Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 148): Actually the US had the Philippines as official colony after the Spanish-American war. You could add Puerto Rico, which later changed political status, as well as Hawaii, which was taken over after a coup d'etat staged by American plantation owners against the Hawaiian Queen.

I was going to add that in, Jan, but you beat me to it, although one might add that Hawa'ii was more along the lines of a putsch engineered by missionaries and planters to oust the monarchy and present Sam with something he hadn't really asked for. Remarkably like Texas in that respect. Don't forget the defacto colonies in central America courtesy of the United Fruit Company, occupation of Cuba, and on and on.

For the second line colonial powers it was a matter of 'everyone's doing it, let's grab some brown folks for ourselves'. Germany got the leavings of Africa and some odd bits in the Pacific, but it was never on the scale of the first line colonial countries.

Now. Having said all that-there are degrees and degrees, and some things worked out better than others.

Fact is, the second world war was the last great colonial war to be fought. Japan in the Pacific with the Greater East Asia Co-prosperity Sphere, Germany with Lebensraum and the drang nach Osten, Italy for a new Roman Empire. All, without exception, excuses for grand theft on an unimaginable scale.

Totally preposterous in retrospect, and one hopes the lesson has been well and truly learned-although cultural colonialism is alive and well in China as well as the old fashioned land grab as we see in Tibet.

Quoting CALTECH (Reply 135): Quoting GDB (Reply 52): Who are the 'Englanders' CALTECH? The British Broadcasting Corporation even uses the term, along with your newspapers, unless of course these are not British sources.So sorry to prove that.

Sorry but you haven't proved anything yet. You have yet to produce an example that gives any weight to your erroneous belief that 'Englander' is a common/normal expression for someone from the UK.

Hint - The expression "Middle England" is a (relatively modern?) British term used to describe a certain section of UK society. This leads to the expression "Middle Englander" to describe someone who comes from that section of society. ("Middle English" means something entirely different). In short, "Middle England" and its derivative are Collocations. You cannot split them up and doing so essentially renders them meaningless.

The same argument is also true for the term "Little Englander".
Try looking for an example without such a prefix. I think you will struggle to find a BBC source that refers to any UK citizen as an "Englander". And frankly, even if you are so lucky, it still won't really prove anything.

Quoting GDB (Reply 70): I don't see your point, aside from pedantry

Indeed.

  

Quoting Windy95 (Reply 137): should the Indians and Aficans have been shipped off to die on the fields of Europe to save the UK.

Quoting Windy95 (Reply 137): If they had been used bye the Governemnt in London on the fields of Europe to save the UK's hide then in my opinion they would have been "used" as cannon fodder.

I take it you would have been in the school of thought that disagreed with Roosevelt and was opposed to the USA entering the war then??!!

This whole "the UK was saved" rhetoric is not only hollow it completely misses the point. The war in Europe was not about the UK!! It was fought in order to rid the continent of the menace of Nazism. Roosevelt, as Churchill did, certainly understood this and could see the cause was great enough to warrant the USA going to war long before the majority of the US public could.

Quoting Windy95 (Reply 137): Hitler was not a threat to the US.

Indeed he was not. And that is why most of America was happy to sit back and do nothing.

But it can be argued that Hitler was not such a threat to the UK either. Hitler did not want a war with Britain and would have negotiated to remove that possibility. But the fact remains that it was the UK that declared war on Germany, not the other way around, and the UK chose to resist the Nazis despite the enormous risks to the entire nation, despite being alone and it did so by its own volition. Given these circumstances I fail to see why it would be objectionable for the UK to use whatever assistance it could get from all reaches of the commonwealth and beyond to help fight Nazism in Europe.

Nobody discounts the contribution of the US in winning the war but that the UK was "saved" by the US is a myth!!

Anyway, a very interesting thread!!

Quoting BritJap (Reply 151): Quoting Windy95 (Reply 137): Hitler was not a threat to the US. Indeed he was not. And that is why most of America was happy to sit back and do nothing.

That was an accident of geography, and once Adolf had thrown in with the Japanese he made himself damned unwelcome along the Atlantic seaboard-of couse, there were also the sailors on the Reuben James as well to consider-the war in the Atlantic was well and truly under way long before 12-7-41.

That's my mom's birthday. I asked her about it one time in the 9-11 context and she said "Oh dear. That was entirely different. We knew exactly who we were going to have to fight and what we were going to have to do. It focused things wonderfully."

An examination of the record also reveals that Hitler detested Roosevelt and thought his administration and its policies an instrument of international Jewry, in this vast conspiracy theory boiling inside his head. Had Hitler succeeded in forcing political change and settling matters with Britain there's no doubt we and the Canadians would have been next, and after Pearl, we all recognized it. The America Firsters faded fast, Lindy shut the f**k up, and Fritzie Kuhn and his Bunders got their asses locked up and stopped goose stepping around Bernardsville, New Jersey, thank you very much.

Quoting BritJap (Reply 151): Nobody discounts the contribution of the US in winning the war but that the UK was "saved" by the US is a myth!!

I agree. It's kind of self serving. The takehome is perhaps the Commonwealth could have soldiered on, but the results would have been problematic.

One thing's fo sho, and that is that we had the money and the science to build the Bomb.

Quoting BritJap (Reply 151): Sorry but you haven't proved anything yet. You have yet to produce an example that gives any weight to your erroneous belief that 'Englander' is a common/normal expression for someone from the UK.

Your BBC and newspapers refers to people in your country as englanders, with prefixes, don't need top prove a thing. It is right there in written form. But of course when the blind lead the blind and you english seem to do each other,..

And for the record, it was a question of where the term englander came from, and the proof is written right in your own 'english papers', whether you wany to believe it or not. Now look who is being pedantic. You english are so touchy since the fall of the British Empire. You english must really hate World War 2 and its' outcome, America and Russia became superpowers, the British Empire fell apart, the UK became a important but 2nd level power.

Quoting BritJap (Reply 151): Nobody discounts the contribution of the US in winning the war but that the UK was "saved" by the US is a myth!!

You are quite right, the USA and the USSR saved the UK in World War 2.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 139): I wonder if that is what is really getting to both of you, and causing all this increasingly-strident anti-British stuff? The fact that, if it hadn't been for Britain, Hitler would have won? And that you both still rather wish that he had?

So this thread was supposed to be Pro-British. Sorry if we do not agree with your view of the world through the Rose colored :commonwealth" glasses. How is my questioning using African and Indian troops on the continent of Europe anti-British?

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 140): I suggest you get out a copy and read "The Wages of Death" by Adam Tooze-it would be well worth your time.

I will. Thanks

Quoting Baroque (Reply 142): Hint: encouraged by experience, many in the UK figured out post WWII that occupation of another country was not a smart idea. That is why it was perfectly consistent to argue against trying to occupy Iraq - or Afghanistan come to that. It is called learning from experience.

No one is trying to occupy Iraq so that is a hollow argument. Are we still occupying Germany and Japan. we still have troops there. Why would Iraq be any different?

Quoting Baroque (Reply 142): Odd that even Vietnam seems not to have taught this lesson to a proportion of the inhabitants of the US. Happily some in the US, however, are fully seized that China shop rules indicate occupations are not going to be a good idea.

No one is trying to occupy Iraq so that is a hollow argument. Are we still occupying Germany and Japan. we still have troops there. Why would Iraq be any different?

Quoting BritJap (Reply 151): The war in Europe was not about the UK!! It was fought in order to rid the continent of the menace of Nazism. Roosevelt, as Churchill did, certainly understood this and could see the cause was great enough to warrant the USA going to war long before the majority of the US public could.

And trade the menace of Nazism for Stalin and Communism. Worked out great for the UK but not so much for Eastern Europe which was left on the wrong side of this plan.. WHo was the greater menace?

IMO the only way the Nazi's could have won WWII is if they had developed an atomic bomb. That's because you could not change the fact that they were also fighting the USSR. The largest country in the world totally self sufficient in natural resources and a large population wanting revenge. Add to that Hitler being megalomaniacal who would do things militarily that were totally illogical. Like not allowing Paulus to break out of Stalingrad when he had the chance. End result, the entire German 6th Army being wiped out.

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 148): Actually the US had the Philippines as official colony after the Spanish-American war. You could add Puerto Rico, which later changed political status, as well as Hawaii, which was taken over after a coup d'etat staged by American plantation owners against the Hawaiian Queen.

As Dougloid writes, you beat us to it. A nasty case of "I'faith the maiden doth protest too much".

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 150): Fact is, the second world war was the last great colonial war to be fought. Japan in the Pacific with the Greater East Asia Co-prosperity Sphere, Germany with Lebensraum and the drang nach Osten, Italy for a new Roman Empire. All, without exception, excuses for grand theft on an unimaginable scale. Totally preposterous in retrospect, and one hopes the lesson has been well and truly learned-although cultural colonialism is alive and well in China as well as the old fashioned land grab as we see in Tibet.

Which, of course, is where Roosevelt was on the right side and Churchill the wrong side of history, but Roosevelt's point could have been advanced with a deal more grace and concern for his ally.

This is from a file on independence and relates to the effects of Ghandi's movement.
hhhknights.com/apwh/ppgeneral/30.ppt
As a result, Britain slowly granted concessions to the Indian National Congress and Muslim League, particularly in internal affairs.
Meanwhile, protectionism between the wars, particularly during the Depression, created growth in the Indian industrial sector.
The expanding class of wealthy Indian merchants and businessmen supported independence, as educated and English-speaking Indians had done before them.
British weaknesses during World War II, along with Indian contributions to the war effort, resulted in British promises of independence after the war.
When a postwar split between Muslims and Hindus divided the movement, the Muslims broke away to form the Pakistani state.

Indian independence was really a fait accompli before Japan made its contribution. Essentially once India was independent it would have been hard to keep any other colony dependent for all that long. If you look at the last dot point, the US might have been saved a fair bit of its current woes had decolonization been organized to keep a unitary state in all of India. Having a Britain that was less obsessed by its own problems just might have helped, although arguably once Jinnah got the bit between his teeth there was no stopping him.

Quoting BritJap (Reply 151): I take it you would have been in the school of thought that disagreed with Roosevelt and was opposed to the USA entering the war then??!!

At the very least. Possibly marching with Mosley (O)?

Quoting Windy95 (Reply 154): Quoting Baroque (Reply 142): Odd that even Vietnam seems not to have taught this lesson to a proportion of the inhabitants of the US. Happily some in the US, however, are fully seized that China shop rules indicate occupations are not going to be a good idea. No one is trying to occupy Iraq so that is a hollow argument. Are we still occupying Germany and Japan. we still have troops there. Why would Iraq be any different?

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/103/story/40372.html

"The points that were put forth by the Americans were more abominable than the occupation," said Jalal al Din al Saghir, a leading lawmaker from the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq. "We were occupied by order of the Security Council," he said, referring to the 2004 Resolution mandating a U.S. military occupation in Iraq at the head of an international coalition. "But now we are being asked to sign for our own occupation. That is why we have absolutely refused all that we have seen so far."

I can understand that, and so can the Iraqis. As a matter of fact some parts of occupation do continue in both Germany and Japan. It is all about motes in the eye while complaining about a speck in the brother's eye you know. Tends to prevent you from seeing too clearly.

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 150): Now. Having said all that-there are degrees and degrees, and some things worked out better than others.

Sure, it even depends on which region. E.g. the Japanese ruled Taiwan as a model colony, while ruling other regions with an iron whip.
The British definitely made mistakes in their colonial rule, but were also able to correct them in most cases (e.g. the ousting of the British East india company after the Indian rebellion of 1857, which was largely caused by failed EIC mistakes, like agressive religious proselyzing by EIC officials). Still, veryfew people like foreign rule.
By far the worst traditional colony (I'm not including now German or Japanese massacres during WW2) was Belgian Congo, which actually was the private property of the king.
The French were somewhere inbetween in their colonial politics.
The US fought a nasty colonial war against the Muslims in the Southern Philippines as well as against the (christian) Filipino KKK and HUK independence movements, which already rebelled against the Spanish rule.

Concerning the war of 1812, from what I understand some adventurous Americans tried to use the opportunity of the UK being busy with Napoleon in Europe (whom I consider to be the first modern dictator, with secret police and everything) to invade Canada (with the tacit support of the french government).
Unfortunately for them the Canadians didn't want to be liberated, but were for a large part loyalists, who escaped from the US after or during the war of independence, and the Royal Navy was still stroner than expected.

The Crimean war started when the Russian Czar tried to expand his territory into the Ottoman empire (considered to be the "Sick man of the Bosporus") and attacked Turkish possisions on the crimean peninsula as well as the Bosporus. Britain and France distrusted the Russian plans, even though they were invited to share the cake. They rather decided to support the attacked Turks instead.


Jan

Quoting LMP737 (Reply 155): IMO the only way the Nazi's could have won WWII is if they had developed an atomic bomb. That's because you could not change the fact that they were also fighting the USSR. The largest country in the world totally self sufficient in natural resources and a large population wanting revenge. Add to that Hitler being megalomaniacal who would do things militarily that were totally illogical. Like not allowing Paulus to break out of Stalingrad when he had the chance. End result, the entire German 6th Army being wiped out.

  
The USSR still needed American and British aid to win. The half million or so Studebaker trucks made the immobile foot slogging Red Army into one of the best mobile armies ever, the Soviets learned well from the Eastern front. British Hurricanes and American P-40 Tomahawks also helped the Russians early on, plus the 4000+ Shermans delivered, about half 75mm and half with the 76mm gun. The numbers just don't add up to the British empire winning WW2 by themselves. The Germans might have won in 1941 against the Soviets, they came awfully close except for a few events, after that the war of attrition was against them, especially with America and its' factories in it.

These numbers are quite telling.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...y/systems/ground/tank-history3.htm
"In 1943, for example, Germany manufactured only 5,966 tanks, as compared to 29,497 for the US, 7,476 for Britain, and an estimated 20,000 for the Soviet Union."

Some more numbers showing production totals.
http://www.wwiivehicles.com/wwii/production.asp

Here's another question to be looked at, especially in terms of modern day politics.
There is no question that the majority of the US population did not and had no intention of actually going to war in Europe, try as he might, Roosevelt could not get the people to agree to go to war on behalf of the Europeans, what can be argued is that the bombing of Pear Harbour was also a godsend for the incumbent president. It does go to the power of the people versus the needs and desires of the political establishment, similar thing could be said about the war in Iraq, did the American people want it or was it the desire of the administration, and if so how much of a philosophical difference between the two are we talking about?

What I admit I have to do more reading on is how Roosevelt was able to persuade or disregard the need for the American people to take the war to Japan who attacked them versus the priority given to the war in Europe. Europe had already been at war fully for two years, and that in and of itself was not enough for the American people.

All in all an interesting thread.

Quoting CALTECH (Reply 159): http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...y/systems/ground/tank-history3.htm "In 1943, for example, Germany manufactured only 5,966 tanks, as compared to 29,497 for the US, 7,476 for Britain, and an estimated 20,000 for the Soviet Union."

Sure, but this is 1943, when the war production in the US was at full speed. In 1941 the US were basically caught with their pants down (same as Russia).
The Russians lost most of their military depots and factories in summer 1941, since most of them were located in the western regions of Russia, the Ukraine and Belorus, which were overrun within weeks (therefore the need e.g. by the Russians for army boots to equip their freshly drafted recruits with American "Rough out" and British "Ammo" boots). The first American tanks sent to both Russia and Britain (to be used in Nothern africa) were "Grant" tanks with a side mounted main cannon. The Russians had a look at them and said "Thank you very much, but we can do better". The results were the T-34 and the KV-1.
Also the British were not impressed, but used them to temporarely fill up the gaps left by the Dunkirk evacuation (where the BEF had to leave most of their heavy equipment, e.g. the very good for the period Matilda II tanks) behind.

Concerning the Africa Korps, it consisted basically of the elite of the prewar Wehrmacht and the Italian forces, led by a very capable general Rommel. Rommel already had a history as captain in WW1, where his battalion basically destroyed the Italian 2nd Army at the Isonzo front in the Alps. He initially supported Hitler (who helped him to his career in the Wehrmacht against the resistance of the aristocrat officer corps. Rommel himself had a working class background), but broke up later with the Nazis over the conduct of the war.
The SS divisions used in early war Russia were anything but elite. They and their leadership confused fanaticism with tactical provess and lost thousands of badly trained prewar volunteers (the Wehrmacht also refused the SS to get any heavy weapons. Only after the failed attack on Hitler by Wehrmacht officers did the SS gain the right to enlist conscripts).

Jan

Quoting Windy95 (Reply 154): Quoting Dougloid (Reply 140): I suggest you get out a copy and read "The Wages of Death" by Adam Tooze-it would be well worth your time. I will. Thanks

Actually "The Wages of Destruction." Pretty good synopsis here:-

http://fistfulofeuros.net/afoe/the-e...e-wages-of-destruction-adam-tooze/

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 162): Actually "The Wages of Destruction." Pretty good synopsis here:- http://fistfulofeuros.net/afoe/the-e...e-wages-of-destruction-adam-tooze/

Excellent Nav, now no need to wait for the film to come out!! Looks as if the mistake at Munich was not so much that of Chamberlain but those who bought German paper. Fascinating. And I must go down and click my heels at the tyres on the car and see if I can hear a Heil Hitler response.

Cheers, Baroque.

He's a bit off track about Bomber Command's rising losses in 1943, though. Not his fault, the story of two mistakes made by the Air Staff isn't covered much, except by Prof. Jones, the head of Air Intelligence, in 'Most Secret War.'

Jones had discovered, as early as 1941, that British bomber crews had an illogical idea that turning on their IFF ('Identification Friend or Foe') somehow counteracted searchlight controls. They feared searchlights more than anything else, because, flying at night, they'd seen so many of their friends 'coned' by lights and then shot down by flak. But of course, all the IFF did was emit radio signals. And one can add to that, too, the fact that a growing proportion of bomber losses were caused by fighters, not flak.

He told Bomber Command that the practice should be stopped, since it was only a matter of time before the Germans noticed the signals and used them not just to locate the bomber stream, but to fit simple detectors to nightfighters. Bomber Command countered that there was no evidence that the Germans were doing that, and that the use of IFF in that way (although useless) was 'good for morale.' So nothing was done.

Much later, Jones found out (by accident) that the Germans had in fact started tracking the signals. Ironically, he'd been following the progress of V1 and V2 development and testing by intercepting the radio messages of two highly-skilled German signal companies who were tracking the performance of the V-weapons in testing; and he suddenly found that one of them had been transferred to Holland and was sending position reports of 'objects' being tracked and triangulated at ranges of some hundreds of miles - far beyond the range of radar at the time. Checking the times of the messages made it clear that the company was tracking British bombers (and occasionally even American ones) with their IFF on.

So he was finally able to persuade the Air Staff to outlaw the practice. But, sadly, not until January 1944.......... As soon as they did, bomber losses dropped steeply.

He had another long job on his hands, too, over the issue of 'Window' - dropping aluminium strips to jam German radar. He was opposed on this by lots of 'heavyweights,' including Prof. Lindeman, Sir Henry Tizard, and even Sir Robert Watson-Watt, the guy who had developed the first practical radar. Their fear was that making the Germans a present of the idea would mean that they could jam British radar in their turn.

He went on plugging away, and once more it was 'intelligence' that finally broke the logjam. An agent's report from Germany said that two Luftwaffe women on a train had been talking about a radar malfunction, and (wrongly) putting it down to the British having thrown 'aluminium dust' out of their bombers. This proved that the Germans already knew the potential of 'Window.'

He circulated his report in October 1942. Incredibly, though, he still ran into fierce opposition from the 'heavies.' It wasn't until June 1943 - when Churchill, who knew and valued Jones, personally chaired a meeting and more or less told everyone to shut up and 'Open the Window' - that the use of Window' was approved.

It was first used on 24th. July 1943, in a raid on Hamburg. In six previous raids on that city, losses had averaged 6.1%. 'Window' threw the German fighter defences into confusion - and the loss rate for that raid was only 1.5%. Since the raid was by 791 bombers, arguably 40 or more crews had been saved on that single night......

[Edited 2009-03-15 23:36:42]

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 164): He's a bit off track about Bomber Command's rising losses in 1943, though. Not his fault, the story of two mistakes made by the Air Staff isn't covered much, except by Prof. Jones, the head of Air Intelligence, in 'Most Secret War.'

Not that far off, I think his figure for the Nuremberg raid is correct and that caused even Harris dismay. Losses mounted steadily in % terms all during the Battle of Berlin. And few of the later raids even did much damage, with the famous one where they hit a jet stream and were so dispersed the Germans could not work out what the target had been.

The IFF myth was awful but so was the cavalier use of H2S. It was of marginal use over land and a set was lost on its very first flight which blew the cover of coastal command which had been able until that point to approach surfaced U-boats at night. Not to mention that once the wavelength was known, it was possible to home on H2S as well. I think I would have been with Tizard about Window, slightly even though I would have been dismayed to find myself with Lindeman.

The Kammhuber line boxes were breaking down due to streaming of the bombers. Using window just made sure they canned that system and moved to a more effective one.

The parts of Hamburg that were worst hit in July 1943 had registered the highest anti Nazi votes at the last election. How was that for irony?

The decision about WWII happened at the same time as Pearly Harbour when the Germans failed to conquer the Soviet Union. The main mistake was Hitler´s alone, stopping the advance on Moscow for a month or more and resuming it when the weather deteriorated rapidly. Whatever efforts the Germans made afterwards, the Wehrmacht as an invincable army was destroyed in the winter of 1941/42. Their losses could never be made up again. In numbers, almost yes, but not in quality. Also the extreme cruelty against the people of the Soviet Union did their own against the Germans. The longer term effects of the large scale crimes of the Einsatzgruppen (SS, SD, police and some Waffen-SS) were imho as great as the loss of the 6th Army in Stalingrad because it robbed the Germans of the possible support of millions of mainly Ukrainians who, if treated better, would have joined the German troops by the hundreds of thousands as most hated the Soviets to death because they where not much better than the SS.
So, while without the entry of the US as early as 12.1941 the war would have lasted much longer, I believe the core of WWII lay in Russia. Despite that the Red Army lost the largest battles in world history the sheer size of the country, the overwhelming masses of the Red Army and the bad weather in Russia were key, though without US material help it would still have been a tough race for win.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 165): think I would have been with Tizard about Window, slightly even though I would have been dismayed to find myself with Lindeman.

The only 'war' I was trained for was the defence of the Fulda Gap, Baroque. We knew only too well that the outcome of that depended on hours or even minutes - our whole 'plan' was that either we stopped them in their tracks on the first day, or we carried out what was fancifully called a 'tactical withdrawal' to the European coast. In just six days, according to the plan. A lot of units - including my own (field artillery) one - literally lacked the right sort of vehicles to move at anything LIKE the speed required by the so-called 'Plan'............

In 1942/3, there weren't ever going to be months available for academics to sit round committee tables (in bomb-proof basements) debating the 'morale effect' of using IFF, and later the 'sanctity' of radar.

As an estimate, about 15,000 RAF aircrew were KIA while they were sitting around arguing the toss. Jones was absolutely right, and the silly bastards should have listened to him.........

[Edited 2009-03-16 04:58:13]

Quoting Baroque (Reply 165): The parts of Hamburg that were worst hit in July 1943 had registered the highest anti Nazi votes at the last election. How was that for irony?

Same for Berlin. The traditionaly "red" (means social democrat to communist) working class districts got hit worst, but the "brown" (Nazi) , wealthy districts got barely touched.

Jan

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 168): Same for Berlin. The traditionaly "red" (means social democrat to communist) working class districts got hit worst, but the "brown" (Nazi) , wealthy districts got barely touched.

Where the bombs landed depended entirely on where the RAF Pathfinders dropped their marker flares, MD11. The planners decided on the 'aiming point' and the Pathfinders did their best to 'mark' it. Anything accurate to within three miles was considered 'successful.'

Don't know if you've ever flown an aeroplane at night? If so, you'll know that it's hard enough to fix your position when the cities and towns are lit up. Leave alone when they're blacked out, and people are shooting at you........

Same goes for the Luftwaffe AND the USAAF. Almost all airmen, on all sides, right through, bombed flares - not 'targets'............

[Edited 2009-03-16 05:57:56]

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 168): Same for Berlin. The traditionaly "red" (means social democrat to communist) working class districts got hit worst, but the "brown" (Nazi) , wealthy districts got barely touched.

Did not know that about Berlin, but it has a grim logic about it.

I knew a delightful German scientist who lived in Berlin in 1942 to 1944. Her husband tried to leave for the S by rail on the night that the one "successful" RAF raid of 1943 arrived. By the time Rolf arrived back having been no inconsiderably bombed going and coming back from the station, the raid had passed and M was sitting there in the flat rather pleased with herself that she had saved the whole block by extinguishing an incendiary that came through the roof. She expected praise but instead received complaints from her husband that she should not have allowed it to fall on the roof! 45 years later she was still wondering how she was supposed to have stopped a 15 lb bomb from falling where it would, and of course her husband was also a scientist.

But what really upset her all that time later when she was telling me about it was not that the British should drop an incendiary bomb on her house. No, she was convinced that the RAF had filled the bomb with dust - "oh the dust after it fell, it was terrible". She could not be persuaded it would have come from the roof space when the bomb crashed through. Probably the phosphorus itself would have contributed dusty material when smothered with sand.

But it gave me a wonderful (fictional) picture of British housewives diligently collecting up household dust and this being packed into bombs to be carted all the way to Berlin to be dropped especially to inconvenience the houseproud women of the Third Reich! Oh what a lovely war as the saying went.

When I knew her, she lived in Krefeld. The story came out when I asked how she had fared in the heavy raid that Krefeld received in June 1943. Alas both are now moved on, vale M & R T.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 170): 45 years later she was still wondering how she was supposed to have stopped a 15 lb bomb from falling where it would, and of course her husband was also a scientist.

Good story, Baroque. She should, of course, have 'juggled' the thing so that it was never in her hands for more an a milli-second, while opening the window and throwing it out........

Or, alternatively, she should have had more sense than to marry an engineer...........  

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 171): She should, of course, have 'juggled' the thing so that it was never in her hands for more an a milli-second, while opening the window and throwing it out.......

I think the bomb plonked zonked down on the landing outside her front door and she heaved sand on it smartly as she had been told to do (faint memories of the various appurtenances for fighting incendiaries being scattered around the house). If the apartment plan was similar to that of her house in Krefeld, she would have had to open her own front door and rush to a window. Even then, I dare say the folk underneath would not appreciate her donating to them "her" bomb. I never had to wonder about the conventions of multistorey builindgs and disposing of bombs but I am sure it would have been looked upon as an unfriendly act.

Just smothering an incendiary took a bit of courage as some had a small explosive charge "to discourage the brave".

They were both geologists - of course!

Krefeld had a certain H Kissinger as provisional administrator for a short period in 1945, presumably replacing the Gauleiter.

Quoting CALTECH (Reply 153): Your BBC and newspapers refers to people in your country as englanders, with prefixes, don't need top prove a thing. It is right there in written form. But of course when the blind lead the blind and you english seem to do each other,.. And for the record, it was a question of where the term englander came from, and the proof is written right in your own 'english papers', whether you wany to believe it or not. Now look who is being pedantic. You english are so touchy since the fall of the British Empire. You english must really hate World War 2 and its' outcome, America and Russia became superpowers, the British Empire fell apart, the UK became a important but 2nd level power.

The only people who refer to British as 'englanders' are fellows who have to take time from their...ahem....marschieren, I think is the phrase? Hmmmmm?

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 162): Actually "The Wages of Destruction." Pretty good synopsis here:-

Kind of a senior moment methinks. Still a damned good read.

One of my pal's dad was a B17 right seat driver who got shot down over Austria-he was hurt pretty bad from the flak and only he and another fellow survived.

He had forty dollars on him which he was not supposed to have. The Austrians took him to a hospital and he stayed there nearly a year before he could walk again, and he's still pretty gimpy. His experiences caused him to have a nervous breakdown after he came home after VE day, and he was in a mental institution for a while. Still doesn't talk much about what happened to him, but is happy to talk about the time he spent in a stalag as a POW. Also that the Austrians treated him like a wayward son and he got the best of medical care. he might not have done so well had he been shot down up north.

The Austrians took the forty dollars and said "You won't need that here. We'll put it in the bank for you." Which they did.

He is an old radio man and has some great stories about how he and others built a radio set while in the stalag he ended up in after the Austrians had healed him up. It was modular, and the pieces were hidden all over the camp and assembled to get the BBC news. The only thing he had when he got to the stalag was his leather flight suit. He was told that the Germans would take the zippers from it because zippers were nearly impossible to obtain in wartime Germany. He cut the zippers out of his flight suit and threw them in the latrine, which earned him thirty days in the cooler.

He is still trying to get his money back from the bank, he figures it's worth a little more than forty bucks.

Suddenly glad that I spent WW2 in a mere two-storey building, Baroque...........  

Leaving aside the fact that it was only a rental in Hertfordshire - and that Blitz compensation was so slow that my father (who had had to move north because of an army posting) - had to sell the ruins of the Edgware house he'd spent ten years buying for a mere 300 pounds..........

The War (in Southern England, anyway) was Hell. I take no comfort at ALL from the fact that it was even worse for the Germans. Within only a few years, I was in uniform, stationed there,and 'sort of' defending them from the Russians......

I honestly can't credit all these buggers who say, 'attack this lot' or 'bomb that lot,' or 'kill those buggers.'

Unlike people like us, I don't expect that they know what it's like to be bombed.........

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 173): He is still trying to get his money back from the bank, he figures it's worth a little more than forty bucks.

True, mayhap it is time for another WWII story, this time about two employees of an, er, large Anglo-Dutch oil company. This story was told me by a US employee of that company in the presence of other folk who worked for the company and it seemed to be a generally known story. It was so complex this is only the essence.

Two guys were working at the oilfield at Ploesti in Romania in 1941 and were told to evacuate to Athens as an invasion of Romania was expected and given something of the order of USD100,000 by the company for specified tasks. In Athens they got a message to get across to Alexandria which they managed to do ahead of the German conquest of Greece. From there they received orders to go to Balikpapan in the Dutch East Indies, by now it was about August 1941. So they took ship and got to Balikpapan where the company had a number of significant oilfields around Nov 1941.

Yes, you guessed it, they had barely arrived in Balikpapan when the Japanese arrived. The headworks on the wells were blown up to welcome the Japanese, who promptly set about repairing them.

One of the employees was (IIRC) Dutch and the other (definitely) Swiss. So the non Swiss guy was promptly locked up in a concentration camp, but the Swiss as a neutral was "free". Well he hung on to the money and then spent the time from the end of 1941 to the invasion of Balikpapan by the Australians in mid 1945 organizing food supplies for his mate and in the end most of the prisoners from the locals and of course having to pay for it with the money. Basically he ended up keeping the whole camp in food as the Japanese were not that diligent on feeding prisoners - and I dare say there was a bit of bribery of guards to be done.

So the war was ended with both surviving and they returned in due course to Holland. They were called into an accountants office. Well "luckily" all the records had been brought over presumably from the UK. The accountant looked at a list and said on whatever the date in 1941 "you were given USD100,000."

"Yes"

Accountant. "As you were unable to undertake the tasks you were given, would you please refund the USD100,000".

Major consternation not to mention a bit of fury.

However, the next day they were called into a director's office and told the money was to be written off.

Makes our problems with the economic crisis seem a little less towering.

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 168): Same for Berlin. The traditionaly "red" (means social democrat to communist) working class districts got hit worst, but the "brown" (Nazi) , wealthy districts got barely touched.

Well, the winners wanted to live in nice places and descent villas once coming to Germany. Thats why for example Baden-Baden was spared. It became one of the main HQs of the US Forces.
Also in the case of Hamburg the firestorm was planned, and that doesnt work in sparsely populated luxury home areas.
The brown=rich and red=communist/socialist doesnt work really. The Nazis came from all places, and the traditional elite from Elbchausee was not their main field of recruitment. On the other hand, quite a lot of communists became Nazis later.

Quoting Na (Reply 176): On the other hand, quite a lot of communists became Nazis later.

Yes. Opportunists all.

Quoting Windy95 (Reply 154): And trade the menace of Nazism for Stalin and Communism. Worked out great for the UK but not so much for Eastern Europe which was left on the wrong side of this plan.. WHo was the greater menace?

While I can sympathise with the sentiment of this comment I don't really see your point. Even WITH the full weight of US support, the combined Western allies couldn't remove Soviet control of Eastern Europe. So I don't really understand what you expect the UK to have done.

At that time Nazism needed to be fought. The UK chose to fight the Nazi's before the Soviets got in on the act. Continued Soviet belligerence in Eastern Europe following the war was hardly the fault of the UK.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 167):

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 173):

Quoting Baroque (Reply 175):

Some great war stories you bunch of old timers you!!  

Quoting BritJap (Reply 178): The UK chose to fight the Nazi's before the Soviets got in on the act.

Strictly speaking, the UK didn't 'choose' - Hitler rather made up their minds for them by invading Poland!

And Stalin was only concerned with 'backing the winner' - it's not awfully well-known that Stalin and Hitler signed a Non-Aggression Pact on 23rd. August 1939. Then they both attacked Poland a week later, and divvied it up between them....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov-Ribbentrop_Pact

Still love the famous BBC quote from about that time:-

"In 1939 Germany and Russia agreed to bury the hatchet; and further agreed to bury it in Poland."

Windy95, it 'does' seem a little hard on the UK to accuse it of somehow 'failing' to stop Russia as well as Nazi Germany?   For well over a year - from June 1940 to about November 1941, when Russia began to get itself organised - no-one else at all was putting up any serious resistance to Germany.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 179): it's not awfully well-known that Stalin and Hitler signed a Non-Aggression Pact on 23rd. August 1939.

I would hardly call the Non-Aggression pact "not awfully well-known". It was one of the most shocking news items of the day, and it was well understood what the repercussions would be.

It is taught as one of the pivitol events leading to the opening of the war.

Quoting Dtwclipper (Reply 180): It is taught as one of the pivitol events leading to the opening of the war

For me it ranks up there with the black and white movies I remember so well of Neville Chamberlain (spelling) at the airport waving the paper signed by Herr Hitler, both classics.

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 161): The SS divisions used in early war Russia were anything but elite. They and their leadership confused fanaticism with tactical provess and lost thousands of badly trained prewar volunteers (the Wehrmacht also refused the SS to get any heavy weapons.

Please,

http://books.google.com/books?id=Biy...result&resnum=3&ct=result#PPA80,M1
"Hoth's tanks were already northeast of Smolensk, and this situation was duplicated by Guderian, who had crossed the Desna with the spearpoint of the 10th Panzer and SS Das Reich divisions, but whose situation map for that day shows no infantry east of the Dnieper-a distance of over a hundred miles."

Second rate units were used in the spearpoint, sure.

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 161): (the Wehrmacht also refused the SS to get any heavy weapons.

Waffen SS Motorzed Divisions had no heavy weapons ? Interesting.
http://books.google.com/books?id=0Tr...&oi=book_result&resnum=6&ct=result
"The Waffen SS motorized divisions and brigades poised to attack Russia were some of the most powerful available to Hitler."

A lot of western european centrist views here.

Well there is a site, supposedly a 'history' of a SS Division, very detailed it is too.
Apart from the small matter of any references to the numerous atrocities they were involved in, being completely absent from all the dates, campaign details, orders of battle etc.
Including the one I cited above, in France 1940.

This SS myth is just that, you can bet they fought hard when they were losing the war, since they knew only too well of their crimes, being captured by the Western Allies-to potentially go on trial, was one thing. Being taken alive by the Russians quite another - where of course they had carried out the worst of their deeds.

The SS were also adept at getting in towards the end of a battle, to ensure their share of the glory.

As MD-11 has stated, the idea that the Afrika Korps were anything other than first class troops, is a nonsense, all the weird Anglophobe prejudices don't change that fact.
And selectively citing sources? That's what David Irving did.
It was heavily armoured, in a difficult environment that also allowed much greater freedom of movement, exploiting the potential of the formations to the max.

Despite inventing the tank in WW1, (called as such to fool spies into thinking a mere water carrier was being developed), even managing in 1918 particularly, as successful use of them as the technology then allowed, armoured warfare stagnated in Britain between the wars.
In this the UK was not alone, but the post WW1 British Army went back to mostly colonial policing.
After all, they had just fought the 'war to end all wars'.

There were plenty of ideas, people like Liddel-Hart, but not until the late 1930's, as the threat from Nazi Germany became clearer, was modernizing the army taken seriously, it was a case of playing a messy game of catchup.
France of course poured great resources into the Maginot Line, behind which, Europe's largest army, would prepare to counter attack - though in a fashion akin to WW1.
They had some good tanks, some younger aggressive commanders, but the organization suffered from the great political upheaval of France in the 1930's.
The actual leadership was aging, in the same manner as the British commanders in the 19th Century Crimean War.

In 1940, only one nation had really taken the improvements in armour and aircraft technology, to develop a way to exploit these to maximum effect.
Germany.

Quoting GDB (Reply 184): In 1940, only one nation had really taken the improvements in armour and aircraft technology, to develop a way to exploit these to maximum effect.

And by the end of 1941, all those advantages and improvements in aircraft and armor had ceased to be relevant because of the Spitfire, the Hurricane, radar and the T34. June, 1940 was the high water mark for Adolf & Co. And they still didn't have the fuel, access to the sea, control of the air, food enough to feed themselves and industrial capacity to fight a two front war and boots on the ground to carry the fight to the enemy.

In retrospect you gotta ask "What could those people have been thinking?"

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 169): Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 168): Same for Berlin. The traditionaly "red" (means social democrat to communist) working class districts got hit worst, but the "brown" (Nazi) , wealthy districts got barely touched. Where the bombs landed depended entirely on where the RAF Pathfinders dropped their marker flares, MD11. The planners decided on the 'aiming point' and the Pathfinders did their best to 'mark' it. Anything accurate to within three miles was considered 'successful.' Don't know if you've ever flown an aeroplane at night? If so, you'll know that it's hard enough to fix your position when the cities and towns are lit up. Leave alone when they're blacked out, and people are shooting at you........ Same goes for the Luftwaffe AND the USAAF. Almost all airmen, on all sides, right through, bombed flares - not 'targets'............

I don't blame the USAAF and especially the RAF airmen. I read enough about the British bombing campaign to understand their problrms. One thing though happened in all European cities hit by strategical (e.g. going after the industry) bombing:
In most European cities the housing areas of the workers were sited around the factories, since very few workers owned motorised transport and relied on public transport, bicycles and feet to get to work. Also the people in the posh areas didn't want to have the dirtyand noisy factories, plus the assorted unwashed near their villas.

Quoting Na (Reply 176): Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 168): Same for Berlin. The traditionaly "red" (means social democrat to communist) working class districts got hit worst, but the "brown" (Nazi) , wealthy districts got barely touched. Well, the winners wanted to live in nice places and descent villas once coming to Germany. Thats why for example Baden-Baden was spared. It became one of the main HQs of the US Forces. Also in the case of Hamburg the firestorm was planned, and that doesnt work in sparsely populated luxury home areas. The brown=rich and red=communist/socialist doesnt work really. The Nazis came from all places, and the traditional elite from Elbchausee was not their main field of recruitment. On the other hand, quite a lot of communists became Nazis later.

In Berlin it was mostly the areas around the big factories which got hit, and those were mostly inhabited by factory workers. The wealthy people lived in the outskirts. Plus, you had some very brown areas in Lichterfelde, Zehlendorf and Spandau due to the presence of various Reichswehr barracks. The very nationalist officers lived in the posh districts nearby while the enlisted men slept in the barracks.
The Berlin working class district of Wedding didn't have for nothing the nickname "Roter Wedding" (Red Wedding). During the early 1930s there were pitched battles in this district between trade unionist, leftwing workers and police and Nazi Stormtroopers (sworn in as auxiliary police by the Prussian minister of the interior Göring).
The same happened in the Cologne working class district Ehrenfeld (where the unpolitical "Edelweisspiraten" resistance group was very active).

Jan

[Edited 2009-03-17 14:19:16]

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 186): In Berlin it was mostly the areas around the big factories which got hit, and those were mostly inhabited by factory workers. The wealthy people lived in the outskirts.

I'm sure that that single factor must be most of the reason for the apparent 'class distinction,' MD11Engineer.

Target selection was made by the Bomber Command planners. They tended to 'rotate' the German cities, bombing them several times each, more or less 'in turn.' The actual 'target' - more properly the 'aiming point' - was also selected by the planners. No doubt they worked from any information they had in fixing this. I happen to know from a friend that they actually used pre-war guidebook maps at first (photo-reconnaissance not having been perfected until about 1942) and, of course, later they'll have had photographs, and occasionally even intelligence reports.

However, wherever the aiming-point was placed, it would have been utterly impossible to aim at factory areas specifically. It was known that the effect of bombing 'spread' over an area of at least three miles around the markers - and even that relied on the Pathfinders (who of course got the benefit of the flak and the searchlights 'first and best') dropping the markers in exactly the right place. The fact that many of the marker bombs were slowed in their descent by parachutes, so that they didn't break up on landing, brought the wind into play as well.

Some targets would have been 'easier' than others - as you'll know, the Ruhr factories in particular stretched for miles in all directions - but that will have been the exception rather than the rule. So the RAF crews (like the Luftwaffe ones before them) were forced into 'area bombing.'

To its credit, the USAAF tried at first to bomb 'precision targets,' but due to fierce resistance, particularly from fighters, they had to develop rigid defensive formations. In any case, this being Europe, most of the time they couldn't see the ground anyway. It also made sense to make the formations 'line abreast' rather than 'in a stream' - having them pass over the flak guns all together, rather than in a procession like ducks in a shooting gallery.

That, of course, meant that only a small proportion of the bombing force (which was usually spread over an area about four or more miles wide by two deep) would actually pass over the target. So bombardiers were told not to aim independently, but to watch the formation leader; and drop when he dropped. "Carpet-bombing.'

Well explained in the 'US Strategic Bombing Survey':-

"Before the war, the U. S. Army Air Forces had advanced bombing techniques to their highest level of development and had trained a limited number of crews to a high degree of precision in bombing under target range conditions, thus leading to the expressions "pin point" and "pickle barrel" bombing. However, it was not possible to approach such standards of accuracy under battle conditions imposed over Europe. Many limiting factors intervened; target obscuration by clouds, fog, smoke screens and industrial haze; enemy fighter opposition which necessitated defensive bombing formations, thus restricting freedom of maneuver; antiaircraft artillery defenses, demanding minimum time exposure of the attacking force in order to keep losses down; and finally, time limitations imposed on combat crew training after the war began.

"It was considered that enemy opposition made formation flying and formation attack a necessary tactical and technical procedure. Bombing patterns resulted -- only a portion of which could fall on small precision targets. The rest spilled over."

http://www.anesi.com/ussbs02.htm#tbba

Referring to a previous post, since I had the Survey open, I also looked up the first 'Window' raid on Hamburg in June 1943; and found this:-

"On three nights in late July and early August 1943 it (the RAF) struck Hamburg in perhaps the most devastating single city attack of the war -- about one third of the houses of the city were destroyed and German estimates show 60,000 to 100,000 people killed. No subsequent city raid shook Germany as did that on Hamburg; documents show that German officials were thoroughly alarmed and there is some indication from interrogation of high officials that Hitler himself thought that further attacks of similar weight might force Germany out of the war. The RAF proceeded to destroy one major urban center after another. Except in the extreme eastern part of the Reich, there is no major city that does not bear the mark of these attacks. However, no subsequent attack had the shock effect of the Hamburg raid.

"I reported for the first time orally to the Fuehrer that if these aerial attacks continued, a rapid end of the war might be the consequence." - Speer to Survey Interrogators on the Hamburg attacks."

Does raise the question of whether, if Professor Jones' 1942 pleas for 'Window' to be used - and IFF NOT to be used - had been heeded, the destruction of the German cities would have happened much earlier. And that even Hitler might have been forced to seek [i]'a rapid end of the war'['i]?

[Edited 2009-03-17 18:38:09]

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 186): In Berlin it was mostly the areas around the big factories which got hit, and those were mostly inhabited by factory workers. The wealthy people lived in the outskirts. Plus, you had some very brown areas in Lichterfelde, Zehlendorf and Spandau due to the presence of various Reichswehr barracks. The very nationalist officers lived in the posh districts nearby while the enlisted men slept in the barracks.

Interesting stuff, Jan. Arthur Harris was pretty clear on his objectives when asked about precision bombing. He said more or less, "That may come in time but until that time comes we'll keep flattening Adolf's houses, incapacitating his workers and disrupting normal life."

He understood that keeping somebody from getting to his job in a munitions factory or disrupting normal life by laying waste to neighborhoods and transport achieved much the same end as flattening a factory.

It's a view that sees ordinary citizens as co-enablers of their governments.

To tell the truth, I think it would have been OK with Harris if a bomb landed anywhere in Germany, so long as it was on a structure that was hopefully occupied.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 139): Have you never even heard of General Erwin Rommel and the Afrika Korps (with its two armoured divisions), Caltech? By common consent, the best general and the best fighting force that Germany produced in WW2?

Quoting CALTECH (Reply 141): Sorry, whose common consent ? There were many more divisions that were considered better than the units in the Afrika Korps, and Generals such as Manstein and Guderian, to name a few, were considered better generals. What facts are you reading ?

Quoting GDB (Reply 184): As MD-11 has stated, the idea that the Afrika Korps were anything other than first class troops, is a nonsense, all the weird Anglophobe prejudices don't change that fact.

Never said the Afrika Korps wasn't a first class force, just answered that there were others that were considered better, it is right there in the posts.

Quoting GDB (Reply 184): Well there is a site, supposedly a 'history' of a SS Division, very detailed it is too. Apart from the small matter of any references to the numerous atrocities

Like the references to the atrocities of indiscriminate terror bombing of German cities and killing civilians by the RAF Bomber Command in all the history books ?

Quoting GDB (Reply 184): This SS myth is just that, you can bet they fought hard when they were losing the war, since they knew only too well of their crimes, being captured by the Western Allies-to potentially go on trial, was one thing. Being taken alive by the Russians quite another - where of course they had carried out the worst of their deeds.

A myth, really now. This is something the British must have to conjure up to hide their own armies shortcomings. No reference ?

http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/wwii/articles/waffenss.aspx
"The motorized SS units, able to keep up with the panzer divisions, were quickly ordered to engage the enemy at critical points such as defending against the British counter attack near Arras. "
"Totenkopfdivision fought desperate engagements south of Leningrad. Trapped in the Demyansk Pocket from January – October 1942, the Totenkopfdivision was, "the nucleus of a mixed force of surrounded army and waffen SS formations that hung onto the Valdai Hills, prevented a major Russian breakthrough, and stabilized the weakened right flank of Army Group North." When they pulled out in October 1942 they had the combat strength of a battalion."
" The Das Reich Division began the war in the East driving with Army Group Center towards Moscow. During the bitter fighting outside of Moscow against the Soviet counteroffensive, the Das Reich was virtually destroyed. During a meeting between a regimental commander of Das Reich and General Model, Model asked, "What is your regimental strength at the moment?" The commander replied, "‘General, my entire regiment is paraded outside.' There in the snow stood thirty-five men. They were the remnant of a regiment which had gone into battle more than two thousand strong."
"In March 1943 the 1st SS Panzer Corps did not let their Fuhrer down. Spearheading an operation to recapture the city of Kharkov, the SS divisions, Leibstandarte, Totenkopf and Das Reich, achieved one of the most spectacular victories of the war by recapturing this key city and bringing the Soviet offensive to a halt."
"The SS divisions were again asked to spearhead another offensive."
"During the retreat, the SS formations became the "fire brigades" in the East. As motorized divisions, they were routinely rushed to the critical points on the front to seal a breach in the German lines or slow down the Soviet onslaught long enough for other formations to escape. They had in the words of General Wohler, commander of the 8th Army, "stood like a rock in the Army, while the enemy broke through in neighboring sectors."

Must be another British propaganda myth, nothing more.

Quoting GDB (Reply 184): The SS were also adept at getting in towards the end of a battle, to ensure their share of the glory.

That is such a fantasy statement, must be more of the type of historical propaganda written. References ?

The British had only one victory without American participation in a grand land battle, that at El Alamein. And without the approx 300 [b]American{/b] Shermans, might have been a lot worse for the British. The British also needed to heavily outnumber the Afika Korps to get this British victory.

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/battle_of_el_alamein.htm
"To cope with Montgomery’s attack, the Germans and Italians had 110,000 men and 500 tanks. A number of these tanks were poor Italian tanks and could not match the new Sherman’s. The Germans were also short of fuel. The Allies had more than 200,000 men and more than 1000 tanks."

A great victory.

Quoting CALTECH (Reply 188): Never said the Afrika Korps wasn't a first class force, just answered that there were others that were considered better

I suppose that all one has to say, CALTECH, is that every one of the units that you mention ended up being soundly defeated, as your own account shows. So none of them can have been all THAT good........ 

On the specific question of El Alamein, please google 'Alam Halfa' - the reason that the Axis forces were short of tanks and men in November was because they had been soundly defeated when they made their own attack in early September.

In any case, Alamein was a WW1-style battle, fought out on a short (15-mile) front between the sea and the Qattara Depression, which Rommel's men had had ample opportunity to fortify and mine. A two-to-one superiority was a lot less than the three-to-one (or more) superiority that was usually considered essential. Brief plug for Australia - the unit that made the final breakthrough, and cut the coast road at Tel-El-Aisa, was the 9th. Australian Division.

Quoting Windy95 (Reply 10): Once again without the 8th Airforce the English would have had a hard time alone.

Why do people always overlook the 12th and 15th Air Forces?

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 189): I suppose that all one has to say, CALTECH, is that every one of the units that you mention ended up being soundly defeated, as your own account shows. So none of them can have been all THAT good........

Soundly defeated? Hardly NAV20. They all survived to surrender at the end. They were better than anything the British and Commonwealth had.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 189): On the specific question of El Alamein, please google 'Alam Halfa' - the reason that the Axis forces were short of tanks and men in November was because they had been soundly defeated when they made their own attack in early September.

They were brought to a standstill, exhausted and at the end of their supply lines. They were so 'soundly defeated' that Montgomerie pursued them when they retreated, oh wait, he didn't.

From the U.K.
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/battle_of_el_alamein.htm
" Rommel had no choice but to retreat. He fully expected Montgomery’s Eighth Army to follow him as this was standard military procedure. However, ‘Monty’ failed to do this. He was not ready for an offensive and he ordered his men to stay put while they held a decisive defensive line."

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 189): In any case, Alamein was a WW1-style battle, fought out on a short (15-mile) front between the sea and the Qattara Depression, which Rommel's men had had ample opportunity to fortify and mine. A two-to-one superiority was a lot less than the three-to-one (or more) superiority that was usually considered essential. Brief plug for Australia - the unit that made the final breakthrough, and cut the coast road at Tel-El-Aisa, was the 9th. Australian Division.

Yes check it out, the Qattara Depression saved the British Flank from being turned. El Alamein was a bottleneck that ensured Rommel could not use his favoured form of attack. What a victory, over a smaller army that was only receiving 1/3 of the supplies needed.

Quoting CALTECH (Reply 191): They all survived to surrender at the end.

This is getting to be good fun, CALTECH.   How can you be more 'soundly defeated' than to have to surrender?  

Quoting CALTECH (Reply 191): They were brought to a standstill, exhausted and at the end of their supply lines.

Did that happen by accident? Or was it something to do with the fact that The Royal Navy (including Commonwealth ships) and RAF (particularly aircraft and submarines from Malta) had strangled Rommel's supply lines?

Quoting CALTECH (Reply 191): They were so 'soundly defeated' that Montgomerie pursued them when they retreated, oh wait, he didn't.

Many people (including the writer you quote) made that mistake. Thing was, Montgomery 'knew his trade' - and also knew that the two sides had been pushing each other to and fro along that coast for over two years. The main reason for that being too much headlong pursuit along a single road, which gave the 'enemy' (whichever side) every chance not just to block the road, but also (as you say) to work round to the south and attack the lines of communication.

So he wisely ordered a brief pause for 'rest and refit.' Then he ordered a methodical, careful pursuit which drove Rommel all the way back to Tripoli (1,400 miles), giving him no chance to counter-attack. And then linked up with Allied forces in Tunisia, so that both armies could combine to kick the Axis right out of Africa.

History can say that Monty was 'too slow and cautious' if they like. But the record shows that he succeeded in North Africa where three other (good) generals had failed. And then went on to command the D-Day Invasion and the crossing of the Rhine, and accept the surrender of the German army.

Story about Monty that even you might enjoy. Can't find a link I can quote from, had to copy it in. But Churchill records Monty, as he took command, saying to General Ismay that a soldier's life was very hard - that he gave his whole life to his profession, and "....presently fortune smiled, there came a gleam of success, hr gained advancement, an opportunity presented itself, he had a great command. He won a victory, he became world-famous, his name was on every lip. Then the luck changed. At one stroke all his life's work flashed away, perhaps through no fault of his own, and he was flung into the endless catalogue of military failures.

"But," expostulated Ismay, "you ought not to take it so badly as all that. A very fine army is gathering in the Middle East. It may well be that you are not going to disaster."

"What!" cried Montgomery, sitting up in the car. "What do you mean? I was talking about Rommel!"

[Edited 2009-03-17 23:30:06]

Shakes head in disbelief, the whole point of the Alam Halfa clash was that it was Rommel attacking and the British for once laying a trap. To have followed up the retreating panzers would be to have put his own armour in the anti tank trap that was backing up the German advance. Simple use of Plumer 1918 tactics, don't get exposed to the counter attack. Mind it would not be bad to check who planned the battle of Alam Halfa.

But of course we do all realise how extraordinarily lucky the British were. And they probably deserved to be defeated by a superior philosophy.

No mention of the rain - yet????

Quoting Baroque (Reply 193): Mind it would not be bad to check who planned the battle of Alam Halfa.

Thanks to the magic of the Net, Baroque, I can offer some answers:-

"Since August 13, command of the British Eighth Army had passed to Lieutenant-General (later Field Marshal) Montgomery. British ULTRA had anticipated an Axis attack, and the former commander of the Eighth Army, General Auchinleck, had included a number of contingency plans for defensive works around Alexandria and Cairo in case Axis armor broke through. After visiting the front lines, Montgomery ordered that these plans be destroyed and emphasised his intention to hold the ground around Alamein at all costs.[8]

"In the northern sector (roughly from Ruweisat ridge to the coast), XXX Corps, reinforced by the 9th Australian Division, the South African 1st Division and the 5th Indian Division was deployed behind minefields.[9]

"The New Zealand 2nd Division was deployed to a 5 mile section of front south of the Ruweisat ridge. This defensive area was known as the New Zealand Box and formed the northern end of the XIII Corps sector. Accepting that the featureless southern sector would be very difficult to defend against a determined armoured attack, Montgomery chose for the 15 miles of front from the New Zealand box to the Qattara box on the edge of the Qattara Depression to be lightly held encouraging Rommel to attack at this point. This gap would be mined and wired while a motor brigade and a light armored brigade of the 7th Armoured Division would cover the minefields, but withdraw when necessary.[10]

"The attackers would meet the main defensive positions when they swung north and approached the Alam El Halfa ridge, well in the rear of the Eighth Army's front. Here Montgomery chose to entrench the bulk of his heavy/medium tanks (concentrated in 22nd Armoured Brigade) and anti-tank units and await the Axis attack. Behind the British armour, on the high ground would be two brigades of 44th (Home Counties) Infantry Division and concentrations of divisional and Corps artillery.[11]

"10th Armoured Division had been refitting in the Nile delta with General Grant tanks with the effective 75mm main gun and would reinforce the Alam El Halfa position when available. Most of 8th Armoured Brigade arrived by 30 August and took position on 22nd Armoured Brigade's left while 23rd Armoured Brigade filled the gap on their right late on 1 September.[12]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Alam_el_Halfa

OK - that's only Wiki. But a further source gave confirmation in the form of an eyewitness account by Brigadier G. P. D. Roberts, who was commanding 22nd. Armoured Brigade at the time. Inconveniently, he was 'caught on the wrong foot' (well, actually squatting down) having a crap when Monty arrived (on his second day in command) - funny how the more the army changes, the more it remains the same :-

".........plodding my way back a few minutes later complete with spade I saw a large cortege arriving at the appointed spot and some 5 minutes ahead of schedule. There was Gen Horrocks, XIII Corps Commander, whom I saluted, there were Bobbie Erskine, Brigadier General Staff, XIII Corps, and Freddie de Guingand, Chief of Staff, Eighth Army and several other characters including a little man with white knobby knees, an Australian hat and no badges of rank who I took to be a newly-arrived war correspondent. Monty, whom I had not previously met, was obviously going to arrive later. I was just about to ask Freddie de Guingand from which direction the Army Commander might be expected when the gentleman in the Australian hat said to me "Do you know who I am?"–"Yes, Sir," was the prompt reply. It was quite clear that whoever he was it was better to know! And, of course, it was Monty.

"Very soon Montgomery appreciated that Alam Halfa was the cornerstone of the defensive position. He ordered up 44 Division from the Delta to occupy the high ground itself, and within the perimeter of that Division's defenses were to be located the 44th Divisional Artillery and certain Corps artillery units. The 22d Armd Brigade, then an independent armored brigade directly under XIII Corps, was ordered to select and to prepare static defensive positions on the southern and eastern slopes of Alam Halfa. It was considered, and quite rightly, that the Brigade was short of training as a Brigade and its mechanical condition, as a result of the mileage already done by the tanks, precarious, and therefore unsuited to mobile operations. In fact this Brigade, with its same equipment, took part in the battle of Alamein and at one time led the pursuit of the German army to Tobruk.

"Gone were all the other plans and we gladly destroyed the mass of traces with different code names which had been prepared with laborious staff work to indicate the alternative positions. There was one plan and one position to occupy and we all felt better."

http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/hart/hart.asp

So it looks very much as if the previous commander, Auchinleck (also a pretty good guy) reckoned that if Rommel broke through at Alamein, the only available 'plan' was a last-ditch defence of Cairo and the Canal. But that Montgomery, within hours of his arrival, scrapped all previous plans, correctly judged Rommel's intentions, and set to work to stop and finally to defeat him.

Feel a bit humbled. I've always rather thought of Montgomery as a 'showy/lucky/careful' general rather than a particularly-brilliant one.

But on this evidence, it looks as if the five-month Alam Halfa/El Alamein/Tripoli campaign was one of the most brilliantly-conceived operations in the history of war. A true 'turning-point' of WW2.

No exaggeration to say, on the basis of these accounts, that if Auchinleck had remained in command, Rommel might have out-flanked Eighth Army and captured Cairo and the Suez Canal; and the whole course of the war might have been very different indeed.

Thanks for coming up with a good question. Just goes to prove that you're never too old to learn! :-}

[Edited 2009-03-18 06:00:00]

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 192): This is getting to be good fun, CALTECH. How can you be more 'soundly defeated' than to have to surrender?

Most of them were still fighting to the end, and it was the Soviets who "soundly defeated" them. This started as a hypothetical, now you have to go back to what actually happened with American participation, and claim that as your win. Britain hung on while she was alone, as Hitler turned to a bigger opponent in the East. The U.K. should be thankful the Soviets took the full weight of the onslaught for the next 3 years that the Soviets fought pretty much alone. A full out invasion of the British Isles would have succeeded. A huge mistake by the corporal. A couple of more divisions for the Afrika Korps early on, not later when they were surrounded, would have ended the British Empires' effort in North Africa. It was a sideshow compared to the events on the Eastern front. The U.K. made a contribution to the final victory in WW2, but the U.K. was not the biggest player made out here in this thread.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 192): Did that happen by accident? Or was it something to do with the fact that The Royal Navy (including Commonwealth ships) and RAF (particularly aircraft and submarines from Malta) had strangled Rommel's supply lines?

Shazam, maybe all those 'American" Shermans were the only difference, since British tanks were so outclassed. Bumbling British, it is a wonder the 8th army was able to survive in North Africa, and they couldn't without American help.

England alone, no way. USSR in it, a toss up. USA added in, foregone conclusion, and the Germans still came close to pulling it off.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 194): But on this evidence, it looks as if the five-month Alam Halfa/El Alamein/Tripoli campaign was one of the most brilliantly-conceived operations in the history of war. A true 'turning-point' of WW2.

It was, but like most battles it built on what happened before.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Battle_of_El_Alamein

The Eighth Army was exhausted, and on 31 July Auchinleck ordered an end to offensive operations and the strengthening of the defences to meet a major counter-offensive.

Enter Erwin into the Alam Halfa trap which had been explored and part prepared before in the battles of the various ridges in First BoElA. I will have to dig to find a full account of the battles. I think that the Oct battle should be counted at the third battle of El A with Alam Halfa being the second IMO. Alam Halfa served a number of purposes, it extended the preparation period for "Alamein", it ground down the panzers and it used up fuel that Rommel could not afford. Part of the reason to go down S and thus end up being enfiladed from Alam Halfa was the problems previously encountered at Ruweisat and ridges to the S.

It was the rain on Nov 6 1942 that stopped the pursuit after Alamein from being a greater wipeout.

Whoever said that, CALTECH? Please look at the original question posed in the first post. The only thing I 'subtracted' was entry into the War by Japan, and therefore the USA. Russia would still have been 'in,' and Lendlease would have gone on.

quote=CALTECH,reply=195]England alone, no way. USSR in it, a toss up. USA added in, foregone conclusion, and the Germans still came close to pulling it off.[/quote]

So we agree? Except maybe for the last bit - 'close to pulling it off.' Oddly enough, as far as both the Western and Eastern theatres were concerned, November 1942 was the decisive month. Besides El Alamein, that was also the month that Russia went over to the offensive, and succeeded in encircling the German Sixth Army in Stalingrad.

From then on the Nazis were always going backwards. They never regained the initiative.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 196): Enter Erwin into the Alam Halfa trap which had been explored and part prepared before in the battles of the various ridges in First BoElA. I will have to dig to find a full account of the battles. I think that the Oct battle should be counted at the third battle of El A with Alam Halfa being the second IMO.

All agreed, Baroque. But the troop movements described in those extracts tell the story to my mind. To me, they suggest that Auchinleck was having an 'each-way bet' - hoping to hold off Rommel's likely attempt at encirclement, but also leaving large reserves back near Cairo in case he couldn't. Montgomery just said that he was going to hold the Alamein position at all costs; and brought up all available forces to give himself the best chance. A 'go for broke' bet for a win.

In fairness to Auchinleck, he was over-tired and over-stretched. At that time Middle East Command, besides North Africa, also had Syria, Palestine, Iraq, and Persia on its plate. And there was also the question of morale; I think that quote above from Brigadier Roberts - "There was now one plan and one position to occupy and we all felt better" - is very telling.....

As so often, Churchill put it in a few words. With his uncanny instinct, he 'stopped in' at Cairo on his way to a meeting with Stalin on 3rd. August 1942. The first paragraph of his memoir on the subject more or less says it all: "The following issues had to be settled in Cairo. Had General Auchinleck lost the confidence of the Desert Army? If so, should he be relieved, and who should succeed him? In dealing with a commander of the highest character and quality, of proved ability and resolution, such decisions are painful."

So his decision was to split the Command, give Auchinleck Iraq and Persia, and appoint a new commander in the Desert. As a further twist, I'm sure that you'll know that the first choice was General Gott, but he was killed in an air crash on his way to take up command.

So enter Monty. In the nick of time, quite literally - Rommel attacked on August 30th.

In hindsight, yes, 1942 was the turning point, along with the Japanese defeat at Midway.

Of all the Allies, the Soviets made the greatest contribution to the defeat of the Third Reich. Of the Total German Armed forces losses (killed, wounded, missing) of 13,488,000 in World War II, 80 percent of these losses were suffered on the Eastern Front. 35 million Russians lost their lives, another estimated 35 million were wounded, both civilian and military.

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/weapons_and_manpower.htm
Tank Production
-------Great Britain----------USA--------USSR-----Germany---Japan
1940-----1,400-----------------300---------2,800-----1,600--------not known
1941-----4,800---------------4,100--------6,400-----3,800--------1,000
1942-----8,600--------------25,000------24,700-----6,300--------1,200
1943-----7,500--------------29,500------24,000----12,100----------800
1944-----4,600--------------17,600------29,000----19,000----------300
1945---not known---------12,000------15,400------3,900----------100
Total----20,150-------------88,500-----102,300----46,700-------3,400

Total tanks produced Allied forces = 210,950 tanks
Total tanks produced Axis forces = 50,400 tanks

Merchant ships produced by total tonnage 1940 to 1945:
This saved England
-------------------Great Britain----------USA------------USSR------------Germany------Japan
1940-------------------810,000----------444,700-------not known------not known-----293,600
1941-----------------1,156,000----------749,100-------not known------not known-----210,400
1942-----------------1,301,000--------5,392,800------not known------not known-----260,100
1943-----------------1,204,000-------12,485,600-----not known------not known-----769,100
1944-----------------1,014,000-------11,403,200-----not known------not known---1,699,200
1945--------------------856,000---------7,614,900-----not known-----not known------559,600
Total------------------6,341,000------38,090,300--------------------------------------------3,792,000


Combined military manpower 1940 to 1945:

--------------Great Britain----------USA------------USSR------Germany----------Japan
1940--------2,212,000---------458,300-------2,500,000-----5,600,000---------1,723,200
1941--------3,278,000-------1,795,000------4,207,000-----7,200,000---------2,411,400
1942--------3,784,000-------3,844,500------9,000,000-----8,600,000---------2,829,400
1943--------4,300,000-------8,918,600-----10,000,000----9,500,000---------3,808,200
1944--------4,500,000------11,241,200-----12,400,000---9,100,000---------5,365,000
1945--------4,653,000------11,858,500-----10,800,000---not known--------7,193,200

Britain couldn't pull it off by herself, with the USSR, a toss-up, with the USA almost guaranteed. It was close as it actually happened anyway, a few things that happened in 1941 changed it to just a close-run thing.