Discussion of the World Wars

[machievelli]

The problem was that the german Army had never fought a long drawn out winter campaign under Russian conditions. There was a study made a few years ago (Shown on the history channel) that their uniforms were too thin and poorly insulated for winter combat. Their food was actually too low in easily burnable calories to maintain body heat, and their weapons were oddly enough, too finely machined. The German High command knew this but even getting uniforms chaged was a decision Hitler wanted to make.

 

What I meant though is anyone looking at Operation Eagle's Claw (The attempt to rescue the Teheran hostaged in 1980 failed not because of overall military incompetence, but because every idiot who got more than 20,000 votes or more than one star assumed they had the right to make them do it again, then ignored the needs of the men going into combat.

 

Interesting as Hans Guderian thought that killing the jews and stopping them from helping their country was a huge waste. Many jews were veterans and very competent fighters that could've added quite a bit of "umph" to the Wermacht.

 

As an odd aside, the first german pilot to ever put a swastika on his plane was a jew during WWI. The premier chemist during WWII, the man who developed Tabun and Sarin nerve gas was removed from the project in the mid 1930s because he was a jew, and later died in a camp.

 

The Jews who live in other nations have always been a loyal hard corps of patriots unless that nation mistreated them

[lukeiamyourdad]

The problem was that the german Army had never fought a long drawn out winter campaign under Russian conditions. There was a study made a few years ago (Shown on the history channel) that their uniforms were too thin and poorly insulated for winter combat. Their food was actually too low in easily burnable calories to maintain body heat, and their weapons were oddly enough, too finely machined. The German High command knew this but even getting uniforms chaged was a decision Hitler wanted to make.

 

It seems no one ever learns from past mistake. Napoleon couldn't do it either.

 

The resistance of the Russians also comes into play. The Germans knew that a prolonged war in Russia woould be deadly. No one wanted to face the harsh winter but it happened anyway. Some say that it was due to postponing the launch date of Barbarossa (originally in May) to June.

[Emperor Devon]

You forget that Rommel never had the ressources he truly needed.

 

He did not, though though whether he was a field marshal or corporal wouldn't have made a difference in how strong the Afrika Korp was. As you said, Hitler was obsessed with Russia.

 

The problem was that the german Army had never fought a long drawn out winter campaign under Russian conditions. {snip}

 

The idea was completely ridiculous. Operation Barbarossa had been delayed in the Balkans, and it was inevitable that invading the largest country on earth would take more than a few months. But wearing summer uniforms was sicidal.

[machievelli]

Add to this mix the German idea that the Russian soldier was a stupid ox that would run at the first sign of battle and should be treated as subhuman creatures. By the time the Russians pushed them back across the border there were four divisions of Russians (Two Cossack) in German Uniform.

[Emperor Devon]

By the time the Russians pushed them back across the border there were four divisions of Russians (Two Cossack) in German Uniform.

 

They could've had even more Russian divisions if they hadn't treated the people they conquered so horribly. After years of Stalin's iron rule, the Germans could have been welcomed as saviors if they tried.

 

There is one very interesting coincidence related to Winston Churchill. Hundreds of years before he was born, there was a preiction that someone with red hair would rise up to defend Britain in its hour of greatest need. Strangely enough, Churchill was a redhead in his youth.

[machievelli]

They could've had even more Russian divisions if they hadn't treated the people they conquered so horribly. After years of Stalin's iron rule, the Germans could have been welcomed as saviors if they tried.

 

There is one very interesting coincidence related to Winston Churchill. Hundreds of years before he was born, there was a preiction that someone with red hair would rise up to defend Britain in its hour of greatest need. Strangely enough, Churchill was a redhead in his youth.

 

In their own history of WWII (Written after the Berlin wall fell) The KGB admitted that they had used 'absorption' (Blaming someone else to discredit them) because a lot of the Partisans behind German lines were as anti-communist as they were anti-Nazi. Commisars and 'loyal' officers were parachuted in, to assure that the partisans toed Moscow's line, and hunter killer teams would find two different anti-communist teams and kill one, then use the weapons of the first unit to kill the second. Then they would say that the first unit had 'betrayed' the second, and been murdered by the germans afterward. The same technique assured that the Brits backed the partisans instead of the Menscheviks in Yugoslavia. Even history claims the other units were working with the Germans. The fact that the communists wrote that history is conveniently ignored.

 

As for Churchill, sure he saved England. After violating international law so thoroughly in both World Wars that any claim ofGerman War Crimes was like a murderer complaining because someone stole his stereo.

[Palpatine_dc]

They could've had even more Russian divisions if they hadn't treated the people they conquered so horribly. After years of Stalin's iron rule, the Germans could have been welcomed as saviors if they tried.

 

True enough. In fact it happened in non Russian Soviet states like Ukraine, where during the first months of Barbarossa, the Germans were welcomed as liberators instead of as conqueres. The Nazi ideaology of Slavic peoples being "Untermench" backfired on them after a couple of months when the same people cheering for them, got brutally oppressed. It was so bad that even when regular Wehrmacht officers filed complaints about SS units terrorising Ukrainian villages, they got rebuked.

 

On a sidenote: I've seen a number of people compare the Sherman tank to the Tiger or T34. It's a wrong comparison as US Army doctrine on tank warfare was different from German doctrine. US used anti-tank guns and primary tank destroyers like the M10 or later in the war the M36. German Armoured warfare doctrine was similar to the Soviets: the best counter to a tank is a better tank resulting in by comparison better armoured and better armed tanks.

[machievelli]

True enough. In fact it happened in non Russian Soviet states like Ukraine, where during the first months of Barbarossa, the Germans were welcomed as liberators instead of as conqueres. The Nazi ideaology of Slavic peoples being "Untermench" backfired on them after a couple of months when the same people cheering for them, got brutally oppressed. It was so bad that even when regular Wehrmacht officers filed complaints about SS units terrorising Ukrainian villages, they got rebuked.

 

On a sidenote: I've seen a number of people compare the Sherman tank to the Tiger or T34. It's a wrong comparison as US Army doctrine on tank warfare was different from German doctrine. US used anti-tank guns and primary tank destroyers like the M10 or later in the war the M36. German Armoured warfare doctrine was similar to the Soviets: the best counter to a tank is a better tank resulting in by comparison better armoured and better armed tanks.

 

 

One on one, the M4 Sherman was barely an equal to the MIV short barrel 75mm tank that got beaten in Russia by the T34s. The Russians had asked the Germans four years earlier when they would be shown the 'real' German tanks. The Germans had thought they were joking. In the first battle between Mk IIIs and IVs versus the T34, only improper doctrine caused the Russians to fail Comparing the Sherman to etiehr is like comparing an Original VW Beetle to a Lamborghini or Ferarri. The T34 as it sat in original condition could stand toe to toe with a Tiger, and if not beat it, at least make them wish he'd go away. The addition of the 85MM gun made them just a notch below the Tiger. The US never fielded a tank capable of taking Tigers one on one except as they say in Kelly's Heros, 'point blank in tha ass.'

[Emperor Devon]

The US never fielded a tank capable of taking Tigers one on one except as they say in Kelly's Heros, 'point blank in tha ass.'

 

U.S. troops and tanks were definitely not the best on the field. Thankfully, sheer numbers and extra were able to compensate for that against the superior German troops.

 

Another interesting point to consider is how much better the Germans had been if they waited till 1950. Some of the Hilter Youths that were sent to into battle had a reputation of extreme fanaticism and effectiveness, though they were only 16-18 years of age. I wonder how effective those youths would have been if they in their 20s when the war began and they equiped with superior technology.

 

Ah, we have had so little WWI discussion. I recieved a set of DVDs about the Great War for my birthday today, which were truly excellent to watch. It's a pleasant change to watch about a war were there aren't such black and white, good and evil sides to the conflict. It's definitely ingnored compared to WWII.

[lukeiamyourdad]

On a sidenote: I've seen a number of people compare the Sherman tank to the Tiger or T34. It's a wrong comparison as US Army doctrine on tank warfare was different from German doctrine. US used anti-tank guns and primary tank destroyers like the M10 or later in the war the M36. German Armoured warfare doctrine was similar to the Soviets: the best counter to a tank is a better tank resulting in by comparison better armoured and better armed tanks.

 

 

It is a right comparison as far as what faced what. The tank destroyers were unable to even the game. Even worse, those tank destroyers had an open turret. It increased sight range but also made it vulnerable.

 

Another interesting point to consider is how much better the Germans had been if they waited till 1950. Some of the Hilter Youths that were sent to into battle had a reputation of extreme fanaticism and effectiveness, though they were only 16-18 years of age. I wonder how effective those youths would have been if they in their 20s when the war began and they equiped with superior technology.

 

They were effective but also foolish. The difference between courage in battle and stupidity is a small one. The Waffen SS divisions that were sent into battle during the war were really effective but also took tremendous losses. Blind zealotry and bravery killed many of them.

 

Ah, we have had so little WWI discussion. I recieved a set of DVDs about the Great War for my birthday today, which were truly excellent to watch. It's a pleasant change to watch about a war were there aren't such black and white, good and evil sides to the conflict. It's definitely ingnored compared to WWII.

 

It is ignored since WWII simply dwarfs the Great War in terms of magnitude. Even then, how the war started was totally stupid. Everyone remembers France and Britain against the Germans even though none of those countries had anything to do with it in the first place. Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria gets killed by a Serbian fanatic, Austria-Hungary wants to smack them but the Russians would help Serbia, so they call the Germans who think they can beat France in a short time before going east and destroying Russia. Great Britain gets involved and the fight goes on and on until the US gets in.

I'm pretty sure the french and german soldiers were wondering why they were fighting each other...

[machievelli]

U.S. troops and tanks were definitely not the best on the field. Thankfully, sheer numbers and extra were able to compensate for that against the superior German troops.

 

Actually the American soldier, properly led and equipped was considered pretty damn good. As an example, in the seven years of WWII The British lost half a million, the French lost a million and a half, the Germans lost 7 million, the Japanese six and a half and the Russians lost 12.

 

Fighting on two fronts, the US lost 485,000. One on one with both sides equally supplied (Guadacanal) less than 5,000 American troops inflicted 20,000 casualties on the Japanese.

 

America proved to be as innovative as the Germans at least in infantry tactics and out performed them in every field except tanks submarine and aircraft.

 

WWI:

It is ignored since WWII simply dwarfs the Great War in terms of magnitude. Even then, how the war started was totally stupid. Everyone remembers France and Britain against the Germans even though none of those countries had anything to do with it in the first place. Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria gets killed by a Serbian fanatic, Austria-Hungary wants to smack them but the Russians would help Serbia, so they call the Germans who think they can beat France in a short time before going east and destroying Russia. Great Britain gets involved and the fight goes on and on until the US gets in.

I'm pretty sure the french and german soldiers were wondering why they were fighting each other...

 

They also don't mention that the Serbs mobilized and attacked Austria first. It was proven later (Myth of the great War) that Franz Ferdinand was murdered by a government subsidized terrorist group. Sort of like Syria or Lebanon 'deploring the acts' of Hezbollah, while supplying weapons and material.

 

To us Americans the demands from Austria weren't even that onorous;

Rein in the terrorists, have the press report the truth rather than government hype, and allow Austrian Police to assist.

[lukeiamyourdad]

America proved to be as innovative as the Germans at least in infantry tactics and out performed them in every field except tanks submarine and aircraft.

 

Yep, America was pretty good, except that they were better then everyone in terms of aircraft. The P-51 Mustang was simply the best of its age (yes, there's the Messerschmitt Me 262, but they couldn't be deployed like the P-51).

 

 

To us Americans the demands from Austria weren't even that onorous;

Rein in the terrorists, have the press report the truth rather than government hype, and allow Austrian Police to assist.

 

That's not really my point. It was a rather "simple" thing that became a war between France, Great Britain, Russia and Germany. None of those four countries had anything to do with why it all started.

 

I think it's one of the reasons people don't really like WWI. It's so messed up that people prefer the black and white nature of WWII (though it wasn't black and white at all).

If the events of WWI happened today, I think people would be much more aware of its stupidity. German and French soldiers would truly meet up on the battlefield and ask themselves:"So we got to kill each other because Austria has some problems with Serbia...ok..."

[Totenkopf]

The US actually fielded the M26 Pershing in Europe before war's end. It was on par with most Nazi heavy tanks (90mm gun, 110mm armour) and could easily dispatch a Tiger or Panther tank. I recall watching a documentary where on of them took on a Panther head on and dispatched it like it was an M4 Sherman. Ronson(sp?) burners I think they were called (Shermans, that is).

 

As to casualties in the Pacific theatre, remember, there were few (if any) WIAs on the Jap side that survived. It might be a little more acurate to to factor in all casualties (as well as fighting philosophies). This in no way denigrates the capabilities of US troops. Think Bastogne. American forces, when well led, were probably the equal of their German counterparts. As to the question of fanaticism, both SS and Japanese, that was probably the one factor that dragged the war on longer than it needed to be and ultimately explains Truman's use of the bomb. Whatever condemnation people would like to heap on the US for using atomics in WW2, they would do well to remember that neither Japan nor the 3rd Reich would've hesitated had the situation been reversed. Of all the powers working on the bomb (Germany, Japan, America..), the US finished first---for which we should all thank God (or whatever). Now if we could just force those pesky nazi's, er Iranians, to give up their bomb program....

[lukeiamyourdad]

The US actually fielded the M26 Pershing in Europe before war's end. It was on par with most Nazi heavy tanks (90mm gun, 110mm armour) and could easily dispatch a Tiger or Panther tank. I recall watching a documentary where on of them took on a Panther head on and dispatched it like it was an M4 Sherman. Ronson(sp?) burners I think they were called (Shermans, that is).

 

http://www.patton-mania.com/M26_Pershing/m26_pershing.html

 

According to that link, the M26 Pershing saw very limited action. It was able to face Tigers or Panthers, but since their use wasn't widespread (it wasn't their "main opponent"), the comparison is sloppy at best.

This is why people don't compare King Tiger with other tanks, since it also saw very limited action. Then again, King Tiger isn't exactly a success...

[Totenkopf]

Not sure exactly what you mean by sloppy, as I wasn't contending that the M26 was the equal of the KT. My point was that by war's end, unfortunately not sooner, the US was beginning to field an AFV better suited to stand up against the better German tanks at that time (certainly better than the M4, at least). Though the Sherman variant, the Firefly, packed a lot more punch than it's basic US model M4. As no weapon system is perfect, what flaws were you focusing on w/the KT?

[Palpatine_dc]

As no weapon system is perfect, what flaws were you focusing on w/the KT?

 

The King Tiger had an enormous weight because of it's armour but only had the same engine a a regular Tiger which was already underpowered. It's road speed was limited to 26 kph (don't know the mph), if it even drove at all. Since it was developed so late in the war production was limited, I believe about 500 were made, of which more than half was put out of commision because of mechanical problems in stead of enemy action.

 

It was a common error in German tanks: good armour and good weapons, but over enginieered. In 1942 the Panther was developed to counter the T34 and if you look at it, you can see the outward resemblance: the sloped glacis plate and side armour were a novolty for German armour. However it lacked the simplicity and low maintenance needs of the T34 which made the latter the nr 1 tank on the Eastern Front.

 

I remember reading about how, at the battle of Kursk, one single "Ferdinand" jagtpanzer halted an entire Soviet division for a day. It was finaly destroyed when it sunk in the mud because of its heavy weight and several T34's shot it at point blank range.

[lukeiamyourdad]

Not sure exactly what you mean by sloppy, as I wasn't contending that the M26 was the equal of the KT.

 

I never said anything about Pershing and Königstiger being equals. I was mentioning that we never use either in comparisons since they both saw very limited action.

 

 

My point was that by war's end, unfortunately not sooner, the US was beginning to field an AFV better suited to stand up against the better German tanks at that time (certainly better than the M4, at least). Though the Sherman variant, the Firefly, packed a lot more punch than it's basic US model M4. As no weapon system is perfect, what flaws were you focusing on w/the KT?

 

I understand your point. We were comparing tank tactics and philosophies over the whole course of the war and since only 20 Pershings saw action, I thought that adding it is rather irrelevant.

The Firefly variant was only effective because the British had the bright idea of putting their anti-tank gun on the Sherman. Still, the general flaws of the Sherman are still noticeable (too high, low armor).

 

 

Königstiger had plenty of flaws. Palpatine said almost everything, though I'd like to add its size to the discussion too. German tank crews were already complaining about the size of Panthers and Tigers, Königstiger was bigger then both of them. In tank warfare, the bigger you are, the better target you make.

Add its slow speed and it became fodder for field guns. There are also reports that the materials the tank's armor was made of was subpar and contributed to it being a failure. Don't get me wrong, Königstiger is a cool looking behemoth. It just wasn't effective. You have to wonder why they decided to make a very slow moving bunker in a war about mobility.

 

Palpatine also brings up the interesting point of German tanks suffering from overengineering. Lots of records does indicate that German tanks were mostly lost due to engine failure rather then enemy fire.

[machievelli]

LukeIamyourdad said:

 

I think it's one of the reasons people don't really like WWI. It's so messed up that people prefer the black and white nature of WWII (though it wasn't black and white at all).

If the events of WWI happened today, I think people would be much more aware of its stupidity. German and French soldiers would truly meet up on the battlefield and ask themselves:"So we got to kill each other because Austria has some problems with Serbia...ok...

 

I replied: Your Forget the Christmas truce of 1914. For four months British and German troops sat and did not fight because the war made no flipping sense to them. The Brits finally shifted the units around so they weren’t facing their newfound ‘frineds’ on the other side, and began using draconian punishments if men refused to fight.

 

 

TotenKopf said

As to casualties in the Pacific theatre, remember, there were few (if any) WIAs on the Jap side that survived. It might be a little more acurate to to factor in all casualties (as well as fighting philosophies). This in no way denigrates the capabilities of US troops. Think Bastogne. American forces, when well led, were probably the equal of their German counterparts. As to the question of fanaticism, both SS and Japanese, that was probably the one factor that dragged the war on longer than it needed to be and ultimately explains Truman's use of the bomb. Whatever condemnation people would like to heap on the US for using atomics in WW2, they would do well to remember that neither Japan nor the 3rd Reich would've hesitated had the situation been reversed. Of all the powers working on the bomb (Germany, Japan, America..), the US finished first---for which we should all thank God (or whatever). Now if we could just force those pesky nazi's, er Iranians, to give up their bomb program....

 

I replied: The casualties are from the book 'Dirty little secrets of WWII' by James Dunnigan. They included KIA and WIA in the same column. Totenkopf, on the European front a lot of that fanaticism can be laid right on that great man FDR. When they had the first Allied conference, (Casablanca) Roosevelt announced publicly the ’Unconditional Surrender’ policy without bothering to tell any of the other allies. Do you think the German’s wouldn’t have shot Hitler in 1943 if it would have saved their nation? Do you think the Italians wouldn't have killed Mussolini about the time of the Anzio landings? Of do you think the Emperor would have stood silent as his people died if he knew that his nation would be saved? After all, it was his entering the conversation after Hiroshima that ended it for the Japanese!

 

By stating that they would have to surrender everything, the US pushed men that knew the war was over to fight. pushed them into a failed assassination attempt in 1944 a year after any intelligent officer knew they had lost! The deaths of several million people including 3.5million Germans can be laid on Roosevelt’s doorstep.

 

Palpatine DC said:

It was a common error in German tanks: good armour and good weapons, but over enginieered. In 1942 the Panther was developed to counter the T34 and if you look at it, you can see the outward resemblance: the sloped glacis plate and side armour were a novolty for German armour. However it lacked the simplicity and low maintenance needs of the T34 which made the latter the nr 1 tank on the Eastern Front.

 

I replied. “As I pointed out with Stalingrad, the Germans are watchmakers with weapons, the Russians and a lot of others are plow makers.

 

Every weapon made from the KAR98 to the Schwable (ME 262) were finely crafted equipment that works just as perfectly today as they did when issued. The same cannot be said for the PSSH 42. The Germans build weapons as if they are works of art. The French Russians Japanese and even the Americans at the time built something to steal a work of art with. After all;

 

As long as it does the job, who cares?

[Emperor Devon]

I replied: Your Forget the Christmas truce of 1914. For four months British and German troops sat and did not fight because the war made no flipping sense to them. The Brits finally shifted the units around so they weren’t facing their newfound ‘frineds’ on the other side, and began using draconian punishments if men refused to fight.

 

That was an interesting aspect of WWI. I watched a documentary recently which covered it, and it was very amusing. Some German and I think British soldiers were on opposing trenches, but didn't want to fight each other. It got truly ridiculous when a British officer ordered them to fire some artillery to make the Germans more hostile, but his soldiers threw a message over to the German trench telling that they where they were going to fire the artillery, and that they'd make shrill whistle before it went off so the Germans would have time to get away. Absurd.

 

Actually the American soldier, properly led and equipped was considered pretty damn good.

 

Compared to the Germans, though, our troops were not as good.

 

They were effective but also foolish. The difference between courage in battle and stupidity is a small one. The Waffen SS divisions that were sent into battle during the war were really effective but also took tremendous losses. Blind zealotry and bravery killed many of them.

 

That is true. I was just speculating what it would've been like if all German troops were as fanatical.

[Totenkopf]

Ok, Luke, if your contention is that the discussion was primarily about tactics and philosophies, that's fine and well. I wasn't contending the M26 had turned any tides (much too late for that anyway). Nor did I say you were directly comparing the KT to the Pershing. In some ways, once air superiority was clearly established, the tank had become much like the battleship (at least in clear weather). Not suggesting armor was dead, just much more vulnerable (at least in more open areas). But, Palp's stats and info merely reinforce my first post about high maintainence being Germany's achille's heel. As, also, its inability to provide the resources to keep the panzers operating in the field. The emphasis placed on excess quantity over quality was to no small degree vindicated by Germany's inability to strike at that ability.

 

As to machievelli and his position on casualties, you appear to paint a somewhat lopsided pic of the price paid. While Japanese casualities on Guadalcanal were steep in comparison to the allies, it wasn't so throughout the war. Yes, the IJ did lose more manpower than the US, but America had many more WIAs than Japan. Tarawa, Iwo Jima and Okinawa are but 3 examples. In the first, some 3000 US (1K KIA/2K WIAs) vs 4700 Japs. On Iwo the total number of casualties on both sides was fairly equal, the main difference being the virtually ALL Japanese were KIA (~22K) while US deaths were around 6800+/- and wounded > 15K. On Okinawa the numer of Japanese killed (108K +/-) and catured (>10k) merely exceded US combat casualties by slightly higher than 2-1 ratio (12K+ KIA and >38K WIA). These kind of numbers only helped push Truman to use the bombs.

 

Also, while I'm no fan of FDR, I can't blame him for the fanatical nature of Nazi and Imperial soldiers. The Germans were fighting a bitter, no quarter type conflict on the eastern front before 1943 and the Japanese were trained in the code of bushido and an unhealthy concern for thier emperors will. If you were told that the emperor expected you to die, than die you did. Plus, there's that awful shame stigma and disavowal problem. Also, you assume that in 1943 that the axis powers would've known they were doomed and would have sued for peace. Not likely. It took 2 atomic weapons to open the emperor's eyes and that didn't happen till ~ two years later. Frankly, the problem was not much different for the Germans. Hitler was like a teutonic god and the SS and Gestapo had a firm grip on Germany at that point. They were not about to turn on their master, nor let the Wehrmacht overthrow Hitler either.

[machievelli]

 

As to machievelli and his position on casualties, you appear to paint a somewhat lopsided pic of the price paid.

I am using the figures given By James Dunnigan. Page 49 of Dirty little Secrets of WWII. US:413,000 combined (Military and Civilian) dead Russia 29 million france 595,000 China 21.4 million, Germany 5.695 million Jaqan3.237 million. In most cases except two (China and russia) civilian casualties were much less than the military lost. China lost 1.4 million troops, Russia 12 million, and German's is almost split with 3.25 million military and 2.445 million civilians. When i spoke of differences such as Guadalcanal, the situation was where both were equal in equipment and supply. The Japanese were having problems supplying their troops, and the US was in the position that they had to grab every Japanese supply they could, because the navy didnt supply them properly.

 

Also, while I'm no fan of FDR, I can't blame him for the fanatical nature of Nazi and Imperial soldiers. The Germans were fighting a bitter, no quarter type conflict on the eastern front before 1943 and the Japanese were trained in the code of bushido and an unhealthy concern for thier emperors will. If you were told that the emperor expected you to die, than die you did. Plus, there's that awful shame stigma and disavowal problem. Also, you assume that in 1943 that the axis powers would've known they were doomed and would have sued for peace. Not likely. It took 2 atomic weapons to open the emperor's eyes and that didn't happen till ~ two years later. Frankly, the problem was not much different for the Germans. Hitler was like a teutonic god and the SS and Gestapo had a firm grip on Germany at that point. They were not about to turn on their master, nor let the Wehrmacht overthrow Hitler either.

 

Apples and oranges, Totenkopf. There was never any quarter expected on the Eastern Front Once The Germans attacked, it was live or die. But in the West, they faced England the US and France who they had expected to Negotiate. When Roosevelt announced 'unconditional surrender in January of 1943, anyone who even suggested surrender was lambasted in the German press. And as mesmerized as the SS and Hitler Jugend were, officersl ike Rommel Raeder Canaris and others knew after Stalingrad that they couldn't win.

 

As for the Emperor, he is technically the seat of the Japanese government, but at the same time had no control. His failure to sign the declaration of war in November of 41 was glossed over by the Tojo Government. LIke Chamberian returning from Berlin, they waved the paper so that everyone would think that he had.

 

However while the government ignored him the people did not. If he had come forward in 1943 or 44 and ordered them to sue for peace, they would have had to comply. The fact that he ordered it in 1945 and they accepted proves that.

[Totenkopf]

I'm familiar w/ Dunnigan (have his Quick and Dirty Guide To War) but not the book to which you refer. My main point about the casualty figures is that it's a little misleading to point only to the numbers of KIA. But the overall figures of deaths you mention are familiar to me.

 

Given who controlled the governments of Nazi Germany and Japan, it's still hard to argue, as you are doing, that the war was dragged on solely b/c of FDR. I don't think the American people or our allies would have ultimately accepted anything else short of unconditional victory. The only way that the Germans could have rid themselves of the Nazi's would have been to fall back on themselves in civil war. Many of the SS units got most of the best equipment and the gestapo, while not omniscient, had spies throughout the Wehrmact. Then you're forgetting the personal oaths they were forced to take to Hitler. Given all that corruption w/in the ranks, it's doubtful that the military would have just lined up behind a few men of conscience. Assuming you could have gotten Hitler, what of his successors? And look at the attempts to take him out near the end. None really succeded in doing anything but make him an even bigger raving paranoid, though a physically wounded one. Just the suspicion of complicity probably resulted in executions.

 

I do agree that Hirohito was basically a kept figure, probably like during the Shogun era in feudal Japan. So, since the Emperor was basically an isolated figure from the general population, and assuming he really did oppose the war, what chance do you think he would have had of stopping the war in the face of his government? The people of Japan had no idea of what he sounded like and it took a divided military govenment to give the emperor the chance he needed, AFTER 2 atomic bombings, to finally call for his country's surrender. If Tojo's govt knew that the emperor was not on board, but pursued the war anyway, how was the emperor truly going to stop it?

 

But equally importantly, by what right did they (or even you)assume the allies should have come to a negotiation? At what price? Should we have halted the war in the hopes that the Germans could actually rid themselves of the Nazis w/o a complete collapse first? And since Stalin never intended to accept anything short of an unconditional surrender himself, what dif if FDR proclaimed unconditional surrender as a term? What next? The USSR would certainly have interpreted such a move as a betrayal and, except for the atomic bomb, might have tried to take advantage of the situation,thus precipatating the 3rd WW on the heels of the 2nd. They were already pissed that the allies didn't launch Overlord before 1944. So, I guess this begs the question: just what type of terms did you expect FDR to give to stop the war (perhaps prematurely)?

[machievelli]

The thing is, that before 1944, Hitler was not as well protected as he was after the failed september bomb plot. But a lot of good men, Rommel among others kept fighting because we gevt thjem no alternatives. The first overtures of peace made by such groups began in 1942, when they wanted the Brits and US to simply stand pat and allow the Germans to concentrate on Russia. But those were ignored by the US (We were the only ones contacted), and the call for unconditional surrender was made.

 

Right after the landings in Sicily the Italians tried again, and again when we landed in southern Italy. It wasn't until the fall of Rome that we finally listened, but the Germans were able to control the northern half of the country still.

 

But Italy Japan and Germany were not the whole of the axis powers. Romania Bulgaria and Hungary were also involved, and requests from them for separate negotiations were ignored. Germany could not have occupied controlled and defended those nations. Regardless of their vaunted efficiency. They had to kidnap the leader of Hungary and his son just to keep them in the war.

 

I agree, it would have come down as it did in Japan and Germany, but a lot of devestation, and throwing half of Europe under the Iron Curtain because the Wetern allies were unable to assist them came because they had been told 'we're going to destroy your entire societies'.

 

The first overtures for peace from Japan came before the fall of Iwo JIma, but unfortunately, they had to come through the Russians, who didn't even tell us that they had been made. Tojo's government was willing to surrender itself, destroy their entire military machine. All they asked was for the sanctity of the Emperor.

 

I am a Texan, and the one thing people always think is 'the Men at the Alamo were brave'. But when they heard the Duguello, they knew they had to die, and it's better to die fighting. That's what I mean. That is why the Jews in Israeli fight so damn hard. They can't afford to lose.

[Totenkopf]

Perhaps with the Japanese it was ironic, then, that the Emperor's sanctity (or at least his life) was spared by the Occupation authorities. I believe his highness was willing to renounce his godhood, though I don't recall that being forced upon him. No doubt Macarthur's conduct went far toward making the postwar situation in Japan more stable. I mean, afterall, when the natives wished you a "succesful erection", it was probably heartfelt. Speech is a funny thing sometimes.

 

The Germans, on the other hand, present a different problem. Even if the Americans et al had agreed to a seperate peace, it's doubtful at that point that the Germans could have held back the Russian hordes w/o material assistance. So......how would this have been accomplished? Assuming the Germans could have eliminated the Nazi hold on their country AND still fought the Russians, what would have been the price? Would they have had to turn over all rocket and military research? What about the question of any reparations? The result of draconian terms in WW1 ultimately bit Europe in the ass w/WW2 w/in a generation. How would you have convinced the commies in the USSR to stop their inevitable advance into EE, let alone Germany? The Russians were very good about espionage and probably knew about the atomic bomb project, if not exact rate of progress. Should Roosevelt have told Stalin..."Look here old boy, we're wrapping this thing up in Germany. Why don't you take a breather and call a cease fire on your front, b/c I really believe these Germans want peace". Hitler sealed Germany's fate by launching his war. I doubt the allies could've switched gears midwar like that and essentially dissolved the alliance in favor of a new one (or at least one with the conspicuous absence of Russia). I rather doubt that the military could've sued for peace under any other terms anyway. The Nazi grip was just too strong in Germany. Paulus only got away w/it at Stalingrad b/c he had nothing left to fight with at that point. Surrender being a seemingly more honorable fate than annhilation.

 

However, I would agree that FDR sold a lot of people down the river w/regards to the aftermath, especially Churchill. The US, war weary as it no doubt was, should NOT have let the Russians establish and consolidate their hold on EE. Even Truman should have told Stalin to take a flying leap. Germany was vanquished, so the USSR did not need a buffer zone with so many Russian troops occupying it. America still had a monopoly on nukes and sadly, the cold war was inevitable. Stalin et al knew the west had no love of communists (except perhaps in acedemia and the arts) and he still sought to dominate the world himself, if at all possible. Paranoia could have excused their attitude if the USSR's prewar border remained intact, with eastern europeans given the true right to freely choose their own govts. It was meglomania that set the cold war in motion. Communism was expansionist and didn't really seek to stop with the removal of the fascists. So, if FDR was in any way responsible for the iron curtain engulfing EE, it had less to do with unconditional surrender and more to do with not (at least attempting more strenuously) keeping the USSR under control w/regard to postwar developments (assuming that was truly possible anyway).

[machievelli]

Perhaps with the Japanese it was ironic, then, that the Emperor's sanctity (or at least his life) was spared by the Occupation authorities. I believe his highness was willing to renounce his godhood, though I don't recall that being forced upon him. No doubt Macarthur's conduct went far toward making the postwar situation in Japan more stable. I mean, afterall, when the natives wished you a "succesful erection", it was probably heartfelt. Speech is a funny thing sometimes.

 

That was about the only thing that was demanded. Hirohito was willing to give it up anyway. But the draconian smashing of the infrastructure we did in Germany was not repeated in any of their allies. We did smash the military infrastructure of both Japan and Italy, but the wholesale destruction of a lot of industry that had nothing to do with the war never occured.

 

 

 

The Germans, on the other hand, present a different problem.

True, but uncondtional surrender had gone out with the Crusaders. It was not considered a logical demand by anyone but Roosevelt. He pointed in fact to onyl one man who ever issued such a demand in American or for that matter world history in the last 600 years. That was US Grant during the battle of Fort Donelson during the Civil War. Everyone but Roosevelt would have settled for a negotiation rather than total surrender.

 

However, I would agree that FDR sold a lot of people down the river w/regards to the aftermath, especially Churchill. The US, war weary as it no doubt was, should NOT have let the Russians establish and consolidate their hold on EE. Even Truman should have told Stalin to take a flying leap. Germany was vanquished, so the USSR did not need a buffer zone with so many Russian troops occupying it. America still had a monopoly on nukes and sadly, the cold war was inevitable. Stalin et al knew the west had no love of communists (except perhaps in acedemia and the arts) and he still sought to dominate the world himself, if at all possible. Paranoia could have excused their attitude if the USSR's prewar border remained intact, with eastern europeans given the true right to freely choose their own govts. It was meglomania that set the cold war in motion. Communism was expansionist and didn't really seek to stop with the removal of the fascists. So, if FDR was in any way responsible for the iron curtain engulfing EE, it had less to do with unconditional surrender and more to do with not (at least attempting more strenuously) keeping the USSR under control w/regard to postwar developments (assuming that was truly possible anyway).

 

The problem facing Truman, was Alger Hiss, who later proved to be a Communist agent, along with the New Dealers that literally gave half of Europe away before Truman even took the oath of Vice President. He came to office and for three months was not told dick about what had already been done. When the war ended, he knew that a lot of people were dying in Easter Europe as the Communists broke their wills. But the deals already signed by Roosevelt and the cabinet could not be repudiated without going to war to shove the Russians back out. He didn't find out about General order 1068 until later in 1945.

 

As for reparations, except for the entire destruction of their industrial infrastructure and systematic butralization of the german people in every Zone including the American one, none were asked for.