StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Churchilll also never committed the greatest strategical blunder of the whole war - that dishonour goes to Hitler, who completely unnecessarily decided to attack the Soviet Union rather than focus on the war he was already waging.

PeZook wrote:The Battle Of Britain was a really poor example, because the Luftwaffe and the RAF were actually pretty evenly matched.

EDIT: And I'd hardly call the primary obstacle to the invasion - the Royal Navy - "little resources". The Brits had hundreds of destroyers alone - they could've afforded to throw away dozens to interfere with the invasion.

tbh I wanted a non-finnish example and battle of Britain was the first that came to my mind.

Thanas wrote:Churchilll also never committed the greatest strategical blunder of the whole war - that dishonour goes to Hitler, who completely unnecessarily decided to attack the Soviet Union rather than focus on the war he was already waging.

Hitler never really planned on taking over France and the Balkans but that's just what ended up happening before Barbarossa. I sometimes wonder if those lands might had been enough for Hitler to complete the policy of Lebensraum without having to fight the Soviet Union. He still might not have a choice though. As far as I know though the food shortage problem was only amplified by the Blitzkrieg not helped by it.

France already was a net food importer, and the Balkans had only limited farmland. Taking them over made his plans for Lebensraum harder, not easier. Only in the USSR could he find the land and raw materials his dream plans required. If meanwhile he was going to invade the USSR, it was 1941 or bust.

CaptHawkeye wrote:

Thanas wrote:Churchilll also never committed the greatest strategical blunder of the whole war - that dishonour goes to Hitler, who completely unnecessarily decided to attack the Soviet Union rather than focus on the war he was already waging.

Hitler never really planned on taking over France and the Balkans but that's just what ended up happening before Barbarossa. I sometimes wonder if those lands might had been enough for Hitler to complete the policy of Lebensraum without having to fight the Soviet Union. He still might not have a choice though. As far as I know though the food shortage problem was only amplified by the Blitzkrieg not helped by it.

Hitler didn't consider the peoples of western Europe to be a bunch of sub-humans, and that's a major part of his racial imperialism. It's not just land he was after, but the dispossession/extermination of Slavs, Jews, Gypsies, etc.

Elfdart wrote:
Hitler didn't consider the peoples of western Europe to be a bunch of sub-humans, and that's a major part of his racial imperialism. It's not just land he was after, but the dispossession/extermination of Slavs, Jews, Gypsies, etc.

TBH I don't think we'll ever know exactly who Hitler did and did not consider sub-human. His views about membership to the Aryan Club constantly changed with whatever was convenient at the moment. Even in his last days in the bunker he was about to renounce the German people as untermensch because the war was lost. Though he was of course completely bereft of sanity at that point. I'd say the one race he ever acted predictably toward was the Jews.

I'd say the one race he ever acted predictably toward was the Jews.

He saved the life of one Jew actually, his childhood doctor...



On a final note, officers ordered those banzai charges. If the Japanese had competent officers, no banzai charges would be ordered. However the willingness of soldiers to obey orders is key to any army. The concept that grunts should be brilliant is rediculous, they aren't rocket scientists, many were once common civilians and their objective is to get to point B, execute orders as given by the squad leader. The squad leader is to execute orders, but has slightly more leeway in that he can reinterpret orders slightly to fufill objectives.

Hitler was always focused of taking Western Europe. Conquering the east was not just a goal, it was a means to an end to give Germany the strength to face western Europe and the United States.

ryacko wrote:Banzai charges are not an example of tactical ability, but of discipline and willingness to obey orders.

People have already noted how silly it is to think Banzai charges are a good idea and how the Russians did human waves more smartly, but it's also worth noting that by and large there were no major breakdowns of discipline or insubordination among the Western Allied armies either.

Moreover, it wasn't just the "elite" units like the 101st at Bastogne that held on even when the odds seemed grim. You've got instance like the 30th Infantry Division (a National Guard outfit) taking on the elements of something like seven Panzer Divisions (including several SS units) at Mortain, and winning.

Even the usual criticism levelled by the Wermacht against Western Allied soliders - which was their reliance on artillery and air power - tended to disappear by the time of the Battle of the Bulge, wherein small, disorganized units without air or artillery support nonetheless held up entire Panzer units.

Thus, banzai charges never represented any real "morale" or even "discipline" superiority, except perhaps in the minds of the idiotic Japanese commanders who ordered suicide tactics.

spaceviking wrote:Hitler was always focused of taking Western Europe. Conquering the east was not just a goal, it was a means to an end to give Germany the strength to face western Europe and the United States.

Eh? Hitler's whole goal was lebansbrum in the East and to get rid of what he saw as the "Judeo-Bolshevist" threat. France got conquered to avoid a second front war while Hitler always wanted the Brits to ally with him. Hitler did see a war with the US, although not until 1980.

Zinegata wrote:

ryacko wrote:Banzai charges are not an example of tactical ability, but of discipline and willingness to obey orders.

People have already noted how silly it is to think Banzai charges are a good idea and how the Russians did human waves more smartly.

what's even more telling IMHO is that Russians learned from their mistakes, during the early parts of the Winter War (technically not part of WWII but happend on the same time period) Russian human wave tactics were compared to poorly lead orchestra and were as ineffective as they were costly but by the late part russians had learned how to do those tactics effectivly.

Japanese on the other hand never learnt to make their banzai charges anything more then assisted suicides seeing those charges ended with almost always with the attacking unit being wiped out, as far as I know at least.

General Mung Beans wrote:Hitler did see a war with the US, although not until 1980.

1980?! Hmmm correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Hitler die at 1945 you wouldn't happen to mean 1940 by any chance?

Lord Revan wrote:

General Mung Beans wrote:Hitler did see a war with the US, although not until 1980.

1980?! Hmmm correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Hitler die at 1945 you wouldn't happen to mean 1940 by any chance?

He might be saying that Hitler newer planed to go to war with America before the 80s. As in let's conquer Eurasia now and handle the other continent in several decades time when Germany gets to build up.

Using Banzai Charges as a way to try an call the Japanese disciplined soldiers is like trying to use Kamikaze Attacks on US ship as evidence of how well trained and disciplined Japanese Airmen were. It makes no logical sense to try to imply a culture driven desire to die rather then be taken alive makes for a better soldier. In the end the only thing that matters is how good they are at doing their job which is defeating the enemy. Just so you know Banzai Charges often happened WITHOUT needing to be ordered by superior officers units would do them on their own. Not a good sign of supposed 'discipline' at all.

George S Patton wrote:"No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."

All the Banzai Charges ever did was help do the second part of that quote for the enemy rather then for your own side!

Purple wrote:

Lord Revan wrote:1980?! Hmmm correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Hitler die at 1945 you wouldn't happen to mean 1940 by any chance?

He might be saying that Hitler newer planed to go to war with America before the 80s. As in let's conquer Eurasia now and handle the other continent in several decades time when Germany gets to build up.

Thanks for the clarification. For more info see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zweites_Buch

In contrast to Mein Kampf, in Zweites Buch Hitler added a fourth stage to the Stufenplan. He insinuated that in the far future a struggle for world domination might take place between the United States and a European alliance comprising a "new association of nations, consisting of individual states with high national value".[1] Zweites Buch also offers a different perspective on the U.S. than that outlined in Mein Kampf. In the latter, Hitler declared that Germany's most dangerous opponent on the international scene was the Soviet Union; in Zweites Buch, Hitler declared that for immediate purposes, the Soviet Union was still the most dangerous opponent, but that in the long-term, the most dangerous potential opponent was the U.S.[2]

Ah I had never heard of that, thanks, you learn something new everytime it seems.

ryacko wrote: On a final note, officers ordered those banzai charges. If the Japanese had competent officers, no banzai charges would be ordered. However the willingness of soldiers to obey orders is key to any army. The concept that grunts should be brilliant is rediculous, they aren't rocket scientists, many were once common civilians and their objective is to get to point B, execute orders as given by the squad leader. The squad leader is to execute orders, but has slightly more leeway in that he can reinterpret orders slightly to fufill objectives.

I (and others) have already pointed out that Allied armies had no real problems with following orders, including suicidal ones, and that willingness to participate in a banzai charge does not require any impressive discipline on the soldier's part, not any higher than pressing an attack against a prepared position. Therefore, banzai charges are not evidence that Japanese soldiers were particularly well disciplined.

Furthermore, their culture of death lead to self-defeating tactics like "suicide before capture!!!!". Which makes sense if you use a grenade to blow up yourself and an enemy squad, but not if you use the same grande to blow up your own gun position so that the enemy doesn't have to.

The Americans, based on industrial and technological superiority, fighting wars on 2 fronts while supplying allies, though the Japanese Army did put up heavy resistance.

Is there a difference between size and quality?

Quantity is a quality of its own :V

I think the German's had excellent organization and training, though this is Kennedy's observation. I think the American's and British were good all rounders but here is where it gets tricky.

I think in terms of troop deployment the Americans and British were fighting the German's not at their best, a lot of depleted and undermanned divisions sent to france to recuperate and not in the same force as they had deployed in the East.

I can't find good numbers with google searching but Wikipedia puts it at 5 million Allies to 1.5 million Axis in the 1944-1945 period. On the Eastern front I vaguely recall it was 3:2 (Russian:Axis), looking at the much more substantiated offensives and progress made and that the Soviets had almost certainly fought the best the Germans had to offer; I would conclude the Red Army had fought better under worse circumstances than the Allies.

There was this one book I read for researching my scifi story, it involves this Polish dude who fought for the Red Army from 1943 to 1945 in the Tsaritsa Poley' ("The Tsar's Footsoldiers") and remarked that they fought and won under conditions that would cripple any western army. While terrain and the easier ability for the Soviets to find and exploit gaps in the line over such larger distances (the Germans defending territory farther from home than in the West) I feel helps explain the disparity it can't explain all of it.

Blayne wrote: it involves this Polish dude who fought for the Red Army from 1943 to 1945 in the Tsaritsa Poley' ("The Tsar's Footsoldiers") and remarked that they fought and won under conditions that would cripple any western army.

Pardon? Why would the Red Army have "The TSAR's Footsoldiers"? I have never heard of a unit like that in WW2, and a quick Google search brings up nothing about it (though a lot of the sites are in languages I can't read). In fact, searching Tsaritsa Poley at the Russian Military Forum only reveals this post:

In all my days of reading about the Soviet Union's war effort, this is the first time I've heard of a Tsaritsa Poley.

Do you have a source for this?

Even more to the point, what would a POLE be doing in such a unit? Poles were generally segregated into their own formations, although it's not impossible that you could find some individuals scattered around.

You ask and I deliver:

Temkin, Gabriel.My just war : the memoir of a Jewish Red Army soldier in World War II

How it worked was that he was in Poland in 1939 on the German side, was able to take himself and his girlfriend over to the Russian side and stayed in Hrodno until 1941 where he joined the Red Army and was trained for a bit; then he was put in a NKVD penal battalion because of virtue of him being Polish from the occupation zone, where he was captured I think late 41' or early 42' in Ukraine but avoided being found out as being Jewish. (Luckily because the anti-semite Ukrainian next to him while disliked him for being Jewish had his own standards)

He was able to escape and hung out in a Ukrainian commune for a bit on the German side until liberated and rejoined the Red Army, by luck it seems the NKVD dude profiling him crossed his name our from some list and he ended up in a Russian unit (one of the Ukrainian fronts) and fought his way with his unit into Hungary and later Austria.

He refers to them (Tsaritsa Poley) several times as being the nickname for the non-Red Guard's divisions who made up backbone of the Red Army who ended up under supplied, underfed, under equipped in every situation and yet still soldiered on into Germany despite this; and in fact were valued because they could fight on in these conditions whenever the rest of the army couldn't.

"Tsaritsa Poley" does not mean "the Tsar's Footsoldiers," it means "Queen of the Battlefields." It originates from a toast made by Stalin in 1941.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

I'm just going by what I recall saying, it may mean that but it certainly refers to the foot soldiers.

"Queen of the battlefield" is a pretty common euphemism for infantry.