Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Vikarion]

I'm not really dedicated to debating the superiority of military equiment and training: I think it is largely uninteresting for the debate at hand. What I find more interesting is the following:

But my opinion would be that the European attitude about war and violence probably stems from other factors than simple exposure to war or casualties. I would suspect that there is quite involved in that sort of cultural shift. It may even be that it was the constant threat of nuclear annihilation hanging over their heads from two opposing superpowers that instigated it, much as it helped spawn a peace movement in the United States.

I think that here agian the threat was much more in the foregorund of the European consciousness. I mean, people here in Germany were traind in the 'Bundeswehr' with the explicit announcement, that all they had to do was keeping 'the Russian' occupied until the A-bomb hit. Here again, the US mainland wasn't under threat, while Europe was all the time... I don't think it's something different from how WW II was experienced by Europeans (on average), but a continuation.

Perhaps, but don't be too sure that American's didn't also live in fear of "the bomb". I get that I'm somewhat arguing against myself here, so understand that I do agree that there's a difference between the idea of a nuke going off and being able to drive right up to a border from which an invasion might issue forth at any instant.

Also, I'm a bit sick at the moment, so, please read what I write with the maximum charity possible, as I'm not the best at conveying meaning atm. 

[Vikarion]

You also have differing historical narratives - in the US, we're basically taught that we defeated the Nazi's and imperial Japan, with some help from our European allies. It was personal research that lead to the realization of just how much the Russians contributed to the fall of Nazi Germany. Now, if Germany and Russia hadn't fought each other, we might still have defeated Germany once the Bomb was ready, but the way US history lessons minimize role of the Soviets is absurd.

My education did not convey this idea to me, and I know others of the same experience, but I have also heard of that sort of propaganda-lite kind of education. I agree, it's bad. On the other hand, it's wise not to go too far the other way and forget that the Soviets benefited massively from American aid. By the way, this is a great interview with a Russian tanker who drove a Sherman: http://english.iremember.ru/tankers/17-dmitriy-loza.html

So you end up with a sort of national myth where we look at ourselves as the great saviors of western civilization. If you then make a point of not teaching any of the Cold War history where the US goes around and fucks up other countries, replacing democratically elected leaders with brutal military dicators (Guatemala's Junta, the Shah of Iran, and many more) you end up with a country that thinks it holds moral high ground over the rest of the world.

I absolutely agree. I think that many of the things the U.S. did during the Cold War were obscene. On the other hand, you have things like the Korean War, and I think that it takes a bit of delusional sophistry (which I am not accusing you of, certainly) to think that South Korea would be worse off without the United States. Nor was the United States an exception - consider how France fought bloody actions in French Indochina (named so at the time) and Algeria in the hopes of retaining it's colonial possessions. As bad as Vietnam was, it appears to be the case that the North Vietnamese did execute a bloodbath after we withdrew. Knowing what it ended up costing, it was obviously a bad choice, but that is in hindsight. Some decisions we made were made because all we had to go on was how communists had acted up to that point. That said, we would have done well not to interfere in South America at all. We had very little positive influence there, besides perhaps in Panama.

Regarding your point about Denmark and Norway, here's another way to look at it: Seeing what war is like. While they may not have lost as many soldiers themselves, they had front row seats to the two greatest wars in history. The US, on the other hand, watched them from across oceans, filtered through news and other media. That may make up for the fact that they didn't actually lose as large a portion of of their population. Look at how US opinion changed when the news media gained the technology to give us a better look at what war could be like during Vietnam and then in Iraq. And that was still something happening "Over There" rather than "Next Door."

That's...somewhat possible. Keep in mind that the U.S. made the choice to air graphic war footage of places like Tarawa in movie theaters. This did not have the effect of weakening American morale.

As such, we don't really know how the people of Russia or China responded to the incredible losses they endured - only how their respective governments did. Stalin would go on to butcher millions of his own people, so we know he didn't give two shits what they thought. I don't know enough about post-war China to comment on the matter there.

Minor corrections: China didn't have "a" government, it was involved in a long civil war between Chiang kai-shek's Nationalists and Mao's Communists. World War 2 did not end the fighting in China...that continued until around 1949. Stalin had conducted most of his mass killings and starvation programs before 1939, which is one reason the Red Army performed so poorly in the Winter War with Finland and when fighting Germany in 1941-1943.

[Louella Dougans]

And the Stuka appears to have been constructed by someone under the impression that his opponent would not have an airforce. While an accurate dive bomber, and relatively sturdy, but it carried a relatively small load, and was neither maneuverable nor fast. Which meant that every time it encountered an enemy air force of even moderate coordination and capability, it tended to die quite a bit, as the British demonstrated in the Battle of Britain.

It's possible, that under blitzkrieg doctrine, then the thinking would be yes, the opponent would not have an airforce, or at least not one capable of resisting.

In the European land war, the Bf-109s, would sweep the skies clear of enemy fighters, in front of the Stukas, which would be attacking in support of the ground forces, nearer the front.

When used at the Battle of Britain, against radar stations and airfields, it was soon found that Bf-109s cannot defend Stuka dive bombers effectively once the Stukas commence their attack, and Hurricanes and Spitfires find that a Stuka with its dive brakes on, is practically a stationary target, thus very easy to hit.



As for attitudes to war, and exposure to things, I think it might be useful to compare perceptions of the war against Japan as experienced by British people (also the Korean War), compared with the war against Germany. VE Day was a big, big thing in Britain. VJ Day, not so much. The Korean war, is sometimes called the forgotten war, in terms of British perception. VE Day meant no more V2 rockets, no more blackouts, no more air raid sirens. VJ Day, in comparison, was more like "oh, it's over", for Britain, as it was that much further away.

The Houses of Parliament were damaged by aerial bombing, there are discontinuities in the stonework that remain visible today. For people living in Britain, then the experience would be that the RAF is defending Britain to the best of its ability, and it is very able indeed, but... Britain is still getting bombed. Defence only determines how badly you're being bombed, not whether you're bombed at all.

And in Germany, the Nuremberg Raid, was a significant defeat of Bomber Command by the Luftwaffe, but... Nuremberg was still heavily bombed, even though the RAF lost.

When the best defence only seems to minimise, rather than prevent, attacks, then that probably has a big effect on attitudes.


Also, did mainland USA have widespread rationing ? was there an air-raid blackout in place ?

[Vikarion]

Also, did mainland USA have widespread rationing ? was there an air-raid blackout in place ?

There was widespread rationing of luxuries and war-necessary materials, yes. However, I do know that it was nowhere near as bad as for the U.K. Coastal cities had blackouts.

Some rationing materials: http://www.ameshistory.org/exhibits/events/rationing.htm

Incidentally, it's also a matter of note that V-J day was a source of both joy and great relief to Americans, who were expecting casualties of around 1,000,000 in the invasion of Japan. It may be that one of the reasons for the nearly complete reversal of attitudes about Japan comes from the fact that, unlike with Germany, Japan did not fight until the occupation of its homeland.

Someone earlier made a point about how governmental control was more palatable in Britain after the war, because of the governmental direction of the U.K.'s economy. In America, governmental direction was probably associated with a necessary but unpleasant downgrade in living standards (no new cars, rationing, etc). This was in part to our total war footing, and in part because America was supplying every allied nation with vast amounts of materials and munitions.

[Desiderya]

They still dig out a lot of bombs to this day, too. Sometimes they even dig themselves out.

[Kala]

@Louella - 'Instructions for American Servicemen in Britain 1942' really interesting read - both in context of the conversation topic and how much has changed and how much has stayed the same.  We certainly have a lot of coca-cola now 

Regarding how attitudes in Europe might be different from America - can't really speak for anyone (I wasn't alive!) but from what I understood, the attitude in Britain was informed by already having been bombed and at war for a few years (and the toll that's taken) and also, I guess, the feeling that Hitler was on the doorstep and an invading force.

But more important than this is the effect of the war itself. The British have been bombed, night after night and month after month.  Thousands of them have lost their houses, their possessions, their families.  Gasoline, clothes, and railroad travel are hard to come by and incomes are cut by taxes to an extent we Americans have not even approached.  One of the things the English always had enough of in the past was soap.  Now it is so scarce that girls working in the factories often cannot get the grease off their hands or out of their hair. Food is more strictly rationed than anything .else.

The British Came Through. For many months the people of Britain have been doing without things which Americans take for granted.  But you will find that shortages, discomforts, blackouts, and bombings have not made the British depressed.  They have a new cheerfulness and a new determination born out of hard time and tough luck.  After going through what they have been through it's only human nature that they should  be more than ever  determined to win.

You came to Britain from a country where your home is still safe,  food is still plentiful,  and lights are still burning. So it is doubly important for you to remember that the British soldiers and civilians are living under a tremendous strain.

Like it says, really.  The 'blitz spirit' and 'stiff upper lip' stereotypes would be the 'determination born out of hard time and tough luck' (i.e bombing and rationing) bit.

So yeah.  Not a competition as to 'who had it worse' but the circumstances would've factored on our national attitude, if you like.

The best authority on all problems is the nearest "bobby" (policeman) in his steel helmet.  British police are proud of being able to answer almost any question under the sun.  They're not in a hurry and they'll take plenty of time to talk to you.

  yaah...times have changed a bit there.

So if Britons sit in trains or busses without striking up conversation with you, it doesn't mean they are being haughty and unfriendly.  Probably they are paying more attention to you than you think.  But they don't speak to you because they don't want to appear intrusive or rude.

Heh.  Sometimes I don't realize how typically British I am    I often get told that if you ask people questions, they warm to you, because you're showing an interest in them.  But I don't want to do that, because I would rather be left alone and not interrogated 

How to make friends and influence people 

[Nicoletta Mithra]

So if Britons sit in trains or busses without striking up conversation with you, it doesn't mean they are being haughty and unfriendly.  Probably they are paying more attention to you than you think.  But they don't speak to you because they don't want to appear intrusive or rude.

Heh.  Sometimes I don't realize how typically British I am    I often get told that if you ask people questions, they warm to you, because you're showing an interest in them.  But I don't want to do that, because I would rather be left alone and not interrogated 

How to make friends and influence people 

This quite true for northern germany as well. Last time I visited England I was so happy that no one started to interrogate me on the bus or so like in some other foreign countries. Then again, it's also nice to get into contact with people at times. <,<

P.S.: Are there similar instructions for Germany, somewhere?

[Vikarion]

P.S.: Are there similar instructions for Germany, somewhere?

For the U.S. Army? In World War 2?

I suppose the Geneva Convention counts. I know some educational movies were made for occupying troops after the war.

...Found one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvcf9DKSpPw

[Silas Vitalia]

Vikarion, Louella,

Thank you for absolutely interesting posts.  Very illuminating.  I'd suggest a Mod perhaps splinter off this thread into perhaps a more generic ' WWII chit chat' away from the OP?

I'm exceedingly out of my knowledge base on those topics, but super interesting. 

I'd only add that most of the planet lived under fear of the bomb, and if you were in Russia or the US in any sort of major city or close to military things you had pretty good odds that if 'it' went down you'd be vaporized.

I grew up outside of washington DC which means I'd be vaporized several times for good measure.

[Louella Dougans]

P.S.: Are there similar instructions for Germany, somewhere?

don't know if there's the text available, but these two threads on a military history forum have pictures of the books, Instructions for British servicemen in France and Germany

http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=106909 -France

http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=107168 -Germany

There's probably several others.

[Lyn Farel]

Vikarion, Louella,

Thank you for absolutely interesting posts.  Very illuminating.  I'd suggest a Mod perhaps splinter off this thread into perhaps a more generic ' WWII chit chat' away from the OP?

I'm exceedingly out of my knowledge base on those topics, but super interesting. 

I'd only add that most of the planet lived under fear of the bomb, and if you were in Russia or the US in any sort of major city or close to military things you had pretty good odds that if 'it' went down you'd be vaporized.

I grew up outside of washington DC which means I'd be vaporized several times for good measure.

Tbh i'm not in the mood to debate Vik's points that are sometimes far stretched or make so many shortcuts that it's mindboggling.

I could cite how AM6 planes litterally slaughtered american planes for most of the war, or at least the first half, how they also proved to be superior to even british spitfires in India, how comparing the spit being above a bf109-E is innacurate since the plane was more recent and that the next versions of the BF-109 (F) was already perfectly able to fight spitfires, even in its newer versions as well, that the point of stukas as said by Lou already was to have the air superiority beforehand (thus why it was the primary goal either in the battle of England and the battle of France, where the Luftwaffe lost almost a third of its fighter planes iirc). 

I could cite how poor were American planes at the start of the war (p-39, p-40, F4F, really ?), or how poor American troops performed in their first steps in Africa, time for them to get experience of war at the same level than their european counterparts already fighting for years.

So yes, it's easy to cite a few examples to make generalities out of it.

I'm not disagreeing per se with the examples, but with the wide sweeping generalizations and conclusions made out of a few of them. It's a not a black and white US stuff was better, it had its pros, and its cons, like everyone else. And one of their major pros was the industrial backbone behind, make no mistake.

When Isoroku Yamamoto said before Pearl Harbor "i'm afraid that we might have made a mistake by awaking a sleeping giant", I wonder if he knew how right he was.

[Vikarion]

I could cite how AM6 planes litterally slaughtered american planes for most of the war, or at least the first half,

They didn't. The F4F is simply not as bad of a plane as it was made out to be. You're right that it was not as good as the Zero, but it was hardly "slaughtered", possessing at least reasonable engine power and much better armor than the Zero. The P-38 was better at everything besides turning battles, and the Hellcat was introduced in 1943 - a better plane in almost every way than the Zero - and the Hellcat was available for most of the fighting after Midway. Have to go to work, can cover more later.

how they also proved to be superior to even british spitfires in India,

That might be. Some Euro theater models did not perform well in the Pacific and vice versa.

how comparing the spit being above a bf109-E is innacurate since the plane was more recent

Well, should I compare what both sides were mostly using at a certain point, or should I pull the most advanced models out of German history to face up a particular British one? I mean, the F-15 is probably also a "better plane" than the Spitfire. The fact is, the Germans did upgrade the 109 to the F, and then the G. And the U.K. upgraded the Spitfire.

and that the next versions of the BF-109 (F) was already perfectly able to fight spitfires, even in its newer versions as well,

Even the 109E could fight Spitfires. They just weren't quite as good. And as I noted, the 109E was the major German fighter in the BoB, after which BOTH sides upgraded their planes. Eventually, after all, the British collaborated with America to create the P-51, which outclassed every non-jet fighter in the war.

that the point of stukas as said by Lou already was to have the air superiority beforehand (thus why it was the primary goal either in the battle of England and the battle of France, where the Luftwaffe lost almost a third of its fighter planes iirc). 

The Luftwaffe never achieved that sort of total air superiority against any opponent after 1941 or so. Given that, is it a good plane with no purpose, or a bad design? I favor the latter way of describing it, but the effect is the same.

I could cite how poor were American planes at the start of the war (p-39, p-40, F4F, really ?),

Yes, and I could point out that only the F4F was still in production. The others were phased out, and generally were sold to allies or posted to backwater theaters. At the same time, we also had the P-38, which was a wonderful plane for the Pacific, and as I said, the F4F was bad, but not our primary carrier fighter for about 2/3s of the time we were in the war.

or how poor American troops performed in their first steps in Africa,

As did, in some locales, German troops when they fought for the first time, Russian troops in 1941, British and French troops in 1941, and etc. An exception must be made for both U.S. Marines and the IJA: they performed fairly well in the Pacific from the start, although it must be noted that the IJA did have some rather catastrophic engagements before the opening of hostilities with the Soviets.

time for them to get experience of war at the same level than their european counterparts already fighting for years.

Most sides learned reasonably fast. The Soviets took longest, something usually attributed to Stalin's habit of shooting those with rank or experience.

[Lyn Farel]

That's the perfect illustration of why I don't want to engage in such one sided debates that can be found everywhere on the internet, that are bordering on the national bias and epeen WW2 contest. It will just end up in "X is better because I said it".

I see it everyday on the very forums of my company, with people ten times more knowledgeable than any of us bickering about that fighter is the best because X, no that one because Y (while they all actually have their pros and cons) and it's depressing tbh, especially when afficionados or even military guys can't even agree and still insist that what they say are universal facts.

I shouldn't even have made a single remark, my apologies.

[Nicoletta Mithra]

Well, to show that we Germans look at this with (our special kind of) humor, too, a link to a youtube vid.

Maybe I'llfind time to translate the lyrics tomorrow.

[Vikarion]

That's the perfect illustration of why I don't want to engage in such one sided debates that can be found everywhere on the internet, that are bordering on the national bias and epeen WW2 contest. It will just end up in "X is better because I said it".

I think that this is essentially implying that whatever views I hold, I hold because "national epeen". I don't think that that's the case. I'm perfectly comfortable acknowledging that my country has had some truly epic foul-ups in terms of weapons design and tactics. For example, the M16 could have been done a lot better. U.S. fighter design in the '50s left something to be desired. The U.S. did not exactly save the world in World War 1. The American Revolution owes a lot to the French and Spanish. The war of 1812 was stupid, and, at best, a draw. And the U.S. has had the shit kicked out of them every time they tried to invade Canada.

But I also have done a lot of study on World War 2. And, frankly, I think that if you study how Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan requisitioned, designed, and built their weapons, you'll have a reasonably skeptical outlook on their utility as well. Consider the Panther, which was supposed to be a medium tank but got mutated into well, the tank with the flaws I mentioned. This was not least due to the involvement of a certain A. Hitler. Imagine if every weapons design the U.S. came up with had had to be run by the President?

Is it so unreasonably to think that the war which made the U.S. a superpower might have also been the war in which they developed a truly good suite of weapons and tactics?

P.S. And the Leopard 2 is probably better than the M1A2 Abrams.