Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Politicians in general, and Presidential staffs in particular, have always been highly involved in creating believealbe fictional accounts of history – and current events for that matter… as has Hollywood. Seems like a natural fit to me!
Here's what I got:
"Of all the nations, [Germany] is probably the least corrupted by the lust of conquest...."Boston Daily Globe, 1901
Huh… I learned something. Evidently, evolution (according to these bozos) only works if you believe in it.
...all remaining creatures will be free to live, die, evolve (if they believe in evolution)...
I wonder if ruby slippers are required.
Patick – I'd agree up to a point. The British definitely wanted to avoid a cross-Channel invasion as long as feasible, both out of fear of debilitating casualties and in order to let the Soviets grind down the Wehrmacht. But just about everything I have read had the American joint chiefs either arguing against operations in the Mediterranean theater in favor of a cross-Channel invasion or shifting to a de facto Pacific First strategy. It wasn't until the Trident conference in Washington (May 1943) that the British chiefs acquiesced to setting a rough date for the cross-Channel invasion (May 1944) – and that was primarily because George C. Marshall had instructed his staff to threaten shifting to a “Pacific First” strategy if the Brits had stood firm against it.Nonetheless, you raise an excellent point about combat replacements -- U.S. mobilization was only coming into full swing in early '44, pumping out "basically trained" divisions.
how on earth would you reduce the population? For the sake of argument, assume that this was accomplished by erasing the reproductive capabilities of 90% of the world's population. Civilization would run into chaos as the more populous elderly population was left to its own devices without enough people in the younger generations to take care of them. Seriously, how could society operate if there were five senior citizens for every one person of working age?
Brings to mind the Stephen King book The Stand - except if I remember correctly, it was something like 98% of the population. For those who haven't read the book (and I'm not giving anything away) it was a leak of a weaponized virus that killed almost everyone -- the "Super Flu".As far as the increase in the ratio of elderly to young, that brings to mind the cheesy 1980s movie Logan's Run where the population was largely eliminated when they turned 30.
Mind you, it has been more years than I care to remember since I wore the boots and carried a rifle for a living – but one thing that we always stressed in training for these types of operations (counterinsurgency / peacekeeping) is that non-combatants will either hunker down and hide or will run from a firefight — anyone who moves about freely (or runs toward a firefight) can be assumed to be a threat and therefore a combatant – and ROE generally allow you to use deadly force in self-defense to remove or eliminate a viable threat.Hopefully the court-martial board will be composed of combat veterans.
They may have a point, as I run into people every day who should not reproduce (mostly in my morning commute, but also – no doubt – in Congress)
Donald brings up a good point, and that is how would Stalin have reacted? He wanted the Western Allies to open a second front on the continent at the earliest opportunity as the Soviets had been bearing the brunt of the war against the Wehrmacht. No doubt he would have supported a cross-Channel invasion in 1943 – but how would he have reacted if it had failed to significantly relieve pressure on the Eastern Front? (Of course, the operations in Sicily and Italy didn't significantly relieve pressure on the Eastern Front either, but there was still the hope of an invasion of Northwest Europe that would).Remember, the Allied landings in Sicily rougly coincided with the battle of Kursk. By this time the Soviets had stopped the Germans outside of Moscow, destroyed the German 6th Army at Stalingrad, and pounded the German 9th Army at Rzhev-Vyazma. The Soviets were facing 180 some-odd German divisions while the Anglo-American forces were facing only a handful. If the cross-Channel invasion in 1943 had failed (or had bogged down like it did at Anzio) then post-war Europe would have been significantly different.
Combat loading of ships for Torch was practically non-existent. Shore parties didn't know what were in ships' holds, and supplies were unloaded almost at random – typewriters were frequently landed and unloaded before ammunition or anti-armor assets. The Husky landings were only slightly better – and the airborne component of the invasion of Sicily was – by all honest assessments – a disaster, with the Allied fleet firing on, scattering aircraft formations, and shooting down many Allied transports. Those airborne troops (paratroopers and glider troops) that did land in Sicily were largely scattered and mostly ineffective. American tank and infantry coordination wasn't anywhere near ready to face the Wehrmacht in full force – with communications between ground troops and armor commanders not being improved until Sicily – and close air support coordination with troops engaged also went through a very steep learning curve in North Africa and Sicily. Allied anti-armor capabilities in the early stages of amphibious invasions (Gela and Salerno in particular) consisted almost solely of naval gunfire.Concerning the 7 combat experienced divisions sent from Sicily to England to form the core of the invasion force - yes, the British divisions would have been comprised of combat veterans, but the American forces would not. Not only were those division required to be the core of the invasion force, but the combat lessons of those veterans influenced the planning for the operation and the training of those units without combat experience.Overlord wasn't flawless - but problems would have increased geometrically if those lessons hadn't been learned in Tunisia, Sicily, and Italy.
Though unpopular, I think that this is seen by Army leadership as necessary. There were similar cases against a handful of Marines back in the early stages of the war in Iraq – and look at the way the courts-martial for the Haditha incident turned out. In a case like this, conducting an investigation and declaring “no fault” would be seen by many as a cover-up. A trial by court-martial, most likely concluding in an acquittal, would exonerate this soldier. I think that this is reality in our current society - commanders won't stand up and make an announcement of innocence. Instead, they'll defer to "the system" - some may call it a lack of moral courage (and it may be), but it may also be reality.
I agree that it would be a good area of research – there is little doubt in my mind that it occurred, but the question would be to what extent and to what consequences.Personally, I believe that if the American baptism of fire in Europe came in a cross-Channel invasion that it would have been a huge disaster. The lessons learned in logistics and combined-arms coordination in North Africa and Sicily (and Italy, for that matter) were invaluable. About the only aspect of American combat power that was up to snuff early in the war was artillery and naval gunfire. Tank-infantry coordination and close air support integration were honed in the Mediterranean against limited numbers of Germans who were worn by extended logistical issues - and there was still a very high price paid. Then there was the matter of command communications - not just higher to lower/lower to higher, but also amongst adjacent and supporting units. Just, for example, the uncoordinated near-disaster that was the airborne element of Husky... I think it would be fair to assume that the results would have been the same in a cross-Channel invasion, except on a larger scale. Likewise the logistical issues of ship-to-shore movement of combat-essential elements such as armor and anit-armor assets.My take is that if we had skipped the Mediterranean theater operations and pushed to stage in England for a cross-Channel invasion, Amdiral King would have ended up successfully shifting to a de facto - if not official - Pacific First strategy.
If he had done that, Operation Torch might not have been necessary.
Huh... that sir, is the rub! (as they say). To Churchill, Torch was absolutely necessary - it was essential. If the Americans were not introduced to the Mediterranean, then the only other two options were: 1) they go straight to Great Britain and begin staging for the cross-Channel invasion, which would have been a disaster if executed in 1943 - especially without the benefit of Torch or Husky (or Avalanche), or 2) the Americans focus on the Pacific theater first - which could have almost been guaranteed if they didn't enter combat in the ETO in 1943.Not saying that failure to interdict Rommel's retreat with the RAF was directed or encouraged by Churchill - but an interesting thought exercise!
