D-Day

[Mike Henderson]

Just a reminder - today is the anniversary of D-Day (1944).

Mike

[Frederick Skelly]

I'm always in awe of them. Can you imagine how they felt, wading ashore straight into the german guns? The opening scene in Saving Private Ryan was exactly the way I always imagined it must have been. I never had a chance to meet one of the survivors of D-Day. I suspect he wouldn't talk about it anyway.

Once again, thanks to all who have served.

[Keith Outten]

D Day Letter:

458992

[Bill Dufour]

I understand that Ike had already written a letter about the d-day failure and resigning his commission. He wrote this before the first men landed ,just in case it was needed.
Bill D

[Frederick Skelly]

I understand that Ike had already written a letter about the d-day failure and resigning his commission. He wrote this before the first men landed ,just in case it was needed.
Bill D

I've read that, though I dont remember the part about resigning. Nixon had a contingency letter for the first moon landing, too.

[lowell holmes]

I was eight years old and I still remember the Nazis. I also remember the Japanese war. We fought two wars and won.

[Mike Henderson]

I was eight years old and I still remember the Nazis. I also remember the Japanese war. We fought two wars and won.


Don't forget that we had allies in WWII. In Europe, it was the Soviet Union who defeated Germany, while in the Pacific, it was the Americans who defeated the Japanese.

Mike

[If we hadn't landed on D-Day, it's likely the Soviet Union would have swept through all of Germany and possibly France, since Germany occupied France.]

[Mike Henderson]

Some D-Day statistics. The casualties for the major beach landings were as follows:

Omaha - 2,000
Utah - 197
Gold - 1,000
Juno - 961
Sword - 1,000

Remember that causalities are soldiers out of the fight, not those killed. Out of the fight might included wounded, sick, missing, captured, and probably a few other categories. I don't have statistics on KIAs for each beach but research indicates about 4,400 KIAs (2,500 Americans, the rest British and Canadian) total for the invasion on the first day. Clearly, Omaha was the worse and is the one depicted in Saving Private Ryan.

But when making a beach landing, the problem is not the landing, itself. The problem is staying there. The initial troops who went ashore were almost all infantry. They were limited in number, did not have prepared defensive positions, had essentially no tanks and only had artillery support from the ships - and very limited supplies (ammunition, food, water, medical supplies, etc.). They also essentially couldn't be reinforced. A counter attack by a large experienced force of tanks and infantry would have driven those infantry troops back onto the sea. The planners were well aware of this and did everything they could to block road and rail lines that the Germans could use to bring up their tanks.

But the German failure was based in Berlin. Hitler had ordered that no tank forces were to be released except on his personal orders. By the time they were released the allies had brought tanks, artillery and supplies to the bridgeheads and were able to resist the counter attacks.

It really was touch-and-go. It certainly could have failed.

Mike

[lowell holmes]

I copied the letter and printed it. I will frame it and hang it in my office.

[Jim Koepke]

I copied the letter and printed it. I will frame it and hang it in my office.

Lowell, Here is an account from the beginning of the war you may want to save:


John Guy writes: "What God did at Pearl Harbor that day is interesting and I never knew this little bit of history.
Tour boats ferry people out to the USS Arizona Memorial in Hawaii every thirty minutes. We just missed a ferry and had to wait thirty minutes. I went into a small gift shop to kill time.
In the gift shop, I purchased a small book entitled, "Reflections on Pearl Harbor" by Admiral Chester Nimitz.
Sunday, December 7th, 1941— Admiral Chester Nimitz was attending a concert in Washington, DC. He was paged and told there was a phone call for him. When he answered the phone, it was President Franklin Delano Roosevelt on the phone.
He told Admiral Nimitz that he (Nimitz) would now be the Commander of the Pacific Fleet. Admiral Nimitz flew to Hawaii to assume command of the Pacific Fleet. He landed at Pearl Harbor on Christmas Eve, 1941. There was such a spirit of despair, dejection and defeat--you would have thought the Japanese had already won the war.
On Christmas Day, 1941, Adm. Nimitz was given a boat tour of the destruction wrought on Pearl Harbor by the Japanese. Big sunken battleships and navy vessels cluttered the waters everywhere you looked. As the tour boat returned to dock, the young helmsman of the boat asked, "Well Admiral, what do you think after seeing all this destruction?"
Admiral Nimitz's reply shocked everyone within the sound of his voice. Admiral Nimitz said, "The Japanese made three of the biggest mistakes an attack force could ever make, or God was taking care of America. Which do you think it was?"
Shocked and surprised, the young helmsman asked, "What do mean by saying the Japanese made the three biggest mistakes an attack force ever made?
Nimitz explained:
Mistake number one:
The Japanese attacked on Sunday morning. Nine out of every ten crewmen of those ships were ashore on leave. If those same ships had been lured to sea and been sunk--we would have lost 38,000 men instead of 3,800.
Mistake number two:
When the Japanese saw all those battleships lined in a row, they got so carried away sinking those battleships, they never once bombed our dry docks opposite those ships. If they had destroyed our dry docks, we would have had to tow every one of those ships to America to be repaired. As it is now, the ships are in shallow water and can be raised. One tug can pull them over to the dry docks, and we can have them repaired and at sea by the time we could have towed them to America. And I already have crews ashore anxious to man those ships.
Mistake number three: Every drop of fuel in the Pacific theater of war is in top of the ground storage tanks five miles away over that hill. One attack plane could have strafed those tanks and destroyed our fuel supply.
That's why I say the Japanese made three of the biggest mistakes an attack force could make or, God was taking care of America.
I've never forgotten what I read in that little book. It is still an inspiration as I reflect upon it. In jest, I might suggest that because Admiral Nimitz was a Texan, born and raised in Fredericksburg, Texas -- he was a born optimist.
But any way you look at it -- Admiral Nimitz was able to see a silver lining in a situation and circumstance where everyone else saw only despair and defeatism.
President Roosevelt had chosen the right man for the right job. We desperately needed a leader that could see silver lining in the midst of the clouds of dejection, despair and defeat.

[Ronald Blue]

Some D-Day statistics. The casualties for the major beach landings were as follows:

Omaha - 2,000
Utah - 197
Gold - 1,000
Juno - 961
Sword - 1,000

Remember that causalities are soldiers out of the fight, not those killed. Out of the fight might included wounded, sick, missing, captured, and probably a few other categories. I don't have statistics on KIAs for each beach but research indicates about 4,400 KIAs (2,500 Americans, the rest British and Canadian) total for the invasion on the first day. Clearly, Omaha was the worse and is the one depicted in Saving Private Ryan.

But when making a beach landing, the problem is not the landing, itself. The problem is staying there. The initial troops who went ashore were almost all infantry. They were limited in number, did not have prepared defensive positions, had essentially no tanks and only had artillery support from the ships - and very limited supplies (ammunition, food, water, medical supplies, etc.). They also essentially couldn't be reinforced. A counter attack by a large experienced force of tanks and infantry would have driven those infantry troops back onto the sea. The planners were well aware of this and did everything they could to block road and rail lines that the Germans could use to bring up their tanks.

But the German failure was based in Berlin. Hitler had ordered that no tank forces were to be released except on his personal orders. By the time they were released the allies had brought tanks, artillery and supplies to the bridgeheads and were able to resist the counter attacks.

It really was touch-and-go. It certainly could have failed.

Mike

I might be confusing it with a different offensive but I was thinking we also fooled the Germans into thinking the invasion was going to happen at a different location and as a result they sent their reinforcements to the wrong area. There is a good series on Netflix about WW II and the numerous turning points.

[lowell holmes]

I remember WWII and I remember when the bomb was dropped on Japan. It was a miserable day in history, but it had to be.
I had uncles in that war. I was 8 years old when it ended.

Then there was the Korean war and I remember when it ended.

Later, I was a navy reservist stationed in Key West Florida during the Berlin crisis and one day we were training gunners mates and I saw the brand new Atomic sub Nautilus on top of the water making about 30 knots throwing a huge rooster tail in the air. For you non-boaters, a rooster tail is the wake behind the vessel.

[Frederick Skelly]

I might be confusing it with a different offensive but I was thinking we also fooled the Germans into thinking the invasion was going to happen at a different location and as a result they sent their reinforcements to the wrong area. There is a good series on Netflix about WW II and the numerous turning points.

You remember it right Ronald. There was an elaborate ruse, made up of several different parts conducted over several months, all designed to mislead the germans.

[Mike Henderson]

You remember it right Ronald. There was an elaborate ruse, made up of several different parts conducted over several months, all designed to mislead the Germans.

It was Operation Fortitude (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Fortitude).

Mike

[Bruce Wrenn]

Some D-Day statistics. The casualties for the major beach landings were as follows:

Omaha - 2,000
Utah - 197
Gold - 1,000
Juno - 961
Sword - 1,000

Remember that causalities are soldiers out of the fight, not those killed. Out of the fight might included wounded, sick, missing, captured, and probably a few other categories. I don't have statistics on KIAs for each beach but research indicates about 4,400 KIAs (2,500 Americans, the rest British and Canadian) total for the invasion on the first day. Clearly, Omaha was the worse and is the one depicted in Saving Private Ryan.

But when making a beach landing, the problem is not the landing, itself. The problem is staying there. The initial troops who went ashore were almost all infantry. They were limited in number, did not have prepared defensive positions, had essentially no tanks and only had artillery support from the ships - and very limited supplies (ammunition, food, water, medical supplies, etc.). They also essentially couldn't be reinforced. A counter attack by a large experienced force of tanks and infantry would have driven those infantry troops back onto the sea. The planners were well aware of this and did everything they could to block road and rail lines that the Germans could use to bring up their tanks.

But the German failure was based in Berlin. Hitler had ordered that no tank forces were to be released except on his personal orders. By the time they were released the allies had brought tanks, artillery and supplies to the bridgeheads and were able to resist the counter attacks.

It really was touch-and-go. It certainly could have failed.

Mike

As a group, the rangers fared the worst. More drowned from weight of water soaked rope they were carrying to climb cliffs, than from German gunfire. Same type thing happened in Operation "Market Garden." Paratroopers landed in water, and couldn't get out of their harnesses, due to poor design. British only needed to open one buckle on theirs to get out.

[Warren Lake]

my neighbours brother was there, lost friends before they hit shore. He wrote a 50 page book of it and I borrowed it from the neighbour, read it and and scanned it into the computer.

He was sniper. There was a sense of calm about that man. Never knew what to say to him, we talked about everything else. Special family they are all of them. He said it was a different time. He survived that and also one day landing his cessna on his farm, flipped and crashed. I think he lived to 94.

[Rod Sheridan]

Warren, my father and his 2 brothers served overseas, they never spoke of what they had done or witnessed.

My friends parents were the same, never spoke of their experiences.

When I was young my father and I were walking to the cenotaph for Remembrance Day and I lost my poppy and was crying so my father gave me his. Then I was worried that people would think he had forgotten about the war. I smile when I think of that now, how could he ever have forgotten the worst 5 years of his life?

Both my parents were adults during the Great Depression, then Dad went overseas for WWII, the worst 15 consecutive years of the twentieth century and they never once complained about any of it. That generation did what was expected of them and didn't think it was unusual, or worth any praise, you did what was required.

Their lives were so much different than mine........Rod.

[Mike Henderson]

My uncle Henry served in Europe in WWII and was wounded by shrapnel from an 88. He was in the signal corps and was running comm wire for telephones between units when he was hit.

After I came back from Vietnam he started talking with me about his experiences. A lot were typical funny army experiences - not all were about his front line activity. He was a great guy - I miss him a lot (he passed away more than ten years ago).

Mike

[Warren Lake]

as cher said "if I could turn back time" I would have asked Jim but I was a bit afraid of what was right, we always talked life stuff. When I was a kid I visited my grandparents in London Ont. My grandfather told me in the war they had no food so they ate flies. There was always a glint in his eye so wasnt sure. I was too young to realize I should have asked him 1000 questions about his life, 16 year old kid on a motorcycle. I asked my mom questions in the last years and she didnt know. All we knew was he was a tank mechanic and I have a photo of his regiment in the living room. What they went through and many is tough to a level I cant relate to.

[Chuck Wintle]

Warren, my father and his 2 brothers served overseas, they never spoke of what they had done or witnessed.

My friends parents were the same, never spoke of their experiences.

When I was young my father and I were walking to the cenotaph for Remembrance Day and I lost my poppy and was crying so my father gave me his. Then I was worried that people would think he had forgotten about the war. I smile when I think of that now, how could he ever have forgotten the worst 5 years of his life?

Both my parents were adults during the Great Depression, then Dad went overseas for WWII, the worst 15 consecutive years of the twentieth century and they never once complained about any of it. That generation did what was expected of them and didn't think it was unusual, or worth any praise, you did what was required.

Their lives were so much different than mine........Rod.
Where i grew up there were many WW2 vets and many who survived the brutality of japanes capture in hong kong, and may who were POW's of the Germans. No one really spoke about these experiences...its a way to deal with the horrific memories.

[Mike Henderson]

as cher said "if I could turn back time" I would have asked Jim but I was a bit afraid of what was right, we always talked life stuff. When I was a kid I visited my grandparents in London Ont. My grandfather told me in the war they had no food so they ate flies. There was always a glint in his eye so wasnt sure. I was too young to realize I should have asked him 1000 questions about his life, 16 year old kid on a motorcycle. I asked my mom questions in the last years and she didnt know. All we knew was he was a tank mechanic and I have a photo of his regiment in the living room. What they went through and many is tough to a level I cant relate to.

I'm disappointed that none of my relatives ever asked me about my time in the Army and in Vietnam. I had easy duty in Vietnam but there are a lot of stories there. If nothing else, it's a window into another place and time.

None of my younger relatives served in the Military so I think there's no frame of reference for them to understand what life was like there. The veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan probably encounter the same thing. There are so few of them - compared to the total population - and the general population didn't pay a lot of attention to the war there. I'm sure they find very few people interested in hearing about their service there.

Remember that over 80% of the people in the military do not serve on the front lines in a war - they're in support activities. But when you're in a war zone there are so many experiences and events that are interesting. Some are funny, some ridiculous, some make you angry because of stupidity you encounter. I wish I had kept a journal - so many memories are lost to time.

Mike

[Mel Fulks]

Mike, they might just be following some protocol from magazine articles. You might find that a few stories would be appreciated and bring
questions, and comments like how they worried about you. I think it’s human nature to want to hear war stories , if the room is at a
comfortable temperature and there are good snacks.

[Ron Citerone]

I'm disappointed that none of my relatives ever asked me about my time in the Army and in Vietnam. I had easy duty in Vietnam but there are a lot of stories there. If nothing else, it's a window into another place and time.

None of my younger relatives served in the Military so I think there's no frame of reference for them to understand what life was like there. The veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan probably encounter the same thing. There are so few of them - compared to the total population - and the general population didn't pay a lot of attention to the war there. I'm sure they find very few people interested in hearing about their service there.

Remember that over 80% of the people in the military do not serve on the front lines in a war - they're in support activities. But when you're in a war zone there are so many experiences and events that are interesting. Some are funny, some ridiculous, some make you angry because of stupidity you encounter. I wish I had kept a journal - so many memories are lost to time.

Mike


Mike, My life has been greatly influenced by WWII Veterans. Father, Uncle who never came back, 5 other Uncles and my Father in Law, who were in combat there along with many of my teachers. I always liked hearing their stories although they all carefully avoided the horrors and told interesting anectdotal stories.

With that said, and choosing words carefully here, Vietnam Vets I know have a wide range of how they feel about talking about the war. Although interested, I tread lightly. I found your posts on the Vietnam Veterans Day thread very interesting and meant a lot more considering your service experience.

Might not be too late to commit your thoughts to paper for those family members who haven't asked yet, at some point they may want to know.

Ron

[Ronald Blue]

It's always interesting to hear of the experiences many soldiers had. My cousin who was much older was in WWII and was wounded at the Battle of the Bulge. Not serious enough to be sent home. Just spent a couple weeks behind the lines. After his recovery he was Patton's driver. My mother and father worked at Camp Ellis. A POW camp in the middle of the cornfields here in Illinois. I think it was in operation for about 3 years. There are still some structures remaining from it. I was not in the military but I respect and thank those of you who have or are serving.

[Curt Harms]

Don't forget that we had allies in WWII. In Europe, it was the Soviet Union who defeated Germany, while in the Pacific, it was the Americans who defeated the Japanese.

Mike

[If we hadn't landed on D-Day, it's likely the Soviet Union would have swept through all of Germany and possibly France, since Germany occupied France.]

This is something that I think is not widely known. By June of 1944 the outcome of the war on the Eastern Front was pretty well decided. There was still much bloody fighting but the Red Army was on the offensive and could not be stopped. What the Soviet Union went through 1941-1945 very much dictated what came after. Nobody really knows how many people the Soviet Union lost in that war but it was a lot, estimated at around 26 -27 million. The majority of those were civilian. The post war leadership resolved to never have that happen again. The occupied Eastern European countries were a buffer.

[Frederick Skelly]

Don't forget that we had allies in WWII. In Europe, it was the Soviet Union who defeated Germany, while in the Pacific, it was the Americans who defeated the Japanese.

Mike

[If we hadn't landed on D-Day, it's likely the Soviet Union would have swept through all of Germany and possibly France, since Germany occupied France.]

There's an interesting book called The Washington War, by James Lacey (https://www.amazon.com/s?k=the+washington+war+james+lacey&crid=I0VVG55A6I5N&sprefix=The+washington+war%2Caps%2C230&ref=nb_sb_ss_ts-doa-p_3_18). In it, the author claims that as early as mid-1943:
"Roosevelt was not naïve, being among the first to realize that at the war’s end Russia’s writ would extend to wherever the Red Army’s advance ended. As such he was already dispensing with fantasies and giving himself over to realpolitik in a search for the best possible deal"
.....and.....
"Just as Roosevelt understood that Russian authority would run as far as the Red Army advanced, he knew that America’s power to influence the European postwar settlement rested on having a large American army deep within Europe. ... FDR now analyzed every plan and scheme through the prism of how they impacted the invasion of northern Europe, awakened to the fact that creating a working partnership with Stalin required that American troops meet the Red Army somewhere in Germany."

[Warren Lake]

here are the few first pages from whatJim wrote. At some point he was hit by scrapnel and knocked out and found unconcious. They wanted to take him to the hospital but he would not go as he would not get back with the same group of guys.

Six pages of about 50 pages. Have some newspaper articles on him as well. He had photos and some interesting stories in there. Know it was detuned for most of us.

459521459522459523459524459525459526

[Brian Holcombe]

Don't forget that we had allies in WWII. In Europe, it was the Soviet Union who defeated Germany, while in the Pacific, it was the Americans who defeated the Japanese.

Mike

[If we hadn't landed on D-Day, it's likely the Soviet Union would have swept through all of Germany and possibly France, since Germany occupied France.]

Calling this a Soviet victory would seem to ignore Lend-lease and the impact of the Western front. Without American productivity the soviets push back with what supplies? Without a Western front it looks pretty grim for the Soviet’s.

America supplied material, food and oil. The Soviet’s stood little chance of supplying their military after years of leadership purges resulting in failures in planning and the destruction of farm capacity with the push of collectivized farming which failed terribly combined with an intentional starvation of the farmers in the Ukraine. Meanwhile in the US we were able to overcome the depression and create so much surplus that we were able to provide incredible amounts of supplies to the Soviet’s, China, free France and the UK.

An excerpt from Wikipedia:
According to the Russian historian Boris Vadimovich Sokolov (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boris_Vadimovich_Sokolov), Lend-Lease had a crucial role in winning the war:
On the whole the following conclusion can be drawn: that without these Western shipments under Lend-Lease the Soviet Union not only would not have been able to win the Great Patriotic War, it would not have been able even to oppose the German invaders, since it could not itself produce sufficient quantities of arms and military equipment or adequate supplies of fuel and ammunition. The Soviet authorities were well aware of this dependency on Lend-Lease. Thus, Stalin told Harry Hopkins [FDR's emissary to Moscow in July 1941] that the U.S.S.R. could not match Germany's might as an occupier of Europe and its resources.[32] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease#cite_note-Weeks_2004,_p._9-34)

[Brian Holcombe]

It’s important to remember how significant the desert battle was also, blocking Rommel from gaining access to oil via the Suez Canal was a key factor in allied success. Without access to oil fromRommel’s campaign which was defeated by Commonwealth and American troops, combined with the Soviet defense of the Caucasus is what began to cripple the Wehrmacht.

These efforts were bolstered by allied air attacks of German production
facilities performed by English and American bombers.

[Mike Henderson]

Calling this a Soviet victory would seem to ignore Lend-lease and the impact of the Western front. Without American productivity the soviets push back with what supplies? Without a Western front it looks pretty grim for the Soviet’s.

America supplied material, food and oil. The Soviet’s stood little chance of supplying their military after years of leadership purges resulting in failures in planning and the destruction of farm capacity with the push of collectivized farming which failed terribly combined with an intentional starvation of the farmers in the Ukraine. Meanwhile in the US we were able to overcome the depression and create so much surplus that we were able to provide incredible amounts of supplies to the Soviet’s, China, free France and the UK.

An excerpt from Wikipedia:
According to the Russian historian Boris Vadimovich Sokolov (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boris_Vadimovich_Sokolov), Lend-Lease had a crucial role in winning the war:
On the whole the following conclusion can be drawn: that without these Western shipments under Lend-Lease the Soviet Union not only would not have been able to win the Great Patriotic War, it would not have been able even to oppose the German invaders, since it could not itself produce sufficient quantities of arms and military equipment or adequate supplies of fuel and ammunition. The Soviet authorities were well aware of this dependency on Lend-Lease. Thus, Stalin told Harry Hopkins [FDR's emissary to Moscow in July 1941] that the U.S.S.R. could not match Germany's might as an occupier of Europe and its resources.[32] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease#cite_note-Weeks_2004,_p._9-34)



There's no doubt that American supplies, especially of explosives, fuel, steel and aluminum, were very important to the Soviet victory over Germany. There's also no doubt that it was Soviet Union who did the fighting and dying to obtain that victory. The United States lost about 400,000 soldiers and civilians in WWII - on two fronts: Europe and the Pacific. Less than one half of 1% of our population.

The Soviet Union lost about 25 million soldiers and civilians in that war - on what we would call today "The Eastern Front". About 13% of their population.

I wonder what the response of the people in the US would have been if the US lost 13% of our population in that war. The Soviet Union was a dictatorship so they were able to continue the war (and the losses) without a political revolt.

I'm no fan of the Soviet Union - or of Russia today - but we have to recognize the sacrifices made by them in order to achieve victory over Germany.

Mike

[By D-Day, the Soviets had pushed the German army back almost to the German border. The Germans had been retreating for at least a year and after Kursk (1943) the Germans never took the offensive again on the Eastern Front. It was clear by 1944 that the Soviet Union was going to push into Germany. Without D-Day, it's pretty clear they would have eventually swept through all of Germany. Once they would have captured Berlin, and captured or killed Hitler, the German army would probably have disintegrated. I'm going from memory here, but by 1944 the Soviet Union had about 11 million people under arms. The Germans had less than 2 million on the eastern front to oppose them.]

459645

[Mel Fulks]

Mike, I generally agree. The Russians were and are big propagandists. They started shaping their story early and there was little push -back.
When I was kid I heard adults saying the Russians were spinning their story, but no one resented it. All agreed we needed them and
acknowledged their help in defeating the Natzis.

[Jason Roehl]

Just a thought I’ve had for years now. I think if more war veterans were to talk about their experiences, we may have a lower rate of PTSD, and we would have a populace more informed about the horrors of war that would be more resistant to the idea of going to war. I know that it wasn’t until I was in my mid-late 20s, and we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq post-9/11, that I realized our forces are mostly kids. I didn’t think anything of it when I was 19, trying to enlist, but those wars, plus a friend who told me some of his experiences commanding a flame track in Vietnam at age 19 (ca. 1972) really opened my eyes.

[Frederick Skelly]

Just a thought I’ve had for years now. I think if more war veterans were to talk about their experiences, we may have a lower rate of PTSD, and we would have a populace more informed about the horrors of war that would be more resistant to the idea of going to war.

Hans Kahr was a young german soldier who survived the Russian front and post war slavery in Russia. He is quoted as saying: "Only those who really experienced the war will want to preserve peace with all their might."

[Dave Anderson NH]

A nice thought Jason. There are Veteran's Administration counseling and peer group sessions available for veterans to talk and work out their combat experiences. Many of us who saw combat, myself included, are careful to whom we talk about our war experiences. It is hard to get across to someone who hasn't been there the mixture of emotions in what is a total sensory experience. Combat combines sight, hearing, taste, smell, feeling, and a broad spectrum of conflicting emotions all happening instantaneously. Many of us for years worked from the attitude that it was useless to try to explain to someone who hadn't been there, and at the same time it was unnecessary to explain to anyone who had. Talking about it is at best difficult and emotional even 52 years later.

[Brian Holcombe]

There's no doubt that American supplies, especially of explosives, fuel, steel and aluminum, were very important to the Soviet victory over Germany. There's also no doubt that it was Soviet Union who did the fighting and dying to obtain that victory. The United States lost about 400,000 soldiers and civilians in WWII - on two fronts: Europe and the Pacific. Less than one half of 1% of our population.

The Soviet Union lost about 25 million soldiers and civilians in that war - on what we would call today "The Eastern Front". About 13% of their population.

I wonder what the response of the people in the US would have been if the US lost 13% of our population in that war. The Soviet Union was a dictatorship so they were able to continue the war (and the losses) without a political revolt.

I'm no fan of the Soviet Union - or of Russia today - but we have to recognize the sacrifices made by them in order to achieve victory over Germany.

Mike

[By D-Day, the Soviets had pushed the German army back almost to the German border. The Germans had been retreating for at least a year and after Kursk (1943) the Germans never took the offensive again on the Eastern Front. It was clear by 1944 that the Soviet Union was going to push into Germany.]

459645

I feel for the people caught up into and destroyed by the conflict, so many of whom had suffered terribly in the lead up to the conflict and those who survived would continue to suffer terribly afterward. The 20th century shows us example after example of the horrors and extent of mans inhumanity to man, done at massive scale.


There are many reasons why the casualties were exceptionally high for the Soviet’s, one being that Stalin refused to acknowledge Hitler’s breaking of the Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement for weeks as the Wehrmacht pushed into Soviet territory. Further the soviet soldier was poorly equipped and near starvation through the majority of the conflict. Finally civilians were being killed by both regimes. The Soviet’s commonly re-imprisonments their own POW’s sending them off to the gulag because they did not die in battle.

By contrast it’s my opinion that our military put a very high value on the life of a soldier, the evidence I have of this is that the leadership was heavily critiqued at points of exceptional costs of life. Specifically I’m speaking of some of Island hoping campaign where the leadership was heavily critiqued by the general public at the time, their taking of Peleliu stands out as an example.

It’s very likely that our leadership did such an excellent job in planning operation overlord partially because of their responsibility to the public. Such responsibility did not realistically exist in the Soviet Union, under Nazi leadership or as far as I’m aware in the Japanese military, publicly airing a grievance with the leadership of those regimes typically lead one to a work camp or to the gallows.

The incredible human costs produced by the conflict on the eastern front and all involved are at least partially due to a lack of accountability in the leadership which was often fixated on ideology above all else.

[Mike Henderson]

The German military leadership did not spend the lives of their soldiers freely. The German army was very professional, extremely well led, and the soldiers were disciplined, committed and professional. Most historians rate the German army and soldier as the best in the world during WWII. The fact that the German army did not collapse on the Eastern Front during the retreat is indicative of how professional they were.

But the conditions on the Eastern Front, especially in the winter, were horrible for both sides. I haven't studied the Soviet Union's side of the war that well, but I believe they were well led and committed. It was their country that was invaded and they understood what waited for them if they failed.

After D-Day, Montgomery was given guidance by British leaders to preserve lives in the British army. England lost a generation of men in WWI and that affected their economy after that war. In WWII, men with certain educations were not allowed on the front lines. The leaders knew they would be needed after the war.

Mike

[Brian Holcombe]

I do certainly agree that they were professional and disciplined, with regard to their consideration of the lives lost, that depends on what year of the war you’re referring to as it’s not the same from start to finish. You’re correct with respect the earlier years of the war but in my opinion incorrect in the later years. The last portion of Stalingrad is the pivot point, when the Red army pushed back with a two pronged attack and surrounded the Sixth Army. It’s my understanding that Hitler over road the advice of the generals and the results were that the sixth army was captured and basically destroyed.

Similarly Hitler had wanted Rommel to fight to the death in North Africa. Rommel disregarded those orders.

The later part of the war, once the Wehrmacht started to pull back was incredibly costly, Hitler intervened more often and became more erratic in his decision making. It’s my understanding that most of the military leadership had wanted to form terms with the western powers prior to the D-day invasion and the war, Hitler however pushed forward with ideological goals in spite of the fact that the writing was on the wall post Stalingrad.

So for the later part of the war when Hitler was putting out ‘die in place’ orders, it’s a pretty hard argument to make that they were not being especially wasteful unless you want to make the argument that Hitler was especially wasteful but the Wehrmacht was less so, which I think an argument could be made for that based on how many disregarded those orders.

[Brian Holcombe]

The Red army was terribly led in the earlier years of the war and well led in
the later part of the war. It’s my understanding that Stalin took the opposite approach of Hitler and moved toward putting leadership in place that was not as ideologically driven, and more qualified on merit as he became more hands off. Hitler started off with good generals and replaced the majority of them with yes-men.

[Frederick Skelly]

The Red army was terribly led in the earlier years of the war and well led in
the later part of the war. It’s my understanding that Stalin took the opposite approach of Hitler and moved toward putting leadership in place that was not as ideologically driven, and more qualified on merit as he became more hands off. Hitler started off with good generals and replaced the majority of them with yes-men.

It's my understanding that the Red Army started off so poorly led because Stalin had purged many key officers in the 1930s. Have you read anything different Brian?

[Brian Holcombe]

It's my understanding that the Red Army started off so poorly led because Stalin had purged many key officers in the 1930s. Have you read anything different Brian?

That is my understanding as well, Fred. Stalin seemed to wise up as the war progressed and may have even realized that purging the quality out of the ranks for ideologues was a poor choice.

[Mike Henderson]

I do certainly agree that they were professional and disciplined, with regard to their consideration of the lives lost, that depends on what year of the war you’re referring to as it’s not the same from start to finish. You’re correct with respect the earlier years of the war but in my opinion incorrect in the later years. The last portion of Stalingrad is the pivot point, when the Red army pushed back with a two pronged attack and surrounded the Sixth Army. It’s my understanding that Hitler over road the advice of the generals and the results were that the sixth army was captured and basically destroyed.

Similarly Hitler had wanted Rommel to fight to the death in North Africa. Rommel disregarded those orders.

The later part of the war, once the Wehrmacht started to pull back was incredibly costly, Hitler intervened more often and became more erratic in his decision making. It’s my understanding that most of the military leadership had wanted to form terms with the western powers prior to the D-day invasion and the war, Hitler however pushed forward with ideological goals in spite of the fact that the writing was on the wall post Stalingrad.

So for the later part of the war when Hitler was putting out ‘die in place’ orders, it’s a pretty hard argument to make that they were not being especially wasteful unless you want to make the argument that Hitler was especially wasteful but the Wehrmacht was less so, which I think an argument could be made for that based on how many disregarded those orders.

I don't disagree with you at all. Hitler gave those "die in place" orders but the military leadership often disregarded them. Stalingrad was a disaster ordered by Hitler. The Army could have broken out but Hitler wouldn't allow them. If I remember the numbers, about 70,000 German soldiers went into captivity but only about 6,000 lived to be repatriated to Germany after the war, and that was a good many years after the end of the war.

I also agree that Stalin allowed his military leaders to make the decisions, as opposed to Hitler who tried to run the war.

Mike

[andrew whicker]

I love the Hardcore History podcasts on WWI (I think it's 12 hours long?). He also does a 'short' podcast on one of the Russian cities during WWII. I should go back for a listen.

Anyway, a big take away is that in both wars America was safely overseas making lots of money off of the war before they finally joined. I don't dismiss any involvement from our side, but I also push back on American exceptionalism. We have to admit to ourselves that we suffered much less than Europe and Asia (and N. Africa). We made money, we fought over 'there', and then we came back home to an untouched paradise (and became a world power overnight). The true combatants of both wars lived in Europe and had cities burned to the ground, entire generations decimated (esp males) and wrecked economies.

Both wars are such sad events in history. Impossible to put the loss into words. The silver lining being that since then war has been much less costly to human life.

[Brian Holcombe]

Not sure why we would have suffered in such a fashion, we weren’t one of the original belligerents in either war and both Hitler and Japan pulled us into WWII. While I hold the military’s action in very high regard in both wars, Wilson had clear political motive and helped to make the absolute mess that was the Versailles treaty. FDR may have had similar motives but was at least a bit more tactful about his approach in the lead up to war.

One could argue that Zimmermann attempting to pull Mexico into war with the US was enough (inspite of Wilson’s grandstanding at every point of possible diplomacy) but Japan actually attacking us was much more solid a footing for asking the public to send their sons into battle.

[Frederick Skelly]

Not sure why we would have suffered in such a fashion, we weren’t one of the original belligerents in either war and both Hitler and Japan pulled us into WWII..

+1........

[Nicholas Lawrence]

Not sure why we would have suffered in such a fashion, we weren’t one of the original belligerents in either war and both Hitler and Japan pulled us into WWII. While I hold the military’s action in very high regard in both wars, Wilson had clear political motive and helped to make the absolute mess that was the Versailles treaty. FDR may have had similar motives but was at least a bit more tactful about his approach in the lead up to war.

One could argue that Zimmermann attempting to pull Mexico into war with the US was enough (inspite of Wilson’s grandstanding at every point of possible diplomacy) but Japan actually attacking us was much more solid a footing for asking the public to send their sons into battle.

Your point about Wilson is very obscure. He was in bed with the Germans to the point of directing the State Department to allow them to pass messages through our embassy in Berlin. The Zimmerman telegram was sent by our own embassy to the German embassy in Washington, and then on to their embassy in Mexico. The British intercepted it, and had a long debate about whether the disclosure that they were spying on our communications was worth turning it over to us.

[Mike Henderson]

Not sure why we would have suffered in such a fashion, we weren’t one of the original belligerents in either war and both Hitler and Japan pulled us into WWII.

I'm fairly sure Andrew was not saying that we should have suffered the same devastation as Europe, he was commenting that our economic growth and world leadership after WWII was partly due to the fact that our economy was not in tatters. The soldiers came home, went to college on the GI Bill, and went on to lead the world in technology development. The United States had almost everything going for it after WWII, and we reaped the benefits of that good fortune.

There was a lot of government money spent before and during WWII on research (RADAR, aircraft design, nuclear, etc.). It was for technology to be used in the war, but a lot of it helped after the war. And the organizations of engineers and scientists that were set up to do these things were able to redirect their research and development to peacetime activities. Those things were not there, and not possible, in early post war Europe.

The US had a real head start after WWII and we took advantage of it to become the leader of the free world. We don't have that advantage any more.

Mike

[Brian Holcombe]

Your point about Wilson is very obscure. He was in bed with the Germans to the point of directing the State Department to allow them to pass messages through our embassy in Berlin. The Zimmerman telegram was sent by our own embassy to the German embassy in Washington, and then on to their embassy in Mexico. The British intercepted it, and had a long debate about whether the disclosure that they were spying on our communications was worth turning it over to us.

Interesting, Nick. It’s hard to know the motivation there but we certainly know the result and that was joining the allies and Wilson helped to draft the treaty which would be used after the war’s end. Had he been in bed, would we not just have remained neutral? Furthermore would he have helped draft such an over-bearing treaty for a war where there were such a broad range of motivations it was very tough to really pin-point a definitive culprit. I’m not disagreeing but more curious as to your thoughts.

[Brian Holcombe]

I'm fairly sure Andrew was not saying that we should have suffered the same devastation as Europe, he was commenting that our economic growth and world leadership after WWII was partly due to the fact that our economy was not in tatters. The soldiers came home, went to college on the GI Bill, and went on to lead the world in technology development. The United States had almost everything going for it after WWII, and we reaped the benefits of that good fortune.

There was a lot of government money spent before and during WWII on research (RADAR, aircraft design, nuclear, etc.). It was for technology to be used in the war, but a lot of it helped after the war. And the organizations of engineers and scientists that were set up to do these things were able to redirect their research and development to peacetime activities. Those things were not there, and not possible, in early post war Europe.

The US had a real head start after WWII and we took advantage of it to become the leader of the free world. We don't have that advantage any more.

Mike

Sure, I just don’t quite understand what conclusion to draw from these things beyond acknowledgement. We also helped Germany and Japan rebuild and both are powerhouses of economic capability today.

[Malcolm McLeod]

...
But the conditions on the Eastern Front, especially in the winter, were horrible for both sides. I haven't studied the Soviet Union's side of the war that well, but I believe they were well led and committed. It was their country that was invaded and they understood what waited for them if they failed.
...

Interesting book, and some insight to the (historical) Russian approach to war:
Russia Against Napoleon: The True Story of the Campaigns of War and Peace [​Lieven, Dominic]

A tough read, but maybe interesting to some - and a tiny peek into the Russian psyche.
One takeaway, is their need for time. It is a big country and the time and distances involved in marshalling an army are significant. So, they trade territory for such time. But they have a comparatively large population, so once an army is gathered, the individual soldier's life is considered rather cheap :: 1 German tank? Throw 200 infantry at it, one is bound to get through.

Another was the Russian approach to service commitments. Though a different war than what has been discussed so far, in the Napoleonic times, when a 'serf' was summoned for military services, it was common for their local community to hold what was essentially a pre-departure funeral for the soldier to-be. It was generally thought that the community would never see them again.

[Nicholas Lawrence]

Interesting, Nick. It’s hard to know the motivation there but we certainly know the result and that was joining the allies and Wilson helped to draft the treaty which would be used after the war’s end. Had he been in bed, would we not just have remained neutral? Furthermore would he have helped draft such an over-bearing treaty for a war where there were such a broad range of motivations it was very tough to really pin-point a definitive culprit. I’m not disagreeing but more curious as to your thoughts.
I think the Zimmerman telegram is one of those turning points of history. Before that he was very much trying to keep the U.S. out of the war (he ran an for re-election on an anti-war platform in 1916). After the telegram was disclosed by the British, there was some effort to suggest it was a forgery, but Zimmerman confirmed it was authentic.

At that point I think he just no longer controlled policy the way he did before. Congress, the cabinet, and the country were all moving strongly towards war, and regardless of his personal desires, he could not have maintained his prior policy.

I am not sure what treaty you are thinking of. If you compare Versailles with the fourteen points for peace, they are very different documents. I am not sure how much credit (or blame) Wilson deserves for Versailles.

[Brian Holcombe]

That’s a fair criticism of my viewpoint, I probably over-assign blame to Wilson because in my view he wanted the US to have a seat at the table so badly and after attaining that he produced the fourteen points which were very idealistic at best.
They sounded nice but I think he was expecting too much of countries previously in a very bitter war with one another who were looking to assign blame. I don’t see how the fourteen points were going to make a convincing argument and they didn’t. He managed to get the League of Nations in, but the league was pretty much toothless and in doing so he conceded on the more important things that may have reduced the chance of a run up to another war, which was the intention he set out for at the start.

Teddy Roosevelt’s criticism of the fourteen points is pretty accurate in my opinion. He described it as ‘high sounding and meaningless’.

[Mel Fulks]

We are main defense of the free world . To be the leader of the free world we will have to re-assert that we will not keep paying all the bills.

[Jim Koepke]

We are main defense of the free world . To be the leader of the free world we will have to re-assert that we will not keep paying all the bills.

The one who pays the bills has the authority/gravitas to call the shots.

To remain the leader of the free world we have to assert that we will never again crawl into bed with those opposed to a free world.

jtk

[Mel Fulks]

[QUOTE=Jim Koepke;3126697]The one who pays the bills has the authority/gravitas to call the shots

Well, we are pretty popular in Ukraine !

[Keith Outten]

Gentlemen, please don't take this thread into the political side of the topic.