the body of one of those two climbers from the British Everest Expedition of 1924. 2126. Wombat - 4/4/2001 7:55:18 AM This was in the news a few years ago; I read a fascinating article on it in some climber's magazine. It is thought that the body was that of George Mallory. It was not clear whether or not he was killed before or after reaching the summit of Everest. 2127. ScottLoar - 4/4/2001 7:59:19 AM The fact is, the body was discovered very close to the summit. Very close. 2128. Wombat - 4/4/2001 8:33:10 AM Scott: 2129. ScottLoar - 4/4/2001 9:21:43 AM Wombat, 2130. Wombat - 4/4/2001 9:37:01 AM ScottLoar: 2131. ScottLoar - 4/4/2001 10:22:02 AM Wombat, your second paragraph is correct, for this is not a matter of style but substance, and the substance of the North American colonists' grievances is recounted in the Declaration of Independence. That Declaration of Independence was made - in my words now - to safeguard their properties and liberties. 2132. ScottLoar - 4/4/2001 10:24:56 AM And I emphasize, it was as "Englishmen" that the North American colonies thought of themselves and how they approached their situation, for it was as "Englishmen" that they were being disenfranchised from what they thought their customary and natural rights by a tyrant King deaf and dumb to their petitions. 2133. ScottLoar - 4/4/2001 10:31:04 AM Corrigendum: laid indiscriminately upon a body without representation 2134. CalGal - 4/4/2001 11:56:30 AM I have been reading The First American, The Life and Times of Benjamin Franklin, by H. W. Brands. 2135. CalGal - 4/4/2001 12:01:55 PM Franklin thought this was a valid construct, but he also realized at that point that all distinctions were philosophically suspect. 2136. CalGal - 4/4/2001 12:21:29 PM I think that almost every ostensible reason given for the revolution is only the reason why it happened then, as opposed to later. Franklin's thoughts on the matter suggest that the American colonies simply weren't the same as the others, and that the very nature of the colonial relationship would have inevitably been challenged sooner or later. 2137. vonKreedon - 4/4/2001 12:49:15 PM 2138. Jenerator - 4/4/2001 1:41:13 PM Lohr, 2139. vonKreedon - 4/4/2001 1:44:35 PM 2140. vw - 4/4/2001 1:52:31 PM I would say to that student, "It’s not just Hitler per se that we are interested in understanding. Rather there were a whole set of interconnected circumstances that allowed that man at that time in that country to commit the acts that he did. By tracing back that chain of happenstance we can possible learn to recognize similar circumstances in the future before they culminate with similar terrible results." 2141. LohrM - 4/4/2001 2:00:08 PM I'd tell a student that what makes Hitler worth studying is how utterly ordinary he was in so many ways-- and then point out the implications of that. 2142. mgleason - 4/4/2001 2:02:56 PM In accordance with England's mercantile theory, the colonies were regarded as dependencies to be exploited for the mother country's profit. WRT the issue of 'taxation without representation,' the colonists were held to be as fully represented as the great majority of Englishmen who did not possess the right to vote. The colonists' 'virtual representation' in Parliament hardly differed from that of their English counterparts. 2143. LohrM - 4/4/2001 2:07:22 PM Royal government in British North America after 1763 was hardly tyrannical. There was no parliamentary representation,true-- distance alone made elections impractical. But as any number of observers pointed out, the various colonies had as paid agents a whole range of talented MPs-- they could certainly get their voices heard in Parliament. Moreover, Parliament functioned de facto to represent *interests*, not areas-- shipping, sugar, manufactures, etc. Colonial representation was certainly available on the same terms as the other blocs had. 2144. mgleason - 4/4/2001 2:16:56 PM Jen, 2145. mgleason - 4/4/2001 2:19:08 PM Sorry about the open tag. 2146. mgleason - 4/4/2001 2:20:15 PM Now? 2147. Jenerator - 4/4/2001 2:30:40 PM Thanks everyone. 2148. Wombat - 4/4/2001 2:39:27 PM Jen: 2149. mgleason - 4/4/2001 2:41:01 PM The situation in the Balkans, for example, is a clear indication that people 'know [what is] going on,' and still participate in it. Augusto Pinochet's defenders are another case in point. Let's not look any closer to home for fear of alarming your student. 2150. Wombat - 4/4/2001 2:44:06 PM Jen: 2151. aytchman - 4/4/2001 11:43:34 PM LohrM-- 2152. LohrM - 4/5/2001 9:12:03 AM I've always wondered (and this is pure speculation) if Churchill didn't see Hitler as a threat because he could envision him as being like Gandhi: someone from outside the accepted political classes, using a portmanteau and dangerous ideology to bring a wounded social order to a boil which would threaten stability and the Empire... 2153. Wombat - 4/5/2001 10:20:52 AM Oddly enough, Churchill didn't have any problems with Mussolini in the 1920s. 2154. LohrM - 4/5/2001 10:36:37 AM Lots of people found Mussolini okay in the 20s-- someone who could modernize Italy...and the opera-bouffe part had a kind of appeal to the Brits: "silly damn' dago uniforms" and all that... 2155. aytchman - 4/5/2001 4:24:39 PM I don't think Churchill thought Mussolini was okay. Rather he believed that a German dictator (any dictator) was a far worse threat than an Italian one. 2156. aytchman - 4/5/2001 4:36:06 PM LohrM 152 (Gandhi)-- 2157. ScottLoar - 4/5/2001 4:42:14 PM No image is more telling than Il Duce just finishing speaking and eyebrows arched, eyelids half shut, nodding with smug satisfaction, he folds his arms and continues nodding. Inimitably Italian, quintessentially Il Duce. 2158. ScottLoar - 4/5/2001 4:51:01 PM I forgot the ultimate pronouncement: The downturn of the corners of the mouth. 2159. mgleason - 4/5/2001 4:57:26 PM Here's an interesting note by Kingsley Martin, author of Father Figures: 2160. ScottLoar - 4/5/2001 4:57:43 PM Churchill pronounced he had not become the King's First Minister to preside over the dissolution of the British Empire, yet most intelligent and political persons wanted to quit India as the British presence and administration had clearly overstayed their welcome and had long lost control of the situation. 2161. aytchman - 4/5/2001 5:04:06 PM scott-- 2162. ScottLoar - 4/5/2001 6:09:50 PM But to be booted out of office after the triumph of Britain's victory in the war against the nasty Nazi's (give it a short "a" pronunciation as did Churchill) must have been a keen disappointment. 2163. Wombat - 4/6/2001 8:17:02 AM Fortunately, Churchill was not in power for the pull-out from India. He never forgave Mountbatten for his role in presiding over it. 2164. LohrM - 4/6/2001 9:56:08 AM And, after all, the Raj should've stayed longer-- if only to smash Hindoo fundamentalism and arrange an equitable division into Muslim and Hindoo areas under British guard. By allowing Nehru and the Congress Party to survive and implant in India their pompous-moral version of socialism, a good half-century of economic chaos was made inevitable. Gandhi was a disaster for India. 2165. ScottLoar - 4/6/2001 12:41:58 PM The Raj could not stay longer, especially as the Indians did not want it and the administration was way beyond its abilities to control the country. Gandhi's homespun economic policies (I sarcastically refer to his spinning wheel and self-reliance) was a disaster for India and by the party leaders' choice. Like most rebels who find themselves in positions of practical administration they were unprepared. Hindu fundamentalism had been growing for half a century despite the earnest checks made by the Raj, and the Raj's meager police and military forces were simply unable to impose anything more than a temporary order between Hindu and Muslims at spotty locales. The situation was clearly beyond the ability of the Raj or Whitehall to control. 2166. marjoribanks - 4/6/2001 12:49:47 PM Oh Lord, not this topic yet again. 2167. marjoribanks - 4/6/2001 12:55:19 PM And this is not the first time I wish PE (the big one) would contribute. 2168. ScottLoar - 4/6/2001 12:55:58 PM Feel free to jump in Banks, especially on the Raj's inability to control anything in India after WWII; yes, not even the disposition of its own few troops there. 2169. ScottLoar - 4/6/2001 12:59:04 PM "I don't give a two-penny damn about the ashes of Napoleon" - Duke of Wellington 2170. marjoribanks - 4/6/2001 1:04:12 PM Loar, 2171. marjoribanks - 4/6/2001 1:07:14 PM It is a little known and scandalously unacknowledged fact that the India provided the largest volunteer army in history to the Allied cause in WWII, and these troops served with distinction in all the theatres in which they appeared. 2172. Jenerator - 4/6/2001 1:32:34 PM Who exactly did they ally with? 2173. JudithAtHome - 4/6/2001 1:36:59 PM to the Allied cause 2174. marjoribanks - 4/6/2001 1:37:35 PM They allied with Britain of course. An instant history. 2175. ScottLoar - 4/6/2001 1:37:51 PM Marjoribanks, some Indian troops stationed in Singapore went over to the Japanese; the very memory would bring tears to some of their British commanders. The Indian troops in France in WWI also had a bit of reluctance after prolonged experience of trench warfare. 2176. marjoribanks - 4/6/2001 1:43:19 PM "n the Western Desert, in Eritrea and Italy, Indian Divisions engaged the Germans and-ltalians. The 4th, 5th, and 8th Divisions distinguished themselves in a series of hard-fought campaigns. A time came when the British 8th Army depended on the 4th Division to crack up Axis formations in their long (and final) retreat. At Cassino, the best that the German Parachute Regiment had were slowly reduced by equally motivated Indian troops of all shades. German breakthroughs in the Desert saw Indian Gunners standing to their guns, despite being cut off, and fighting heroically. The 3rd (Indian) Motor Brigade badgered the Africa Corps using trucks and machine guns. 2177. marjoribanks - 4/6/2001 1:45:24 PM Not just Singapore, Loar, also Malaya and Burma. The Indian National Army under the leadership of Subhash Chandra Bose did in fact prove to be a small thorn in the Allied side eventually. Those who straggled back to India after the war were largely reviled and many were court-martialled and even executed. 2178. Jenerator - 4/6/2001 1:46:37 PM Did any ally with Rommel, too? 2179. Wombat - 4/6/2001 1:48:09 PM Jenerator: 2180. marjoribanks - 4/6/2001 1:48:30 PM In retrospect, there was nothing dishonorable in what the deserters undertook. They simply exchanged one master for another, in this case to a master which preached and promised anti-colonialism and a certain Asian pride. 2181. marjoribanks - 4/6/2001 1:51:14 PM Not tens of thousands, Wombat, hundreds of thousands. 2182. Wombat - 4/6/2001 1:51:17 PM My understnading is that Bose has been "rehabilitated" to a certain extant, for the reason stated above. 2183. Wombat - 4/6/2001 1:54:29 PM My spelling and grammar is really bad today. Apologies. 2184. Wombat - 4/6/2001 1:57:46 PM The Congress Party ended up supporting the the war effort for the Allies, although they were profoundly divided on it. Had Congress not supported the war effort, it would have been interesting to see how many Indian soldiers would have fought for the Allies. Congress was able to head off an effort to conscript Indian soldiers. 2185. marjoribanks - 4/6/2001 1:58:39 PM Well, he was never actually disgraced in India. He disappeared at the end of WWII in a mysterious plane crash but has always been considered a "Freedom Fighter" and has certainly always been treated as such. 2186. marjoribanks - 4/6/2001 2:01:47 PM Well, the ML fell behind the war effort very early. Jinnah as much as extracted a promise of Pakistan in exchange. So the Pathans etc would still have volunteered. Plus the Gurkhas who always volunteer. 2187. Wombat - 4/6/2001 2:04:17 PM Another thing one hears nothing about was how Indian PoWs were treated. Did the Nazis consider them subhuman, racially? Or because they were from where Aryan peoples came, did they receive better treatment? 2188. marjoribanks - 4/6/2001 2:07:04 PM Good question, Wombat. In fact, I know absolutely nothing it. 2189. marjoribanks - 4/6/2001 2:12:41 PM Oooh, got to love the Internet. 2190. pseudoerasmus - 4/6/2001 2:13:13 PM Well, the ML fell behind the war effort very early. Jinnah as much as extracted a promise of Pakistan in exchange. So the Pathans etc would still have volunteered. 2191. marjoribanks - 4/6/2001 2:15:24 PM Wow, that site is easily my find of the week. 2192. Wombat - 4/6/2001 2:16:18 PM Fascinating 2193. marjoribanks - 4/6/2001 2:18:56 PM Hey, Pseuder, check out the link above. 2194. marjoribanks - 4/6/2001 2:21:06 PM Yes, Pseuder is right about the Pathan movement. I'd forgotten that. 2195. pseudoerasmus - 4/6/2001 2:28:42 PM Marzipranks is basically right that Nehruvian socialism was not based on Gandhi's dhoti economics; rather it was more a product of all that nasty 1930s Fabianism and other proto-pinkoisms. Yet one can't deny the influence of Gandhi's "economic" ideas (such as they were) must have had. Self-reliance and all that contributed eventually to India's autarkic policies. 2196. marjoribanks - 4/6/2001 2:33:38 PM Why cannot one deny the effect of Gandhi's economic ideas? 2197. Jenerator - 4/6/2001 2:57:34 PM What is (to me) deplorable is the way the Indian contributions in WWII are NEVER remembered. Particularly glaring was the absence of any acknowledgements during all those 50 year anniversaries the last few years. Those poor buggers were not treated particularly well outside military circles in India either, and seen as kind of collaborators. 2198. ScottLoar - 4/6/2001 2:57:55 PM Yes, I did not intimate Indian troops guilty of cowardice but neither were they the saviours of British bacon in either WWI or WWII. I know Bose's role and it is not of him I referred, but the desertion of Indians to the Japanese at the fall of Singapore as but one example. 2199. Jenerator - 4/6/2001 2:57:55 PM Wombat, 2200. ScottLoar - 4/6/2001 2:59:45 PM And he exited the jungle pronouncing he was soon to go back in? 2201. Wombat - 4/6/2001 3:17:59 PM ScottLoar: 2202. Wombat - 4/6/2001 4:03:41 PM Wingate's operations thoroughly disrupted Japanese preparations for offensive operations against India. One of the participants likened their effect to what might have happened had the Germans dropped a parachute division between London and England's southern coast during the Normandy invasion. 2203. ScottLoar - 4/6/2001 4:10:43 PM I'm not sure who I mean now. Do you, Wombat, recall any incident such as I described? I remember a newsreel of this guy with swagger stick and pith helmet, bearded, just coming in from the jungles of Burma and without engaging the Japanese. 2204. Wombat - 4/6/2001 4:20:37 PM Scott Loar: 2205. Wombat - 4/6/2001 4:27:16 PM Slim was an undistinguished Brigadier who performed adequately in Ethiopia/Somalia, and then led Indian forces in the disastrous Arakan campaign in 1942-43. He learned from his mistakes, and converted his forces into highly mobile, superbly-trained troops. He took full advantage of Allied air capacity, and was probably the only Allied commander to use armor effectively in the CBI theater. 2206. aytchman - 4/6/2001 4:30:09 PM Many of the commanders in the CBI were eccentric. Stilwell, Chennault, even Percival if he can be included. It seemed almost to be a requirement. 2207. Wombat - 4/6/2001 4:36:25 PM Aych: 2208. Wombat - 4/6/2001 4:37:34 PM Perhaps whoever sent Percival out to command British forces in Malaya could be considered "eccentric." 2209. Wombat - 4/6/2001 4:46:44 PM Mountbatten could perhaps be considered eccentric, if only for this: 2210. ScottLoar - 4/6/2001 5:01:07 PM I do appreciate this thread now. 2211. pseudoerasmus - 4/6/2001 5:05:29 PM On the left, my grandfather; in the middle, Louis Mountbatten upbraiding the young Marjoribanks on the right. Somewhere in Burma, 1945. 2212. marjoribanks - 4/6/2001 5:12:18 PM Hahahaha. 2213. pseudoerasmus - 4/6/2001 5:17:44 PM "Now, now, you mustn't betray your empire to the Japs", said the noble Viscount to the young and frustrated Indian nationalist Marjoribanks, "you can't make decent beereeyanee with mushy white rice. You must see that, old chap". 2214. marjoribanks - 4/6/2001 5:21:06 PM "Brother sub-con," said grandpa Pseuder, " I'm standing on this side only because the other hasn't yet given me baksheesh enough. I will join you, yes I will join you, because I too am disgusted." 2215. marjoribanks - 4/6/2001 5:24:29 PM I must get around to scanning (I don't have a scanner) pics from my own grandfathers. 2216. ScottLoar - 4/7/2001 11:12:15 AM I had long ago read Stilwell and the American Experience in China and confess his eccentricities (his campaign hat was tied about his chin with a frayed shoelace) were doubtlessly as a result of his posting in the Far East where he learned to dislike the pretensions of the British military officer and was (alluding to his own famous motto) almost ground down by the bastards - the Chinese. Read Stilwell's published account of supervising a Chinese road gang. Still, this general so removed from his own kind had the greatest amount of battle experience in WWII? Is that true, Wombat? 2217. LohrM - 4/7/2001 12:50:34 PM Is he upbraiding an Indian at all? I'm sure that's the young Duke Ellington...! 2218. LohrM - 4/7/2001 2:41:41 PM Isn't he being told how distinctly silly he looks with his khakis pulled up to his chin? 2219. PelleNilsson - 4/7/2001 3:34:31 PM But where are those people? What kind of contraption do we see in front of Mountbatten? 2220. LohrM - 4/7/2001 4:24:11 PM Perhaps a Model 1943 air conditioner for the viceregal dining room? 2221. LohrM - 4/7/2001 4:25:20 PM On the ground in front of the Mountbatten... hmmm... ceremonial daggers or pastry tubes... I can't be sure. 2222. CalGal - 4/7/2001 6:00:52 PM I believe it is a jack, actually. Isn't that what you call them? At first I thought it was the rolly thing that mechanics use to go under cars with, but it seems to be flat to the ground. 2223. ScottLoar - 4/7/2001 8:48:27 PM Lord Mountbatten nee Battenberg had discovered his audience by trapsing to the motorpool and addressing a mechanic. 2224. dusty - 4/8/2001 12:32:35 PM Message # 2124 RosettaStone 2225. Jenerator - 4/8/2001 12:35:58 PM An interesting piece from today's New York Times: How To Face The Past Then Close The Door. 2226. ScottLoar - 4/8/2001 3:04:20 PM I know little or nothing about mountain climbing and have never done more than walk once or twice beyond the timber line in Colorado but you, Dusty, do have my esteem for climbing and climbing in Tibet. 2227. ScottLoar - 4/8/2001 3:13:54 PM Read, too, The Long Walk by Slavomir Rawicz recounting the escape in the winter of 1941 from Soviet labour Camp 303 near the middle reaches of the Lena River in norther Siberia across Mongolia's Gobi Desert, over Tibet and finally down to British India. You will be elated by this small group. 2228. dusty - 4/8/2001 3:23:53 PM ScottLoar 2229. dusty - 4/8/2001 3:32:13 PM The Long Walk 2230. LohrM - 4/9/2001 11:45:23 AM "The Long Walk" is a book that's in my permanent collection... 2231. Wombat - 4/9/2001 11:52:20 AM Dusty: 2232. Wombat - 4/9/2001 12:02:07 PM I agree with Cal on PE's photo. The mechanic appears to be wearing coveralls, which would explain the lack of a waistline. 2233. marjoribanks - 4/9/2001 12:03:16 PM Hey Lohr, 2234. LohrM - 4/9/2001 12:10:47 PM Of course I'll be here... I'm just surprised to be taken as *in*-offensive, after a lifetime of carefully cultivating my misanthrope status... 2235. LohrM - 4/9/2001 12:16:31 PM I'll have to talk to Wombat at some point about the foreword to May's "Strange Victory", where he makes a comparison between the ideas behind the Maginot Line and the hi-tech, no-casualty wars ideas descibed by Michael Ignatieff and Edward Luttwak... 2236. Wombat - 4/9/2001 1:31:59 PM Lohr: 2237. Wombat - 4/9/2001 1:33:29 PM Maybe we should rename the thread "The crusty gentlemen" thread. 2238. LohrM - 4/10/2001 8:59:09 AM Ummmm... having just come back from a discussion of the merits of J.Lo v. Yasmeen Ghauri in the International thread, "crusty" may not be the first word I'd want to use... 2239. LohrM - 4/10/2001 9:03:20 AM May argues that the Maginot Line was a 30s hi-tech way of substituting materiel for flesh in much the same way that the post-Vietnam US military tries to substitute electronics for flesh. It's not an argument he develops at any real length, but it raises the issue of how societies hope to wage war. Ignatieff (in "Virtual War") and Luttwak (in "Post-Heroic Warfare") both argue that the US is no longer able to sustain casualties, that public opinion no longer accepts combat losses (and barely accepts *inflicting* casualties--cf. Kosovo). May seems to be saying that this is the same attitude expressed by the French public in the 1930s-- a hope that the Line would be a way of using technology to make sure that no Frenchmen died. 2240. AytchMan - 4/10/2001 4:03:59 PM Most interesting, perhaps, is that the path taken by each nation (US and France) to arrive at similar (not identical) mindsets was so different. 2241. DaveM - 4/10/2001 6:45:30 PM Has anyone read Richard Rosenfeld's American Aurora? It is really fascinating "revisionist" history of the American Revolutionary period, in that it paints a horrible picture of John Adams, Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr (presented as petty, reactionary Monarchists). Ben Franklin and his grandson, Benjamin Franklin Bache (pronounce "beach") are the heroes. The story is told through the eyes o the Scotish journalist William Duane. 2242. ScottLoar - 4/11/2001 9:12:08 AM re 2243. Wombat - 4/11/2001 10:43:02 AM DaveM: 2244. Wombat - 4/11/2001 11:30:41 AM Burr was not a Federalist. He ran for Vice President as a Democratic Republican (Democrat) on a ticket with Thomas Jefferson in 1802. The voting system at the time allowed the electoral college to vote for individuals rather than tickets, and Burr ended up getting as many votes as Jefferson. Instead of gracefully--and immediately--conceding his votes to the presidential candidate, Jefferson, Burr kept his votes in play for a time, but remianed passive as his supporters attempted to detatch Federalist electors from their commitment to Adams and swing the election to Burr. Although the Federalists loathed Jefferson (they thought he would erect a guillotine in Washington, and import French revolutionary ideology) few of them trusted Burr. Hamilton came out strongly against switching votes to Burr. One Federalist elector was persuaded to change his vote to Jefferson, and a crisis that may have split the United States was avoided. 2245. CalGal - 4/11/2001 11:44:53 AM Burr got quite a few electoral votes in both 1792 and 1796. It's quite possible that the people who voted for him wanted him to be President. I've never seen why history always assumes that Burr was the one who should automatically have deferred. 2246. LohrM - 4/11/2001 12:08:27 PM Few people seem to note these days that the years from 1792 to 1800 in the new United States were seriously unstable, and that the Adams presidency could easily have collapsed into revolution. 2247. Wombat - 4/13/2001 7:59:10 AM I bought "The Crucible of War" and have been reading it avidly. The author is suberb at de-bunking of received wisdom. His take on Wolfe at Quebec and the battle on the Plains of Abraham is thoroughly enlightening. 2248. Dusty - 4/13/2001 10:17:31 AM Wombat 2249. jexster - 4/13/2001 12:56:10 PM Its wonderful to have library access from the old home computer especially on line access to JSTOR... 2250. jexster - 4/13/2001 12:58:45 PM or better yet when the semester ends...look up and abstract stuff 2251. Wombat - 4/13/2001 1:01:40 PM Jex: 2252. MsIvoryTower - 4/13/2001 1:09:47 PM Wombat 2253. CalGal - 4/13/2001 1:11:44 PM What about the ones that weren't available online? 2254. Wombat - 4/13/2001 1:14:17 PM Jex: 2255. MsIvoryTower - 4/13/2001 1:16:18 PM Cal 2256. CalGal - 4/13/2001 1:18:37 PM Since FR is for-profit--at least I'm assuming it is--was the argument that they are generating "clicks" and therefore benefiting because of product they aren't paying for? 2257. MsIvoryTower - 4/13/2001 2:51:56 PM Don't know that the economic nature of the site made much difference here. 2258. CalGal - 4/13/2001 3:23:43 PM I wonder if it would change if they primarily put in New Yorker articles, or other "think pieces". 2259. CalGal - 4/13/2001 3:26:03 PM Don't know that the economic nature of the site made much difference here. 2260. MsIvoryTower - 4/14/2001 8:38:55 AM I wonder if it would change if they primarily put in New Yorker articles, or other "think pieces". 2261. jexster - 4/14/2001 10:10:38 AM Yes Wombat there are. In fact JSTOR is designed in such a way as to make copying impossible. Thus the idea of summarizing....links of course are not possible as these come from History Journals...not exactly a dotcom goldmine if there are any such these days.... 2262. jexster - 4/14/2001 10:17:43 AM To clarify..all I see is adobe photocopies and cannot even copy that but if anyone has some topic they are REALLY interested in..I'd be happy to do a search and see what comes up... 2263. jexster - 4/14/2001 2:47:47 PM The Search for The Fuerher Bunker 2264. LohrM - 4/16/2001 12:06:08 PM I'm glad to see any source for indexing academic articles... 2265. LohrM - 4/17/2001 7:48:16 PM I have the advantage of living near a large public university with a good library (open stacks) and having a city library that does reasonably good interlibrary loans. But all too soon I won't be able to use the university system for ordering (free) copies of articles from journals we don't have... 2266. vonKreedon - 4/17/2001 8:58:48 PM 2267. sakonige - 4/17/2001 9:02:03 PM vonKreedon - 2268. PelleNilsson - 4/18/2001 5:15:21 PM Wombat 2269. Wombat - 4/19/2001 9:53:21 AM Thanks, Pelle. 2270. Wombat - 4/20/2001 11:17:07 AM Lohr: 2271. LohrM - 4/20/2001 11:47:36 AM Though May does argue that the Line was intended as a base from which to project power-- a citadel where the French could be secure while grouping for sallies eastward. 2272. Wombat - 4/20/2001 12:27:15 PM Yes, but these "sallies" were into neutral countries as a response to German aggression, which was ultimately aimed at France. 2273. ScottLoar - 4/20/2001 7:32:42 PM re Message # 2266, the Iroquois are a favourite of mine. 2274. ScottLoar - 4/20/2001 7:35:25 PM Time/Life Books also has a slim volume introduction to the Iroquois for those who know nothing about them beyond their name and fame. 2275. ScottLoar - 4/20/2001 7:45:15 PM I would also recommend a visit to any museum that exhibits Iroquois artifacts, most especially clothing, decorations and weapons and the masks of their False-Face Society. If the same museum(s) show Huron stuff you're in for a real treat for the Huron (neighbors eventually absorbed into Iroquoia), in my opinion, were among the most talented and artistically expressive peoples in North America. I prefer theirs to the Northwest Coast stuff. 2276. ScottLoar - 4/20/2001 8:28:33 PM How could I forget? 2277. ScottLoar - 4/20/2001 8:29:51 PM My edition is by Carol Publishing Group Edition, 1996, A Citadel Press Book, with an introduction by William N. Fenton, the preeminent authority of the Iroquois. 2278. sakonige - 4/23/2001 11:40:39 PM 2279. mgleason - 4/24/2001 12:28:30 AM There's a good review by Ian Buruma of two new books on the David Irving-Deborah Lipstadt libel trial in this week's New Yorker: The Holocaust on Trial, by D. D. Guttenplan, and Lying About Hitler, by Richard J. Evans, the defense's star witness. 2280. Wombat - 4/24/2001 8:28:59 AM Mgleason: 2281. Wombat - 4/24/2001 8:29:57 AM Ely Parker was himself a Seneca. 2282. mgleason - 4/24/2001 8:53:35 AM Wombat, 2283. Wombat - 4/24/2001 8:58:17 AM I suspect Keegan was absolutely right in his take on Lipstadt. That should not, however, transfer to sympathy for Irving, who violated the first tenet of the courtroom (the person who is his own lawyer has a fool for a client), and got exactly what he asked for--and deserved. 2284. mgleason - 4/24/2001 9:06:32 AM Keegan's distaste for Lipstadt apparently blinded him to Irving's manipulations. He made himself look credulous. 2285. RosettaStone - 4/24/2001 9:21:07 AM Major story by James Risen buried on page A9 of yesterday's New York Times which says that Israel intended its 1967 attack on the U.S. intelligence ship Liberty which killed 34 American sailors and wounded 171 others. 2286. Wombat - 4/24/2001 9:36:02 AM Rosie: 2287. RosettaStone - 4/24/2001 9:40:11 AM The coverup is unraveling, Wombat. With any other country, this would have been big news years ago.. 2288. RosettaStone - 4/24/2001 9:40:40 AM jam or ram, for that matter. 2289. RosettaStone - 4/24/2001 10:02:27 AM BOOK SAYS ISRAEL INTENDED 1967 ATTACK ON U.S. SHIP 2290. RosettaStone - 4/24/2001 10:05:46 AM The National Security Agency "has hidden the fact that one of its planes was overhead at the time of the incident, eavesdropping on what was going on below," he wrote. "The intercepts from that plane, which answer of the key questions about the attack, are among NSA's deepest secrets." 2291. RosettaStone - 4/24/2001 10:25:38 AM "Although the attackers never gave a name or hull number, the ship was identified as flying an American flag," one air crew member recalled in an interview with Mr. Bamford. "We logically concluded that the ship was the U.S.S. Liberty." 2292. RosettaStone - 4/24/2001 10:35:49 AM Mr. Bamford argues that the Liberty attack came at a time when President Lyndon B. Johnson was anxious to avoid worsening relations with Israel in the midst of the Middle East crisis. The Israeli government gave Washington a classified report to show that the attack was a mistake, and the Johnson administration then discounted the incident. 2293. RosettaStone - 4/24/2001 10:39:04 AM Walter Deely, who was a senior NSA official at the time of the attack and who was ordered to conduct a secret study of the Liberty for the agency, told Mr. Bamford that his review showed "there is no way they didn't know that the Liberty was American." 2294. RosettaStone - 4/24/2001 10:40:31 AM Now, Wombat, please highlight this article on Mote's opening page so that everyone knows about it. 2295. mgleason - 4/24/2001 2:17:56 PM I'm reading Lying About Hitler. It's great fun to observe Evans as Columbo draw the net around the villanous Irving (Jack Cassidy?). 2296. RustlerPike - 4/24/2001 2:39:33 PM The English version of the Israeli Air Force's official website (extremely well translated, imho) only has this to say about the Liberty: 2297. Wombat - 4/24/2001 2:44:25 PM Thanks Rustler! Look forward to the "official" Israeli rendering of the incident. 2298. RustlerPike - 4/24/2001 3:22:30 PM The Liberty Disaster 2299. RustlerPike - 4/24/2001 3:25:31 PM >>> 2300. RustlerPike - 4/24/2001 3:27:58 PM >>> 2301. RustlerPike - 4/24/2001 3:31:58 PM Whoops - not an incestigation, an investigation. The incestigation came afterwards. 2302. RustlerPike - 4/24/2001 3:37:07 PM 'Navy handbook of enemy ship identification' is better as 'Navy enemy ship identification manual', I guess. 2303. RustlerPike - 4/24/2001 3:40:55 PM Wombat: 2304. Wombat - 4/24/2001 3:47:31 PM Thanks, Rustler! 2305. LohrM - 4/25/2001 3:09:21 PM Hmmmm... I thought I recalled that the IDF had identified the Liberty as a Syrian transport... But I'm glad finally to hear an official IDF version... The conspiracy world believes that the attack was to prevent the US monitoring preparations for the Israeli offensive against Syria and urging a cease-fire... Though in 1967 the US had nothing like the leverage to impose a cease-fire... 2306. LohrM - 4/25/2001 3:11:02 PM There was a PBS piece with dramatizations of Irving's testimony... quite good. 2307. Wombat - 4/25/2001 4:44:24 PM Bamford as described in Salon offers an alternative reason for the attack. I had thought as Lohr did on the reasoning. 2308. RosettaStone - 4/25/2001 6:17:39 PM 2309. RustlerPike - 4/26/2001 6:01:05 AM Bamford's thesis is at odds with my knowledge of how things work here in Israel. It's sort of like that incident when Israeli soldiers at a roadblock shot at Muhammad Dahlan: it makes much more sense to explain it as wartime bungling than as an immaculately executed plot. 2310. LohrM - 4/27/2001 2:17:04 PM I tend to agree with Pike here-- there was a target, people were trigger-happy, and everybody (e.g., the Israeli navy, which hadn't had a share of the tankers' or pilots' glory during the war) wanted to be in on it. The US, let's remember, was not in 1967 the major player it became in the Middle East before 1973-- the US in 1967 regarded the Middle East as a very secondary area. The US was not about to be able to halt the war, even if it had wanted to. 2311. PelleNilsson - 4/27/2001 2:27:53 PM The most serious flaw in these conspiracy theories is: If the IDF wanted to sink the ship leaving no surviviors why didn't they finish the job? They had the resources and there was nobody around to stop them 2312. AceofSpades - 4/27/2001 2:30:00 PM 2313. RustlerPike - 4/28/2001 4:41:22 AM More from Haaretz's Alex Libak: 2314. RustlerPike - 4/28/2001 4:41:47 AM Oy, wrong thread. Sorry. 2315. LohrM - 4/28/2001 1:50:20 PM Pike, is this part of your "Giant Buttocks of the Holy Lnad" series? 2316. RustlerPike - 4/29/2001 4:37:47 AM Lohr: 2317. RustlerPike - 4/29/2001 4:38:57 AM Refresh my memory: In 1953 or so, wasn't an American ship named the Levant or Levantine sunk by the Israelis? 2318. ScottLoar - 4/29/2001 9:31:18 AM RustlerPike, your choice of pictures remains as mysterious as the larger part of your comments in this and other threads. 2319. RustlerPike - 4/30/2001 2:33:52 AM Scott: 2320. RustlerPike - 5/1/2001 1:11:08 AM I haven't read this yet but it seems to be an exhaustively researched article about the 'Liberty'. 2321. RustlerPike - 5/1/2001 3:03:14 PM Carry on like this a little longer, and this thread is History. 2322. Wombat - 5/1/2001 3:07:14 PM This thread is "History." I think that we have provided plenty of grist for those who are allegedly or actually interested in the "Liberty" tragedy. Many thanks, Rustler. 2323. Wombat - 5/2/2001 4:06:46 PM One of the delights of reading a good history book is learning new facts or nuances of a situation that has been supposedly done to death. 2324. pseudoerasmus - 5/2/2001 5:01:06 PM Here is a most interesting portion of the Imperial Rescript of Surrender, spoken by the Emperor and transmitted by radio on 15 August to all Japan and Japanese forces in Asia: 2325. jonesatlaw - 5/2/2001 11:34:04 PM Wombat and Pseud- Have you read Japan's Longest Day? I'd love to hear a comparison of it to Downfall. 2326. Wombat - 5/4/2001 8:26:08 AM Jones: 2327. LohrM - 5/4/2001 1:28:48 PM I'll have to get a copy of "Downfall"... I prefer Skates' book on Olympic-Coronet planning to Polmar's... There is that very good book ("Tenno-Zan") about Okinawa... [note: "Downfall" is also the 2nd-edition title--the original was "Lighter Than a Feather" --for David Westheimer's novel about the invasion of Japan...] 2328. LohrM - 5/4/2001 1:30:45 PM Rustler-- you do realize that, having seen a photo or two of you, I know keep imagining that I see you in all sorts of news footage from Israel... Though why you were wearing an Apache war bonnet I'll never know... 2329. PelleNilsson - 5/4/2001 1:43:36 PM Lohr 2330. LohrM - 5/4/2001 1:46:08 PM After all these years, I want to read it again... And I recall a volume of essays by the same author, which included a nice piece on the Macedonian Silver Shields... Now-- if I could just recall the author's *name*... 2331. PelleNilsson - 5/4/2001 1:46:25 PM Post-exams. Are congratulations in order? Or do you experience separation angst? No more university library. No more free on-line subscriptions. An amputation of the mind. 2332. LohrM - 5/4/2001 1:52:01 PM Very good article on the "Liberty", Pike... 2333. LohrM - 5/4/2001 1:53:44 PM Well, I'm here through the Bar Review and Bar Exam in late July... (Let's assume I didn't drop the ball on my last exams...) And even when I leave here, one of my plans is to seek out universities wherever I work and offer to adjunct teach a class or two... 2334. PelleNilsson - 5/4/2001 2:02:20 PM Lohr 2335. LohrM - 5/4/2001 2:06:23 PM Thanks, Pelle...! I may look for the bio of Charles XII... But I'm going to start "The Long Boats" as soon as I can get to the library... As a boy, I saw the dreadful Hollywood version of the first few sections (Richard Widmark and Sidney Poitier), and only read the whole novel in the early 80s... 2336. LohrM - 5/4/2001 2:08:57 PM Alas, Pike-- the Azure article on the Liberty prints out with much of the right margin chopped off. Damn it, I wanted a copy for my files. 2337. PelleNilsson - 5/4/2001 2:11:56 PM I don't know how well the Charles XII bio translates but it could be excellent, because in that work Bengtsson adopted a Gibbonesqe style -- you know, long rolling sentences. It is very different from "The Long Boats" in that respect. 2338. LohrM - 5/4/2001 2:17:04 PM I'll have to see... I of course love Gibbon... If you get the chance, Peter Gay's "Style in History" has essays on Gibbon and Macaulay and Ranke and Burckhardt that are wonderful... (note: the Gay book is an old favorite... actually the first book I ever bought-- $1.98 on a sale table! --at Yale. Sat in my room on my first day there and read it...) 2339. LohrM - 5/4/2001 2:31:36 PM Excellent article for those interested: 2340. AytchMan - 5/4/2001 4:17:20 PM the war situation has developed not necessarily to Japan's advantage... 2341. Wombat - 5/4/2001 4:29:47 PM At risk of being frivolous, everybody come up with mealy-mouthed descriptions for catastrophic events. Let understatement be your inspiration. 2342. AytchMan - 5/4/2001 4:42:33 PM This Just In from the Spanish Ministry of Information: 2343. Indiana Jones - 5/4/2001 4:48:08 PM The classic real-life undestatement was "Challenger": Obviously we have a malfunction. 2344. ElliottRW - 5/4/2001 4:53:51 PM New American President Not Overqualified 2345. AytchMan - 5/4/2001 11:35:46 PM Does anybody know how the goose-step originated? And why are totalitarian regimes on both left and right so enamored of it? I'm sure it was intimidating in the '30's but whenever I see it today I invariably start chuckling. 2346. Wombat - 5/5/2001 9:38:17 AM A brilliant performance by Laura Keene last night was disrupted when John Wilkes Booth jumped onto the stage in the middle of "Our American Cousin." What Booth shouted was unclear to the audience, but it was thought that he was referring to the presence of President Lincoln in the theater. 2347. Wombat - 5/5/2001 9:42:47 AM Aytch: 2348. RustlerPike - 5/5/2001 10:15:08 AM Lohr: no, that's not me in the TV footage. Not yet. 2349. RustlerPike - 5/5/2001 10:16:46 AM The 'heh heh heh' above was originally an addendum to the first paragraph. Then I added the second but forgot to move the 'heh heh heh'. 2350. PelleNilsson - 5/5/2001 10:42:50 AM I think the goose step has its origin in the Prussian army drill. Many countries called in Prussian officers as advisors. I saw that North Korean troops employ it. 2351. ScottLoar - 5/5/2001 10:53:40 AM I had thought the goose-step stretched the otherwise little-used back leg muscles and so was an excercise as well. It seems to be the favourite step of dictators everywhere, from Buenos Aires to Hanoi. 2352. mgleason - 5/5/2001 11:26:30 AM According to a history of the Prussian military that I once read, the development of the goose-step had to do with the practice of crowding the ranks of eighteenth-century musketeers to maximize the effect of the weapons. Since even a small deviation from the marching pattern could cost an infantryman his hearing, maintaining strict lines was essential. The goose-step enabled a line to move forward simultaneously in rigid order. 2353. PelleNilsson - 5/5/2001 1:26:31 PM maria 2354. ScottLoar - 5/5/2001 1:40:26 PM The same regular pace was needed to keep the line of forward advance straight so the volley of simultaneous musket fire would have densest effect and the subsequent bayonet charge would meet the enemy along the entire length of the rank. This explains the need for drummers, dense ranks, disciplined firing, and the heavy musket with bayonet attached, but not the goose step and nothing about one's hearing. 2355. ScottLoar - 5/5/2001 1:58:24 PM By the way, the early Prussian army under Frederick II reached the almost phenomenal rate of fire of four or even five volleys a minute, a good measure of their training. 2356. LohrM - 5/5/2001 2:20:56 PM I've always doubted that the Prussians reached that level in combat...and certainly, even if they managed to get close to it...the quality of the Prussian army fell off through Frederick's wars-- harder and harder to get men, harder and harder to find money to train them (almost no live fire exercises), harder and harder to retain officers (a real problem by the second half of his reign)... 2357. RustlerPike - 5/5/2001 2:53:22 PM I think the goose step signifies rigidity and discipline more than anything else. It says: our men don't walk. Matter of fact, they're not men at all. They are machines. They are robots. 2358. PelleNilsson - 5/5/2001 2:59:01 PM I have an idea. 2359. mgleason - 5/5/2001 3:57:35 PM Pelle, 2360. PelleNilsson - 5/5/2001 4:17:20 PM maria 2361. PelleNilsson - 5/5/2001 4:44:17 PM Also, I don't think concern for the hearing of infantrymen was a decisive factor in 18th century battlefield tactics. 2362. mgleason - 5/5/2001 4:49:48 PM Pelle, 2363. mgleason - 5/5/2001 4:52:36 PM Deaf men can't hear orders; there's no need to incapacitate your men if it can be avoided. 2364. PelleNilsson - 5/5/2001 5:31:17 PM maria 2365. ScottLoar - 5/5/2001 6:50:54 PM Message # 2356: Yes, I specifically noted "early Prussian army under Frederick II" and to my mind your doubts do not trump Crucible of War, Fred Anderson, First Vintage Books Edition, January 2001, pg. 302. 2366. Indiana Jones - 5/5/2001 7:25:47 PM The Concise History of the Balkans: 2367. Indiana Jones - 5/5/2001 7:28:30 PM By the way, my "Concise History" post was made in honor of Cliff Hillegass, who died today. He was the founder of Cliff Notes. 2368. PelleNilsson - 5/6/2001 3:54:20 AM From the Britannica: 2369. mgleason - 5/6/2001 11:20:15 AM Thanks for the link, Indiana. From the review of Repetitive order and the human walking apparatus: Prussian military science versus the Webers' locomotion research: 2370. Wombat - 5/7/2001 8:24:00 AM One of the more bizarre sights of the last century was watching Menachim Begin arrive in Egypt. He was greeted by an honor guard wearing German style helmets and goose stepping. 2371. ScottLoar - 5/7/2001 8:59:16 AM None of the quotes and cites recounted here prove or convince open minds that the goose step was used on 18th century battlefields. I repeat Message # 2354. 2372. ScottLoar - 5/7/2001 9:08:39 AM That is, the goose step as we know it from parading ranks of helmeted soldiers. To think soldiers hefting 20-pound muskets did so over a torn battlefield littered with dead and wounded as shot and ball filed through their ranks beggars credulity and stretches the content of every cite offered so far. 2373. Wombat - 5/7/2001 9:10:24 AM Perhaps troops used an exaggerated step when coming to a halt before firing or executing a turn. 2374. RustlerPike - 5/7/2001 9:42:03 AM One of the more bizarre sights of the last century was watching Menachim Begin arrive in Egypt. He was greeted by an honor guard wearing German style helmets and goose stepping. 2375. Wombat - 5/7/2001 11:00:24 AM I cannot speak to its accuracy, but I got this off of a chat group: 2376. Wombat - 5/7/2001 11:08:33 AM The Prussian term for what we call the goose step translates to "Parade March," which seems to indicate that it was not used on the battlefield. 2377. LohrM - 5/7/2001 12:43:44 PM Note: over the last 25 years or so,there's been a full-scale re-assessment of Frederician government and military styles... replacing the views of Dorn and 19th-c. Prussian historians... 2378. Wombat - 5/7/2001 12:45:46 PM Lohr: 2379. LohrM - 5/7/2001 1:03:20 PM Beginning with "Bureaucracy,Autocracy, Aristocracy" (Rosenberg) in the mid-70s, revamping the Dorn view of the Frederician state and showing how factionalized/paralyzed govt. was and how rarely the pretension to "clockwork autocracy" ever came close to reality... and going on to Black et al.'s re-consideration of Frederick's wars... 2380. PelleNilsson - 5/7/2001 2:45:53 PM My proposal for a colloborative effort on the Balkans has slipped off-screen- 2381. PelleNilsson - 5/7/2001 2:58:49 PM There are two great traditions of parade ground drill, the British and the Prussian. They are easy to distinguish be two hallmarks. The command "Attention!" will cause the Prussian to straighten up and click his heels together. With the Briton it will cause a great deal of stomping of feet. 2382. RustlerPike - 5/8/2001 1:09:07 AM Is it true that the hand-to-eye salute has medieval, knight's-helmet-visor roots? 2383. LohrM - 5/8/2001 1:06:41 PM Pelle-- the Balkans? 2384. PelleNilsson - 5/8/2001 1:17:37 PM Yes. Anything wrong with them? 2385. LohrM - 5/8/2001 1:57:55 PM Well, they could come in a wider range of colors and sizes, but other than that... 2386. PelleNilsson - 5/8/2001 2:17:57 PM If you click on the link (the words in red) in #2380 you will get to my original post. 2387. LohrM - 5/8/2001 3:41:56 PM Pelle-- I'd be happy to contribute and/or suggest readings! 2388. Ronski - 5/8/2001 3:45:13 PM The Viking Pompeii 2389. PelleNilsson - 5/8/2001 4:32:48 PM Ronski 2390. wonkers2 - 5/8/2001 4:35:40 PM Pelle, I prefer the pimp walk to the goose step, Swedish or Prussian. 2391. PelleNilsson - 5/8/2001 4:36:58 PM Lohr 2392. PelleNilsson - 5/9/2001 2:09:49 PM LohrM 2393. Wombat - 5/9/2001 2:19:19 PM Pelle: 2394. Uzmakk - 5/9/2001 2:27:00 PM Coooooooooooool. 2395. PelleNilsson - 5/9/2001 2:33:07 PM This will not clog the thread. It will be pursued at a leisurly place. My idea is to collect the bits and pieces on my website as they arrive and ask you to link from here. 2396. pseudoerasmus - 5/9/2001 2:39:53 PM If Jexster could so something about his Serbia/porcine obsession. 2397. PelleNilsson - 5/9/2001 2:42:40 PM That's the problem of course. But deep down, very deep down, jexster is a sensible fellow. 2398. PelleNilsson - 5/9/2001 2:48:35 PM By the way, PE, do you want to contribute? I seem to remember that you had some worthwhile things to say about Macedonia and the creation of the Macedonian ethnicity. 2399. Wombat - 5/9/2001 2:57:05 PM I'll throw in bits here and there as things enter the modern era, although it will probably be mostly cribbed from Misha Glennie's work. 2400. Uzmakk - 5/9/2001 2:58:53 PM Will there be anything about Mithraic Influence on Bogomil Church Architecture? 2401. PelleNilsson - 5/9/2001 3:01:35 PM It will be a major theme in a sort of symbolic way. 2402. PelleNilsson - 5/9/2001 3:05:26 PM Note to other readers: In the old Fray Uzmakk and I had a gig going that I had written a book with the title he refers to. 2403. Uzmakk - 5/9/2001 3:06:48 PM No shit? 2404. Uzmakk - 5/10/2001 10:18:40 AM BTW, that was a serious "no shit"?. I don't think we come up with these titles lightly. I suspect you are telling the truth when you say that it will be a major theme in a sort of symbolic way. 2405. LohrM - 5/10/2001 11:21:26 AM Pelle-- 3 and 4 sound fine... Let me know what you want and how long... I must warn you that I may be a bit sporadic in my appearances here between 29 May and 29 July, but I'll post when I can... Do you find annotated reading lists or articles to be more central? 2406. Wombat - 5/10/2001 11:25:21 AM Don't forget to add them to our "Sources" subthread as appropriate. 2407. RustlerPike - 5/12/2001 7:49:11 AM I am vetoing the Balkan subthread, since it obviously has nothing to do with Jews, Judaism or Israel: the three subjects we all must revolve around here. 2408. CalGal - 5/12/2001 12:09:02 PM I finished Truman!, David Attenborough's excellent biography. It's a very enjoyable read of a man I've always considered to be extraordinary. I also read Lindbergh's new biography late last year, and the lives of these two men have really awakened my interest in world history on either side of WWII. Such a lot going on at that time. 2409. RustlerPike - 5/12/2001 12:14:09 PM CalGal: please allow us to have a facelift for The Mote... I know it's your baby, private property, whatever, but really, that pimento olive on a black marble background in the homepage is an ugly motherfucker. 2410. wonkers2 - 5/12/2001 5:37:07 PM Cal, Did Attenborough mention that Truman was a Democrat? 2411. Wombat - 5/14/2001 8:38:57 AM Rustler: 2412. Wombat - 5/14/2001 10:04:02 AM I read Newsweek's preview of the "Summer Blockbuster" movie about the attack on Pearl Harbor. It looks like it will be awful. Unless they were hiding all the computer-generated graphics, "battleship row" will consist of radar-festooned 1970s-80s era frigates. The only thing that they have in common with some of the battleships are clipper bows. The "plot" is unspeakable. 2413. CalGal - 5/14/2001 10:30:14 AM I have been depressed about Pearl Harbor ever since I saw it would be directed by Michael Bay and produced by Bruckheimer. Given that pedigree, there was no hope. The Newsweek preview just confirmed it. 2414. Indiana Jones - 5/14/2001 10:30:28 AM Wombat: I saw a preview of Pearl Harbor Saturday, and it does look awful. As far as the computer graphics, it's a classic example of too much polish resulting in less realism. 2415. PelleNilsson - 5/14/2001 12:20:43 PM WWI buffs! Just when you thought that John Keegan's and Neil Fergusson's books had exhausted the subject for the time being Volume 1 (1,227 pages) of Hew Strachan's three-volume work emerges. A magnificient new history the Economist calls it. 2416. Wombat - 5/14/2001 12:33:22 PM Don't know when it will arrive in the US. Sounds interesting. 2417. LohrM - 5/15/2001 1:26:50 PM I'm dreading "Pearl Harbor"... And the previews I've seen don't even look well-designed. I suppose you *can* spend zillions on f/x and still get nothing much for your money. 2418. PelleNilsson - 5/15/2001 2:13:51 PM Lohr 2419. LohrM - 5/15/2001 2:16:04 PM I'll write soon, inshallah! The Balkan wars, then! Shall I post here or e-mail to you? 2420. PelleNilsson - 5/15/2001 3:15:09 PM Publish here, please. The multitude holds its collective breath in anticipation, 2421. LohrM - 5/17/2001 12:12:51 PM I'll get started... One thing to immediately note is how few books in German or English or French exist on the Balkan Wars, though there is some very good contemporary reportage... And how high the casualties (inc. disease) are relative to the very brief duration of the main conflicts (although armed conflict continued as skirmishing all the way through the start of WW-1)... 2422. LohrM - 5/17/2001 12:14:30 PM Good, fun book for all those with academic backgrounds-- Anthony Grafton, "The Footnote: A Curious History"... Grafton is a delight on how "scholarly apparatus" came to be deployed...He also did "Forgers and Critics" about forged literary and historical works... 2423. PelleNilsson - 5/17/2001 1:30:18 PM Lohr 2424. LohrM - 5/17/2001 1:56:11 PM Pelle, I've not read that Hobsbawm. His work on peasant rebellions is good, and "The Invention of Tradition" is wonderful. So I'll just have to see. 2425. PelleNilsson - 5/17/2001 3:12:16 PM Alan Furst? How would he compare to Eric Ambler, a favourite of mine? 2426. PelleNilsson - 5/17/2001 3:17:49 PM Old meets new. This is the cover of Keegan's book in Swedish. 2427. Wombat - 5/17/2001 3:26:07 PM I don't know, not having read much Ambler, but Alan Furst is great. 2428. janjon - 5/17/2001 3:51:29 PM The picture indeed is a sobering one. 2429. Wombat - 5/17/2001 3:57:18 PM I think I have seen WWI pictures of horses in gas masks. 2430. Wombat - 5/17/2001 4:06:15 PM Janjon: 2431. ScottLoar - 5/17/2001 4:22:06 PM A strange war. Baron von Richtoffen started out officering ulan. I've seen a fast, short film of a biplane flying over ulan - a juxtaposition of modernity and obsolescence which seemed apt for The Great War. 2432. ScottLoar - 5/17/2001 4:24:36 PM The German coal scuttle helmets were derived from a medieval design from Saxony I think, and the English helmets looked like those worn by foot at Agincourt. 2433. ScottLoar - 5/17/2001 4:32:55 PM A serious question. Do any of you have any reference on the oil used in the earliest biplane engines? I'd heard, perhaps apocryphally, that castor oil was used which gave pilots the runs. 2434. janjon - 5/17/2001 4:37:24 PM Wombat. Thanks. I guess they assumed that even if the horse's eyes became incapacitated that the rider would be able to guide the horse through the gas, etc. 2435. Wombat - 5/18/2001 3:58:47 PM ScottLoar: 2436. LohrM - 5/19/2001 1:15:35 PM Ambler... I haven't read him in far too long! Damn it, now i have to find "The Schirmer Inheritance" and "Passage at Arms"! But I liked him-- at east inhis early works: that noir sense of brooding doom, the pitilessness of the secret world... Try Furst's "The Polish Officer"... You'll like it... And "Night Soldiers" is brilliant. 2437. LohrM - 5/19/2001 1:18:07 PM Oh, castor oil-- yes! It kept many pilots sick as dogs... 2438. PelleNilsson - 5/19/2001 1:35:35 PM LohrM 2439. LohrM - 5/19/2001 1:38:08 PM Damn it, Pelle... Now I'll be at the library today looking for Ambler... I can't recall "Dimitrov", so I have to take a look... 2440. LohrM - 5/19/2001 1:58:27 PM Wombat-- do you recall the David Abraham affair from the mid-80s? 2441. PelleNilsson - 5/19/2001 2:00:35 PM It's "Dimitrios" not Dimitrov". Sorry. 2442. LohrM - 5/19/2001 2:12:08 PM I've run across a reference to the Abraham Affair in a footnote citing to the old Radical History Review. It strikes a chord only because Abraham's attacker in the issue of the role of German big business in the rise of Hitler was Henry Turner, under whom I had a very good seminar on fascism...and because I once had a summer fling with a girl who worked around the RHR... Turner had the best of the argument, i think-- see his "German Big Business and the Rise of Hitler", but the attack on Abraham became all too personal for my taste-- imputing a desire to falsify documents and citations to what seemed to me to be little more than the errors and omissions any historian is prey to in archives... 2443. ScottLoar - 5/21/2001 1:03:40 AM re Message # 2437: Yes, I've read the short but personal account by a US Marine who participated in a Russian cavalry charge in 1944 or 1945 against German troops. Cavalry was made obsolete by barbed wire and the machine gun which well predate WWI even though the Swiss ulan persisted until at least the 1970's. 2444. Wombat - 5/21/2001 8:10:44 AM Lohr: 2445. PelleNilsson - 5/22/2001 7:30:12 AM sto 2446. stostosto - 5/22/2001 8:25:58 AM I see, Pelle. Thanks for the update. So, this potentially calls for a revision of your traditional and nationalist "Concise history of Sweden"? 2447. PelleNilsson - 5/22/2001 11:32:17 AM Not always, but for the last 30 years or so. But I must admit to being much less informed about the 11th-15th centuries than later periods. It's so horribly complicated. The tradionalist view is that Sweden's cradle was the area round present Stockholm and Lake Mälaren. There, in a purely indigenous development, a large number of chieftains eventually developed some sense of a common identity and coalesced into a proto-Sweden under a common king. 2448. marjoribanks - 5/22/2001 12:22:42 PM While you guys prepare for Memorial Day, read this by an Indian admiral. 2449. LohrM - 5/22/2001 12:38:20 PM Wombat-- the Abraham affair came up in the early/mid-80s. Abraham was a young scholar (Princeton) who'd written a book based on his PhD thesis showing substantial business support for Hitler. Turner (Yale)gave the book a bad initial review, then attacked Abraham for mis-citations and missatements of evidence. Now-- Turner's own "German Big Business & the Rise of Hitler" was opposed to Abraham's basic idea and did I think make a better case, but Turner was arguing not just flaws, but delibeate falsification by Abraham. It opened a major debate on how research is done (bad note-taking in archives is one of the things no historian likes to talk about) and on what constitutes a mistake v. falsification... And it destroyed David Abraham's career. 2450. LohrM - 5/22/2001 1:03:26 PM ScottLoar-- where did you see the account of a US particpant in a 1945 Soviet cavalry charge? That kind of thing always interests me... 2451. Wombat - 5/22/2001 2:19:42 PM Lohr: 2452. LohrM - 5/22/2001 2:24:11 PM Wombat-- NYRB gave it some space... It was an ugly affair. Turner is a fine historian, but he has a mean streak personally. And I think it made everyone who ever looked over his notes and tried to recall just what he copied from that archive document or whether the file number was 5-A or 6-D in scrawled handwriting shudder... 2453. PelleNilsson - 5/22/2001 3:37:40 PM Lohr 2455. Raskolnikov - 5/22/2001 4:34:41 PM Is that the guy who claims they all got stupid due to lead poisoning? 2456. PelleNilsson - 5/22/2001 4:40:23 PM It's part of his overall argument but not a crucial part. I think that theory has been around for a long time. Hughes's book is from 1996. He is more into deforestation, overgrazing and unsustainable agricultural practices. 2457. stostosto - 5/22/2001 5:13:19 PM He is more into deforestation, overgrazing and unsustainable agricultural practices. 2458. marjoribanks - 5/22/2001 5:16:31 PM Lohr, 2459. PelleNilsson - 5/22/2001 5:31:17 PM marj 2460. stostosto - 5/22/2001 5:38:28 PM Hey, Pelle, that's interesting. 2461. stostosto - 5/22/2001 5:38:52 PM (and why are you calling me marj?) 2462. PelleNilsson - 5/24/2001 1:55:29 PM sto 2463. PelleNilsson - 5/24/2001 1:56:11 PM Lohr 2464. stostosto - 5/24/2001 4:33:02 PM Have I heard of Bjřrn Lomborg? 2465. PelleNilsson - 5/24/2001 4:34:35 PM I have to buy Lomberg. 2466. amax - 5/24/2001 4:40:26 PM PE, is Lomberg available translated into English? 2467. PelleNilsson - 5/24/2001 5:24:39 PM amax 2468. LohrM - 5/25/2001 12:51:45 PM Historical stuff on the environment... There's Bill Cronin's "Changes in the Land"...about the introduction of European grasses and crops and animals and techniques to 17/18th-c. North America... And Crosby's badly-titled but well-written "Ecological Imperialism", about the flow of crops and animals and diseases worldwide since the 11th-c. 2469. LohrM - 5/25/2001 12:56:28 PM Well, young troopers-- as of noon on 24 May 2001 I got my Juris Doctor degree. Not quite as much fun a ceremony as my History PhD-- we couldn't keep the doctoral hoods and the diplomas weren't as well-produced. Still, enough of a good event to merit opening a decent bottle of single-malt last night... [and various girls in the Class of 2001 felt it to be their obligation to kiss male members of the class; hardly something to turn down] 2470. Wombat - 5/25/2001 12:59:24 PM Lohr: 2471. LohrM - 5/25/2001 2:03:22 PM Wombat-- I suspect getting very drunk and heckling "Pearl Harbor" isn't a bad plan for a Saturday... (If I had enough friends, we'd wave Japanese flags, cheer the bombers, and speak in 40s-movie Japanese dialect... "Oh, you die now, Yankee dog!") 2472. Wombat - 5/25/2001 2:52:21 PM Ah so! Don't forget the diabolical grin as he machine guns aircrew after they have parachuted. 2473. PelleNilsson - 5/25/2001 3:24:02 PM Congratulations Lohr! I knew you could make it. 2474. PelleNilsson - 5/25/2001 4:00:13 PM Lohr 2475. PelleNilsson - 5/26/2001 6:58:50 AM The Mote Concise History of the Balkans Introduction The Balkans are what geostrategists call a "hot spot", an area where throughout history neighbouring powers have competed for influence. Other such hot spots are Afghanistan and, to a lesser extent, Palestine. The Balkans occupy the south-eastern corner of Europe. Geographers define the Balkans as the area south and west of the rivers Donau and Sava. This history will focus on Albania, Bulgaria and the states of the former Yugoslavia, except Slovenia. The developments in Greece and Rumania will not be considered except when they emerge as actors in the focus area. The tentative lay-out of the history is as follows: - The Balkans under the Romans The history will not necessarily be published in chronological order. 2476. PelleNilsson - 5/26/2001 7:02:20 AM The History of the Balkans has a Home Page. I hope Wombat will link it in the butterscotch bar. 2477. PelleNilsson - 5/26/2001 9:06:25 AM The Mote Concise History of the Balkans 2478. PelleNilsson - 5/26/2001 9:08:04 AM The division line between West and East went right through the Balkans with the north-west falling to Rome and the south-east to Constantinople.The present day border between Bosnia and Croatia on the one hand, and Serbia/Montenegro on the other roughly follows the border between West and East Rome, which explains why the former countries are Roman-Catholic and the latter Greek-Orthodox. However, these religious differences lay in the future. It was not until 1054 that Rome and Constantinople split over doctrinal differences.We may note that Dacia, present Rumania, had been lost to "barbarians" during the Illyrian emperors, so the Danube made up East Rome's northern border in the Balkans. 2479. JRoth - 5/26/2001 12:11:06 PM Pelle, 2480. PelleNilsson - 5/26/2001 2:30:59 PM Hi JRoth! So very good to see you again. The history is intended as a collaborative project. The agreement so far is that I will do the Roman and Ottoman periods and LohrM will do the Habsburg one. The rest is open. Your contributions would be welcome. I seem to recall that Uncle Sam from time to time calls on your services because of your "special knowledge" of the Balkans. Perhaps the section on the break-up of Yugoslavia would suit you? And we would certainly appreciate essays on linguistics or ethnicity or whatever takes your (or anyone else's) fancy. They can easily be accommodated on the home page. 2481. PelleNilsson - 5/27/2001 7:06:18 AM The Mote Concise History of the Balkans The Roman Era (Continued) 2482. PelleNilsson - 5/27/2001 7:07:22 AM The Serbs also made their appearance in the 9th century, in present Montenegro, but their expansion into a Greater Serbia did not start until a couple of hundred years later. Of Albania, not much is known from this period. The Britannica notes that from the 8th to the 11th century the territory formerly known as Illyria started to become known as Albania, after the Albanoi tribe and surmises that an Albanian identity developed during this period. 2483. labwabbit - 5/28/2001 1:55:23 PM Memorial Day. 2484. labwabbit - 5/28/2001 2:46:46 PM It was on Memorial Day, May 30 1884, when Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. gave a speech called “In Our Youth, Our Hearts Were Touched with Fire.” His opening sentence read, “Not long ago I heard a young man ask why people still kept up Memorial Day. . . .” 2485. labwabbit - 5/28/2001 2:47:41 PM Memorial Day was originally known as Decoration Day, meant to honor the Civil War dead by decorating their graves. 2486. LohrM - 5/29/2001 12:36:25 PM Pelle-- i e-mailed you a small bibliography on the 1912-13 Balkan Wars this morning. 2487. jexster - 5/29/2001 12:37:24 PM Accuracy Gets Shelled 2488. Wombat - 5/29/2001 1:09:13 PM Jex: 2489. PelleNilsson - 5/29/2001 2:45:14 PM The Mote Concise History of the Balkans 2490. PelleNilsson - 5/29/2001 2:47:53 PM Misha Glenny's The Balkans (New York and London, 2000) is a good new general history, but covers too much ground too fast and lacks a good bibliography and citations. Steven Pavlowitch's A History of the Balkans 1804-1945 (London, 1999) looks not only at the formation of the Balkan states but compares and contrasts national histories and mythologies of nation-building. George Young's Nationalism and War in the Near East (New York, 1971) is another durable work, one whose scope extends over the bulk of the Ottoman lands. Readers with a knowledge of Russian and a taste for Brezhnev-era writing may refer to Pavel Vasilevich Zhogov, Diplomatia Germanii i Avstro-Vengrii i pervaia Balkanskaia voina 1912-1913gg (Moscow, 1969). 2491. PelleNilsson - 5/29/2001 2:50:48 PM The one new military study of the fighting is Richard Hall's The Balkan Wars 1912-1913 (New York and London, 2000). Hall's book is one of the titles in the Warfare and History series done by Routledge Kegan Paul, and his focus is not only on the events of the major 2492. PelleNilsson - 5/29/2001 2:53:59 PM Of these, only Cary is sensitive to the scale of devastation inflicted on local populations and willing to see the suffering of Turkish as well as "Christian" villagers. Reportage from the Bulgarian front in the First Balkan War by a correspondent with military experience is found in Lt. Hermenegild Wagner, With the Victorious Bulgarians (Boston, 1913)-a book whose prejudices are found in its title. 2493. PelleNilsson - 5/29/2001 2:55:39 PM The translation of policy into military planning is found in Graydon Tunstall's Planning for War Against Serbia and Russia: Austro-Hungarian and German Military Strategies 1871-1914 and the Monarchy's concerns about Serb occupation of the port of Scutari in Milan W. Vego's Austro-Hungarian Naval Policy 1904-1914 (London, 1996). 2494. PelleNilsson - 5/29/2001 3:01:44 PM Intimidating fellow, that LohrM, is he not? Let's hope he can condense that vast body of learning into a "The Balkan Wars for Dummies" for our benefit. 2495. jexster - 5/30/2001 12:00:28 AM Wombat 2496. jexster - 5/30/2001 12:01:13 AM Its a damn shame and I refuse to see that crap Joshua Hartnett to the contrary notwithstanding. 2497. jexster - 5/30/2001 12:01:49 AM toys...mine, not a quote 2498. RosettaStone - 5/30/2001 12:04:18 AM Where's the part of how the Serbs saved American flyers from Nazi troops during WWII, while the Albanians were executing Allied soldiers to impress the Germans? 2499. Fielding - 5/30/2001 11:55:21 AM Oh my name it is nothin' 2500. Fielding - 5/30/2001 11:55:45 AM But now we got weapons 2501. LohrM - 5/30/2001 1:03:39 PM Wombat may know this... Somewhere there's a film from the early 80s about an American flyer downed in WW-2 Hungary, escaping from the Germans and the Arrow Cross. I've seen it on Showtime, but I've never caught more than fifteen minutes or so at a time... Does anyone know the name of the film? I recall thinking it had excellent atmosphere and sets and costumes... I was just amazed that anyone in 1980s Hollywood had *heard* of the Arrow Cross! 2502. LohrM - 5/30/2001 1:04:51 PM Pelle-- I'll sit down over the next weekend or so in between Bar Review lectures and write up my Balkan War capsule history. 2503. PelleNilsson - 5/30/2001 3:48:22 PM The Mote Concise History of the Balkans The Ottomans The Ottomans were Turks, originally from Central Asia who worked their way west to challenge the Bysantine Empire. The name derives from the ruler Othman I (ca. 1258-1326). Some may recall 1453 as the date when Constantinople fell, marking the end of the Byzantine Empire. But the Empire had been seriously weakened before then, not least by the infamous Fourth Crusade, which instead of proceeding to the Holy Land invested Constantinople, and when it fell in 1204 plundered it with the same ferocity, brutality and insensitivity to cultural values as the Vandals exhibited at the sack of of Rome in 455. The events at Constantinople is surely the foremost and most saddening example of Christians' cruelty against Christians before the 30-years war in Europe 1618-48. 2504. PelleNilsson - 5/30/2001 3:50:54 PM 2505. PelleNilsson - 5/30/2001 3:59:57 PM The above was mercifully brief, was it not? I started out on a more ambitious plan, but I found that to go into any sort of detail would require some 1000% more space. And in any case such details are of less general interest than those leading up to 1912-13. 2506. sakonige - 5/31/2001 5:31:01 PM thoughtful, 2507. sakonige - 5/31/2001 5:38:33 PM 2508. sakonige - 5/31/2001 5:59:35 PM 2509. sakonige - 5/31/2001 6:06:21 PM For one of the most significant archaeological sites in North America, the educational materials at the interpretive center at the Spiro Mounds is very disappointing. Set in the heart of American Indian country, surrounded today not only by the descendants of the society who built the Spiro Mounds complex, but by the last remnants of all the peoples who shared their Mississippian culture in the American Southeast, the site produced a quantity of artifacts far exceeding the total of everything recovered so far from all other Mississippian sites. Yet there are only a couple of items displayed in the interpretive center with a few outdated lines of commentary. One crummy narrated slide show is available that looks like it was made in the 1970s, completely Eurocentric and full of inaccuracies and contradictions. 2510. sakonige - 5/31/2001 6:06:53 PM 2511. sakonige - 5/31/2001 6:10:25 PM 2512. sakonige - 5/31/2001 6:17:40 PM 2513. Wombat - 6/1/2001 8:12:12 AM Interesting, Sakonige. Is there a web site for the Spiro Mounds site? Did the Mayans explore and colonize up north while their empire was at the height of its powers, or did remnants of the Maya go north in the aftermath of the break-up of the empire? 2514. LohrM - 6/1/2001 1:22:44 PM I've been on somthing of a Jonathan Spence binge... His "The Chan's Great Continent" is a great piece about early western perceptions of China... 2515. marjoribanks - 6/1/2001 1:26:07 PM Very interesting posts, Sakonige. Thank you for taking the time to distill the information and share your findings here. 2516. sakonige - 6/1/2001 2:59:16 PM 2517. sakonige - 6/1/2001 3:00:24 PM 2518. sakonige - 6/1/2001 3:00:54 PM 2519. PelleNilsson - 6/1/2001 3:09:13 PM The Mote Concise History of the Balkans The Turkish Heritage The Ottomans ruled most of the Balkans for more than four centuries. What kind of imprint did they leave? I will touch on three aspects, First, they left two groups of Muslims in the otherwise Christian Europe, the Bosnian Muslims (who nowadays call themselves Bosniaks) and the Albanians. Most historians agree that the Bosniaks descend from the Bogomils, a heretical Christian Sect which was persecuted by the Catholic church. The Bogomils had a dualistic world view, where the material world, created by the devil, was all-out evi while God dwelled in the spiritual world. There are similarities with Zoroastrism and Manicheism but as far as I know, no direct connection has been established. The Bogomils had connections with the Cathars, however. The Cathars lived in the south-west of France, some of them in the village of Montaillou, made famous by Emmanual Le Roy Ladurie's book of the same name. Anyhow, the Bogomils converted to Islam to escape procecution. Very little is known about the process, but there is speculation that they found refuge in some Sufic sect that tolerated their dualism. While the Bogomils are a fairly clear-cut case (as these cases go), the Albanian Islamisation is more problematic. The conventional explanation is that it was ecomically sound to convert because Christians paid more taxes. But this raises the question why there were no mass conversions among the Croats and the Serbs. Perhaps Christianity was less firmly rooted in the mountainous Albania? At the present time about 70% percent of Albanians (in Albania) are Muslims. The rest are Roman-Catolics (in the north) and Greek-Orthodox (in the south) 2520. PelleNilsson - 6/1/2001 3:10:51 PM The second aspect is that the Ottoman conqest helped define the national identity of two nations, and again we are looking at Albania and the Serbia. To take the Serbs first, the reporting from Kosovo conflict often referred to the battle of Kosovo Polje in 1389 when the Serbs were routed by the Turcs. That a total defeat in battle has developed into a national founding myth strikes us as strange. As far as I can understand the Serbs claim that they were the only ones who put up a real battle against the Ottomans, proving, even if they lost, a sense of nationhood that was missing elsewhere in the Balkans. This link is to a very nationalistic Serbian site. 2521. PelleNilsson - 6/1/2001 3:12:30 PM The third thing the Turks left behind was, and is, hatred of all things Turkish. Any Croat, Serb or Bulgarian can tell you horror stories of atrocities perpetraded by the Turks on their Christian subjects. The truths in these stories are somewhat in doubt, in particular the notion that the cruelties to the Christians were committed because they were Christians. The Ottomans were fairly tolerant. The millet system allowed for self-rule by the various religious communities in the empire when it came to things as religious law and family law. A particularly horrific feature of Ottoman rule was the kidnapping of young boys who were forcibly converted to Islam, castrated, and then incorporated into the Janissaries, the Sultan's elite guard. However, it is not clear how much force was actually required. To have a son in the Janissaries could be an advantage for a peasant family when dealing with the Ottoman authorities. They could rise high in the imperial ranks, even to the office of Grand Vizir. 2522. sakonige - 6/1/2001 3:13:18 PM 2523. Wombat - 6/1/2001 3:14:11 PM Sakonige: 2524. sakonige - 6/1/2001 3:17:56 PM 2525. sakonige - 6/1/2001 3:22:14 PM 2526. Wombat - 6/1/2001 3:22:40 PM Pelle: 2527. PelleNilsson - 6/1/2001 3:29:00 PM Wombat 2528. Wombat - 6/1/2001 4:32:09 PM The definitions of Janissary that I found on the web say nothing about castration. They were recruited as a "Foreign Legion" or Praetorian Guard from non-Turkish subjects so they would not prone to political faction, but loyal only to the Sultan. Initially they were required to be celibate, although that changed over the years. 2529. ScottLoar - 6/1/2001 11:29:28 PM The Janissary were not castrates. The Janissary were willing troops of the Ottoman Empire. They also wore woolen underwear, yes, even in Egypt which was noted by Napoleon's troops as the dead floated on the Nile, their wide trousers bloomed out like flower petals. 2530. Wombat - 6/4/2001 8:22:28 AM What's with the uniforms of the Seljuk and Byzantine empires, as have passed down to modern states like Greece? The Evzones look ridiculous with their short skirts, leggings (tights, really), and pom-poms on their shoes. 2531. Ronski - 6/4/2001 12:19:16 PM I happened to visit Hyde Park for the first time on Saturday. Very enjoyable for the history and the prettiness of the place. It was interesting to note the draft of FDR's Pearl Harbor speech (and a moving prayer, next to it), which included the words a day which will live in world history, and the last two words scratched out and replaced by "infamy" in Roosevelt's hand. 2532. Wombat - 6/4/2001 12:57:19 PM I am sorry, Ronski, but that is crap. It was clear since at least November 1941 that barring a miracle, Japan was going to go to war against the United States. The thinking at the time was that the bulk of the Japanese effort would be against the Philippines and British and Dutch colonial possessions. The army and navy commanders at Pearl Harbor were warned of potential Japanese actions against them in late November. General Short interpreted possible Japanese action as sabotage, and did not disperse USAAF aircraft, so they might be more easily guarded. Kimmel did very little. Neither ordered air patrols to the north and north west of the islands. 2533. Wombat - 6/4/2001 12:57:57 PM 2534. Ronski - 6/4/2001 1:18:21 PM Wombat, 2535. Wombat - 6/4/2001 2:23:35 PM Ronski: 2536. ranheim - 6/4/2001 7:18:17 PM I have always found it interesting that the USA was bombed at Pearl Harbor by the Japanese - and we went to war in Europe against the Germans. 2537. Wombat - 6/5/2001 8:50:53 AM Ranheim: 2538. ScottLoar - 6/5/2001 10:28:27 AM I understood the US went to war in Europe against the Germans because FDR rightly understood that the collapse of Great Britain would spell an end to Western Civilization. Yes, I said "Western Civilization". Even so, 90% of the US Navy was active against the Japanese, and in truth after the fall of Singapore the Americans were the only ones with naval power to counter the Japanese. 2539. LohrM - 6/5/2001 7:14:48 PM The German declaration of war in 1941 caught even the Kriegsmarine high command by surprise-- though, given that Hitler and his inner circle had little use for Erich Raeder and that Hitler never fully grasped naval affairs (see, inter alia, his proposed Plan Z for a showy big-gun battle fleet and his cancellation of aircraft carrier projects and his seeming indifference to submarines until far too late in the day)that may not be surprising. 2540. LohrM - 6/5/2001 7:20:51 PM sakonige-- i'm forgetting the mayan book, but look for things by Coe... 2541. LohrM - 6/5/2001 7:23:36 PM Wombat-- it always strikes me as a serious failure on the part of the Japanese to have not looked at some of the real targets at Pearl Harbor: the graving docks and the (stored above ground in tanks pending new storage areas) reserves of aviation fuel, targets that would've gone a long way to hampering US ability to operate in the Pacific. 2542. ranheim - 6/5/2001 7:24:17 PM I have never found the answer to this question - the Battle of Britain was fought before the USA entered WW II (Summer and Fall of 1940). Maybe some of you can help. 2543. LohrM - 6/5/2001 7:41:00 PM Certainly the RAF purchased and operated large numbers of US aircraft, combat and transport both. I don't know how many US citizens enlisted directly in the RAF or went up to Canada and the RCAF, but I'd guess several hundred. 2544. ScottLoar - 6/5/2001 7:58:53 PM FDR thought Britain would fall if the US were not in the war, and on hearing the news of Pearl Harbour Churchill recollects his immediate thought was that the war would be won, and retired peacefully to rest that night. 2545. ScottLoar - 6/5/2001 8:00:17 PM I believe the principal fighter planes on the Brit side were Hurricanes which far ounumbered the now better-known Spitfires. 2546. LohrM - 6/5/2001 8:12:23 PM Yes. More Hurricanes than Spitfires... (There was a carrier-borne version of the Spitfire called the Seafire that I always liked...) 2547. Wombat - 6/5/2001 9:11:00 PM Battle of Britain fighters were all of British design and manufacture: Hurricanes, Spitfires, Defiants. US volunteers formed the Eagle squadron (don't know how many served). 2548. Wombat - 6/5/2001 9:16:20 PM Lohr: 2549. ranheim - 6/6/2001 9:02:17 AM The above posts have confirmed my opinion that the USA had very little to do with the success of the Battle of Britain. The USA had a lot to do with the success of WW II; but, not that portion of it. 2550. Wombat - 6/6/2001 10:40:14 AM Without US participation in the Atlantic and Western Front operations of World War II, it is likely that both Britain and the Soviet Union would have sued for separate and disadvantageous peace settlements with Germany. This would have left both Britain and the Soviet Union much weaker, and left German ambitions unslaked. It would have also left the United States at a huge strategic disadvantage in the event of a war with Germany. 2551. Ronski - 6/6/2001 11:41:03 AM If I recall the family history correctly, my late partner's step-grandfather was with Churchill when the news about Pearl Harbor reached Britain, and that Churchill was indeed pleased. How could he be otherwise? 2552. Indiana Jones - 6/6/2001 12:03:10 PM In Churchill's memoirs (I think it's at the close of "Their Finest Hour"), he admits his "joy" because he knew at that moment no matter how long it might take and how difficult the victory, the Allies eventual triumph was assured. 2553. CalGal - 6/6/2001 1:05:36 PM Pelle, 2554. Wombat - 6/6/2001 1:17:42 PM Cal: 2555. ranheim - 6/6/2001 4:46:11 PM I have always said that USA participation in WW II was inevitable. It is WW I that I would have like to have seen the USA avoid. 2556. pseudoerasmus - 6/7/2001 11:45:44 PM A master brewer in a small Bulgarian town dies and everyone is depressed. 'How will we brew our beer?', laments the village elder. 'He never wrote down the recipe!'. Life seems pointless until one day when someone discovers a bottle in the brewer's cellar. Another villager has a brainstorm. 'I know of a famous laboratory in Paris where they can perform a chemical analysis of the beer. Then we will have the recipe!!'. The villagers rush to package the bottle and send it to Paris. 2557. AytchMan - 6/8/2001 11:02:49 PM Without US participation in the Atlantic and Western Front operations of World War II, it is likely that both Britain and the Soviet Union would have sued for separate and disadvantageous peace settlements with Germany. 2558. PelleNilsson - 6/9/2001 2:54:39 PM My view is that the US saved Europe from the Soviets, not from the Germans. 2559. AytchMan - 6/9/2001 7:32:57 PM True, but only in hindsight. The US saw Germany as much the greater enemy until about 1943-44. Until about that time, there was considerable sympathy for the Soviets within both the US government and the general public. 2560. ranheim - 6/9/2001 8:33:53 PM The hamburger people? Or the airplane manf.? 2561. AytchMan - 6/9/2001 9:04:20 PM Le Grand Mac, of course. McDonnell is the airplane folks. 2562. ScottLoar - 6/10/2001 7:05:56 AM The US "saved" Europe in the sense it disallowed the Soviets from occupying all of the ground held by the Nazis, but WWII in Europe was primarily a war between the Nazis and the Soviets:the Soviets inflicted 80% of German casualties and occupied the major brunt of the German war effort as testifies the battles of Stalingrad and Kursk which were over and decided before 6 June 1944. This does not make the Normandy invasion superfluous, especially as the invasion doubtlessly shortened the war (US military planners were thinking of victory in '46 or beyond) and doubtlessly saved lives, military and civilian. 2563. ScottLoar - 6/10/2001 7:08:45 AM Standing aside to let Stalin's and Hilter's young men kill each other was not an option for Britain when war was declared nor for the US after Pearl Harbor. 2564. PelleNilsson - 6/10/2001 7:13:26 AM I spent a rainy day at the countryside reading The Footnote: A Curious History by Anthony Grafton in which the author tries to trace the origin of that bane of the academic paper. In doing so he also covers the wider subject of sources and source-criticism. 2565. Uzmakk - 6/10/2001 6:27:52 PM You are too good, Pelle Nilsson. 2566. ilyavinarsky - 6/10/2001 8:18:22 PM Lohr will appreciate this joke. I told it to my wife today, but for the life of me, I don't remember from whom I heard it or where I read it. 2567. ilyavinarsky - 6/10/2001 8:21:30 PM I am reading Kliuchevsky, and he is amazing! He is the Russian Gibbon. 2568. ilyavinarsky - 6/10/2001 8:25:26 PM A history book I finished yesterday is Russia and the Golden Horde by Charles Halperin. Whereas belonging to the Mongol aristocracy became irrelevant in China and Persia after the Mongol dynasties were overthrown, in Russia its importance lingered. Ivan the Terrible temporarily abdicated in favor of a descendant of Chingis Khan in 1575-6, being a Chingisid was a source of pride up until Peter the Great's reign, and even in the 19th century Chingisids wanted to be counted as members of the noble estate. 2569. ilyavinarsky - 6/10/2001 8:26:22 PM Has anyone read Mike Davis's Late Victorian Holocausts? 2570. LohrM - 6/11/2001 7:00:33 PM No, though I've seen the book... You might also look at Justin McCarthy's work on the slaughter of Ottoman Muslim populations in the Balkans... 2571. LohrM - 6/11/2001 7:05:56 PM I spent the weekend watching the tropical storm pass over, leaving the streets surrounding my neighborhood under water. Still, I read Thomas Sakmyster's "Admiral on Horseback"-- a bio of Admiral Miklos Horthy, the interwar Regent of Hungary and last commander in chief of the Habsburg fleet... Good book! I'd known Sakmyster was working on the book, but it took him a quarter-century to convert it from his PhD thesis to a published book... It did tell me one thing I hadn't known-- As a young officer on a show-the-flag cruise that called in Fiji and New Zealand, the young Horthy became entranced with Maori body art and had much of his torso done up in Maori tribal swirls and patterns... This may help explain why Horthy puzzled Hitler so much... 2572. ilyavinarsky - 6/11/2001 8:59:19 PM Czechoslovakia once wanted to have a Department of the Navy. "But you don't have any coastline!" "So what; doesn't the Soviet Union have a Ministry of Culture?" 2573. angel-five - 6/12/2001 12:54:02 AM The only explanation other than profound incompetence on the part of Kimmel and Short would be if they themselves were in on the "plot." Neither of them were incompetent, although the charge is more applicable to Short than to Kimmel. Their primary failure was a lack of communication with each other, abetted by a lack of communication with Washington (for which Washington was at least as guilty if not more so than they were). Kimmel and Short never received critical Purple intercepts that made it quite plain that the Japanese had plans to deal with the US Fleet in Pearl Harbor. They DID recieve communiques from Washington which suggested that the Japanese might hit Wake or the Philippines. At the time the Japanese were sailing toward Hawaii the US command was actually shifting bombers and reconnaissance craft away from Hawaii, not to mention the ships stripped out of the Pacific fleet, which indicates to a certain degree just how likely anyone else thought a strike on Pearl Harbor was at that time. You can blame Kimmel and Short for not communicating as well as they should have (a common interservice flaw), because if they would have communicated better at least one or the other would have realized that the other one wasn't conducting air reconnaissance. You can blame them, and Washington, for not telling each other needful things -- had Washington known that Kimmel's fleet wasn't at sea as they thought it was, they would have known to send certain later warnings which they did not send, and had Kimmel and Short known about the 'bomb plot' message, the 'winds execute' message and so on, they likely would have realized that despite what most everyone else thought, the Japanese did intend to attack them at home. 2574. angel-five - 6/12/2001 12:54:15 AM You can blame both for focusing on training up to the last minute rather than preparation for an air attack that VERY few people saw as a real possibility. You can blame Short for misunderstanding his responsibility to safeguard the Navy within the base and his overattention to the chance of sabotage (again, something that was reinforced strongly from Washington in his orders). You can blame Kimmel for not changing the routine which he inherited from Richardson, which made it easy for the Japanese to tell when the ships would be in harbor. You can blame both for not making use of the very meager long-range recon capacity they possessed -- although it's likely Nagumo's fleet would have easily slipped through such a thin net as the two men could toss up over the islands, the fact that neither bothered to try made it a certainty instead of a good chance. You can blame a whole host of people for not believing that the Japanese could engineer a torpedo capable of working in Pearl Harbor's shallow depths. But you can't really call Kimmel and Short incompetent, unless you're willing to say that the overwhelming majority of the Navy, and most of Washington, D.C. at that time, was similarly incompetent. A few people predicted a surprise attack at Pearl Harbor would be a possibility -- Martin and Bellinger did, Layton did, some folks in Washington did -- but most were taken completely off guard, just as Short and Kimmel were. 2575. angel-five - 6/12/2001 12:59:20 AM Most people forget, if they ever knew, that Douglas MacArthur, in the Philippines, not only found himself facing the likelihood of a Japanese assault as Kimmel and Short did but also actually got specific warning that he was going to be attacked, which Kimmel and Short never did. What's more, he had word of Pearl Harbor, and knew the Japanese were at war before they struck him. And MacArthur still got taken by surprise, still had his air force shot to pieces on the ground at Clark Field, and still got his ass kicked foursquare straight the hell out of the Philippines. The primary difference in his situation and that of Husband Kimmel was that MacArthur was given the chance to vindicate himself where Kimmel was sacked immediately. 2576. angel-five - 6/12/2001 1:08:56 AM And, I'm sure you know this as well, but a) radar at that time was far from an exact science and b) there was a flight of B-17s expected along the heading that the Japanese were detected flying on. The radar picked the planes up. The controlling officer to whom the radar operators reported was in the know about the B-17s and his operators were not. The operators were told not to worry about it because of security reasons, not laxity. Incidently, the operator who picked up the Japanese flight knew by his readings that it was huge, well over 50 planes. He mentioned this to his fellow officer but did not include it in the phone report. If he had reported this to the controlling officer, the message would have gone right up to the top like a rocket. He did not, and it did not. Now, again, you can blame the fledgling radar people for not setting up clearly defined lanes of approach which would have let the radar operators quickly separate out traffic that was likely friendly from unknown traffic. Not that that would have worked very well, given the range by which flights from the mainland were commonly off course. But they might have done it. Still, one has to remember that radar was far from a well-understood system, and neither was massed naval air power at the time. 2577. angel-five - 6/12/2001 1:10:02 AM Moreover, the fourteenth part of the message was not a declaration of war. 2578. ScottLoar - 6/12/2001 1:40:41 AM In short, the attack on Pearl Harbor surprised the Americans. 2579. ranheim - 6/12/2001 3:00:20 PM Sure did! The boondocks had no idea that war was on the horizon - unless one read the Chicago Tribune. 2580. ScottLoar - 6/12/2001 6:46:34 PM (FDR) had been doing everything in his power ( most of it extra-legal) to cause the USA to enter WW II, which returns to my thesis he acted so to save "Western Civilization". 2581. LohrM - 6/12/2001 6:57:04 PM Exactly. Roosevelt's naval war in the Atlantic in 1941 was, extra-legal or not, a decidely good thing, as was the provision of 'mercenaries' like Chennault to China. 2582. sakonige - 6/12/2001 7:03:06 PM 2583. LohrM - 6/12/2001 7:13:28 PM i'm not a major WW-2 fan, but, hey...we all grew up with it on the TV-- old movies every saturday or late-night --and in comic books. it's a background everyone knows something about. 2584. sakonige - 6/12/2001 7:30:53 PM 2585. LohrM - 6/12/2001 7:41:23 PM no, but it was the first war where almost everything was filmed... its images are not only available on gun-camera or newsreel footage, they provided the sets for hundreds of films... 2586. angel-five - 6/12/2001 8:08:29 PM Sure did! The boondocks had no idea that war was on the horizon - unless one read the Chicago Tribune. On the contrary, it was WELL known that Japan and the US were close to conflict. War with Japan was at the forefront of everyone's mind in Hawaii and Washington for a long time -- diplomatic relations had nearly broken off more than once, and the US was well aware of Japanese aggression in the sphere they wished to dominate. And the US had intercepted diplomatic messages indicating that the Japanese were going to go to war and that their posture of diplomacy in Washington was only a posture. 'War warning' messages were sent out to every command in the Pacific. What's more, the US command was well aware of the Japanese propensity to initiate hostilities with a sneak attack. What no one saw coming was the Japanese strike at Pearl Harbor, as opposed to strikes at US holdings in the South Pacific, which as everyone knew was the prize Japan was eyeing. It is comfortably easy for us today to acknowledge the chance that the Japanese could attack the Fleet at Pearl -- after all, they did. What isn't so easy for us to recall are the long odds against the success of such a measure. 2587. angel-five - 6/12/2001 8:09:02 PM It's important to remember that even in the Japanese wargames where the attack was tried and tried again, disaster for their fleet was a common result -- even though the Japanese officials umpiring the wargame heavily favored the Japanese in their decision. The problems with tanking such a long strike, covering such a long distance of the stormy North Pacific in complete radio silence without being spotted by ANY traffic en route let alone by air and naval reconnaissance out of Pearl, were such that the Japanese could not have hoped in their wildest dreams that the assault would go as smoothly as it did. Their success depended entirely upon surprise; although their competence was great and their training prepared them well, and they displayed great skill, courage and dash in the assault, the Japanese still got incredibly lucky at Pearl. Kimmel and Short committed many errors and it's impossible to exculpate them entirely, but, it's only fair to mention the fact that there were quite good reasons why so many people didn't believe the Japanese would attack at Pearl. 2588. angel-five - 6/12/2001 8:13:52 PM Of course, there were stupid reasons as well. Many Americans did not believe that the Japanese had the skill, the courage or the technology to dare take them on, and they got a terribly rude awakening. Others knew the Japanese had the capability to attack at Pearl but surmised that they never would because it would be such a huge mistake for them in the long run, forgetting that nations aren't always led by supremely rational people. And Japan was dominated by its military, not by men of peace. Some just didn't understand the new science of naval airpower, much less how it would irrevocably change the focus of any Navy from its battleships and heavy cruisers to its carriers and fast escorts. 2589. ScottLoar - 6/13/2001 5:44:54 AM Of course, there were stupid reasons as well, as the Japanese thought Americans cowardly pacific, incapacitated by culture to withstand the Japanese spirit of bushido, and so Japanese victory was heavenly inspired and a foregone conclusion so long as that spirit and confidence remained unsullied by doubts and even material considerations. 2590. LohrM - 6/13/2001 7:08:51 PM Hmmm... The novel "The Great Pacific War", which later writers claimed (with a modicum of accuracy) predicted the Pacific War and a surprise attack on Pearl harbor did appear early in the 1930s. Yamamoto is supposed to have read it... 2591. angel-five - 6/13/2001 7:37:26 PM There's lots of legends surrounding how Yamamoto got the idea. One even has it that some Western journalist came up with the idea and wrote a story about it and Yamamoto found them and interrogated them until they came up with the entire story. The US did wargame surprise Japanese air attacks on Pearl Harbor, as early as 1933 I believe. And it was a common notion in the Imperial Navy, although almost everyone who considered the idea rejected it until Yamamoto, not without a little use of psychology, finally got everyone to accept the plan and support it wholeheartedly. The Martin-Bellinger (named for two air generals stationed in Hawaii) report on a possible attack on Pearl Harbor was actually eerily accurate, down to how many carriers the Japanese would field in it, what time it would most likely occur, and why it could succeed. 2592. angel-five - 6/13/2001 7:39:59 PM Er, until they relayed the entire reasoning and story to Yamamoto, who then translated it into an attack plan. Lots of people early on foresaw the potential for an attack on Pearl, which is why it was invested with troops and defenses to the point that it was deemed 'The Gibraltar of the Pacific'. It was thought that the natural problems with an attack on Pearl, combined with these defenses, would sufficiently deter attack, which is why it was so unthinkable to so many people at the time. 2593. LohrM - 6/13/2001 7:49:37 PM The author of the novel was an American journalist. I'd never heard the story that the Kempetai interrogated him, but he did indeed die under suspicious circumstances, leading to later stories that he had gathered information in China and early-30s Japan for the US. There's a bio of him out, though I can't recall the title. 2594. angel-five - 6/13/2001 8:15:36 PM The man I am thinking of is named Hector Bywater -- but he was a Brit, a journalist for the London Observer. There is a bio out about him called Bywater: The Man who Invented the Pacific War. I have read that there was a novel released in the 20s which dealt with a Japanese surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, but have no idea what the name is or if it's by the man you have in mind. 2595. LohrM - 6/13/2001 8:25:00 PM Bywater, yes... And there were several sci-fi stories in the 30s that began with an attack (aircraft, but often with gas) on Oahu. 2596. angel-five - 6/13/2001 8:28:39 PM A minor point, perhaps: The story goes that Yamamoto got Bywater sloshed in a hotel and interrogated him until the plan came out, not that the journalist was ever taken into custody. Passing strange, yes, but there are some decidedly odd stories floating around about Pearl Harbor. 2597. ranheim - 6/14/2001 1:26:17 AM And only the ghost of FDR will ever reveal to you - or anyone else - what is true and what is fiction. 2598. Wombat - 6/14/2001 9:46:10 AM Who would opt for Clinton over Roosevelt? 2599. Wombat - 6/14/2001 9:50:20 AM Lohr: 2600. ScottLoar - 6/14/2001 10:04:03 AM One could certainly be a member of the Wermacht or Luftwaffe or Kriegsmarine and still hate Nazis, although current sentiments deny so. Who was that member of the Hungarian (?) aristrocracy and an honoured Luftwaffe ace who openly despised Hitler himself? 2601. angel-five - 6/14/2001 10:18:37 AM Indeed true. Members of some of Germany's leading families were pressured to join the NSDAP, with threats of dire consequences if they did not. Joining the armed forces was an out for them and many took it. There were more than one planned uprising which members of the German military dreamed up and led -- the Beck insurrection and the statewide coup following the detonation of Stauffenberg's bomb are the two best examples. 2602. Wombat - 6/14/2001 10:29:36 AM Angel: 2603. PelleNilsson - 6/14/2001 2:01:03 PM I wonder when LohrM will treat us to a first piece on the Balkan wars? 2604. ranheim - 6/14/2001 3:23:53 PM I have not read the book. I wonder if any of you have - Robert Stinnett : Day of Deceit, The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor. 2605. Wombat - 6/14/2001 3:54:34 PM I haven't read it; although I have read about it. You can too in today's Salon. The consensus among reputable historians who know anything about cryptography and US capabilities at the time is that it is utter crap. 2606. LohrM - 6/14/2001 7:08:09 PM Pelle-- I'll post it this weekend. After last weekend's rainstorms, I had power outages and helping friends move furniture from low-lying homes to contend with. 2607. ranheim - 6/14/2001 8:22:56 PM It "worked" ONLY because of WW II. Without that, FDR's programs were doing no/very, very little good. 2608. LohrM - 6/14/2001 8:31:53 PM The New Deal put an end to the worst of the Depression and restored a sense of optimism. The expenditures of WW-2 did indeed invoke prosperity, since those expenditures were on a level never imagined by even the most ardent New Dealers. But the US economy in '39/'40 had come a long, long way from the ruins of '31... And the war itself created a host of new agencies and programs to manage and control the economy-- something common in all modern states. But I'd argue that not many of the New Deal programs were 'failures'. The big ones, certainly, created a social safety net that kept the US out of major economic troubles for decades... 2609. LohrM - 6/14/2001 8:33:36 PM Pelle-- take a look at http://www.spacesofidentity.net 2610. angel-five - 6/14/2001 10:21:21 PM Yes...but, most of the anti-Nazi conspirators still wanted to retain much of what Germany had conquered, and would have preferred a separate peace with the US and Britain and continued fighting against the Soviet Union. Some would. But when von Stauffenberg tried to win Manstein over to the cause, he used one specific word: Tauroggen. If one remembers Tauroggen and what concluded there and how, one has to question whether these officers really did intend anything other than a concluded peace with Stalin. As far as keeping conquered territory, that may or may not be true, I can't recall at the moment. Why do you bring it up? 2611. PelleNilsson - 6/15/2001 5:36:47 AM This links to the Salon's review of Stinnet's book on FDR. 2612. PelleNilsson - 6/15/2001 5:38:31 AM As to why this need to vilify FDR persists, Salon's reviewer writes: 2613. Wombat - 6/15/2001 8:17:16 AM Angel-5: 2614. Wombat - 6/15/2001 8:25:17 AM Angel-5: 2615. angel-five - 6/15/2001 8:53:19 PM He specifically made the reference to Manstein who was, at the time, fighting on the Ostfront, in the context of a discussion on the utility of continued fighting, and when Manstein exploded in response to the reference it was made clear shortly afterward that not only did a Prussian Field Marshal not mutiny, but that Manstein would never, agree to a concluded peace with Stalin. 2616. ranheim - 6/16/2001 12:29:44 AM Pelle 2617. angel-five - 6/16/2001 2:17:15 AM The thing with Roosevelt isn't just what Pelle said. He was really seen as being a traitor to his class. Anybody with the chutzpah to address a Daughters of the American Revolution convocation and start by calling them all 'immigrants' tends to evoke a reaction like that. FDR was an extremely hard person to read and not even the people closest to him ever got a sense that they could trust him completely. He could wear his own face as a mask and was an undoubted master at personally manipulating people. It is so hard these days to determine what he did and did not do, with -- as Pelle notes -- this frothing hatred that's still around coming from one side and the Roosevelt apologists coming from the other. Yet I've never read anything which indicates he did do any of the nefarious things he's been accused of over time, like setting up the attack on Pearl Harbor and concluding secret agreements with Churchill that he would attack in the South Pacific and so on. There's room for revisionists in the Roosevelt room but some of the charges leveled against him boggle the mind. 2618. ranheim - 6/16/2001 7:52:57 AM FDR's was behind the oil embargo on the Japanese Empire of that day. Without this source of power, I doubt that the Japanese had too many other options. 2619. Wombat - 6/16/2001 11:37:53 AM The United States--and other countries--had been applying sanctions on Japan since the 1930s. Are you suggesting that the US was wrong to do this, given what was known about Japan's ambitions and the brutality of Japanese rule in areas they captured? 2620. ranheim - 6/16/2001 3:19:19 PM I am suggesting that it none of FDR's (or the USA's) business. An oil embargo, that is. 2621. jexster - 6/16/2001 3:53:21 PM FDR was an extremely hard person to read and not even the people closest to him ever got a sense that they could trust him completely. He could wear his own face as a mask and was an undoubted master at personally manipulating people 2622. jexster - 6/16/2001 3:58:05 PM I see UR point Ranheim...Its VERY easy to empathize with the Japanese insofar as they were getting screwed big time...after all, an argument can be (and was) made that all they were doing was playing by the rules of the 19th century game that all the white bois had been playing and winning.... 2623. angel-five - 6/16/2001 10:33:05 PM Isolationists? Didn't they all die out around WWII? Anyone can look at the situation in the South Pacific and SE Asia at the time and know, right off the bat, that Japan had designs on an empire of their own. Anyone can look at their government at the time and realize it was controlled by an aggressive militarist cadre, one which had launched invasion after invasion and forced their own government to support them after the fact. Selling them oil could have done the US no good at all, and would not have forestalled a war. Japan needed an empire of colonies to provide it with the raw materials it lacked internally. Their demands to the US claimed that the only way the two nations could maintain relations was if the US agreed to provide the Japanese with all the raw materials they could require -- and even as they made these demands they were preparing to bomb Pearl Harbor anyway. I must say that I do not think we would have stayed out of a war in the South Pacific, had Japan not attacked Pearl Harbor. If anyone else in the ABCD countries were attacked by Japan, we would have moved in to help defend them --Britian the quickest of all, because Britian could not hope to fight both the Japanese and the Germans alone. Roosevelt's communications to Churchill indicate that he might not be able to immediately go to war but that it would happen as soon as practicable, should the Japanese attack Brit holdings in SE Asia and the South Pacific. 2624. angel-five - 6/16/2001 10:37:52 PM Ignoring the Japanese in the Pacific would have been pretty much like ignoring Hitler in Europe. And, what's more, the US absolutely did not want to tangle with a militaristic Japan which had colonized the South Pacific and SE Asia and had had any length of peaceful time in which to profit from the new sources of raw materials. 2625. ranheim - 6/17/2001 1:07:57 AM We are talking about the 1940s!! 2626. angel-five - 6/18/2001 12:17:09 AM Do you people understand how vast (impregnable?) the Atlantic and the Pacific Oceans are!! Do you realize how terribly important the rest of the world's economy was to the United States? And, no, I do not think the Atlantic and Pacific would have been impregnable barriers to an Axis power which would been given the unopposed chance to gain the raw materials it needed. Certainly not if it had triumphed over the Soviet Union, which, if you'll remember correctly, wasn't terribly far from North America at all. In addition to these pragmatic concerns there is the issue of all the other people who would have died under those regimes. I am extremely glad that internationalists have always triumphed over isolationists when crunch time came for American foreign policy, but part of me occasionally wishes that it hadn't. Why? Because the reason American isolationism has not been eradicated yet by common sense is that America, thanks to interventionism, has always managed to stave off what would surely have happened had we chosen an isolationist doctrine. Americans have never had to deal with the full bitter harvest of isolationism. Tasting that harvest would put an end to American isolationists, and perhaps the rest of us as well. 2627. angel-five - 6/18/2001 12:38:02 AM We aren't talking about the nineteen forties, Ranheim. That's the mistake isolationists typically make. You look and you point at 1941 Japan and 1941 Germany, or 1914 Germany, or 1951 USSR, and you go on about how they could not have possibly at that time posed a threat to our mainland. Forgetting, for the moment, what would have happened had Germany had four or five more years to work on its ballistic missile program. Forgetting what would happen to our own economy if we hadn't protected our foreign trading partners. Most important of all, forgetting that you're the only one talking about the Axis state of readiness in 1941. Everyone else is talking about the Axis state of readiness in 1955 under a unified Europe and SE Asia/Oceania. No lend lease, no US convoy escorting, goodbye Britian 1942. Hello, German occupation of the Suez, Gibraltar, Malta, Great Britain, and associated territory. No US aid to Russia, no US bombing or US-led invasions in North Africa, Sicily, Italy and France -- or even a major threat of them -- goodbye, Russian oilfields, goodbye Moscow, Leningrad and Stalingrad, goodbye, Stalin. Hello, Russia under the swastika at least to the Urals. Hello, massive amounts of raw materials and resources feeding Germany. Hello, a Europe unified under Hitler by 1947. And that's just in the European Axis. 2628. angel-five - 6/18/2001 12:38:33 AM And the question then arises whether or not America would have remained truly democratic or whether those American industrialists who favored a fascist economy would have gotten their way, with help from overseas. If America had not been overrun, it certainly would have been an isolated state -- but isolated in the worst way possible. Would all of this definitely happened? The odds favor it. If Germany had been able to field another fifty or so divisions on its eastern front (that's a conservative estimate of how many divisions would have been freed up in Western Europe, IMO) and would have been able to build its industrial base without fear of Allied bombing -- and remember, German industrial output actually increased for most of the war despite the fact that its factories were routinely blown apart, so imagine what it would have done had there been no bombers at all --there is little doubt in my mind that Germany would have beaten Stalin. 2629. angel-five - 6/18/2001 12:45:06 AM This is not really any attack on the worth of the Russian footsoldier or the Russian army. It rarely gets the credit it deserves. But fifty divisions, even broken up, would have given the Germans a clean victory at either Stalingrad or Moscow, possibly both. And let's not forget that if the US pursued an actively isolationist foreign policy the Japanese picture in the Pacific would have been much different. Rather than be locked in a death grip in the South Pacific and in stasis in China and Manchuria, the South Pacific would be Japanese except for isolated American holdings, and Stalin would not have been able to pull any troops out of Siberia at all. These are the troops which gave him his potential to generate a counteroffensive. Even for some reason assuming that Germany would have not gotten fifty more division to play with, the massive Russian numerical superiority would have dwindled to the point where no counteroffensive would have been possible. 2630. ranheim - 6/18/2001 1:31:40 AM What was the population of Germany in the war(WW II) years? 2631. angel-five - 6/18/2001 1:35:54 AM What was the population of Europe, the USSR, North Africa, SE Asia, the South Pacific and Japan in the war years? What was the population of the US at the same time? Sooner or later, attrition always does. The fact that you can state that as a principle which works in your favor suggests that you're not really grasping the issue. 2632. ranheim - 6/18/2001 1:38:59 AM Your wavelength and mine - seemingly - don't match. 2633. angel-five - 6/18/2001 1:41:52 AM Bed is easier than critically engaging on the issue and inspecting one's beliefs. Hope you enjoy it. 2634. Wombat - 6/18/2001 10:43:39 AM Well put, Angel-5. You might also have noted that a number of South American regimes were already leaning toward the Axis in 1941, a trend which would have been encouraged by the collapse of Britain and the Soviet Union. Nazi subversion in areas already sympathetic to fascism well have provided a foothold for German troops in the Americas. 2635. ranheim - 6/18/2001 2:52:24 PM a-five 2636. PelleNilsson - 6/18/2001 3:05:27 PM What follows is an abridged2637. PelleNilsson - 6/18/2001 3:06:16 PM What follows is an abridged2638. Wombat - 6/18/2001 3:07:21 PM Puppet regimes set up following German conquests were by no means non-viable. A steady string of Axis victories would have increased their legitimacy, in the same way that German defeats decreased it. 2639. PelleNilsson - 6/18/2001 3:10:25 PM Toys 2640. PelleNilsson - 6/18/2001 3:11:06 PM Again 2641. PelleNilsson - 6/18/2001 3:17:36 PM Sorry about this. Homestead screwed up the browser something fantastic. 2642. PelleNilsson - 6/18/2001 3:25:51 PM Before I go on with the Balkans: I agree with Wombat. With England defeated and the US staying out the Qusling regimes (led by nationals with Germans in "advisory" roles) would eventually have gained sufficient legitimacy to stay in power. 2643. PelleNilsson - 6/18/2001 3:27:18 PM Make that "with England and Russia defeated". 2644. PelleNilsson - 6/18/2001 3:48:57 PM What follows is an abridged version of LohrM's account of the Balkan Wars. The text displayed is the original. The portions left out deal mainly with the actual conduct of the war, the battles, the sieges, the conditions on the battlefield. They were left out in order to keep the number of posts down. The full version will soon be availabe at the Balkans site listed in the butterscotch bar (homestead.com seems to have some technical problems at present). 2645. PelleNilsson - 6/18/2001 3:50:47 PM For Western Europe, the war that began in August 1914 is the Great War-the war that swept away the old social and political order. For the peoples of southeastern Europe, that war began in October 1912 with the opening of the First Balkan War-and would end not in November 1918 but with the establishment of the Serb-dominated Kingdom of Yugoslavia in 1921 and the creation of the Turkish Republic in 1923. The two Balkan Wars included only some ten weeks of "official" warfare (six weeks for the First Balkan War, hardly more than a month for the Second), but for many of the region's peoples-in Macedonia, Thrace, Albania, and parts of eastern Bosnia -the fighting and suffering would continue on into World War One and beyond. 2646. PelleNilsson - 6/18/2001 3:53:12 PM By 1912 the outline of a Balkan League based on Serbia and Bulgaria and including Greece and Montenegro was clear-as was its offensive intent. Over the previous decade, Serbia, Bulgaria, and Greece had all become substantial military powers, investing heavily in the latest German and French weapons for their vastly enlarged armies. Balkan armies were seen as both guarantors and creators of the state, and national identity had become fused with the idea of victory against the Ottomans as "national liberation". The Balkan League, envisioned by Russia as a way to stabilize the region, had become a means for the Balkan states to cement their national identities at the expense of the Ottomans. 2647. PelleNilsson - 6/18/2001 3:54:54 PM By 1912 unrest in the Albania vilayets, fueled by arms shipped in by Montenegro, had become complete chaos. Albanian groups, joined by anti-Young Turk units of the Ottoman garrison, were in control of much of the countryside. In the Spring of 1912 a force of 20,000 Kosovo Albanians occupied Skopje in Macedonia. The Albanians, however difficult to handle, had long been a bulwark of the empire. The collapse of Ottoman authority in the west opened the way to Serbian and Bulgarian expansion into territory seen as their "historic" birthright. In late summer 1912 Montenegrin forces began to move into Albania, and on 8 October 1912 weeks of infiltration by irregulars were followed by a declaration of war from Prince Nikola's government in Cetinje. 2648. PelleNilsson - 6/18/2001 3:56:41 PM The armistice left the Ottomans in possession of only three areas west of the Chataldzha lines-the three besieged fortresses of Adrianople in Thrace, Scutari in Albania, and Janina in Epirus. The Turks used the next two months to delay any final settlement, hoping for Great Power diplomatic aid and for the Balkan allies to fall out among themselves. The first hope very nearly materialized: Italy and the Habsburg Monarchy demanded that Serbia end its occupation of northern Albania and the port of Durres (Durazzo) and offered to recognize an independent Albania. Yet when the armistice collapsed at the end of January 1913, the Balkan alliance was still tenuously together. 2649. PelleNilsson - 6/18/2001 3:58:27 PM The series of treaties formally ending the wars cost Bulgaria the great bulk of its gains in Macedonia and Thrace, though it would try to regain its lost conquests in 1915-16. Adrianople, the first Ottoman imperial capital, was once again secure under the eight horsetails of the Sultan's standard. Greece had gained control of Salonika and northern Epirus and had hopes on going on into southern Albania. Serbia's gains were not only territory seized in Macedonia and Kosovo, but diplomatic as well. Serbia replaced Bulgaria as the recipient of Russian patronage in the Balkans, and a weakened Montenegro was rapidly becoming a Serbian satellite-- a process which would climax in the winter of 1919, when Serb artillery put an end to Montenegrin independence in the ruins of Cetinje. 2650. PelleNilsson - 6/18/2001 3:59:59 PM To those military figures must be added tens of thousands of civilians slaughtered or dead or cholera and dysentery. The outbreaks of the autumn of 1912 spread with the movement of huge numbers of refugees, and disease was still raging when a new war began in the summer of 1914. 2651. PelleNilsson - 6/18/2001 4:01:16 PM The Balkan Wars had in a real sense no clear end. Sparring and skirmishing went on in Macedonia between Serb irregulars (led by the semi-clandestine Black Hand movement within the Serbian military) and their Bulgarian counterparts (led by the equally semi-official, semi-underground IMRO), and would cease only after 1945. Serb forces harried inside Albania despite threats from Vienna, and cetnik bands from Serb-held Kosovo ("Old Serbia") fought Habsburg light infantry in the wild lands east of the Bosna River inside Bosnia-Herzegovina throughout the year prior to the outbreak of World War One. While international efforts were made to establish an independent Albania, the authority of the new Albanian state and its Great Power-imposed German-born prince did not extend outside the port city of Durres; the countryside remained in chaos. In late 1913 and early 1914 much of Europe fully expected that a war between Serbia and the Habsburg Monarchy, a war that would surely drag in Russia and Germany, would begin at Scutari. When war did come, in the aftermath of the Sarajevo murders, for many of the Balkan peoples the distinction was meaningless. War had begun in 1912 and would last for a decade. 2652. LohrM - 6/18/2001 5:52:23 PM Pelle-- thanks for posting my Balkan War piece so soon! I'm open to doing any other eras in the region you need... 2653. angel-five - 6/18/2001 6:02:55 PM One of the lessons to be learned upon the death of Tito and devolution of the Soviet Union is that is it very difficult to govern disparate peoples. Yes. Rather handily. England would have required a moderately large garrison but then again, one would have said the same thing about France. The French resistance didn't amount to much. The Nazis found willing accomplices in every nation they invaded, many of whom were willing to match them in atrocities if not attempt to outdo them (the Croats leap to mind). Some of these were volkdeutsch, most of them were not. Assuming a victory by 1947, even granting that there would be regions of southern Russia that would have been hard to govern, I have no problem saying that there would be a fairly unified European Reich by 1955. Who wouldn't have been subservient? The Swiss? Please. The Swedes? Pelle can tell you about Swede-Nazi relations in the period when the Nazis were unchecked. You think Franco would have sat on the sidelines? 2654. angel-five - 6/18/2001 6:04:39 PM Besides, if one looks at the USSR, as long as it remained a strong nation it had little to fear along the lines of various republics breaking away. 2655. ilyavinarsky - 6/18/2001 6:17:06 PM When Channel Islands were occupied by the Germans, the locals happily collaborated. 2656. ScottLoar - 6/18/2001 6:19:26 PM Empires are empires only through the tacit consent of the ruled, because it answers the need of those ruled. No empire, no matter how brutally efficient, lasts long against opposition of the very people it rules. Some groups larger like the Croats or smaller like political weirdoes in England, the US and elsewhere affiliated themselves to the Nazis to kill Jews or visit destruction on hereditary enemies or just envy what they assumed were the fascists' political efficiency as a remedy for their own society's ills, but these affiliations only prove that empires rule through the tacit compliance of the ruled. 2657. ScottLoar - 6/18/2001 6:20:30 PM Hell, when the US Army took after the Sioux their neighbors the Crow happily applied as scouts and killed to their hearts' content. 2658. LohrM - 6/18/2001 6:50:48 PM As well they should have. 2659. CalGal - 6/19/2001 3:14:16 AM Prominent Historian Admits Fabricating Vietnam Record 2660. PelleNilsson - 6/19/2001 5:46:40 AM I have problems with homestead.com. I cannot upload files. It may be a temporary error, it may also be part of the campaign to getting people to subscribe to their new "enhanced" service. 2661. ranheim - 6/19/2001 8:44:15 AM Hypotheticals can be fun and informative. 2662. PelleNilsson - 6/19/2001 3:22:34 PM LohrM Message # 2652 2663. ilyavinarsky - 6/19/2001 4:04:09 PM Everything is a construct. The Bulgarian and Macedonian languages are mutually intelligible, FWIW (but so are Russian, Ukrainian and Belarusian). 2664. Wombat - 6/19/2001 4:16:37 PM Much historiography and national "traditions" are constructs. However, they still have much power. Ever try ordering a Turkish coffee in a Greek restaurant? Assuming you don't get thrown out, you will be told that you can have a "Greek" coffee, which is--of course--identical. 2665. pseudoerasmus - 6/19/2001 5:35:54 PM Turkish coffee isn't Turkish, either. 2666. pseudoerasmus - 6/19/2001 5:39:39 PM To be specific, the Skopje dialect of Macedonian is mutually intelligible with Bulgarian. If you go to Tetovo (where the troubles are centred) or Lake Ohrid, the local Slavic dialect has got declensions (like Serbian but unlike Bulgarian). 2667. ilyavinarsky - 6/20/2001 2:28:20 PM Slavic languages impenetrably slide into one another, and it doesn't make sense to ask, on which side of the border they belong. I read (I think, in Hobsbawm) that when in the 1930s Polish government officials asked the inhabitants of Polesye (between today's Ukraine and Belarus), what ethnicity they are, they answered, "we are locals". 2668. LohrM - 6/20/2001 6:55:05 PM Pelle-- let me see what I can find on Macedonia. It was a disputed zone (all those Eric Ambler novels!) in the 20s and 30s, and in the 40s Italian and Bulgarian troops fought skirmishes over the area, much to the dismay of their German suzerains. 2669. LohrM - 6/20/2001 7:00:33 PM Hmmm... the Balkan Wars essay isn't up at Geocities as of 18h00 20 June 2001... 2670. Jenerator - 6/20/2001 7:30:01 PM What is the name of the new book by General Hugh Shelton? Anyone know? Anyone have it? 2671. LohrM - 6/20/2001 8:02:29 PM Wes Clark's book is "Waging Modern War"-- I haven't seen Shelton's. 2672. Jenerator - 6/20/2001 9:23:30 PM Maybe that's what I'm thinking of. I read a page ripped out of a magazine in the doctor's office last night. 2673. PelleNilsson - 6/21/2001 1:59:52 AM LohrM 2674. PelleNilsson - 6/21/2001 3:38:31 AM OK, done. 2675. stostosto - 6/21/2001 3:52:55 AM Dropping the underline (?) 2676. stostosto - 6/21/2001 3:55:02 AM Has anyone of you Balkan wonks read Richard Holbrook's book? Is it any good? Because I borrowed it from a public library the other day, and I might bring it with me on my holiday to France. (Along with about 8,000 other books that I'd like to read). 2677. PelleNilsson - 6/21/2001 6:11:54 AM I have read it. It is not unineresting by any means, but its main subject is Richard Holbrooke and what a tough and accomplished guy he is, facing down Slobo and the other evil Serbs. 2678. stostosto - 6/21/2001 6:13:21 AM Ah, Pelle. 2679. LohrM - 6/21/2001 5:16:03 PM Holbrooke is a terribly savvy and bright guy, but his memoirs are far more "the ego has landed" than most political memoirs... 2680. stostosto - 6/21/2001 5:17:51 PM Thanks, Lohr! 2681. LohrM - 6/21/2001 5:27:07 PM No... that one (at least when I heard it in Croatia in '96) was what military and press guys said whenever Holbrooke came to town. 2682. LohrM - 6/23/2001 12:31:25 PM I might like to ask Wombat what he thinks of the Ellis scandal. Is it a purely personal affair, or does it say something about the psychology of writing/teaching military history (see here Keegan's note of apology in "Face of Battle" for not having been in combat himself). Any thoughts? 2683. ilyavinarsky - 6/23/2001 5:36:57 PM So Marie-Antoinette never actually said, "Let them eat brioche!" Apparently, it was a slander. 2684. ScottLoar - 6/23/2001 6:16:32 PM Yes, but she did play at little shepherd girl, right down to porcelain milk buckets. 2685. jexster - 6/23/2001 9:14:45 PM Of course, Pelle is a notorious Slobo Slerb lover.... 2686. Wombat - 6/23/2001 9:30:14 PM Lohr: 2687. jexster - 6/23/2001 9:52:27 PM Fires of Hatred: Ethnic Cleansing in 20th Century Europe 2688. PelleNilsson - 6/24/2001 1:41:56 PM The Mote Concise History of the Balkans A Note on Montenegro After the disintegration of Yugoslavia starting in 1992, Montenegro (the Black Mountain) is the only one of the original six republics to stay in (an uneasy) union with Serbia. The movement for independence that was rather strong before the toppling of Milosevic seems to have abated, but once aroused such ideas have a tendency to stay on. Montenegrin independence would leave Serbia landlocked. Montenegro had a brief period 1878-1918 as an internationally recognised independent state. 1878 was the year of the Berlin Congress, one of many attempts to find a lasting solution to the "Great Eastern Crisis", the instability caused by the decay of the Ottoman empire. Chaired by Bismarck, the Congress decided to dismember Bulgaria by giving back East Rumelia to Turkey, to allow Austria-Hungary to occupy Bosnia-Hercegovina and to recognise Rumania, Serbia and Montenegro as independent states. During WWI, Montenegro was occupied by Austrian troops. When they withdrew in 1918 the Serbs marched in, and called together a "People's Assembly". Unsurprisingly, the assembly deposed king Nikola and declared union with Serbia. 2689. PelleNilsson - 6/24/2001 1:43:44 PM The early history of Montenegro has some curious features. From the 16th century the entity was a theocracy governed by vladyka, bishops elected by popular vote. In the 18th century the position became hereditary but not from father to son because the vladyka were celibate. Instead, each vladyka appointed a relative as successor. That have must made for some interesting intrigues at court. In 1852, Danilo I did away with the religious duties and became known as knjaz (prince). His son Nikola adopted the title of king in 1910. The current pretender is probably Nicolas Petrovich-Niegosh. The sources I have seen name his father Michael I but he is born in 1902: possibly he has stopped pretending by now 2690. Wombat - 6/26/2001 9:17:53 AM Now that many of us have taken the "Political Compass" test in the politics thread (and digested some suprising results), let's examine some of the historical characters cited by the authors, as well as the value of such methods of classifying world leaders and us insignificant worker bees. 2691. LohrM - 6/27/2001 6:58:16 PM Damn it, Wombat, I show up here just for a minute and now I'm being sent off to take this test... Well, let's see... 2692. LohrM - 6/27/2001 7:01:32 PM And now I can't find the link. Just perfect for a Wednesday. 2693. LohrM - 6/27/2001 7:02:05 PM I did mean to note that McCullough's bio of John Adams is delightful... 2694. LohrM - 6/30/2001 12:44:30 PM A small but interesting book I found at the library Thursday... Anna Simons, "The Company They Keep". Simons is an anthropologist who married a US Special Forces medic. The book is an anthropological look at Special Forces teams. Interesting on its own terms, and a useful counter to a great many novels and (pseudo-)memoirs... 2695. PelleNilsson - 6/30/2001 12:56:24 PM Hi Lohr, 2696. LohrM - 6/30/2001 4:16:06 PM pelle-- it entails 3 days of tests, 8 hours a day. four parts on the sections of the Code Civil (that'll be all the property, business/negotiable instruments, obligations, civil procedure, and family/matrimonial law) then parts on criminal law, federal jurisdiction, and torts. my university usually has a 75-80% first time pass rate, so here's hoping. 2697. Wombat - 7/10/2001 7:42:46 AM The CSS Hunley has now been raised and archaeologists are having a field day. Apparently the mud at the bottom of Charleston harbor did a wonderful job preserving the remains of the crew and their possessions. 2698. PelleNilsson - 7/14/2001 2:26:18 PM The Mote Concise History of the Balkans Digression on the Post-WWI Peace Treaties, Part 1 (I couldn't find any on-line version of the St. Germain treaty:) 2699. PelleNilsson - 7/14/2001 2:28:15 PM The treaties of Versailles, St. Germain and Trianon incorporated the statutes of the The first treaty with Turkey, at Sčvres was never implemented. It was very harsh. That Turkey would lose the Arab portion of its former empire was a foregone conclusion, but there were further territorial concessions. Armenia would get territory in north-eastern Turkey bringing it to the Black Sea. An autonomus Kurdish region would be established in eastern Turkey and northern Mesopotamia (Iraq), refer this map. After one year the region would be granted independence if its inhabitants so desired. The provisions for Kurdistan are in Articles 62-64 of the treaty. The basis for these provisions was the 12th of president Wilson's fourteen points: [...] the other nationalities which are now under Turkish rule shouldbe assured an undoubted security of life and an absolutely unmolested opportunity of autonomous development [...] 2700. PelleNilsson - 7/14/2001 2:30:44 PM Needless to say, the non-implementation of Sčvres is seen by the Kurds a betrayal by the Western powers. But the treaty continues to play an important role in their national struggle because it shows, in their view, that in principle their cause is a just one and was recognised as such in 1920. In western Turkey, the treaty carved out an area around Smyrna (Izmir) as an autonomous Greek region (map).After five years the inhabitants could choose to have the region formally incorporated into Greece, see clauses 65-83. 2701. PelleNilsson - 7/14/2001 2:31:54 PM Another country on which a harsh treaty was imposed was Hungary. It lost 2/3 of its territory and 1/3 of its Magyar population, most of them to Rumania, but there are significant Magyar minorities also in Serbia (Vojvodina) and Slovakia. There are constant quarrels between these countries and Hungary over education and cultural matters. Surprisingly, relations with Serbia seems to be the least problematic. 2702. PelleNilsson - 7/15/2001 6:47:09 AM The Mote Concise History of the Balkans Digression on the Post-WWI Peace Treaties, Part 2 2703. PelleNilsson - 7/15/2001 6:54:37 AM 2704. PelleNilsson - 7/15/2001 6:58:23 AM According to Pearson, the creation of Czechoslovakia was a con job carried out by the Czechs Benes and Masaryk. The latter was a professor of philosophy and he exploited his contacts in the academic world especially with president Wilson, another professor-turned-politician. 2705. PelleNilsson - 7/15/2001 7:01:34 AM We turn now to Yugoslavia and to Pearson who says it so well: 2706. PelleNilsson - 7/15/2001 7:09:25 AM So, the end result of the high and lofty promises and aspirations for autonomy and independent development was that the multi-ethnic empire of Austria-Hungary was replaced by two new multi-ethnic states dominated by Czechs and Serbs which carried the seeds for their own destruction 70 years later. History casts a long shadow. 2707. ScottLoar - 7/15/2001 12:12:56 PM re Message # 2697: The Hunley was swamped by the wake of the explosion? But I thought the Hunley was uncovered some far distance from the sinking of the Housitanic, evidence that the submarine could not immediately return to the coast but instead seemed intent on detouring the activity that would follow the explosion. I thought the Hunley went down because of the exhaustion of its crew. 2708. Wombat - 7/16/2001 8:32:53 AM The history of the CSS Hunley's demise is evolving, as more information becomes available from the recovered wreck of the Hunley. One of the theories is noted by ScottLoar: the crew exhausted itself trying to get back to Charleston. Other reports suggest damage caused by small arms fire from the Housatonic may have caused Hunley to sink. I have added a link to a paper about the Hunley to the butterscotch bar. 2709. Wombat - 7/16/2001 8:38:16 AM The Treaty of Sevres was rendered moot following the defeat and destruction of the Greek army in Anatolia, and the resulting recapture of Smyrna. Mustapha Kemal's victorious forces then marched on Constantinople, triggering a confrontation with British forces at Chanak, in which the British eventually backed down. 2710. jexster - 7/18/2001 12:57:58 AM For those who have not seen it, I cannot recommend The History Channel's Battleships: Fire and Fury enuf. 2711. jexster - 7/18/2001 1:01:16 AM 3.5 million Germans whose "liberation" 2712. PelleNilsson - 7/19/2001 2:28:44 PM Excerpts from a review of John S.D. Eisenhower's YANKS The Epic Story of the American Army in World War I 2713. PelleNilsson - 7/19/2001 2:30:01 PM "Yanks" is midway between a military-school textbook and a book for the lay reader. It is sound, reliable and realistic, and while it includes accounts of heroism, it avoids any tone of military glorification. War to Eisenhower (the son of Dwight D. Eisenhower) is a gritty, unpleasant and risky business, dependent as much on matters like local procurement as it is on acts of valor. 2714. ranheim - 7/19/2001 3:54:14 PM One of the greatest tragedies of the post WW I era was Woodrow Wilson!! 2715. PelleNilsson - 7/20/2001 9:10:13 AM ranheim 2716. Wombat - 7/20/2001 10:38:42 AM It could be argued that the principal tragedy of the immediate post war situation was that the US did not participate in the League of Nations. Whether it would have been enough to offset the League's organic flaws is another question. 2717. jexster - 7/20/2001 12:42:37 PM Last nite on Battleships ultra-kewl footage of the scuttling of the German Fleet at Scapa Flow.... 2718. jexster - 7/20/2001 12:45:22 PM If we are going off on Wilson, I guess I might as well read America's Secret War Against Bolshevism. 2719. jexster - 7/20/2001 12:48:57 PM Featured on Last Nite's Battleships - The U.S.S Texas 2720. Wombat - 7/20/2001 12:54:01 PM Jex: 2721. jexster - 7/20/2001 7:37:55 PM Yessirreee....If you live in SF you can't see TV without it. 2722. jexster - 7/20/2001 7:39:30 PM 2723. ScottLoar - 7/20/2001 10:11:53 PM Jexter, I actually watched as the USS New Jersey fired offshore in combat; the entire side of the ship would disappear in a ball of flame for an instant. I flew over that ship in a light observation plane, and marvelled at the lines as seen from above and her wooden decks. I doubt few will ever again witness a battleship firing at an enemy. 2724. ScottLoar - 7/20/2001 10:12:24 PM I was 19, maybe 20. 2725. ScottLoar - 7/20/2001 10:22:55 PM Let me be very clear: to witness a battleship firing her big turreted guns, not launching cruise missiles. 2726. jexster - 7/20/2001 11:58:52 PM I am JEALOUS! 2727. ScottLoar - 7/21/2001 8:43:29 AM I didn't quite think of it that way (and still don't), and I don't much like motorcyles, big noisy engines or things that spew clouds of thick diesel fumes. I did understand that the USS New Jersey firing off the coast was an anachronism, as out-of-time as those muzzle loaders my grandfather posted targets for as a little boy. 2728. ScottLoar - 7/21/2001 8:44:11 AM Cordite smells okay, though. 2729. PelleNilsson - 7/22/2001 6:17:40 AM When president Wilson arrived in Paris on December 14, 1918 he was greeted as a demi-god, the universal moral conscience who would sort out the European mess. When he left six months later he was a broken man, an object of contempt and ridicule. 2730. PelleNilsson - 7/22/2001 6:18:47 AM But Wilson left another legacy too. When he took America into WWI his rationale was moral and idealistic. America had no territorial demands, she did not seek any advantages, her war aims was simply to build a better world. This was in stark contrast to Europe with its petty quarrels and pursuit of policies based on narrow self-interest. This picture of America as a moral beacon whose wars are not really wars but crusades for a good cause is still with us, as is the idea of an America who has its heritage from Europe but has cleansed itself of Europe's decadence and moral perfidy so that it now represents the pinnacle of Western civilisation. 2731. ranheim - 7/22/2001 12:11:25 PM In all fairness, Wilson was ill portions of the time he spent at Versailles. Medical care then was not as good as what it is today. And both a Transient Ischemic Attack (TIA) and the Flu (by this time the 1918 flu was in pandemic mode) have been put forward by current experts trying to explain Wilson's eratic performance. The event that stands out for many is his break with "Col." House; reasons for this parting of the ways from a man who had been his political mentor for many years are still cloudy today. 2732. jexster - 7/22/2001 1:15:56 PM I didn't quite think of it that way (and still don't), and I don't much like motorcyles, big noisy engines or things that spew clouds of thick diesel fumes 2733. Wombat - 7/22/2001 7:48:40 PM When HMS Agincourt (14 12" guns) fired a broadside at Jutland, observers thought that another battlecruiser had exploded. 2734. jexster - 7/22/2001 11:02:05 PM The lead to the Battleships episode following the one dealing with the Battle of Heigoland Bite (ahem!) moves to the Washington Conference and the arms race leading up to it noting that the major naval powers all went ape shit building battleships even though the only battle involving same had lasted one hour. 2735. jexster - 7/22/2001 11:04:16 PM Battle of the Skagerrak- Order of Battle 2736. jexster - 7/22/2001 11:19:54 PM Skagerrak, Jellicoe Bites the Big One... 2737. Wombat - 7/23/2001 8:20:46 AM Pelle: 2738. PelleNilsson - 7/23/2001 2:45:48 PM I am devasted. Replace Palmerstone (1784-1865) with Balfour. 2739. Jenerator - 7/23/2001 2:52:47 PM Pelle, 2740. PelleNilsson - 7/23/2001 3:06:52 PM My sources are a couple of Swedish books and the Britannica. What perspective on Wilson at Versailles do you teach? 2741. ranheim - 7/23/2001 6:45:37 PM C Span - I think it was Sunday afternoon in Louisiana - had a program on the bias of USA history textbooks. I missed much of it so cannot say whether the speaker was speaking of only High School; or both H.S. and college texts. 2742. Wombat - 7/24/2001 8:50:55 AM Of course Mellon's laissez-faire policies contributed to the "bubble" economy that burst so decisively in the Depression. Mellon was devoid of ideas on how to cope with the Depression. 2743. ranheim - 7/24/2001 2:07:19 PM Wombat 2744. glendajean - 7/24/2001 2:19:46 PM I've heard stories that it was because of his tax problems, but regardless, because of Andrew Mellon and his two generous children, we have the National Gallery of Art in Washington. 2745. Wombat - 7/24/2001 2:27:02 PM Ranheim: 2746. janjon - 7/24/2001 3:06:27 PM The last instance of truly meaningful "non-governmental" intervention making a real difference in coping with a major financial crisis was when J.P. Morgan stepped in and virtually single-handedly brought together the private forces (Presidents of the major N.Y. banks, some industrialists, etc.) to blunt the panic of 1907. But, even then, the wise men of the time saw how precarious such an arrangement was (and, rightly, that it was unlikely to be replicated). Ergo, the Federal Reserve was formed. 2747. janjon - 7/24/2001 3:07:28 PM I don't count the "rescue" of Long Term Credit as being either a truly major financial crisis or one which was more private than governmental, incidentally. 2748. CalGal - 7/24/2001 3:09:19 PM Actually, there's a fair amount of speculation that this same intervention happened in 1987--for much the same reason as Morgan acted 80 years earlier. 2749. janjon - 7/24/2001 3:23:32 PM the same or comparable type of intervention simply isn't possible any more. (It is possible that personal intervention could have been determinative for a few years after 1907, but there weren't the types of crises that put that hypothesis to the test.) Certainly, you still have titans of the financial world whose influence can be quite meaningful. But, the Fed is the swizzle stick, when the chips around the world go down. 2750. ranheim - 7/24/2001 6:16:04 PM Let us see now - do I have this correct? The USA was in danger of a communist (or some other) take-over during the years of the Depression. 2751. Wombat - 7/25/2001 8:34:23 AM Ranheim: 2752. ranheim - 7/25/2001 8:55:20 AM I stand by the thrust of what I wrote earlier : tax cuts - not the Government hogging spending - is what helps the 'little guy' and the economy in general. 2753. PelleNilsson - 7/25/2001 11:39:00 AM I don't know much about the depression in America. But I suspect ranheim has his rose-tinted glasses on when he looks back at the period and his comfy bourgeoise environment. I have some statistics. 2754. Wombat - 7/25/2001 2:06:08 PM In large industrialized cities the unemployment rate was near 50%. 2755. ranheim - 7/25/2001 3:23:58 PM I was born in 1935 - the eldest child of my parents. My father was a teacher in the early years of my life. I recall him telling my that he was partially paid in scrip at one of the jobs he held when I was a baby. There, literally, was no money in rural MN! 2756. ScottLoar - 7/25/2001 4:43:17 PM I live in the city. I live in the city by choice. I live in the city by choice with my family. Even without my health another Depression would not now be a hardship for me or my family. To think country living is the only way to live is absurd. 2757. ranheim - 7/25/2001 4:58:43 PM Excellent! 2758. ScottLoar - 7/25/2001 5:35:29 PM Ranheim, God forbid that I would ever in the slightest encroach upon your bit of heaven, and God forbid you would ever have to put up with people like me as a neighbor. 2759. ScottLoar - 7/25/2001 5:37:24 PM No, you may continue to live in gated communities or on acreage with no neighbors, fear in your heart, and distrust of everyone unlike yourself, and your sentiments are not unique. 2760. ScottLoar - 7/25/2001 5:44:30 PM I find it odd that Americans who live in the country (or almost, as "country" seems to be anywhere off a major interstate) generally think of themselves as simple folk, unpretentious, but hard-working-salt-of-the-earth types, of strong moral bent, who take family values seriously and want their kids to grow up in a safe environment. Quite unlike other people in their imagination. 2761. arkymalarky - 7/25/2001 6:15:03 PM I thought we were just misanthropes. 2762. Wombat - 8/6/2001 10:42:31 AM To get away from broader historical topics and into the personal: How many Motiers are conducting genealogical research on their family's origins/history? 2763. Indiana Jones - 8/6/2001 11:10:14 AM One reason the rural people noticed less hardship during the Depression was because they were already so poor. ranheim's characterization may be true as far as food goes, but before the Depression America's farmers were already subsistent. What difference did increasing poverty in the cities make to them? 2764. Indiana Jones - 8/6/2001 11:12:17 AM Should qualify that as "most of America's farmers..." 2765. ranheim - 8/6/2001 5:35:38 PM Indiana 2766. LohrM - 8/7/2001 3:06:48 PM I'm back from the horrors of the Bar Exam-- far more brutal than my doctoral exams in '92... So-- what have I missed? 2767. Wombat - 8/7/2001 3:41:51 PM Lohr: 2768. jexster - 8/7/2001 6:53:08 PM The History Channel comes thru again with a couple of series on Korea. 2769. Wombat - 8/8/2001 7:51:18 AM Jex: 2770. transient1a - 8/8/2001 10:31:39 AM I believe that the present fashion of applying the axioms of physical science to human life is not only a mistake but has something reprehensible about it. - Albert Einstein 2771. jexster - 8/12/2001 12:56:33 PM I do enjoy my newly acquired History Channel access but they really should call it the Military History Channel. 2772. jexster - 8/12/2001 12:58:32 PM According to the HC program, it was Churchill. 2773. jexster - 8/12/2001 1:00:24 PM More specifically, according to a professor of military history at the University of Hull in England. Don't remember his name but he's a regular on all sorts of HC productions. Fat...Red beard...very animated. 2774. Wombat - 8/13/2001 9:31:47 AM Jex: 2775. jexster - 8/13/2001 9:41:23 AM Doesn't mean that it wasn't Churchill's promise that was being delivered now does it? 2776. jexster - 8/13/2001 9:50:06 AM Eric Grove is the Deputy Director for the Center for Security Studies at the University of Hull, UK. 2777. Wombat - 8/13/2001 9:58:43 AM Jex: 2778. Wombat - 8/13/2001 10:18:13 AM Here's the transcript (it is ambiguous): 2779. ScottLoar - 8/13/2001 11:58:12 AM Incredibly stupid goodwill gesture, wholly unnecessary and not reciprocated. 2780. Wombat - 8/13/2001 12:00:00 PM Grove says--ironically--that it was Britain's greatest contribution to the Korean War. 2781. ScottLoar - 8/13/2001 12:03:55 PM Ha! Very well said. 2782. jexster - 8/13/2001 12:10:01 PM Wombat... 2783. jexster - 8/13/2001 12:12:21 PM The HC part wasn't entirely as clear as I have led all to believe...the claim is that Churchill made the jet deal with Stalin at or just after Yalta. 2784. Wombat - 8/13/2001 12:23:00 PM Grove has put on some weight since I knew him (over a decade ago)...but then so have I. 2785. concerned - 8/14/2001 10:23:34 PM An interesting excerpt from a web page about the origins of Central Asian nomads which ties the Alans to the English legend of King Arthur: 2786. Wombat - 8/15/2001 8:05:35 AM Concerned: 2787. ilyavinarsky - 8/15/2001 6:59:17 PM Neal Asherson's Black Sea has a great deal of speculation about the possible impact of the Sarmatians / Alans on early medieval Western European history. 2788. jexster - 8/16/2001 11:05:24 PM Beginning Tonight on The "military" History Channel - Hitler's Youth 2789. concerned - 8/22/2001 4:50:31 PM Focus on smaller European Countries: 2790. concerned - 8/22/2001 4:58:22 PM Focus on smaller European Countries: 2791. ScottLoar - 8/22/2001 5:01:28 PM Quick and without looking it up, tiny Luxembourg was possessed of a thing so militarily frightful that the great powers of the 1860's all moved to have it mooted once and for all. What was it? 2792. concerned - 8/22/2001 5:08:26 PM Dunno. Got me hanging. 2793. concerned - 8/22/2001 5:11:05 PM A real WAG - something to do with the Holy Roman Empire or hereditary family rights? 2794. concerned - 8/22/2001 5:11:36 PM I know that the HRE hadn't existed for about 50 years before that, btw. 2795. ScottLoar - 8/22/2001 6:28:06 PM No, nothing like Holy Romans or hereditary rights or successions. Let's leave it hanging for a few days. 2796. Indiana Jones - 8/22/2001 6:43:23 PM I'm going to guess machine gun. Sort of hope that's wrong and it's something even cooler, but I know the first machine guns started popping up about that time. 2797. concerned - 8/22/2001 7:09:07 PM But nobody was going to take away the US's Gatling Gun, used in the Civil War. The French and Germans both had breech loading rifles by the time of the Franco-Prussian War, but the Prussian version was better. 2798. don s. - 8/22/2001 7:37:38 PM Neutrality? 2799. ScottLoar - 8/22/2001 7:38:39 PM Not machine guns. Again, this was specific to Luxembourg and of such concern to the great powers at the time they acted together to moot it. 2800. ScottLoar - 8/22/2001 7:39:30 PM I repeat, mooted once and for all. 2801. ScottLoar - 8/22/2001 7:40:50 PM No, not neutrality. 2802. concerned - 8/23/2001 1:38:14 AM Mustard gas or other gas warfare agent? I recall that was a big issue before WWI and the Germans were reviled greatly for breaking their agreement not to use it. 2803. ScottLoar - 8/23/2001 6:19:27 AM No, not mustard gas, and gases were used in WWI. Again, this thing was so fearsome, represented such a collective danger it was made moot once and for all. The objects you all have raised were never neutralized. 2804. Absensia - 8/23/2001 6:58:28 AM Does this have to do with Luxembourg setting up it's Constitution and declaring itself neutral and burning down the seemingly impenetrable fort it had? Since the country borders France, Germany and Brussels, the declaration it was a free and distict, and neutral country, ensured it wouldn't join with any of the three countries bordering it if war broke out among them. 2805. concerned - 8/23/2001 1:24:49 PM Belgium 2806. concerned - 8/23/2001 1:27:52 PM I suspect that Loar is indulging in a little hyperbole wrt to terms such as 'fearsome' and 'collective danger'. What could even have approached such status at the time and been within the exclusive resources of a small country such as Luxembourg except perhaps a biological agent? 2807. Wombat - 8/23/2001 4:27:27 PM I think Absensia has got it. The fortifications around Luxembourg city were referred to as the "Gibraltar of the North." The terms of the 1867 treaty guaranteeing Luxembourg's independence included tearing down portions of the fortifications. 2808. Absensia - 8/23/2001 4:36:25 PM Yes, but it was Belgium, sorry. Concerned is right. And I think Wombat has filled in the the important information. 2809. concerned - 8/23/2001 4:55:12 PM Sounds reasonable. Of course, realistically speaking, Luxembourg is a pimple on Belgium's ass wrt military significance. 2810. Wombat - 8/24/2001 8:15:44 AM The danger was not from a "rogue" ruler of Luxembourg using the fortress to extort concessions from his neighbors, but the control of the fortress by France or Germany serving as an impregnable barrier to the other's forces in time of war. 2811. concerned - 8/24/2001 11:15:05 AM Re. 2810 - 2812. ScottLoar - 8/24/2001 8:31:56 PM It was the fortress; Absensia's Message # 2804 is correct and Wombat's explanation Message # 2810 explains why, but Concerned's Message # 2811 accusation of hyperbole is not justified by events. The great powers of the time systematically dynamited a fortress complex that had stood since the middle ages to render it ineffective; hardly the annoying pimple Concerned takes it for. Indeed, the very existence of Luxembourg is owed to that fort. 2813. ScottLoar - 8/24/2001 8:34:57 PM You, Concerned, have no inkling of this affair but in brutal ignorance declare the fort an annoying pimple. 2814. jexster - 8/26/2001 4:12:28 PM Thirteen Days received such horrid reviews I didn't bother to see it when it came out and I was pleasantly surprised when, via Pay Per View, I finally saw the film. 2815. jexster - 8/26/2001 4:14:58 PM Amazon proclaims it the #5 best seller at the US Military academy .... apparently Allison published a new edition since I read it circa 1972. 2816. jexster - 8/26/2001 4:29:15 PM Lohr... 2817. MaxMacks - 8/29/2001 4:03:53 PM Was there some revolution called Rev. of 1848? 2818. concerned - 8/29/2001 4:38:34 PM Re. 2817 - 2819. pellenilsson - 8/29/2001 4:53:40 PM One might add that the revolutions (which started in Paris and spread from there) ended "The Concert of Europe", sometimes called the "Metternich System" after the Austrian chancellor which had been in placesince the Vienna congress in 1815. One aim if the sytem was to repress radical opinion whereever it was found. 2820. MaxMacks - 8/29/2001 8:48:02 PM Thanks --concerned. 2821. concerned - 8/30/2001 1:12:28 AM Talk about fading memories: I read a couple of books about how Napoleon III pulled it off. Suffice it to say that he and his consort Eugenie were half assed revolutionaries cum political adventurers who were able to trade on his name and the disaffection that many French people were gaining for the abortive experimental policies and chaotic power struggles of the Republic. Because of this Napoleon III was able to squeeze in the door as president elect in 1848. When his term was about to end in 1852, he decided that he didn't want to step down as required by the new Constitution after one term, so he threw a quiet little overnight putsch. 2822. concerned - 8/30/2001 1:22:54 AM There's a lot I don't recall that I should, of course. Eugenie's mother was a trip, I understand. In her younger days the Countess Montijo and a couple of her royal female friends supposedly would actually arrange to kidnap men off the street for private fun and games in their estates. Didn't say how much bondage and coercion there was. 2823. concerned - 8/30/2001 1:35:37 AM Just so I don't leave the wrong impression, Napoleon III didn't hook up with Eugenie until after he crowned himself 'Emperor' in 1853. 2824. concerned - 8/30/2001 1:38:07 AM Almost everything about the Second Empire was tacky, a little bit like Clowntoon's reign of error. 2825. concerned - 8/30/2001 1:48:43 AM Eugenie was actually on friendly terms with a few of the women that Napoleon III was having affairs with. 2826. Wombat - 8/30/2001 8:39:37 AM Dear God. Clinton will never be "history" with Concerned to keep the pot bubbling. 2827. Wombat - 8/30/2001 8:44:17 AM Louis Napoleon was Napoleon's nephew, the son of his estranged brother Louis, King of Holland. 2828. concerned - 8/30/2001 10:47:29 AM Re. 2826 - 2829. concerned - 8/30/2001 11:00:08 AM When all is said and done, Metternich was only the top Austrian ambassador and the 'peacekeeping' system he advocated was toothless outside the Austrian Empire's borders, as history has borne out. 2830. concerned - 8/30/2001 11:05:51 AM The Austrian Empire was not particularly notable for military or police state efficiency within its borders either, it should be noted, being easily trounced by a much smaller state, Prussia, in a short war in 1866. 2831. Wombat - 8/30/2001 11:27:12 AM Sigh...hopefully Lohr will come over here and put your ignorance in its place. 2832. LohrM - 8/30/2001 12:41:49 PM Yes-- both Gordon Craig's classic study of 1866 and Geoff Wawra's newer (1997) one will tell you that Koniggratz was much more complex than a Prussian walkover. The Prussians' coordination broke down on the field, and there was no small amount of sheer luck involved in their victory. Now-- Benedek had been a fine divisional commander in Italy, but he was out of his depth running an army. He'd come out of Lombardy thinking that the bayonet was still decisive, and he never gave up that belief. He was the darling of the press and the parliament--his appointment had been considered a foregone conclusion for six years to any major wartime command. 2833. PelleNilsson - 8/30/2001 12:42:35 PM Metternich was foreign minister 1809-48 and chancellor (prime minister) 1821-48. 2834. LohrM - 8/30/2001 12:45:50 PM Still-- he'd been promoted way past his level of competence. He made a stand at Koniggratz because the high command was on his back to have "a battle"... and then panicked when things went bad. The imperial-royal army fought well-- the heavy cavalry outfought their Prussian adversaries; the artillery fought on unsupported into the night until they were overrun and blocked the Prussians from any real pursuit. 2835. LohrM - 8/30/2001 12:49:52 PM The k.-k. army in 1849/50 had been considered far superior to Prussia, and the face-down at Olmutz (where the Habsburg forces, making early use of railways)was a major humiliation for Berlin. But all through the 1850s the military budget of the financially-pressed Monarchy was slashed, training deteriorated, and units were never even in sight of full strength. The leaders of the k.-k. forces (Hess, Gruenne) relied on hope and the bayonet, since there was never money for anything else. 2836. LohrM - 8/30/2001 12:52:03 PM Metternich himself always claimed to have governed "Europe sometimes, but Austria never"; his effect on internal policy was limited. His "system", though, *did* provide peacekeepers for Italy in the period 1815-48 on several occasions (Parma in the early 1830s comes to mind) and forces for southwest Germany in the early 1840s. 2837. LohrM - 8/30/2001 12:54:50 PM People underestimate Louis Napoleon, I think. Books like "Napoleon III and His Carnival Empire" failed to see some of the things he did. He was in some ways the first 'modern' dictator-- he knew how to use plebiscites and public relations in a way James Carville or David Davis would've envied. 2838. MaxMacks - 8/30/2001 1:28:36 PM concerned...thanks for more info re. Revolutions 2839. concerned - 8/30/2001 1:31:34 PM Thanks, LohrM and Pelle for the facts and corrections- I appreciate the added perspective. So far, I've been posting strictly from memory of four or five books I read about Louis Napoleon and the Second Empire about four years ago, a couple of which purported to be largely about the foibles and scandals surrounding the Second Empire. 2840. MaxMacks - 8/30/2001 1:31:37 PM But back to my earlier question . 2841. concerned - 8/30/2001 1:38:18 PM Even the French initially pushed into Prussian territory during the early going of the Franco-Prussian War. 2842. LohrM - 8/30/2001 2:36:01 PM Macks-- the political ideas of the revolutionaries of 1848 came more from Paris than Washington. 2843. LohrM - 8/30/2001 2:38:36 PM Americans in 1848 tended to admire the springtime revolutionaries,who wanted political rights for the middle class...but oppose the "red republicans" of the fall, who wanted economic rights. Hungary under Kossuth got a lot of American support-- Kossuth argued that the Magyar gentry were just like the Virginia gentry of 1776 --but the role of nationality conflict was lost on Americans. 2844. jexster - 8/30/2001 3:31:27 PM There wasn't really much developed "political thinking" behind 1848 rather a great deal came FROM it. 2845. jexster - 8/30/2001 3:32:53 PM And Pelle knows more about this but I recall that in Sweden, the Revolution of 1848 was best known for the Royal Edict making the 21 Moon Salute official state ceremonial 2847. MaxMacks - 8/30/2001 3:40:43 PM Interesting 2844 jexter. I spose each country had it own set of complaints. 2848. jexster - 8/30/2001 3:57:51 PM Yes...I was lookin for a good reference on the subject..couldn't find quickly but did find this on another subject dear to many round here... 2849. jexster - 8/30/2001 3:58:54 PM To get an idea of the range of possible [research] topics, we suggest that potential participants look through the articles in Frans Coetzee and Marilyn Shevin-Coetzee, eds., Authority, Identity, and the Social History of the Great War (Berghahn Books, Providence, R.I., 1995), as well as their collection of sources: Frans Coetzee and Marilyn Shevin Coetzee, World War I and European Society. A Sourcebook (1995). 2850. jexster - 8/30/2001 3:59:14 PM toys 2851. Wombat - 8/31/2001 12:43:32 PM Concerned will be pleased to know that the Franco-Prussian War was indeed far more close-run than the superficial impression. Michael Howard's excellent history of the war describes the battles of Vionville-Mars-La-Tour and Gravelotte-Ste. Privat, in which the better equipped and better led (at the divisional level) French infantry shredded German attacks, before having to retreat, due to a complete lack of coordination of forces by the Army commanders. In the battles fought between Spicheren and Sedan, the French inflicted more casualties than they took, and if they had not had the inert Bazaine and the limited McMahon (and the sickly and incompetent Louis Napoleon) as Army commanders, they may well have at least repulsed the Prussian invasion. 2852. concerned - 8/31/2001 12:53:52 PM After Sedan, a quick march to a Paris vacation. 2853. Wombat - 8/31/2001 1:02:42 PM Yes, the Prussians had their vacation for five months in trenches around Paris waiting for it to fall. Then a quick parade. 2854. MaxMacks - 8/31/2001 1:13:18 PM well, jexter, I certainly agree with G.Kennen. 2855. MaxMacks - 8/31/2001 1:15:27 PM BTW , jexter, just out of curiousity, 2856. concerned - 8/31/2001 1:18:26 PM Re. 2853 - 2857. slackjaw - 9/3/2001 6:40:08 PM I wonder if anyone is familiar with S. E. Finer's multi-volume History of Government and if so has any comments. 2858. PelleNilsson - 9/10/2001 2:28:39 PM I just read D.D. Guttenplan’s (ugly name!) Holocaust on trial about the court case between David Irving and Deborah Lipstadt. As you may recall the former had sued the latter because she had accused him of distorting and manipulating his sources in order to prove that the Holocaust never took place. The case was tried under English law, meaning that the defendant had to prove that her allegations were true. In effect that meant she had to prove the historical reality of the Holocaust. She won the case. One of the witnesses for the defence was the British historian Richard J. Evans (whose In defense of history is a vitriolic and amusing attack on postmodernist tendencies in the writing of history) 2859. LohrM - 9/15/2001 2:55:43 PM I liked the Guttenplan book better than the Evans book. Evans is a fine historian-- his work on the Hamburg criminal world and on early modern plagues is excellent. But his book on the Irving trial gave me the same feeling as his "In Defense of History". He can be mean-spirited about other writers (and I'm not talking about Irving)and a wee bit self-righteous. Still-- Irving was shown to have falsified data and, bluntly, *lied*. Someone needed to do that. And it's a pity-- Irving could've been a fine historian. 2860. LohrM - 9/15/2001 3:00:57 PM Jexster is right-- the WW-1 Eastern Front was badly neglected up until Norman Stone's "The Eastern Front" in the late 1970s. (Though Churchill did a book about it-- called something like "The Forgotten War"... I recall seeing it years and years ago, and loving Churchill's remark about Franz Joseph's refusing to ride in an automobile or speak on the phone: "In these as in so many other things, time has proven the aged monarch correct.") I can recall seeing the chapter on the Salonika front in John Master's "Fourteen Eighteen" when I was high school and thinking "Salonika? Greece? They had WW-1 there?" 2861. LohrM - 9/15/2001 3:06:45 PM Finer's work is very, very good-- but no living human being has ever finished it. 2862. LohrM - 9/15/2001 3:08:42 PM Pelle-- memory says that the German civil defense people at Dresden had tagged something like 35,000 bodies or remains. Far lower than the 150,000-200,000 figure that got thrown around (a History Channel program still used it last month), but higher than 20,000. 2863. ScottLoar - 9/15/2001 7:18:32 PM 35,000 bodies or remains? But I understood Dresden was the first example of a firestorm which incinerates and leaves very little. Surely the only way for a count would not be by remains but the registration rolls. I remember our neighbor lady when I was young telling my mom and me the fires were so hot the asphalt ran down the street covering the wounded. 2864. PelleNilsson - 9/20/2001 1:50:55 AM There is a new book on Versailles: Margaret MacMillan Peacemakers: The Paris Conference of 1919 and Its Attempt to End War. It is reviewed in the current edition of The Economist, whose web site is subscription only. Excerpts: 2865. concerned - 9/26/2001 1:09:18 AM The origin of the Japanese kami-kaze, in the military sense, which I didn't know of until reading this, from 'Genghis Khan, the Mongols and Asia, to 1300': 2866. Wombat - 9/26/2001 8:19:16 AM It's usually translated as "Divine Wind." The journal Military History Quarterly has an interesting piece on the 13th Century invasion. 2867. LohrM - 9/29/2001 12:19:41 PM Hmmmm... do you have a date for that? 2868. LohrM - 9/30/2001 5:07:53 PM kamikaze-- good chapter in Ivan Morris' 'The Nobility of Failure', an excellent book about the Japanese attitude towards honor, defeat, and death. 2869. concerned - 10/1/2001 3:02:03 AM toys 2870. PelleNilsson - 10/1/2001 6:02:57 AM I'm a little bit tired of those who take cheap shots at Sweden because of its neutrality in WWII. 2871. LohrM - 10/1/2001 12:16:40 PM I agree with Pelle's point here. Add to that Swedish fear of a Finland overrun by the Soviets. The Swedes, like the Swiss, acted to keep their countries from being occupied...or from being starved. 2872. theDiva - 10/12/2001 8:47:41 AM What was the first terrorist act in recorded history? 2873. Indiana Jones - 10/12/2001 9:08:33 AM Diva: I think that's difficult to say because it depends on how you define terrorism and that people disagree about whether certain people were/are terrorists. 2874. theDiva - 10/12/2001 9:11:46 AM Indy 2875. Indiana Jones - 10/12/2001 9:28:42 AM Diva: I think terrorism is probably a throwback rather than something that evolved in the recent centuries. 2876. ScottLoar - 10/12/2001 10:18:34 AM The Hashisheen (correct me if I'm wrong - silly of me really to invite so) were not terrorists but thugs on the order of, well, the thugees of India. Their purpose was to not to cow a people or change a policy; they were to murder and rob. 2877. theDiva - 10/12/2001 10:19:15 AM Who was Sarkan II? 2878. theDiva - 10/12/2001 10:20:31 AM And, I'm thinking Indy is correct, terrorism isn't new. 2879. ScottLoar - 10/12/2001 10:22:07 AM Sorry, Sargon II (it's my accent), king of Assyria, 763-705 B.C. 2880. ScottLoar - 10/12/2001 10:22:39 AM The Assyrians were terrorists on a huge scale. 2881. theDiva - 10/12/2001 10:25:38 AM yah, I thought you pronounced it kind of funny. 2882. Indiana Jones - 10/12/2001 10:33:02 AM Is this the image? 2883. theDiva - 10/12/2001 10:35:15 AM I'd like to know the story behind that. 2884. Indiana Jones - 10/12/2001 10:39:42 AM ScottLoar will have to tell that tale, Diva. This is something I know nothing about. 2885. theDiva - 10/12/2001 10:49:36 AM (folds hands and waits patiently.) 2886. ScottLoar - 10/12/2001 11:32:57 AM Message # 2882 is not the man. I'm looking for the mask of Sargon II - there's no mistaking it. 2887. Wombat - 10/12/2001 12:54:46 PM The use of terror as defined would be the French Revolution, but one can go much further back than that. Machiavelli's "kill one, rule thousands" doctrine, for one. 2888. ScottLoar - 10/12/2001 1:34:50 PM Wombat, your same definition could apply to ninja who were not robbers or thugs and certainly not terrorists but assassins, but neither thugees or "assassins" or ninja are terrorists, or so I would think. 2889. theDiva - 10/12/2001 2:01:16 PM What do you two think of this? 2890. PelleNilsson - 10/12/2001 2:45:51 PM Diva's link illuminates the difficulty of distinguishing between "terrorists" and "freedom fighters" in a historical perspective. 2891. ScottLoar - 10/12/2001 3:33:32 PM I think Diva's link good and no problem in distinguishing terrorists -defined by their methods and not their goals - from "freedom fighters". So, the Zealots committing random murders in busy crowds are terrorists but the Irgung (God how I fear simple mention will attract the attention of RustlerPike, et al.) targeting the colonial government and not the populace are not terrorists ruthless though they doubtlessly were. 2892. LohrM - 10/13/2001 3:26:34 PM On the Assassins-- two excellent books: Bernard Lewis' "The Assassins: A Radical Sect in Islam" and Marshall Hodgson's "The Order of the Assassins". A good and quick view of the order, its history, and theology is in the Cambridge History of Iran (article by Hodgson)...I think vol. 4. 2893. Wombat - 10/15/2001 10:23:22 AM I am going to be taking an extended vacation from the Mote. If there is interest in keeping this thread going, it might be wise to designate another host. 2894. PelleNilsson - 10/15/2001 1:44:31 PM Thank you for hosting Wombat. I hope you will find your way to come back soon. Your expertise in military hardware (and many other issues) will be missed. 2895. PelleNilsson - 10/15/2001 2:40:23 PM Just in from the BBC: A Dutch group is seeking to rehabilitate Mata Hari. 2897. Ms. No - 10/15/2001 3:55:35 PM Her memory? In what way? Have you got a link? 2898. PelleNilsson - 10/15/2001 3:58:56 PM No, I just heard it on the news. Apparently they think they can prove she was not a spy after all. 2899. Ms. No - 10/15/2001 4:04:01 PM I'd be interested to hear more about that. I hope it doesn't just fade away. 2900. Jenerator - 10/15/2001 4:18:13 PM Will this thread be archived? 2901. Property of Jesus - 10/15/2001 4:24:46 PM Why not let it live on without a host? 2902. Ms. No - 10/15/2001 4:34:27 PM Jen, 2903. concerned - 10/16/2001 1:14:34 AM I think the Mote needs, no, requires a History thread. 2904. concerned - 10/16/2001 1:26:19 AM BELOOZERO 2905. Property of Jesus - 10/16/2001 8:11:34 AM Right, concerned. This thread shouldn't be mothballed.
You said:
My aim wasn't particularly to establish a connection between Bolshevism and Stalinism, it was intended to establish Lenin's non-chalance regarding the massacre of political enemies. I see Bolshevism and Stalinism more or less in terms of a continuum. Certainly the Bolsheviks and Lenin initiated terror and established the USSR as an infant totalitarian state, and Stalin stepped in to complete the process, picking up the Hegelian ball and running with it. Please excuse the tacky metaphor.
Do you own a copy of it? I would love to read it and discuss it with someone. I haven't ever actually seen a copy of it, so I have no idea how long it is. I think Alan Bullock was a wonderful historian - I admire his work on Hitler very much.
"There is "softer"repression, like under Breshnev, but it is repression all the same."
Softer only in the sense that the repression couldn't be defined as out-and-out genocide, the way Stalin's has.
Please ignore that last comment - I see now that I mistakenly read "Lenin" where you wrote "Breshnev", so I entirely misunderstood.
I wish this software would let you delete after posting.
In St. Petersburg, for a brief while, maybe.
Amazon
(Looks like two copies are on Ebay for sale, but if you buy from Amazon the Mote gets a kickback...or so I hear.)
If you read it, I can probably locate a copy to refresh my memory of anything you want to discuss.
Lives lives on my bookshelf, next to Bullock's Hitler biography. Both are fantastic books, and worth every penny.
After Japan attacked Pearl Harbor and we declared war against them (not Germany or Italy), Hitler made a terrible mistake by declaring war against the U.S.
It's considered one of his three biggest errors of the war. The other two were not finishing off England in 1940 and attacking Russia too late in the year (or attacking them at all).
It turns out that Hitler declared war against the U.S. because he assumed that Japan would then declare war against the Soviet Union, giving them a second front. They didn't.
I also cannot see what Japan could have done to the Soviets. I believe that Japan had specific goals in the war, a plan to achieve those goals, and barely sufficient resources to carry out the plan. They had no resources left to use against the Soviet Union. Except maybe Tokyo Rose.
The fact is that they did nothing to help their allies.
Lesson learned for the future.
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing when you are involved. The Japanese did not attack the Soviet Union because in 1939 the Japanese Kwangtung Army (a virtual self-governing entity in Manchuria) picked a fight with the Soviets in Mongolia and got stomped. Japanese forces had inferior tanks and artillery, a lengthy supply line, and concomitant poor logistics. They were also under the impression that they were fighting the Chinese, so their strategic and tactical doctrine was rudimentary. Instead, they came up against General Zhukov. Once burned...twice shy. A few years later, a mysterious explosion destroyed the Kwangtung Army's main ammunition dump, ending further moves toward a Japanese attack on Soviet forces in Asia.
war against the U.S.
Yes indeed. I have always thought so. I did have my view tempered somewhat by re-reading Herbert Feis's classic The Road to Pearl Harbor. It convinced me that Hitler's decision was as much a product of diplomatic bureaucratic bungling on both the Jap and the Nazi sides. Its a complicated story but Hitler on this occasion did not rise above but rather became the victim of a bureaucratic political game between his Foreign Office and the god awful mess that was the Imperial Govt. 
T-34/76 of the 30th Guards Tank Brigade Entering Krasnoye Selo Near Leningrad
The Japanese Army was decidely pro-Hitler and bought the Nazi line that peace with Stalin was the order of the day for the colonies of France, Great Britain, and the Netherlands would be ripe for picking in the Southeast. Further the US was beginning its snail's pace toward war with embargoes.
Thus the Greater East Asia Co-prosperity Sphere was born.
So reads a newspaper headline from May, 1942 reproduced on street kiosk ads of the San Francisco Historical Circle. The ad goes on to proudly announce that no Jap can be seen walking our streets for the first time in many years.
The chilling kiosk campaign also features the CA Act for the Protection and Government of Indians under which 4,000 Indian children were sold into slavery. Boys went for $60. Girls fetched a higher price, $200.
More Here
A fine source. I bet such material was required reading for the Kwantung Army. The KA was the driving force behind Japanese militarism and never relinquished its goal of conquest of Soviet East Asian land. 
Nice picture of a big fat useless fighting machine.
What was it?
Elefants fought at Kursk, and were not used thereafter.
You are referring to the "S" tank, right? It certainly had a lower profile than the Elefant. I used to have a model of the S tank. 
The Elefant was great at solving this problem at the expense of one leeeeetle other one. The Reds could send their cannon fodder up close and personal to destroy the slow moving monster.
An excellent discussion of Hitler's rapture with Porsche in the design of the beast is found in Speer's memoirs.
A dirty little secret about all tanks is that until the advent of laser sights, none could fire accurately when in motion. Since the "S" tank was designed to fire from concealed positions, rather than mixing it up in a melee, I doubt it was much of a handicap.
We've done well covering a host of issues. I've also noticed a tendency towards political-philosophical questions. Perhaps WWII should morph?
The gun mount is not a turret, yet the 88 appears to protrude from an enormous attic at the top of the vehicle. Why did it have all this space? Did it feature some sort of rapid-reloading equipment? Sophistocated targeting gear? Room for lots of troops?
Elephants would have been poor choices in the same open battlefield roles played by Panzers and Tigers. But they might have been useful for taking and holding roads and bridges, where the movement of enemy units would be limited.
This page seems to say that the machine gun equipped Elephant was an improvement to existing Ferdinands, which lacked machine guns. It also claims that the Elephant was successful when employed with tactics that allowed it to fire its big gun from far behind the lines.
Have at it Doc!
You could expand the thread to include wars other than WWII.
Doc:
The Elefant would have been best used as self-propelled artillery. It was utterly unsuitable for tank-on-tank melees, and without a machine gun, not well-suited for an assault tank. Its profile was too tall for a tank destroyer.
How about A Millenium of War: "945-1945."
Is there an issue concerning Guderian and Blitzkrieg?
Even after reading the information at Achtung PanZer!! I still do not understand why the gun required such a large structure. I believe the German Tiger II put an 88 in a turret that was much smaller. I wonder what occupied all that additional space?
If you check out this page you will see a number of turretless German tanks that carried 88s. I presume this was because the designers intended their vehicles to destroy enemy tanks from long distances. They would be outside the range of Soviet tank weapons, yet mobile enough that Soviet heavy artillery would not have time to zero in on them before they changed positions.
If I had deployed these tanks on a battlefield, my tactical plan would have been to place my tanks near the maximum 88 range from the Soviet tanks and fire. If there was a danger from Soviet artillery I would not take another shot, instead I would immediately move a short distance and fire again. If the Soviet tanks advanced I would fall back. I would use my long ranged weapons and the vast empty spaces on the Eastern Front to my best advantage.
I do not know if this would work, and I doubt many German Generals used such tactics, but I bet this is the sort of battle the designers of these weapons had in mind.
No, there is not (as far as I'm aware) an issue about the Blitzkrieg. It's just that it was a novel form of warfare that sealed the fate of France.
Why 945? What happened then?
Doc:
I think the reason that the Ferdinand/Elefant looked the way it did was that it was a conversion job, rather than an autonomously designed weapon. The assault guns and jagdpanthers certainly were better designed for their intended use.
On a different yet related note: had the Germans devoted the effort and resources used for these single-purpose weapons to building more Panthers and Tigers, would they have had a better all-round armored force?
Great idea! I have read the Glorious One's Panzer Leader but not his seminal work on armored warfare Achtung Panzer! (those german words give me goosebumps!)
Neither have I read Le Grand Charles' monograph on the subject but I have read Lidell-Hart's book.
The concept of "blitzkrieg" is as misleading as the title, given I believe not by any expert but by Time magazine.
The British were the first to study the problem of deep penetration (not a bad word either) but Guderian and DeGaulle and what's-his-name, the Red that Stalin shot in '37 were the ones to really run with it.
Actually its still an evolving doctrine as Glantz explains in his discussion of "deep and continuing operations".
I wish we had that military type we had during the War to Crush the Porcine People back when this was The Fray @ slate.
I am afraid I'm not fully up to speed.
Subject: WWII Trivia
1. The first German serviceman killed in the war was killed by the Japanese (China, 1937), the first American serviceman killed was killed by the Russians (Finland 1940), the highest ranking American killed was LtGen. Lesley McNair, killed by the US Army Air Corps. So much for allies.
2. The youngest US serviceman was 12 year old Calvin Graham, USN. He was wounded in combat and given a Dishonorable Discharge for lying about his age. (His benefits were later restored by act of Congress).
3. At the time of Pearl Harbor the top US Navy command was called CINCUS (pronounced "sink us"); the shoulder patch of the US Army's 45th. Infantry division was the Swastika, and Hitler's private train was named "Amerika." All three were soon changed for PR purposes.
4. More US servicemen died in the Air Corps than the Marine Corps. While completing the required 30 missions your chance of being killed was 71%.
5. Not that bombers were helpless. A B-17 carried 4 tons of bombs and 1.5 tons of machine gun ammo. The US 8th Air Force shot down 6,098 fighter planes, 1 for every 12,700 shots fired.
6. Germany's power grid was much more vulnerable than realized. One estimate is that if just 1% of the bombs dropped on German industry had instead been dropped on power plants German industry would have collapsed.
7. Generally speaking there was no such thing as an average fighter pilot. You were either an ace or a target. For instance Japanese ace Hiroyoshi Nishizawa shot down over 80 planes. He died while a passenger on a cargo plane.
9. When allied armies reached the Rhine the first thing men did was pee in it. This was pretty universal from the lowest private to Winston Churchill (who made a big show of it), and Gen. Patton (who had himself photographed in the act).
10. German Me-264 bombers were capable of bombing New York City but it wasn't worth the effort.
11. A number of aircrewmen died of farts. (ascending to 20,000 ft. in an unpressurized aircraft causes intestinal gas to expand 300%).
12. The Russians destroyed over 500 German aircraft by ramming them in midair (they also sometimes cleared minefields by marching over them). "It takes a brave man not to be a hero in the Red Army" - Joseph Stalin
13. The US Army had more ships than the US Navy.
14. The German Air Force had 22 infantry divisions, 2 armor divisions, and 11 paratroop divisions. None of them were capable of airborne operations. The German Army had paratroops who WERE capable of airborne operations. Go figure.
16. Among the first "Germans" captured at Normandy were several Koreans. They had been forced to fight for the Japanese Army until they were captured by the Russians and forced to fight for the Russian Army until they were captured by the Germans and forced to fight for the German Army until they were captured by the US Army.
17. German submarine U-120 was sunk by a malfunctioning toilet.
18. The Graf Spee never sank. The scuttling attempt failed and the ship was bought as scrap by the British. On board was Germany's newest radar system.
19. One of Japan's methods of destroying tanks was to bury a very large artillery shell with only the nose exposed. When a tank came near enough a soldier would whack the shell with a hammer. "Lack of weapons is no excuse for defeat." - LtGen. Mutaguchi
20. Following a massive naval bombardment 35,000 US and Canadian troops stormed ashore at Kiska. 21 troops were killed in the fire fight. It would have been worse if there had been Japanese on the island.
21. The MISS ME was an unarmed Piper Cub. While spotting for US artillery her pilot saw a similar German plane doing the same thing. He dove on the German plane, and he and his copilot fired their pistols damaging the German plane enough that it had to make a forced landing. Whereupon they landed and took the Germans prisoner. I don't know where they put them since the MISS ME only had 2 seats. What's more, why does a Piper Cub need a copilot?
22. Most members of the Waffen SS were not German.
23. The only nation that Germany declared war on was the USA.
24. During the Japanese attack on Hong Kong British officers objected to Canadian infantrymen taking up positions in the officer's mess. No enlisted men allowed you know.
25. Nuclear physicist Niels Bohr was rescued in the nick of time from German occupied Denmark. While Danish resistance fighters provided covering fire he ran out the back door of his home stopping momentarily to grab a beer bottle full of precious "Heavy Water." He finally reached England still clutching the bottle. Which contained beer. I suppose some German drank the Heavy Water.
I have my doubts about the "U-120 was sunk by a malfunctioning toilet" story. This page lists the U-120 as scuttled in Bremerhaven harbor in May, 1945, when a lot of German U Boats were scuttled. U-120 was a training ship, so as the war came to an end it had no purpose anyway.
Of course, it is possible that the U-120 was sunk by a toilet mishap many years prior to its scuttling and simply raised for reuse. If any ship will be sunk by its own toilet, it would be a training ship.
I have always assumed that the Graf Spee was named for Admiral Count von Spee of the WWI Battle of the Falkland Islands, and thought it ironic that the Count's carreer and his namesake ship met their end so distant in time yet close in geography.
Am I right about the name of the famous Pocket Battleship?
Neither the German nor the American were actually killed during WWII.
I am sure that higher fighter kill rates were due more to closing the range before firing than replacing tracers.
The ME-264 was more conceptual than actual. There might have been a prototype or two. It would have also failed the Luftwaffe criterion that all bombers should be capable of dive bombing (thanks E. Udet!).
The second person in the Piper was presumably the observer/radio operator, so that the pilot could concentrate on flying the plane.
Heavy water was not a practicable isotope for use in the development of a nuclear bomb.
22. Most members of the Waffen SS were not German.
That's just ridiculous.
The SS was where foreign nationals who wished to fight for the Germans ended up (ironic, no?) I don't know whether they outnumbered Germans, though.
The SS contained 17 Divisions of non-German troops, but 9 of these never reached full strength. This figure comes from Norman Davies' "Europe", but I will investigate this further when I get the chance. Most of the other non-German Divisions were raised in desperation as the tide turned on the Eastern Front, although there was a "Legion of St George" composed of Nazi Brits in 1940!
Good to see familiar names after a long absence but I regret missing the evolution of this thread. The conventional perspective on Blitzkrieg is that it constituted an attempt to ressurect offensive operations after the hideous trench stalemate of WW1. The Brits were very desirous of lessening the fearful losses and did most of the early conceptual work around armored exploitation. They failed to develop a good combined arms tactical doctrine that would take advantage of the opportunities presented by armored penetration. This latter was the great contribution of the Germans. Note also that the aggressive Storm infantry tactics developed by the Germans on the Western front laid some of the ground work for later armor/infantry cooperation.
There is an ebb and flow in warfare between the offense and defense which is governed by technological and tactical change.
We might also discuss the book "Black Hawk Down" which details the nasty 1993 firefight in Mogadishu; friends tell me that the incident has now entered the syllabi of various military schools. It leads directly to a discussion of the American way of war and the development of tactical doctrine for 3rd World interventions.
Welcome back!
I think much of the problems with early mobile warfare doctrine had to do with technology not being able to perform adequately. Tanks of the era were either heavily armed and armored with no speed and no range, or lightly armed and armored and vulnerable to anything bigger than a machine gun. Infantry and artillery were motorized and thus road-bound and vulnerable. Tank attrition and maintenance were also issues, with the mass breakdowns of German tanks during their march into Austria being the most famous example.
I agree. Sometimes the technoology has to catch up to evolving doctrine and sometimes the roles are reversed. It is an iterative process. Currently, America is in what I call the 2nd generation of C3I(command, control communication and intelligence) development. We were always pretty good at this stuff- at least since WWII- but the last decade has seen some real progress. Presently we have tactical and operational issues whose evolution parallels the evolution of the microchip and optical technologies. I discount some of the hype about the 'information battlefield' but there is no doubt that infantry forces will soon experience a qualitative improvement similar to that enjoyed by their naval and air colleagues
It remains to be seen whether the evolving tactical and operational doctrines will meet the test or, more likely, will require more refinement. My bet is that America will enjoy a period of relative advantage, especially on the offensive.
I digressed above and didn't directly address your points. It is certainly true that the motor technologies had to evolve before the full promise of the new tactical synthesis could be met. A small quibble: Motorised transport of troops was a feature of the British and American armies- the Germans often lacked sufficient vehicles to move more than a few infantry. They recognized the problem and tried to redress it with Panzergrenadier formations and a reduction in the number of tanks in the armored units. They sought to find the optimal combination of armored, infantry and artillery units, and by the time they had the mix right they faced severe shortages except for favoured formations.
Tank attrition and maintenance were also issues, with the mass breakdowns of German tanks during their march into Austria being the most famous example.
I wonder, what factors deep in the German war machine lead to this problem? Both before and after the war, Germany was noted for building durable mechanical gadgets. Mercedes, Volkswagen, and Porsche are still among the top names in mechanical quality. If any country could build a tank that could make a long journey across Europe without breaking down, it should have been the Germans.
What went wrong?
I'd have to hit the archives for details but I suspect that the majority of the failures were of Type II and III Panzers. Essentially, tanks first evolved out of the positional warfare of WWI and were not initially conceived to be capable of lengthy movement, but rather for dashes of 10-30 kilometers. Everybody had problems with maintenance of armored vehicles and the problems increased dramatically the further they had to travel and the heavier they were. The US Sherman was a lousy tank by many standards but did have the virtue of maintainability. That and the American prowess with logistics made possible Patton's advance in 1944.
The evolution of tanks and armored doctrine is a case study for the development of new warfighting paradigms in general. The earliest, sometimes containing a dozen crew, were British designs that were conciously modeled on Naval principles. They were too big and awkward.
To this day movement of armour is a problem. We and most other nations try to use prime movers so that the armour is not worn out in transit.
I do not know much about tank mechanics, but it seems they should share the same type of problems that automobiles have. Except for their treads, of course. Could the problem simply be that no one ever designed a good, long-distance tread?
A clever tank designer might have made the tanks such that, when the treads were removed, the track wheels could propel the tank on any standard guage railroad. This would have necessitated tanks that were narrow, but it might have worked.
I believe that aromor on the WWII open battlefield was less useful than aircraft, especially in fair weather areas like North Africa. Overwhelming numbers of tank destroying aircraft might have been the most efficient way to deal with Rommel. The same might be said on the Eastern Front.
The tendency to place armor on an open battlefield shows its naval heritage. The great armor battles of WWII were somewhat similar to the great naval battles of WWI, in that they were grand gunnery duels that attempted to maneuver massive squadrons into advantageous positions.
I think the best use of armor in WWII was urban warfare. But when a General orders his tanks to clank down city streets, he doesn't take full advantage of those nifty treads. The temptation to take 'em offroad and go Baja-ing must have been irresistable.
It is useful to think of armor as analagous to heavy cavalry: it has a great shock value but limited legs since maintenance and fuel logistics impose limitations. Extending the analogy, air power is like light cavalry.
Both the Germans and Russians used tactical air to break up armored formations. So did the US and the Brits once Tactical Air was able to wrest resources from the Strategic bombing guys. I think it was the 4th or 9th Tactical Air group that did a good job of disrupting German armor during the Normandy battles.
I agree, JRoth, but it is dangerous to take the analogy too far. Armor is armor and tactical aircraft are aircraft. They both have distinct logistical issues about where they may be based, how they are supplied, and in what conditions they may function. Mounted cavalry, while performing similar functions, has different issues.
In warfare as in business, your greatest danger to yourself may be adopting new technology using old paradigms.
I agree that the old paradigms can be limiting: An early Royal Navy objection to submarines was that, submerged, they would not be able to see signal flags and would not maintain their position in fleet evolutions!
I wonder if the heavy armor paradigm has outlived its usefulness. Perhaps the Gulf War was the last hurrah.
In this role an MBT like the Abrahms is probably not the ideal armored unit, so you are probably right. The age of the heavy armor paradigm is over.
Getting back to WWII Europe, I still believe heavy armor could have been used more effectively than it was. Use tanks to attack infantry and hold cities, use airplanes to kill tanks. Don't plan tank-on-tank battles because there are too many mechanical problems.
Making a mindless case for armor in urban warfare: go to Shockwave and play Tank Wars.
If you are interested in current applications of armor in urban areas you might want to read "Black Hawk Down". A well trained and equipped US force was pinned down until Pakistani(!) armor could rescue them. No doubt about it, 70 tons of steel is good backup for many operations.
Doc:
The main difference between tanks and cars are...treads. They wear out and can fall apart, rendering the tank immovable. JRoth is also right in terms of the general unsuitability of tanks at that time for long distance travel.
Before WWII, both the Soviets and the US armies experimented with tanks that had removable treads and Christie suspension systems. The treadless tanks could acheive high speeds on roads, but changing out of and back to treads was a time consuming and fiddly process that would not have lent itself to combat conditions.
WWII Amertican halftracks were made in . . . you guessed it . . . Cleveland.
Doc - I believe that standard doctrine, based on experience, is to keep armor out of defended urban areas. Mobility and range is severely limited, infantry can remain undetected to the armor's vulnerable rear and top. I believe that the Chechnyans retaught this to the Russians in Grozny the time before last.
Now in civil unrest situations, such as Tienamin (sp?), armor can be a great deterrent.
Hitler made the mistake of throwing several crack panzer units into Leningrad and Stalingrad. All he got in return was a long casualty list.
If armor was not good for this mission, then it seems to me that WWII armor was ill-suited for any application, except as a target. Perhaps it outlived its usefulness after WWI.
This is based on my unverified assumption that, while tanks were good at destroying other tanks, tank-busting aircraft could have destroyed more tanks for less cost. We have already established that armor was not good for long-distance campaigns. If they were also useless in the relatively stationary role of defending a city (or other facility) then what good were they?
Even if tank busting aircraft really would have been a better investment, it is possible that this was due to a philosophical fault in armor design. Maybe WWII tanks should have been designed primarily as mobile anti-aircraft platforms instead of mobile artillery.
With proper maintenance and logistical support, armor was excellent at making and exploiting gaps in defences, and could penetrate the rear and flanks of an enemy's defences, attacking unprotected infantry and supply columns. Although tanks' speed and range were not particularly good by automobile standards, they were a hell of a lot faster than marching infantry (20 mph beats 20 mpd). In Western Europe, a 50 mile advance generally puts one in a city or other important asset; in Eastern Europe, such an advance would outflank most defences and put one's forces in a position to strike at supply lines.
Stalingrad and Leningrad.
If armor was not good for this mission, then it seems to me that
WWII armor was ill-suited for any application, except as a target.
Armor can't defend in cities for the same reason it cannot attack cities.
It can, it did disrupt lines of communication deep in the enemy's rear and amply proved its usefulness. Other than city battles, where the Russians emphasized point defense, armor more than proved its worth in avoiding bloodlettings of trench warfare.
Today there has been renewed interest on the use of light GPS guided armor in cities, hence the Marine Corps recent exercises Operation Urban Warrior.
This seems a singularly ill-informed opinion. Think of Guderian storming into France circumventing the Maginot line, one of the major events of the war. How could that have been done without armour?
Armor cannot maneuver in city streets and that is its advantage over artillery which is more accurate, can fire more rapidly and can be of higher caliber.
With proper maintenance and logistical support, armor was excellent at making and exploiting gaps in defences, and could penetrate the rear and flanks of an enemy's defences, attacking unprotected infantry and supply columns.
But less than 100 posts ago you established that WWII were not suited to travel long distances. The treads of the day did not last long enough. This is a serious disadvantage in offensive campaigns.
PelleNilsson said:
Think of Guderian storming into France circumventing the Maginot line, one of the major events of the war.
The Maginot Line might also have been circumvented by aircraft. It would have been a totally different operation, requiring different tactics, but the aircraft technology of the day was probably sufficient.
I do agree that tanks were put to productive use by both sides in the European campaign. I am only suggesting that armor may not have been the most efficient way for the Germans to use their resources. They may have been better off devoting that amount of money, men, and productive capacity to securing total air supremecy.
Tanks cannot go for hundreds of miles without maintenance (even today). They could (and more importantly, did) break through defences and exploit the breakthroughs. Also, as the war progressed, tanks improved in speed, range, and ease of maintenance. Shermans and T-34s were far better than their predecessors. Armies that used tanks placed a premium on keeping them going for as long as possible, and developed the logistical capacity to do so.
Your speculation about air power's ability to "turn" the Maginot Line is, frankly, silly. Even the Allies (with massive air superiority) were unable to fight their way through Germany's defences without using massive amounts of tanks, artillery and men.
Kosovo proved that air supremacy will not substitute for actual capture of territory. Not to mention Vietnam.
Wombat, so which is it? Were WWII tanks good or bad for long distance campaigns?
This brings me back to my original point, that at the time Germans were able to build the most reliable automobiles in the world, so why not tanks? I accepted you position that durable treads were beyond the state of the art in WWII.
Even the Allies (with massive air superiority) were unable to fight their way through Germany's defences . . .
For this statement to make the point, we must presume that the Allies used the best possible tactics with the aircraft technology of the day. I am not convinced that they did. Remember, I said the Germans may have been better off if they had secured air supremecy and then used different tactics in their attacks.
Also, I would not advocate airpower as a substitute for infantry in capturing territory. I am only speculating on the possible strategic benefits of using more aircraft and less armor in Germany's offensive campaigns.
You have a problem. You don't know what you're talking about. You can speculate hither and dither, but the simple fact is that air superiority has not won any war from WWII and onwards.
Tanks could fight their way through defences, and depending on the amount of resistance, continue on for 10-30 miles a day, attacking "soft" targets behind the lines, disrupting communications, (in one instance actually catching enemy tanks as they were being unloaded from a train), and making it easier for follow-on forces to mop up and hold territory. Infantry on foot could not maintain a pace like that for more than one day before succumbing to exhaustion. Truck-mounted infantry perhaps could move faster and for longer distances, but only on roads and without resistance. I don't know what your conception of armored warfare is, but it has never involved tanks dashing on for hundreds of miles in one go.
By 1944, the Allies had excellent aircraft and front line communications systems to coordinate air strikes against German armor. There was still a great deal of hard fighting.
Exactly my intention.
. . . but the simple fact is that air superiority has not won any war from WWII and onwards.
What have historic facts got to do with this? I believe it is also a fact that germ warfare has not won a war since WWII. This might lead me to conclude that germ warfare cannot win a war, but it might also tell me that no one has employed germ warfare using an optimal strategy. Perhaps we can determine that one of those choicews is the correct answer, but we should at least discuss them both before dismissing one.
Wombat, I am willing to consider any model of armored warfare. It would be ridiculously narrow-minded to restrict myself only to those that have been tested in history. However, I have no idea why anyone would try to use WWII tanks in a dash or running battle that is hundreds of miles long. Do you?
Armor, tactical air and mechanized troops were combined to create a new tactical synthesis in WWII which was so succesful in its earliest applications that it provided a strategic advantage in 1940. By the end of the war all the major powers had combined arms doctrines which, while differing in the relative emphasis placed on individual arms, all featured the same assets.
Combat assets are fungible wrt one another to only a limited degree. Thus tactical air power can aid in several respects, but can not substitute for armor and infantry in seizing and holding ground.
BTW, armor was used in many of the great city battles of WWII; e.g. Budapest and the Anglo-American drive in '44-45. The great advantages of armor are its ability (vs. artillery) to provide flat trajectory fire, suppress and destroy a variety of enemy positions, and encourage the accompanying infantry.
I would take issue with yourspeculation that the germans would have been better served switching emphasis from armor to air. In truth they needed both, but I believe that at the actual fronts they got a better return from investment in armor than they did from the bloated and inefficient Luftwaffe.
One can always argue that a more competent Luftwaffe would have better used this hypothetical increment of air power, but even those Allied powers who enjoyed massive air production required much time before they succesfully incorporated tactical air into their combined arms doctrines.
BTW, which types of aircraft would you have had the Germans produce in greater numbers? And which armor would you have had them sacrifice?
Great question. I suppose I would have them produce more tank-busting aircraft, while producing fewer of the tanks that gave the worst productivity to maintenance ratio to Germany.
So far the information in this discussion is not adequate to make any real decisions. Was the maintenance burden of mobilizing armor an achilles heel or not? Was armor well suited for urban combat or not?
(If anyone is tired of this discussion feel free to change the subject. I have been intentionally exaggerating my point to make myself an easy target so newcomers will not be shy about joining this thread.)
Specialized question for fans of Liberty Ships:
I am currently reading Failure is not an Option by Gene Krantz. In it he mentions that during the very early space program, NASA stationed ground based communications all around the world on "old WWII cargo ships."
My questions is, were these Liberty ships? Surviving Liberty ships would have been 15-20 years old during that period. If they weren't Liberty Ships, then what other type of old WWII cargo ships would they have been?
Me: "You can speculate hither and dither . . ."
DocBrown: "Exactly my intention."
The Doc again: "What have historic facts got to do with this?"
You're a dilettante Doc, and I'm glad that you admit to it in your latest.
They could have been "Victory" ships, which superceded the Liberty ship late in WWII.
German ground attack craft were Henschel 123s and 129s (I think), the former was a biplane, the latter a heavily armed and armored twin engine plane (slow, too). There was also a Stuka variant with 2 37mm cannon, that must have been excruciatingly slow.
The Allies WON!
You're a dilettante Doc, and I'm glad that you admit to it in your latest.
And I am glad I could make you glad, Pelle. As I said in my previous post, I have been trying to stir up the finest minds of the Mote to generate some fire in this thread. It was part of the effort to attract new Moties, since I think this thread has appeal to newcomers. Yet after nearly two weeks I am tired of playing that game.
Thanks for visiting us, Nostradamus. At least you posted on a subject about which you can make competent pronouncents.
Wombat, can you tell me anything about Victory Ships? How were they different from Liberty Ships? I am trying to get a feel for those early manned space missions, and the CapCom astronauts stationed on those ships played a larger role than I had imagined. Even during the Apollo era global communications were unreliable, and Houston was not able to communicate with the spacecraft at all times. The men on the ships worked hard and sometimes made important split-second decisions in the far flung regions of the globe.
As I mentioned here, I got to visit a Liberty ship earlier this summer. Were Victory Ships about the same size?
Never mind, Wombat. I found the information I needed here.
Victory Ships were just a little bit bigger than Liberty ships. The difference seems to be that Victory Ships were much faster, probably due to their turbine engines. Liberty Ships used reciprocating engines, since the limited capacity to produce turbine engines was needed for combat ships. I presume that later in the war production of combat ships slowed, freeing up some turbine engines for cargo vessels.
From this Web site: http://www.americanvictory.org/history.htm
"A Liberty ship's maximum speed was 11 knots, making her easy prey for submarines, so early in 1942, the U.S War Shipping Administration commissioned a design for a faster, 15-knot ship. Vessels in this new class were to be known as "Victory" ships (officially a VC2) and were 455 feet in length, slightly longer than Liberty ships, and 62 feet wide. Cross-compound steam turbine engines with double reduction gears were developed to deliver 6,000 or 8,500 horsepower, and could make up to 17 knots, significantly faster than a Liberty. Victory ship profiles would feature a sleek, "raked" bow and a "cruiser" stern, markedly different from a Liberty ship profile."
Victory ships were longer, faster, and better built. The were produced between 1944-46, and did serve as radar picket vessels.
Thanks, Wombat.
It seems likely that a Victory ship would make a better CapCom communications vessel than a Liberty ship. Astronauts needed to be aboard them during missions, but Astronauts also needed to be in America training and making public appearances. An 11 knot trip around the world would have been very wasteful.
WWII remains relevant because it shaped the politics of this century and because it established the paradigm for war-fighting. The interesting point may be whether the WWII paradigm is now irrelevant and whether the American Way of War is the new model.
Certainly it was what I was taught 3 decades ago. And certainly it was the model in Cold War Central Europe. But perhaps the Gulf War was the last hurrah. My argument would be that the qualitative advances in weapons and sensors have led to strategic changes as exemplified by the Kosovo bombing. If you add precision targetting, real time intelligence, and small unit tactics perhaps we have a new model. Of course this could be chauvinistic since only the US can afford such a paradigm. Wonder how our evolving model would do against a major foe such as the Chinese?
Today's US doctrine still seeks to use technology as a force multiplier and to limit potential US casualties. The technology has advanced to the point where the latter is now feasible (against vastly inferior foes).
As to China, it would probably depend on the scope and nature of the fighting.
For a soft and furry guy you have a pretty good feel for this stuff. Certainly a wealthy power will substitute capital for labor- in our case the "impropriety of casualties" also plays a big role. You are right that the mechanization and impressive logistics of WWII laid foundations for current American practices. Notice that the SU did not take all the same lessons- to the detriment of today's Russia.
My point was that the evolution of weapons systems has reached the point that war fighting strategies (not just tactics) have also evolved reinforcing, at least in he short term, the American advantage. Of course we remain wedded to obsolete systems as well; consider the aircraft carrier. But overall it is we who are defining the new paradigm.
A Sino-American conflict would be pretty intense if it involved land fighting for real estate. We hold definite advantages in air, naval, firepower and C3I. They hold the advantage in troop numbers. We could contain their expansion but going after them on their own territory would be tough. The Korean war offers some good lessons. The relative advantages I've listed were present there as well and we achieved an exchange ratio of 20 to 1 in combat. The result, however, was a military and political stalemate.
Your comment about aircraft carriers would no doubt give your Navy colleagues apoplexy. Do you think them obsolete in general, or is the US building too many of them?
I would hate to oppose "1 million screaming Chinese" hurling themselves at my position with a bunch of "light" divisions. I also do not see an invasion of Chinese territory by US forces under any circumstances.
As expensive as aircraft carriers are, I think they still play a vital role. A foriegn power simply cannot ignore a might American CVG cruising nearby. Iraq gave the U.S. a nice opportunity to remind the world of that fact.
Perhaps JRoth's point is that a determined and cunning adversary might take out a carrier in a single blow. This certainly is a risk. But as long as the CV remains afloat it exudes plenty of political influence by its mere presence.
Aegis is impressive, but again it is a hugely expensive defensive system. What the CVBG, or its succesor formation, needs is more offensive punch (efficiency). Land attack capability is pretty good, but as the Tomahawk gets better the deficiencies of manned aircraft become more evident.
Of course as a Marine I always felt the Navy shortchanged combat support; hence the continual USMC push for organic air assets.
Tell me the mission and I'll give my opinion on the worth of a CVBG.
I know that naval air support for ground operations has always been a sore point between the Navy and (Army) Marines. Would a "harrier" carrier that is fast enough to keep up with a CVBG suffice (assuming it could be built within 20 years and its costs kept under $1 trillion)?
Its not that this impressive collection of ships lacks offensive capability; rather that the total 'system cost' is 60% defense and 40% offense. Contrast that to cheap missile systems which are purely offensive.
Proposals for larger amphibious carriers that could keep up (read nuclear propulsion) have been made but the current plans envision Newport News working on one new CV at a time and having a 2nd undergoing SLEP. This arrangement will eventually provide a 'steady state' force of 10-12 big carriers. That's barely enough to provide command experience for O-6s prior to flag rank.
Tell me the mission and I'll give my opinion on the worth of a CVBG.
Okay, the mission has two simultaneous objectives: to make a friendly nation feel secure in the U.S. committment to its safety, and to make an unfriendly nation feel insecure about the committment to protect a U.S. ally. It is preferable to accomplish this mission without firing a shot. The objective allows for armed intervention only as a last resort.
This thread is swerving back into Future War.
JRoth said:
Today's US doctrine still seeks to use technology as a force multiplier and to limit potential US casualties.
I think this is true for all military doctrines. Every weapon from the battering ram to the machine gun is adopted because it allows fewer troops to do more damage. This increases "productivity" of the military.
Historically, new technologies were only adopted if they quickly yielded a positive cost/benefit ratio. A good example might be the military jet fighter, which America might have deployed in the 30s if it were willing to spend huge amounts of money.
What is striking about the current U.S. doctrine is that we are now willing to spend so much more than anyone else to stay ahead. For example, the money we spent developing and deploying Stealth fighters could have bought a large number of F-15s.
Perhaps that doctrine came from WWII. Germany had some success with high tech weapons, and perhaps that impressed the U.S. into rethinking its policies.
What was/is the Future War thread? Sounds like fun. Perhaps we should just rename this Thread 'Vom Krieg". Your mission is that of deterence at the broadest level. Let me apply it to a few scenarios: 1.) Defense of Taiwan. CVBGs would be very effective stopping an amphibious assault if we were willing to risk the assets.
2.) Defense of a hypothetical African nation from a neighbor. Limited utility, esp. if conflict is far inland. 3.) Defense of South Korea. Limited utility. 3.) Limited war in an LDC. Possibly very effective if the conflict is littoral and the task force supports a Marine Expeditionary Force.
In general, CVBGs are good for maritime defense and pretty good for littoral conflicts. Once again the issue is the range and quantity of the offensive weapons.
The American Way of War has relatively little to do with WWII Germany since it emphasises intelligence, precision standoff munitions, logistics and strategic airpower. Of course our naval strategies have a direct lineage from the Royal Navy.
Your response seems to equate deterrence with defense. I disagree.
In my view, one of the best deterrence strategies in military history was the U.S. program that put men on the moon. The Saturn V and Lunar Module were useless as weapons, but surely the success of Apollo woke up the world. Imagine a Russian General who knows all the confidential secrets about how unreliable and inaccurate their ICBMs were. When he sees Alan Shepherd hitting golf balls on the moon, he has to say to himself, "Damn! Those Americans have powerful technology that works!"
The same thing goes for the modern CVBG. If it actually has to fight a battle, then it has already failed in its mission.
The American Way of War has relatively little to do with WWII Germany since it emphasises intelligence, precision standoff munitions, logistics and strategic airpower.
But what about the strategy that lead to the development of these weapons? Before WWII America was not known as a leader in military technology. Instead, we fielded ordinary ships, planes, tanks, and occasional technological blunders like dud torpedoes.
Germany, OTOH, invested in many high tech weapons before and during the war. In fact, I believe that they over invested in high tech, and never got a full return on their investment. They might have been better served with less research and more 1930s weapons. But they went for technology anyway.
America does something similar today. We spend so much to stay ahead of the technology curve that we might never see a return on that investment. I am not judging this as bad or good, merely noting what I consider to be a (sort of) repetition of history.
What are the three or four main principles of the new 'American Way of War'? I didn't see this above but I may have missed it. I'm assuming that this is not the latest Proctor & Gamble ad campaign.
What hi-tech weapons did Germany invest in before WWII? The ME-109 was not particularly advanced compared to the Spitfires and Hurricanes, and their French, Italian and Japanese equivalents. Their bombers were pedestrian in design and performance. Britain was more advanced in radar and sonar. German torpedoes had the same problems that US ones had. German tanks were individually inferior to those of France. In 1940, one of the best German battle tanks was actually a Czechoslovakian design.
In fact, you could make a very strong argument that German r&d was markedly inferior. There was no second generation German fighter craft: no Mustang, Thunderbolt, Typhoon or Tempest to replace the P-40s, P-39s, and Hurricanes that made up the bulk of the Allies' forces when the war started. All the new bomber designs were utterly derivative of their predecessors, which were inadequate designs to begin with. The Panther and Tiger tanks were answers to existing Soviet models.
Hitler and his weapons designers were fascinated by wonder weapons, only some of which were feasible, because they had allowed themselves to fall hopelessly behind the Allies in the first place.
There was a self-fulfilling prophecy in German technological innovation. Almost from his ascension to power, Hitler planned for a great war in about 1942. Thus, all of the armed services, German industry, and R&D were geared to that time frame. The concomittant result was that they didn't look much past that. Thus, German forces were technologically superior to the Allies during the first couple of years of the war (on balance) but quickly lost the advantage.
The key point is that Hitler thought he'd have all he needed to gain what he wanted for Germany, so why bother with research (atomic and otherwise) that wouldn't bear fruit before, say 1945.
Thank God.
German superiority in the early years of the war was not due to any great technical superiority. It had much more to do with how German military assets were used.
I agree that the German's tactical doctrine accounted for most of their early successes. I'm only trying to make the point that German R&D more or less stalled during the war for the reason stated above.
I don't want to get into a device-by-device comparison because, frankly, I think it would be close to a draw (Spitfire trumps ME-109 but FW-190 trumps Spitfire, some of those mammoth French tanks were better but there were only a few of them, etc., etc.). I just think that, overall and on balance, German technology was marginally superior early in the war (only).
I will grant you "marginally," particularly when applied to the Poles, Norwegians, Danish, Dutch, and Belgians.
btw, I disagree with Doc's fundamental point that Germany was very high-tech.
Doc said-- Germany, OTOH, invested in many high tech weapons before and during the war. In fact, I believe that they over invested in high tech, and never got a full return on their investment. They might have been better served with less research and more 1930s weapons..
As I argued above, I think the boldface statement is more or less what they did.
As a self-confessed "dilettante," Doc occasionally lets his opinions supercede his level of knowledge. But who doesn't?
Aside-- Interesting how this negotiation thing works. You originally said inferior. I said superior. We wrassled a bit and agreed on "marginal".
Funny stuff.
Thus, German forces were technologically superior to the Allies during the first couple of years of the war (on balance) but quickly lost the advantage.
. . . and then say this . . .
They might have been better served with less research and more 1930s weapons..
As I argued above, I think the boldface statement is more or less what they did.
Perhaps you believe that long range missiles and the other things mentioned by JRoth were 1930s weapons. I do not classify them that way.
Or maybe I was unclear when I suggested that Germany researched high tech before the war and deployed it during the war. Jet aircraft make a perfect example. Check out a quote from Dan's History:
Just five days before World War II broke out, on August 27, 1939, the He 178 became the world's first jet aircraft to take
flight.
Before the war, German technology appeared to be years ahead of America and England. My suggestion is that they may have overinvested in technology which could not bring them to realistic strategic goals. For example, as good as their jets were, they may have been better served spending their research money on conventional aircraft.
Of course the High Command may have believed that the aggressive use of flashy technology was more effective at boosting German morale and the image of Arian superiority than it was at winning battles.
There's a couple of live issues here. As far as the first part of your post, I don't think my statements are a contradiction. The point I was trying to make is that Hitler's planning engendered something of a contradiction. Let me restate my opinion rather than parse what I said (which always seems dangerous to me):
1. From about 1935, the Germans developed the Wehrmacht, German industry and R&D, military tactics and everything else toward a major war in about 1942. The result was that Germany fought almost the entire war with an army based on 1938-40 weapons (planned and actual). That's a slight overstatement but it makes the point.
2. To that end, they developed and maintained a slim technological lead over the Allies in the early war years (overall).
3. Germany's major accomplishments in the war are largely a result of superior training and tactics, not their technological lead or tech developments.
4. Due to Hitler's strategic blind spots, Germany's R&D talent was frittered away on a mixture of brilliant and useless projects. The successes were greatly overshadowed by the failures.
5. Overall, the Allies matched and then surpassed the Germans in technology during the war. The key word is overall. There were, of course, individual exceptions (rockets, jet planes).
I think a couple of other points also need to go in here but they escape me at the moment.
Finally, I'm not quite sure how to interpret "high-tech" in the context of WW2. If it means "advanced war-winning weaponry", then surely the Germans lost that race. In spite of rockets and jets, the A-bomb would have wiped them out.
Fire when ready.
I am not sure that even with more jet fighters earlier, Germany would have been able to defeat the strategic bombing offensive. A glance at the link that Doc supplies shows a comparatively poor ratio of bomber to Me 262 losses. The Allies would have simply introduced the tactics they used against them earlier, attacking their airfields, catching them taking off or landing.
Looking for the ultimate four-wheel drive? Well, a T-80 main battle tank could inject some adventure into your vacation and some much-needed cash into Ukraine's military budget.
......
A 6-kilometer (3.75 miles) jaunt through the picturesque woods of the Ukranian steppe (civilian driver's licence not required) will cost $350. But if the adventurer is feeling trigger happy, he or she will have to shell out another $300 to fire the tank's gun.
(AFP reported in IHT)
Can one use the tank to negotiate with the taxi driver who overcharged you on the ride over?
AytchMan, you keep bringing up the technology that Germany developed during the war, when this argument started over the technology they developed before the war. Remember, I was musing about the penchant that America has developed for spending lots of money on military R&D during peacetime, and wondering whether we picked up that habit from the Germans.
Another thought is that perhaps after the war, the U.S.A. and U.S.S.R. both analyzed Germany's pre-war technical accomplishments. Maybe "what could have been" thoughts sent shivers down their spines on both sides. That might have caused a nice spark to help start a technological arms race, and thus the new American R&D paradigm.
1st para. Sorry about that. There seemed to be several issues in play.
2nd para. I think your point is valid but at a secondary level. A technological arms race has been in progress since the term was invented. It has simply shifted among the leading industrial powers, blowing hot or cold at different times.
How do you define the new R&D pradigm? Simply throwing large quantities of bucks at r&d to maintain a big lead? If so, how is that new?
Everybody fought with weapons that were, in main, evolutionary designs. You can quote some exceptions like the Tiger tank, but that wasn't very succesful. To continue with tanks; the German designs were evolutionary, the Sherman was a piece of crap that wasn't upgunned until late '44, the Brits never got the 'mix' right, the T-34 was evolved from the early Christie designs and modified after experience in the Far East.
Infantry arms, much the same story; all nations went to larger calibres and, consequently, greater mechanization.
In aircraft the jets were the only revolution and they came about too late and too few to do Germany much good. But the V weapons were a real advance.
Perhaps I'm missing the point?
If you are an average-sized Swede (175 cm?) watch your knees in that T-80. Like the other Soviet tanks it is designed for a crew of smaller men; I believe max. height was 160 or 165 cm.
I don't understand where the Ukranians get the cash for the fuel they burn up running those things around. Makes the American penchant for SUV's look reasonable by comparison.
How do you define the new R&D pradigm? Simply throwing large quantities of bucks at r&d to maintain a big lead? If so, how is that new?
The difference is the expense of technology vs its force multiplier (or other productivity increase) ability. I believe that before WWII our R&D paradigm was geared strictly toward military capability and productivity. I have no number to apply to force multiplication, but the subject has been discussed here in the past without data.
So here is an example with a bit of data:
422 of the stealthy new F-22 fighters would cost $70.1 billion. The F-15 C or D variants cost $29.9 million each. An F-15 is faster and carries a heavier load of exactly the same weapons as an F-22. For the same price tag we could buy almost 2,500 F-15s.
Can 422 of the slower but stealthy F-22s outproduce 2,500 F-15s in combat? Can 422 F-22s carry out a mission that 2,500 F-15s cannot? Maybe, but I doubt it. America invests in technology like this for reasons that transcend force multiplication and mission capability.
You say that Germany planned for a Great War in about 1942. Perhaps in the same way today's America constantly assumes there will be a Great War (with multiple fronts) about 5-6 years in the future. I believe this is not the same R&D paradigm that America used before WWII.
I don't think was was a US military R&D paradigm before 1939. The Army and Navy issued broad specifications of what it wanted, and manufacturers made prototypes (at their own financial risk), which then competed against each other. JRoth is perhaps in a better position to comment.
Any national R&D policy would not not have started until after WWII began.
JRoth
So that was an intentional design feature of the T-80?
The Soviets kept the tank compartments small to achieve a lower silhouette and have more room for ammo. For similar reasons they stuck barrels of petrol on the rear deck. They went too far when they cut out the loader, introducing an automated mechanism instead. The damn thing takes 3.4 seconds to load the next round- you might as well hang it up.
Army Air Force benefited from competition among airframe manufacturers who designed prototypes and tried to get the buys. Big exception was the B-17; that was a deliberate program in response to specific strategic and tactical requirements.
The Navy has always had a keen interest in technological development given the nature of naval conflict, the long lead times for procurement, and the long lives of the assets. The US Navy's Bureau of Ships was active in the interwar period and came up with several succesful designs. The early core of big fleet carriers were, of course, an inspired conversion of battlecruiser hulls following the naval larms limitation talks.
Prior to WWII there was nothing like the national security sector that has since evolved. You now have full industries that start with strategic programs, define tactical requirements, go through several design cycles, etc. etc. The services themselves have officer corps composed of program managers.
Exactly right. Despite the clear lesson of WWI that cyclic firepower mattered, the Army was reluctant to let go of the superior marksmanship that the bolt action '03 implied. The Marines held onto their Springfields much longer; I know for a fact they were in use on Guadacanal. The '03 is a cult rifle now among older Marines.
Back to the original point; both the US and Royal Navies have had a history of close cooperation with ship builders and associated technologies. Its true that BuShips and BuOrd maintained R&D establishments prior to WWII. In fact, you can make a pleasant day drive down to Dahlgren, Va. and inspect 14 and 16 inch projectiles blasted into various thicknesses of armor plate. Might be the kind of thing Rustler Pike should start thinking about.
Good link. The issue with the F-22 is its limited mission profile. At a time of multi-mission craft (we're all fighter bombers today) the USAF wants an air-superiority fighter as its first priority. Not mentioned is that the stealth characterisrics are lost when external ordnance is added. You can carry a certain amount internally or in conformal designs, but too much iron hanging means observability.
The fighter jocks talk about mission packages which are a mixture of various plane types whose capabilities and tasks are orchestrated byb AWACS. In that scenario the F-22 flies CAP and perha[ps does a little precision shooting. IMO its a lot of money for dog-fighting.
To return to the American paradigm. Mission success depends on two issues: Finding the target and delivering appropriate ordnance. Older weapon systems like rifles and fighters accomplished both tasks by one individual unit (plane or grunt). IMO we will bifurcate the roles by using real-time intelligence to find the targets and precision munitions delivery to deliver ordnance. It won't work in all cases, but many of the USAF's manned missions can be automated- the ultimate substitution of capital for labor.
My early orientation was as a ground-pounder. Later I spent some time doing program evals and comparisions with Soviet hardware. IMO, today's fighter jocks are like heavy mounted knights at Agincourt; an obsolesence fighting against irrelevance. The amount of a plane's cost that is attributable to 'human surviveability' is in the 45% range for top fighters. More to the point; G-forces and other physiological limitations restrict the performance envelope of the aircraft.
We already have drones that do a good job of real time intell. We also have drones that can deliver munitions. We also have standoff missle systems for air and surface strikes. Tell me again why we need our Jedi Knights?
One doesn't have to go whole hog with the automated concept. In fact the optimum tactics would probably involve a mixture of automated and manned systems.
This sure does feel like the Future War thread. The bulk of it was devoted to discussing the current and future state of the art in Artificial Intelligence.
In my opinion, AI is definitely the place where military R&D can get the most bang for its buck. A cruise missile that can think like a fighter pilot would be a devestating weapon. Last year if the American missile had been significantly smarter, it might have stopped itself from destroying the Chinese embassy and found itself a better target.
One of the basic problems with drone warfare is ecurity of communications. If the drone is prevented from receiving and transmitting it can't be controlled dynamically. There is some work on cohesive laser communications going on.
You are right about communicating with the drone, JRoth. But if the drone had a human pilot, it might not have needed communications. The human pilot would have had the same opportunity to assess the situation as real-time ground controllers would.
Now, imagine a drone with an onboard computer that is just as smart as a human pilot, and you will have the type of weapon we were discussing in the old Future War thread.
Hard to believe that a radar-equipped ship like the Scharnhorst could be so easily ambushed. 
I'd like to see such special, although I don't think there is much to be learned from exploring this wreck. Unlike the Titanic and even the Bismark, I am unaware of any controversies that this might settle.
I too am dismayed that a decent ship like Scharnhorst met her end in an ambush. The strategy of sending her alone as a convoy raider seems ill-concieved. Considering the Allied forces deployed against her, it was a suicide mission. Her 283mm guns were fine for convoy raiding, but could not hope to penetrate the armor of any British battleships. The German Kriegsmarine had to know this.
So, Wombat, what could the Germans have done better with their capital ships?
Perhaps there was a way that Battleships and U-Boats couls have worked together. The British often feared that the Germans were doing this, but I do not believe that the Germans ever tried it.
For example, instead of convoy raiding, the Scharnhorst, Gneisenau, Bismark, and Tirpitz might have been used as bait in traps for British BBs and CVs. The British had little incentive to put their heavy units anywhere that they might encounter U-Boats, except for missions where they were hunting the German BBs.
The British had greatly superior numbers of Battleships, which gave them (mostly) control of the sea. Germany could not hope to defeat them in surface actions. If Scharnhorst and Gneisenau were to do any convoy raiding, the British BBs had to be far away.
This was probably an impossible situation for the Kriegsmarine, but if they could invent a coordinated BB / U-Boat tactic, and if that tactic sank 4-5 British BBs, the Royal Navy might have parked its capital ships for a while.
In my high school wargaming days, I used to enjoy trying to dream up and test things like this. I never came up with a good way to coordinate U-Boats and BBs, due to communications and sea-keeping issues.
Part of the problem was that for the German Navy, the war started five years too soon. The "Z" plan called for the construction of 4-6 battleships and a like number of battlecruisers by 1943-44. The Bismark and Scharnhorst classes were prototypes. These would have in theory been able slug it out with the Home Fleet on a fairly equal footing.
However, once the war broke out, the best strategy for the German surface fleet would probably have been to keep it together as a fleet in being. The problem at the outbreak of the war was that Germany's North Sea naval bases were in range of British air attack, the Baltic bases were too far away and the chokepoint out of the Baltic was not in German hands. The conquest of Norway gave Germany good bases, but also decimated its destroyer force, making large fleet operations difficult.
The policy of sending out individual comparatively short-legged warships on commerce destroying missions was sheer folly. As it was, they did little damage, and lost the Bismark and the Scharnhorst as a result.
(More to follow)
German tactical leadership was appalling. It seemed that every time they went into battle, they knew felt they were going to lose. The nadir of this was the Battle of the Barents Sea, when a force consisting of the heavy cruiser Hipper and the Panzerschiffe Lutzow (and escorting destroyers) encountered a British convoy. They were held at bay by the close escort force, which fought with almost suicidal courage, and were driven off by a covering force of two light cruisers. When Hitler was informed of the results, he became so furious that he ordered the surface fleet to be dismantled and used for shore batteries.
Oh yeah, now that was a rarional reaction!
I am familiar with the battle you describe. The Germans did manage to sink the destroyer HMS Achates without themselves losing a ship.
I believe the Jervis Bay vs Admiral Scheer incident was even more outrageous.
Using accurate intelligence and spotter planes, a German pocket battleship sprung a perfect trap for a 38 ship convoy. The Germans had the element of surprise in addition to overwhelming firepower. The convoy's only escort, Jervis Bay, was an old passenger liner with no armor and puny 6 inch guns.
The Admiral Sheer was in the perfect position . . . surface convoy raiding just doesn't get any better than that. But instead of destroying the convoy, the Sheer only sank seven ships including Jervis Bay. Thirty one convoy ships escaped. What a pitiful performance!
The funny thing is that both of these could be classified a German victories, even though German performance was awful.
I believe the Germans lost two destroyers when they blundered into the covering force (HMS Sheffield and Jamaica) and were shot up at almost point-blank range. The Hipper was also badly damaged. It is not clear whether or not the Lutzow even opened fire.
Given that it was night, and the Scheer had no idea what might be out there as she was chasing the scattered convoy all over the map, I think the captain acted sensibly.
The Battle of the River Plate was another example of poor German conduct. After wrecking the heavy cruiser Exeter, and knocking it out of the battle, the Graf Spee failed to sink it, and failed to sink the two light cruisers that remained.
Did the Germans lose two destoryers at the Barents Sea? If so, that fact must have slipped my mind.
As to the Admiral Scheer: remember, the Germans knew where the convoy was but the convoy did not know that the Scheer was coming. The Scheer could have engaged the convoy earlier, and it could have safely ignored the Jervis Bay.
As it was, the Scheer fired its main gus at Jervis Bay again and again, destroying it while the Jervis Bay's guns were still out of range. This wasted precious time. The Scheer could have fired its main guns on the scattering cargo ships first and taken care of the Jervis Bay later. If the Jervis Bay ever got close enough to actually hit the Admiral Scheer, the Scheer's secondary guns would have been more than enough to sink her.
The German mistake was in allowing the convoy to scatter into the night.
BTW in high school I actually played out that scenario many times. The Germans always sank many more cargo ships if they ignored the Jervis Bay. Even arriving just before sunset, the Scheer could sink 6-10 cargo ships while there was still daylight. The Scheer never took any serious damage from the Jervis Bay's little guns.
Had the Scheer ignored Jervis Bay, it would have kept radioing contact information. Scheer had no idea what covering forces might or might not be out there, plus it still had to get back to port safely. Would your wargame have factored that in?
Its true that the Germans didn't mount many fleet operations, but the Bismarck and Prinz Eugen were originally to have been accompanied by the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau. Considering the trouble the Bismarck alone gave, that could have been interesting.
A full battle squadron would definitely have forced the Brits to retain even more units in the Home Fleet. The very 'presence' of the Tirpitz tied down a number of assets alone. But it is unclear what the British would have done with fewer capital ships. The quick loss of Repulse and Prince of Wales argues that any augmentation of the Far east fleet would have been futile. Perhaps the very interesting Mediterranean battles would have gone even more deciseively to the Brits.
Mines are a good thing for the power which is on the defensive or has inferior technology. Are my old favorite Claymores scheduled to be outlawed? I certainly prefer to use those next time American troops face an enemy which has less regard for human life than we.
As a device in peace...affective.
Nice work. Got any pics of Al Gore in flagrante?
I should be so fortunate.
Perhaps Tipper has a few held in potentate?
By the time the Jervis Bay was sunk, it had already radioed the location and actions of the Scheer. Imagine the alternat scenarios, one in which the British have a battle fleet nearby and another in which they do not.
In either case, do you believe that another 20-30 minutes of contact information would have made a difference?
I do not doubt that Captain Krancke and his crew aboard the Scheer did believe that it would make a difference. But in that case, I contend that they were wrong. 20-30 minutes of contact information would have been a minor consideration compared to the opportunity to sink several more convoy ships.
I agree with all the above assessments that say the Germans had almost no strategy to surface ship warfare in WWII.
AytchMan claims that the German strategy in the 30s was that they would be involved in a major war in about 1942. If this is true, as Germany fleshed out these grand plans they must have put little thought into their surface navy. They spent the money to build a handful of very nice ships, but they did not have a plan for them.
It would be more accurate to say that it was Hitler's strategy to fight a major war in about '42. It slowly became German strategy to be prepared to fight that war as Hitler's plans trickled down through the senior ranks as the '30's wore on.
In any event, Hitler had little regard for the Navy -- for either the service or for their strategic aims and requirements. This was reinforced by early war actions (Gunther Prien notwithstanding). Hitler certainly did not understand the strategic implications of a naval war.
Hitler was pressed to build a Panzer force barely had the time to do it. In fact, the force that invaded France was qualitatively not much better than the French, if at all. Many horses, Mark I & II's (weak) made up the bulk of the force.
He simply could not have built a Navy and a Panzer force within his time constraints. Too much steel
BTW, a week or so ago on this thread there was a discussion of the use of armor in urban areas. Looks like we might get a case study in the West Bank.
My impression of Isreali use of armor in urban settings is to use the armor as direct fire support from outside the town. Essentially to use the armor to seal the town and provide heavy weapons support as the infantry clear it. My understanding, please check me on this, is that most of the west bank is small to medium sized towns rather than cities. This is an easier proposition for the use of armor than a large city like Jerusalem.
The equation I recall was 1 dreadnought=1 infantry division. Every dreadnought down the slipways at Wilhelmshaven was one less division to fight the Russians or French.
The German Navy in WWI and II was outstanding both in terms of seamanship and vessels.
The problem facing Hitler and the Kaiser of course was geographic. It was just too easy for Britain to bottle up any German surface fleet.
UNLESS, Germany controlled Norway, France, & Italy! 
Fascinating...
Jex:
With respect to the German navy in WWII, I beg to differ. With the exception of the two battleships, German surface vessels had numerous flaws. German destroyers were very poor seakeepers, the panzerschiffe had unreliable engines and the quality of their protection left much to be desired (An 8" shell from the Exeter penetrated the Graf Spee's armor belt at the River Plate, to the consternation of Captain Langsdorff). German light cruisers had to be reinforced so they could fire broadsides with their main batteries. The Scharnhorst and Gneisnau were also poor sea boats that needed almost immediate reconstruction to keep their forward turrets from being swamped in a seaway. The heavy cruiser Hipper was heavily damaged by 6" shells in the Barents Sea.
The Panzerchiffe were designed to be able to slug it out with a heavy cruiser, and run from anything else. I forget where I read it (I am thinking some naval engineer's analysis of battle damage on German ships), but what stuck in my mind was that an 8" shell from the Exeter penetrated the Graf Spee's main belt at extreme range, and that Captain Langsdorff was stunned that it happened.
This is an interesting discussion of the strategic and engineering aspects of the Kriegsmarine.
I wonder what I would have done if I were in charge of the German fleet at the outbreak of WWII. Surely I could come up with a better use for those resources, even given Hitler's disregard and Goering's contempt for them.
Does anyone have a suggestion of what the Kriegsmarine could have done with Bismark, Tirpitz, Scharnhorst, Gnesenau, the Panzerschiffes, destroyers, U-Boats, and other resources?
Would scrapping them for coastal defense really have been their best possible use?
I might have been tempted to conserve my ships carefully until about 1943, pinching pennies to finish them all, then send the fleet out to engage in a Jutland-like battle with the British.
Imagine Jutland, but with a large number of U-Boats in the rear area. For most of The Battle of Jutland, the British had to either chase the Germans toward Germany or disengage from battle. If the same thing had happened in WWII, this would have created a dream situation for U-Boats: a huge enemy fleet headed exactly where your surface fleet wanted them to head.
The Royal Navy would be unlikely to stumble into such a trap. But if they did not pursue the German fleet, then what would they do?
As noted a while ago, the Germans should have repeated their strategy from World War I. Keep the heavy units together "in being," and use them against vulnerable convoys, isolated covering forces, and in support of land operations. Let the U-boats do the commerce raiding. Scrap the panzerschiffe, they were too slow to keep up with newer (and heavier) ships, or use them as training vessels and coast defence ships.
The thing to remember about Jutland was that the Germans did not anticipate meeting the Grand Fleet in its entirety. It was a British strategic victory, and came very close to being a British tactical victory as well.
Unlike in WWI, British tactical naval leadership in World War II was almost uniformly superb. A. Cunningham, Tovey, Somerville, Horton, and Fraser combined aggression, technical competence, self confidence, and a willingnes to experiment to a high degree. By comparison, German naval leadership was much worse than in WWI (and it wasn't so great in that war).
Where were they to get these aircraft carriers from? Remembering that the British fleet would have fled to Canada had the home islands been conquered.
I think the panzerschiffe might have been put to some use other than scrap. They were only a little slower than the newer ships, and could keep up with a few of the slower British battlewagons.
Apparently the panzerschiffe had diesel engines. They might have made the foundations for good aircraft carriers, if they could be made stable without slowing them down.
The "older" British battlewagons that the panzerschiffe could have kept up with were armed with 8 15" guns and were heavily armored, particularly in comparison to the panzerschiffe. An encounter with a Resolution class battleship would have been disastrous, and was what the panzerschiffe were designed to run away from.
Maritime diesels don't seem to wear well on anything larger than an escort vessel or frigate.
Incidentally, that "warship" web site you linked to is fantastic.
Of course the scenario is pure fantasy for nobody could have forseen the swift collapse of France with the concommitant opening up of high seas access. Tthe lead times for building a decent fleet are years not months.
Meaning that the Germans won the battle but Britain won the war and only because winning was a geographical impossibility.
As for the Royal Navy in WWII, their performance in Norway, in the Far East, during 1940 in the Altantic, and with the Bismarck was abysmal. Taranto was their only decent early war effort.
If Germany had a passable fleet, the Mediterranean would have been a Kraut lake.
exception of the two battleships, German surface vessels had
numerous flaws
Scharnhorst and Geisenau did just fine. For Chrissakes they were sent out alone, no battle group with the entire Royal Navy out for them.
Mostly though, I think your answer begs the question, the "what-if" assumption that Germany would have had the resources, the lead time, and the political will to build an High Seas Fleet to destroy Great Britain.
Building small cheap aircraft carriers (we're not talking Pacific Theatre here) was no biggie. Britain and the US both used old cruisers and WWI battleship hulls to get passable AC's in service very quickly. 
Schwere Kruezer Prinz Eugen
This seems to be the Thread that wont' die. I'm pleased that so many have been so interested for so long.
During the Norwegian invasion, the Germans lost 10 destroyers, at least one light cruiser, one heavy cruiser (with damage to another), and both battle cruisers were damaged. The Kreigsmarine never recovered.
As I recall, the Bismarck was sunk, in large part due to British actions, beginning with the hit that the Prince of Wales scored after the Hood had blown up, which holed a fuel bunker, causing an oil slick, and a loss of much needed fuel. Had the Bismarck turned back with the Prinz Eugen, she would have survived.
British forces in the Far East were overwhelmed by vastly superior forces. That said, Admiral Phillips was not up to the job. However, his replacement, Admiral Somerville, did a superb job keeping the remaining units as a "fleet in being," until the Japanese left the Indian Ocean.
The thing to remember about Jutland was that the Germans did not anticipate meeting the Grand Fleet in its entirety. It was a British strategic victory, and came very close to being a British tactical victory as well.
Perhaps the British won Jutland, but they missed its most important lesson. Had they analyzed their Battlecruiser performance at Jutland carefully, the Royal Navy would never have let the Hood engage the Bismark a quarter century later. With her RADAR and a slight speed advantage, Hood was the perfect ship to shadow Bismark while a fleet of British BBs closed in for the kill.
Of course the Hood had fire control RADAR, not surface search RADAR. That might have been an important factor. Surface search radar would have been better for shadowing Bismark.
In researching this, I stumbled upon this tidbit: Tirpitz may have had a high tech RADAR.
Actually, the British didn't learn the lesson of Dogger Bank. During that battle (fought before Jutland) the Seydlitz and the Lion both suffered high angle hits to main battery turrets that penetrated the top armor and set off ready ammunition in the turret. The flash from the exploding ammunition almost spread into the magazine in both cases. The Germans promptly retrofitted all their battlecruisers with devices that could prevent such occurences. At Jutland, the Queen Mary was probably lost due to that, and the Lion was almost lost (again). The Invincible and Indefatigable were so poorly armored that any main battery shell in the right place would have destroyed them. The Seydlitz and Derfflinger both took hits in turrets. Neither sank.
When the war broke out, Hood was due to be modernized a la Queen Elizabeths' and Renown). Her vulnerability to plunging fire was well known; indeed her tactics against the Bismarck were to close as quickly as possible, even if it meant masking her rear turrets, which is exactly what she was doing when she was hit.
The British missed other important lessons from Dogger Bank, since at Jutland an alarming proportion of their armor piercing shells were still duds, and they still had awful signaling problems.
Closing in with the Bismark was a bad move for Hood. With her bow toward the enemy, Hood was effectively "crossing the T," making her an easier target for Bismark's plunging fire. Besides, the British should not have expected Hood to defeat Bismark at close range any better than she could at long range. If Hood had actually gotten closer, then Bismark might have suffered a bit more damage. In the end Hood would still have been sunk. No matter how I look at it, that was a suicide charge into Bismark's big guns.
Under optimal circumstances, Hood and Prince of Wales should have been a fairly even match for Bismark and Prinz Eugen. From the German perspective, an even match was the best they could ever expect to see. From the British perspective, there was no need to offer the Germans an even match. They could have shadowed Bismark and waited for overwhelming reinforcements.
I think you're having terminology problems. Bismark was crossing Hood's T. This gives one ship the advantage, in that it can fire all of its main battery, while the other can only fire its forward (or rear) battery. This is not as big a disadvantage as in the days of sail, when the bulk of a ship's guns were mounted in broadside, compared to 2-4 light bow or stern chaser cannon.
Note also that as the range closes and gun elevation decreases, the trajectories become flatter, and plunging fire less likely.
On paper, the Hood and the Prince of Wales should have overwhelmed the Bismarck and Prinz Eugen. The former carried 8 15" and 10 14" main batteries, while the latter had 8 15" and 8 8" main batteries. The Hood was designed to catch and sink ships like the Prinz Eugen. The Prince of Wales managed sufficiently well, even though by the end of the engagement, it was down to 2 14" guns (due to mechanical failures). It stood up to the Bismarck better than vice-versa.
There is another issue beyond just gun firing arcs in "crossing the T." It has to do with artillery aiming and range determination. With the equipment available at the time, they could put a shell just about anywhere they wanted with good accuracy. The problem was deciding where they wanted the shells to fall.
It was fairly easy to determine the relative bearing to turn a turret and fire at a target with great precision. It was much more difficult to measure distance-to-target precisely for setting gun elevation. In WWI they observed shell splashes and adjusted elevation between rounds, they also did some of this in WWII, although RADAR helped.
When the realative bearing to the target is predicted with great accuracy, but the distance prediction is less accurate, your wish your target was deep.
A ship might be 8-10 times longer than it was wide. Thus at long range, plunging fire to hit a ship facing head-on had a much greater margin for error than hitting a ship that had its broadside facing you.
This target is easy to hit with plunging fire:
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
/\ ~ ~ ~ ~
|| ~ ~ ~ ~
|| -> -> TARGET
|| ~ ~ ~ ~
\/ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
This target is difficult to hit with plunging fire:
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
/\ ~ ~ ~ T ~
|| ~ ~ ~ A ~
|| -> -> R ~
|| ~ ~ ~ G ~
\/ ~ ~ ~ E ~
~~ ~ ~ ~ T ~
I have played the Bismark & Prinz Eugen vs Prince of Wales & Hood scenario in wargaming a number of times. If you assume that Prince of Wales is in perfect operating condition, and that the British can distinguish between the two German ships, the Germans loose every time. If Hood rushes toward Bismark, it usually goes down.
The problem that the British had was that the Prince of Wales really needed 15 inch guns.
You can see range and penetration data for the guns by following the links below.
Hood's guns. "In terms of armor penetration . . . were superior to the King George V's (Prince of Wales' class) 14" guns at all ranges."
Prince of Wales' guns. "Unfortunately, the mountings for this weapon were prone to mechanical failures during the early part of the war, with both the Prince of Wales and King George V having numerous problems during their engagements against the Bismarck. Many, if not most, of these problems had been corrected by 1943. However, against the Scharnhorst at the North Cape battle, the Duke of York still fired less than 70% of her possible output because of mechanical and interlock problems."
Bismark's guns. "The rate of fire from these guns was among the best ever achieved for so large a caliber (2.3 to 3 rounds a minute maximum). . . One of the interesting differences for this and all other German guns as compared to British and American guns was the smaller amount of flash and smoke emitted when the gun was fired. Not an impressive difference, but it certainly made the ship harder to see at long distances and also made fire control much easier as the view of the directors was not obscurred."
Perhaps the tactical problem was that the Hood was the flagship and it was in a line of battle. Had the Hood and Prince of Wales acted independently, they could have either divided Bismarck's main battery fire, or gone one-on-one long enough for Hood to have destroyed the Prinz Eugen, and then gang up on Bismark. This, of course, assumes that Prince of Wales was able to actually fire all--or most--of its main armament.
The link to the off-site Hood page from your Warships site, by the way, has some artist's conceptions on what Hood might have looked like had it undergone its 1942 reconstruction.
Apparently the British did use line of battle while the German ships operated independently. For some reason the Prinz Eugen and Bismark shuffled back and forth. No wonder the British were confused.
It looks like the British ships were somewhere between parallel and perpendicular when she was sunk. They were turning "more parallel" at that moment, but it appears that they did it mostly to keep up with the fleeing Bismark, not to bear there broadsides.
I believe it was a mistake for the British to use line of battle here. The Hood had longer ranged, better penetrating guns. Her deck was too thin to face Bismark at long range, but her belt was too thin to fight at short range. Given the choice, she should have opted for long range.
Prince of Wales had the armor to face Bismark at any range, but she needed to be closer to use her 14 inchers effectively. Prince of Wales did exactly what she needed to do. Unfortunately, she was following Hood.
Interestingly, accounts of the battle mention that Prinz Eugen hit Hood and started a small fire on her boat deck. In my opinion, Hood had no business getting close enough for Prinz Eugen's 8" guns to hit her. Prince of Wales was solidly armored, but Hood might actually have been hurt by an 8" hit in certain places!
It is true that Hood was made to sink heavy cruisers like Prinz Eugen. In such battles she was not supposed to count on her armor to protect her . . . she was made to sink these opponents at long range, using miles of ocean as her shield.
IMO, the Panzerschiff class would not have made good aircraft carriers due to the tonnage restrictions and the constricted (streamlined) hull that would have limited aircraft and avaiation stores storage. The Americans had good luck converting uncompleted battlecruisers into carriers, but those were larger ships and the conversion occurred earlier in the build. I will note that the robust hull construction served these ships (Lexington, Yorktown, etc.) well in the Pacific battles.
I am unclear about the discussion of diesel fuel. Coal burning ships were made obsolete by the Queen Elizabeth class.
Only the Lexington and the Saratoga were converted from battle cruiser hulls. The Yorktown was of the Enterprise class, designed and built as a carrier from the keel up. Other US conversions were the Independence class light carriers, which were built on Cleveland class CL hulls.
You are correct and I apologise. Lady Lex and the Sara were the converted hulls, about 37-40,000 tons. The Yorktown class was purpose built in the mid 30's and were about half the displacement.
One further point on the hypothetical development of a German aircraft carrier: no planes designed for carrier flight and storage.
Sie sind unwahrscheinlich gut informiert über die Schiffe der Weltkriege.
Say, buddy, I'm just a simple American city kid, whose languages are limited to English, French, and Italian. Could you please translate?
Does anyone really believe that the Germans could have completed such a ship? Or, if completed, that the Allies wouldn't have hunted the thing down with everything they had? Or that the carrier could have survived a run through the North Sea? Seems unlikely at best.
Translation.
You are incredibly well informed about the ships of the World War.
French and Italian, eh? For a simple city kid you are not doing badly.
Apparently the Germans almost did complete the Graf Zeppelin. The Warship web site that Doc Brown linked has photographs of it.
I wonder how it would have fared operationally. I can think of few things more dangerous than trying to land an ME-109 on the heaving deck of a carrier in an Atlantic swell. It might have performed effectively in the Baltic supporting coastal operations.
For attacking warships, however, torpedo planes would have been necessary, and the Germans did not have any that were suitable for carrier operations.
But don't you think it would have been foolish to complete it? A German aircraft carrier would have been useless outside the range of land-based protection. In the open Pacific, maybe it could have been effective. But in the cramped North Sea, I don't think it would have lasted a week. Yes/no?
Both Germany and Italy lacked a dedicated naval air arm, which could respond and coordinate with forces at sea, using the same command structure. Goering jealously guarded Luftwaffe assets (it is thought the ultimate failure of the Graf Zeppelin was due to his unwillingness to part with the required aircraft), and stymied attempts at cooperation with the Navy.
To move into Doc Brown territory: Had the Graf Zeppelin accompanied the Bismarck, how successful would the British torpedo attacks been in the face of ME 109s? Considering the types of aircraft the British carriers were flying at the time, an encounter with ME 109s would have been disastrous for the British.
A carrier with German and Italian battlegroups would have given them the same advantages the British had: CAPs to protect against sea and/or land-based attack; scouts that could report directly back to the battlegroup itself--and that were easier to recover than the seaplanes carried by battleships and cruisers, and strike forces that could be effective well beyond the reach of naval gunfire. The Germans and the Italians lacked the operational doctrine and experience of the US, Japanese, and British gained over the interwar years, but at least against the British, their aircraft would have been superior.
I agree that, if the Zep had been completed and if it could have reached the Atlantic, it could have done some damage. But I think the Brits would have done everything in their power to prevent its completion and transit of the North Sea.
Having said that, when was the Zep scheduled for completion, prior to the war?
The Zep was 85-90% complete in 1940, when work was suspended on it to devote more resources to U-Boat construction. Construction resumed in 1942, but was again halted in the aftermath of the Barents Sea debacle. Interestingly, its catapult was sent to Italy for installation on the the Aquila, which was Italy's most advanced attempt to build an aircraft carrier.
The Peter Strasser. I believe construction started, but it never got very far along.
Note on single carriers. In the Mediterranean and the Atlantic, British battlegroups generally had only one fleet carrier accompanying them. During the hunt for the Bismarck, Victorious accompanied Tovey, while Ark Royal was with Force H out of Gibraltar.
The Germans might have bought or traded considerable carrier expertise with their Japanese friends. Perhaps a swap of Japanese aircaraft design technology and tactical training for German RADAR technology and technical training would have provided mutual benefit. I assume th Germans intended something like this when they first planned construction of the carrier(s), but the political winds shifted away from the Kriegsmarine and this lost its priority.
The best use for German carriers might have been in providing CAP for its heavy surface units. If the carrier(s) had no torpedo or dive bombers they would have been much less expensive to operate. For this purpose, a few small carriers might have been adequate.
Not very relevant to the WWII thread, but on the naval theme the recent PBS NOVA episode anout the U.S.S. Monitor was excellent.
Monitor went down or her way to a battle.
'Strange Victory': No One Thought France Would Fall. Only a Gambler.
From today's NY Times:
In "Strange Victory," the historian Ernest R. May presents a broad-shouldered, cogent, powerfully argued revisionist study of the battle of France of 1940, in which he strips the Nazis' stunning victory of its retroactive veneer of inevitability.
The crucial question is, what was the timetable of the Z Plan?
This website says it would have been complete by 1940 if the war had not started earlier, a claim I find difficult to believe. This website says the Z Plan would not have been completed until 1948. This seems unrealistically late to me. Neither version of the Z Plan sounds like it would have helped Germany's aspirations in 1938.
The Z Plan needed to make big ships with newer technology, so it needed to take some time. But it was bound to trigger an arms race with England, so it needed to be speedy and decisive. If I were Germany, I would have scheduled the Z Plan to get my ships in the water around 1942.
Their diesel engines made them several knots slower than the main ships on both sides of the war. But the combination of light weight and diesel engines gave them the ability to maintain full speed for absurdly long cruises. Consider this comparison of high speed cruising ranges of some ships we have mentioned:
Panzerschiffe: 7,179 NM @ 26 knts
Bismark: 4,500 NM @ 28 knts
KG5: 3,200 NM @ 27 knts
Hood: 5,950 NM @ 18 knts
(at 26 knts much less)
Scharnhorst: 2,900 NM @ 30.5 knts
(at 26 knts a bit more)
Nobody had anything like the Panzerschiffes. They could easily outrun any cargo ship, but not cruisers, battlecruisers, or battleships. They could, however, outlast almost anything in a full speed endurance run.
This could make them great commerce raiders. The three Panzerschiffes could hit-and-run ocean going convoys in the Atlantic or Pacific, never slowing down.
You really have to lose your love of the Panzerschiffe. They were cleverly built novelty vessels, that the Germans stopped building as soon as they were able to build outside the treaty restrictions. I can see how they might fascinate someone with your scientific, rationalist bent, but they were a compromise of a compromise (low rent battlecruisers), not terribly effective as commerce raiders (surface commerce raiders in general were not very effective, and Germany had even less of a support infrastructure in WWII outside of the North Sea than they had in WWI).
The cruise range you tout was dependent on the reliability of the engines (not a given), and misses the point that the Allies had bases and warships available all over the world, which could be used to track down commerce raiders. As became clear at the River Plate, well-led cruiser forces could outfight a panzerschiffe.
Once you take away the emphemeral benefits of commerce raiding, these ships had no useful function outside of training and shore bombardment.
Sounds like the author goes back to future. All accounts of the Battle of France at the time it happened reflect what a shock it was.
Wombat, I do not particularly love the Panzerschiffe. I know they were novelty ships made simply to skirt treaty restrictions.
I am simply taking as a personal challenge to figure out what I might have done with them. Improvising novel uses for existing resources can be the most interesting type of problem to solve. Feel free to continue to argue against my ideas.
In reality, the most important contribution of the Panzerschiffe may not have been on the field of battle. According to one of the websites I linked above, the very existence of the Panzerschiffe caused some Mediteranian nations to change their shipbuilding plans.
I announced in Suggestions that I would RIP this thread today. Should I desist? This lenghty and somewhat arcane discussion of panzer ships doesn't seem to attract a huge following.
Perhaps it would have been best to scrap them, releasing those 24 diesel engines for other use. They could have replaced some of the locomotives that Hogan's Heroes kept blowing up every Saturday night at 9:00.
Okay with me if you want to kill it. I'm just looking for distractions to keep me from discussing politics for another week.
Will you host? It's not an ardeous task.
Keep a general eye on the thread. Check in once a day or every two days. If you are absent for any prolonged period Christin and I will help out. Inject a new topic for conversation if/when you feel like it. As host you will be able to move posts to other threads and delete posts, but I think it unlikely that the need will arise. You will also be able to link interesting discussions to the "Topics of Interest".
column on the home page.
I hope you will agree, but before the deal is consummated I need to get hold of Jexster. I don't want him to suddenly face fait accomplie.
Good. In the meantime, think of a good name and a blurb.
The reason why Hitler had a lower priority on Naval construction was that his short term goal was to avoid war with the west. His plan was to use diplomacy & short wars to secure an invasion path to Russia, invade & settle Russia, then turn on France and GB. His general plans were to do this after 42. This is why he neglected his naval forces until then. In the long term future, after making Germany master of western Russia and Europe, he envisaged his sucessors in a protracted war with the US. He was convinced, however, that he was the man to overawe the continent. The personage he modeled his political behavior after was Bismark. But he wanted to achieve in Europe what Bismark had achieved in the holy roman empire.
The German controllers at Frankfurt Airport were a short-tempered
lot. They not only expected you to know your parking location but how
to get there without any assistance from them. So it was with some
amusement that we (PanAm 747) listened to the following exchange
between Frankfurt ground and a British Airways 747 after landing.
> > >
British Airways 747: "Good morning Frankfurt, British Airways 747 clear of the active."
Ground: "Good Morning, taxi to your gate."
(The British Airways 747 pulls onto the main taxiway and stops).
Ground: "British Airways 747, do you not know where you are going?"
British Airways 747: "Stand by, ground, I'm looking up the gate
location now."
Ground (impatiently): "British Airways 747, have you never flown to
Frankfurt before?"
British Airways 747: (coolly): "Yes, in 1944. But I didn't land".
Am all for it but have lost the e-mail which gets me to my thread moderator page.
HELP
This thread's done its job.
I just realized that no one responded to my question about Germany's Z Plan. The sources I have located (linked above) disagree greatly on the plan's most important element: the date on which it was to be completed.
Perhaps no date was ever nailed down. If this is the case, then the Z Plan was a crummy plan.
You are now the host of this thread.
You acess the tool box here. Log in with your usual identity and password. The menu system is fairly self-explanatory. Using the "Maintain Thread" option you can change the thread title and the blurb. If you have a public e-mail address please put it up there. I entered a dummy one. When you feel like it you can start cleaning up among Jexster's links and add some of your own.
Please e-mail me or ChristinO if you have any problems. Our addresses are in the list in the Cafe (butterscotch bar).
Is mine the only head that, upon seeing the new title of this thread, is suddenly stuck with the lyrics of an old Edwin Star song?
is this the first thread with its own theme song built in?
damn, Doc, beat me to the punch
Good God!
Things are livening up already.
The Z plan had its origins in the mid-1930s. Given the long lead time for ship design and construction, a date of 1940 is ridiculous.
Every time I see your handle I feel that it is familiar for some reason. A search on the net gives about 30,000 hits. But just now I got an inkling. Isn't it the code name for a certain type of fighter aircraft? If so, I'm probably the only one around here who hadn't made the association long ago.
Another question. Megiddo?
I don't know of an aircraft called a Wombat. Wirraway yes, Wildebeest yes, Boomerang yes. Wombats are stout furry creatures that live in Australia.
Megiddo (Armageddon) is thought to be the first battle between organized armed forces ever recorded.
Wombat, I agree that 1940 was ridiculous. But I also believe that 1948 would have been useless to Hitler's ambitions. If the plan was going to take that long, then the Kriegsmarine needed to scale down and try for something a bit smaller. I think they really needed to aim for 1942-43.
In that time, they might have:
Finished Bismark & Tirpitz
Launched a decent number of U-Boats
Upgraded Scharnhorst and Gneisenau
Scrounged up a few Hippers or other decent fleet escorts
. . . and maybe converted or purchased one or two small carriers for themselves. These carriers would be used for CAP only, and might have fielded Zeroes.
In fact, if the Germans had enought foresight, they might have joined the aircraft carrier arms race. In 1939 they laid the keel for two massive H class battleships. They were to be completed in 1943, and their hulls would have been 908 feet long. That is longer than any of the Japanese or American big carriers. If they had changed their plans in 1940, these hulls might have made great carriers.
If the fleet I described above had been launched at the outbreak of a war in 1942, the addition of two giant aircraft carriers in 1943 would have fit very nicely.
Here is a page with a Wombat. It's a single seat gyro aircraft.
Here is another Wombat. It is a science fiction VTOL transport.
Wombat is also a testing device for pilot skills.
I know what wombat, the animal, is. I posted a picture not so long ago.
Maybe my memory is from some sci-spy novel.
This picture shows the Graf Zepplin leaving the shipyard as an incomplete hull. To the left I see another big hull. Maybe that was the Peter Strasser?
Imagine if the Germans had completed both Zepplin class carriers, and then finished both H class battleships as huge carriers. The Kriegsmarine could have destroyed the Royal Navy.
are outdated?
Body bags - $1,100.00
Transport - $1.5 million
Repairs - $400 million
Skiff - $500.00
Explosives $25,000.00
Fiding another hole in military security...
PRICELESS.
Megiddo (Armageddon) is thought to be the first battle between organized armed forces ever recorded.
You mean when Pharaoh Thutmose III clobbered the Assyrians? Or are we talking about a biblical battle?
Are you assuming that this construction program would take place during WWII?
The ancient origins of war are not really in my area of expertise, but I would posit a link between the growth of agrarian societies and the beginnings of a sense of territoriality beyond what existed in hunter gatherer societies. Land and the resources therein became something defend from animal predators, and eventually human predators as well. This required a degree of organization: a night watch, and a "rapid response" team.
Perhaps some of the anthropologically inclined motiers could add more substantive comments.
The distinctively human ingredient is weapons. I imagine weapons originated as hunting tools, but once somebody offed an irritating neighbor or a wife-thief or someone from another clan who tried to hunt on the wrong turf, or whatever, then this new utility became habitual. I speculate that the earliest humans may have considered other clans to be no different, in terms of their relationship to one's own, from other species. In fact, a recent piece in Scientific American presented what seems compelling evidence that a number of proto-human species co-existed in East Africa well before the days of Homo sapiens, so the other clan might well have been another species. So killing them would just come naturally.
(Eating them, too, quite possibly, though this is a whole 'nother kettle of fish.)
The type of war you and I know takes place between nations. In fact, war is probably the reason nations exist. If humans did not need to defend their agricultural land from other humans, we might never have needed to invent the concept of a nation.
Agriculture is only a good way for you to produce food if you can hold on to the land as well as the food.
Humans who organized into groups goes back to the ori
Are you assuming that this construction program would take place during WWII?
No. Most of it would have to take place before the war started. The trick would be developing a plan that had a chance of succeeding. The plan would have to put a good fleet into the water as early as possible, while delaying the onset of war to as late as possible. Some ships, like the "H" conversions to super-carriers, might be finished during the war.
It would require compromises. Germany might carry out the invasion of Poland or a few other limited operations strictly to secure resources and to rally the German people into greater productivity. But they should not attempt to dominate the whole of Europe until they had the mechanisms in place to accomplish it.
(But were it not for the DNA, we would do it as little as possible!)
That man was once a hunter/gatherer doesn't mean that he was drifting around aimlessly, chancing on finding things to kill/pick. Each tribe probably had their own territory where they harvested food. Here in Sweden there are many remains of permanent installations for the hunt. Surely the case is the same in other places. These installations represented an investment which had to be protected from competitors.
I grew up with many Scandinavians in Northern Minnesota and we called your "remains of permanent installations for the hunt" deer stands. They are typically a few boards which create a shooting platform 10 feet above ground. The dedicated anthropologist can often find tribally distinct ethanol containers in the same vicinities.
It might be useful to distinguish between conflict activity- which certainly is prehistoric- and organised conflict. I have no doubt that hunting bands easily evolved into war bands, but at some point the differentiation of a warrior class occurred. This is distinct from hunters who occasionally war in the same way poets are differentiated from the many who speak.
Of course some will argue (the hydraulic school again) that it was only with the creation of sufficient surplus that such a class was possible. I'm not sure since there were some societies (in the Eurasian steppes and the Amazonian basin)where the principal raison d'etre for males was war activity. In these societies status was congruent with warrior skill and, arguably, the other societal arrangements existed to support this emphasis.
Perhaps we need to consider a continuum in which organised war activities form a principal part of some societies and a less important part of others. Of course the problem, as the Mesopotamian history shows, is that in the short term it is very profitable to focus on war and simply exploit the farmers. Then the farmers have to work harder and support a warrior class.....
My memory may be faulty regarding your orgins, but didn't Alexander spend some time in your ancestral lands? I think he even took a bride...
wrt the bride question-- I haven't gotten that far yet and it is very slow going these days cause I just don't have time to read. 
I'll start by picking a nit.
Alexander, 356-323 B.C.
The bronze age had been over for several hundred years.
From a purely military standpoint, this is probably correct. I just reviewed an analysis of the Battle of Arbela. Outnumbered 6 to 1, Alexander crushed an enemy by stopping them with the phalanx in the center and then routing them with a combination of light and heavy cavalry.
The main strength of the phalanx was that it presented a solid mass of men equipped with 6 foot spear thingies that nobody could penetrate to fight effectively.
The spears (sarissas) were much longer than six feet.
The phalanx had been in use for many years before Philip and Alexander. Against an unorganized foe (on foot) it must have been devastating. The phalanx required a standard of discipline aeons above what existed before. The hoplites had to march in step when in formation, and had to be able to change their axis of advance quickly. The formation had to remain intact at all costs, or lose the protection that shields and armor provided, as well as the the mass needed to press home an attack.
I'm not well read on Alexander. But this reminds me of when Sweden burst into the European scene 1620-40. Its troops often defeated forces superiour in numbers. Historians attribute that to discipline, drill and communications, the latter in the form of a wide range of bugle calls calling on the troops to execute certain movements.
Surely the sarissas must have been effective against mounted enemies as well?
At a higher level, his logistical organization (such as it was in that day) must have played an important role since his empire spanned a huge area.
I think the pikemen of your later period were specifically organized to oppose cavalry. They had 12 or 15-foot cutlery that could stop a cavalry charge cold.
http://classics.mit.edu/Plutarch/alexandr.html
The phalanx was not a square formation like those that used pikes and arquebus's against cavalry in the 16th and 17th Centuries. I believe the phalanx's "business end" faced front, making it vulnerable to rapid flank attacks.
Persian forces apparently did not use the phalanx, as the bulk of Persian footsoldiers were ill-disciplined conscripts provided by subject rulers. Greek mercenaries fighting for the Persians did use the phalanx.
"...it will not be difficult to imagine what the appearance and strength of the whole phalanx is likely to be, when, with lowered sarissae, it advances to the charge sixteen deep. Of these sixteen ranks, all above the fifth are unable to reach with their sarissae far enough to take actual part in the fighting. They, therefore, do not lower them, but hold them with the points inclined upwards over the shoulders of the ranks in front of them, to shield the heads of the whole phalanx; for the sarissae are so closely serried, that they repel missiles which have carried over the front ranks and might fall upon the heads of those in the rear. These rear ranks, however, during an advance, press forward those in front by the weight of their bodies; and thus make the charge very forcible, and at the same time render it impossible for the front ranks to face about."
The problem may be that you have to select the thread before you create the link. This seems strange because you have only one thread to select from, but it is because you are operating a subset of the moderators' tools (I "see" all threads). In any case I created the link.
I agree with Aytch, Alex's genius was his combined arms tactics, his use of a combination of light and medium infantry to create the opportunity for his elite heavy cavalry to exploit. Prior to Alex war tended to be fought by one kind of arm only, everything else relegated to irrelevant auxiliary roles; only phalanx, only cavalry. Or, where combined arms existed they were not used in conjuction with each other; the chariots would attack and when that failed the infantry would advance. Darius attempted to use elephants and infantry in combination at Gaugemela, but bungled the attempt. Alex never had a misted in his use of combined arms on the battlefield.
We shouldn't forget that Alexander also led from the front- inspiring his men with personal bravery.
Let's turn to Pelle's comment about the impact of the Swedish Army under Gustavus Adolphus when it first entered the fighting in the 30 Year War (#1369). In addition to the attributes Pelle suggests, I would add several more: a doctrine using combined arms, increased firepower, and tactical flexibility. Initially, Gustavus sought to supply his forces from home, reducing their propensity to sack and loot conquered towns, which was a major departure from the doctrine of the day.
Gustavus's army introduced light artillery, which operated in concert with infantry formations. The Swedes also reduced the ratio of pikemen to musketeers, giving the latter primacy. Smaller formations allowed greater flexibility, enabling regiment-sized units to maneuver around the larger Holy Alliance formations, peppering them with musket and artillery fire, but able to retreat or form larger formations in the face of cavalry attack.
Right now I'm reading a book by a brilliant young historian about Sweden's wars against Poland and Denmark in the latter half of the 1650's. He sets great store to the light field artillery and gives a vivid picture of the havoc it created among the Polish cavalry.
He also draws and interesting parallel with WWI. We have read many times about the German maxim that "mobilisation means war" because one the order was given the trains started rolling according to a carefullly planned schedule. To turn them back would create chaos and Germany would be very vulnerable. A similar rule applied in the 17th century but for different reasons (of course). The improvement in weaponry, both artillery and personal weapons, the introduction of uniforms and so on made it expensive to set up an army. The foreign troops (there were always some, sometimes many in the Swedish armies) required a payment up front. Sweden's finances were rather good because of its dominant position in iron production and near monopoly on copper production. It also controlled a good deal of the trade in shipbuilding materials such as mast timber, tar and hemp. So money could be found to set up an army although it usually required loans against future income.
But to maintain an army, that is to face huge recurrent payments was different. It would suck the country dry. So as soon as the army was assembled it was imperative to ship it off so it could feed itself off enemy resources. Early in the war (as in the 30-years war) things were rather orderly and semi-legal, plundering soldiers were hanged and so on. But as it dragged on and Poland became devastated by armies crossing back and forth things turned very ugly indeed, as they usually did at this time in history.
Anyhow, our hosts had decided that we should have a dose of culture before lunch. There wasn't much of that around except for a baroque church for which a guide had been drummed up. The first thing one saw when entering was a huge, and I mean huge, mural painting of Swedish troops doing unmentionable things to innocent Polish peasants. Our hosts denied any symbolic significance. however.
A note on Nordlingen (the first defeat of the Swedes in the war). Command of the Swedes and their German allies alternated daily between the Swedish commander and the German commander (Bernhard of Saxe-Weimar). Is that any way to run a campaign?
Yes, Gustaf Horn, belonging to one of Sweden's oldest and noblest families. He may have been a court favourite but he was also and able and experienced commander. Bernhard who had an inflated ego refused to serve under Horn, but Oxenstierna who was running things after the death of Gustavus didn't want to lose him and thought up the joint command, an expediency and a disastrous one because the two couldn't stand each other. Historians blame this for the loss at Nördlingen but that too can be an expediency, a convenient explanation involving a foreigner. Bernhard was not there as an ally by the way. He was a serving general in the Swedish army.
The development of a professional warrior class, to use the most expansive terms, is indeed a crucial distinction and you are correct that the cycle has been repeated throughout recorded history.
The early hydraulic societies (McNeill's thesis) could eventually afford a separate class which doubled as internal police. The successive waves of "barbarians from the North" were warrior cultures which had a high proportion of able combattants. These regularly defeated the 'regular' forces of the plains- even when the latter were augmented with levees of agricultural types.
Conversely, the regular formations of the Romans usually prevailed over the mass forces they faced. A few exceptions such as the loss of the Legions in Germania... Note also that the Romans were reduced to levees to fight Hannibal within Italy, but it was regular formations under Scipio which ended the Carthage threat.
Early modern warfare in Europe eveolved toward professional armies-again augmented with hastily trained recruits. The French Revolutionary/Napoleanic victories were, however, of levees en masse over 'professional' armies.
The nature of naval combat has usually favored professional forces- although the British routinely impressed merchant seamen for the Royal Navy.
One quick take is that professional armies have the advantage at the outset of conflict and when advances in military technology give an advantage not fully assimilated by other societies. Once technologies are assimilated irregular forces can, and have, defeated even well-trained regular forces; eg. Afghanistan.
The American regular forces currently hold sway, but the proliferation of missile weapons and our inability to absorb large losses means our supremacy will not be permanent.
This is from Britannica's article in Prussia (emphasis mine):
It was Frederick William I who endowed the Prussian state with its military and bureaucratic character. He raised the army to 80,000 men (equivalent to 4 percent of the population) and geared the whole organization of the state to the military machine. One half of his army consisted of hired foreigners; the other half was recruited from the king's own subjects on the basis of the "canton system." This system made all young men of the lower classes--mostly peasants--liable for military service. While the upper bourgeoisie was exempt from this military service, the nobles were under a moral obligation, which the king repeatedly emphasized, to serve in the officers' corps.
This close coordination of military, financial, and economic affairs was moreover complemented by Frederick William I's reorganization of the administrative system, and he came to control the whole life of the state.
Interesting concept -- societal organization for war. Where would you put the 1930's Soviets and the 1930's Nazis?
As for the US today, I'd put it at 2 to 3. However, it's a difficult concept to agglomerate because I see several different factors at significantly different levels. As a superpower, the US has a vastly powerful military but an aversion to using it. Plus little imperialist ambition (economic imperialism is a different horse). As I say, 2 to 3.
I think the former would put America at about a 2, while the latter would be about a 4 or 5.
However, I believe the nature of war has changed away from conquest toward domestic control. A comparison to earlier cultures must account for this.
Here is an Economist essay on future weaponry and future war.
Germany rearmed, and as you said, had enough wealth to do so while also producing other goods. The first two years of the war saw Germany win a series of swift and easy victories using the tactics and equipment that they had going in. The person on the street was not badly affected, as food and other goods flowed into the Reich from conquered lands.
Please clarify a bit. You give "fraction of Americans devoted to warlike efforts" a 2 but I don't think you mean that 20% of Americans are involved in military matters. Same with the other fraction. We don't devote 40 or 50% of the budget to defense. Do you mean as compared to other societies?
Using your fractions, the US in WW2 would never have gotten near 10 for either measure yet I'd put us pretty close to that for that period.
Nazi Germany didn't institute a war economy until 1941-42
I find that hard to agree with. While it's true that the nation didn't fully mobilize for the war until Goebbels' Total War speech in '42 or '43, it seems clear that the economy was increasingly built around the preparation for war as the '30's wore on. To the point that it became a driver of the economy. That's how Hitler avoided the worst of the Depression and put large numbers of his unemployed back to work -- military production and directly-related public works such as the Autobahns.
If we were to operate strictly on percents, the 0 to 10 scale is superfluous.
Thanks. Then I agree with your former but not the latter. Do you really think the defense budget of the US, which you put at 4 or 5, is about half way toward the practical maximum?
Aytch: Just on gut instinct, I do believe that. I'd love to see some numbers, though.
The thought of current-day America mobilizing its entire economy to war efforts is frightening, and overwhelming. It is beyond my imagination.
Interesting take.
Two ways to read it. Pure numbers --currently the US is only spending, what, 3% of GDP on defense. On that basis, I'd think a doubling to 6 or 7% is nowhere near a practical maximum except in terms of the second way to read it...
Political will. On this basis, you may be closer since the country would not currently tolerate a major expansion in defense spending. However, on that basis, the correct number would be about an 8 or 9. Thoughts?
Based on any reasonable scenario for the near future, I think you're right. But we've been picking our way slowly toward a definition of what the concept really is (witness the last few posts). On the basis of political will alone, I'd put the US right now at about an 8, that is, near the practical maximum.
Where would you put the US right now, all areas considered? Where would you put Prussia in the Bismarck era?
Based on any reasonable scenario for the near future, I think you're right. But we've been picking our way slowly toward a definition of what the concept really is (witness the last few posts). On the basis of political will alone, I'd put the US right now at about an 8, that is, near the practical maximum.
Where would you put the US right now, all areas considered? Where would you put Prussia in the Bismarck era?
Bismarkian Prussia might rank thereabouts (8 or 9), though perhaps not so highly as Frederician Prussia. Of course, for both of them, "political will" was a different sort of commodity.
I'd say that the US, with a standing army, spectacular technical superiority, but with, imo, an almost equally spectacular lack of the will to make much of it, might be more like a 3-5 on the scale, along with many countries will more will and less muscle.
But then the Afghans, with little capacity beyond the scale of tribal warfare, must surely be considered very much "organized for war", so perhaps practical capacity has little to do with it. In which case, lower the US number.
No. You've put your finger on the problem -- one's interpretation of what "a society's organization for war" means. Doc and I have been kicking around whether it should be considered in absolute terms (what's theoretically possible) or relative terms (what the people will tolerate). You've touched on it yourself. Using the latter definition, the political will of the US is near the top, that is, the people will tolerate little additional organization for war.
The real question is which definition to use. What's your pleasure?
How do we define "a society organized for war"? Simple capacity, or the willingness to use it? Given that we could (given what are I hope impossible political circumstances) destroy billions of people in a matter of hours ought to make us the most war-capable people in history, but I certainly don't think we are anywhere near the most "organized for war" society of even today. Perhaps the Golden Horde, politically nothing but an army, economically nothing but a pillaging machine, might qualify as most "organized for war", all time.
Maybe one might establish a scale by placing, let's say Sparta and Gengis' Khanate at one end, and the many societies that are or were completely dependent on another one for defense—maybe the Marshall Islands (now a country, I think?) and, I don't know, post-Mithradatean Pontus, at the other.
So who's in the middle, at 5-6?
Seems like there are two components under discussion --a material or quantitative component (numbers of troops, weapons, supplies) and a "social" or "psychological" component (a people's aggressiveness or readiness for war, support of the military).
On your rating of 3 to 5 for the US:
Regarding the first component, it seems clear to me that the US could more than triple the material factors (both nuclear and conventional) with ease.
As for the psychological, this is very nebulous. But, based on our current unwillingness to accept even a few casualties anywhere on the planet for almost any reason, it just seems to me that we couldn't be anywhere near the middle of the scale. I mean, how much farther down could we go?
But, typing this, I suddenly see better what you were getting at, the determination of how ready a society is for war at any given time. (Right?) In which case, I agree with you that the present-day US is well up there, in the 7 or 8 range. In fact, if we simply suppose some compelling casus belli (though I'd as soon not; I must go eat dinner, now), then maybe a 9 or 9+ (not quite Khanate-like under any circumstances).
We accordingly are not thusly provoked by anyone with any sense. (It's the senseless one needs to worry about, one understands, but then the senseless aren't liable to be very well organized for war themselves.)
Anyway: later. (The aforesaid dinner calls.)
Of course, simple technical capacity—however intended (our capacity to move goods to marker is convertible to moving munitions to the front, etc.)—renders a country well-prepared for war, and thus arguably (perhaps inarguably) organized therefor
That's a good argument. But it may have a topper. The very extent to which a country is technically prepared for war presumably extends the theoretical maximum.
Excellent discussion. Much work remains. Enjoy dinner.
No, I meant theoretical maximum for any, for all.
Good point but this complicates things immeasurably. In JRoth's original post (1389), he gives a 10 to the Amazonian Wild Men. In this day and age, they could not get anywhere near a 10 because they are nowhere near the theoretical max for any and all.
Oy. The definitional problems are making my head hurt. Those infernal drums...pounding...pounding...JRoth, straighten us out.
Sure they are. The max is not maximum capability to kick shit, but maximum societal organization to do such kicking as they can.
Pelle's definition just above may be the game-breaker, here: "the national economy being subordinated to the needs of the [military]".
North Korea probably gets the gold but there are a couple of neighborhoods in Philadelphia that come close.
Revise as required.
Tangentially, the theoretical max for Hard Stuff can vary widely among countries but, presumably, the theoretical max for Soft Stuff is nearly the same.
I have always felt guilty (the white man's burden?!) when reading about the Zulu Wars. Brit soldiers mowed down the prime males of a 3rd world (even then) nation's men with an invention they could never conceive of : the machine gun.
Was that gross stupidity on the part of the chiefs? Or a tribal mentality pushed to the limit? Thus, ready to suffer any sacrifice. 
My wife and I visited the Vasa museum today. We usually do once a year because the restoration of the ship is a work in progress. It sank on its maiden voyage in 1628. The wreck was rediscovered in 1956 and brought to the surface in 1961.
The picture doesn't do her justice. She is 180 ft long and 36 ft wide midships. The height from keel to the top of the main mast is 155 ft. She carried 64 guns and had a crew of 155 sailors and 300 fighting men.
The ship was richly decorated with sculptures and other woodwork painted in bright colours. This is a reconstruction of the stern which is 60 ft tall. It must have been a magnificient sight. 
More info (in English) is available here.
WW I is much more interesting to me than WW II.
I wouldn't go that far but it's plenty interesting. Say something controversial about it and let's see what happens.
Regarding the Zulu chiefs, I'd propose ignorance vice gross stupidity. The introduction of any new weapon or tactic usually catches the opponent off-guard. I also think there was an element of cultural difference as related to war. Today, most Westerners regard Islamic suicide bombers as just plain nuts. The bombers see themselves as honorable and righteous. It's not a comparable situation, of course, but it's one hell of a cultural difference.
The USA should not have entered WW I.
In no way were we threatened : militarily.
And, at that time, we had no strategic interest/s in Europe. Despite what the Anglophile Northeast would have said.
The loans made by the bankers should not have been the impetus for the USA entering that war. Which was slowly grinding to a halt anyway. Both sides were broke : monetarily and in manpower.
If you wish to argue trade, it seems to me that we could have sold kerosene(Standard Oil) in other portions of the world. I am not an expert on trade at all. But, have read that kerosene was, in addition to foodstuffs, one of our main exports in the years 1914 - 1918. These years were certainly before the years of exporting steel, cars, etc.
That's not controversial.
There may be many who would disagree with us.
To be as provocative as possible, I say: It depends.
An excellent short-term case can certainly be made that it was not in the US interest to enter the war.
The real question is the long-term case, one that could perhaps not be seen clearly at the time. That is, the fact that Germany was bent on empire-building and expansion in Europe at the expense of its neighbors. Given Germany's social and political outlook at the time, US entry in 1917 may have sealed the defeat of a nation bound to become a much bigger threat if victorious in 1918.
This is completely independent of later events, specifically the rise of Hitler. It's also independent of any morality argument.
Much of continental Europe was only slightly better off. But, these countries would have been forewarned.
I don't believe that with that ruler, Germany could or would have posed a serious threat on the continent. At least, not for many years. And I don't think we would know the name : Hitler.
Additionally, one has the problem of the Tsar. Would Lenin dared to have him and his family wiped out had the war slowly ground to a halt? Lenin was, in every way, just as ruthless as Stalin. I would speculate that the Tsar and his family would have met the same fate - for purely domestic reasons.
England's soil was untouched by the war. Despite being hugely in debt to US bankers, men like Churchill would have made certain the British navy remained the strongest in the world. Additionally, would the problems of Cambridge arisen absent the USA entering the war? Would we have known the names Philby, Burgess, and Maclean?
Speculations about the USA in 1918 after NOT going to war are extremely interesting to me. The great homogeneous conduct encouraged by the Wilson administration would INSTEAD have occurred at their own pace. Not being forced down their throats by Washington, D.C.! e.g. in 1914 were there not several hundred companies involved in manufacturing a car? And there were how many at the close of the war? 50 or less? The great amount of power arrogated by Washington, D.C. would not have occurred!
As one who detests an all powerful Washington, I would have liked the scenario of the USA not entering the WW I.
I can't quite tell from your post whether you're saying that. If not, then it gets much more interesting. Does Germany lose the war?
No one would have been the winner. A post war treaty may have involved trading a province here or there. How do you spell Schlesweg-Holstein?
However, I think Germany could (possibly) have won the war in the absence of a US entry. And it's a much more interesting case to contemplate.
It was my impression that both sides were so weak : monetarily as well as in manpower, that neither side could win.
And there would have been a typical, European, 19th century post-war treaty with a duchy here and a duchy there being traded as spoils of war.
While it's true that, by November 1918, everybody including Germany was nearly bankrupt and exhausted, the key date is April 1917 (nineteen months earlier) when the US does not enter the war.
Consider the following scenario:
The US does not enter the war. The Russians collapse right on schedule. Since the effects of the US entry were starting to take effect after ten to twelve months (in the real war), the German war machine is presumably a little stronger in the Spring of 1918. Since the offensive came close to succeeding even with US participation in the real war, the added German strength plus the absence of 250,000 (or more?) US troops make the difference.
The result is that the Germans crack the Western Front, capture Paris and threaten the French with total defeat. After four years of this horror, everybody is ready to stop (including the Germans).
The peace treaty is relatively mild. The Germans take a small amount of territory and some reasonable indemnity. Of course, they keep Alsace-Lorraine, all of their territory in the east and their African and Pacific colonies.
What happens next? Meaning over the next twenty or thirty years?
The ruling clique in the Anglophile northeast would have continued to support England. A very slow recovery there.
Admistration was difficult under Wilhelm II; despite all we have heard about German excellence in this area. The Kaiser and his heirs would have had great trouble administering this added territory. And, assuming the continuance of a dominant British navy, they would have had trouble fully exploiting their colonies.
One cannot forget Lenin in this speculation. The Soviet Union would have remained the same in its lust for world hegemony. Would there have been a "cold war" by another name?
As for the accretion of power in Washington, that too would have continued but at a slower pace.
As for the Cold War, I think that would have had to wait on a Hot War between the Soviets and Germany. Same as it ever was.
My knowlege of Eurpopean History is weak. We now go into areas in which I have no knowlege at all.
Without the USA at the Peace Table, we have no Wilson, his 18 points, nor mandates.
Yugoslavia would have had a totally different path to take. The Hapsburg Dynasty was so weak that I believe it would have twisted in the wind until it hung itself. That probably would have meant some more vicious wars in the Balkans. After all, there had already been two wars in the Balkans prior to WW I. One question : would the Soviets have been able to form some sort of South Slav state?
Oil would have continued to be necessary. If we assume slower progress in the USA, the production of cars would have been somewhat slower; thus gas would have been used at a slower pace. Still the mid East contained much of the world's petroleum reserves. Without League of Nation interferance in that area, things would have been much different. My history in this area is totally lacking. I can speak with no intelligence at all in regard this portion of the world.
Finally, the USA would have continued to have a hands off policy in the Pacific. Japan and the Tsar fought a war early in the century; with the Japanese victorious. What were the relations between Japan and China? I have no idea.
Still with a more rural USA and less powerful Washington in this scenario, I continue to prefer it to what actually happened.
I should have made my comments clearer. My response was an addition to your assumptions -- in the absence of any external events.
I don't think things would actually have turned out that way. The US may well have proceeded along those lines for a while. But I think there would have been a settling of scores in Europe, ultimately dragging us in.
But the real problem with our speculation is that the nature of Hitler, the Nazis and WW2 (as one of the all-time great evils) sets up what I think is a logical trap. We can easily conclude that almost any action that would have avoided that thread of history is a good thing but, of course, none of that was known to the players of World War I.
That, in itself, may be enough arguement (in speculation) to avoid the USA entering WW I. None of us knowing the name : Hitler!!
I have to work tomorrow.
I have enjoyed this. Best regards to you.
G'night.
If WWI had ended in a stalemate, IMO it is likely that the German monarchy would have collapsed into a Communist state. Since the US was still heavily involved in the war through massive loans to some of the belligerents, the lack of a positive outcome may well have triggered a financial crisis a decade before the actual depression.
I have argued in the past that the Allies could have won by holding the Western front, and attacking from the periphery. Bulgaria, Turkey and the Austro-Hungarian Empire collapsed without US assistance, which freed sizeable and highly mobile forces for operations in the Danube plains and further north.
The problem after WWI as I see it was that the US failed to follow through, not that it became involved in the first place. The weaknesses of the League of Nations were exacerbated by the unwillingness of its prime mover to become invloved. The abdication of the United States, combined with the stupidity (and cupidity) of the victorious Allies (over which an assertive US government could have exercised considerable influence) created the conditions that led to WWII 20 years later.
Pelle:
If you are going to take a top-heavy vessel out for a spin, make sure the lower deck gunports are closed!
In other words, much the same outcome as what we have known.
A communist Soviet Union with a communist Germany.
Britain continues to be on the sidelines with their huge Navy.
And the USA trying to act as an international peace keeper?
Or do you visualize a more active role for the USA?
Sorry to post and run; but, I have to be off to the office.
Somehow I missed your #1447.
The last time I have thought about the War of 1812 was as a junior or senior in high school. We took US history one of those 2 years and world history the other. I just turned 65; so I am relying on memory extending back 50 years.
I have only two recollections of the War of 1812 (other than Mrs. Madison running out of the burning White House with some sort of "treasure"). They are the naval battle in Lake Champlain; and, to the best of my recollection, the USA won that battle. And the Battle of New Orleans - which was fought after the Peace Treaty (Ghent?) settling the war was signed.
Probably, I remember the Battle of New Orleans because of a movie made about it (of which I have little recall). And there was a country & western song about it. Johnny Horton possibly? He had the British army abandoning the field of battle in a disorderly manner. "They ran through the bushes and ran through the briars". Or something similar. I don't recall the USA as losers in that war. You may be correct, however.
I do admit - unfortunately - that Jefferson's Arcadia never came into being.
Oh they ran through the briars and they ran through the brambles. They ran through the bushes where a rabbit couldn't go. They ran so fast that hounds couldn't catch 'em. Ran down the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico
And the US did lose the War of 1812 - after a fashion. The British controlled the Northeast, the US Army unable to engage successfully. Blockades were in place everywhere and strangling the economy. New England merchants were getting pissed.
However, the country was too large for a primarily naval power to achieve decisive victory. Thus the attempt to capture New Orleans and thence the Mississippi (what the North did in the Civil War).
Jackson kicked ass as any good Louisian boy *me* can tell 'ya.
The song "Battle of New Orleans", one of my very early childhood favorites on a '45. Drove my parents nuts playing it so much.
Interesting item on local news tonight. In Germany, officials cut down several trees in a forest.
In 1938, the landowner planted these deciduous trees in a forest of evergreens. When grown, the trees formed a swastika in the fall.
After all these many years....
Flag high, ranks closed,
The S.A. marches with silent solid steps.
Comrades shot by the red front and reaction
march in spirit with us in our ranks.
The street free for the brown battalions,
The street free for the Storm Troopers.
Millions, full of hope, look up at the swastika;
The day breaks for freedom and for bread.
For the last time the call will now be blown;
For the struggle now we all stand ready.
Soon will fly Hitler-flags over every street;
Slavery will last only a short time longer.
Flag high, ranks closed,
The S.A. marches with silent solid steps.
Comrades shot by the red front and reaction
march in spirit with us in our ranks.
Was Johnny Horton the singer?
Music and lyrics by Jimmy Driftwood
In 1814 we took a little trip
along with Colonel Jackson
down the mighty Mississip.
We took a little bacon and
we took a little beans
And we caught the bloody British
in the town of New Orleans.
We fired our guns
and the British kept a'comin. There wasn't nigh as many as there was a while ago.
We fired once more and
they began to runnin' on
down the Mississippi
to the Gulf of Mexico.
Yeah, they ran through the briars
and they ran through the brambles
And they ran through the bushes
where a rabbit couldn't go.
They ran so fast that the hounds
couldn't catch 'em on
down the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico.
Found the above on a website dedicated to Jimmy Driftwood, the author of the song. A high school prinicipal, he wrote it to teach kids about the Battle. Top hit 1959.
Words and Music
As a junior high history teacher put it "they sent old Packenham home in a pickle"
From the site The following are the words from the Battle of New Orleans as we heard them off the Johnny Horton cassette. Mrs. Driftwood has given me permission to use them on my page, so that other kids can learn about this battle of the War of 1812
1812
How good are your BB players?
If good, they will beat LSU by 50!
Sorry for the off=subject post?!
Please spare this thread from postings of Nazi propaganda songs or verse.
The War of 1812 was fueled by high-handed British actions against US shipping, continued low-level fighting between Indians and settlers, and by the territorial ambitions of congressmen from the "western" states (the so-called War Hawks).
It was the first test of the United States' defence "system" as propounded by Jefferson. It was almost the last. In keeping with his principles, Jefferson changed the focus of US defence from a blue-water naval force capable--under limited circumstances--of defending US shipping interests overseas to a coast-defence gunboat navy. The regular army was reduced in size, and the role of states' militia was emphasized.
There was also a major leadership void, particularly in the army. Enfeebled veterans of the Revolution held the few command positions extant. They were almost uniformly incompetent.
The United States declared war on Britain in 1812, invaded Canada, and sent expeditions to seize British outposts in the West. The New England states, which had opposed the war as being against their commercial interests, and which suffered heavily from the blockade that the British slapped on following the outbreak of hostilities, refused--as was their right--to allow its militia units to participate in the war unless they were threatened with invasion. As the war went on, they also began to talk of secession. This was only ended by the peace of Ghent, and the battle of New Orleans.
What was decisive in the battle was the superiority of US artillery, mostly supplied and manned by the "hellish banditti" of Jean Lafitte. Their heavy guns suppressed what field artillery the British had, and then poured grapeshot into the advancing British columns, inflicting horrendous casualties.
In only one instance did the British forces get close enough to Jackson's defences to actually attempt to storm them; they were thrown back by a small contingent of US Marines and regular infantry.
Some of the militia units arrived without arms and training: they were hurriedly equipped from the New Orleans arsenal and were either held in reserve or sent to the other side of the river from the main defences.
(that sounds war-related)
I don't have enough depth of knowledge (bows to Wombat), but the whole era and the political shifts that occurred then in American history are really interesting.
Pelle's perception of the militarization of Prussia (#1420) under Frederick I is somewhat ironic, given that under Frederick I, the Prussian Army never fought. Frederick I thought that Prussia would function better as a country if every aspect of life was militarized.
It took his son to actually use the Prussian Army.
SHOOTING WAR
Rare, archival footage showcasing the work of motion picture combat cameramen who worked on the front lines of World War II, and interview with photographers from each branch of the armed forces.
by Jerry Jonas, The Philadelphia Inquirer, 12/10/00
Fifty years ago this week, 14,000 U.S. Marines, accompanied by 3,000 American soldiers and a sprinkling of other United Nations troops, faced what could have been one of the greatest disasters in American history.
Stranded in the snow and ice-covered mountains of North Korea in sub-arctic weather, they were surrounded by about 120,000 Chinese communist troops.
In Beijing, Chairman Mao Tse-tung predicted their annihilation. In Washington, President Harry S. Truman threatened to use the atomic bomb against China. To some, it seemed the beginning of World War III.
Like most other aspects of the Korean War, the Marines' saga has been long forgotten by the average American.
In late November 1950, with the North Korean Armies in full retreat, General Douglas MacArthur ordered the U.S. 8th Army to launch an "end the war" offensive. Simultaneously, 100 miles to the east and separated from the 8th Army by a nearly impassible mountain range, the 1st Marine Division and two regiments of the Army's 7th Infantry Division were ordered to attack into those mountains. This, despite overwhelming evidence that huge numbers of Chinese troops had entered Korea and were determined to destroy the U.N. forces.
Within a day, the Chinese counterattacked. Surrounding and isolating individual units, they rapidly turned the 8th Army advance into a disastrous retreat. In one day, a single U.S. infantry division would lose 4,000 men and most of its artillery.
CHANGJIN RESERVOIR, N. KOREA
I also wonder if there might be a different sort of flareup in the Middle East (between two Arab countries).
Of course, I suppose there are any number of wars in Africa that I don't even know about.
You will be able to arrive at the start date as soon as our "president-select" demands a timetable for a US withdrawal.
I am sure Rustler Pike does. He predicts, ominously, "within six to nine months".
In the Movie/TV thread there is currently a discussion of history as depicted in the movies. Naturally, war movies are prevelant. This has inspired me to ask a question:
Which are the best movies for depicting various wars accurately?
Which are the worst?
I suspect that the very best and very worst movies will depict WWII, simply because there are so many. Perhaps Saving Private Ryan or Patton are the top of the scale while The Incredible Mister Limpett is at the bottom.
What is the best movie about the American Civil War? I thought that Glory was very good, but I am not qualified to judge its historic accuracy.
1) If they fire blanks, they cannot recoil. Any film portraying 18th and 19th Century artillery suffers from this. When fired, those babies skipped backward, and had to be moved back into position.
2) No, honey, M-48 tanks did not fight (on both sides!) in the Battle of the Bulge, or Anzio, or at the Bridge at Remagen. Neither did Forrest Sherman class destroyers take part at Midway. Anachronisms drive me crazy in war movies.
To be continued...
Wombat's faves:
Saving Private Ryan. The plot is silly, but the battle scenes put you right in the middle of it.
Zulu. They really did fight like that. The singing of "Men of Harlech" was a bit much.
The Battle of Culloden. A fictional documentary done in the mid-1960s on the battle that ended Scotland's last attempt at independence. Pulls no punches at all. A horrifying movie.
The Battle of Algiers. Brilliant. Too bad Pontecorvo didn't also portray the second battle (after the French announced that they were pulling out of Algeria).
Sink the Bismark.
While it was a childhood favorite of mine, I thought the little side dialogues between Admiral and Dana Wynter cheapened it. It couldn't decide if it was trying to tell a true story (with an almost documentary style of flat dialogue, camera techniques, and music) or a drama. The special effects were so-so.
But the true story of the Bismark is well suited for drama. Someone should do a remake of Sink the Bismark!1488. DocBrown - 1/3/2001 2:34:21 PM
What I liked about Sink the Bismark was that they used actual footage from the pursuit. Das Boot in the German (original) version is also one of my faves. I also liked the Battle of Britain (when the German gunner gets it in the eyes), even though they subscribe to the "big wing" theory of interception.
1) Can we get away with having it be the US Navy that sinks her?
2) Failing that, do we dare ask Keanu Reeves or Kevin Costner to try another English accent?
Seriously, I think they could do it with British transplants (such as Fiennes, Neeson, MacGregor, Northam, Hopkins, or Connery), but it would cost a lot of money, and water pictures are damned risky.
Titanic was a "water picture." The Perfect Storm did alright for itself. I think today's special effects techniques make water pictures a lot more practical than they used to be.
Saving Private Ryan really isn't that great a war film, but the opening is brilliant.
I liked Three Kings a great deal, and thought it served well as the first real Desert Storm war film.
Glory is a great war film. Battleground is fun.
A Bridge Too Far isn't very good, but the sequence of Redford and his men crossing the river is excellent.
Damn, I've got jet lag and I'm missing many.
As I said, "risky".
All Quiet on the Western Front is a good war film; it still holds up. My son has watched it more than once.
Twelve O'Clock High is a terrific picture; holds up very well.
I would also mention They Were Expendable, but can't vouch for accuracy.
A new version of Sink the Bismark! should cost a fraction of Saving Private Ryan, and it could have greater historic value. As I understand it, the naval pursuit was only half the story. To really portray the events, our hypothetical movie makers could show that landbound English civillians were genuinely terrified at the prospect of Bismark running loose in the Atlantic.
Born To Kill is good in that it shows Vietnam in a different light- it wasn't just Rambo in the jungle. From what I hear the Paris Island portion was pretty realistic. Definitely old Corps. I understand my father much better after I saw it. I found out where all these phrases I heard when my father was agitated came from.
Who wrote Knight's Cross?
All:
I think we are getting away from what this thread should be about (a discussion of issues pertaining to warfare over the centuries) and into listings of favorite books and movies, which is all very nice (and I plead guilty to abetting this), but not terribly edifying.
Let me suggest a number of areas in which more substantive participation would be welcomed:
1) The relationship between technological advances and changes in military strategy and tactics.
2) Military Controversies.
3) Individual wars/conflicts.
4) Economic/societal factors in warfare.
Good! Posit something, and the rest of us will all jump in.
Of the subjects you listed, Military Controversies might be the one least addressed by this thread so far. I think we have just scratched the surface of that.
I agree that your original premise was worthy, however what it degenerated into was inevitable (and I helped!).
Do you have any controversies that particularly interest you?
Actually a large part of Virginia seceded from the Confederacy not long after the Civil War began, and became West Virginia.
Lee's first command was in that region, and he presided over a series of military disasters that almost destroyed his reputation as the one of the Confederacy's most skilled and experienced commanders. He was then sent to oversee the defence of the Confederacy's seacoast. It wasn't until he became Jefferson Davis' military aide, and Joseph Johnston was wounded, that he took over the Army of Northern Virginia.
Agreed. But his services were first sought by Winfield Scott to lead the Army of the Potomac, which tells you something. Moreover, early jitters are not exactly unkown. Apparently, Grant almost suffered a nervous breakdown in the early days of Cold Harbor, the slaughter was so great.
And Johnston had the hapless McClellan to challenge.
Of course, I subordinate both Grant and Lee to Sherman.
Oddly enough, the only well-documented case of a nervous breakdown by any of the generals you mention was Sherman's. He had to be relieved of his command in Kentucky in 1861 due to the mental strain of facing what he convinced himself were overwhelming Confederate forces.
I am only semi-confident on my assertion about Grant. I have made inquiry by email to the Ulysses S. Grant Association as follows:
"I believe I read that Grant may have suffered a breakdown at either the battle of the Wilderness or Cold Harbor? Nothing debilitating, but significant nonetheless. I have been challenged on this point. Can you help me? Thanks in advance for all your efforts.
(by the way, this discussion can be found at www.themote.com under the War Thread)."
The only time that Grant's behavior got questionable was well before the Civil War, when he was out in Oregon--that was when he quit the Army.
You should note that when General Patrick Cleburne (a highly competent division commander who fought under Johnston and Hood in the West) proposed enlisting blacks into the army in exchange for manumission, he was unanimously rejected. This took place in 1864, when the Confederate manpower crisis was evident. Blacks did work on fortifications, and there are reports of personal servants taking up their master's guns on occasion, but I would be interested in seeing authorititative evidence of blacks volunteering to fight for the Confederacy.
Do you have any controversies that particularly interest you?
Fitting in with the shifting current of this thread, how about Sherman's March to the Sea? I think a lot of us find this particular military campaign controversial. Everyone understands the use of an army to fight battles, but using an army to trash enemy territory in your own country has got to be a controversial strategy.
I would hesitate to wage such a campaign, even in a war of conquest. In a civil war where I hoped to reunite the country I cannot imagine making this move.
Francis Urquhart, you claim to like Sherman. Would you (or anyone else) care to give your perspective on his mission? What was The Union thinking?
What exactly is controversial about Sherman's march? Lincoln and Grant were extremely reluctant to let him do it, but their misgivings had more to do with the possibility of Sherman going off and leaving Hood freedom to launch an offensive into Tennessee. Conventional military theory also would have caused concern over marching into enemy territory without a viable supply line. Sherman was able to persuade them otherwise, and tore the heart out of the Confederacy.
By the time of Sherman's march, it was clear that defeating the Confederacy required harsher means than had initially been contemplated. Bringing the war to Confederate citizens was one of them.
To my knowledge, no freed, full-blooded blacks served as actual soldiers in the CSA.
The Times (London)
December 28, 1999
Claims that tens of thousands of blacks fought for the South during the American Civil War have ignited a fierce row over how many slaves and freed men wore the Confederate uniform - and why.
The Tennessee Civil War Museum in Chattanooga claims in a new exhibition that the 1.2 million-strong Confederate army contained at least 35,000 and perhaps as many as 50,000 "blacks in grey".
Critics argue that numbers have been exaggerated to give a spurious
"multicultural" image to an army fighting to uphold slavery. "The numbers are vastly over-inflated. There are people who want to distance slavery as the cause of the war. This feeds nicely into that whole view," William Blair, director of Pennsylvania Civil War Era Centre, said.
Confederate leaders banned blacks from combat until the last months of the war, but many were "body servants", slaves protecting their white owners, and probably armed.
Free blacks certainly joined the Confederates, usually to protect their own property. The Louisiana Native Guards was made up of mixed race men from New Orleans who volunteered to fight for the South in 1861. Sensibly they changed sides when Union troops took the city in 1862.
Urquhart's account of the march through Georgia is a fair one. The most controversial aspect of Sherman's late campaigns was the burning of Columbia, SC as his forces marched north in 1865.
October 28, 1999
Past the rack of pistols at the Tennessee Civil War Museum and the video on firing a cannon is a grainy 1861 photo of Andrew and Silas Chandler.
Both wear Confederate gray. Both hold swords in their right hands and guns in their left. Both are about to go into battle.
But this is no ordinary picture of Southern loyalists. Silas is black, and Andrew is his white master.
The photo is part of a display - maybe the only one of its kind in a museum nationwide - stating at least 35,000 blacks fought in the 1. 2 million man Confederate army.
It's a politically loaded claim that many historians say is inaccurate.
Craig Hadley, who designed the privately owned Chattanooga museum that
opened last year, believes critics are trying to bury a sensitive topic.
"Nobody wants to acknowledge these people because they 'fought on the wrong side,' " said Hadley, a Southern Adventist University professor.
Historians agree that some blacks enlisted as Confederates, even though the South banned them from the army until the desperate few months before the war ended. No one knows for sure why they joined up.
Some may have thought of themselves as Southerners first or believed they would be given money, land or even their freedom in exchange for fighting, said historian Ervin Jordan, author of " Black Confederates and Afro-Yankees in Civil War Virginia."
Some may have felt loyal to their owners or pretended to be loyal to join the troops and plot their escape, he said. Others may have been influenced by talk of undisciplined Union soldiers mistreating blacks on their march. And free blacks who owned land may have wanted to protect their property.
The Louisiana Native Guards, a group of relatively prosperous free blacks in New Orleans, volunteered in 1861 to fight for the Confederacy. But after the North took control of the city a year later, the regiments reversed course, volunteering for the Union.
"The bottom line is most white Southerners did not trust black Southerners, but they were willing to consider the use of blacks in the military to save the Confederacy from defeat," Jordan said.
The research gets murkier when historians try to count the number of black Confederates. Estimates range from a few hundred to more than 50,000.
Thousands of free men and slaves served the Southern army as laborers, cooks and musicians and may have been armed. Many were so-called body servants -slaves like Silas Chandler who traveled with their owners as personal attendants and often carried guns for protection.
John McGlone, president of Southern Heritage Press and an editor of the journal "Black Southerners in Gray," is among those who believe such laborers should be counted as soldiers, even if their masters forced them into the war.
McGlone, a history lecturer at Motlow State Community College in Tullahoma. "Often, they got involved in battles even though their normal role was support."
But many historians find this approach illegitimate, saying armed forces always make a distinction between soldiers and support crew.
"I would say that while the distinction was blurred around the edges, it was still a distinction," said Civil War historian James McPherson, author of the Pulitzer Prize- winning book, "Battle Cry of Freedom."
Adding to the confusion are sparse war records in which some soldiers are identified by nothing more than their initials.
There are eyewitness accounts of black sharpshooters and combatants. But newspaper reports often were biased, written by journalists who never saw battles and took their information from bragging soldiers as they returned to camp, McPherson said.
Documents from burial details also were unreliable, as crews often reported finding "negro corpses" when the bodies simply had turned black after hours in the sun, he said.
Jordan traced the origin of one well-known account of Southern troops at Gettysburg with a "colored flag bearer" and discovered the eyewitness actually had written of a "flag bearer bearing the colors."
Records of pensions awarded to hundreds of black Confederate veterans raise more questions. Blacks applied as laborers, but Jordan said he came across documents where blacks had crossed out "soldier" since they officially had been banned from combat and written "body servant" instead.
Soldier in Petersburg, Va., the Museum of the Confederacy in Richmond, Va., and Gettysburg National Military Park have no exhibits on black Confederate soldiers and no plans to add such displays.
"It would be something that we would probably address if there was evidence there were substantial numbers," Gettysburg historian Scott Hartwig said. "There have been a lot of people who have written about it recently and the evidence has been very flimsy."
Jordan, who is black, believes Civil War museums should be sensitive to the feelings of the black community.
"My attitude about blacks who were loyal to the Confederacy is I don't
condemn them nor do I praise them," he said. "My goal is to explain them."
You should correct your tendency to choose up sides. This is "War", not "Politics." They were relevant articles, not evidence in pursuit of an apologist line. Moreover, the most intriguing case for nuance on the issue of slavery is black slaveowners, not black soliders fighting for the Confederacy.
I agree, the findings are interesting, and provide a degree of needed nuance to the historiography of the Civil War. I would suggest that these findings will--if they are not already--become fodder for Confederate apologists to further their perception of the cause.
Did you know that some Indians living in the South kept slaves? And formed a CSA unit that fought at Pea Ridge?
This is very interesting. I know so little about the American Civil War. But what is this about "overinflated"? Isn't "inflated (to expand or increase abnormally or imprudently)" good enough any more?
Thank you for your description of Sherman's March, Urquhart. You, Rask, janjon and Wombat have some interesting comments.
Wombat:
What exactly is controversial about Sherman's march?
Rask:
I think what Doc is getting at is the whole ethos of "total war", with Sherman as an early proponent.
This is getting there. The controversy that I see ignores whether Sherman was a proponent of "total war," or even if he disliked it. The controversy is: was "total war" against Southern states really the best way the Union could win the war? Why?
I agree that Sherman's March was one viable strategy, and it might have been the quickest path to victory. But for crying out loud, these were American troops burning American cities! Could the Union's finest minds not think of a better means of ending the war than that?
I might even go so far as to claim that Sherman's March was unnecessary. The Confederacy was already finished. If they wanted to "bring the Confederacy to its senses" or "bring to war to the Confederate citizens" they could take control of the waterways, railroads, and various government facilities.
Practicing total war on your own country seems like an awfully desperate act. As far as I know, the Unuion was not that desperate.
Huh? A huge share of northern naval efforts in the war were an attempt to seize control of waterways, with not much success in the East. Sherman's march itself significantly targeted the railroads. I am not sure what you mean about "government facilities". It isn't as if an army can just walk in and take the capitol building in Atlanta without concern for supply lines. After Sherman took Atlanta, his choices were basically between chasing Hood back north, or gutting the south. Sherman chose the latter, and his decision was vindicated about as soundly as any strategic military decision in history.
The conduct of the Civil War by the Union initially sought to respect property (including slaves) in what was supposed to be a short war with a speedy reconciliation. Protracted resistance and an unwillingness to be reconciled to the Union ended that policy by 1863.
I would also note, Doc, that no cities in the United States were burned.
Rask is correct about the railroads being targeted during Sherman's march.
The progress of Sherman's army was not like that of Attilla the Hun, and outside of the immediate line of march, there was no destruction or depredations.
Sherman's march demonstrated to the heartland of the Confederacy that it was no longer immune to the direct effects of the war. The paltry resistance also demonstrated the military weakness of the Confederacy.
From the Union's perspective, the American Civil War was not like most other wars. The overarching strategic goal of the North was to bring the Southern States back into the Union, not to conquer the Confederacy or drive it into the ground.
In order to accomplish this, I can see that destroying the Confederate army was important. Capturing (not destroying) the logistics of the South would also be a reasonable goal. I believe that this is much like the way we wage wars today.
You seem to believe that the gutting of the South was strategically superior to continuing the stalemate in Virginia. Why? I have never seen evidence that the Confederacy could have won that stalemate. Eventually the Union would prevail. Do you know something that I don't?
The way I see it, the Union's choice was between a dragging the war out to an honorable Southern surrender, or decimating the South by crippling its powerful economic engine. The Union chose the latter.
I believe this choice was at the very least, controversial. That economic engine was a great asset to the United States, and setting a torch to it just to end the war quickly was a very short-sighted move.
Wombat has alluded to the fact that everyone (certainly on the Union side) had thought at the outset that the War would end quickly with a reconciliation shortly thereafter. (Remember, these were the days when people would still get into their carriages avec picnic and go out to watch a battle on a Sunday afternoon.) The fact that the War indeed had gone on for several years with horrible carnage (all those deaths and horribly mutilated if still alive soldiers coming home to the astonishment and horror of their relatives) also had raised real concerns for Lincoln that it was going to be very difficult to sustain public opinion for pursuing the War vigorously much longer. Ergo - the need for a decisive stroke. Ergo - Sherman.
Lincoln was always juggling the politics of the war (abolitionists, northern Democrats, border states) with a military leadership that never seemed to give him the answers that he wanted. For the first two or three years, he saw missed opportunity and lack of purpose from his generals.
By the time we get to the last year, there was no romance left in the fighting. Given the horrendous loss of life, Sherman's March made sense.
Janjon is correct. Public opinion in parts of the US--particularly Democrat strongholds such as New York--was shaky, given the failures outside of Richmond and the stalemate outside Petersburg. On the other side of the war coalition, there was considerable sentiment in favor of prosecuting the even more harshly, dumping Lincoln if need be.
Also bear in mind that of all the Union military leaders, Sherman was probably among those most sympathetic to the South. He wanted to end the war quickly, with minimal loss of life. His strategy played a major role in doing so.
most other wars. The overarching strategic goal of the North was to
bring the Southern States back into the Union, not to conquer the
Confederacy or drive it into the ground."
The latter became the means to the former by 1864.
In order to accomplish this, I can see that destroying the Confederate
army was important. Capturing (not destroying) the logistics of the
South would also be a reasonable goal. I believe that this is much like the way we wage wars today. "
I think you ignore the supply line issue. You can't just capture a railroad in the middle of Georgia, and keep thousands of troops there for the remainder of the war. Not just is it a foolish waste of manpower, you are in the middle of hostile territory, and your supply lines are a very easy target for someone like Bedford Forrest. It made much more sense to destroy the railroads and move on to a new target, foraging off the land as Sherman did.
"You seem to believe that the gutting of the South was strategically
superior to continuing the stalemate in Virginia. Why? I have never
seen evidence that the Confederacy could have won that stalemate.
Eventually the Union would prevail. Do you know something that I
don't?"
Eventually, with more deaths caused by repeated assaults on the Confederate lines, Petersburg probably would have fallen. But it might have taken quite a bit longer without Sherman, and it should be noted that Sherman's entire campaign had only a small fraction of the casualties, on both sides of the line, as did Grant's campaign against Lee. I think it is very easy to argue that Sherman's march *saved* lives.
"The way I see it, the Union's choice was between a dragging the war
out to an honorable Southern surrender, or decimating the South by
crippling its powerful economic engine. The Union chose the latter."
Did you know that before Sherman took Atlanta in late summer of 64, the consensus was that Lincoln was going to lose the 1864 election? The fall of Atlanta convinced Northerners that the war was winnable quickly, and people fell in line behind Lincoln. It is an open question what would have happened had the Democrats won, but given McClellan's conciliatory views toward the south, I think that even if the war had been successfully continued, we probably wouldn't have had the 13-15th amendments, and quite possibly would have had slavery continue for several for decades.
Rask:
Does he have to be an American at the time he was in the Military?
Patton.
No, just commanded US forces. You are you thinking of, Steuben or something?
that swung the election towards Lincoln. I've always been curious to
know if that was true, but haven't looked it up."
I tend to doubt it. Lincoln won by 10% of the vote, and 91% of the EC vote, accounting for 400,000 people. I have difficulty believing that the margin of absentee votes in the Union army exceeded that, as I think that gets pretty close to the number of people in the Union military at the time.
Rask:
"No, just commanded US forces. You are you thinking of, Steuben or something?"
George Washington
I think you ignore the supply line issue. You can't just capture a
railroad in the middle of Georgia, and keep thousands of troops there for the remainder of the war. Not just is it a foolish waste of manpower, you are in the middle of hostile territory, and your supply lines are a very easy target for someone like Bedford Forrest.
I would not advocate capturing a supply line in Georgia all at once. It would need to happen gradually. Certainly the Union forces would have been subject to guerrilla attacks, especially since this version of the Civil War would probably continue for many decades. The Confederacy might hang on until 1890 or later. But the cotton gins, mills, and plantations would still be standing.
Also note, rask, that I was not writing about preserving human lives, military or civilian. It is the destruction of equipment that I find controversial.
Janjon and Wombat have made an excellent argument that the Union needed the war to end quickly. This was missing from the conversation. It is not my criticism of Sherman's march that they attack, it is my contention that the Union would eventually win a prolonged war.
Would it have been impossible for the Union to win a prolonged Civil War? If so, then this was the situation: The South did not have the military might to wage a long war. The North did not have the political will to wage a long war. What an interesting problem for both sides!
Does no one on this board posess the creative skills to imagine an alternatate solution for the Union? Was Sherman's March the only possible way to end the war quickly?
In this case my previous suggestion probably would not work. I believe that seizing railroads, waterways, city halls, etc. would have taken at least ten years, probably much longer. Perhaps a massive CIA-like intervention, aimed at assassinating Southern leaders, would have worked.
Other possibilities:
Andrew Jackson (it's hard to top the Battle of New Orleans for lopsided victories)
Zachary Taylor (don't know enough to defend this choice, but he won an uneven war pretty easily)
Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson, Nathan Bedford Forrest, U.S. Grant, William T. Sherman
Patton, Eisenhower (see comment re Washington), MacArthur
I'd stick with Washington as the one who faced the most difficult situation and made the best of it. In terms of "generalship," as a tactician I'd take Patton, but for the big picture Ike. MacArthur combined some of the qualities of both but I'll echo Wombat's "ugh."
Even though I think Sherman was a brutal scourge, the alternative might have led to a CSA victory. It certainly would have led to a weaker Union. And as much as Southerners resent the North and continued to "fight" the war in the succeeding years, they would have been even more recalcitrant had their defeat been less self-evident.
The economic engine of the South that Doc describes...well, I think what there was of it was going to have some torching just by freeing the slaves. The worse damage IMO was the defeatist mindset the South suffered for so long after the war: the chip-on-the-shoulder, provincial, inferiority complex.
They served in three major wars. They played important roles in all three. Not only were they superb tacticians and strategists, but they exhibited personal courage at the front. Each molded the army for at least a generation. They were both vain, egomaniacal, and heavily involved in politics.
Scott:
Fought bravely in the war of 1812 as a regimental commander. His role at Chippewa and Lundy's Lane (where US forces fought British regulars to a standstill on the latter's ground) held US forces together.
Led what Wellington called "the most brilliant feat of arms in this century," the campaign that captured Mexico City in the Mexican War.
Devised the strategy that led to the defeat of the Confederacy, the so-called "Anaconda Plan," which combined the seizure of the Mississippi River with a blockade of the Confederacy's seaports.
MacArthur:
Served as a division commander in WWI. Most decorated soldier of the war.
After a rough start, led island hopping campaign that eventually recaptured the Philippines in WWII.
Planned the Inchon landing that decisively changed the course of the Korean War.
Pure soldiership- "Chesty" Puller.
Another possiblity would have been what Grant originally wanted, the overland capture of Mobile. Neither would have shortened the war.
IJ:
"I'm not sure how much Washington would qualify as a great general, but he'd be hard to beat for choice as greatest "commander.""
Washington has received raves for his battle tactics in both the French and Indian War and the Revolutionary War. I'll try to get you a source.
No he didn't. He actually started the French and Indian War, by his impetuous attack on a French-led scouting party. He then attempted to establish a Virginia presence in what is now Pennsylvania, building an indefensible fort, which he had to surrender shortly after it was beseiged by a French force from what is now Pittsburg.
His advice on campaigning in the region was ignored by General Braddock during the march to capture Fort Duquesne (Pittsburg), with predictable results. He fought bravely during the ambush, and was instrumental in extricating the supply train (and General Braddock's corpse) from the battle.
He then participated in the campaign that finally captured Fort Duquesne as the commander of the Virginai militia contingent.
As Virginia's preeminent soldier, although with actual combat experience, Washington's choice as commander of the Continental was as much a political as a military choice. His comparative youth was also a factor.
The winter campaign that led to the victories at Trenton and Princeton is the only instance where his strategic instincts and the performance of those under him coincided.
Rask, Wombat:
I won't argue with you about Washington's battlefield tactical skills. I had read a number good things, but I'm no expert on the subject.
I will point out that its a bit of an overstatement to say that Washington "started the French and Indian War", given that the British and French were already at war in Europe.
I had selected Washington on the basis of both his battlefield tactics and his overall command strategy. Let me rethink this choice.
Best Military Commander? A very tough question. I'm inclined to offer Admiral Hyman Rickover, if one counts the Cold War.
One of the most technically savvy Generals in American history, Mitchell had great insight into the potential of airpower. Too bad America didn't like what he had to say, but that is not his fault.
Who else is there? Madison, Monroe. Polk. McKinley. Wilson. FDR (the only competition). Truman. Ike. Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon. Bush (hahahaha!). Shall we give Clinton the first installment of Colombia?
Unlike Rickover.
lisajolie
FDR led the US in a war when we were at our most unified, Lincoln our least. Nor did FDR face the task of persuading Americans to fire on their own.
McKinley's was probably the easiest. Certainly more so than Bush, but maybe not Reagan's.
Axis would have lost without our entry.)"
WRT to Europe, maybe, but not Japan.
The North had significant advantages in both manpower and materiel. It is to the credit of the Confederacy that they were able to sustain the war as long as they did.
On the other hand, FDR had to convince an isolationist America that events in Europe were important. He also commanded wars in two theaters.
The North had significant advantages in both manpower and materiel.
As did the Allies in WWII.
On the other hand, FDR had to convince an isolationist America that events in Europe were important.
The Japanese made this job a whole lot easier. And remember that the Germans declared war on us, at which point we didn't have much choice.
He also commanded wars in two theaters.
The U.S. was not the only country fighting so saying FDR "commanded" the wars, seems a bit strong. While WWII might seem a bigger war because of geography and because of the number of participants, we lost a fairly small percentage of the total combatants and many fewer men than in the Civil War.
Whereas FDR's motivation wasn't quite as necessary, given Pearl Harbor and Hitler's declaration of war.
Any war is a delicate political situation. Are you saying there was a sigificant Northern faction willing to accept Southern seccession?
lisajolie
Lincoln, through no fault of his own, was unable to do this. Given the competing goals of the war coalition, this would have been Lincoln's sternest test, one which he might not have been able to carry off.
Suppose FDR had died On December 8, 1941. Suppose Lincoln had died on April 13, 1861. How substantially different would have been the conduct and outcome of each of their respective wars?
My money is that WWII would pretty much have gone the same way--though would Henry Wallace have been President? We might not have had a Cold War, but we might have had worse...
But if we assume both had reasonably competent, if mediocre VPs, then I think Lincoln's loss would have been much harder to fill. IMO virtually impossible. As a matter of fact, Truman eventually did step in for FDR and managed things pretty well, I think, though some would argue with that.
Neither had an army that was prepared for war. Both ended up re-interpretating America and changing the government so that it looked completely different.
They were essential leaders, neither necessarily trained to be great leaders, but equipped with excellent temperments for their jobs.
A good summary.
lisajolie
OTOH, Lincoln was assassinated right when the Union had just won the war. And look what happened with Johnson as president: Reconstruction and impeachment.
Why do you feel compelled to sign your posts? We had another poster doing that, LibertyFreeman I think. Any connection?
Pelle:
When your name means "pretty", you say it as often as you can. :)
MacArthur
Greatest General?
Stonewall Jackson
I have received a response from the Ulysses S. Grant Association on the issue of Grant's alleged breakdown:
"James Harrison Wilson, writing many years after the Civil War, described Grant as breaking down after the first day of fighting in the Wilderness. Wilson is not always a reliable source; in fact, almost anything he writes about must be independently confirmed. A great number of writers on Grant have no reason to believe that statement. In particular, Horace Porter, Campaigning with Grant, gives a quite different reaction to the fighting in the Wilderness."
The story of James H. Wilson is pretty interesting itself. He was one of the Union "boy" generals (graduated West Point in 1860), and was a Major General by the time he was 27. He was also an incredibly effective and innovative cavalry commander. (See the new link on Civil War cavalry tactics.) Highlights of his Civil War career include his role in smashing Hood's army at Nashville and shattering Nathan Bedford Forrest's force defending Selma, Alabama. Forces under his command pursued and captured Jefferson Davis. Wilson also fought in the Spanish American War and the Boxer Rebellion.
I read somewhere that Wilson himself was mentally unstable, and that led to his retirement from the regular army in 1870.
Sherman
At First Manassas or Bull Run, Sherman had his first battle experience and commanded one of the few brigades that performed well that day. He was promoted to brigadier general and placed in charge of Union forces in Kentucky. Here he suffered a nervous breakdown and was sent home to rest. When newspapers published a story titled, "General William T. Sherman Insane," Sherman, ashamed and disgraced, considered suicide, but didn't out of consideration to his children.
Funny. Judging from his pictures, I would have thought Sherman a rock of mental stability.
I found a pretty good link for the butterscotch bar:
The War Times Journal
Best American War Commander? Marshall. Period. For all the reasons mentioned above, plus for what he did post WWII (yeah, I know that he wasn't exactly acting as a war commander at the time, but what he did to envision, push for and add great credibility to the Marshall Plan speaks worlds about the man's abilities. A true American hero.)
Best American Commander in Chief? Well, the best of course would be he who has kept us out of the most wars, but that is impossible to determine I guess. As for the activists, so to speak, it would be a tie between Lincoln and FDR. Again, for all the reasons described above. Sure, they faced remarkably different issues, but the mix for both was one of just terribly difficult issues and on balance they were just magnificent.
On the heels of the Kosovo victory, Clinton said it proved "that a sustained air campaign, under the right conditions, can stop an army on the ground." Such claims have been a staple of airpower devotees since the 1920s. American defense professionals, in particular, spent decades tantalizing themselves with the prospect of winning wars through bombing alone. The problem is, they'd always been wrong. Until Kosovo.
But if Kosovo showed that airpower--and, in particular, its stealth and precision components--can win wars, it also showed that "smart bombs" are only as smart as their users. This was not, after all, the first time the Clinton administration used airpower--just the first time it did so successfully. With their earlier fusillades against Iraq, Sudan, Afghanistan, and Bosnia, the Clintonites had invited Americans to indulge in the conceit that military technology obviates the need for strategic thinking. In Kosovo, they finally learned the importance of using both.
I did a little research over the weekend, and I must confess that my Washington posts were dead wrong. He was far from a great battlefield strategist. I apologize for spreading faulty information.
In WWII it took 9,000 dumb bombs to kill a major target
In Vietnam, 176
In Kosova - 2 smart bombs
The consequential, collateral damage implications are just as important. The vast majority of those 9000/176 bombs hit targets they weren't intended to hit.
Since Vietnam, all the fighting that has involved US troops has been of that nature. It is a cornerstone of the "Powell Doctrine." It has become a major distorter of US foreign and defense policy.
There is a difference between attempting to minimize one's casualties in combat, and letting the risk of taking any casualties paralyze applications of military force.
I might also add that had the US taken steps in Kosovo that may have risked casualties (Bombing from lower altitudes, moving ground forces into the area immediately, actually using those antitank helicopters) the situation in Kosovo might have ended much sooner.
The Apaches in the event did not have a working forward base until just before the conflict ended and more importantly would have been used out of normal mission, ie ground support as we didn't have nor could we have assembled ground forces in the area without overcoming some serious local and Euro/US domestic obstacles.
I'd have to agree that, in the absence of a nation-threatening event (and I see none on the horizon), the US is not politically capable of waging a military action with the prospect of significant casualties. Short of a major crisis, we've entered a new era.
(Please note that I am more interested in discussion and analysis than in overheated partisan polemics with or without visual effects; I reserve the right to delete such posts, whatever the source.)
I guess I can see a difference in the results of the Clinton administration's warfare vs Bush senior's warfare. Milosovic was a tougher opponent than Saddam, but today Saddam is still in power.
I am not sure if the cause can be found in U.S. policy, technology, or doctrine. This could be a cultural difference in the target countries.
The most definitive thing I can say about Clinton's days as CIC is: "Thank God I didn't have to hear about some impossible missile defense system every freaking day!"
(I hope that wasn't seen as partisan, Wombat. I was commenting on the practicality of missile defense technology, not making a political statement.)
What's the latest?
The conflict over the Patriot has died down a lot, and rightly so. The controversy was pretty much entirely politically motivated - prompted by the fear that uncontested praise would further prompt investment in SDI.
How anyone can say that the Patriot performed in any way that wasn't astounding is beyond me. It was, after all, a surface-to-air mds designed specifically to protect against Warsaw Pact aircraft, and was only hastily rigged to intercept the clumsy path of SCUDs. Anti-missile technology is much different than anti-aircraft technology.
In fact, the very crudeness of the SCUDS launched by Iraq (those SCUDS carried a circular error probable of 3,000 meters, AND most of them were 'modified' - ie, were two missiles welded together to increase range, which caused them to shake violently and almost always begin break-up while still far from their targets) made the Patriots' job more difficult - and their success rate even more impressive.
The final (usually accepted) success rate for the Patriots v SCUDs was 70% over Saudi, 40% over Israel. It's almost impossible to get solid, completely accepted figures because the Patriot doesn't have imbedded digital data collection - in the quick modification to anti-missile technology, that wasn't a priority.
The success rates for the Patriot system are highly suspect. In fact, most military experts put the success rate at between 10% and zero. Theodore Postol, a leading critic of Star Wars, says the success rate was likely zero.
Patriot Redux: MIT Scientists Say Missile a Near-Total Failure
It should also be emphasized that the Al-Hussein missiles poor design contributed to making the Patriot's task more difficult.
Hey, you! Good to see you!
I'm familiar with Postal's work, and as you fairly point out (and which I side-referenced in my initial post) anti-SDI folks have a vested interest in downplaying any Patriot success.
For instance, in the same hearing before the House Com. on Gov. Ops, Peter Zimmerman (important to note, he is not a huge fan of the Patriot, either) criticized Postal's methodology. Here's an excerpt from his testimony, specifically referring to the videotape analysis and keeping in mind that at least 4 Patriots (a ratio determined by standard firing doctrine) were shot at every incoming SCUD. He believes there was a overall 50% success rate, and so says:
"And so for every eight Patriots launched, there will be only one success. From a box of random unlabeled videotapes of intercepts over Israel, seven out of every eight will show misses, demonstrating that it is a lot easier to find video of misses than of hits. There are reasonable estimates which suggest that about 80% of the intercepts were successful.
In Saudi Arabia an average of three interceptors was launched at each Scud which was engaged, so one random film clip in three would show a hit if 100% of all engaged Scuds had been destroyed. That was not the case, so the fraction of videotapes showing successes would actually be less than one out of three or 27%. The correct result for Saudi events is that only about 27% of all random news videotapes would show successes but 73% would show misses. The Saudis situation is not significantly different from the Israeli case, and in neither instance would one find very many successes".
Charles Zakret's testimony from that hearing is also worth looking at.
Honestly, as I noted earlier, the Patriot controversy is so embroiled in the pro- and anti-SDI fight, I suspect the "truth" is somewhere in the middle of each side's claims.
Here's a link to one of Zimmerman's argument's against Postal (not the hearing testimony)
Zimmerman
Also, please note, I am anti-SDI, too. Just want to point that out!
BTW, an independent review using the same Army data put the kill rate at approximately 9%. Not quite the equal of a "41 out of 42" kill rate that the military originally touted, but as has been provided above, Patriot was originally an anti-aircraft platform pressed into service as an ABM defense.
(Interesting to see good old Cazart holding forth there on a subject other than how boring the Mote is. Heh-heh.)
Disadvantages of manned bombers: risk to human crews, training cost of human crews, danger of errors by human crews, fuel burden for return trip,
Advantages of manned bombers: increased mission flexibility, reuse of delivery vehicle,
This would be a no-brainer if "smart" weapions could do everything that human crews can do. Right now they cannot. A human crew still has many skills that "smart" weapons lack. These skills are critical for certain missions, especially those in which the goals and parameters change during the mission.
In two or three decades AI will probably allow smart weapons to have the same flexibility as human-crewed bombers.
The question is: are the types of mission for which human crews are best suited going to be common in the time between now and then?
It strikes me that in today's environment and with today's constraints on bombing campaigns (in reference to the United States, which is the only country in the world capable of carrying out a sustained strategic bombing offensive), PGMs are the way to go. Both Iraq and Kosovo demonstrated the ability to inflict great damage to the military capacity, and infrastructure, of the target country, with minimal collateral loss of life.
There is still an environment for area bombing, oddly enough, it is the battlefield. In WWII and in the Gulf War, area bombing of enemy troop concentrations played a role in smashing defenses and demoralizing the defenders.
I don't see the need for large "strategic" bombers if the shift is toward cruise missiles. Imagine how much it would cost to design/build the equivalent of a B-52 today.
If you want to deliver a large number of cruise missiles to most parts of the world, launch them off a ship.
However, the B52 has been an extremely effective bomber for - what? - 35 years.
For you people who are much more technical than am I, wouldn't it be relatively easy for designers with computers to up-grade the most recent B52 models; add modern touches; and come up with a relatively advanced plane that could be mass produced at a fairly cheap price?
One would have to bind and gag the USAF generals! But, I think a long range bomber is much more practicle and less vulnerable than carriers and the multiple ships that have to accompany them.
I realize that this size airplane can be seen coming for a "country mile"; but, there are modern weapons that can shoot a country mile + 1 mile. One would use the "modern B52" only when air superiority had been attained by the "stars" of the USAF and Navy. Or with very long range weapons firing from very long range.
I have been led to believe that the cost of a carrier and its accompanying ships is horrendous. And nearly as vulnerable as a B52.
Admittedly, the costs are horrendous for maintaining both systems, when relative strike capabilities are considered. However a carrier group is by far less vulnerable to being taken out to the point of not being able to deliver a substantial strike force. Carrier groups also provide many other combat support functions such as troop transport, direct communications, not to mention an array of specialized aircraft and ordinance systems for flexibility to situation requirements.
It was the pounding by B-52s that disabled Iraqi ground forces in 1991. Cruise weapons can take down a key building, but what if you're trying to destroy a dispersed target-- a motorized infantry battalion, say, or a complex of buildings. F-117s can deliver precision weapons, but there's the assumption there that precision counts. A B-1 dropping gravity bombs can cause more widespread *area* destruction than an F-117 with a laser-guided weapon-- and in the new century, few US strikes will be against complex societies where precision is vital.
The now-closed England Air Force Base is about 50 miles north of my home. It was the home of one of the best tank-killers of all time : the A10. The USAF had NO USE for that airplane; and it was about to be phased out and all A10s given to the Guard as the Gulf War started.
Because the USAF has blinders on in regard planes of this type, I think it makes sense to turn such a successful weapons system over to the Army. I don't think anyone doubts its ability as a tank-killer. Possibly, the A10 would find a friendlier home in the Army.
And people who know more than I about the various weapons systems can probably give many more similar (or worse) examples.
ranheim
No one doubts the Warthog's abilities as a tank killer. It did an exceptional job in the Gulf, and USAF knows it. It's a particularly unglamourous airplane, that's all.
Switching inventory status to ANG or AFRC is a budgetary matter since the drawdown. A-10s will be in service until 2020 or so, and the AF doesn't want to get rid of them - assigning responsibility to ANG or AFRC, these days, isn't really any different than having the plane on active duty status. Any large scale conflict will bring the reserve components and their equipment into fully operational status. It's a different world for the reserves, these days.
The A-10 has been remarkably effective, but the AF has never really liked it-- the idea of replacing it with a version of the F-16 allows the fighter mafia to still have their day.
Are you still living close to England AFB. I am in Avoyelles Parish; the Cochon de Lait capital of the world.
I have RIPed this thread due to low level of activity. Any objections?
Well, someone has to initiate them.
Pelle: This thread seems to work in bursts, depending on topicality or something that just comes up that grabs people's interest. What does so is not predictable.
I said much the same thing to Pelle when he suggested RIPing it, and I'm sorry to see he decided to go ahead with it.
Ouch, indeed. Three hours of agony, a trip to the emergency room, 18 hours of drug-tolerable pain, 6 hours of intense pain that drugs kept from becoming agony, then as George Harrison said: "All things must pass."
Thanks for your kind words re the thread. Perhaps it can become part of the "Slow" thread.
I'm sorry to hear about your troubles. People say it's the most intense pain they have been unfortunate enough to experience.
Contrary to what CalGal believes RIP status is not irreversible.
The pain is probably not as intense as getting hit in the groin, but it comes close and lasts much longer.
Thanks for de-RIPing the thread. Now all we need is a "splendid little war." (John Hay)
Thanks for not ripping the thread. As Wombat said, it goes in streaks. War is mankind's greatest endeavor. Pity.
Ow. I wish you a speedy recovery.
I would have to disagree with the level I perceive you to be expounding this claim.
One must consider two points of logic. First one must consider, that B-52 performance was not classified. The extent of involvement of the stealth technology, to this day, remains highly classified, therefore placing the "strato"-bombers in the dubious position of being big player bombers by default. Credit was given to the B-52 for carpet/general area bombing of troop concentrations, but only after strategic communication and missile sytems were disabled thus freeing them of major vulnerabilities to SAM systems. For the largest part B-52's were assigned to areas where SCUD missile launchers and other suspected hidden facilities where laser-guided weapons were rendered practically useless for pin-point weaponry at the outset. Secondly, cruise missile technolgy along with various aircraft delivery missile systems could nullify much more precisely, troop concentrations with the advent of the scat-bomb/cluster-bomb technology. These are practically impossible, (with Iraqi technology), to defend against. These could quite simply be detonated overhead in precise locations releasing hundreds of "bomblets" that would effectively deter troop and troop equipment systematically over large areas...simultaneously if desired.
Again I will have to disagree, in the generalization at least, of this statement.
On the contrary, most of the aircraft aboard a carrier are strike aircraft. Differing roles perhaps, but primarily for some sort of "strike capability. Escort vessels, primary role is for protection of the fleet/carrier group. If for some reason, highly unlikely however, that an enemy aircraft, or vessel for that matter, were to penetrte closely enough to become a threat to the group then yes aircraft would be mobilized as well as short-range "artillery" systems brought into play. But that would be moot, as most all approaching hardware would be detected well before effective lethal penetration, into the group...much less to the carrier. As I said, under full battle mobilization, a protection-area is implemented, and becomes very difficult to invade much beyond the outer-fringes of that envelope.
Then we may look at defending against ballistic weaponry that may achieve penetration but could only be effective if nuclear-chemical devices are presented. But that's a whole different ball-game.
You knock out the SAM sites; radar sites; C&C sites; other "important" targets with the "stars" of the USAF and Navy. However, these aircraft can be armed with only a limited number of bombs per sortie.
The B52, on the other hand, can carry a large number of various type bombs per sortie. I think that there still a place for a cheap, modern version of the B52. Again! You would have to hogtie the USAF brass as they would want to put all sorts of bells and whistles on a new version of the B52.
Let the stars, with all their stealth technology, do what they are best capable of : hit specific targets. After those targets have been neutralized bring in a heavy bomber/s with a huge payload.
As I explained, the effectivity of B-52's is continually diminished with the advancement of smart-weaponry such as laser-tech and tomahawks/cruise systems using multiple "bomblets". Why use a hundred when 5 will do. (Boxer analogy: why swing 100 times in hopes to achieve a knockout, when one well-timed/placed shot that when an opponent don't see coming will do the same?)
Bombing strategies that are made available with B-52s will still be useful for "swinging in the dark". Where a jungle canopy or a well camoflaged facility makes precision locating difficult. Or where collateral damage is not a consideration.
As the Gulf War helped demonstrate, killing people isn't as necessary as killing equipment.
You can thank our current Secretary of State for that.
Precision warfare is, I sometimes think, a very American fetish. Hitting vital command and control nodes is certainly a key thing to do, but it shouldn't be fetishized at the expense of destroying large numbers of enemy troops and equipment.
My own thought is that US force in the next twenty years will rarely be used against armies or societies that respond well to precision warfare. Against lower-tech societies, it's the hammer and not the stiletto that works.
Low tech armies have similar vulnerabilities. The only defense against smart weapons is underground. Of course, there is ground everywhere.
Do you have a link to them?
If the US is involved in irregular and unconventional wars, neither precision weapons nor massive applications of firepower may work. Grunts will have to get out of their APCs, eschew M-1A MBTs, and hoof it down forest, jungle, and mountain trails.
It goes back to the perception that US military casualties have become politically unacceptable to the US public. This is somewhat ironic, given that the US military is an all-volunteer force.
Assume that the US were to take sides in the conflict in Congo and decide to intervene. What would be the use of precision weapons there? What would be the use of any kind of weapon except infantry?
The key to the use of PGMs is knowing where potential targets are. In a fluid battle situation, real time intelligence and the ability for an almost immediate response are vital. If ground troops can provide a fix on enemy troop concentrations, a fortified camp, supply chokepoints, etc. then PGMs can be used to good effect. I see no reason for ground forces to assault a defended area, when other means can be used to destroy it. This would apply even in the Congo.
(yes, if i were more technically competent i'd know how to post links, but i'm a liberal arts graduate, so...)
Ran-- even a lucky hit in 1991 that killed Saddam might not have done much about Iraq's regime. The Ba'ath party structure and ideology seem geared to produce someone just like him--though perhaps with either less megalomania or more discretion.
I saw bits of that broadcast. I recall several decades ago, the French did something similar in creating a rapid internvention force. Obviously, the US would do that on a larger scale.
It will be interesting to see if the Bush Administration will continue in that direction. Given their stated reluctance to intervene in other parts of the world, and the powerful interests throughout the military-industrial complex that prefer things the way they are, I think not.
A low-tech city/village can survive without power or water far better than, say, Chicago, and there may be no computer nets to cripple.
Uh, okay, but that seems to miss my point. Would you really send in a B-52 to clobber a low-tech village?
Smart weapons can be effective against any large city. If America really needed to attack a low tech villiages, I expect we would use helicopters. Strategic bombers are not ideal for either of those missions.
Remember Vietnam? What good did B-52s and helicopters do there?
Brought NV and it's Russo counterpart back to the peace talks in Paris. They did well...the politics to continue such "inhumane and indescriminate" destruction is what didn't work. It was politics that fucked that effort up, and it was politics that "spent" the most lives as well as souls.
Let's debate this will we?
It was the Linebacker-2 bombing campaign that brought the Vietnamese to the table in Dec. 72; it had been heavy bombing that broke the Spring 72 NVA ofensive.
The age of instant media means that civilian populations can see casualties, and that has political effects. In an age of mass democracy and 24/7/366 global news, even inflicting casualties on the *enemy* (see Iraq and Serbia) is regarded as a Bad Thing.
Now-- could heavy bombing of NVN cities and ports, bombing as it would've been done in WW-2 have "won" in Indochina? I don't think so in the long run: the North had the will to go on over decades to conquer the South; the US never saw Vietnam as a crucial place. But the 1972 bombing *did* force a settlement and buy the South 3 years (which both Saigon and washington squandered).
You might want to give some background...
I was a Flight Surgeon in the USAF during the 60s. I heard the same refrain from all pilots : USAF; Navy; Marines. "They are not letting us fight the war!"
My personal experience in Viet Nam was the first 90 days after the Gulf of Tonkin (LBJ's manufactured excuse to get the USA fully involved in the war - I think it is agreed by all today that it was a sham). My squandrons had Canberra bombers from Australia and helicopters. The bombers had to have permission from the Pentagon before each and every take-off. That is the extent to which the war was micro-managed by LBJ and McNamarra.
The port at Haiphong was never seriously attacked nor mined to my knowlege. B52 flights over N. Viet Nam were planned for the same time every day! I knew a Flight Surgeon on one of the carriers (maybe the Bon Homme Richard) and he said that the same thing was true of Navy flights : the fighter-bombers took off at the same times each day. During many missions, pilots were told NOT to drop ordinance. Obviously, one does not land on a carrier carrying ordinance so a lot of bombs were jettisoned into the sea. No reason for this action was ever given to the pilots except "Orders from Washington". Keep in mind that some of these planes were being shot down so pilots knew target areas where they could have gotten rid of their ordinance with effect; just as well as in the sea.
Viet Nam is a poor example of a war. LBJ/McNamarra botched things for about 5 years. Then Nixon was trying to get out of Viet Nam and active bombing was allowed only to put pressure on N. Viet Nam diplomats to come to scheduled meetings. This, in contrast, to the Gulf War where the elder Bush "let the generals fight the war!"
Ran-- of course, lots of micromanagement in VN stemmed from a reaction to the disaster of the Chinese entry into Korea, which did in part happen because MacArthur wasn't kept on a tight enough rein. The US was deeply afraid of either expanding the war and bringing China in or getting too deeply involved in a war which would suck resources away from important places (i.e., Europe)... Now the latter happened anyway-- the USN was starved of construction funds for new ships, a generation of the US Army was wasted on mass-producing troops for VN instead of beginning to modernize...
He let them fight the war until it was almost won. Then he made them stop.
War is more than brute force. War is politics. If the generals had been given a free rain to "fight the war" they may have elected to nuke the North into oblivion, declared victory and gone home.
With hindsight it is easy to see that the war achieved nothing. But it is also easy to see its justification given the mood of the time. It was the time of the domino theory and communism was seen as a monolithic force out to grab the world. It was necessay, or so it was thought, to draw a line in sand. What that analysis missed was that Ho Chi Minh and the other leaders in the North were essentially Vietnamese nationalists.
There is nothing new in this, I know, I just thought it should be brought up.
I just have my craw full of McNamarra! At Ford he was responcible for the Edsel. His next job was Secy of Defence with all the "whiz kids". Then he went to the IMF and screwed up a bunch of 3rd world nations.
A total loser wherever he waw - and look at the jobs he had.
And has recently written a book bemoaning his mistakes in Viet Nam. A complete and total fool!
McNamara was with the World Bank, not IMF.
But, my point was that McNamarra was a failure at every step along the way. I know that he was a member of the Council On Foreign Relations early on; and that was more important in the '60s (than now). Did he marry well?
Can anybody explain those high offices he held, having failed at each preceeding level?
I do agree with your percept of McNamara, perhaps for different reasons, but he was extremely successful at accomplishing a very important job to his superiors. He was an excellent lightning rod, and deflected blame and scornful reprisals from all his former employers.
McNamara was responsible for the Edsel?
No wonder he went into the war business. He needed Viet Nam to make people forget about that other atrocity!
The Edsel model was given the go-ahead by Henry Ford II in 1955. The program was discontinued in 1959. McNamara became president of Ford in 1960. Ranheim knows nothing about McNamara except that he doesn't like him.
Good exchange over cannibalism in International.
I hasten there.
I think you are getting some of you info. on MacNamara at Ford from a disreputable source.
I remember McNamara's name from his time at Ford, but ranheim is the only person I have heard claim that he was "responsible" for the Edsel.
Too bad. That theory paves the way for some good jokes.
(click image for link)
Possibly because no one that I knew in the USAF had any use for McNamara, I got the idea that he was responcible for the Edsel. The active duty pilots I knew tried to hang responcibilty for the Edsel on McNamara; that was a fact. I knew that some of his duties at Ford had to do with the Edsel. He was slso belittled for being an "efficiency expert" - which, as I recall, was popular with upper levels of management in all types of business back then. Very unpopular with the "indians"; as opposed to the "chiefs".
The USAF fighter pilot also hated McNamara for his belief that one airframe could be modified to serve many purposes. Up to that time, the USAF had delta winged interceptors (F102 & 106); the F100 & F105 as fighter bombers. The F4 was, I believe, the first airframe developed for multiple missions. And early models did not work out too well. Later models of the F4 were much more successful.
The Navy, also, fought the concept of one airframe for many different functions. McNamara was extremely unpopular with active duty personnel for that reason + he shouldered much of the criticism for why were fighting a losing war in Viet Nam. The USAF pilots I knew thought his tactics were no better than rubbish.
Pelle:
Message # 1696
Nice.
MacNamara's chief idiocy about Vietnam was his reliance on numbers (body counts, projected casualties per tons of bombs dropped, etc.) to chart the progress of the war. That produced the idea that the NVA was incapable of mounting major offensives because--according to the figures--it had been all but destroyed.
Thanks.
From the recent exchange of posts one has to conclude that you are one of those fellows who first make up their minds and then uncritically collect anecdotal evidence to support their stance.
I'm afraid your credibility has suffered mightily.
As to multipurpose airframes this is, as Wombat points out, the rule rather than the exception in today's fighter aircrafts. You need to update your views from 40 years ago.
The USA today is rudderless, IMO. Very few in the USA will take responcibilty for their actions; the out-of-wedlock birth rate is extremely high; and the fact that a moral leper like Clinton could be elected twice to the highest office in the land make me look back to the days of Eisenhower fondly.
I see no reason to "update" into the current world. My wife and I do just fine in our agreement that the USA has gone to Hell.
Multi-use, as with the F-16, is going to be the keynote of any future designs. My one complaint about the F-22 is that it's going to be hard-pressed (sp. because of short range) to handle multiple roles.
See Message # 1696.
All dem pockets...so little time.
That the US Military is extremely well-equipped to fight the Gulf War again. Whether that has much relevance today is another question...
The highlights were the hyperinflation of 1923 which wiped out the non-property-owning middle class and the depression of 1929 which followed the Wall Street crash. The crash hit Germany much harder than the other European states, indicating a tighter connection between the American and German economies. This connection was the war reparations. Germany could not pay them from internally generated resources because simultaneously with imposing them, the Allies crippled the basis of Germsn industry - the coal and steel production. Elsass-Lothringen fell to France, Silesia to Poland and the Saarland was occupied by France.
So Gemany borrowed in the US to pay its claimants. mainly Britain and France, who, in turn, used the proceeds to pay back the war loans they had taken out in the US. One can visualize the same bags of money making the rounds US-Germany-Britain-US and each time they pass the US the British account is cedited and the German one is debited. When the 1929 crash came, US credit dried up and confidence in the German economy went through the floor.
When Hitler came to power in 1933 he promptly abolished the reparations. But the loans from the US were there. Question: Was the reason, or one of the reasons, why Germany declared war that it could then cancel the repayments of these loans? One doesn't make payments to one's adversary in war.
No matter how lowly Hitler thought of the US military or America's supposedly mongrelized citizenry or assumedly syphlitic President, it
seems passing strange he'd give thought to cancelling a debt with no thought as to the cost war with the US would bring. He'd experience of that cost in the Lend-Lease program supporting the UK and the damage to German arms.
So why did he declare war, a patently stupid thing to do? This is one of the great question marks of WWII, but I trust that you, in your wisdom, will provide us with the answer. You say it would be ridiculous to risk the cost of war with the US for the sake of cancelling a debt. Sure, but wouldn't it be even more ridiculuos without that benefit? Your post has all the signs of a knee-jerk reaction, going to the extreme of the missing apostrophe mark.
Axis agreement with Japan. Had to try and sandwhich Russia and Germany neede assurance that Russia would not be able to focus all it's resources on Germany effort against them. But it was known that the US was well on it's way to absolving "neutral" status anyway in the European theater. It became a timing thing in the end. Japan was the switch that was thrown.
Sorry if you think your subtle postulate has passed over me.
Why did Hitler and his General Staff think a land invasion of the UK would be practical?
Why did Hitler declare war on the USSR before decisive victory in the West and so avoid that bugaboo of the German General Staff since the 1870's, a war on two fronts?
Why did Hitler not vigorously insist that Fascist Spain enter on the German side?
Why did Hitler so trust his own intuitions in military strategy which were so at odds with the opinions of a cadre of learned and experienced professionals?
Why did Hitler allow Goering such wasteful latitude even after the Luftwaffe was shown to be incapable of delivering success at Dunkirk and the Battle of Britain?
Hyper-rational people like you guys cannot understand passionate lunatics like Hitler. This thread (the last few posts, anyways) reads like Chess magazine analyzing the dynamics of a Rage Against The Machine concert.
Anyhow, speaking of wars and Palestine, the new unity gov't in Israel, which looks more and more like a reality, is a war government, make no mistake.
To clarify: I was not talking about the war reparations per se, but of the loans that Germany took up in the US in order to pay them. These were commercial loans which would not be written off unless the US Government compensated the banks in some form.
I imagine that Hitler just added them to the overwhelming heap of reasons why Nazi Germany could never expect America to take its side in any disagreement.
ScottLoar, that list of question marks could feed this thread for days. RustlerPike has a point that we may never understand Hitler's lunacy, but at least most of those question marks fit a pattern of arrogance. The exception is Hitler's relationship with Spain. Insisting on Spanish involvement on the German side would have fit Hitler's pattern of arrogance.
And ScottLoar, I imagine your experience with Dungeons and Dragons is limited. FWIW my favorite way to think of The Second World War is as an irresistable orgy of cool military hardware. Political, historic, economic, strategic, and other aspects are there to provide a colorful background. If I thought otherwise I might have majored in history, economics, or some other Lib Arts field.
I can see the efficacy of that comment in terms of the toys that were brought to play as the War went on by the Germans (espeically the rockets), but does it mesh with the state of things when Hitler actually started his military adventures? Granted, there had been vast improvements in equipment since WWI (better tanks, better artillery, etc.), but...the German army still used horses for much of its transport needs.
I suppose it does fit in that Hitler obviously knew he was GOING to have those rockets (and no doubt believed that they would be much more accurate and decisive than they turned out to be) and some other toys, but I for one don't think that it was the fascination with toys that turned the German war command's collective lets-go-switches on. It was distorted hubris. In my opinion.
Janjon, neither I nor anyone else took that position. I don't care if anyone in Germany liked "playing" with military "toys." I like discussing the hardware, that was the limit of my point.
In the Pacific aircraft carriers fought aircraft carriers and battleships fought battleships. In Africa tanks fought tanks. In Europe fighter planes fought fighter planes. Germany's rockets and America's atom bombs are just extensions of this irresistable orgy of military hardware.
He wouldn't have even been a name worthy of insignage at an arts college if it weren't for the minds that "created" him to that post in the first place. It is so easy to say in justifiable termination that Hitler or Stalin, or Clinton were evil. What really provides the definitive evil of these folks were the biles of humanity. Greed, power, blind stupidity, and the embracement of ignorance. Humans are inherently short minded/sighted particularly when prevailing conditions dictate the source (or lack thereof) of one's next meal. (It really is that simple. It really is that complex.)
I can truly realize and identify my own propensity to secure a "lifetime of meals". Whether it be based on the weaknesses (short-sightedness) of others if they so wish to allow me to think for them, or finding the best hunting grounds. I would also go so far to say, in light of such instinctual desires, that as a human animal, I would not be immune to resisting the lure of indefinite resource for a mere promise and illusion that I could provide in return continuing meals to those who allow me to do so. Nor would I be immune to developing the means to keep that promise. (con)
What is it that drove each of you, here in the mote, to achieve your level or station of life and security? Why did you want that promotion, higher salary, tommorrow's meal in addition to today's?
So...stand forth any who are truly not Hitler.
I don't think Hitler took any account of US loans in his declaration of war. Remember, in December 1941, Hitler was on the verge of victory in Russia (he thought). In the couple of days it took Hitler to make the declaration, I think the big factors in his mind were prestige (getting the declaration in first[!]) and his contempt for the US. He never believed the US would mount any serious opposition.
Finally, Hitler was probably unaware of either the existence of any loans or their significance. He was woefully ignorant of economics and the world geopolitical picture.
I see that my idea about the loans has not fallen on fertile ground and I''m not advancing it as The Reason. It is probably right that Hitler did not know much about economics but others did, for example Schacht, the head of the Reichbank and member of the inner circle. Germany was not self-sufficient. It needed to import for example high-quality steel, ball bearings and machine tools from Sweden. Now, Sweden like other neutral countries which traded with Germany (like the US pre-41) did not accept Reichmark as payment. They demanded gold.
A minor point: Schacht was, indeed, brilliant but he was long gone by 1941 and, I think, actually joined the conspiracy against Hitler.
Right. Note to self. Always check facts before posting to avoid embarrasement.
The Dawes plan set a final amount to be paid off (apparently the French thought the Germans should just keep on paying), and outlined the terms of repayment. The Young plan was a "refinancing" of the reparations debt in light of the economic difficulties that preceded the Depression in Europe. Both Dawes and Young worked for J.P. Morgan, by the way. Hjalmar Schacht negotiated for the Germans.
When the Depression hit Germany, a two year moratorium was placed on reparation payments, but before that time ended, Hitler had taken power and repudiated the Versailles Treaty, including the reparations.
All said, Hitler had more immediate provocations, reasons, and perceived obligations to declare war on the United States than a desire to get out of debt payments he was probably unaware of.
During their meeting at Hendaye in 1941, Hitler offered to take Gilbraltar for Spain if Spain would allow German troops transit and declare war on the Allies (Britain, at that time).
Franco demurred, claiming that Spain was so devastated from the recently-ended civil war, that Germany would have to provide massive amounts of financial aid, raw materials, and arms in order to make Spain an ally. He also pressed Hitler about taking over some of France's North African possessions. Hitler, who had a meeting scheduled with Petain after Franco, was not in a position to make any committment on that.
The meeting ended inconclusively. Hitler was apparently quoted as saying that he would rather have several teeth pulled out than to negotiate with Franco again.
Britain was in a much better position to attack Spain and Spanish interests than Germany was to assist Spain's defense.
There was little if any ideological affinity between Franco and Hitler. Franco's intent was to stabilize Spain as a right-wing, Catholic state, and reintroduce the monarchy. Franco marginalized the Falange (Spanish Fascist movement). He had no sympathy with Nazism's anti-Jewish bent (either Franco or his wife has been thought to have some Jewish blood. Don't remember where I read this.)
Hitler ended up accepting what assistance Franco gave Germany, which was not inconsiderable: Intelligence, safe havens for U-boats, a Spanish volunteer division to fight against the Soviet Union, some raw materials.
Correctimundo. Franco was perhaps the only leader who ever bested Hitler in face-to-face negotiations. Molotov is probably the runner-up but the eventual result was a tad less satisfactory.
I certainly intend to, but have not yet read the book. Has anyone else?
Sure, Lohr. I believe that the world in general has become smart enough that it would prefer to prevent big wars at all costs. Another massive conflict like WWII would surely wipe out all life on Earth.
Currently the social inertia drives most military powers toward starting / intervening in / winning small wars to prevent big ones.
I believe the new century will see that movement lose its steam. The 21st century's dominant social inertia will be toward preventing the small wars, too, via humanitarian and peacekeeping efforts. By the year 2100 very few of the small wars will be taking place, and all of those will be civil wars.
In this day and age "civil" wars have a tendency of spilling over their borders or otherwise involving third parties. I don't see any reason to think this would be different in the future.
Janjon:
I read the New Republic review you mentioned. The book seems to be another revisionist attempt to rehabilitate Chamberlain and denigrate Churchill. I am willing to accept that Chamberlain's motives were good, if ultimately misguided, in following an appeasement policy, and that he was not a complete nebbish. I also am more than aware of Churchill's shortcomings--and could probably add a few! What the reviewer does not mention is the complacency and incompetence that exisited during the first eight months of Britain's war effort. This culminated in the Norwegian campaign, which triggered the fall of Chamberlain. The only arm of the service that performed well during this time was the Navy, under the leadership of Churchill.
Maybe if the library gets it. I'm not going to spend my money on it. I do recommend DC Watt's And War Came.
British revisionist historiogrpahy re Chamberlain and Churchill is pretty loathesome and not wholly honest from an intellectual standpoint. To oversimplify, some of the writers mentioned in the review--Charmley, Clark--appear to prefer a weakened Britain existing off the coast of a Nazi-run Europe to a weakened Britain under the sway of the United States.
War! Whohuwhohuwhohuwho, what is it good for? Kicking the Palestinians into Jordan!
Say it again...
Ferguson's thesis seems more interesting, in that the victorious Germany would have been the comparatively benign Hohenzollern monarchy. Indeed a German victory would have precluded the rise of National Socialism, which got a large part of its impetus from the idea that the German military was "stabbed in the back" by jews, communists, etc.
However, in World War II, some of the appeasers were willing to attempt to make peace with Hitler after the fall of France, an entirely different kettle of fish.
I find your concept intriguing. But what about France and Elsass-Lothringen? Wouldn't that continue to fester?
I don't like dealing with hypotheticals as a rule, but much would have depended on the 1914 settlement. Would Germany have retained any of the territory it had captured? (I can see them holding other parts of France in addition to retaining Alsace-Lorraine; and the temptation to annex parts of--if not all--Belgium would have been great.)
The same issues in the Balkans that caused the war (and the two Balkan Wars before it) would have been unresolved. Would an end to fighting in the west have stopped fighting in the east? Had the fighting in the west stopped in 1914, only France and Belgium would have suffered crushing defeats.
It was not Serbia that was bellicose in 1914. A-H sought to goad Serbia into war by placing "impossible" conditions in them after Franz Ferdinand was killed. Serbia accepted them all. A-H invaded Serbia anyway (and was promptly driven out).
Without the British, the French would have most likely lost Paris, making their defeat as bad as in 1870. Germany may well have sought to try and prevent further Revanche-ism by taking more territory (Artois, the rest of Lorraine, Channel Ports?)
I guess Lohr's scenario assumes that Germany would be wise in victory.
It was Serbia that had been bellicose since 1912-- provoking war with the Turks, trying to occupy Albania, sponsoring terrorist groups. The Habsburg Monarchy in 1914 responded too slowly to the Sarajevo murders (they should've occupied Belgrade from Semlin within a few days), and indeed they should've gone to war in 1908 or 1913 against Serbia, when they had a clear field, the better to build a stable Balkans without the savage nationalism of the Serb Radicals.
With a healthy dose of imperial arrogance thrown in. Much of their fear and desperation was driven by this. Fear of being shut out of the colonial race for territory and a desperation to catch up.
With a healthy dose of imperial arrogance thrown in. Much of their fear and desperation was driven by this. Fear of being shut out of the colonial race for territory and a desperation to catch up.
The real problem in 1914 was that, except for England, the major players had begun to see war as acceptable faute de mieux... Not so much something that could yield positive results, just the least awful alternative.
I don't buy it but I'm willing to learn. I'll try to track down the book. Do you know if it's readily available?
To top it off, once the "inevitable" came to pass, the Kaiser--who by this time realized what he had done--was persuaded by his generals that he could not order a halt to the mobilization and first attacks in the West because it would throw the German railroads into chaos, making Germany vulnerable to attack. Of course, even with Russia's accelerated mobilization, they were not capable of mounting a major offensive at the time; and French offensive plans would have hurled their forces at already prepared defenses, so even if fighting had broken out, Germany would not have been too hard-pressed.
I have to say that I very much disagree with Ranheim on the Habsburg Monarchy. My own work on the Monarchy's army and its handling of nationality issues showed me a Monarchy with reserves of strength and loyalty that most outside observers in, say, 1890-1918 neglected-- a view that historians (led by A.J.P. Taylor) didn't question until the 1970s.
Okay, yes-- my own "Politics, the Nationality Problem, and the Army of the Habsburg Monarchy 1848-1914" (PhD diss., LSU, 1992) is available from University Microfilms. Get it from UMI-- God knows I need the royalties!!
The Monarchy in 1914 could've fought Serbia or Italy (even and/or Italy); it could only fight Russia with German help. And German promises of help kept melting away in the years before the war...
D.J. Goodspeed's "The German Wars" and the articles in May's "Knowing One's Enemy" vol. 1 (Princeton U.P.) are a good antidote to Wombat's views, and I recommend them as a corrective.
Germany's geographic position was no small part of its fears, and Britain was edging toward open rivalry with Germany ever since the 1880s, when the extent of Britain's economic vulnerability began to show...
The Re-Insurance Treaty was always a piece of deliberate mystification by Bismarck. He fully intended to cut a deal with Russia in the event of Russia and the Monarchy facing off-- and abandon Vienna just as the Monarchy's leaders feared. Holstein's opposition to the renewal was a tactical choice based on long discussion. Wrong in the end-- maybe. But not a silly choice.
I am familiar with--and not unsympathetic to--Goodspeed's thesis about the origins of World War One. Clearly France was itching for revenge on Germany after its humiliating--and self inflicted--defeat in 1870, and sought to engage as many of Germany's neighbors as possible in a ring of alliances or understandings that would either not help Germany or actively side with France in a future war with Germany.
An adroit statesman such as Bismark could have possibly defused this situation, and encouraged German economic and military development to face an aggressive yet isolated France in what would have been a repeat of 1870.
Unfortunately, there were no grown-ups making German foreign and defense policy after the 1880s.
Wilhelm's immaturity led to the actions described in previous posts, and no one in Germany's government could stop it.
In the 1880s (and after) the reactionary Russian rulers had far more in common with Wilhelmine Germany than they did with Britain and France. In the 1880s, Britain and France had good relations but were hardly allies. In the 1890s, the Fashoda incident damaged that relationship. Can you honestly say that a wiser German foreign policy would not have been able to take advantage of this to the detriment of France's long-term aims?
Agadir... I've always seen Agadir as handled better than the first Moroccan crisis, which was a sterling example of ineptitude. Agadir began as a perfectly reasonable way of reminding the French that their treaty rights in Morocco weren't exclusive and a way of extracting frontier concessions at Brazzaville. There was even some initial Spanish support, since Madrid had its own strip of Morocco to remind the French about. (The Congo frontier did get rectified, by the way...however useless it was...) I've seen the explosion as coming from British fears that Germany wanted a naval base across from Gibraltar-- fears that had the tantalizing reasonableness of paranoia, but no concrete base.
What makes Agadir significant to me is the domestic side of what goes on-- the way the German Army jumps on the crisis to attack the navy for grabbing badly-needed defense funds, the way the big industrialists split over the value of a naval policy (money for hulls v. money for guns).
I do think you overestimate Fashoda, whose effects flared up and then evaporated...
German policy by 1908 was in utter disarray, and while part of that is Wilhelm's 11-year old personality, part of it is simply that Germany as a state is not something that fits well into the scheme of things. It's big, powerful, economically growing, and all that pushes it against Russia and France, just as its economy and its overseas investments push it against England. There's very little Germany can do in, say 1900, that won't lead to conflict.
I agree that the position Germany found itself in made some kind of war inevitable. And yet...I wonder whether Germany would have been in that position with someone other than Kaiser Wilhelm as leader. Had his father ruled for 10-20 years instead of a few months, for example.
Also: does anyone know when M1 carbines were originally manufactured?
What do they expect you to do with it? Shoot molotov cocktail throwers? Engage in longe-range firefights with AK-armed gunmen?
Someone long ago said that if the crowned heads in London, Berlin, and Petersburg could've taken a left sideways, thgings would've been better... Given real political responsibility in Russia, Wilhelm might've made a good tsar and had his energies focused; Nicholas would've been a wonderful British monarch, opening events and shaking hands, without crushing responsibilities he couldn't bear; George would have been a good coalition-builder and consensus-builder as kaiser, without Wilhelm's martial fantasies.
If Wilhelm had worn tweeds more and those fantasia uniforms less, I do think the Brits would've seen him as just *eccentric* and not as a bellicose blowhard... The uniforms were just a bit much for public-school tastes.
jeez, Rustler--can't they outfit you guys with captured AKs?
I know, it's embarrassing. Basically we're supposed to apprehend people who are here without a permit, be alert for suspicious objects, cars etc. We could be asked to lay (is this the right verb?) an occasional roadblock or something.
However - this is only one of my prospective weapons. I have been posted (again - not the right verb I fear) to the newly formed 'Regional Protection Batallion' (Hebrew acronym: hagmar). The hagmar batallions are made up of local residents, who are employed in defending the area: in other words - we protect ourselves. The settlers have a similar arrangement.
Not if the indigenous population would rather you start a conversation and then just submit quietly to dhimmi status. No, settlers of your political affiliation are sub-righteous: you must either convert, flee, or die.
This was driven home to me last week. As most countries, Sweden left the gold standard at the outbreak of the war. We were asked to do a little contra-factual exercise on the consequences of sticking to it (apart from the trivial: to avoid a run on the gold reserve). A very interesting task.
I had some time on my hands so I went to the archives to see what thoughts the government and the Central Bank had entertained. It turned out they thought of it as temporary measure to deal with a short-term European crisis. There was only one member of the Board of Governors who brought up the issue of a long war and he was ignored.
I think they just don't trust us with anything automatic. Practically anyone can join this volunteer brigade - men, women, old, young - and they don't want too many automatic weapons in people's homes.
BTW, tell your leaders that it isn't a smart idea to try to take back West Bank land that the serfs already control.
Like some mountain ridge in Vietnam, people will fight and die for it--and you'll be giving it back to them eventually.
Do you know the difference between the M-1 rifle and the M-1 carbine?
Also, while I am quite happy to entertain discussions on immediate causes, the strategy and tactics of past and future Arab-Israeli conflicts, I do not want this to turn into a debate on the pros and cons of Zionism; and the rights and wrongs of the current situation in the region. That should go to the International thread, or if the situation warrants it, a thread of its own.
I do not want this thread to turn into another location for a slug-fest on the rights and wrongs of the political situation between the Israelis and the Palestinians.
I will delete any posts that I perceive to be headed in that direction.
Part of that may be the infatuation with new technology. Schlieffen talked about the 'modern Caesar', sitting in his armchair, connected by multiple telephones to the war, running everything smoothly...
One writer who did foresee a longish war... In 1905 an anonymous novel (actually a staff major named Hugo Kerchnawe) appeared in Vienna, called "Unser Letzter Krieg" (with a fake later date), telling the story of a long, doomed war between the Monarchy and all of its predatory neighbors. It ends in 1910 on the plain outside Vienna, with its fictional archduke-hero and the last of the k.-u.-k. army facing an Italian offensive. Take a library look for it... I brought a copy back from the Kriegsarchiv and translated at least the first few chapters once upon a time...
Oddly enough Joffre's predecessor, Victor Michel, gauged German intentions with stunning accuracy and proposed a strategy of meeting the German attack in Belgium by a defensive deployment of French and British forces along the Franco-Belgian border. This ran directly counter to French military "thinking," and was derided by his peers. Another reason for their derision was that Michel advocated incorporating reserve formations into combat units--as did the Germans. When Michel stepped down and was replaced by Joffre, his plan was scrapped.
In Vienna, Conrad seems to have realized too late that the Germans would never send the support they'd been promising since the 1890s, (and which Beck among others had always doubted would ever come, since all Prussians were faithless)and that the Monarchy couldn't survive the "back steamroller" of a long war.
What is the difference?
Also - what do you call the part that goes into one's armpit? Or the little knobbie at the end, that you look at when you're looking through the sights (they are called sights, right?)?
One last linguistic trivia question: what language does the word 'magazine' originate from?
The bomb that went off in Wadi Ara two days ago exploded 5 minutes after I had passed there in my car.
This may seem to have no bearing on anything, Pike, but two years ago Santa brought me "A Little Book of War Poems" and this year he brought me "Battle Tanks of the World". I have never served in the military and do not intend to. What is going on? If you cannot answer this question, and I expect that you cannot, I will approach Doctor Coltrane. btw, the above is absolutely true.
A carbine is a short version of a rifle. The part you put under your arm is the stock. The sight at the end of the barrel is the fore sight.
Any linguists are welcome to take a shot--heh heh--at thwe origins of magazine.
I will have a talk with Santa. As you correctly surmise, I have a direct connection to one of his elves (and I laid one of his reindoes once - but she's a different story). This elf owes me big time. I'll let you know what I come up with.
You wouldn't happen to know your membership number in Santa's list, would you?
Hmmm. Thanks for the info. So I guess we're talking about a foldable stock. What's the hole you aim through called?
About 'magazine': a hint. In the IDF, the soldier in charge of the storehouse is called the 'makhsanai'.
I am #793 on Santa's list.
It is an acedemic paper and the original includes a great many footnotes, many of them to on-line sources. Unfortunately, when a Word document is converted to HTML, footnotes and endnotes disappear. This is not an "operator error"; the Microsoft site confirms it. No doubt Lohr will mail you the document if you are interested in the sources.
Here is a Flash rendition of the ambush Sharon's division set for the rearguard of the Egyptian 6th Div. at Nahel, Sinai, in 1967. I'm trying to get the IDF website people interested in ordering such reconstructions from me. I only did the first half of the battle, but you can guess the rest.
Oh, yeah, it's in Hebrew - but I think you guys can figure it out, sorta.
Loar - I hear your mother looks just like you.
Although it's a very nice shade of tan, there is nothing else happening. (I assume I need a plug-in, or something...)
But do you have style?
Quark, strangeness, and charm. Whatever.
I have just finished Lohr's pal Ernest May's book on the Battle of France (1940). I will be formulating my thoughts on the book and the battle in days to come. Anyone else who's read "Strange Victory" or who wants to sound off on the Battle of France, should feel free to hop in.
I haven't finished your paper yet, and much of it goes right over my purdy lil haid. I get only the gist--but it's a very interesting gist. Thanks for sharing.
It's not that complicated. International law, in this case the Geneva conventions, aims at protecting civilians. The underlying concept is that of two armies fighting it out on the ground with no civilian involvement. Lohr points to the difficulties of this concept in "the Yugoslav stratgy", and, indeed, already in the WWII strategy. If, for example, one side takes out the power generating or power transmission capacity of the other, it will be a blow to the army but it will also cause civilian suffering. Question: Is it lawful?
Maybe this is a simplified reading of the paper, but it is a starting point.
Can you see anything here?
How about this dog?
I see the Flash movie fine, and it's quite well done. I especially like the picture of you at the end.
Did you do all the graphics yourself? If so, you have some heretofore hidden talent I think.
BTW, you really are quite good. In many ways, that is one of the most interesting uses of Flash I've ever seen. And I've been compelled to check out literally several hundred.
CalGal-- the footnotes explained more, and had all the cool references I used...
Thanks!!!!! Why have you been doing this research? The woman is Ravit Amos, and she is the Head Designer while I am (Illustrious) Illustrator, Web Architect and Copywriter. Of course, this is all baloney because I've only created three websites thus far, two of which were for myself, and I did the designing on my own (though Ravit did help out with important advice on colors). But she is extremely talented and if I can get me some clients, I'm sure she'll be glad to pitch in and do some serious designing.
We used to work together in a design/advertising studio in Tel Aviv. I was the copywriter, she was a designer. She's married and is pregnant, and she's very sweet. She's a redhead, btw.
Did you manage to see the tank battle reconstruction as well? I have been e-mailing verious military websites trying to interest them and directing them to that demo - if it doesn't load properly they'll probably never write back...
I created an Internet strategy for a successful niche television company. They wanted to see whether Flash would be appropriate for them, in the end they canned the project but not before I'd had to check out what seemed like every Flash page on the Internet.
I do think your use of it is interesting and, more importantly, appropriate use of Flash. You should get work from that demo even if it's not from the military websites you're targeting.
Do preview.
This book chronicals the politics and people leading up to the Russian invassion. I think the parts I liked most were the details of the war and how the people of Finland really came up out of the woodwork to defend their independence. The level of sacrifice they were prepared to make I found quite inspiring. The book details many of the battles where the Finns successfully repelled the invasion despite the overwhelming odds (Russia had a population of over 150 vs Finland's under 4).
The book does not cover the proceeding allignment with Germany.
A Frozen Hell
by William Trotter
Thank you, yc.
I installed the Flash plug-in and now get a white square to go with the tan background
Do you have a very very slow connection?
...sometimes I try these flashes in one browser it works, and another it doesn't.
All of his animations have worked fine for me... even in my netscrape 4.61
I tried it using I-net Explorer. Neat!
What value do you assign each animated unit? Individual tank?, squadron?, platoon?
I wasn't too strict with myself about that: as you can see, when I zoom in, one tank can become two or three. I was thinking more in terms of making the course of action clear than scale representation. Also, the source I was using was not very specific sometimes on who exactly moved where.
(You had been saying something about lurking.)
And there was no Urk of the Covenant. Or a Joan of Urk.
[Can you run past me once again what the origins of 'malarky' are? Like, what it means and stuff, (like?)].
RP,
Malarky is the old-fashioned euphemism for bullshit. Where it came from, I do not know. The dictionary spells it "key," but what do they know? My grandad used to say people were full of blue mud and canal water, but that doesn't make a very good moniker.
Back on the subject of war....
Cool tanks in that animation!
I see that your prediction about Saddam and a war is one step closer to becoming reality. Iraqis have been called upon to enlist for a fight for jerusalem. Saw it in my local paper this morning.
Saddam does that sort of thing regularly. It means nothing. When there is silence (1973), or a specific complaint with saber rattling (Kuwait), then pay attention.
Pettable dog (scratch his stomach).
Unless the US is going to devote resources to a sea-based boost-phase system, the Bush administration's plan will only defend the territorial US against ballistic missiles (assuming the technology works at all, which is quite an assumption at this point).
What Iraq's capabilities argue for is the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, and the main chance for that was missed by the current President*'s father.
For me, life is one big lark.
Lohr,
I wanted to let you know how much I enjoy your posts. I skimmed your article and hope to read it in more depth soon.
Let me tell you something: no one, but no one, outside of Iraq's inner circle of Saddamy knows the answer to that. Anyone claiming knowledge is lying. No one estimated his capabilities correctly in 1991, no one was able to topple him since. My assumption is he has at least a few dozen scuds, and besides - he could attempt other methods of launching, too (like bringing weapons into the West Bank and using them from there).
"Which one of these do-hickeys is the safety?" Squad-mates hit the floor.
I have deleted post 1891 as not being germane to this thread.
You know I don't like Germans any more than anybody but I still wouldn't ban them from the thread just for being German.
As for the safety doo-hickey skit: you weren't that far off the mark. On that target practice session for the Border Guard volunteer squad I asked the instructor if we're supposed to have a round in the chamber when we're checking people in the roadbloacks, and he went into a paroxysm.
Now as for the reserve duty: I don't have a uniform. That means I have to stand trial and pay a fine, I think. Oh well.
One wonders.
This time, it wasn't my post that you ereased, but I can't help but think it regarded the urban civil war in Palestine/Israel. You as much said so upstream.
If this insane religious war happens, I very much regret that many people will be killed--and it will change nothing.
Tell us again why
What I said was that I did not want this thread to become an Arab-Israeli slanging match (that's what the International thread is for). If you are capable of posting something substantive on military aspects of the conflict, you may rest assured that I will not delete it.
I assume it was because it was truth-detector Rush Limbaugh sharing it, and you don't like him.
Mind you, this doesn't mean I like Rosetta any more than usual. But even asses have rights.
The Clinton legacy.
Please tell us how a witticism about gun control in Britain is related to a speculative crack about army reservists and automatic weapons. Feel free to repost your cribbed--and not germane--jokes anywhere else.
I also note that thread hosts have a good deal of autonomy in decisions on what to delete. If you are unhappy about this, complain to your friends among the powers that be, or better yet, take your "insights" elsewhere.
But here's another one (Not by RL, so I assume it will stand)
The Newton, Iowa, Daily News reports: "First female Marines train for combat with men."
The best Rush Limbaugh joke concerning the military is Al Franken's description of Limbaugh's service in Vietnam. It is totally fictitious, of course, since Limbaugh dodged the draft.
Ironically, it's similar to what the Israelis are doing in Palestine. Bomb their neighbors, kill the innocent and the guilty, destroy their homes, etc., and then pray that the evil Americans will rebuild.
We didn't do it for Vietnam and I wish we would stop doing it in the Middle East.
What an ass.
It was fascinating. Today's Washington Post had an article about the massacre. Several participants who were interviewed claimed that they were forced to do it by the Germans. Yeah, right. Very few occupied countries in WWII have successfully confronted their collaborative past.
Rosie:
Since my cat has a better grasp of history than you do, let me just point out that most of the tactics used against the Palestinians by Israel are firmly rooted in those that the British used against Jews living in Palestine. Israel's existence is testimony to how effective they were.
The Nazis taught the Jews the extreme danger of not having ones own state and army,and the Isrealis are now teaching that lesson to the Palestinians.
It is encouraging to see that the government is stepping up to formal discovery and acknowledgment.
Several years ago I read Briar Rose, by Jane Yolen. It was actually part of a series retelling fairy tales--in this case it was retold as a Holocaust memoir. You'll have to take my word for it that it wasn't offensive, although it certainly wasn't Yolen's best. In any event, at one point the woman seeking her grandmother's history went to Poland and I was astonished at the depiction of the Polish gentiles as brutal and unsympathetic both in the past and towards the woman in the present--one said that there were no Jews here now and that this was at least one decent thing the war accomplished.
It was not a key plot point--the villains of this piece were Nazis--so it seemed very distracting to me at the time. The author's closing notes mentioned her treatment of the Poles and said the story of their behavior towards Jews during the war had yet to be truly told or acknowledged. Given her strong feelings on the subject, I'm surprised that she didn't focus more on it now that I understand what she was talking about. It's been a while since I read the book; I'll have to run through it again and see what I missed.
The reason I mention this is because in my memory, her present day Poles sound almost exactly like the people quoted in the Post article--ferociously in denial.
Have you been lurking until now and not participating? For shame.
Santayana also applies.
Btw, I give Israel and the PA four months tops to engage in an all out war.
The parallel is completely accurate. We all remember how Hitler sat down with the Jews and offered them Bavaria and Saxony (to the dismay and shock of a majority of Germans), but the Jews said 'no - we demand Berlin too', and started blowing up German buses. Boy, they sure deserved what they got.
Remember Moishe Katz, that Jewish truck driver who plowed down eight young German soldiers in Baaden? Remember the Jewish extremists setting off car bombs in Danzig and Munich? Remember the ancient church desecrated by the Jewish mob in that shtetl? Remember the Jewish lynch mob that tore those two German reservists apart, limb from limb?
Brutes.
Cute animation. I got bored with all the clicking. Also there are probably more appropriate places to advertise yourself.
May claims through his research among previously unobtainable sources that he can present an entirely different picture of the campaign, one in which the German side was beset with internecine strife, had inferior aircraft and tanks, and yet somehow managed to defeat the well-equipped, united, and enthusiastic French military, and its equally well-equipped British allies.
I was being slightly facetious. However, I think that May sets up a bit of a straw man as his thesis. That the French and British both had superior tanks (in terms of armor and armament) is well-known. His contention that French and British aircraft were equal or superior to Germany's is less well-known, and I think more open to dispute. That the French fought hard, and took heavy casualties is not open to dispute. His refutation of claims of a certain mind-set among the French that contributed to their defeat, I think is weak. They did not enter the war thinking they were going to lose, however, it became clear pretty quickly that there was an official encouragement of complacency. This complacency was shattered at Sedan, and morale plunged, hindering attempts at restoring the situation.
Please make every post relevant to the year it signifies.
I would, but I have no idea what 1930 signifies, war-wise. All I know is Germany was in deep depression, there were these WW1 veteran Freikorps people running around, Hitler got some seats in the Bundestag or whatever it was called, there were all these Hindenburgs and Von Papens in power, Churchill was - what? writing articles for Harper's or something...
They did not enter the war thinking they were going to lose,
I can't recall a specific cite for this but I've always believed the defeatism among the French essentially amounted to a conviction that they would either lose or pay such a terrible price that it would amount to the same thing.
It certainly seemed to paralyze the high command both in September, 1939 and in May, 1940.
A factor that contributed to paralyze the high command: Losses in WWI were so great that the French never could raise a generation of high command worthy of their fathers. Even when I grew up, it was dificult for members of the middle and lower classes to enter the Hautes Écoles.
Ironically, one could argue that the French leadership in early WWI would have been much better suited to leading the French army in 1939-40; and that the cautious and defensive approach of the French leadership in 1939-40 would have been better able to handle the events of August 1914.
By contrast, the German Pkfw IIIs and IVs had less armor and were faster. They also had three-man turrets (commander, gunner, and loader), which allowed the commander to concentrate on directing the tank's progress and communicate with his commander and other tanks. The gunner could concentrate on aiming and firing the gun, while the presence of a loader ensured a rapid rate of fire. Even excluding superior German tactical doctrine and operational flexibility, the best German tanks available could outmaneuver and outshoot their French equivalents. Also May virtually ignores the presence of the best all around tank then available to the Germans, the Czech T-38, which was present in quantity.
The comparative figures do not say that the Hurricanes stationed in France were initially Mark Is with two bladed, wooden propellors that were markedly inferior to the ME 109s. No Spitfires were ever stationed in France. The French Air Force's numbers facing the Germans were diluted by other perceived defence obligations that according to one author, resulted in only 25% of France's fighter strength being committed to the ZOAN, where the fighting took place. Until May 1940, when Dewotine 520s and Bloch 152s began coming on line, the bulk of the French fighter craft were Morane 406s and Curtiss Hawk 75s, whose performance was well below that of the ME-109. In the hands of skilled pilots, these aircraft gave a good account of themselves, but they were underpowered, underarmed, and either not equipped with radios or with fragile ones that did not work under combat conditions.
The above does not include a comparison of strategic and tactical doctrine, coordination between fighter and bomber forces, and between air and ground forces; in all of which the allies were markedly inferior to the Germans.
Certainly long range, heavy bomber forces were given short shrift by Luftwaffe planners; and there is no question that by 1943, bombers were of secondary importance compared to fighters.
However, at the time of the attack on France, the Lufwaffe units had trained and worked as tactical air support forces, and were extremely effective as such. Any quibbling on whether or not they should be attacking strategic targets as opposed to battlefield targets were kept submerged. This is in direct contrast with the air force leadership of Britain and France.
I don't see how May could admit that the French army was riven with personal, political and class rivalries and still maintain that they were unified as a corp. There was no unity in France in the thirties Period let alone in the French army. According to the historian Marc Bloch, members of the high command were arrogant careerists unconcerned with the welfare of the lower-ranking members of the French army. Their attitude caused serious lapses in the chain-of-command that resulted in strategic blunders which further weakened the French army's position. (his analysis goes far deeper but that is just one of the central points for now).
Bloch's testimony, "Strange Defeat: A Statement of Evidence Written in 1940" is like the sacred cow of postwar France as Bloch, who fought in both wars, was executed by the Nazis in 1944 for serving in the Resistance. He is like a national hero. He would even have a street, a boulevard or a cafe named after him like Weygand if not for the messy fact that he was Jewish.
That aside, I really didn't think anyone could challenge Bloch on this point and be taken seriously. Where is May coming from anyhow?
I am afraid you caught me being facetious in my reference to the "united" French military. May's title, "Strange Victory," is a tribute to Marc Bloch's book. What May does, in addition to describing in great detail the problems within the French military, is assert that the German military had similar problems, and that they could have crippled the Germans as much as they did the French. I disagree--to a certain extent.
And here I thought it was a bizarre, revisionist kind of thing. I should read backposts more carefully. I'd like to read May if it isn't overloaded with technical descriptions of war planes and the like, being a girl and all.
In any case, his premise sounds challenging. Bloch faults the French army-- at least the High Command-- for being too old and out of shape when compared to the German army which appeared more robust and youthful. does May address this issue of age?
Your point about the age and passivity of the upper reaches of the French officer corps rings true. Did it exist in the Wermacht? It did, but it didn't for various reasons, I suggest.
The German armed forces started almost from scratch. The Versailles Treaty's limits on the army forced a massive weeding out of the officer corps. There was little dead wood in the Reichswehr. The officer corps was not immune to politics, but its involvement centered more on what could be done to strengthen the military and provide stability, than on personal agendas.
Through successful actions, fear, purges, and rapid promotion, Hitler was able to demand and receive loyalty from the German officer corps.
The "youth" of the Wermacht encouraged innovation. Take two fairly parallel careers, those of De Gaulle and Guderian. Young officers who fought with distinction in WWI, and who had similar ideas on the use of tanks and mobile warfare (some claim that Guderian lifted a good part of "Atchung Panzer" from De Gaulle's writings). De Gaulle's theories cost him the patronage of Marshal Petain, which condemned him to regimental assignments and obscurity. When the Germans attacked France in 1940, he was a lieutenant colonel, who was soon to be appointed commander of an armored division. At Montcornet, the division caused some initial problems for Guderian, who was a Major General in command of an armored corps.
True. However, if Hitler could be convinced of the "rightness" of a particular idea or strategy, a general would attempt to obstruct it at grave professional--and personal--peril.
Let's put it this way. When Hitler was successfully convinced that the armored thrust through the Ardennes was the way to go, it would have been a very foolish general who openly opposed/obstructed it.
Are you published?
If not, please (PLEASE!) suggest some recommended books for WWII and WWI if possible. I have a few good ones, but I'd like even more. I am interested in weaponry also, especially the development of rapid fire guns.
Thank you!;-)
Not much, and not in this field. When you say "rapid fire," are you referring to small arms? Artillery? Automatic vs. semiautomatic?
In the early posts of this thread, there are discussions/recommendations of various books about the rise of Hitler and WWII.
Martin Gilbert and John Keegan have written single volume histories of both World Wars. Ian Hogg has written extensively on artillery, and I believe small arms as well.
30 or so years ago Ballantine books put out an extensive series of paperback books on World Wars I and II. Included were books on infantry weapons and artilery. I wonder if they are still in print?
I should have mentioned personal rapid fire machinery. The History Channel actually aired an interesting special on the subject (Bren gun, .50 cal bullets, etc.)
The reason I asked for specific authors or books is because as you and I know there are a TON of books on the subjects of WWI and WWII, and unfortunately, a lot of them are crap.
Some regard Tolan as a decent biographer, others say no, and so on.
I'm more interested in the whys and wherefores and how the individual countries got sucked in to the war. Fascinating stuff.
Then you want to return to that ol' chestnut, The Guns of August. Also read "And War Came" by Donald Cameron Watt for an extremly acid view of the events leading up to WWII.
At any rate, The Guns of August indeed is a perfect antidote. Wonderfully well written and as far as I know still considered to be apt.
Drove to Hadera at 08:00, arrived on time at the assembly point. Lt. (2nd Lt.?) Anastasia was there, sitting behind her desk. Luckily it was a nice day, for there were no walls around her - just a desk in the open air, next to some kind of military store behind the Hadera Fire Brigade. Received an Uzi, clip, bullets. We are promised M-16s by the next training session. The Uzis suck, it turns out. These are not the commercial Uzis which are so popular in LA, but old motherfuckers which may well have seen action in 1967 or before.
My fears of having to pay a fine for having no uniform are dispelled. We are supplied with uniforms for the day. I open the rear hatch of my car, undress and wear my uniform behind it, safe from Anastasia's roving eyes (whew!).
I grab a look at myself in the side mirror of a van: I must say the uniform suits me!
The soldiers are quite a motley crew - everything from an Indian Jew from Or Akiva, through a Woody Allenesque Russian guy from Katzir, to seemingly well-to-do businessman from Kibbutz Barka'i. The officers are not very authoritative with us.
The exercise's commander has a familiar face. I hear someone calling him - Nir. That rings a bell. I approach him and ask him if he happens to be from Kibbutz Netiv Halamed Heh, originally. He says yes. "I know you" - I proclaim -"from nursery school". We haven't seen each other in 30 years! He remembers me -the kid whose father was the kibbutz doctor and then moved abroad.
>>>
We are briefed by some Major who looks like a prick at first with his snazzy reflective sunglasses and Robert Duvallesque blue cap but turns out to be OK. He describes all sorts of scenarios. I am struck by the description of Palestinians as 'the enemy'. We are not used to calling them that, not since Oslo.
We drive in our cars to Katzir. For some of us, like me, this is the first training session in this unit. For some it is their first time in Katzir. We familiarize ourselves with the strategic spots around the village. Turns out the Local Council was supposed to take care of stuff, like a concrete position that was supposed to have been placed somewhere, but wasn't. The C shaped concrete wall that was supposed to have been fixed into the ground is lying on its side, a few meters away from where it was placed in the previous training session, six months back.
We look at Barta'a, on the other side of the deep gulley where the Green Line passes. Barta'a looks back at us, a Pal flag flying above its clustered houses.
I point out to the battalion commander (guess I can stop capitalizing all these titles) that the dirt road on the hill to the west connects directly between Barta'a and Katzir, bypassing our position completely, thus making it less effective on its own. He notes this and mentions it to the white haired, red faced Lt. Col. who is accompanying this exercise, apparently in some sort of supervisory position.
>>>
One of my favorite books, ever. My 4 year old is a skilled practitioner of Schweik's blend of intelligence, ignorance, and enthusiasm.
The previous posts have dealt with what I feel are major weaknesses in May's thesis (Allies were in better shape; Germany in worse--how on earth did Germany win?)
The strength of the book is in May's descriptions of the decision-making process behind the shift to the Ardennes as the focal point of the German offensive and the Allies' decision to send its best divisions into Belgium.
The book is replete with insights: Gamelin actually sketched out the axis of a German advance through the Ardennes that had a clear resemblance to what actually happened. French and German intelligence-gathering was comprehensive; what was done with it was another story. French intelligence sources within the German high command provided accurate start dates in terms when the Germans initially intended to attack on two occasions; these were cancelled due to continuing indecision and serendipitous circumstance. The result of this was a tendency by the French and Belgians not to take these warnings seriously, and on the part of the French, to impute that German indecision was due to the effectiveness of the Allies' deployments and plans, which fed their soon to be shattered complacency.
Belgium's strict neutrality precluded staff talks between the Belgian high command and the Allies. It precluded preemptive Allied moves into Belgium. It led to Belgium committing manpower and resources to defending its frontier with France as well as Germany.
In spite of this, the Allies and Belgium both expected that the Allies would rush into Belgium, take up defensive positions protecting most of the country, and that the Belgian forces would be able to hold the Germans long enough for this to happen.
When the Germans attacked, they promptly seized the Belgian fortifications dominating the River Maas at Eben Emael, aided by blueprints helpfully provided by the German firm that oversaw their construction. The Allies rushed their mobile forces into Belgium, traveling by night, because the French general in command of the French Air Force's Zone Aerienne du Nord (ZOAN) announced that his fighters could not dispute the Luftwaffe's control of the air over Belgium.
Purely on the face of it, he's probably right. The Allied rush into Belgium almost certainly sealed their doom. If they had held back along the French border in prepared positions, they undoubtedly would have fared better.
However, the thesis gets into the standard hypothetical unravellings: how much different would the situation have been if the Belgians had actually sided with Germany a few years before? Very, I suspect.
Nevertheless, I think it's a valid point under the prevailing conditions.
Churchill, of course, consecrated several divisions on the sacrificial altar of Greece and Crete a year later. And, as painful as it was, it was probably the right thing to do.
We next went to the gate, which our officers had determined was another one of the 'strategic points' we were to work with. The gate is a humungous, heavy, metal thing, electrically operated. The only problem wit it is that it has no motor and is not connected to electricity. It has been standing there for over six months.
The Local Council was supposed to take care of the gate, too, but did nothing again. The Council Security Coordinator, who receives 4,000 NIS a month from the Border Guard for supposedly taking care of our security, has several other jobs and could care less about all of them. This attitude is typical of Katzir's Council employees, who seem to think they can get away with anything. The Security Coordinator, Jamili, was also supposed to arrange an APC and walkie-talkies for us, but he didn't do that either (no APC, radios weren't charged). This meant that our Battalion Commander (BC) had to run around on foot between the different positions in order to relay his orders, turning the entire exercise into a farce.
The BC, Ilan (I think that was his name), carried out different exercises with each of the units (since coordination was impossible). I was assigned to the 'gate unit'. We were shown how to approach an imaginary car which stopped at the gate (which was imaginarily connected to the electrical system, and closed). The tall guy who never bothered to wear a uniform (supposedly, he has a rash on his arms which prevents him from wearing uniforms) was assigned the job of approaching the car. I was to secure him from a couple of meters away, and a third, somewhat wimpy guy was at the imaginary gate, covering us both.
>>>
The guy teaching us how to do this was the only semi-authoritative guy in the whole group. He was a young, dark guy called Shmuel, or Sami. He is a professional police officer in some kind of elite unit that goes around arresting Arabs suspected of terrorism. He told us about a recent arrest: a shtinker (Yiddish, and now Hebrew, for a snitch) had told the police where the guy was hiding out. Sami and a colleague went into the East Jersusalem neighborhood at 2 AM, driving a donkey cart, knocked on the door (God knows why) and then broke it down. The guy was awake, and managed to jump them with a knife, wounding Sami's hand, before they could pin him down and carry him off. Sami loves action and takes it wherever he can get it: he had volunteered for this reserve duty.
All of our superiors were busy complaining and blaming each other throughout the exercise. Sami thought Ilan was an idiot, Ilan thought the officers above him were incompetent fools, and they thought the same of him. None of them bothered to keep this bickering away from us grunts.
The 'gate' unit was now to defend Katzir against a simulated attack from the north. The terrorists were supposedly some 100 meters away from us, where a newly constructed pergola overlooks the wadi. The BC led the assault, and me and a Russian guy who had been reading a book were to follow him, while Sami and some guys at the gate and some other guys stationed at the Post Office boxes provided covering fire. Sami and the guys at the gate were to stop firing when the BC threw a smoke grenade, for fear of hitting the assaulting force.
>>>
We charged. This was the first time in recorded history that I participated in this kind of infantry training, and the same seemed to be true of the Russian guy. We were supposed to shout 'esh, esh' (the Hebrew equivalent of rat tat tat, I guess) as we charged. I felt somewhat self conscious, charging imaginary terrorists and firing imaginary bullets. I mumbled some perfunctory 'esh esh', the Russian guy didn't even do that - I'm not sure he'd understood the instructions. I remember I had my eyes on the BC most of the time, which I guess is not a good thing.
The Lt. Col. supervising us berated the BC for what he thought was a poorly planned charge. He thought we should have gone further out to the flank and only then charged inward. He said we would all have been shot dead, the way we did it. The BC disagreed and complained again about the lack of proper preparation. Both agreed that us grunts were poor soldiers and needed further training in the art of soldiership, quick. We are to go on two or three days training in May or June, and learn how to use an M-16. Let's hope the Arabs don't attack before then.
I think the 'bang bang' part is standard when you're practicing a combat situation without using real ammunition, blank or other. What it's good for I'm not sure, but it must signify something, otherwise why do it?
I wasn't really trying to make you guys laugh, just describe what happened. What I can say is that the Territorial Brigade seems to be considered more of a back-up force than a primary fighting force. But it is still a farce.
However, I hope to at least have my little M-1 at home. Also, who knows, maybe next time around the Arabs won't surprise us like they did in October.
You have become a News Item.
Very entertaining stuff. Continue to march.
I'd watch the guy with the rash reeeeeaaaallll close...
I am truly gratified. This is the first time I've made the News - other than the time you guys linked to my question about the timing of flatuses.
Jz:
Actually, the rash thing seems to be a common scam among soldiers who don't feel like wearing uniforms. There was a guy like that who served with me in the Army Radio, during my regular service. He supposedly had a skin condition on his toes that prevented him from wearing army boots - or anything other than sandals, with some gauze bandages covering his toes. This was very convenient: he never had to stand in morning inspections or anything. Strangely enough, the day he was discharged the bandages disappeared.
He's a best selling author now, btw.
The guy is obviously not a team player.
I'd blow him up and make it look like the Pals did it.
I have been explicit on what I want to see and not see in this thread. If you cannot handle this, do not post here.
If it is, it should look at what is happening in the Middle East as this is likely what war will look like in the near-future. Urban assault, ethnic-/religious-/tribal-conflict, political fragmentation, etc.
Supposedly, this thread is about war and military history. There's no need to comment on the races and beliefs of the participants in this thread.
What's going on in the Middle East, today and for the past fifty years, is quite germane to this thread. Excuse me if I'm wrong, but I've spent this very, very early morning skimming the thread without enough coffee.
Describe for me how the Palestinians expect to "win" this war, whether such such tactics have worked in the past--using other instances where this has been tried (you can go go all the way back to the 1920s if you wish)--and what the Israelis can do to try and counter this strategy; and what they may have up their sleeves.
Discuss the legal status of the conflict at present. Is it a war between two national entities, or internal disturbances? Or something in between? What effect might this have on attempts to resolve it?
I look forward to your response and a lively discussion of it.
But they don't want to. In a perverse way, they're also looking for their "living space" for the future.
And, what we're seeing there now, is the face of urban WAR.
And, unfortunately, I think Wombat is censoring this topic now because I'm posting.
I'm certain Arafat and the PLO and Hamas and the other couple of dozen Arab factions sat down and reviewed military history over the ages to determine this particular strategy.
Intifada, Yasser? Ridiculous! It's never been tried. I say Walid leads a charge against West Jerusalem just like General Pickett did at Gettysburg!
My sarcasm aside, do you disagree that a state of war exists in the Middle East?
According to the radio report, one suicide bomber stood by the side of the road when a bus went by.
How in the world can you stop that type of determination?
The history of war is replete with determined people who didn't prevail.
I am asking for an informed opinion from you, based on a certain knowledge of how national liberation struggles have been conducted before (incidentally, there is very little new about this form of conflict). If you have actual insights on whether the Palestinian leadership had/has an actual strategy--or are being swept along by events, which they cannot or will not control, please contribute them.
Does a state of war exist in the Middle East? A bit general: Israel and Egypt are at peace, as are Israel and Jordan. Israel and Syria remain in a state of war, but there has been no actual fighting since the 1980s. Iraq is at war with everyone, last time I checked.
Is the Palestinian entity a state? Can organizations that are not states declare war? Can a state declare war on a non-state entity? Is this desireable from the point of view of the state? Can there be conflict without war?
Any of these questions can serve as a starting point on what is going on in the Middle East, or a more general discussion on what war is.
If you can contribute along these lines, please do so. If the best you can manage is what you have already posted, you will join Rosie where I choose to send you.
You stop that sort of determination by killing as many potential bombers as possible. This was easily done in World War II, as it took place in a conventional war. Such a strategy would be counterproductive vis-a-vis the Palestinians.
How else might the Israelis counter this?
And then stay there for 30 years moving in American "settlers" into local communities.
My father was one of those American soldiers who would have had to invade Japan. The talk then was of more than fifty percent casualties for our troops.
The Israelis could physically separate themselves as much as possible from the Palestinians, and set up even more stringent security checkpoints (a la Belfast). This would be very costly, as the long term effect would be the end of Palestinian labor in Israel; an even more impoverished Palestinian state; and knowledge that a few bombers would still manage to slip through.
Or, it might not have. Especially fighting for one's homeland.
The bomb did it. It is unfortunate that we had to use it--especially twice. But my father always appreciated President Truman for making the decision to use both bombs.
Also-- two good novels about it: David Westheimer, "Lighter Than A Feather" (also in paper as "Downfall") and Alfred Coppel, "The Burning Shore".
The reliance of the Israelis on Palestinian labor has been a serious weakness in the Israeli position.
Did the Soviet forces in the Far East in 1945 have the capability to invade Hokkaido?
Either Military History or the Military History Quarterly had a piece on apparent Soviet plans for a quickie invasion of Hokkaido. The reasoning was that they would be able to influence future developments in Japan a la Germany by occupying territory in the home islands.
With the exception of a couple of pieces on Spetsnaz in Manchuria, I can't recall finding any lengthy pieces on that operation at all...
Truman had pressured Stalin to join the fight, thinking that the war would continue until 1946, or 1947.
If we had had to fight up the chain, it would have helped. How the Japanese were fighting on other islands in 1945, anything would have helped.
Remember, no one really knew how well the atomic bombs would work or if it would make the Japanese surrender unconditionally.
My understanding was that the Russians would leapfrog to Hokkaido using the forces that had just siezed Sakhalin Island.
Rosie:
Given the state of maritime communications around Japan in 1945, it is unlikely that the Japanese would have been able to move units from island to island. The Hokkaido plan that I described was speculative. What the Russians were expected to do was destroy the "elite" Kwantung Army in Manchuria, which they did in a matter of days. The Kwantung army had been stripped of many of its units to deend the home islands, and was not much of a threat by then.
The first time it made an impression on me was when you talk (in fray) about the connections between the Soviets, Franco's Spain and Tito's Yugoslavia in the mid-1930s.
On another note, I'm still wondering if Spain ever got its gold back from Moscow. I don't think so. But they should have. They stole it fair and square from the native population in the Americans three hundreds years earlier.
BTW, I apologize for the insults earlier.
But I think you should allow discussion/debate about modern conflicts in the Middle East in this thread.
Who would have thought that the drug smuggling, arms selling Albanian crimanal element would still be murdering their neighbors?
With the help of Mad-line NotsoBright.
Let's hope the NATO Greeks get into the action soon defending their borders.
Mirom Gospodu pomolimsja.
If it meets my expectations and parameters, you are free to discuss contemporary conflicts, as you were before it segued into Japan and the end of WWII. I hope that you noticed that when you do so, you get treated with considerably more respect than you are almost anywhere else on the Mote.
The Spanish gold reserves were collateral provided by the Republican government to pay for Soviet arms shipments. Perhaps we should return all the gold extracted from California to Mexico, since it used to be part of Mexico before the US waged its war of aggression in the 1840s
Recently I learned that the Mexicans finally signed the peace treaty with the Americans in 1848, one year before gold was found in California.
I mean I knew the dates but the bad luck of the Mexicans to give up their search for gold in the American west just one year before it was actually found.
Now wasn't that a good war?!?
And I've always regretted that we weren't more successful in attacking the British in southern Canada during both the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812--so that we could have the problems of dealing with the French in Quebec.
The purposes of my posts this morning were to encourage discussions of the conflict in the Middle East. Obviously, Wombat took this as some kind of affront to his religious beliefs.
So be it. They were not intended as such.
Wombat moved posts to International. That's where we normally discuss contemporary conflicts. You are welcome to post there.
To make this topical, for those who missed The Great Crusade Against the Slavs...(was that the Fray or Motte??)
I argued strenuously and, in turns out correctly, that Bill Clinton was following a correct military-political strategy in bringing the criminal Serbs to justice (except he should have killed more Serbs)...
In geopolitical terms, I pointed out that decisive action would soldify NATO and the EU and further contain the Slav Menace, Russia....
Bush is now benefiting though doing his klutzy best to fuck that one up too....
In the midst of all this high faluting yap, Rose revealed that she was a Serb agent provacateur as well as a delightfully comical ignoramus!
Just like Slobo!
Gospodi, pomiluj.
That, an oil.
In fact I read that a lot of oil was recently discovered in Israel near the Dead Sea.
And it makes sense that oil would be there.
If so, Israel sure owes us.
I suggested that you elaborate on conflict in the Middle East, and provided a number of aspects of it that were germane to this thread so that you could do so. All I got/and am getting are flames from you. If that is the best you can do, I'll just delete them.
Jex:
What's your take on what is happening in Macedonia? See if you can answer without insulting anyone (in any language).
"Good thing for the bomb, eh Rosie? My father turned down a promotion in order to avoid being sent to the Pacific for the invasion. Of course, we don't know what might have actually happened. A successful invasion of Kyushu and a Russian invasion of Hokkaido might have ended things pretty quickly."
There were more than two choices. In addition to hand-to-hand combat in the streets of Tokyo, and to the use of atomic bombs, the Allied forced could have fire-bombed key Japanese cities in a manner analogous to the bombing of Dresden.
I've seen speculation that the atom bomb was used to psychologically devastate the Japanese into surrendering before Stalin's forces could invade.
Many of Japan's major cities were firebombed, with much more devastation and deaths than at Dresden--or at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
What those who decry--for various reasons--the use of the A-bomb skirt over is that the alternatives would have probably cost more Japanese lives than the bomb(s). These considerations were not part of the decision-making process for the Allies at the time.
I didn't know that. Which cities were fire-bombed, and how could I find out more about it? Can you suggest a link?
Those B-29s would return from raids with blackened wings and tails, the crew sometimes having puked into their oxygen masks.
Tokyo. Jimmy Doolittle and Curtis LeMay dropped loads and loads of gellied gas. Whoosh.
Tokyo, Osaka, Yokohama (sp?) to begin with. Since many houses were closely packed and built of wood, whole neighborhoods went up in an instant. Hundreds of thousands of people died in the resulting firestorms. It was reported that bomber crews arriving at the end of the raid(s) could actually smell the burning flesh of the victims below.
Search under "Tokyo Fire Raid" or Curtis LeMay, and you should find something.
(It could be that Dresden is more notorious because of Kurt Vonnegut).
The decision was made to emulate the British area bombing strategy, only at lower altitudes, since the B-29s could carry more bombs that way, and since Japanese night air defences were virtually nonexistent.
In the war against Japan, "precision bombing" failed to hit much of anything. So the US air commander, General Curtis E. LeMay, reverted to the British strategy of bombing cities, not specific targets - and mainly with firebombs, to spread the damage.
A single attack over Tokyo, on March 9, 1945, involving a convoy of 334 B-29 bombers, burned up 16 square miles of territory, killing 83,793 Japanese civilians, wounding 40,918, and leveling 267,171 buildings. That month, US air raids poured a similar rain of destruction on 33 cities
across Japan.
LeMay said in a 1981 interview that he picked his targets out of the World Almanac, looking at a list of Japan's largest cities and how many square miles they comprised. Square miles were all his bombers could hit. In the spring of
1945, he calculated the war would be over by September - when, he reasoned, he would run out of square miles to burn. (As it turned out, the two atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and Emperor Hirohito's fear that more were on the way, ended it a few weeks sooner.)
My understanding was that the Dresden bombing was closer to 35,000 casualties.
Of course. Magic fairy dust and Red Cross coffee did that.
Spamming, abusive, and off-topic posts will be moved/removed at my discretion.
The discussion is somewhat goofy. Argument over "the straw that broke the camel's back" in warfare misunderstands the nature of the effort. D-Day did not "break" the Germans. LeMay's firebombings did not "break" the Japanese. But both were integral parts to the effort that eventually brought both powers to their knees.
Most good heavyweight fights allow for the knockout punch after a pugilist has been working his opponent's middle in the previous rounds.
I point to the Balkans, the ME and South Asia as worthwhile examples that illustrate this reversed dictum.
I've been wondering, in fact, whether the best way forward is to actually organize and orchestrate forgetfulness of history. This seems to have worked quite effectively in creating a kind of progress in many developed parts of the world.
The problem is one of historiography and the need to create a national myth. Some societies are open enough to revise the myth occasionally. One could argue that nations that are new and/or (sorry Scott) have a regime that lacks legitimacy are prone to being obsessed with their history. Even worse may be those who do want to have or once had a nation.
So what do we say about Santayana? isn't his terribly overused line now out of date or at least quite invalid?
I think it is still valid, but has crossed into being a truism and cliche, and as such has lost some of its value. I also agree with that the opposite, or converse, is also valid. "Those who forget history are condemned to repeat it--as are those who remember it too well?"
I know of none who would say "our pedigree is only of dogs and cats, we are as the doormat for our neighbors, we have the hearts of mice and sparrows, and of invention, intellect and art we have none. Our future promises to be as barren as our past."
That would be the national pedigree of Malaisea, Ennuia, or Apathyea.
Does the average Swedish male today have the same discipline, temper, mettle as a Swedish cavalryman under Charles XII? Or is that an unfair question, as it is the times that mold men?
I realize you were joking, but both America and Australia take a perverse pride in their relative lack of culture and glorious ancestry, wouldn't you say?
Those who say that Japan might have surrendered by November 1945 with or without the bomb, naturally neglect that even if that were true, the huge number of casualties that would have been taken not only by the Japanese and the Americans in the interim, but also by the Chinese, the Russians, the British, the French, the Indians, the Australians, etc. who have continued to operate in their theatres.
Even if we assumed that Japan would have surrendered by November 1945 as the Strategic Bombing Survey concluded in 1946, the number of dead would have been much higher than from the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings, including the post-bombing radiation deaths (whose number has been greatly exaggerated by many anti-bombing people).
And yet both nationalities relish being thought of as plain, quiet-spoken but determined folk, unbothered by continental (read "English") pretensions.
We've recently visited Harpers Ferry, WV. It's amazing what they've done to that little riverside town.
The whole village has been restored and taken over by the National Park Service.
So much history--and not just Civil War history either.
Without belittling your comments that description can apply to any people's view of themselves at any time.
Exactly. That was really the point I wished to make, using Sweden as an example. Sweden, like other countries in Europe has in its past periods of heroism and periods of quiet, industrious work. The identity myth vacillates between those two poles. For the last 20 years or so it has moved from the former to the latter. In the preceding 80 years the trend was the opposite.
I was gone yesterday and missed the name change. I think I rather like Wombat's decision to expand the issues here.
Pelle has raised an interesting topic-- how do nations like Sweden with a martial past and a very non-martial present (though Saab still makes excellent fighter planes and Sweden has produced some interesting armoured vehicles)look back at their history? What shapes a national identity for them?
Over a period of 12 months or so I put together what I called Pelle's Concise History of Sweden which was published in instalments here in the Mote. It is not at all scholarly, it is rather idiosyncratic and I hesitate to expose it to the critical eye of a professional historian as yourself. My target audience was the educated American who for some strange reason wants to know something about a country on the periphery of Europe.
Here's the war portion
Abandoned Missile Silo Tour
www.xvt.com/users/kevink/silo/
American Civil War
www.sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/
American Wars and Military History
www.hist.unt.edu/09w-ame4.htm
California Military Museum
www.militarymuseum.org/news.html
Center of Military History
160.147.68.21:80/cmh-pg/
Civil War Homepage
sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/
Civil War Letters of Galutia York
www.snymor.edu/pages/library/local_history/civil_war/
Cold War Hot Links
www.stmartin.edu/~dprice/cold.war.html
Cold War International History Project
www.cwihp.si.edu/default.htm
French & Indian War
web.syr.edu/~laroux/
Hiroshima-Nagasaki
www.oneworld.org/gallery/hiroshima/hiroshima_top.html
Japanese-American Incarceration - Children of the Camps
www.children-of-the-camps.org/
Japanese-American Incarceration -Civil Liberties Public Education Fund
www.clpef.net/
Letters from an Iowa Soldier in the US Civil War
www.ucsc.edu:80/civil-war-letters/home.html
Military History -- About.com
militaryhistory.about.com/homework/militaryhistory/mbody.htm?once=true&
Military History Online
www.militaryhistoryonline.com/
Maritime History Virtual Archives
pc-78-120.udac.se:8001/WWW/Nautica/Nautica.html
Nuremberg War Crimes Trials
www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/imt.htm
Trenches on the Web
www.worldwar1.com/
US Army Military History Institute
carlisle-www.army.mil/usamhi/
jefferson.village.virginia.edu/vshadow/vshadow.html
Vietnam War
www.vietnamwar-reference.com/
Virtual Visit to Vietnam
grunt.space.swri.edu/visit.htm
The Wars for Vietnam 1945-75
www.vassar.edu/vietnam/index.html
Wartime Propaganda: World War I
carmen.artsci.washington.edu/propaganda/war1.htm
Wiretap Spies: Electronic Documents
wiretap.area.com/
World War I
www.worldwar1.com/
World War 1 Document Archive
www.lib.byu.edu/~rdh/wwi/
World War II
gi.grolier.com/wwii/
World War II Propaganda Posters
www.openstore.com/posters/
I think they even have something on the Swedish Empire
The prologue begins with a skirmish won by a troop under the command of G. Washington. The wounded thirty-five-year-old ensign Joseph Coulon de Villiers de Jumonville identifies himself as the French detachment's commander and offers up to Washington a letter "summoning the English to withdraw from the possession of His Most Christian Majesty, Louis XV".
As Washington turned for help in translating the letter the chief of Washington's Iroquois allies
stepped up to where Jumonville lay. Tu n'es pas encore mort, mon pe`re, he said; Thou art not yet dead, my father. He raised his hatchet and sank it in the ensign's head, striking until he had shattered the cranium. Then he reached into the skull, pulled out a handful of viscous tissue, and washed his hands in Jumonville's brain - pg.6.
Thanks for the links! I will incorporate as many of them as possible.
"Crucible of War" is a great read... And useful for me, since my view of the Seven Years War isn't from the perspective of the Anglo-French conflict over empire in North America, but from the perspective of the Hofburg in Vienna... (Though how can anyone *not* read "Wolfe and Montcalm"...or the early chapters of Keegan's "Fields of Battle"...??)
Pelle-- I'll browse your history of Sweden this weekend...
I'm just finishing Crucible of War, fascinating book. Very interesting look at the role of the Iroquois in inadvertantly enabling the expansion of the Anglos due to failed Machievellian maneuvering for their own empire. Also very enlightening on the American colonist's movement from loyal British subjects to at least entertaining revolutionary thoughts.
UC Berkeley Grad History Modern Euro Intro Seminar Course Description..
275B.003 -- Modern Europe: Prof. Anderson: M 2-5, 210 Dwinelle, CCN: 39433
This year, the seminar will cover the "long 19th century" (ca. 1789-1914), and provide an introduction to some of its major themes: the French and the Industrial Revolutions, religion and secularization, class and the intellectual origins of socialism, imperialism, the crisis of the liberal state. Woven through many of these topics, however, is the theme of nation, national identity, and nationalism, a phenomenon whose hegemony in the 19th century we will by no means take for granted. We shall discuss nationalism for several weeks and from several directions: its (alleged) origins in modernization/industrialization, its cultural construction via (for example) religious and ethnic difference, its connections with anti-Semitism, and some of the cultural and institutional barriers, broadly considered, to its affective ascendency.
The purpose of the seminar is to prepare both specialists and non-specialists for their orals in late modern Europe and to familiarize them with influential approaches to central problems. Our normal mode will be to concentrate on a single major work each week. Readings will be drawn from very recent publications (Furet and Hunt on the Revolution, Blackbourn on religion and Kulturkampf, Cain and Hopkins on imperialism, Lindemann on anti-Semitism and the rise of the Jews) as well as from works that have become modern classics (Martin Malia, E.P. Thompson, Ernest Gellner, George Dangerfield)--and some that are on their way to becoming classics. Although some of the readings spill over the century's end, the seminar has been designed so that it will NOT overlap with Professor Adamthwaite's 275-B/Part II, which will be taught in the spring and which will cover, for example, the origins of the First World War.
Participants are requested to read in advance Lynn Hunt's The Family Romance of the French
Revolution, which we will discuss our very first meeting. In order to get as much as possible out of the seminar, participants are also requested to read a textbook or relevant sections thereof, or otherwise acquire a basic familiarity with the narrative of period as a whole before our first meeting. Some possibilities: R. R. Palmer and Joel Colton, A History of the Modern World (from ca. 1780 to 1914); Gordon Craig, Europe 1815-1914 (old but good), Charles Breunig, The Age of Revolution 1789-1850 (Norton paperback), E.J. Hobsbawm, The Age of Revolution, Norman Rich, The Age of Nationalism 1850-90 (Norton paperback)--but any work, or combination of works, will do.
Hunt, The Family Romance of the French Revolution AWFUL
Gellner, Plow, Sword & Book: The Structure of History (Gellner=demiGod)
That looks like an interesting seminar. I hope you will share some goodies with us. If you want some lighter, yet scholarly, reading for the 1890-1914 period I recommend Barbara Tuchman's The Proud Tower. It is a hefty volume but very well written with an eye for detail that brings the period to life.
Peter the Great destroyed Sweden's military. It was one of the few things that Russia did right.
All glory to Peter the Great but it would be more correct to say that the Swedish army destroyed itself through Charles XII's unwise decision to march into Russia in winter time with overextended supply lines only to be met by the Russian scorched earth tactics.
I'm about 50% thru the authors..like I said no $$$ there so its back to "Data Analysis for Social Scientists" :(
Try Lafore's "The Long Fuse". A good intro to post-1870 Europe... Gellner is quite good, and Craig has held up over the years... Hobsbawm is sometimes annoyingly quasi-marxist, but a solid researcher.
Peter Gay's multi-volume study of 19th-c. mores and morals is good, if maybe too classically Freudian.
Charles XII... Sweden never had the population/resource base to be the power he thought it could/should be... And, like so many other would-be conquerors, he lacked any ability to just *stop*--or *stop and think*.
So much for the great productivity revolution of the dotbomb econ.
Hey! We are soo productive that we can post feverishly to the Mote while producing a booming economy! In fact, I directly trace the current downturn in the economy to a downturn in worktime postings to the Mote.
we must all hang together or we shall all hang separately said Franklin.
The only real advantage I feel that I have, being in the teaching community, is access to films and documentaries on war.
7.50 hours of CDs
For three quarters of a centruy, this is all that has been known with any certainty: Just after dawn on June 6, 1924, two members of the 1924 British Everest Expedition crawled out of their tents on the North Col, a wind-savaged 23,180-foot-high saddle of snow, ice and rock between the hulking mass of Everett itself and its lesser northern neighbor, Changtse, and began a long walk into history. At 12:50 p.m., two days later, they were seen high on the mountain's Northeast Ridge "going strong for the top."
They never returned.
Until now, no one has known whether they reached the summit. Until now, no one has known where or how they perished...
Hopefully I'll give reports as I move through it. I wish we could get Dusty to contribute. He's a climber.
In reference to the origins of the Revolution, what caused the colonial move toward rebellion and led to the assertion of the rights due "Englishmen" were the imposition of taxes without giving the colonies a say in them, the stationing of British troops in the colonies (after the French threat had been removed) and the expectation that the colonies would pay to maintain them, and trade policies that were immune to the realities of the situation, and economically onerous to the colonial merchants.
1)My moniker is ScottLoar, it's not my name.
2)Thanks for the explanation of the origins of the American Revolution. I had thought I pretty much said the revolution was to secure their rights and properties (granted in England but denied the North American colonies) but perhaps the statement was too general for some here. I have read the Declaration of Independence and most recently noted it is a recitation of grievances, including that which you mention and more. I didn't feel compelled to recount those grievances as those who wrote the draft have done some more pointedly and eloquently than I could. I do appreciate the telling use of the "tyrant" and its varations.
Now, tell me where I have erred in my understanding of the causes of the American Revolution.
I am not saying that you erred, however you did adopt a somewhat "all or nothing" tone in responding to an alternative take on the origins of the Revolution.
As to the eloquence of the Declaration of Independence, no one disputes it. However, I would suggest that the more general and high falutin' approach in its contents was more effective than: "We are dammned tired of being told to support Britain's fiscal follies without any input from us; now that the French have been driven out of Canada (with a sizeable contribution in men and resources from us) we neither need nor want to have to support regular British forces stationed here; and British trade policies (enacted over our protests)are strangling our economy, and encouraging lawlessness..." Doesn't sound the same, does it.
I can recount those issues in detail but again, why should I when another readable document drafted by the very men most concerned have done so before me?
To suggest that the cause was strictly economic is wrong, for the very phrase " no taxation without representation" is not a protest against taxes but taxes laid indiscriminately upon a body with representation (and so without argument or avenue to appeal) in the House of Commons. The quartering of troops was not commonly in the mansions of the landed elite but in the towns, burroughs, villages and cities of the colonies. The British governours disallowed the colonists from emmigrating beyond somewhat ill-defined borders and into the Indian and former French territories. The Crown government disallowed free trade between the colonies and any other but the UK... Yet, you know all this, don't you? So why in the hell are we having this exchange? To show we both know what we're talking about? Or to recount in ever more laborious detail the causes of the American Revolution? Or to prove what I meant by "safeguarding their properties and liberties" which phrase I thought and still hold to be a pretty succinct statement of cause?
Franklin was a strong advocate of maintaining colonial status with England; he loved the country and spent much time there. His push was to give the colonies more representation in Parliament; he continually called for more reasonable taxation, rather than none. His sentiments remained that way up until 1775, when he was thoroughly humiliated during an appearance before the Privy Council--the House of Commons had just heard of the Boston Tea Party and used him as a proxy for all colonials. It was a very bad move on their part; Parliament had just treated the greatest living American with scorn and mockery and turned him irrevocably into a revolutionary.
But well before that, Franklin had begun to notice that, no matter what the tax, he could find a reason to object to it. He began with a distinction between internal taxes (forced upon the people without their consent) and external taxes (duties laid on commodites that people could boycott if desired). This delineation of offense was almost entirely of his invention, but it served to persuade Parliament to try the Townshend Act, which was "external" taxes--and lo! the Americans didn't like that, either, convincing the British that Americans were dealing in bad faith.
"Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania", written by John Dickinson, renounced Franklin's model of internal vs. external and sliced taxes a different way--taxes designed for revenue and taxes defined for regulation. This became the theoretical justification for colonial opposition to the Townshend Acts.
"The more I have thought and read on the subject the more I find myself confirmed in my opinion that no middle doctrine can be well maintained, I mean not clearly with intelligible arguments. Something might be made of either of the extremes: that Parliament has a power to make all laws for us, or that it has a power to make no laws for us."
Hands refers to this point as the "Rubicon of relations" between the colonies and Britain.
Typically, however, Franklin declined to be dogmatic on this point, nor on the conclusions to which it logically led. If Parliament was supreme in nothing touching the colonies, then the colonies were perfectly justified--in theory--in resisting every effort by Parliament to legislate for them in any manner whatsoever.
...
Two years earlier Franklin had parried a hostile question in Parliament suggesting that Americans' denial of Parliament's right to tax would logically lead to a denial of Parliament's right to legislate; ;he had asserted that they did not so reason then but might be convinced if Parliament got pushy. He had spoken half humorously, in an effort to turn aside an uncomfortable query. But events were proving him right, against his own wishes. He had no desire to break up the British empire, but logic was leading in that direction. And emotion--the emotion of others, not yet himself--was encouraging logic.
So the reasons--taxation, lack of representation, quartering--were just the ones that happened to come up at that point in time. The real issue at the heart of it was that Americans simply didn't want to be a colony, and had sufficient resources and will to resist.
What's interesting to wonder about is this: had it not come to a head when we conveniently had some of the greatest minds in history around to lead us through the separation, war, and formation of a new country, would we still have been successful as a country? Would we have lost the war and followed a model closer to Ireland or Scotland, or would we have won our independence but splintered into a host of smaller countries, becoming a North American version of Europe?
While reading Crucible of War it occurred to me several times to wonder why there wasn't a credible proposal to grant the colonies Parlimentary representation. Any ideas?
If a student were to say to you, "I don't see why we need to study Hitler. He was a terrible man, and he did terrible things, but he's dead now."
What would your response be?
Jen - I'll jump in: If we don't study humans like Hitler then we won't have the neccessary awareness of what humans are capable of so as to be on guard against the sort of political/social manipulation that the Nazis perpetrated.
I think we tend to forget the revolutionary nature of the concept of universal suffrage.
A small number of royal regulars were garrisoned in British North America, and it was hardly tyranny to expect the colonials to contribute to their own defense-- or to the defense on an empire in which they had an economic stake. (though colonial attitudes were usually that the crown should defend them and then never ask for taxes; certainly local legislatures were loath even to vote taxes for local defense)
I like the way Ian Kershaw puts it in the preface to Hitler: 1936 - 1945 Nemesis:
I personally find Hitler a detestable figure and despise all that his regime stood for. But that condemnation scarcely helps me to understand why millions of German citizens who were mostly ordinary human beings, hardly innately evil, in gereral interested in the welfare and daily lives of themselves and their families, like ordinary people everywhere, and by no means wholly brainwashed or hypnotized by spellbinding propaganda or terrorized into submission by ruthless repression, would find so much of what Hitler stood for attractive -- or would be prepared to fight to the bitter end in a terrible war against the mighty coalition of the world's most powerful nations arrayed before them.
. . . .
It is an awesome story of national as well as individual self-destruction, of the way a people and their representatives engineered their own catastrophe -- as part of a calamitous destruction of European civilization. Though the outcome is known, how it came about perhaps deserves consideration once more.
I answered similarly to this student (except for a few minor details that you all brought up that I wish I had said!); however, this student replied, "Well, I don't think that that will ever happen again. We would know it was going on."
Isn't that scary?
See Santayana. And Majorbank's interesting alternative.
VK:
The American colonies had a number of extremely powerful advocates within Parliament, who were looking for a way around the representation problem. Unfortunately, the most powerful advocate, William Pitt (the elder) who had overseen the victory of the French and Indian War as Prime Minister, had accepted an Earldom, which took him out of the House of Commons. His health also was failing.
The Tory governments' attitudes ranged from benign to malign neglect, and the Whig governments (sans Pitt) were too weak.
Combine this with an insecure young monarch who sought to establish himself as "in control," and who had more power than current British monarchs do, and you have a recipe for trouble.
What amazes me--and what the British learned to their grief--is that it would not have taken much in the way of concessions to nip the nascent rebellious sentiment in the bud.
General Mosely's idea about putting refugees from Europe in detention camps (prior to the US entry into WWII); the experience of California's Issei and Nisei population should strike pretty close to home.
I'd tell a student that what makes Hitler worth studying is how utterly ordinary he was in so many ways...
Well, sort of. He certainly had humble beginnings and an outwardly ordinary existence until the '20's. But he clearly possessed some extraordinary talents and attitudes. Even in the '30's, many people who had never met him would wonder what his appeal was. Then they'd meet him and understand.
As an aside, I'm not a great believer in fate but it's certainly a huge coincidence that Hitler's arch-nemesis Churchill recognized the danger almost from the moment he became aware of him.
Hitler always told his intimates that what made him different was that he alone would follow his ideas through to a logical conclusion. I've always though that many of his backers assumed that his very ordinariness would make him unable to be a real threat to the older social order-- and they neglected Hitler's willingness to push his ideas to their natural end.
It is interesting how many Latin American politicians (and in the KMT in China...and Prince Daud in Afghanistan...and John Reed before he died) found Mussolini to be admirable. He was the first "modernizing" ruler of the century (Ataturk aside), and he garnered a great deal of support for that alone.
Therefore, he (and the British government) actually cultivated Mussolini as a counter-weight in the age-old British quest for a European balance of power. As late as 1937-38, the British tried to line Mussolini up with the Allies.
Only in the sense that both represented great historical wrenches acting on the course of events. I don't think Churchill ever equated Gandhi's visions with Hitler's. Churchill recognized Hitler as pure evil very early on.
Even so, Churchill resolutely fought Gandhi on India, much to his (Churchill's) detriment, expending much political capital.
I'm sure he must've jumped his mistress that night.
The General Strike of 1926 was an unmitigated disaster. Not merely for Labour but for England. Churchill and other militants in the cabinet were eager for a strike, knowing that they had built a national organisation in the six months' grace won by the subsidy to the mining industry. Churchill himself told me this on the first occasion I met him in person. I asked Winston what he thought of the Samuel Coal Commission. When Winston said that the subsidy had been granted to enable the Government to smash the unions, unless the miners had given way in the meantime, my picture of Winston was confirmed.
He was a delicious and witty guest, quite willing to talk freely to young academics. I then regarded him as the most dangerous of all politicians. He combined brilliance with the most foolish and antiquated views, which would have condemned us without hope of reprieve to war between classes and nations; he had tried to make war with Russia in 1919, and he waged successful war against the workers in 1926. The economic disasters of the thirties were inaugurated by his return to the Gold Standard in 1925; he was to be a supporter of Mussolini and Franco, and would have carried out a disgracing war in India. All the more remarkable that I was to become his admirer in the later thirties and to write a eulogy of him as our indispensable leader in 1940.
Even worse, Churchill was in power at times during the early years of the post-war divestiture of Empire. This must have absolutely killed him.
He could have reasoned away the investure of Gandhi and his cohorts to the status of fathers and leading statemen of India as the fakirs gulling a willing public, but to see Britain debauched to insignificance was most probably his most private of humiliations, "the world turned upside down..."
BTW, I'm quite amused by the usually inoffensive Lohr's message #2164. It brings to mind that dwarfish character from the second Austin Powers movie, except in this case it's Mini-PE.
Because, the fact is that Gandhism had little to do with the economic policies actually put in place by the Congress Party in the years following 1961. Rather (though self-reliance WAS a goal), Nehru relied far more on outright Fabianism and on his great admiration for Soviet-style industrialism complete with numerous 5 year plans etc.
By the way, the ludicrous claim that continued British rule would have benefitted India economically is easily proven wrong. Look at BRITAIN's woeful economic performance in the decades following 1947.
Where is PE (the big one) anyway?
The trouble is that we have gone over this several times among us. It's hard to get exercised all over again.
But yes, it is a simple fact that Britain was incapable of controlling very much in India because (a) the "native troops were in no mood to aid the cause after contributing so much to the Allied cause in WWII (b) the government was in serious debt (actual pounds and pennies) to the Indian colony (c) the great mass of Indians was unwilling to participate for a second more in the Raj (d) the British were in no position to even finance the maintenance of the Raj even if they had the will -which they didn't.
Etc. etc. etc.
This is indeed an interesting fact, and since I teach US History, I would be greatful for any real reference to this fact.
I know you think I'm a bitch, but I really would like to know where I can document this claim. I have several Indians in my classes.
That would seem to rule out the enemy, Jen...
In Malaya, Singapore, and Burma the Indian Army initially gave ground to what at first seemed an unstoppable Imperial Japanese drive through South-East Asia to the very gates of India. None was there to stop them - not the Chinese, nor the Americans, nor British or Indian Army formations. 17 Indian Division's agonizing withdrawal in 1942, over vast stretches in Burma, was the longest in British military history. The Division was to subsequently extract terrible retribution from the Japanese Army when Field Marshal 'Bill' Slim's 14th Army went on the counter-offensive, sweeping the Japanese out of Burma and South-East Asia. Out of one million men of the Allied Armies in South-East Asia, 700,000 were Indians.
It was the Indian Army units, who in the words of 'Bill' Slim, were the 'best in the world' that merited recognition as superb fighting machines. Identical sentiments were echoed by Bernard Montgomery (Monty) in the West; Rommel, the 'Desert Fox', had the 'healthiest regard' for the Indians."
From this official Indian website.
India sent tens of thousands of troops to fight for the British in North Africa, Italy, France?, and the Pacific theater of operations. They had to be volunteers because the Indian Army (considered a separate entity from the "British" army). To what extent they volunteered as opposed to being volunteered, I am not sure. In the main, their record was distinguished.
One must also note that some Indian forces collaborated with the Japanese. They were recruited from prisoners taken at Singapore (where Indian troops were badly led and fought poorly). This "legion" was formed by an Indian nationalist, Subhas Chandra Bose, who believed--as a number of nationalists from many regions did--that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. He won the support of high ranking Nazis, and was able to use their patronage to meet with Hitler. He was sent to Japan, as it was believed he would be more effective fighting nearer his homeland. the Japanese never trusted him, but they paid lip service, and armed his forces.
I've touted a recent novel by the fine Indian writer, Amitav Ghosh, here before. 'The Glass Palace' covers some of the INA experience quite sensitively.
Good post, though.
But the INA as a whole has rec'd some attention in recent years with a lot of interesting research. It's a fascinating episode in Indian history.
What is (to me) deplorable is the way the Indian contributions in WWII are NEVER remembered. Particularly glaring was the absence of any acknowledgements during all those 50 year anniversaries the last few years. Those poor buggers were not treated particularly well outside military circles in India either, and seen as kind of collaborators.
But, yes, I think you would not have seen as much of an Indian presence had Congress not reluctantly backed the war effort.
My aunt's (by marriage) father served with distinction in the RAF, and he only signed on after getting a kind of low-key go-ahead from his own nationalist father.
I know about the POW's housed in India though, mainly the Italians. Another of my relatives, having studied Latin, was pulled out of a seminary to censor their mail. He never went back to the seminary.
Check this out.
Awesome information I've never ever had before. 
Except that the mass of Pathans opposed the Pakistan Muslim League. The Pathan nationalist movement, Khuda-i-Khitmatgar, was the partner with Nehru's Indian National Congress in the anti-Pakistan coalition government (1937-45) of the Northwest Frontier Province.
Amazing stuff. Small tidbit, the first casualty from the Indische Freiwilligen Legion der Waffen SS was a Pathan.
But, Pseuder, why have you started infecting reasonable people with your ooo's wrt Hindus. I suggest you try to reform your ways, they're a bad influence on the class.
By the way, the ludicrous claim that continued British rule would have benefitted India economically is easily proven wrong. Look at BRITAIN's woeful economic performance in the decades following 1947.
LohrM is wrong that continued British rule would have helped India economically, but not because the UK itself was such a basketcase, but because the post-war British governments were themselves Fabio-Nehruvians! Imagine the IHS (Indian Health Service) under an Attlee-administered India: a charpoy for every leper.
Which of his few outright economic ideas was ever implemented? I can think of exactly one - the establishment of a small government agency which subsidized khadi production. I don't think that can be seen as a major influence.
By the way, Pseuder, shouldn't you be moving back here wholesale now that TT is essentially going under?
Bring your friends, have a thread. Want to transfer a few hundred posts here wholesale for context? Surely it's time.
As you know, America is fairly narrow-visioned when it comes to world politics and world history, but I wonder why the British have not been more forthright about the presence of Indians in WWII?? Is their reluctance to include these volunteer troops because of the British Empires' loss of the colony?
Slim? Excuse me. Was he the one who to prove British soldiers could tough it out in the jungles of Burms personally led some thousand-odd British troops into the jungle to return with losses above 30% never having engaged the enemy?
You are a valuable resource!
Are you getting Slim confused with Orde Wingate?
The casualty rate from the "Chindit" operations was appalling, and included Wingate, who was killed in a plane crash.
That's Wingate. Slim went for bush hats, and waged devastating mobile campaigns against the Japanese after Imphal-Kohima and in Burma.
Wingate's operations wreaked havoc in Japanese rear areas, disrupting their attempts to a) attack India; and b) hold Burma. It's too bad that helicopters hadn't been perfected when Wingate was around. After being dropped behind Japanese line, his forces had to hoof it out. Most of their losses occurred then. Wingate's operations were precursors of today's airmobile operations.
Wingate was also highly eccentric. He used to conduct staff meetings while stark naked and munching on raw onions. He was one of the few British commanders in the CBI theater that the Americans respected.
Stilwell was a complete prick, who happened to be correct in his assessments too often for his own good.
Chennault was a glory hound who had devised tactics that could defeat Japanese fighter craft, which everyone else figured out not long after him (don't dogfight, fight in pairs, dive to escape).
I don't think that utter incompetence and extreme timidity bordering on cowardice (Percival) is "eccentric."
At the Quebec conference, a British inventor demonstrated a material made of ice and wood chips that he proposed using to make a giant iceberg aircraft carrier. Churchill, of course, was fascinated by the concept, and ordered a demonstration of how impervious it was. All those present at the demonstration were invited to try and break the sample of of "pykerete" as it was called. None could put a dent in it. Mountbatten pulled out his sidearm (in a closed room, full of the top Allied brass) and fired a shot into it. The bullet bounced off the material and whizzed around the room, narrowly missing US CNO Ernest King as he dove for cover. 
Nice photo. I'm sure everyone notes that both the subcons depicted have the same expression of discontent.
That one from Pseuder is really very good.
It's almost certainly a mechanic station of some sort. There are a row of trucks and one of those things in front of each truck, with a mechanic standing at attention by each one.
Or were you joking about not knowing what it was? Sorry if I'm being a geeb.
For my birthday, my kids gave me "books on tape" audio of Ghosts of Everest: The Search for Mallory & Irvine (from the Expedition that Discovered Mallory's Body)
ScottLoar mentioned the reports of the Chinese team, possibly finding someone from the 1924 expedition. Wombat mentioned that some speculated that it might be Mallory.
Wombat, I don't doubt that someone speculated that he might be Mallory, but the conventional wisdom was that it was more likely to be Irvine. (And there was even some doubt about the veracity of the claim.) This belief lead to the interesting anecdote that when the search team found the body, they were so sure that they were looking for Irvine, that they were momentarily puzzled when he wore an item of clothing with the initials "GM". It was partly the initial assumption, and partly oxygen starvation, that it took them a while to come to the conclusion that they had found Mallory.
To the best of my knowledge, they still haven't settled on whether he fell climbing up, or on the return from the summit.
Following is the dispatch from Dave Hahn (I had the privilege of climbing with Hahn on Shishapangma in Tibet.)
Mallory Discovery
For those interested in Shackleton's Endurance journey: Dave Hahn recreated the South Georgia traverse.
Within this diversity of experience, though, the trend has been toward seeking some kind of closure. More than 20 nations in the last two dozen years have tried the institutionalized search for "truth and reconciliation," giving rise to a the new academic discipline of "transitional justice," with its lexicon of "retributive justice," "restorative justice," "historical clarification," "lustration" and so on.
Victims, psychoanalysts, scholars and political scientists have ascribed a variety of benefits to a public reckoning, from the catharsis promised by Mr. Kostunica to a belief that the awareness of past evil can innoculate a population against its repetition. At the very least, advocates of reckoning say, great criminals simply cannot go unpunished.
"I'm very skeptical that we somehow learn lessons from history," said Ian Buruma, author of "The Wages of Guilt: Memories of War in Germany and Japan" (Farrar Straus & Giroux, 1994). "But there is something very beneficial in having the truth publicly analyzed, researched, as a public exercise. I think that for former victims, the fact that the truth is told is psychologically more important than financial compensation."
And for those who appreciate testaments to the human mind and body in adversity or just vicariously thrill at their trials look to The American Spectator, volume 34, no. 3, April 2001, pp. 61-71, for an excerpt from Fatal North by Bruce Henderson recounting the route of the U.S. North Polar Expedition of 1871-1873:
They were without ship, shelter, or sufficient food to get them through the winter. The ice they were standing on would eventually break up into pieces too small to live upon. What then?
And
With horror Tyson realized the couple's worst fear was not abandonment on the ice by the rest of the party. It was far more evil: Joe and Hans (Aleuts) would be killed first, then their wives and children would be killed - and they all would be eaten.
Thanks.
My history knowledge is weak, so I will use this thread more for reading than posting. I am working my way back over some of the earlier posts. I appreciate your contributions.
by Slavomir Rawicz
A brief review and excerpt.
Now--I've been brooding all weekend about Marjoribanks saying that I was "usually inoffensive". Hmmmm... I simply cannot allow myself to be distracted by external events from my usual hard line against Foreigners [as we all know, the world is divided into (1) leggy supermodels (2) educated English-speaking White Folk and (3) Foreigners. (note: unattractive women and every from Mississippi are automatically Foeigners)]... So I did decide to go out back and burn a few Hindoos on the altar of Master Leonard (the name of the giant black goat who presided over the Witches' Sabbath in 15th-c. Bohemia)... After all, I do favor Mussulmans over Hindoos.
I concede your expertise on mountain climbing, but in the link you provide to Dave Hahn, he states definitively that it was Mallory they found. Can you link to anything subsequent that has questioned Hahn's claim?
While we are discussing polar expeditions, I remember reading somewhere that the remains of the John Franklin polar expedition of the 1840s-50s (??) had been found. There had been much lurid speculation about cannibalism, etc., but that now it was thought that they might have died from eating tainted canned food (hermetically sealed metal cans had recently been perfected for the storing of food). Any additional input on this?
It was not meant to be a slap.
I love your contributions and appreciate them. After all, this is what debate is all about.
I truly hope you continue to contribute.
Fire away...
The French absorbed the lessons (and horror) of WW1 only too well while the US suffered no such trauma. Rather, the US seems to be indulging in a touchy-feely appreciation of the good life and moral relativism while we flirt with isolationism.
I suspect that the book would have been dismissed as "hackery," to use the term so popular in the politics thread, if it weren't so full of original sources and citations. Hamilton and Burr were self-described monarchists, and Adams was a paranoid, elitist anglophile.
It puts the Federalist Society in new light to see the real federalists as portrayed in this book.
Is the book a novel?
Burr's passivity in the face of the activities of his supporters may have saved the United States, but his refusal to immediately concede in the first place destroyed his national career, and set him on the path to infamy.
High-Federalist officers and politicians were putting together lists and files about political reliability of Army officers and considering shifting garrisons around the better to prevent "revolution" in the late 1790s...
Dusty:
I concede your expertise on mountain climbing, but in the link you provide to Dave Hahn, he states definitively that it was Mallory they found.
You are correct, there is no doubt that they found Mallory.
I checked my post, and realized it was poorly worded. Let me try to make my minor point once again:
When the Expedition to search for the body started, they were operating on the guess that the body would be Irvine's. They Had very limited information; the Chinese climber that had claimed to see the body (not everyone believed him) was dead, I believe, so they only had the second-hand story of his discovery of an "English dead". Based on the description, they guessed they were searching for Irvine.
When they came across the body, they will still thinking they had found Irvine's body. Even when they saw clothing with Mallory's initials it didn't sink in immediately. Shortly though, they realized they had found Mallory, not Irvine.
Sorry for the confusion.
I use mostly sociology, political science and economics due to the nature of my beast but I was just screwin around with what I really enjoy - history discovering that I have access to a real treasure trove of stuff....
If anyone is interested in a particular topic and if Wombat could create an articles sub page I'd be happy to post excerpts from any of the following
American Historical Review 1895-1995
American Quarterly 1949-1995
Eighteenth-Century Studies 1967-1995
Journal of American History 1964-1995
Mississippi Valley Historical Review 1914-1964
Journal of Economic History 1941-1995
Journal of Military History 1989-1997
Military Affairs 1941-1988
Journal of the American Military Institute 1939-1940
Journal of the American Military History Foundation 1937-1938
Journal of Modern History 1929-1999
Journal of Negro History 1916-1997
Journal of Southern History 1935-1995
Journal of the History of Ideas 1940-1995
Renaissance Quarterly 1967-1997
Renaissance News 1948-1966
Reviews in American History 1973-1994
Speculum 1926-1995
Studies in the Renaissance 1954-1974
William and Mary Quarterly 1892-1995
Are there any copyright issues involved in reproducing stuff on line?
Yes, there certainly are.
A case last year against the Free Rebublic in fact found their use of newspaper articles an infringement of copyright, and held them liable for it.
FR reproduced the articles in their entirety for comment and criticism by their community. The District Court in CA held that the site was not exempt under the fair use doctrine and that their activities significantly harmed the economic interests of the newspapers.
The court suggested links and summaries of the articles would be okay, however.
Looks like links and abstracts are the way to go.
The case didn't distinguish on that point. However, one argument the FR presented was that it was necessary to reproduce the articles because links became obsolete within a few days.
The court rejected that analysis, saying that the reason the links became obsolete was that they were no longer available for free; one had to subsribe to the newspaper's archived articles in order to gain access. I think the rationale would apply to articles never even put on the internet to begin with.
One of the tests for fair use is whether the amount copied is reasonable in light of the purpose for which it is used. FR argued they needed to copy and paste entire articles so that the criticism element of their purpose was met. The court was unconvinced their use was necessary for the purpose. They found that links and summaries of the articles in question would work as well.
In addition, they found that most members of FR used the site as a sort of daily commentary on the news, not for indepth criticism of articles for their political or literary value. In other words, members used news articles much like we do here.
I was thinking that it did, but upon reflection I guess it could be considered another version of Napster, although I would challenge that.
Are professors allowed to make copies of newspaper or magazine articles and use them in class?
In this case, probably not. The court found the purpose of the site to be somewhat different than what the FR claimed it to be. The majority of users came to the site for daily news updates, and for access to articles no longer available for free from the newpaper's sites. The majority of commentary was not criticism, but general observations.
Thus, while the FR argued the main purpose of the site was for news criticism, the court found a different purpose. Regardless of the type of news they copied, the use of the materials was for a purpose not exempt from copyright through the fair use doctrine.
Are professors allowed to make copies of newspaper or magazine articles and use them in class?
Yes, educational classroom use is specifically exempt under the statute (the copyright statute), but there are limits as well. The same test applies, the amount copied must be reasonable in light of the purpose for which it is used. And the quantity of copies will also matter, but is not determinative.
Recently for instance, Al Davis trotted out some Freeper tripe at our lunch about RR beating the Ruskies calling to mind the work on the subject by CONSERVATIVE historian Martin Malia...and sure enough a JSTOR search produced about 20 articles/book reviews on the subject by authors such as Malia and Pipes...I was impressed...and didn't get much school work done as a result.
Any suggestions on one or more good histories of the Iroquois Federation?
There's quite a bit of information on the web.
You now have a sub-thread.
The Sources, References, and Abstracts sub-thread is now open for business.
Per May's comparison of the Maginot Line and the US's hi-tech, low casualty wars: I am not suprised that May would not go too far with it.
The parallels don't seem so strong the deeper you go.
The Maginot Line's technologies were not particularly innovative, merely taking what existed to a new level.
Contrary to the US, France's desire to avoid casualties was based on a lack of manpower, not political unwillingness to risk casualties.
The US envisions and has used the low casualty doctrine in power projection. The Maginot Line was purely--if incompletely--defensive.
For a brief on the dynamic which armed them and made them the scourge of the Eastern Woodlands read The Dutch in the Iroquois Wars, but for details on their League, life, language and so on refer to Handbook of North American Indians, volume 15, Northeast, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, 1978, which source I had quoted in the previous forum when the Iroquois came up. This "handbook" and attendant bibliography is exhaustive.
Yes, Time/Life Books.
I just returned from two weeks overseas and in the bath just now remembered with a start, League of the Iroquois by Lewis Henry Morgan, first printing Rochester, NY, 1851, recognized as the "first scientific account of an Indian tribe" and the very foundation of American ethnology. Note that Morgan's contact and interpreter was none other than Ely S. Parker, future aide-de-camp of General U.S. Grant and Commissioner of Indian Affairs under Grant's administration.
the Iroquois are a favourite of mine
They are a favorite of mine, too. Their heritage is well preserved and sometimes almost too revealing to discuss among unsympathetic strangers.
I read it, and enjoyed it. I have read David Irving's earlier work and have some respect for his research skills. I would be interested in reading the Evans book, as he appears to have demolished Irving's reputation including his earlier works.
There is an increasing amount of literature that seeks to revise aspects of the accepted historiography of the Holocaust (how I dislike that term), that stops well short of outright denial. Some of it is fascinating, and I believe Buruma has written on it as well. I worry that intellectual charlatans and those with an obvious neonazi agenda (Irving) will make it impossible for there to be legitimate review of some of what has passed for fact in this area.
I followed the libel trial with a great deal of interest, as I, too, had read some of Irving's earlier works. The Keegan piece referred to by Buruma was a keen disappointment, and has colored my opinion of his powers of discernment.
Have you been to Irving's site? It is like stepping into cloud-cuckoo land. I will be purchasing the Evans book today.
Wombat: Please do a tease highlight on Mote's opening page--and I'll get the article on author James Bamford, a former staffer at the National Security Agency in today.
Title is "Body of Secrets."
A major story for you, perhaps; but old news for those with more than a passing interest in the subject.
Feel free to add an extract from the Times piece in question with any comments you might have. If it touches off a major debate, I will see about highlighting it.
It turns out an American Navy EC-121 was flying nearby and got audio of the Israeli pilots talking to their handlers about asking for permission to attack the ship with the American flag.
I guess we should be lucky that the jets didn't jam the spy plane.
(Buried on page A9 of yesterday's New York Times.)
By James Risen
Washington, April 22--Israel's attack in 1967 on the intelligence ship Liberty, which killed 34 American sailors and wounded 171 others, was deliberate, according to a new book on the National Security Agency, disputing the longstanding Israeli claim that the attack was accidental.
The book, "Body of Secrets," by James Bamford, provides a detailed recounting of the Israeli attack on the American eavesdropping ship, along with new evidence in an incident that has been debated ever since. Mr. Bamford wrote an earlier book on the security agency, "The Puzzle Palace," published in 1982.
The Liberty, a slow, lightly armed Navy ship that was working with the security agency to monitor the 1967 Arab-Israeli war, was attacked from both the air and sea by Israeli forces off the Sinai coast on June 8, 1967.
While the Israeli government said the incident was an accident, it did pay modest reparations to the victims and their families. But Mr. Bamford writes that the Israeli explanation is a cover story for a deliberate attack meant to prevent the United States from eavesdropping on its military activities. And the book provides evidence of an American spy plan that overheard the attack.
While Israeli plans and boats were attacking the Liberty, the American plane, a Navy EC-121 intelligence-gathering aircraft was far overhead, and recorded Israeli conversation, Mr. Bamford wrote.
And the crew heard Israeli pilots talking about seeing an American flag. The Israelis did not have any idea "that witnesses were present high above," Mr. Bamford writes in "Body of Secrets," which Doubleday is to publish on Tuesday.
The aircraft crew did not hear the Israelis mention the Liberty by name, but did hear enough to piece together the fact that Israeli forces were attacking a military ship flying the American flag.
Surviving crew members of the Liberty also believed that the Israeli attack was deliberate, according to those interviewed in Mr. Bamford's book. Before the attack, Israeli plans flew over the Liberty repeatedly, they noted, and could have clearly seen what it was. During the attack, they could also see that it was flying an American flag, they told Mr. Bamford.
"Despite the overwhelming evidence that Israel had attacked the ship and killed the American servicement deliberately, the Johnson administration and (Democratic--my edit) Congress covered up the entire incident," Mr. Bamford wrote.
But security agency officials never believed the Israeli excuses, Mr. Bamford said. "The senior leadership of NSA officials who had unique acccess to the secret tapes and other highly classified evidence was virtually unanimous in their belief that the attack was deliberate," he wrote.
John Morrison, an Air Force major general who was deputy chief of the agency's operations at the time of the attack, told Mr. Bamford that "nobody believes that explanation."
I'll post more about it anon.
"11:50: The 'Liberty' disaster: IAF Mirages and Mysteres mistakenly attack the U.S. Navy surveillance ship U.S.S. 'Liberty', killing 34 American Navy men."
However, the Hebrew version has a lot more to say about it (no cover-up here, guys: they couldn't afford to pay the translator to translate all the levels in the site, so the Six Day War is only detailed to the hour-by-hour narrative level).
I have nothing better to do, and this is Israel's Memorial Day, when we remember our dead, so I'll try and translate some of the 'hidden' level in honor of your dead. It'll be a Mote exclusive!
The American intelligence ship ‘Liberty’ had sailed out to the war zone before the Six Day War had begun. On the night of June 7th-8th the Joint Chiefs of Staff sent it a telegram with instructions to move the ship out to sea, to a distance of 180 km. from the shore. This telegram arrived at the American communication base at Asmara but never reached the Liberty. This mistake, and a series of mistakes in identification and coordination eventually led to the disaster.
The incident began at 11:50, when a (mistaken) report was received regarding shelling from the sea at El Arish. The IDF immediately instructed several Israeli Navy torpedo ships to head out to the area, at full speed.
The torpedo ships reported that the unidentified ship was rapidly evading them, heading towards Port Said. At about 14:00 the IAF flight controller instructed two Mirages that had been patrolling near Rumani to head toward El Arish. The pilots spotted the ship about 20 miles away from the shore and carried out a low altitude identification flyover, at about 1000 feet. They saw no identifying marks and no flag. When they reported this on the radio, their commander asked them repeatedly if there was a flag flying over the ship, and when they repeated their negative response, the command to attack was given.
The planes carried out four strafing runs, hitting the ship’s midsection and causing several fires. The ship did not return fire. The Mirages left the scene, and two IAF Mysteres arrived. They carried out two napalm runs, one of which hit the mark. The lead pilot thought it strange that the ship was not returning any fire. He proceeded to carry out two identification flyovers.
>>>
At this point, he spotted the letters C.T.R.5 on the ship’s side, and reported this to control. He, too, was unable to discern a flag or any other identifying mark. Following his report, the IAF ceased attacking the ship.
At 14:27, Israeli Navy torpedo ships approached the ship and signalled a demand for identification. The ship’s answer was: ‘you identify yourself first!’. The Navy concluded that the ship was refusing to identify itself, despite having been hit. The smoke billowing from the ship made it difficult to see the ship in its entirety, according to Navy sailors’ accounts. Another factor stoking suspicion was the fact that in the past, the Navy officers had received a similar evasive answer from Egyptian destroyer ‘Ibrahim el-Awal’ after it attacked the port of Haifa in 1956.
The torpedo boats got closer to the ship and at 14:37 it was finally identified as an Egyptian supply ship named ‘Al Kutzer’, which had evacuated Palestinian terrorists from the Gaza strip the night before. The identification was carried out using a Navy handbook of enemy ship identification. In retrospect, it turns out that the ‘Al Kutzer’ and the ‘Liberty’ did, indeed, have similar silhouettes.
This mistake in identification effectively decided the Liberty’s fate. The torpedo ships fired five torpedos. Luckily, only one hit the mark, ripping open the ship’s hull. The mistake was discovered later on, after a large American flag had been draped over the ship’s side. The naval attache in the American embassy in Tel Aviv was informed. He accepted an Israeli offer to fly him to the ship in an IAF helicopter. The Israeli helicopters hovered over the ship and offered help, but the ship’s commander refused the offer. 34 sailors were killed in the attack and 75 were injured.
>>>
The IDF Chief Military Prosecutor appointed an investigative judge to carry out an official incestigation of the incident. The judge, Maj. Yeshaiahu Yerushalmi, interrogated 34 witnesses, inspected exhibits from the scene of the attack and concluded – on July 21st 1967 – that the attack was carried out by mistake, that no malice was involved, and no one should be brought to trial. The Chief Military Prosecutor approved this conclusion.
Look forward to the "official" Israeli rendering of the incident.
I think you can take the quotation marks off of 'official', actually. It's certainly an official account.
For one thing, like Mr. Thomas Neuman says in the last link Rosetta posted (Message # 2308), the fact that Israel was winning was apparently no big secret at that point anyways - certainly keeping it hushed for a few more hours was not worth risking Israel's relationship with the USA. Also, anyone familiar with the Israeli power structure and the attitudes of its military brass in those days knows that a decision of such graveness could not have been taken by any Israeli general or generals. The only person who could possibly have made a decision like that on his own would have been Moshe Dayan, and even he would probably have involved Prime Minister Sharett. I think it highly unlikely that either one of these men would have attacked a friendly ship unless by doing so they were removing a clear, direct and immediate existential danger to Israel - which was not the case here.
Another thing that struck me, reading the IAF account I so deftly translated, is the number of Israeli units involved in the attack: two Mirages, then two Mysteres, then an unspecified number of Navy torpedo boats. If you were going to do something as underhand, nasty, and downright dangerous as killing scores of American sailors - would you send dozens of airmen and seamen from different units to do it? Wouldn't you just send a small elite squad of commandos to do it, and somehow make damn sure they weren't captured?
Think of all the friendly fire incidents that take place in wartime, even now, with all the sophisticated equipment in place to prevent it happening. This was a war, remember.
Refresh my memory: In 1953 or so, wasn't an American ship named the Levant or Levantine sunk by the Israelis?
Nitzanim beach, April 2001 
Near the Knesset, April 2001 
Hebron, April 2001 
That was "Giant Buttholes of the Holy Land". God is in the details, you know.
Ace, I think we'll all just pretend we didn't hear that. Go back to bashing CalGal.
I'm a mysterious guy.
Coming up...the Japanese surrender revisited.
With the collapse of the Soviet Union and the opening up of other official document collections due to the expiration of 30 year or 50 year rules (or FOIA), the coverage of World War II has expanded horizons considerably, and have--hopefully--changed preconceptions and revised revisionists.
One example of this, which I have just finished reading, is "Downfall: The End of the Imperial Japanese Empire" by Richard B. Frank. He obtained access to hitherto unknown Soviet and Japanese source material as well as complete ULTRA and MAGIC intercepts for the Pacific Theater.
Some nuggets that emerged:
After the initial incendiary raids, Japanese civilian casualties dropped dramatically, because the US began dropping leaflets on target cities, warning the population to leave. This was done as psy-ops in order to demonstrate how impotent the Japanese air defences were.
There was a Soviet plan to seize Hokkaido with forces from Sakhalin Island. Fanatical Japanese resistance on Sakhalin delayed the Soviet conquest until after the surrender, aborting the Hokkaido operation.
Neither Roosevelt nor Truman were given casualty estimates for Operation Olympic (the invasion of Kyushu). What estimates there were excluded potential naval and air casualties.
Total US casualties in the Battle of Okinawa (combat and non-combat) totalled 72,000, only 6,000 less than the entire Japanese garrison on the island.
"Despite the best that has been done by everyone -- the gallant fighting of the military and naval forces, the diligence and assiduity of Our servants of the State, and the devoted service of Our one hundred million people -- the war situation has developed not necessarily to Japan's advantage, while the general trends of the world have all turned against her interest. Moreover, the enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb, the power of which to do damage is, indeed, incalculable, taking the toll of many innocent lives. Should We continue to fight, not only would it result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilisation. Such being the case, how are We to save the millions of Our subjects, or to atone Ourselves before the hallowed spirits of Our Imperial Ancestors? This is the reason why We have ordered the acceptance of the provisions of the Joint Declaration of the Powers."
No I haven't. Who wrote it?
I've always loved the language of the Imperial speech on surrender... Like the Imperial Rescript to Soldiers & Sailors a generation or two earlier, a delight to read...
Pelle-- I'm having a post-exams spasm of finding old books... Do you recall "The Long Ships"??
I do indeed. Why do you ask?
The name is Frans G. Bengtsson. He is a legendary person here, a university lay-about in the classical style. Immensely learned, a master of language, wrote some poetry (which is now dated) some collections of essays (of which the "Silver Shields" is one), a biography of Carl XII, which is is of doubtful accuracy but a very good read, and the "Long Boats", which is still in print.
V.N. Dadrian, "Genocide as a Problem of National and International Law: The World War One Armenian Case and its Modern Ramifications", Yale J. Intl. Law 14 (1989)
Whoever came up with this blew a great future in marketing.
His Excellency Generalissimo Francisco Franco's mild cold has taken a slight turn for the worse. Although currently dead, the Caudillo is expected to recover shortly and resume his duties as head of state.
Titanic loudspeaker: Good news, passengers. The broken ice maker at the bar is no longer a problem.
Hiroshima weather report: Heat index well in excess of 1,000 degrees today, so his Majesty's health ministry advises staying inside and drinking plenty of fluids.
Incidentally, most people don't know how excruciatingly demanding it is. Even crack troops cannot march it for more than a few hundred meters.
I don't know the origins of the goose step; but it is supposed to demonstrate the complete, machine-like discipline of the troops using it.
About the article: how about copying and pasting into a Word document and printing that? You might get annoying line breakage but perhaps you can solve that too.
He heh heh.
Heh heh heh.
I don't understand the mechanics of your explanation. Certainly, the musketeers were not firing while marching? And how can the goose step help "crowding the ranks"? The high-swinging leg would rather thin the ranks because of the risk of soldiers being kicked in the butt from behind.
The conflagration in the Balkans will continue. There are many unresolved issues: Macedonia, Montenegro, Kosovo, Bosnia. It is impossible to understand these issues without some background information, But that is hard to come by. You can choose between oversimplified journalistic accounts, often with a bias, or heavy tomes like Misha Glenny's The Balkans (btw his sister used to post here as tmachine, haven't seen her for a while) in which scores of pages are devoted to explaining various Turkich and Serbo-Croat words for various kinds of dignitaries and functionaries of th state.
My proposal is that we undertake a collaborative effort to produce The Mote Concise History of the Balkans. I envisage a mix of country-specific essays covering the former Yugoslav republics plus Albania and Bulgaria and some regional themes like "The Turkish Conquest", "The crumbling of Turkey", "The Balkan Wars", "The Versailles Treaties" and so on. At some time we need to decide on a structure, but that can wait. The cut-off point may be the end of WWII.
I don't see us doing any original resarch. The Brittanica, for example is not bad on the Balkans and there must be a lot of sites on the net (they would have to critically examined, though). LohrM, through his work on the nationality question in the Habsburg army may have some reading suggestions. The idea is to collect information from disparate sources, digest it, and present it with the typical Mote panache.
For my part I offer to act as secretary, that is to collect the texts as they are produced and put them up on the net. And the maps. We need lots of maps.
I see this as a leisurely effort stretching over several months, perhaps to the end of the year.
The infantrymen were used both defensively to protect the musketeers while reloading and offensively in bayonet charges.
The danger to the infantrymen's hearing came from muskets fired close on their flanks. Any man moving even a bit ahead of his fellows, deviating from the marching pattern, was at risk. The precision of the goose-step enabled the pattern, and a uniform distance, to be maintained.
The hearing issue was not offered as the sole reason for maintaining the pattern, but it was an important consideration.
I think you are mistaken when you assume that the goose step is more precise. Try it and notice the risk of falling on your nose. Besides it's very tiring. I cannot believe that it was ever used in battle, only on the parade ground.
Perhaps the parade-ground version is more elaborate than the original.
This is not my theory, Pelle; I reported what I read as a matter of interest. You're naturally free to believe what you like.
Let's not get worked up over this. Did you try the goose step?
In Warsaw there is the vast Freedom Square. At one end is the Victoria Hotel where I used to stay during my visits in 1990-92. Opposite is the Opera and to the left the Freedom Monument, the remains of a palace destroyed in the largely forgotten Polish-Soviet war of 1920-23. To the right are various official buildings among them army barracks from which emerge, every two hours, two soldiers and an officer to relieve those on guard at the monument. When they enter the square they draw their sabres which they hold with the hand a little below the chest and the sabre resting against the shoulder. When they are some 20 meters from the memorial they raise the sabres straight up, move the hand to the chin and break out in goose step. These guys are artists. On the upswing they get the foot almost up to chin level.
Many people associate the goose step with the Nazis or with military regimes in general. They are wrong.
Many centuries ago various nomadic tribes who all decided they couldn't stand anyone living close by moved into the area today known as the Balkans and commenced butchering one another.
And so it continues unto the present day.
Re the goosestep debate
Drill
[...]
Gustavus II Adolphus of Sweden accelerated a gradual revival of skill in European warfare early in the 17th century. His introduction of simplified drill techniques for the use of improved weapons was copied by all Europe. By the end of the 17th century, France led in the development of modern standing armies, largely because of a drill system devised by Louis XIV's inspector general of infantry, Jean Martinet, whose name became a synonym for drillmaster. To make effective use of inaccurate muskets, concentrated volleys had to be delivered at short range. Troops advanced in rigidly maintained battle lines, all firing simultaneously on command. Through ceaseless drill, the Prussian Army of Frederick II the Great achieved a mechanical perfection in these tactics. At Valley Forge during the American Revolution, Baron von Steuben, a German officer who helped train American troops, adapted Prussian techniques into a less rigid drill system fitted to the American character and to conditions of warfare in the New World.
[...]
Rather than waste time aiming their inaccurate muskets, soldiers formed tight ranks, shot in the general direction of the enemy and then dropped back to reload while the row behind them advanced. To help soldiers carry out all those actions as efficiently as possible, an empirical military science of marching was developed.
Marching theory, Flesher writes, treated a regiment as a mechanical system, carefully quantifying the length and cadence of each soldier's step and the movement of bodies through space. The first musket drills were developed by the Dutch in the late sixteenth century, but they reached an apex of precision among the Prussians of the mid-eighteenth century. On the basis of battlefield observations, Frederick the Great's soldiers were taught to stand erect yet relaxed and to swing their legs stiffly as they marched. To synchronize their movements they stamped their heels on the ground and clapped their gun barrels in unison, while drill sergeants timed their steps with stopwatches.
Prussian martinets are a modern-day caricature. But they were once a military wonder. "The more I read about them, the more I marvel at how much they knew," Flesher says. "Frederick was able to increase the marching rate from six to twelve miles a day. His troops could cross the battlefield obliquely, in step, while their foes were still moving at right angles." In 1763, when the Prussians defeated France and its allies in the Seven Years' War, they owed their triumph, in part, to better walking. As a result, the single-mindedness and discipline of military drills became a blueprint for everything from manliness to philosophy to political authority in Prussia.
I suspect that however stiffly Frederick's army may have marched and drilled, the goose step as we know it was an exaggerated version. I don't see troops goose-stepping over even slightly irregular terrain without losing formation.
Have any of you ever seen the British guard regiments' "slow march?"
Historical understatement:
"There appears to be something wrong with our bloody ships today." Admiral David Beatty during the battel of Jutland after observing two of his battlecruisers exploding (and almost having his flagship suffer the same fate). I don't remember if he said this before or after a third battle cruiser exploded.
Yes, Wombat, I have seen "slow march". I have also listened to the beat of fife-and-drum setting the march cadence.
Maria: if the source you were using was a history of 18th Century warfare on the web, I think it might be suspect. The author makes a number of assertions that I think are mistaken, re Frederick's belief in the effectiveness of his cavalry (in fact, he was continually frustrated by it ineffectiveness and lack of discipline) and the introduction of horse artillery.
And there is that swastika necktie Sadat wore. Remember?
As far as I can ascertain, the now familiar Germanic “goose-step” traces its origins to at
least Sicily of the late 1600’s or early 1700’s. During this time frame, an officer of the
Hessian Army had visited Sicily and noted that the Sicilian soldiers often marched in a
most unique manner when on the parade grounds. Liking what he saw, he was able to
persuade Frederick the Great to adopt this form of marching in the 1730’s. This line of
thinking, going back to the classics, greatly appealed to Fredrick the Great as he was an
avid disciple of the teachings of Alexander the Great, Epaminondas of Thebes and Scipio
Africanus Major.
The “goose-step” adopted by Prussia however differed from the norms of the day in one
important aspect. Whereas previously the march rhythm was based on the beat of a
drum, the Prussians based their new way of marching on the number of beats-per-minute
the human heart makes - 72 (for the average person). Each Prussian soldier was now
required to make one “goose-step” for every beat of his hart. To ensure compliance and
uniformity of appearance and step, the upper and lower leg were supposed to remain
straight. As the outstretched leg was returned to the ground, it was supposed to do this
with a precise “stomp”. Do this for about half an hour or so, in full military or parade
gear, and voila -military aerobics for the abdomen, hips and legs.
Please elaborate.
Message # 2358
The other hallmark is the salute. The Briton shows the palm of the hand, the Prussian the edge.
The Swewish army follows the Prussian drill with the exception of the goose step. It survives, however, in the "attention-under-march" command. When called, the troop executes a single goose step and turn their heads towards the inspecting dignitary. Very impressive, soundwise, if done whith precision, embarrassing if not.
Or that the right handed handshake is a way of showing 'I have no sword in my hand' (that I'm pretty sure of).
Or that clinking glasses together comes from the practice of bashing ale mugs together, in order to prove that you placed no poison in your guest's mug?
...now what is this collaborative effort you were proposing? a new thread? a topic?
(NY Times link)
Thanks for the link. It has been covered in the press here but not as extensively. I think that generally,the climate theory is favoured. One the other hand, there is a tendency to explain more and more things by referring to climate changes. It may be a side-effect of the global warming debate.
So, the Mote Balkan Project is launched! Ideally we should have a couple more contributors. I think there are some people around with an interest in the Balkans. Let's hope they come around as we go along.
It's getting late here. I will return to the subject tomorrow. In the meantime, please give some thought to the structure of the thing.
Here are my thoughts which are tentative and completely open to debate/challenge.
I think the structure should be (a) a narrative of the region as a whole complemented by (b) monographs on each state. By "region" I mean the former Yugoslavia plus Bulgaria and Albania. I'm in two minds about Rumania. Please advise.
I think the narrative should start at the time of Diocletian or thereabouts to give a background to the religious divide that prevails to this day. So we get the following main events:
We would need to consider where to insert the monographs. Maybe in connection with the nationalist movements? Also, should we proceed beyond Versailles? The inter-war years are marked by operetta-like intrigues, are they not? All those kings imported from sundry European royal houses. Palace coups and murder galore. On the other hand, that maybe fun. And events during WWII (Ustasja, Tito's partisans) have some bearing on later events.
So who does what. In my view it is a given that you do 3 and 4, which leaves me with 1 and 2. We'll see about 5 and later events. For the monographs we just pick and choose. I'm a bit partial to Montenegro.
We are not aiming for a scholarly work, I don't think, but for a popular history for the reader who asks himself "what the hell is this all about"?. But let's try to suggest further readings.
I leave you with these thoughts. I'm going away tomorrow and will be back Sunday night, my time.
When it is done, you should probably create a subthread for it.
Why don't you think about contributing? Events during WWII maybe? Or anything else you fancy. This starts out as a Lohr/Pelle project to get it going. Other contributions are very welcome. I think jexster knows quite a lot about the region if he can be enticed away from the political cesspool.
If you dare try and start the subthread anyway, this thread will be History.
You have been warned, SUCKERS!!!
Don't Spam here.
It will no doubt make Tora, Tora, Tora look like a documentary.
We have footage of WWII, and it didn't look like this. For one thing, fire makes a lot of smoke, and bombs throw up a lot of dust--as well as other debris. The artwork is just too damn clean, the colors just too bright. Fighter planes ought not look like newly minted spaceships.
Have these people never heard that most moving parts require grease and that grease and clean don't go together?
I really disliked "Pity of War", though Ferguson's "Cash Nexus" seems to be better... I will look for Hew Strachan's series. Maybe I'll splurge and order it from Hatchard's...
[a mid-60s book called 'Fourteen Eighteen' by John Masters... some good articles on WW-1, including a nice piece on Salonika...]
I did take Wombat's advice; "Downfall" is well-done, though repetitive in a few places. I want to match it against Spector's "Eagle Against the Sun" on a few points...
Pelle-- keep me posted on the Balkans idea!
Start writing! No need to keep to a strictly chronological order. The Balkan wars are a mystery to me in their complexity. I would love to see your recount of them. This week I cannot do anything because of pressures at work and at the university. During the weekend, inshallah.
I have to wait a week til graduation, then Bar Review starts, but I'll get to work-- and on a book Austrian History Yearbook has me reviewing-- the memoirs of a Habsburg naval officer who also did East African exploration...
The Mote has a limit of 2000 characters per post, so you have to cut and paste from your Word document. You asked earlier about reference literature and stuff. I think "suggestions for further reading" would be useful.
I ordered Grafton. What is your view of Hobsbawm's On History?
So a dearth of literature on the Balkan wars? I visualise the emergence, a year from now, when the crisis in Macedonia is at its peak, of Forgotten History; the Balkan Wars 1912-13 by LohrM. From the backcover blurb: "Essential reading for anyone who wants to understand the background to the past and present crisis in the Balkans".
I'd love to write on the 1912-13 wars-- a real book. Of course, it's the Turkish records that are hard to access, and it's the Turkish side of the war that's interesting-- Scutari, Adrianople, the Marmara trench lines...
Albania in 1911-14... Chaotic far beyond even 1944 and 1996/97... And you've have to find oral histories and vilage traditions; there'd be precious little official...
Oddly, the Balkan Wars actually saw a use of aircraft for bombing (pioneered by the Italians in Tripolitania) and reconnaisance... And there were some Austrian landings on the Albanian coast to block the Serbs' advance that pioneered some combined-arms thought...
I'll start writing soon...
I think you'll like Grafton, by the way. And you should relax some evening with spy novels by Alan Furst-- wonderful noir pieces set in the 1930s and early 1940s...
Click on picture to see large version 
A chilling, ominous picture.
Querry - did anyone ever think of having gas masks for the horses?
Logic would dictate that if one was concerned enough about gas to be wearing a mask, that he would be at or very near the front lines. One would think that one wouldn't want to be left horseless, perhaps being forced to try to escape on foot from being captured.
I suspect the answer is that there was no bloody way they could come up with something that they could get a horse to wear, leaving aside any other technical or practical problems.
A "Google" search using "poison gas" and "horse" will give you some examples of equine gas masks.
If you enlarge Pelle's picture, you will see that the horses are in fact wearing gas masks.
I believe it was castor oil.
Janjon:
According to one of the sources found in the search, horses were not affected by tear gasses. Presumably that changed after mustard gas was introduced.
Chlorine and phosgene had to be inhaled to take effect.
Gas masks on horses... Odd to admit, the first time I saw that was in an early-70s film called "Fraulein Doktor"... A WW-1 spy film with (of course) Cushing and Lee as the rival intelligence chiefs... [yes, cable here is showing "Zeppelin",the *other* WW-1 spy film I like...]
Hmmm... Let's recall that uhlans weren't quite obsolete in WW-1, especially out East, where cavalry had a major role to play... And, indeed, there were still mounted charges in 1945-- some Russian, and some SS-Kavallerie rode out of Budapest...
Some people, including me, think that "The Mask of Dimitrov" is Amblers finest work. "Judgemnt on Deltchev" is also not bad. Both are set in Central Europe between the wars. Brooding doom is much in evidence.
There is a new (2000)book on the Balkan Wars 1912-13 by R. Hall... Which I ordered yesterday...
Ambler has one of the finest story openings I have seen:
"The warning letter arrived on Monday, the bomb itself on Wednesday. It became a busy week".
I don't remember which book, and I'm too lazy to find out.
We'd better stop this or Wombat will slam us for thread drift.
I hope to do something on the History next week. Thursday is Ascension Day and of course nobody works Friday, a so called "squeeze day", here in lazy, socialist, workers' paradise Sweden.
I am not familiar with the Abaham affair. Please fill me in.
11th century Sweden is on the borderline between archeology and history. It also represents the waning of the Viking era and the beginning of Christianity in Sweden. During the last decade or so, this cultural shift has attracted a great deal of interest, and archeologists and historians have tried to pool their knowledge, which is a break with scientific tradition, at least here.
There is nothing to link so far. I just heard a brief report on the radio. The thesis is that a number or villages of the same name, Tegneby (Thegn's village), which are found from the west coast of Sweden to Ĺbo in Finland were in fact strongholds of the Danes. Artefacts with a clear connection to the Danish court are said to have been found there.
The thesis was put forward in a recent dissertation. It will be interesting to follow the discussion. It is a serious challenge to the traditional, nationalist view on the emergence of the state of Sweden. It also provides a whole new perspective on the struggle for supremacy in Sweden in the 13th to 15th centuries, where Denmark was a principal actor.
On the other hand, maybe the fellow is a crank.
I look forward to that.
Apart from that I have to admit that I am almost completely blank when it comes to such historic matters. I don't know how on earth you can remember all them kings and wars and years - and even relate to them.
Actually, I wonder if it's sometimes an interest that develops with age. Were you always such a history buff, also when younger?
That the Danes could have been involved, perhaps in a dominant way, is not at all implausible. I think I wrote in the first part of the History that by the 11th century Denmark was 150-200 years ahead of Sweden as far as political development is concerned. I have no ideological hang-ups about Sweden being a Danish client territory a thousand years ago, but I bet there are many who have, also professional historians.
I was out of the country when that happened. the British papers didn't cover it.
Marj:
That bit about the Portuguese flag was funny.
Perhaps the lack of Indian war heroes is due to the lack of victories against a worthy foe or few glorious stands against against overwhelming odds. Goa was a push-over, as was the Sino-Indian incident (except that India was the push-ee). India's record was so-so to poor against Pakistan until 1971, when Pakistani forces were overwhelmed in the East and outfought in the West. Nothing glorious about Sri Lanka or Khargil.
Some years ago there was a book by an Indian general called "The Fourth Round"-- a Tom Clancy kind of thing about a fourth Hindooo-Pak war. I recall the title, but I never could run down a copy. Does anyone recall it?
I'm reading J. Donald Hughes Pan's Travail: Environmental Problems of the Ancient Greeks and Romans. I'm supposed to come up with a critique. It seems to me he's driving his thesis* too hard, picking up every shred of anecdotal evidence. He is prof of history at Denver University. Is he known to you?
*Environnmental degradation was a significant factor in the fall of Rome.
Arent' we all.
Pelle, is that part of your course in economic history? Or did you decide on a different subject after all? History proper (or, plain), perhaps?
I haven't heard of that book. Some BBC-type wrote a novel this year about nuclear confrontation in the subcontinent, I may read that one if i get my hands on it.
It's part of the economic history course. In this part of the course we choose from five "immersion" subjects, each with a prescribed reading list.
Have you provided your reading list here? I'd be interested.
I just read Peter Jay's "Road to riches". Quite enjoyable in the vein of Jared Diamond if not completely up to his high standards of fluent and engaging presentation.
Sorry about the marj thing.
Apart from the Hughes book I mentioned we have also read J.R. McNeill, Something new under the sun which is a history of environment issues from around 1870 and onwards, written with some academic detachment, which is uncommon in books on this issue. Recommended.
The reading list is two pages. If you e-mail me a fax number I will send it. On the list is the Dane Bjřrn Lomborg's, Världens verkliga tillstĺnd (The World as it Really is). Lomborg is said to be an environmental scepticist who has set himself the task of debunking a number of myths. Have you heard of him?
I'll go into production Saturday.
He has made great waves here, his views are highly controversial since they are at odds with the breast-beating, hand-wringing attitude required by any right-thinking environmentally conscious life-forsaking lutheranian protestant human being, i.e. Dane.
What really pisses them off is he is a brilliant debater and I've never really seen him lose an argument, neither in TV duels, nor in letters-to-the-editor debates.
He is also gay.
I checked Amazon. The book I refer to will be published in September.
Marj-- let me know about the subcontinent-war novel... Who wrote it?
So-- maybe this weekend I'll start sketching out the Balkan Wars for Pelle...
Congratulations! Why don't you get good and drunk, go see "Pearl Harbor," and be thoroughly obnoxious.
Like a rubber-necker at a serious accident, I'll probably see it this weekend.
I'll start producing this weekend too. I'm just now looking for maps on the net. I'm thinking of designing a Balkans page on my site where we can put up maps and reference stuff. We can link to it and we can ask Wombat to link it from here. I have the impression that you are ... shall we say ... a bit HTML-challenged, to put it delicately. Don't worry, your faithful assistant will leap to the rescue.
I checked the historical maps of Europe in the Perry-Castenada map collection. Looks like there is some useful stuff there.
Southern Europe The Balkans 
- The Ottoman period
- Habsburg dominance and nationalist movements
- The Balkan wars 1912-13
- WWI and the Versailles Treaties
- The interwar period
- WWII and its aftermath
- The break-up of Yugoslavia
As a curiosum we may note that in 270-84 (all dates are AD) Rome was ruled by emperors from the Balkans, the so called "Illyrian emperors". Ancient Illyria roughly corresponds to present Albania whose inhabitants like to claim that they descend from the Illyrians. The most famous of those emperors is Aurelian, who among other things, defeated the illustrous Queen Zenobia of Palmyra (in Syria) and had her displayed in golden chains at his triumphal procession in Rome.
But the starting point for this history is the division of the Roman Empire into West and East. This process started under Diocletan who introduced the so called tetrarchy around 290 whereby the empire was ruled by two Augusti (emperors) and two Caesars (vice-emperors). At this time there was no fixed division of the empire. The four rulers took themselves to different parts of the realm as required by the military situation. This arrangement was not very stable. The four tried to build personal power bases in the territories they controlled, and from time to time one of them would try -and occasionally succeed - to make himself the sole ruler. This state of affairs lasted until 395 when the empire was formally divided.
From the 4th century on, Europe was a restless place. Germanic tribes pushed southwards and sacked Rome; Huns, Goths and Slavs pushed to the west. Rome fell in 476 to Odoacer, a German, who proclaimed himself King of Italy. The Roman Empire in the West had ceased to exist. The Slavs settled in eastern and central Europe. The Slavs, whose languages belong to the Indo-European family are traditionally thought to have come from Central Asia, but with genetic research providing new, and sometimes startling, insights into origins and migration patterns one needs to be careful about these things. Anyhow, the Balkans were populated by Slavs except for Albania and Greece.
(to be continued)
My encouragement and appreciation for an ambitious project. Regarding the ethnic background(s) of the Balkans: Didn't Alexander serve an apprenticeship subduing the Northern mountain tribes? I seem to remember that these tribes were isolated linguistically from the Macedonians.
Before the division of the empire, the Balkans served as a land bridge between east and west. During the winter months, when the Mediterranean could be dangerous, the safest way for men and goods was by ship the short distance between Italy and the Adriatic coast and then by land. But when the empire was divided, both parts of the Balkans became backwaters, the south more so than the north where Italy had a rather firm grip on the stretch of coastal land called Dalmatia. We must imagine, however, that the government machinery slowly lost its grip over the Balkans. In the 9th century we see the first emergence of indigenous states. In the north, two Croatian principalities were united in 924 under king Tomislav I. The life-span of the Croatian kingdom was short, however. In the early 11th century it was taken over by Hungary and disappears from history for a long time.
If we try to summarize the state of the Balkans by the 13th century, we see that in the north a new actor, Hungary, has appeared on the scene. The other powerful actor is by now the Holy Roman Empire established by Charlemagne in 800. In the south the Bulgars have established a powerful kingdom, and the Serbs have started their expansion, but the Byzantine Empire still has a modicum of control through the Church and through the exacting of tribute.
And the Turks are waiting in the wings.
Started in 1866, (as Decoration Day) for civil war soldiers. I believe Waterloo, NY was declared the home of the original Memorial Day.
In any event...
In Memoriam to those who gave it all away.
The first celebration of Decoration Day was in 1868 when flowers were placed on more than 20,000 graves of Confederate and Union soldiers.
In 1966 President Lyndon Johnson declared Waterloo, N.Y., the official birthplace of Memorial Day. Waterloo first celebrated the day on May 5, 1866. The town had made Memorial Day an annual, communitywide event. Businesses shut down for the day and veterans’ graves were decorated with flowers and flags.
Since the late 50s, on the Thursday before Memorial Day, the 1,200 soldiers of the 3rd U.S. Infantry here placed small American flags on each of the more than 260,000 gravestones at Arlington National Cemetery, They then patrol, around the clock during the weekend, to ensure each flag remains standing.
In December of 2000, the national Moment of Remembrance resolution was passed. It asks that on Memorial Day at 3 p.m. local time all Americans, “voluntarily and informally observe in their own way a moment of remembrance and respect, pausing from whatever they are doing for a moment of silence or listening to ‘Taps.’”
“On this day, at least, we still meet and rejoice in the closest tie which is possible between men - a tie which suffering has made indissoluble for better, for worse.”
"They have Japanese torpedo bombers attacking the American airfields. What are they going to torpedo on an airfield?"--WWII historians like Harry Gailey saw "Pearl Harbor" and give it an "F" for veracity. But the swing music was nice. - SF GATE
Got a link for the above?
Pearl Harbor (The "epic" film, not the battle) anacronism watch:
1) The charming scene alongside the Queen Mary (ocean liner). By 1941, the Queen Mary was a fast troop transport. It would have been camouflaged, and if it was docked in New York harbor, it would have been under heavy guard.
2) The Pearl Harbor location scenes. The USS Missouri is now a monument there. The deck scenes are all shot on the Missouri, which was completed after the actual attack. There were also Spruance-class destroyers, and some older frigates, dating from the 1970s and 1980s.
3) Carrier shots (Japanese and US): angled decks were not introduced until the 1950s.
THE BALKAN WARS 1912-13: A BIBLIOGRAPHY
(by LohrM)
The Balkan Wars of 1912-13 remain a largely neglected area. Archival access has been limited, and Western scholars, faced with the need to do research not only in the languages of the major powers but in Turkish, Albanian, Romanian, Bulgarian, and Serbo-Croat as well, have tended to see the Balkan Wars largely in terms of the Great Power politics leading up to World War One. Overshadowed by the catastrophes of the two world wars, the Balkan Wars have been a forgotten topic in the West. The wars of Yugoslav devolution in the 1990s saw a renewal of interest in the events of World War Two- e.g., new views of the partisan war in Yugoslavia, new military studies of the German occupation, revised appreciations of the role of the Yugoslav Cetniks and the Albanian Balli Kombetar --but surprisingly little interest in the horrors of 1912-13, despite the key role of the Balkan Wars in shaping national borders and defining the roles of national minorities.
Any reading list on Balkan topics should begin with a few general histories, and Barbara and Charles Jelavich's The Balkans (Prentice-Hall, 1965) is a classic introduction by two fine scholars, and Barbara Jelavich's Russia's Balkan Entanglements 1806-1914 (Cambridge U.P., 1993) is an excellent introduction to Russian policy in the region. The brilliant Yugoslav historian Dimitrije Djordjevic's Revolutions nationales des peuples balkaniques (Belgrade, 1965) is a good introduction that integrates Marxist thinking without becoming either mechanical or turgid. Djordjevic should be compared with Vladimir Dedijer's The Road to Sarajevo (London, 1967) on Serbian nationalism and the events of 1908-1914.
The best general introduction to the Balkan Wars themselves remains the Carnegie Endowment Report of the International Commission to Inquire into the Causes and Conduct of the Balkan Wars (Washington DC, 1914). Almost ninety years on, the Carnegie Endowment report is still a model of balanced writing, humanitarian concern, and incisive analysis.
The tangled diplomacy of the wars is best covered in Ernst Christian Helmreich's classic The Diplomacy of the Balkan Wars 1912-1913 (Harvard U.P., 1938). However, Helmreich covers the formation and disintegration of the Balkan League largely from the perspective of the Great Powers. The archives of the Balkan states were still largely closed in the 1930s, and published collections of documents were little more than heavily-edited nationalist apologias. Nonetheless, Helmreich is indispensable in trying to understand the internecine policies of alliance and betrayal in the Balkans as well as the efforts of the Great Powers to carry out their own, often self-contradictory designs of containment and encouragement.
campaigns, but on the tactical lessons of the fighting and how military observers failed to see their implications. His account of the sieges of Scutari and Adrianople is excellent, and he relates the casualty levels there to what would later happen on the Western Front. Hall gives the far too often slighted Ottoman Army its due as a fighting force and points out the development of partisan forces in Macedonia and Albania as independent players in the fighting. An earlier military view is ably presented by Jacob Gould Schurman, The Balkan Wars 1912-1913 (Princeton UP, 1914), and a comparison of Hall and Schurman is valuable for what it says about both military analysis and attitudes toward warfare.
The wars did see a substantial amount of press coverage, and several books by war correspondents are worth finding. The Balkan Wars 1912-1913: The War Correspondence of Leon Trotsky (rep. New York, 1980) is worth finding simply to see how Trotsky manages to fit the Balkans into a mechanical Marxist framework. Joyce Cary's A Memoir of the Bobotes (Austin TX, 1960) gives reports from the fighting in Thrace, as does the somewhat pompous Ellis Ashmead-Bartlett in With the Turks in Thrace (London, 1913). The British writer Noel Buxton produced interesting reportage from the Bulgarian side in With the Bulgarian Staff (New York, 1913) and in his memoirs Travels and Reflections (Boston, 1929).
The British Army did devote at least some thought to the military events in the Balkans, and the Army Review carried a series of unsigned articles throughout the two wars (vols. 2-5, Jan. 1912-October 1913) offering British views of the fighting, and especially of the sieges of Janina, Scutari, and Adrianople. British thinking was also collected in a volume issued by the War Office called Notes on the Balkan Wars (London, HMSO, 1914). Major P. Howell's The Campaign in Thrace 1912: Six Lectures (London, 1913) offers a set of fairly conventional lessons presented by a professional soldier and gives some idea of how regular officers tried to apply a rigid, Sandhurst-parade ground sense of warfare to the chaos in Thrace and Macedonia.
The Ottoman side of the fighting is woefully understudied, but Edward Erickson's Ordered to Die, a recent study of the Ottoman Army in World War One, gives some idea of the structure, effectiveness, and command of the Ottoman forces.
The attitude of the Habsburg Monarchy to the Balkan Wars and the diplomacy of the Balkan League is treated in detail in Luigi Albertini's multi-volume The Origins of the War of 1914 (London, 1952-1957). A newer view is given in Samuel Williamson, Austria-Hungary and the Origins of the First World War (London, 1993).
One biography should be noted. The life and policies of Ferdinand of Bulgaria, who hoped to be crowned ruler of a Greater Bulgaria in Constantinople itself, are treated in Hans-Roger Madol, Ferdinand of Bulgaria and the Dream of Byzantium (London, 1933).
Readers interested in orders of battle, uniforms, and weapons might consult Ronald Tarnstrom's Balkan Battles, which gives structural outlines of the armed forces of the Balkan states in the 20th century along with some very general information on campaigns in the Balkan Wars,World War One, World War Two, and the early stages of the Yugoslav wars of succession. While not a real military history, it does provide organizational details.
The arrival of substantial amounts of Great Power money and weaponry to build the armies of the Balkan states is covered in David Herrmann's The Arming of Europe and the Making of the First World War (Princeton U.P., 1995).
(Joking, Lohr. You do as you please.)
Moties with a good memory will recall that Misha Glenny, who is mentioned at the beginning of the second post, is the brother of tmachine from whom we haven't heard for quite some time.
Hollywood Versus Historians
"Pearl Harbor" may be scoring at the box office, but it's getting failing grades from historians, who see it as oversimplified and inaccurate.
"They spent 150 million on this thing," says Harry Gailey, author of the acclaimed "War in the Pacific: From Pearl Harbor to Tokyo Bay." "They should have been able to afford two or three dollars for a historian."
The only passable historical treatments of anything that I can recall over the past decade were Schindler's List and Gettysberg
My age it means less
The country I come from
Is called the Midwest
I's taught and brought up there
The laws to abide
And that land that I live in
Has God on its side.
Oh the history books tell it
They tell it so well
The cavalries charged
The Indians fell
The cavalries charged
The Indians died
Oh the country was young
With God on its side.
Oh the Spanish-American
War had its day
And the Civil War too
Was soon laid away
And the names of the heroes
I's made to memorize
With guns in their hands
And God on their side.
Oh the First World War, boys
It closed out its fate
The reason for fighting
I never got straight
But I learned to accept it
Accept it with pride
For you don't count the dead
When God's on your side.
When the Second World War
Came to an end
We forgave the Germans
And we were friends
Though they murdered six million
In the ovens they fried
The Germans now too
Have God on their side.
I've learned to hate Russians
All through my whole life
If another war starts
It's them we must fight
To hate them and fear them
To run and to hide
And accept it all bravely
With God on my side.
Of the chemical dust
If fire them we're forced to
Then fire them we must
One push of the button
And a shot the world wide
And you never ask questions
When God's on your side.
In a many dark hour
I've been thinkin' about this
That Jesus Christ
Was betrayed by a kiss
But I can't think for you
You'll have to decide
Whether Judas Iscariot
Had God on his side.
So now as I'm leavin'
I'm weary as Hell
The confusion I'm feelin'
Ain't no tongue can tell
The words fill my head
And fall to the floor
If God's on our side
He'll stop the next war.
The Ottomans' expansion into the Balkans started in 1362 when they took Adrianople (present Edirne) in Bulgaria. And then the steamroller pressed north in one of the most impressive shows of military strength of all times: Serbia in 1389, Bulgaria in 1396, Albania in 1439, Bosnia in 1463, Herzegovina in 1482 and Montenegro in 1499. But it didn't stop there. At its apogee, the Ottoman Empire in Europe also included all of Hungary, Rumania and Slovakia, and parts of Czechia and the Ukraine. Vienna was besieged twice, in
1529 and 1683. They were defeated at both occasions and the last one marked the start of the Ottomans' decline as a European power. However, that process was not completed until 1914 and there were many paroxysms on the way . The final showdown was the Balkan wars of 1912-13. And the final dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire came during and after WWI
I will get back in the next few days with an attempt to assess the cultural and political impact of 400 years of Turkish rule in the Balkans.
I really enjoyed reading the article on the Mayan calender you linked in the future thread in msg 64. Although the author appears to be an astrologer, the background he provides leads into some intriguing, essoteric subjects to explore. I enjoyed pondering the Maya's prediction of the end of an earthly era at the intersection of the ecliptic plane and the galactic equator on the winter solstice in 2012. I also enjoyed wasting more than two hours digging up related details of Maya history in books and on the internet. Thanks a lot.
I've been intrigued for years by the unconnected fragments of Maya-like culture scattered to distant regions of North America. The style of the ceremonial artifacts dug out of the graves at the Spiro Mounds archaeological site I recently visited are undeniably Mayan in origin. Many contain such specifically mesoamerican details as jaguar motifs.
Further north of Spiro, the Plains peoples still maintain traditional mythology regarding the milky way that is nearly identical to that described in accounts of Maya mythology. Even the terminology is identical. I can't analyse the language enough to tell whether the actual words could be consideded cognates, but the terminology of the 'path of souls' in the dark central strip of the milky way, symbolized as a mythical tree, is identical. I had thought it very odd for an intact, isolated chunk of Mayan religion to end up in the northern Plains until I discovered how Mayan the Spiro culture was, right in the heart of the continent, situated at a key continental trading crossroads. They seemed to been infused with Mayan influence in practically every aspect of their culture except the use of Mayan written script. I guessed the group of mesoamericans who established the society at Spiro didn't include scribes. Or maybe there were only a few, poorly preserved written materials in existence as yet undiscovered. Incredible amounts of fragile American archaeological materials such as would have been used for writing have been thrown away in the haste to find precious metals in the grave goods.
The site is operated by the State of Oklahoma, which is in competition with the Wichitas, whose ancestors built Spiro, and the Choctaws, who were awarded the Wichitas' land in the 19th century. Rather than coordinating with the tribes to build an educational facility that would serve both the native population and tourists, the State has chosen to let the site languish. They didn't even bother to print pamphlets or build an informative website that could be used by local schools filled with American Indian children. I spoke to Indian kids living within 50 miles of the site who had been there, yet had no idea Spiro culture reflected their own history. The archaeological site is presented from a completely Eurocentric view as nothing more than evidence of some exinct and alien people whose graves had "unfortunately" been dug up in the 1930s and the grave goods sold off or discarded. The treatment of such a unique educational resource is pathetic and insulting and inexcusable. It pissed me off. I was tempted to give the poor guy manning the guest book an earful. I know he was wondering what I was thinking since I had been moaning, covering my face and shaking my head. But I wrote a letter to the archaeological association that maintians the interpretive center instead.
One interesting discovery was that those famous effigy pipes are really huge, up to a foot tall. The bowl for the burning herb is enormous.
for example, this effigy pipe from Spiro is about 15 inches tall with a bowl in the back of the figure about the size of a whiskey glass.
Somebody was definitely getting high around there.
I'd also like references to any scholarly material you've run across. This bit of pre-Columban history is underexplored, as far as I know, and I'd love to know what, if anything, has been written about it in recent years.
Hey, thanks.
I enjoy delving into ancient American history, but it is a guilty pleasure. It's an obscure, time-wasting hobby that isn't easy to share. It requires digging through obscure texts and traveling to obscure places. From the perspective of the outside world, it is an alien and not entirely noble heritage.
I haven't found any websites specific to the Spiro Mounds archaeological site. There don't appear to be many books available either, although I did see a couple of slim volumes in museum gift shops on the destruction of the mounds in the mid-1930s by a mining company. The thousands of artifacts that were removed from the burials at the site were quickly dispersed on the open market or discarded without identification. The bulk of the items that have been recovered are being held by the Gilcrease museum in Tulsa, but few of them are displayed, and the museum hasn't bothered to put together any kind of interpreative website. Neither have any of the regional universities.
The site itself is operated with meager funds as a state park. There are still quite a few people buried there. About 400 folks were dug up, but that is a fraction of the total buried. It is one of the biggest and longest used burial sites known in North America, in use up to the early 18th century, I believe. The park attendant was friendly and well informed about the history of the site, and apologetic about its neglect. It may be a symptom of a division between settlers and the Indians in the region I don't recognize. Unlike the Pacific Northwest, non-Indian institutions may tend to avoid developing native cultural resources there due to racial hostility that was too subtle for me to perceive.
It sounds to me like archaeological research is just beginning on the extent of Mesoamerican influence in agricultural societies throught North America. Significant connections are considered speculative, as nearly all of what is accepted about Amerindian agricultural societies is still speculative. The most authoritative books I have found on Cahokia, a parallel society to the one at Spiro much better represented online and in literature, are technical chronicles of the ongoing excavations up to the late 1990s. Cahokia and the Archaeology of Power Thomas E. Emerson, and Cahokia: The Great Native American Metropolis Biloine Whiting Young and Melvin L. Fowler. The authors rarely venture the slightest guess on cultural implications. There may be more information and obscure books available at the site itself, which is in an obscure area of St. Louis.
Albania, in the early 15th century, was a territory of small, quarreling fiefdoms ruled by independent feudal lords and tribal chiefs which made it easy prey for the Ottomans. In 1444, Skanderbeg, a former commander in the Ottoman army, returned to Albania and managed to unite the country in fighting the Ottomans. He had considerable success but the unity crumbled when he died in 1468. He became the Albanian national hero, the symbol of the nation. I have seen the statue. It is huge.
The dates seem to indicate that the Mesoamerican influence in Amerindian culture developed hundreds of years following the collapse of Mayan civilization, but they haven't dug very deep yet. A lot of the evidence is under concrete or under water.
We can see that Mesoamerican culture spread with corn through North America, but we can't yet reconstruct the path.
Whatever you come up with will find an appreciative audience here.
If you reach the point where you are comfortable enough with your level of knowledge to write something reasonably empirical, you might want to consider a treatment a la "The Short History of the Balkans" that Pelle and all are assembling. It would be welcome here.
Oops, I didn't realize someone was using this stall. I should have refreshed.
LohrM
You once suggested an important book on Mayan history the title of which I didn't write down before the thread was deleted. Do you remember what it was?
I don't think Janissaries were castrated. An elite military force of fat contraltos seems counterintuitive. I have read that peasants would sell their sons to be made into eunuchs, some of whom acheived great power and influence.
You have sown doubts in my mind. Many of the high-ranking courtiers were eunuchs. Maybe I have lept to conclusions. I will check but I don't have the time now and I will be away for a week starting tomorrow.
In the 1820s, the Janissary corps resisted military reforms by the sultan of the time, mutinied and were bombarded into submission. Those who surrendered were executed.
Then, today, I find this in the Washington Times.
(cont.)
The reason no carriers were in port was because they were delivering aircraft to US island garrisons in anticipation of a Japanese attack. Admiral Halsey, aboard the Enterprise, was so concerned that he ordered any Japanese vessels encountered by his task force to treated as hostile (several days before the actual attack).
Command and control at Pearl Harbor was so complacent that the Navy missed two chances to alert the fleet in the hours before the attack (when a destroyer fired upon midget submarines on two occasions, and radioed contact reports that disapperared into hq.). The Army missed another chance when a radar station picked up the incoming Japanese, just before it closed down for the day. A junior officer failed miserably in his duty, and did not pass the sighting up the chain of command, telling the radar operators "not to worry about it."
Had the Japanese attacked an alerted Pearl Harbor, there would have been just as much outrage, only the attack might have failed.
Complacency at high levels breeds complacency at lower levels. The command and control system was not functioning on a war footing. Radar was not operating 24-7. Air patrols had huge gaps in coverage. Only two of the battleships were in a condition to sortie immediately.
The only explanation other than profound incompetence on the part of Kimmel and Short would be if they themselves were in on the "plot."
Thank you for your post. I'd read criticism of Borgquist before. Are you saying that the state department on Dec. 6 may have written the first draft of what became the infamy speech anticipating an attack somewhere, not necessarily at Pearl Harbor, and not necessarily on the next day?
I am not sure of the time line, and the piece referred to is badly written. It is possible that what you suggest might have happened, although I am not sure why State Department staff would write a Presidential address declaring war.
The US had decoded enough of the text of the message to deduce that Japan intended to attack US forces, and a warning was sent sent out to Pearl Harbor. Atmospheric conditions prevented radio transmission of the war warning, so it was sent by telegram. The telegram arrived at Fort Shafter during the attack.
The irony of the situation was that the Japanese had timed things so that their declaration of war (the 14th part of the message) would be delivered just before the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. Unfortunately, the insistance of the Foreign Office that senior staff decode the message delayed it so much that the declaration of war was not delivered until several hours after the attack had taken place.
I was 6 at the time and can remember my father mentioning that fact at the time. Of course, in our household, FDR was always "That Man".
I don't recall seeing the Chicago Tribune around our house as a child; but, I know my father put more stock in "Col." McCormick than he did in FDR.
For reasons that are still debated (even here) Hitler declared war on the United States several days after Pearl Harbor.
Your "Colonel" McCormick was lucky that he was not sent to prison after his paper revealed how US codebreakers had compromised Japan's naval codes, which enabled them to defeat the Japanese at Midway.
I've always wondered if the declaration was perhaps (1) an afterthought, given the naval war that already existed in the Atlantic (2) done in the thought that it might influence the Japanese to at least rattle sabres against the Russians or (3) a prelude to taking some kind of action in Iceland or the French Antilles...
a couple of notes-- as intent as the Greeks are on constructing a Byzantine heritage (yes, the Orthodox Church *does* fly a Byzantine flag), the Evzone uniform is hardly Byzantine...as opposed to being Really Silly.
The odd thing about the battle of Kosovo in 1389 is how little is really known about it...and how contrary to the 18th-19th century Serb nationalist myth the facts on the ground may have been.
Ottoman conquest of Serbia didn't become complete until a generation after Kosovo, and in 1389 most observers saw the battle as a draw. A few (Byzantine, largely), noting the death of the sultan, even saw it as a kind of Serb victory. Large numbers of non-Serbs (i.e., Hungarians) fought for Prince Lazar against the Ottomans; Serbs and Albanians were found on both sides of the battle.
Who manufactured the planes used by the pilots? Who were the pilots (I know that there were Commonwealth and Czech pilots; were there many from the USA?). Who maintained the planes?
Some consider this battle one of the great turning points of the war; if not its most significant. I don't see how the USA can be considered to have prevented the end of Western Civilization as we know it if the USA was not significantly involved.
Wombat may correct me on this, but I have a nagging memory that the RAF bought almost the initial run of the P-47...
I say again, FDR thought America's entry necessary to save Britain, the sole bastion of Western Civilization left untouched. And he was not alone as testify published sentiments of the time.
And there is a listing of each pilot's name, rank, and nationality who flew on the British side in the Battle of Britain. I'm sure a search of the internet can give the results.
The Tempest and Typhoon... Who knows when they entered RAF service?
Britain took over US planes ordered by the French that didn't arrive until after France fell. These included P-36's (Mohawks); A-20 bombers (DB-7's or Havocs); Martin Maryland bombers.
US aircraft that fought in the Battle of Britain were A-29 Hudson's and Vultee Vengeance's. They carried out air strikes against German shipping assets gathered for the invasion.
The British ordered what became the P-51 Mustang based on design drawings. Several were returned to the US as prototypes and test craft.
Other US supplies sent during the Battle of Britain were millions of Enfield cartridges, and Thompson submachineguns.
Nagumo's refusal to order a third strike prevented the destruction of the oil tank farms at Pearl Harbor. Would a third strike have succeeded? Would the US have finally detected the carriers? Could they have done anything about them?
Japanese targeting priorities were skewed throughout the war. The Japanese wasted their excellent submarine force attacking heavily protected warships instead of maritime commerce. They could have inflicted heavy damage on shipping, particularly during the early part of the war.
The USA also had a lot to do with the failures of WW II + causing the "Cold War". FDR thinking he could cajole "Uncle Joe" to his way of thinking?! Even had he lived, FDR would have found this task very difficult - if not impossible. Harry Hopkins being EXTREMELY sympathetic to the Soviet cause. Alger Hiss has been proven a traitor - to anyone not a died-in-the-wool far leftist. He was present at Yalta and Dunbarton Oaks. Some, if not all, of the farm was given away at the meetings held at these two locations.
The Yalta conference was--ultimately--a recognition that the Soviet Union would get hegemony in the areas that its forces occupied, and that it would not dispute British/US interests in some other areas. The one exception was Poland, and you could make an argument that Churchill and Roosevelt "betrayed" Poland (one must concede, however that Britain and the US were in a very weak position in that there were only Soviet forces in Poland). On the other hand, Stalin agreed to British primacy in Greece (which had a powerful and active Communist resistance movement).
Since the United States was counting on Soviet participation in the war against Japan, and the Soviet Union was receiving peace feelers from Germany, I challenge critics of Yalta to say how they would have done better (and to describe the results of their stance vis-a-vis postwar Europe).
Will your history of the Balkans eventually put the current fuss in Macedonia in some sort of context? Did it spring out of the fuss in Kosovo, or was it there all along?
Pelle's away for a week. The intent is to take it up to the present.
"left German ambitions unslaked . . . huge strategic disadvantage in the event of war with Germany." What in the world are you talking about? Are you suggesting that Germany would send an army of invasion to the shores of the USA? Or that Germany would have raised Hell in general in some "colonial" area? Or some other option?
A month later they receive a reply:
'Dear Sir, thank you for your letter. After weeks of testing we have established conclusively that your horse died of diabetes'.
I'm kind of surprised that this hasn't gone unchallenged. Since it's one of the ultimate hypotheticals, it won't bear much argument either way.
Let me just say that I don't think the Brits would have caved under any circumstances as long as Churchill was PM. He looked at the war with Hitler as a fight to the death, pure and simple. Since the Germans lost even the glimmer of a chance to launch Sealion after August, 1940, they had no means of actually killing Britain. Shades of the Napoleonic Wars. The Brits would have soldiered on as long as necessary.
As for the Soviets, I think a possible peace treaty more likely but only in the context of a respite. Stalin would have used the time to build up his ragged army for a counterstrike.
Again, I don't think the Germans had the means to strike a killing blow. The Soviets would simply have retreated into Asia. Since the two systems (so similar in many ways) were hopelessly incompatible, they were incapable of coexisting. Stalin would never have concluded a lasting peace treaty on unfavorable terms.
Now that even the Soviets are gone, it appears that the US saved Europe, and especially France, for the McDonalds Corporation.
Grafton finds the origin of the footnote in its modern sense with emigré French Huguenot scholars in Holland in the late 17th century, in particular Pierre Bayle and Jean Le Clerc. He also traces the different footnote styles ranging from the dry reference to a source (which is common now) to a parallel narrative, where the writer provides an insight into his journey through the archives, or comments on the main narrative. Gibbon is of course the master of the latter, and he gets his due share of the attention, as does the great Ranke - perhaps a bit too much, clearly being a subject of Grafton's admiration, but no great harm is done.
All in all this is an interesting and amusing exposé over some aspects of western historiography.
During the Russian Revolution, an armed detachment of the Bolsheviks enter a country estate. "Who are you?" asks the squiress. "We are the revolution; we want to make it so there are no more rich people." "My grandfather was a Decembrist, and he wanted to make it so there are no more poor people."
Ilya-- hmmmm... the lead character in Bely's "Petersburg" is, I believe, described as having a Russified name, his family having come from Tatar aristocracy...
I doubt that FDR was surprised. He had been doing everything in his power ( most of it extra-legal) to cause the USA to enter WW II.
gawd, I wish you guys would get tired of WWII.
we all grew up with it on the TV-- old movies every saturday or late-night --and in comic books
I noticed. Maybe WWII is neither near enough nor far enough in the past to sustain my interest. It's not exotic.
After landing and making his report one Japanese pilot fell to the floor stone cold, already dead for several hours but maintained by the inner spirit to finish his duty. This story was widely circulated and held as truth.
Good book on the war planning for both the Japanese and the US is Ron Spector's "Eagle Against The Sun"... Worth finding.
I fully expect those portions of FDR's papers not already open to the public will NEVER be open to the public. The man was -in a huge, self-serving way - a myth.
To be all things to all people through the depression AND THEN through WW II makes him, IMO, a much superior politician than those of you who would opt for Clinton.
There were a number of people who should have been cashiered after the Japanese attacked the Phillipines: MacArthur, Brereton, and Sutherland.
It took a while for US force commanders to be "shaken out" of peacetime routines, even after the attack.
Re Admiral Horthy and the Austro-Hungarian Navy:
Captain Von Trapp, the Sound of Music guy, was a successful A-H U-Boat commander. I believe he sank a French armored cruiser.
Yes...but, most of the anti-Nazi conspirators still wanted to retain much of what Germany had conquered, and would have preferred a separate peace with the US and Britain and continued fighting against the Soviet Union.
The Stinnett book is, as Wombat notes, utter crap. Roosevelt managed to be all things to all people (except the 'malefactors of great wealth' and their ilk) by simply *trying* everything. Much of the New Deal was about experimenting-- trying not just one but a whole list of proposals and policies. Roosevelt realized, I think, that the key to overcoming the economic collapse--and preventing any seriously radical movements from developing --was simply to show people that Something Was Being Done, to fight "fear itself" by a host of programs that offered a vision of activity, to convince people that, yes, the government gave a damn about them, that problems were being addressed, and that it was safe to bank or invest... In the end, it worked-- belief is as key to economics as to politics.
Plus the big negative is that FDR and his "people" never went back and killed the failing programs. Many of which we contend with - in some form - today. (FDR died 57 years ago!)
a new on-line journal about eastern european affairs...
But for us in the know, the fact that it has been debunked by senior military historians only proves that senior military historians are part of the conspiracy. That's the beauty of such theories.
The article cites a reviewer at Amazon as saying that those who don't believe Stinnet must be "brain-washed with liberal red fascist, left-wing extremist, pagan atheistic infanticidal merchant of death beliefs that won't let them face the real ugly truth."
I love stuff like that. The fact that Gore Vidal and some other left-wing jockey have joined the FDR-bashers goes to show that if you go far enough to the right you will meet those who have gone far enough to the left, and you can join hands in mutual gloating over the perfidity of FDR or the WTO, or any other entity you love to hate.
Why? One theory is that conservative hostility to FDR's New Deal continues to the present day, and has over time succeeded in slipping the meme of Roosevelt's political depravity in under the radar of our national consciousness, sabotaging our ability to apply logic to the situation.
Given FDR's notorious "government interference" initiatives like Social Security, banking and securities regulation, farm price supports and -- worst of all -- that pesky minimum-wage and collective-bargaining legislation, it's not surprising that conservative capitalists in the '30s and '40s felt a level of hatred for him that wouldn't be matched until the days of Bill Clinton. (My grandmother, the daughter of a banker ruined in the crash, once told me that the sulfuric name of "Roosevelt" was never uttered at her family's dinner table. Like Clinton in many '90s households, FDR was always referred to only as "that man in the White House.")
I bring it up because it is useful to point out that many of the problems that the conspirators had were with Hitler himself, not his aims for the expansion of Germany.
It was also made clear to anti-Nazi conspirators that the Allies would still insist on Germany's unconditional surrender, in the event of a successful coup.
One can also see a reference to Tauroggen (when General Yorck took Prussian forces out of Napoleon's retreating army in the aftermath of his failed invasion of Russia--in effect switching sides) as an invitation to join the Western Allies.
I don't believe he was a Catholic, but, should there be a new saint : Franklin Delano?
The Japanese could--and did--seize the oil fields in the Dutch East Indies. They could have done so without attacking the US as well.
I am very, very close to being an isolationist.
Clinton = FDR writ small
But of course, therein lies the malignant nature of the Republican isolation both then and in such a revisionist picture as I just sketched.
The two world wars as we can see ever more clearly now but certainly saw then were about a major clash of world views....the totalitarian v. liberal democratic...capitalist v. command/imperialist economies.
All of that a working out of huge forces of Western, now global culture that had been building for centuries.....
Do you people understand how vast (impregnable?) the Atlantic and the Pacific Oceans are!!
Retrospect helps. But, the only country that I see able to mount an offensive across these two oceans was the USA. On 7Dec1941 the USA did not, itself, realize this.
What was the population of the USSR in the war years?
What was the population of the USA in the war years?
Sooner - or later - attrition always plays a part in wars (at least 'til the Gulf War - all bets may be off following that war).
Very little use in continuing this "conversation". I'm off to bed.
Its a new day - and I slept well, thank you.
One of the lessons to be learned upon the death of Tito and devolution of the Soviet Union is that is it very difficult to govern disparate peoples.
Do you actually believe that the Nazis had the skill to govern - even with an iron fist - all those nations that you mentioned up-thread.
I tend to doubt it. Hitler was not that stable.
Would you actually choose to invade the USA through Alaska?
The existing rulers in "neutral" states and states that remained sovereign, but were allied with Germany, were "conservative" if not actually Fascist. A German victory would have kept them in power.
The key event behind the outbreak of the Balkan Wars was the formal annexation of Bosnia-Herzegovina by the Habsburg Monarchy in 1908. Despite an initial spasm of sabre-rattling, Russia in 1908 was still too weak after the disasters of 1904-06 to consider a direct confrontation with the Monarchy and its German ally. Russian diplomatic efforts focused instead on creating regional alliances in the Balkans to counter further Habsburg expansion. Russian diplomats in Sofia and Belgrade provided assurances of financial and political support for Bulgaria and Serbia, the region's key states, and worked to nurture a tentative rapprochement between the long-standing rivals. Yet it was soon obvious that, whatever the diplomats and generals in St. Petersburg had hoped, any Balkan alliance would not be defensive-directed against the Habsburg Monarchy -but instead offensive, directed against the Ottoman Empire.
The Ottoman Empire in 1912 had become an inviting target. The "Young Turk" revolution of 1908 had subverted traditional loyalties to the Sultanate and invoked the spectre of a Western-style nationalism, which threatened the Sultan's vast number of non-Turkish subjects. The ineptitude of the Young Turk junta in the 1911/12 war with Italy in Tripolitania was matched by its handling of discontent in the empire's Albanian vilayets, where clan and village leaders protested the loss of traditional Albanian privileges and "modern" nationalists clamored for Albanian-language schools and greater representation in an Ottoman parliament.
The Balkan Wars opened the 20th-century tradition of large-scale, deliberate slaughter of civilians. In the case of Ottoman atrocities, the motive was simple revenge: Thracian and Macedonian villagers were made to pay for Serb and Bulgarian victories by the retreating Turks. In the case of the Balkan armies, the motive was often ideology. The claims of nationalism required vengeance be taken for "historical" wrongs by the enemies of the nation. Territorial claims were made on the basis of history, and the presence of other ethnic groups on "national" land undercut the claims of nationalist myth.
The final sieges ended the First Balkan War and provided a bridge to the implosion of the Balkan alliance. By the time a formal peace was signed on 30 May 1913, the Greeks and Serbs were already conspiring to extend their own conquests in Macedonia at the expense of Bulgaria. Approaches were made to Romania, offering territory in the Bulgarian Dobrudja. A weakened Bulgaria was now in the position of the Ottoman Empire a year earlier. Bulgaria had mobilized a full 25% of its total manpower, and its fragile economy was near collapse. Given the deep unpopularity of continued mobilization, the Bulgarian government had only two options: use its army now or be forced to demobilize. After a series of skirmishes and sniper attacks between Bulgarian and Serbian positions in Macedonia, Bulgarian armies launched pre-emptive attacks in late June against both Serb and Greek forces.
Casualty figures for the two Balkan Wars reflected both the effect of modern weapons (especially the large numbers of Krupp and Schneider-Creusot artillery pieces) and the primitive state of medical care and supply networks. Bulgaria lost at least 32,000 dead, 110,000 wounded, and 34,000 dead of disease. Greece lost about 7700 dead and perhaps 44,000 wounded and sick. The Montenegrins lost just over 3000 dead and 7600 wounded, most around Scutari. Serb casualties are disputed, but a good recent estimate suggests total losses of about 37,000 dead and 55,000 wounded. Ottoman figures are at best guesswork, but an overall figure of 100,000 casualties seems reasonable. Such figures suggest percentage losses, especially for Bulgaria and Montenegro, on a scale as intense as anything seen in the Great War.
Atrocity and counter-atrocity here did not grow out of ancient communal hatreds. They were born out of the replacement of the Ottoman millet system by the exclusivist claims of the Western integral nationalism adopted by the Balkan states. Massacre was incited and accepted by the propaganda efforts of the Balkan governments. The notorious Greek poster series showing why Bulgarians were not in fact human had its counterparts on the walls (and in the schoolrooms) of the all the other Balkan states. To be "national", to be "modern" was to learn to hate.
(END)
Do you actually believe that the Nazis had the skill to govern - even with an iron fist - all those nations that you mentioned up-thread.
Joseph J. Ellis, the Pulitzer Prize- winning historian whose latest book, "Founding Brothers: The Revolutionary Generation," has been a national best seller for 26 weeks, admitted yesterday that he had misled his students at Mount Holyoke College into believing that he was an airborne soldier in Vietnam when in fact he never served in Vietnam.
Professor Ellis, a well-known scholar of early American history and a Mount Holyoke professor who teaches a popular course on Vietnam and American culture, had also been accused in an article in yesterday's editions of The Boston Globe of exaggerating his role in the antiwar and civil rights movements and otherwise embellishing his experiences in the 1960's. The Globe said these statements were made to students and in interviews.
In any case, I moved the Balkans stuff including the full text of LohrM's Balkan Wars to Geocities:
http://www.geocities.com/pelle108/Balkans/index.html
I hope Wombat will be around later to change the link in the butterscotch bar (yes, I can do it but I don't like mucking about in other people's threads unless strictly necessary).
Thanks for all your inputs on the WW II question/s. I enjoyed reading your responces; whether I agreed with them or not.
Quo vadis our much acclaimed effort (thunderous one-hand clapping)? Never mind, it's a fun thing to do.
Montenegro popped up as an actor in the wars. Perhaps a short monograph would be in order. I can do that. In order to tie into present concerns maybe we should do something on Macedonia as well. My recollection is that "Macedonian" is a construct and that the people are really Bulgarians and were considered such until nationalism became a la mode. Do you have enough for a write-up?
As you note in "Balkan Wars", WWI on the Balkans was really more of the same so I suggest we fast-forward to Versailles. I have a couple of books that deal with President Wilson and how he and his actions were perceived by the Europeans. It's not flattering but rather fun. I could do something on that and at the same time introduce the major actors in the drama.
If you would consider the games leading up to the creation of Yugoslavia, nominally a union of "South Slavs", but really a vehicle for Serbian domination of the region?
Go to Cairo or Jerusalem or Damascus and try the coffee there.
AFAIK, there used to be linguistic continuum between Ile de France and Calabria, but French and Italian primary schooling destroyed it.
There were fairly large-scale armed revolts opposing the creation of a "Yugoslav" kingdom in 1918-20. Even calling it "the kingdom of the Serbs, Croats,and Slovenes" didn't disguise the Greater Serbia aspect. Montenegrin independence ended with the destruction of the "Green" (pro-independence) Montenegrin forces by the Serb army at Cetinje. The Slovenes got a better deal at first, simply by virtue of being a compact linguistic group that was far away from Belgrade and had no (unlike the Croats) claim on a leadership role.
I wish tcKrulak were still online.
Well, it is up now and I haven't done anything. It is possible that you have the old version sitting in your disk cache. Do a "refresh" or "reload from server".
I'll reorganise the page a bit. To have the chapter headings and the maps in parallel columns is misleading.
Now I have to read it, simply to be able to disagree with you.
The Clark book is excellent, by the way. But as a book to take with you-- Tim Judah, "Kosovo: War and Revenge" is a must-read.
"the ego has landed" ha! Did you think of that yourself?
Speaking of which Slobo now appears headed for the Hague Pelle.....
I don't think Ellis was a military historian. He was not even a historian of the period about which he made his claims.
While I suspect many people occasionally embellish aspects of their past, maybe so often that they actually believe it, Ellis seems egregious. I suspect he will end up losing his job. Perhaps he was doing it "for effect," to keep his students' attention.
Ethnic cleansing: It conjures up images of burned-out houses, streets filled with rubble and ragged children crying. And then later, more images: mass graves and human remains being pulled from them.
The term "ethnic cleansing" became common during the years of violence in the Balkans, as news programs were flooded with such images from Bosnia and Kosovo. Now that the fighting has calmed, scholars have started to reflect on what happened. How can we explain this eruption of hatred? And do the horrors of the former Yugoslavia have anything in common with other attacks on ethnic minorities?
Norman Naimark, the Robert and Florence McDonnell Professor of Eastern European Studies, senior fellow at the Institute for International Studies and, by courtesy, at the Hoover Institution, takes a profound new look at these questions in his book Fires of Hatred: Ethnic Cleansing in Twentieth-Century Europe.
I promised something on Wilson and Versailles but I have been procrastinating. My excuse is that the weather has been very nice here lately and in the evenings the bike is more tempting than the books.
How is the bar exam (or whatever it is called) going? What does it entail?
In the meantime, some excerpts from The Econimist's review of Wesley Clark's book:
In a bitter, though intriguing, work of self-justification, he describes backroom battles during and after the air war, for which he was punished a few weeks later by early retirement. He recalls his struggle with William Cohen, America's defence secretary, and with the service chiefs for permission to use Apache helicopters, which could have shattered Serb forces in Kosovo.
The general succeeds, some of the time, in convincing the reader of the baseness of his tormentors' motives. Critics of the war within the Pentagon had rightly predicted that the most immediate effect of NATO bombing would be to worsen misery for Serbs and Kosovars alike. On General Clark's account, their objections appear as a mask for infighting between different military commands
Many of General Clark's points are sound, and his underlying belief that politicians should listen to generals is not in serious dispute. His weakness is to confuse being listened to with having a free hand. If his aim was to show that soldiers in wartime should be insulated from civilian interference and allowed to "get on with the job", he succeeds in doing the opposite. Many readers will shudder at the degree of power General Clark believed was his due.
I do want to discuss reviews of Clark's book. I disagree with the Economist's reading of what Clark thought was "his due", though I do agree that Clark was confused by the politics of the war, by the need to bring the allies along.
The Hunley was one of the first submersibles used in combat. It was designed to operate against Union warships blockading the Confederate port of Charleston. It was powered by hand, and was without an external supply of air. Its attempts to operate submerged caused it to sink twice, killing its crews (including its inventor/designer, Horace Hunley).
For its last last mission, it operated on the surface, but was almost invisible. The Hunley was able to approach the USS Housitanic (sp?) and stick its spar torpedo into the hull. When the torpedo exploded, the resulting wave swamped the Hunley, sending down for the third time. The Housitanic sank. The blockade remained effective.
When we talk about "the Peace" we think about Versailles, but in fact there was a series of peace treaties:
Venue Peace with 28 Jun, 1919 Versailles Germany 10 Sep, 1919 St. Germain Austria 27 Nov, 1919 Neuilly Bulgaria 4 Jun, 1920 Trianon Hungary 10 Aug, 1920 Sčvres Turkey 24 Jul, 1923 Lausanne Turkey
League of Nations and required the signatories to join that body. The US Congress did not agree. Consquently, the US had to conclude separate treaties with Austria, Germany and Hungary. This took place 25-29 August, 1921 in the capital of each country.
The reason Sčvres was not implemented was, to put it simply, Kemal Atatürk. By 1920-21 his movement had managed to pull Turkey out of the chaos and confusion that had raged since the final phases of the war. His government simply refused to sign the peace.
Sčvres was replaced by the treaty of Lausanne from which the references to autonomy for Kurdistan and Smyrna had been removed, along with a number of other clauses intended to restrict Turkey's sovereignty. The conclusion of the peace was followed by large-scale population transfers: some 1,300,000 Greeks from Turkey to Greece and 400,000 Turks in the opposite direction amidst a lot of suffering and deprivation. It also meant the end of Greece's so called Great Idea which had been the guiding force for her foreign policy since independance- The Great Idea called for the resurrection of the Byzantine Empire to include all Greek settlements in Europe and Asia Minor.
(end of this part)
It has often been stated that WWI changed the world, and that is true. Historians talk about "the long 19th century" 1789-1914 followed by "the short 20th century" 1915-1989. Before the war there were four empires: Austria-Hungary, Germany, the Ottoman and Russia. By the end of the war they had all collapsed and seven new nations had emerged. Four of them, Finland and the three Baltic republics had taken advantage of the confusion in revolutionary Russia to gain independence. The three others, Poland, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia were created by the peace treaties.(Albania was also a new country but it came into being as a result of the settlements after the Balkan wars 1912-13.)
Poland is a funny country. It pops in and out of history and is never exactly in the same place. The Poland we se today is not the one created in 1919. It has migrated to the west, gaining territory from Germany after WWII and losing land to present Belarus, Lithuania and Ukraine.
One of the big questions facing the peacemakers was of course how to dispose of the territories that were left over when Austria and Hungary had been reduced to rump states. Wilson's fourteen points provided the answer:
X. The peoples of Austria-Hungary, whose place among the nations we wish to see safeguarded and assured, should be accorded the freest opportunity to autonomous development.
The problem was that the nationalism that had developed during the 19th century tended to equate people with "nation" and nation with territory. Autonomy required territorial control. But in central and south-eastern Europe the distribution of peoples over territory was a hopeless mess. 
The map is from Raymond Pearson's book National Minorities in Eastern Europe 1848-1945. It is impossible to see any details at this size and resolution (the original is not much better) but if you know that each dot represents a nationality you understand that it was not possible to create any state without creating a significant minority problem.
The result was two monstrosities, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia (initially known as the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes). In the words of Pearson:
The artificiality of the entirely novel states of Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia was most striking. Expedient agglomerations of territory attached at Allied insistence to the supposedly more mature 'cores' of (respectively) Bohemia and Serbia, their total lack of organic development got the new states off to a shaky start. The frontiers of the states were so arbitrary, with the scantest regard for national identities or the opinions of the resident populations, that quarrels over territory were unavoidable. Within each state, the largest nationality failed to reach majority status, weakening its overall authority and offering the various minorities considerable scope for opposition (whether constitutional or illegal). The combination of undeniable artificiality, the antagonism of neighbouring states and the numerical weakness ofthe leading nationality made Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia the most vulnerable of the east European states.
To a remarkable extent, Czechoslovakia was manufactured in the West, by Czech refugees under license from the Allies in co-operation with emigrants out of touch with the opinion of their homeland, and then presented to the indigenous Czech and Slovak populations as a fait accompli for their rapturous applause.
Well, let us leave Czechoslovakia which, after all, is not in the Balkans, but before we go let us note that its territory included the Sudetenland, home of some 3.5 million Germans whose "liberation" was Hitler's first step on the way to recreate pre-Versailles Germany, and who were ruthlessly driven out after WWII.
As another totally new state with only the most tenuous medieval antecedents, Yugoslavia found its patent artificiality (and constitutionally irregular origins) so undermining its general legitimacy as to provoke the hatred and competitive acquisitiveness of longer- established neighbours. Hardly a single frontier of Yiigoslavia could he termed settled and uncontentious throughout the i 92os and i 93os. To the north-west, the lstria area with the ports of Trieste and Fiume were claimed by Italy under the provisions of the Treaty of London of 1915, despite a Slovene majority and the considerable embarrassment of the Allies. Arguments with Austria to the north were shrill until calmed by the Klagenfurt plebiscite of 1922. The long frontier with Hungary was bitterly disputed by the Budapest government as isolating substantial settlements of Magyars in the Banat area of Yugoslavia. In the south, Albania complained about the large Albanian colony included in the Kosovo area of Yugoslavia. To the south-east, the acquisition by Yugoslavia of Macedonia, the traditional prize of Balkan victory in the last decades of peace, incited the Greeks to advance ambitious claims and galvanised the Bulgars into a sustained campaign of cross-frontier provocation and terrorism.
The Serbs intended to dominate the new state. Like the Czechs, the Serbs obscured their demographic weakness by officially introducing a composite 'Serbo-Croat' nationality, an ethnic bracketing even more preposterous than the 'Czecho-Slovak'. The 'Serbo-Croat', a statistical monstrosity if ever there was one, included not only the unarguably distinct Serhs and Groats but Macedonians, Montenegrins and even Bulgars. The most accurate definition of a 'Serbo-Croat' was really that of any Slav in Yugoslavia who was not a Slovene.
(end of this part)
NOTE: Raymond Pearson is a professor of history at Ulster University, Londonderry. The book is from 1983.
From the Spanish Armada to HMS'es Victory, Dreadnought , USS Monitor, Mahan, Turpitz, Fisher etct etc....fantastic!
Especially fasinating, old film footage of the return of bodies from USS Maine and of the Battle of the Straits of Tsushima(!!!!) taken from the Russian Fleet.
A Must See.
Why the quotation marks? A Swedish convention perhaps (?)
"The creation, training, supplying, and employment of the AEF had been a remarkable feat," Eisenhower writes near the end of his history. "From a force of only 200,000 officers and men of the Regular Army and National Guard in April 1917, America had raised an army of over four million, of whom about half had crossed the Atlantic."
he has written a solid, unromantic, technically attuned book, one that pays almost as much attention to supplies and logistics as it does to orders of battle. It is not a stylish book. Look for no sweeping rhetoric here, no Churchillian depictions of manly battle, though Eisenhower does single out a few doughboys and tells their war stories, including some grim and grisly ones.
he does devote ample attention to the conflicts among the commanders of the three major powers. These conflicts were especially serious between the French and the Americans, with Foch always pressing for American forces to be part of existing French units and Pershing striving to create an independent American force. independent American force.
The full review
His ego was astronomical. Thus, he did not take anyone to Versailles who did not, basically, agree with him. (Not that there were that many USA scholars expert in middle or southern European politics and/or history at that time). The official USA Peace Commissioners were 4 Democrats (headed by Wilson) and 1 Republican (Henry White - who was a long time diplomat and not considered a Republican by that Pary's leaders).
Once it became clear to Wilson that Senator Lodge was waging a very successful attack on the League of Nations, he took off on his "whistle stop" railway tour of the USA in an attempt to put pressure on his opponents in the Senate. It was on this trip that he suffered at least one stroke. The stroke that ended his political career occurred on 25Sept1919 (his presidency extended until 4March1921). Therefore, the USA was, essentially, leaderless in foreign policy for 18 months.
Wilson was an odd duck. He threatened to leave the post of president of Princeton as, on his salary, he could not live in the manner in which he thought he should become accustomed. Two old classmates (as I recall it was the McCormicks - of the reaper fortune) supplemented his salary. Thus, began his ties to big busines; which are almost never mentioned in histories that cite or center on him. He wrote a history (not a very good one according to critics); but, was not really interested in history and, furthermore, was not a "reader" himself. H.L. Mencken frequently made references to his Presbyterian minister father and was not bashful about pointing out that he believed that Wilson tended to preach to the populace of the USA; not talk.
Most of you are aware that I believe that the USA should never have entered WW I; and Woodrow Wilson is the main reasons.
I will do a piece on Wilson and Versailles soon, perhaps over the weekend if the weather stays bad.
Ranheim's portrayal of Wilson's personality appears accurate. The very "American" mix of ignorance, naivete and preachiness was much derided by the Allies at Versailles, although in retrospect, their cynicism and obtuseness was no better.
Wilson also alienated Republicans who were sympathetic to a more "internationalist" United States. One wonders whether or not Teddy Roosevelt would have thrown his immense prestige behind the League of Nations had he lived. I suspect that there would have been more agreement on the US and the League had Wilson not been the one behind it.
Lent to me 2 years ago on an express promise to return by someone who's friend, a Rutgers history prof wrote....guilt...guilt...guilt....
It focuses on Wilson 
I rarely regret not having cable. Sounds like this is one time that I do. 
HMS Victory - Flagship, Second Sea Lord
Battleships - Harley Davidsons - Penis Power!
Wilson's performance at Versailles is widely seen as an abysmal failure and so it was, if his achievements are compared to his own ambitions as expressed in the Fourteen Points (FP). But it is possible to see things from another perspective. If the FP had not been formulated and if Wilson had not continued to push for them Germany would have been treated even more harshly,and borders would have been drawn even more arbitrarily. The idea to hold plebiscites in the Saarland, Holstein and Kärnten (in south-eastern Austria) to find out where the people wanted to belong had not materialised and the principle that colonies should eventually become independent had not been formulated. The FP were subverted in almost all specific cases but no statesman could afford to publicly reject the general principles they embodied.
Wilson made many mistakes in Versailles. The most fundamental was to go there in person. As noted by John Maynard Keynes (who was attached to the British delegation), Wilson came from academia but he was not an academic person. His natural place of performance was the speakers platform where he could embroider on his lofty ideals to the multitude. He was not used to the atmosphere of the academic seminar where arguments are dissected in great detail and opposing views must be entertained. When he came face to face with men like Clemencau, Lloyd George and Palmerston, men of wit and agile minds, seasoned by countless parliamentary debates and international negotiations, Wilson was helpless.
An excellent quip came out of Versailles. Was it Clemenceau or Lloyd George who said of Wilson? : "Wilson has his 14 Points to solve the troubles of this war; the Good Lord had only 10 to solve the problems of the world for all time!" (I know that is a paraphrase).
For Harley's substitute oh I dunno...say 1967 Mustang 427ci full blown hemihead engine????
That's a pretty telling comment on arms races generally....NMD????? 
If Palmerston was at Versailles, that would have been quite a trick, seeing as he had been dead for decades before.
Jex:
Heligoland "Bight." Also, I would not draw too many comparisons between the battleship race and NMD. Apples and Oranges.
I came across the story of Lily Marlene. It was recorded in Berlin in 1937 by the actress Lale Andersen. It sold moderately well but was no hit. In 1941 the Germans invaded the Balkans. They established a radio station in Belgrade to transmit entertainment programs for the North Africa Corps. Being short of records, a sergeant going to Vienna for some other purpose was given a sum of money to buy such. Among them was Lily Marlene. It was first transmitted on 18 August 1941 and became an instant hit among the German troops and an even bigger hit among the British.
What are your sources for your piece? It's fairly negative and not quite the perspective I taught in my US History classes, but that's no surprise.
One example that he was giving when I first turned to C-Span was the relatively rough treatment given to Grover Cleveland. A conservative by today's standards.
I was able to listen to all of his examples of the Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover presidencies and their treatment of WW I debt and the Income Tax. Due to WW I, the top rate of Income Tax in the USA had risen from the 4% of its initial days to 75 or 79% at the end of the Wilson years. Harding appointed as Secy. of the Treasury, Andrew Mellon. History texts always refer to him as "the scion of the Pittsburgh banking family" or "one of the richest men in the world". Mellon said that a tax rate so high would discourage investment and sought to lower rates. Always fighting with the Democratic members of Congress, Mellon succeeded in reducing the top rate to 20% in 1926. At the end of his tours of duty in 1932, Mellon had not only reduced the debt of WW I considerably; but, he had substantially increased taxes collected by Washington, D.C.
The speaker also added that almost immediately FDR raised Income Tax rates again. And, again, the amount collected by Washington decreased. Of course, the Depression was responcible for much of this decrease. However, the disparaging manner in which Mellon and free enterprise are treated in texts as opposed to favorable treatment given to high tax rates and spending by Washington D.C. was startling to me. Who has not looked at a high school history text in 50 years.
The unregulated stock market of the 1920s proved disastrous. Fortunately Hoover's successor took a more active role in the economy, and helped restore confidence in the stock market and banks by regulating them.
Jen:
Given what I have read about the quality of textbooks in Texas, I am not suprised that you find Pelle's analysis of Versailles at variance with what you teach.
Have you ever seen a tax of which you did not approve?
Have you ever seen a government program of which you did not favor? Just how big and expensive would the government have to be to satisfy you?
Although you do not realize this, the United States was on the brink of a political and social crisis by 1932. Failure to act decisively could have created conditions that may have led to a military coup or communist-backed social unrest. Either possibility would have meant much more government intervention, and in ways that would have been far more heavy-handed than anything that you complain about now.
It is too bad that you seem unable to differentiate between regulated market capitalism and socialism. If the Depression era demonstrated anything, it was the inadequacy of the existing non-governmental forces to deal with the financial ills that existed at the time.
Under the "oppressive" hand of Washington, the US has gone from strength to strength economically, while insulating most citizens from the occasional economic downturns that have taken place over the last 50 years.
ranheim lives in a rather special world. One filled with holes in which to hide one's head to the larger realities around him.
At least that was the talk at the time.
I don't think so.
I would imagine that I am one of the few contributing to the Mote who was actually alive during the Depression. The rest of you have to rely on 2nd hand accounts. In MN, we may have been poor. But, everyone in the small towns where my father was a teacher - later a principal and superintendent -there was plenty to eat; we had a roof over our head; and clothes to wear. No civil dis-obdeience. That was the late '60s and early '70s! Crime rates were low.
FDR did not have a clue as to how to end the Depression. (I question your conclusion that Mellon's policies caused the Depression. Or are you purposely forgetting that the Depression was world-wide in scope?). The two reasons for the USA pulling out of the Depression that have appeared credible to me are 1). WW II and 2). The Republican Congress in 1946 lowered taxes - AGAIN.
Does anyone see a pattern here? Mellon lowers taxes and the economy does well; with taxes flowing to Washington, D.C. The above named Congress does the same with similar results. Surely one of your heros - JFK - lowers taxes; again with the same results. Finally, Reagan lowers taxes with results which most of you can remember.
It is when the Government stifles enterprise by huge levels of taxation that this nation suffers. But, the fact is that most of you trust the Government to spend money in a wiser fashion than an ordinary citizen would. I don't. The Government pisses money away. If you do, too bad for you; but, that is only one family. When the Government does the same, it takes all of us down into a decline.
I have no hope of convincing any of you of this. You love Government!
Jefferson was correct people : "The Government that governs least, governs best."
First...try reading what I said concerning Mellon.
Second: Your experience in small-town Minnesota was not shared by those living in major industrial and commercial centers.
Third: A better argument can be made that increased spending stimulates a depressed economy (you know Keynes and all). In addition to cutting taxes, Reagan increased government spending. We certainly remember the hugely expanded deficit that resulted, one which our current President* seems to want to revive with his cockamamie economic policies.
Probably, living in cities was not as comfortable in the Depression as living in rural, small towns. IMO that fact continues on to this day. That is why I live in rural LA. I can make a good living wherever I choose to live; it is a quality of life issue that caused my wife and I to choose the country over the city and the suburbs. The '60s & '70s were the years of civil disobedience - whether one lived in rural America or the cities.
I thought Keynes was dead - literally and figuratively.
Industrial production:
1925: 100
1930: 129
1932: 61
In 1933 25% or so of the work force was unemployed.
It stands to reason that in a society without any safety nets this situation must have lead to great social strains.
BUT - Everyone had a garden. My grandparents on both sides owned farms. So we were never out of meat or vegetables.
My father almost went into the ministry. When rationing came into being in WW II, it was a huge moral issue for him as to what to do with his cigarette coupons. He felt is was not morally correct to trade them. But, he ended up doing so as his growing family needed shoes; etc. And acquaintances were willing to trade items we children needed for the cigarette coupons he did not use.
Rural MN was no hardship - at least for my family and its close friends - in the Depression. As long as I retain my health, another Depression would not be a hardship for me or my family. We own a large double lot and would go back to the days when our children were small when we had a large garden. A brother-in-law owns a farm. He would again raise chickens, hogs, and beef. I would feel sorry for the city people - except they chose to live there.
Industrial production means nothing to me now in rural LA. I doubt that it meant anything to my father in rural MN during the Depression.
My grandparents went through the Depression as heads of family. My maternal Grandfather had an excellent job in the stockyards yet drank his paycheck away every week, so my Grandma had to line up for free soup. Good pay meant nothing but that he could get licker'd up good. Just one of millions of stories of the Depression.
The more people who think like you will make it possible for me to continue to be rural.
There is still the divide : rural vs city. However, with only 2% of the populace being farmers, rural USA would suffer much more now than in the Depression.
One obvious example is a garden. There is more than enough room in my home town for many people to grow a garden. But, only a very few do. And, sadly, should the need arise, my wife and I (in our 60s) would be one the few people with the knowlege and the will to go back to the old days of growing one's own vegetables.
Welcome back! Although you have been posting to World Crossing. Ranheim nostalgia mostly.
Secret Sources features a "Korea: Stalin's Secret Air War"
Most MIG16 pilots were Soviet. This was not confirmed until 1989-90 archive opening as Stalin gave orders that no pilot was to be captured. In fact, the archives record incidents of downed Soviet pilots being machine gunned by their still-flying comrades so fearful was Stalin of provoking a wider war.
Also of interest, the comments of a HC regular,a military historian from the University of Hull.
"Britain's greatest contribution to the Korean air war was the Rolls-Royce Nen Engine, that Churchill gave to Stalin in 1945. The Russian copy was used in the MIG16 which was superior to any US jet at the time even marginally better than the F86 Sabre jet, which were deployed entirely in Europe until mid 1950. Until the Sabres arrived, US B-29's were grounded.
Rolls-Royce Nene, MIG 15, and I believe it was the Labour government that provided the Nene to the Soviets.
OR
Why history is confusing.
Remember "Hunt for Red October" and the "Crazy Ivan" maneuver?
Last night a presentation based on the book Blind Man's Bluff recounted the 4,700 mile tracking of a Soviet Yankee class nuke by Capt. Whitey Mack's attack sub. Can't hear Yankees at all outside of 3,000 yards. First incident of Crazy Ivan was the result of a leak about the tracking to the New York Times. When Moscow reported it to the sub, the captain went nuts and "invented" the Crazy Ivan.
According to Rolls Royce, 25 Nenes were shipped to the Soviet Union in 1946 as a goodwill gesture. Churchill was out and Attlee was in by then.
Anyway, I leave that to U and Eric Grove, Professor of Maritime History and Naval Strategy, University of Hull
House of Commons - Defence - Minutes of Evidence DR ERIC GROVE, Politics Department, University of Hull, examined. Question Number 1325 - 1339 1340 - 1359
THE CENTRE FOR DEFENCE AND INTERNATIONAL SECURITY STUDIES ... Submarines in the inter-war years. "RN policy and submarines and in the inter-war years" Dr Eric Grove, Director, Centre for Security Studies, Hull University
Curzon New Books Catalogue for download - Seapower in the Asia-Pacific in the Twenty-First Century Eric Grove, University of Hull
Eric Grove was a friend of mine when I was studying in Britain. His work on naval warfare past, present, and future is excellent.
"Back in 1945, which Britain was still pursuing a policy of getting as good a relationship with Stalin's Soviet Union as possible in the post war era, a British Rolls Royce then engine, a much more advanced jet engine than anything that the Russians themselves had, had been given to the Russians as a goodwill gesture. The Soviets just simply copied it. It became the cream of RD45, unlicensed copy, and it was used in the new fighter which flew in the closing days of 1945."
This says nothing about the Nenes that were sent in 1946. While the wording is ambiguous, Churchill was under no illusions about Stalin, and I very much doubt he would have done something as counterproductive as voluntarily supplying advanced technology to the Soviet Union. Harold Wilson, Minister for Trade and Industry under Attlee,usually gets the blame. Didn't stop him from becoming Prime Minister.
No SHIT!!!
If you don't mind, share more of your background please!
From what I have seen of him on the Military History Channel, I see an eccentric Brit....kinda guy I might like to know!
And that is exactly what he said on the program BTW...
Another interesting fact about the Alans is that they might be responsible for the legends of King Arthur, the Knights of the Round Table and the Holy Grail! For more information on that try to find From Scythia to Camelot, by Scott Littleton and Linda A. Malcor. Littleton and Malcor made the significant discovery that the scene of Arthur's death in Mallory's Morte d'Arthur, where the sword Excalibur was thrown into a lake, occurs in almost identical terms in the legends of the Ossetians in the Caucasus. There is a possible connection, since the Ossetians are descendants of the Alans, and Marcus Aurelius had settled a tribe of Alans, the Iazyges, whom he had defeated in 175 and taken into Roman service, in the north of Britain, where many of them settled at Bremetenacum Veteranorum, south of Lancaster. The legion to which the Iazyges were assigned, the VI Legion Victrix, was commanded by one Lucius Artorius Castus. "Artorius" looks like the Latin source of the name "Arthur."
Interesting.
hope they show some skin
Andorra -it's been around longer than you think
San Marino - it's real old and it's real small
I recall once kidding a Belgian on another forum, calling Belgium the 'Gateway to Luxembourg'. Don't think he 'got it', because he started posting about sightseeing at Luxembourg's castles, so I let that one pass.
Having seen pictures of the fortifications that remain, I doubt that any weapons short of those deployed in World War II would have had much effect.
Ok. Let's assume total and complete impregnability by 1860's standards. Let's also assume that a siege depending on starvation and attrition could not be successful. That's still not going to mean that occupation of Luxembourg's isolated fortresses will make it materially easier for the Germans to take Paris or for the French to take Cologne or Berlin.
Hence, Loar was embellishing the significance of any such agreement, IMO.
Just a rather annoying pimple.
If such a fort seemed an anachronism to Concerned's far-reaching mind then how to explain the fixed fortifications known as the Maginot Line a full 60 years later?
Yes there's dramatic license aplenty but the core decision-making problems so brilliantly analyzed in Allison's Essence of Decision Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis came through loud and clear.
Now the wait begins!
Good luck.
Never defended a thesis but having taken the DC and CA bar exams within one year of each other, I fear nothing academia can throw at me!
'cept maybe Calculus this fall.
Some social movement to give more political power to the middle class that was crushed
by Bishmark(?) and a monarch in France and that
resulted in many people from those countries immigrating to USA?
I'm not too clear on the details, but there was widespread socialist agitation in Europe around 1848 with early Marxists, Jacobites and other varieties shaking up the established monarchies in countries like France, Poland (Russia), etc.
Interestingly enough, in France, this ultimately resulted in Napoleon III establishing a dictatorship which lasted for over 20 years.
Bismarck didn't really make the scene until the 1850's.
There's a lot more than what I briefly mentioned, but the monarchies generally resumed control, there were some reforms, and nationalism flared in Germany and Italy with unification and the World Wars partly resulting therefrom.
My knowedge of European history after 1600 is scanty and that of before is fading.
Never was too clear re. Nappy # 3.
Wonder who were the leaders of those
mini Revolutions in Germany and France.
I vaguely recall even the Brothers Grimm were
involved .
Also, his actual blood relationship to Napoleon I may be open to question. I think it's quite a story, myself. Napoleon II? He was kept under house arrest in Austria for his natural life after Napoleon I was defeated, I believe.
Since he was considered a 'parvenu', most royal families in Europe didn't want to establish ties with him, so he wound up choosing Eugenie who was being shopped around Paris by her mother for that express reason.
How come we're not hearing about Hilliary's relationships with Monica and the others? Are we just too prudish?
The 1848 revolutions were overwhelmingly middle class in origin, with a strong nationalist tinge. As Pelle notes, the existing "peacekeeping" system (troops from unaffected regimes invade and restore the existing government, as designed by Metternich) failed.
With revisionists such as Wombat spinning away, 'history' will never be history, either.
If you think the Battle of Sadowa represented an easy Prussian victory, you should find out a little more about it.
Prussia's army had been considered a joke as late as 1860, and only six years of massive budget inflows (Bismarck's constitutional struggle with the Liberals opens here)made it a modern fighting force.
of 1848
but if you were referring to Pres. Clinton
pray tell what he has to do with this topic?
Are you actually pleased with the President of the USA that was selected for us?
And thanks to Snidely Wombat-lash, also. Regardless of Prussian military shortcomings in any particular battle in its war with Austria, the fact remains that the *war* was very short and decisively won by Prussia, being a stepping stone to continental military preeminence, the Franco Prussian War, Unification and all that followed through WWI.
What were the origins of the political thinking
behind this Revolution of 1848.?
Had whomever they were that were able to organize
people to demand more political rights, had
they been studying USA constitution?
From that, I half expect Wombat to propose that the whole war was a close run thing, based on his tone about the 1866 conflict between Prussia and Austria.
The war of 1866 was short, but not because of a decisive victory at Koniggratz. The defeat in Bohemia was bad, but much of the Habsburg army coomand, led by the Archduke Albrecht, who had brought up his victorious forces from Italy, were quite willing to fight on along the line of the Danube. The decision to end things was political, based on Hungarian political pressure and fear of financial collapse even if the Prussians were defeated. It also helped that Bismarck chose not to try to hang on to Prague and did not want to fight a long war that might bring France in.
It was more or less a set of spontaneous and fairly unrelated uprisings (most famously in Paris) but in all other capitals too. In Italy, it meant nationalism, in Paris, something else, in Berlin and Vienna and narrowly missing in London something else too....
Call it hair of the dog that bit 'em in the French Rev and in Napoleon...
World War I, in the words of George Kennan, "was the seminal catastrophe of the Twentieth Century." It left its powerful impact on everything from the international system and domestic politics to the most intimate relationships between men and women.
The Great War has stimulated excellent works not only of biography (and autobiography), economic and social history, diplomatic and military history, but--most recently--much of the most innovative scholarship in Alltagsgeschichte and the new cultural history.
Because of the Russian Revolution and Civil War, the Great War was of little interest to Soviet historians and its memory "repressed" in Russian society (cf. Dan Orlowsky, "The Great War and Russian Memory"). At least partly for that reason, scholarship on the Great War, especially since 1945, has been overwhelming devoted to the Western Front. (An example of this historical bias can be seen in George Mosse's otherwise admirable book, Fallen Soldiers: Reshaping the Memory of the World Wars, (which--in spite of its broad title, is in fact almost entirely about the experience of British, German, and (a poor third) French societies. Yet the war on the Eastern, Mediterranean, and Caucasian fronts were arguably far more significant in terms of their impact on the lives of civilians and on the fates of nations than events in the West. Much of these stories, however, remain to be told. Although our own expertise is largely in Central European history, we welcome participants from any national perspective.
Potential participants are also advised to familiarize themselves with the basic context by reading before the semester begins at least one good book about the war in the country of their choice. Those in German history could not find a better introduction to the variety of issues raised by the war than Roger Chickering's excellent survey, Imperial Germany and the Great War (Cambridge, Paperback, New Approaches to European History series, 1998. ISBN In fact, this book--a model of its kind--is recommended for anyone.
For the other countries, there is unfortunately no single book that combines Chickering's breadth with comparable economy.
But here are some that we like and/or that have suggested by colleagues - History 285 -Research Seminar WWI
The conduct of the battles leading up to Sedan reminds me of the Seven Days Battles outside Richmond in the Civil War, when Union forces outfought the Confederates in every battle, but because the Army-level leadership was too cautious and fearful, the Federal forces ended up abandoning the campaign.
*yawn*
Just a few months ago I came across
a book , title forgotten, recent tho,
guy walked (sic) the 400 mile length of the
trence dug in WWI between Belgium and Switzerland
and recounts the unbelievale slaughter of lives
on both sides and the stupidity of the
officers who caused much of the senseless
killing.
do you have a scanner that can copy and
then put in a site like The Mote the info
you posted in 2849&49?
Yes. The Prussians watched the Communards self destruct and the Parisians slaughter each other by the tens of thousands.
Even dumb Krauts were too smart to jump right into that zoo.
In his 700-page report to the court Evans examined the credibility of some of Irving’s earlier works, among them The destruction of Dresden(1963) which launched him as a historian of WWII and Nazi Germany. Evans found that Irving’s original claim of 135,000 dead was based on a second-hand, uncorroborated source. Irving later revised it to 202,000 on the evidence of a source that was later proven to be falsified, a fact that Irving suppressed. According to Evans, the number of dead cannot be proved to have been higher than 20,000.
I have always been put off by people assuming that the commanders on the Western Front in WW-1 were "stupid". In the main, they weren't. Even C.S. Forester's "The General", acid as it can be, recognized that. I think that the commanders thought that the risks of trying new kinds of war was were too high. And, too-- until the coming of large numbers of tanks, what options did they have? Once the trenches happened, what options were there? And it was after all the policy-makers and not the generals who refused to negotiate a peace.
Not only the global catastrophe of the second world war but several of the world's bitterest problems more than 80 years on can be traced to decisions taken in Paris in the first half of 1919. Among them are the creation of Burundi, Rwanda and Iraq, the instability of the Balkans and the Caucasus, the poisoned relations between Greece and Turkey, and, above all, the feud between the Arabs and the Israelis.
Wilson's fellow countrymen, and many British observers, followed John Maynard Keynes in blaming the failure of the conference on the vindictiveness of the French in general and of Clemenceau in particular. Margaret MacMillan, in this lucid and lively retelling of the story, does not agree. Her detailed account takes in the vast sweep of affairs determined in Paris, from the future of German colonies in Africa to the partition of the Ottoman empire. She argues that the conference has been blamed for many disasters that were, in fact, determined either by events that took place before it began or by later troubles.
The book could be an interesting read. There has been a tendency to stereotype Versailles into a match between the hopelessly idealistic Wilson and the revenge-seeking, super-realist Clemenceau egged on by the British.
After consolidating his rule in China, Kubilai Khan sent envoys to demand tribute from Japan and threatened reprisals if they did not. From the palace at Kyoto the Japanese answered that their nation had divine origins and therefore was not to be subject to anyone, and they began preparing a defense. Skeptical about Japan's claim, Kubilai Khan felt that he could not permit a little power like Japan to defy him. In 1274 he launched an assault on Japan from southern Korea -- a Mongol, Chinese and Korean force, with 600 to 900 ships, 23,000 troops, catapults, combustible missiles, bows and arrows. Bad weather compelled the invasion force to return from Japan's southern most major island -- Kyushu. In the summer of 1281 Kubilai Khan tried again, this time sending some 4000 ships. For fifty-three days the Japanese held the invaders to a narrow beachhead on Kyushu. Then a hurricane struck. The Mongols withdrew again, only half of his force making it back to China. The Japanese interpreted their good fortune as he work of their gods. labeling the hurricane as a god wind -- kami-kaze. It would be the last attempt to invade Japan until 1945, when kamikaze would also be a word of significance.
Take a look at this map. To the south of Sweden is Germany, Denmark (occupied by Germany), Poland (occupied by Germany) to the west is Norway (occupied by Germany). To the east are Finland and the Baltic states. Germany had troops in all these countries.
The towns and cities in Sweden depended on coal for heating. Coal was also critical for the industry. Sweden has no domestic supplies of coal. Germany which controlled virtually all coal mines in Europe except those in the UK could easily have cut supplies causing a probable collapse of society.
What responible government could have afforded heroic gestures of defiance under these circumstances? Sweden's record during the war is nothing to be proud of but nothing to be ashamed of either.
Maybe the Reign of Terror in the French Revolution is a good place to start, though.
Wombat said (International)
"If you treat the Bible as history, you could find it there (salutory massacres to cow a region's population). Others will no doubt contribute, but I would suggest that the Hashisheen (Assassins) are the prototype of a modern terrorist group."
In a quick web search I found something which suggested the French Revolution, as you've said.
I wonder.
If you want to see the face of a very early terrorist look to that mask of Sarkan II - the one with the eyes pierced out. That's the face of a terrorist.
When I have time I'll try to find a link to the mask I'm talking about.
Well, Wombat had an interesting point, I think, in his mention of the Bible as a source. 
My understanding of the assassins was that there was a politico-religious element to them. They certainly terrified local rulers, and carried out at least one attempt to assassinate Crusader leaders.
Again, any prescription against terrorism must at the very onset define terrorism, which the State Department's list does by mention.
The Assassins were concerned with an internecine Muslim struggle, and rarely became involved with the Latin East, though they were supposed to have killed Conrad of Montferrat and corresponded with Frederick II Hohenstaufen when he was in Jerusalem.
I'll agree with Scott-- the Irgun, targeting British soldiers and officials, would not be 'terrorists'-- however ruthless, they were waging war against an army and a government, not attacking civilians for psychological effect.
At this time the present seems to crowd out the past so I will put this thread on RIP status. But if somebody volonteers to host that will be withdrawn.
Yes, most all threads get Archived to the best of my knowledge.
Mata Hari
This was the interesting name of a former Russian principality which existed about 300 miles north of Moscow from 1238 - 1486 which was derived from the lake Belo Ozero (White Lake).
There is little doubt that it was often 'below zero' in this frostbitten part of northeast Europe.
BTW, my computer won't let me turn it off until it says so.
The Mote | Mote Archive
back to top
