Military Literature

[Jourdan]

hohum...

 

well, let's stop accusing people of being amateur scientists and historians. instead, i'd like to see you expand the above essay to answer the following:

 

1. could the US' decision to go into europe, "kick nazi asses", and get the "lion's share in the spoils" been different/early/delayed from atual had the japs not bombed pearl?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

of course, it'll be different. losing a fleet is always a setback. but the japs gave the americans a valid reason to join the war.

 

2. was europe that rich after an allied victory?

resource-wise yes. and oh, the colonies. don't forget them jewels.

 

then why did the US, your everwhelming "top dog", agree to a multi-lateral arrangement with other powers regarding the disposition of "spoils"?

 

politics of course. The emerging communist Russia would be a tough rival. You obviously wanted to surround a big bully with your friends. Besides, there was an emerging new world order...nationalism is on the uptrend and it would be terribly unwise for the Americans to bully them Europeans.

 

And tell me, why impose your will on them by having ur big fat ass on their soil when u can easily peg their economies to the dollar? That's what US did. A vibrant Europe reliant on American money is better than military occupation, w/c drains treasury most of the time.

 

they had to wait 50 years for the wall to come down before the real spoils could be taken. a 50-year cold war after wading in with an overwhelming military advantage? not very smart of americans, i should think.

 

or maybe not so smart of u i guess. There was really no economic imperative to physically occupy any European country OR invade Russia after WWII. Sure, the Americans obviously can do that. But at what cost? for what purpose?

 

anybody who thinks that Cold War crippled the US in any way is patently ignorant of history. The Cold War benefitted America. It stimulated their weapons business sector and forged trading agreements with Free World countries favorable to Americans in exchange for American patronage.

 

3. so what do you think is the real reason why the US would focus on germany first before japan?you already said the germans weren't that good. they failed to beat the brits and ruskies as of december '41. so why didn't they just rebuild their sunken battleships sooner, build more carriers and drive straight to tokyo bay?

 

1. bec. germany wasn't buying as much as before from the americans and even starting to irritate the trade between americans and the allies.

 

2. the spoils in Europe are far complicated to address than in the Far East. The Pacific was already an American lake on Japanese lease. well, the Russians wouldn't agree to that but hell, it got no Fleet to seriously contest that.

 

3. the germans weren't invincible but surely had enough gas in the tank to at least occupy Continental Europe sans Russia. and it's a no-brainer than given time, the germans could develop the BOMB. and that would change the whole equation. not good for the americans.

 

so there's a bit of urgency to address the german problem. the same kind of urgency is not present in the Far East with Japan busy fighting local insurgencies while constantly struggling with logistics.Geographical problems are much worse in the Far East making it harder for Japan to fortify its forces. They don't have the luxury of using railways like the Nazis. And guerilla tactics, things that rarely see at the more established war fronts in Europe upset the Japs. All in all, even before the Americans decided to literally obliterate the Japs to oblivion, the Japs weren't a threat as Germans were.

[Jourdan]

By accident or by design?

 

An early general retreat was part of Soviet strategy because the Russians knew they still did not have enough by way of defense against Germany. By the very nature of this, fleeing units were dragooned by those in place. Also, Barbarossa was effected on a front so wide that two million men, despite six major points of attack, could not possibly hope to overwhelm a numerically-superior albeit generally ill-equipped foe.

 

Let's fast-forward to when Russia regained its footing and Germany was on the defensive. Could the latter have held out longer had it consolidated its forces and shortened the front-lines by strategic withdrawals? Was forward-defense essentially military-suicide?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

well, had the German army marched earlier, they could have captured Moscow...but I doubt that it would make any difference given that the Russians knew very well how to fight on their own soil. I think they would go for stalemate and wait for winter before employing decisive strategic moves against the Germans.

 

the Russian campaign was a strategic error. Hitler should have kept his unholy alliance with the Russians and should have given them concessions over Eastern Europe. the Nazis should have directed their campaigns westward and focused on technological dev'ts, w/c had given their smaller army a decisive edge over bigger but technologically-backward Allied armies. Fighting war on 2 fronts was the cause of Nazi collapse.

[belisarius]

of course, it'll be different. losing a fleet is always a setback. but the japs gave the americans a valid reason to join the war.

correct.

 

resource-wise yes. and oh, the colonies. don't forget them jewels.

politics of course. The emerging communist Russia would be a tough rival. You obviously wanted to surround a big bully with your friends. Besides, there was an emerging new world order...nationalism is on the uptrend and it would be terribly unwise for the Americans to bully them Europeans.

regarding natural resources, patently wrong. europe is resource rich? well if you're so hot on lacustrine coal, lignite and several deposits of rock salt, maybe.

 

the russian factor is of course correct. you don't even have to mention its growing military power. you just have to consider the fact that they lost 100,000 men just to take berlin. so you realize how hard it was to kick them out of brandenburg.

 

but you missed the two biggest points: first, the biggest economic opportunity in a war-torn region is reconstruction. infrastructure, re-industrialization, and a return of commercial activity (along with reparation charges on anyone who has something to cough up). that's the prize they missed with more than 1/2 of europe for two reasons: 1) the allied boo-boo at arnhem (monty was right --he should have received greater support in his plan) and 2) hitler's ill-advised ardennes offensive that delayed the americans and stripped the eastern front of weapons to stem the russians. the americans would have reached berlin in late-1944.

 

second, i wanted you point out the difference in japan's reconstruction. now that's a textbook example of reconstruction and redevelopment done on a unilateral platform. of course, there were no hard-nosed russians around and you practically scared the entire world shitless with your atomic bomb.

 

And tell me, why impose your will on them by having ur big fat ass on their soil when u can easily peg their economies to the dollar? That's what US did. A vibrant Europe reliant on American money is better than military occupation, w/c drains treasury most of the time.

or maybe not so smart of u i guess. There was really no economic imperative to physically occupy any European country OR invade Russia after WWII. Sure, the Americans obviously can do that. But at what cost? for what purpose?

which somehow goes against your mother statement as to why the US went to europe in the first place.

 

anybody who thinks that Cold War crippled the US in any way is patently ignorant of history. The Cold War benefitted America. It stimulated their weapons business sector and forged trading agreements with Free World countries favorable to Americans in exchange for American patronage.

too much of american revisionism. the economic losses from the cold war were simply overshadowed by economic growth from the baby boomer generation.

 

but now that we're touching on the cold war, revisionists insist that ww2 was a mere blip on 20th century military history. the real war, they say (which i dispute) began when the soviets penned their strategy for boshevik expansion world-wide in the 1920s and ended in 1990 when the wall fell. in between you had a number of short flare-ups (called proxi wars) such as vietnam, afghanistan, latin america, africa, etc.

 

it all ended in a decisive victory for the yoo-nited states (ew..)

 

1. bec. germany wasn't buying as much as before from the americans and even starting to irritate the trade between americans and the allies.

 

2. the spoils in Europe are far complicated to address than in the Far East. The Pacific was already an American lake on Japanese lease.  well, the Russians wouldn't agree to that but hell, it got no Fleet to seriously contest that.

 

3. the germans weren't invincible but surely had enough gas in the tank to at least occupy Continental Europe sans Russia. and it's a no-brainer than given time, the germans could develop the BOMB. and that would change the whole equation. not good for the americans.

 

so there's a bit of urgency to address the german problem. the same kind of urgency is not present in the Far East with Japan busy fighting local insurgencies while constantly struggling with logistics.Geographical problems are much worse in the Far East making it harder for Japan to fortify its  forces. They don't have the luxury of using railways like the Nazis. And guerilla tactics, things that rarely see at the more established war fronts in Europe upset the Japs. All in all, even before the Americans decided to literally obliterate the Japs to oblivion, the Japs weren't a threat as Germans were.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

mostly correct. except that i found the american sale of metal commodities to germany somewhat funny. who was resource-rich?

[belisarius]

the russian campaign was deemed feasible by hitler's top strategists and planners. i thought so too (but that will require a degree from the command general staff college before anyone will take me seriously).

 

the primary strategy was for a three-month campaign into western russia. army group center was to destroy the main russian forces in the ukrainian and middle russian areas and lay seige to moscow. army group south was to destroy the southern forces near the crimean area.

 

lastly, army group north which had the crucial role: it was to lay siege on leningrad, close off the lake ladoga supply line, ---then drive east past moscow and then veer south to link with the southern arm of army group center; cutting off the entire moscow area.

 

what happened was army groups center and south encountered stiff opposition in the kiev and rostov area. that prompted guderian (in charge of the lower panzer army of army group center to propose that he veer south beyond kiev and link up with the northern forces of von runstedt's army group south. it took two weeks to plan the movement and it went off brilliantly; encircling marshall budenny's 600,000-man force in kiev. but the russian winter was approaching, the russians were still far from beaten, and they (the russians) were now starting to learn how to use their t-34s en masse, just like the germans.

 

so it was a sorry army group center that knocked on moscow's doors. there was nothing hitler ---or his best generals could do about it. hitler's blunders only exacerbated an already stupid situation.

[belisarius]

1. No? Australians were "all in" for the war effort. However, even then, that country still needed help by way of protection from Americans.

play it this way: if the aussies thought of developing a far east navy that can match the japanese as early as 1920, they would have.

 

2. When the Japs attacked the 'open city' that was Manila, I really wouldn't put too much stock in their word to abide by the Geneva Convention.

they didn't attack it. they just marched into it.

 

4. Jets, sure. So you had jet-powered bombers. How would they survive, being "heavy", in the face of oncoming jet-fighters out to meet them? What about fighter escorts (these would have to be carrier-based and we know them to be at a serious disadvantage performance-wise compared to land-based interceptors)?

 

C'mon, bombers cannot hope to survive in the face of a determined jet-fighter attack.

question: how many gun mounts did the b-36, the b-47 and the b-52 have? just one, right? the bomber-fighter inter-action changed dramatically once both exceeded 400 mph level speed. it's now up to jet fighters and short-range bombers to neutralize air opposition and let the big boys from the stategic air command to go in and drop their big munitions.

 

post 1945 air warfare over europe would still have been dominated by props (in the first few years at least). the p-51d would still provide the main all-around protection due to its range and manuevarability. however, interceptor role would be given to the latest version of the p-38, the p-61 black widow and improvements over the mustang (like the p-51h and that weird twin-bodied mustang.)

 

proof: even during the korean war, it was still props that dominated although jets were beginning demonstrate their advantages.

 

reliability, numbers and easier familiarity were among the advantages props had.

 

a couple of me-264 jets were shot down by p-51d props.

 

in korea, a couple of mig-15s and 17s were shot down by f-1 sky raider fighter bombers.

5. West Africa? I think so, too. Below the equator, that is. South Africa's too far.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

i wouldn't be too hot on a direct assault on gibraltar. i would prefer north africa and then take gibraltar, crete and the suez one by one.

[Jourdan]

correct.

regarding natural resources, patently wrong. europe is resource rich? well if you're so hot on lacustrine coal, lignite and several deposits of rock salt, maybe.

 

the russian factor is of course correct. you don't even have to mention its growing military power. you just have to consider the fact that they lost 100,000 men just to take berlin. so you realize how hard it was to kick them out of brandenburg.

 

but you missed the two biggest points: first, the biggest economic opportunity in a war-torn region is reconstruction. infrastructure, re-industrialization, and a return of commercial activity (along with reparation charges on anyone who has something to cough up). that's the prize they missed with more than 1/2 of europe for two reasons: 1) the allied boo-boo at arnhem (monty was right --he should have received greater support in his plan) and 2) hitler's ill-advised ardennes offensive that delayed the americans and stripped the eastern front of weapons to stem the russians. the americans would have reached berlin in late-1944.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

missed what again? read this dude:

 

and the rest is history. D-day. Germany got divided into West and East. Americans secured rebuilding contracts and a lot of trade concessions.

 

all ur trivia are unnecessary clutter. hmm, where did all the metal come from if Europe's too poor in resource?

 

did i not mention the colonies? these are colonies of what? martians? As far as I remember, WWII didn't stop Europeans from exercising control and funnelling everything from the colonies to their soil.

 

 

second, i wanted you point out the difference in japan's reconstruction. now that's a textbook example of reconstruction and redevelopment done on a unilateral platform. of course, there were no hard-nosed russians around and you practically scared the entire world shitless with your atomic bomb.

which somehow goes against your mother statement as to why the US went to europe in the first place.

too much of american revisionism. the economic losses from the cold war were simply overshadowed by economic growth from the baby boomer generation.

 

japan's reconstruction was unilateral bec. the Pacific war was essentially a 2-nation slugfest, which America won. geesh, isn't that obvious at all? is that the same thing in Europe?

 

did I just mention that Europe is a higher priority bec. spoils over there require elaborate partitioning? Japan was a done deal. Europe was up for grabs. Americans, with foresight, had to secure their place in Europe.

 

Where's the contradiction there??? where's the revisionism??? btw, what's "american revisionism"? don't blabber words u don't understand. it's pathetic.

 

and oh, the bomb went off in Japan bec. Americans don't want to lose more men fighting Japs on land...so that reconstruction could start soon.

 

but now that we're touching on the cold war, revisionists insist that ww2 was a mere blip on 20th century military history. the real war, they say (which i dispute) began when the soviets penned their strategy for boshevik expansion world-wide in the 1920s and ended in 1990 when the wall fell. in between you had a number of short flare-ups (called proxi wars) such as vietnam, afghanistan, latin america, africa, etc.

 

hahaha...funny. ur point? again, narrating irrelevance and all just to be able to say something. anyways, indulge in it and have ur fill.

 

it all ended in a decisive victory for the yoo-nited states (ew..)

 

well, economists have long known that any command economy ain't sustainable. and there are a lot of economists in the US. so m not surprised if the US just let communist Russia self-destruct with its decrepit economic system.

 

mostly correct. except that i found the american sale of metal commodities to germany somewhat funny. who was resource-rich? 

 

sale of metal commodities? like? who told u that? me? trading between Germany and America doesn't concern weapons...if that's what u'r pointing at. again, strawman fallacy: arguing a non-existing argument.

[Podweed]

question: how many gun mounts did the b-36, the b-47 and the b-52 have? just one, right? the bomber-fighter inter-action changed dramatically once both exceeded 400 mph level speed. it's now up to jet fighters and short-range bombers to neutralize air opposition and let the big boys from the stategic air command to go in and drop their big munitions.

 

post 1945 air warfare over europe would still have been dominated by props (in the first few years at least). the p-51d would still provide the main all-around protection due to its range and manuevarability. however, interceptor role would be given to the latest version of the p-38, the p-61 black widow and improvements over the mustang (like the p-51h and that weird twin-bodied mustang.)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes, fighters with 'props' or jets, same banana if you consider their range. Trans-Atlantic war now, correct? They can't conduct trans-oceanic missions and make it back home. Your bomber fleets will be decimated.

[vagabond]

Nobody won the war in that book, buddy. Near the end of the story, the Soviet general (Alexei-something) said to his American counterpart (Robinson?), "Push us hard if you will. Though the Soviet Union can no longer win, both sides can still lose".

 

They stalemated each other and the only alternative was an escalation to a nuclear exchange.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

if i remember it correctly the US won that war with an important supply convoy getting through... though i have to say i read this book a long time ago...

[vagabond]

We have the Imperial Japanese Naval Marines to thank for that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

dont forget the americans too... both of them did it in "concert"...

[vagabond]

they didn't mobilize and arm as much.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

rather, the bulk of the australian army was in europe... read The American Caesar...

 

when the bataan battle was winding down. he made the recommendation to roosevelt. the latter vetoed it. if they did become a neutral country, the japanese would have honored the geneva accords but they will insist on the removal/destruction of US forces in the philippines.

japan would have honored? if they were losing w/c they were obviously not! to leave the philippines just because it declared neutrality is one absurd military decision. would japan throw its plans, w/c it made in previous months (or even years) before the actual invasion, in disarray? i dont think so.

[vagabond]

the biggest mistake Adolf made was not to review history. Even Napoleon the Great failed to defeat Russia's "General Winter".

 

and oh, don't accuse the Nazis of a blunder with their declaration of war against the US...that wasn't made by gradeschoolers. Nazis knew very well that it's not gonna be very long before u see Uncle Sam on the European continent. it was an unnecessary declaration actually, moot and academic...but of course, given the imminent American involvement, it was just better to make something positive out of the whole situation...like rallying ur troops and boosting their morale by declaring a war against a big dog.

 

with or w/o a declaration of war against US, the US would have kicked germany's ass. y? there's already a business case to do so.

 

wait, let's roll back a bit. it was not really surprising to know that the Americans were actually tolerant of the bully Germans while they were killing the Polish, Czechs, French, etc...an expanding Germany was a good cashcow. actually the americans made a lot of money dealing with both the Allies and Germany early in the war...

 

but at some point, Germany got huge. Not good for the American purse. Plus they start building things on their own at an alarming pace using LOCAL resources. The idea of a Germany-controlled Continental Europe would be an economic nightmare...

 

but still, the Americans exercised caution. it pussyfooted for a while and maintained its strategic ambiguity...

 

then came the realization that Germany ain't so tough. can't bomb the s@%t out of London Brits and was defeated decisively by the Russian winter. It was time to butt in, kick some Nazis' asses, emerge as heroes and then get the lion's share of the spoils. Good plan.

 

and the rest is history. D-day. Germany got divided into West and East. Americans secured rebuilding contracts and a lot of trade concessions.

 

the end result: America became the top dog, economically and militarily. there's not much the Nazis can do with that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

i have to agree in part with your analysis on the US declaration of war against germany... i browsed a book (sorry forgot the title) about the Nazi's war plans/expectations and yes the germans knew sooner or later that US was going to enter the war... i dont think they easily forgot WWI...

 

but what intrigued about the book was its nazi/hitler's perspective on russia/soviet union. hitler underestimated the russians! from this we could posit that hitler knew the dangers of a two front war (US/UK in the west and USSR in the east) but since he underestimated russia's red army, he expected a quick victory...

 

also another point i got from the book was that the germans were no longer able to use their blitz tactics. this is not only because of the russian winter but the deeper they got into russian territory, the bloodier the fight got. russians were no longer "dropping like flies" as witnessed during the initial phase of the german offensive. they were fighting to the last man. so the nazi's were forced to alter their tactics. how? sorry i forgot (remeber i just browsed the book). lets just say the russian front became a war of attrition w/c germany could not afford to fight especially with their manpower.

 

also, i think everyone overlooks what the USSR did in WWII. for most of the war, it was the USSR that had to to most of the fighting in the european front. remember, the US and UK was only able to land troops in the continental europe in 1944. if USSR fallen so easily, the allies would surely have a harder time in making a landing in western europe.

Edited May 13, 2006 by vagabond

[Podweed]

if i remember it correctly the US won that war with an important supply convoy getting through... though i have to say i read this book a long time ago...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No, vagabond. The author wrote the Americans think they've won. In reality, nobody did.

[Podweed]

i have to agree in part with your analysis on the US declaration of war against germany... i browsed a book (sorry forgot the title) about the Nazi's war plans/expectations and yes the germans knew sooner or later that US was going to enter the war... i dont think they easily forgot WWI...

 

but what intrigued about the book was its nazi/hitler's perspective on russia/soviet union. hitler underestimated the russians! from this we could posit that hitler knew the dangers of a two front war (US/UK in the west and USSR in the east) but since he underestimated russia's red army, he expected a quick victory...

 

also another point i got from the book was that the germans were no longer able to use their blitz tactics. this is not only because of the russian winter but the deeper they got into russian territory, the bloodier the fight got. russians were no longer "dropping like flies" as witnessed during the initial phase of the german offensive. they were fighting to the last man. so the nazi's were forced to alter their tactics. how? sorry i forgot (remeber i just browsed the book). lets just say the russian front became a war of attrition w/c germany could not afford to fight especially with their manpower.

 

also, i think everyone overlooks what the USSR did in WWII.  for most of the war, it was the USSR that had to to most of the fighting in the european front. remember, the US and UK was only able to land troops in the continental europe in 1944. if USSR fallen so easily, the allies would surely have a harder time in making a landing in western europe.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes, buddy. During the earlier phases of the eastern campaign, many hitherto Soviets welcomed the Germans as liberators. The liquidations of kulaks as a class, purges, mass deportations, and the like were still fresh in their memories and they were all too happy to be rid of Stalin.

 

When they realized the Germans were just as determined to brutalize them, they started to flock to the banners of Mother Russia.

[azrach187]

It's funny that this is the very topic we studied at BNOC in Ft. Benning in our class for LOGPAC (Logistical Package). Hitler's massive failure do point at the Russian Winter, yet few takes into account the importance of logistics. But I could assure you that the US learned a lot from earlier mistakes and learned the importance of supply line, something Hitler never really took into account, and ironically, the strength of the Desert Fox in Northern Africa.

 

A good case study would be the Red Ball Express and the Victory/Liberty Ships that contributed the US well in WWII.

 

During the siege of Stalingrad (today's Volgograd), the encircled German Division ran out of supply as Hitler cared less of the supply line and more worried in "opening" the gate to Russia (hence, Enemy at the Gates" and pressed on to a catastrophic result. Their reasoning might have been that once Siberian oil fields is under the German control, they wont have to rely on the supply line, and of the oil crossing the treacherous waters of Mediterranean from Northern Africa. Local resources would be exploited (like the Japs) to contribute to their effort: they forgot winter: all resources are at hibernation!

 

Also, a little known fact but greatly contributed to the Nazi demise in the Ostfront is that the American spies (OSS) found out a large order of wool and leather from Turkey and the processing of big buttons in Ruhr, which if added, means winter coat, means winter offensive. The Allies bombed the button factory at Ruhr and captured a great deal of the wool and leather coming from Turkey (partisans) putting a major dent in the Ostfront and leaving the Germans exposed for winter.

 

The Quartermasters, an integral part of the US Army is now a permanent fixture with any units of the US Army, unlike before where logistics were aranged by commanders. This is the lesson they learned from the Germans in WWII. Tanks needs gas, heater needs fuel, troops need equipment and ammo, s@%t breaks down and needs replacement parts. The Americans never moves forward if supply is compromised, something the fighters learned in Iraq: to hit the American supply convoy.

 

So they smarten up, the supply convoys are now more heavily armed than a regular patrol.

[shadowsniper]

Vom Kriege " On War" by Carl Von Clausewitz... i like his arguements and insights about war... his concepts are still applicable up to now..