German POWs

There was kind of a throw away comment made in class that German POWs that the Soviets held were not released "well into the 50's".
How could this have been allowed? It seems like if we were trying to perhaps rectify past mistakes, like the reparations that Germany had to pay and such from the first World War, why would any of the allies allow the Soviets to hold these prisoners for such a long time after victory in Europe? Is this a common practice that I'm not aware of?

Presentation 3/5/08

There was a bulge around the town of Kursk that was about 100 miles long in 1943. The two forces on either side of Kursk focused everything on the bulge. The Germans were delayed for supplies. Russians were aware that the attack would happen, and so had time to prepare and place land mines, barbed wire, and 1.3 million men there, many of whom were vets of Stalingrad. The aftermath of this was that Stalin started to trust intelligence more and starts micromanaging his officers less.

Presentations:

 It is impossible for me to fathom the extent of the losses suffered at any battle.  However, the numbers lost during the Battle of Kursk are beyond what I can envision.  Along with this same thought, I cannot imagine the extensive numbers of military armors, such as the 2400 Soviet tanks, that put to use in this battle.  I also thought it was interesting as to the attacks and counterattacks performed.  The Germans delayed the attack allowing the Russians time to regroup and prepare their strategies.  It was apparent from the presentation that the Russian army had developed better plans in being able to turn from defensive to offensive and drive the Russians back.

 

I, personally, had never heard of the Rzhev Pocket before the presentation.  It was interesting to note that Rzhev was seen as a “dagger aimed at Moscow.”  It seems strange that if this was the site of a major battle during the war, more detailed information would have been written about it.  However, as pointed out during the presentation, it was amazing how quickly the Russian Army was pulled together and the strength that it provided when mobilized into action.  

OPERATION BLAU:

The ugliness and brutality of war favors no side better than the other.  In reading about Operation Blau, it talked about Hitler’s relentless control of his commanders.  He felt that his judgment was far superior to his commanders, who he controlled on all issues.  It was nothing for him to strip a commander of his rank and throw him in prison if he felt that he was weakening in command.  While we know that Hitler was this way, it is interesting to note that other leaders also acted in the same way.  An example of this was when Stalin issued Order 227, which called for the immediate execution of anyone in the troops who failed in the line of duty.  Another interesting point about Operation Blau was that for everything Hitler threw at the Russians, they were able to throw back.  He had highly intelligent and professional military commanders, but he failed to allow them the freedom to command their troops.  He was commander-in-chief.  No one else, just him.  

1942

I found it very interesting that several of the successful leaders in these readings like many others we have learned about were not necessarily groomed to be strong leaders, but thier personalities guided them into these positions. General Bernard Law Montgomery was a relatively unknown British comander who used his understanding of soldiers and high energy to force success for his side. America's Eisenhower used his hard work and unique personality to work his way up and into success. Germany's Manstein had been protege, but it was his brilliance and ambition that helped him succeed and acheive promotions. These are just a few examples of interesting people I saw in the reading. What was interesting about them was that they had not been very successful before their acheivements in North Africa or in the East. These individuals may not have gotten the positions they were after, there was not a definate sign that they were headed for greatness, and very successful leaders did not take them under their wing to learn how to be great. I wonder what it was that made these leaders successful or great or victorious.

Was it just luck? Could it have been thier personalities and determination despite their very different attitudes? Or is there more than the reading lets us know? And was there a path and signs that these men and others like them would be great? Maybe they had advantages that other leaders did not have? War is strange, it could have made these men rise to the occasion or circumstances!

Who gets to fight?

This may have fit better with the discussion on the AGCT but was the U.S. draft process more or less filtered than the other countries involved? It seems like Japan, German, and Russia just had non-stop waves of bodies to throw into this war. It would seem that sending less, but better trained troops would cut down on deaths and lead to a more strategic war. I could be totally off base here, but it seems that if the U.S. had just sent every capable man who could fire a gun into war we would not have preformed as well due to even more inexperienced soldiers messing things up. Would a more detailed selection process have helped these other countries?

Presentations

The Rzhev Pocket and Kursk presentation showed me the huge scale that the battles on the Eastern Front were fought. In the Rzhev Pocket alone the Russian lost 300K plus men and do not forget about the material. The battle of Kursk was fought with about a fifth of the Russian Army at the time. I just find it amazing that the Germans could hold off these types of numbers. I think it all shows that if it was not for Russia’s huge resources they would have lost the war because it seems their main tactic was to overwhelm the enemy with pure numbers.

Hitler's mistake (again)

After class this week, I feel that the Axis could have won the war in the Mediterranean, which may have lead to their ultimate victory in the war. The reason for this is that Hitler failed to take Malta and to use the Italian navy. Malta proved to be the throne in Germany and Italy’s side and helped lead to their defeat in North Africa; however, they did not do anything and they easily could have taken the island. In addition, they did not supply the Italian navy with the oil they needed to fight the British for control of the Med. They allowed the British to sail the Mediterranean with little threat to their ships besides the Luftwaffe. If Hitler would have delayed his attack on Russia for at least one year (it was already delayed by a few months when he attacked) and used the resources to finish off the British in the Mediterranean theater the war would have had a different outcome. In addition, he still could have attacked Russia the next spring, had more resources, started sooner, and not had to worry about three fronts, which could have lead to a different outcome on the Eastern Front. Does anyone else have the same opinion?

Germany

After the surrender of the Italians to the German forces, why did they put their fellow Axis partners in work camps? I thought that by banding together in the beginning the Germans and Italians were in it together and not at odds with each other.

After this move, Hitler seems to be in the war only for himself and the furthering of his ambitions.

Kursk an Rzhev

The battle of the Rzhev pocket occurred before the Battle of Kursk and was an effort by the Germans to hold onto Rzhev because it was the last city on the river before Moscow. German troops are encircled while they try to hold control of the city and are told to stay and defend the area no matter what happens. Soviets use Operation Mars and encircle the Germans on three sides. Germans are forced to give up their area.

The battle of Kursk was between the Soviets and Germans on the Eastern front. In effort to use a Pincer move on the city the Germans were defeated by the Soviets. Soviets had around four months to plan for defense, while the Germans waited for supplies. Stalin is more trusting of his officials after the success in Kursk.

Hitler

Learning about Hitler this week I found myself asking why he did not leave military operations to people who knew what they were doing. I know he did not trust people, but his decisions are so bad that his military commanders could not have done a whole lot worse. I was wonderingwhat others thought about this.

Hitler

We learned more about how hitler really was this week. He was egoistic and refused to back down to his opponent. He cost his country the war. In doing the things he did that led to his defeat, it made everything that all the germans had done previously and all their sacrifice meaningless. What could have happened if he would have waited for supplies to catch up with his troops instead of pushing them on? Would they maybe have won or would the US still spell doom for them? To think what could have been if Hitler wasnt in such a hurry to gain so much ground for his empire is scary.

Monty

I really find it amusing how mostly everyone thinks that Montgomery is a great general.  I think that he way overrated.  If he would have held a high leadership position at the beginning of the war, I think that he would have committed the same mistakes if not more than those generals who capitulated to Germany on the war's onset.  He is overly cautious, lacks military genius, conservative, and is not the aggressive type who is usually caste as the war hero.  He is just a product of success due to Germany's lack of supply, manpower, and discipline during the latter stages of the war.

kursk and the readings

an interesting but foolish move for Hitler to re-assign some of his best tanks units from the eastern front where they were needed most and put them in Italy where the geography of that country limits their use.

chapter 11 in A War to be Won calls 1942 the year of german decision. It was also in that year that the wehrmacht began to see defeat regularly with two fronts in russia and the mediterranean. would it be fair to say that by 1943 germany knew they were fighting a loosing effort?

Stalingrad

Hitler's ego really shows this week (I think). Put yourself in Hitler's shoes for a moment (I know, I know) and you want to accomplish this very specific thing - which up til now you have been doing, with success. Until Stalingrad. Make no mistake, I'm not an admirer of, nor do I condone Hitler's actions. But he really dropped the ball there and I think for no other reason than ego. He was going to take "Stalin's city"? ...sort of staggers the imagination doesn't it?

Hitler in the East

How many armies have set their sights on Moscow and other Russian cities and failed? I found it very interesting how Hitler changed his approach in his offense for Russia for Stalingrad compared to Leningrad and others. It seems that he wanted to take "Stalin’s city" despite the risks that he knew and what eventually happened...

Rzhev Pocket and Kursk

   The aspect to this operation that I found most disturbing was the exceptionally high level of casualties on both sides.  Particularly on the Soviet side.  I am unable to recall the exact number on both sides but I vaguely remember that the Germans lost around 50,000 soldiers while the Soviets lost a far more non proportional 300,000 soldiers.  The capacity to kill that existed on the the Eastern Front was disturbing according to just the Rzhev Pocket.

   Having presented the Battle of Kursk, I perceived the Rzhev Pocket as the Soviet's version of the Kursk manuver.  Both these operations consisted of a massive amount of soldiers, tanks, and aircraft that would be used in encircling their enemy with a giant pincher move.  Another similarity with these two operations was that they occurred roughly in the same area of the Eastern Front.  Both took place in the center where the German Army Group B was located.  I still can't get over Hitler's lack of ambition with completing his pincher at Kursk.  

Itay

Why don't we hear about the Italians in the war more often? What role did they play in the battles? I don't understand why the Germans would throw the Italian soliders who came to fight with them, into slave labor camps. I thought the pact that Hitler made with Mussolini was pretty strong. I also thought all of Italy sided with Hitler but today's lecture made it sound like Italy may have been slightly split in opinion.

presentations

I am surprised sometimes that Hitler didn't loose the war a lot sooner. After the presentations this week, it seems amazing to me that the war lasted as long as it did. Hitler didn't trust his soliders and military leaders who had some idea of what they needed to do in order to make Hitler's plans reality. This leads to some really big communication issues. Rommel is a great example of this lack of trust or communication that existed between the German military and Hitler. In the Battle of Tobrok, Rommel goes to Africa to take control of the troops. He manages to push the British back. After this Hitler tells him to leave. He disobeys and is defeated by the British.
We see a similar situation with the Battle of El Alamein. At the Battles of Kursk and Rzhev the german officers want to pull out but Hitler tells them to stay. It is ironic that the Germans loose this battle, giving Hitler a reason to trust his men less. In reality, if he had listened to them in the first place and pulled the military out, they might have fared better.

Britian and U.S. delay to invade

I just was wondering if maybe the reason Britain and America waited to invade Europe was because they wanted a weak Soviet Union. They didn't want the Soviet Union to fall but to be weak. This was maybe a way for them to get rid of communism and not have to deal with it. I don't know if that had anything to do with waiting to invade or what but it makes you wonder. Even though the Soviet Union was with the allies it was a more forced situation than choosen. So if they could weaken the Soviet Union they would not be as big of a threat after the war. I don't know if this is the case or not.

Rzhev Pocket

It seemed with this battle that Germany won but gained nothing from it. They were in such a bad spot that nothing could really help. It seemed like it would have been better if they would have retreated from the city. I know it is important to hold key cities but this one was surrounded and they weren't moving forward from it. It seemed like even though it was a victory it led to the defeat of the German Army. Russia lost a lot of men in the battle but that is something they were not short on. I guess it is about morale and holding the city gave the soliders a lift. I wonder what would have happened if Germany retreated and then later made a push towards the city and pushed the whole Russian line back. Would that have changed the war?

Africa presentations

The presentations on the battle that happened in Africa were very interesting and helpful to me understanding the war there. It is very interesting to see how the war went back and forth and the decisions that led to the changes. It would be interesting to see how things would be different if a different decision was made, like for Rommel to retreat sooner at El Alamein. The battle in Africa really changed the war because it opened up another front for the Germans to defend. These battles helped dictate the way the war went.

Africa presentations

wednesday presentations

Kursk was very interesting and a well done presentation. The faulty actions by Hitler is something that we have seen a few times already in other battles but when he took some of the army out and sent them to Italy he really ruined this battle for himself. I found it really interesting since the Russians were able to push the Germans back to Kiev, which Hitler thought would never happen.
In the second presentation I feel like we barely scratched the surface yet it was interesting to note that most historians apparently disregarded the importance of this battle. Again, this is another example of Hitler not pulling or allowing his troops to pull out when they should.

Rzhev Pocket

This battle seems to have very little information on it compared to many of the other battles in the war. Especially when talking about the seize on Rzhev itself. All of my sources however did not go into any of those details and I was disappointed by that. But what I did get from this research is how powerful the Red Army came once it was in full mobilization. If Stalin had done this sooner I wonder what the war in the Soviet Union would have looked like. The plan fact is Hitler did not listen to his commanders and stretched his armies to far.

Wednesday Presentations

Great job Matts on both of your presentations. They were both highly informative, and I thorougly enjoyed learning about both battles. To the first Matt, I enjoyed the way you spoke about the battle of Kursk. The hand drawn map was informative, as well as the presentation in itself. To the second Matt, the background information on the Rshev pocket was also very useful in understanding the two battling countries. Nazi Germany was down right stupid, and I feel as if they almost handed over Moscow to the Soviet Union. So close Germany, so close.

north africa

I thought the most interesting aspect in all of the north africa situation was that the US didn't know if the occupying Viccy French I believe it was would shoot on them or not as they landed on the shores.
Also about Tobruk, I found it interesting that the battle sort of went in circles and got no where for a long while. What was learned though was extremely important in regards to the new use of camoflauge in the desert and the use of consolidated forces in a combined effort.

North Africa Presentations

Tobruk: The presentation on the battles around Tobruk was really interesting because one was able to see how much area was gained and lost each time the British and Russians fought to gain a hold in Africa. I found it interesting that Rommel took the battles into his own hands and contintued to push forward for full victory. His tactic of attacking the British before fortifications were up was smart, but he fell back when he didn't wait for troops or supplies to arrive.

El Alamein: This presentation was also well done. It was nice to see that there was someone in World War II who waited for supplies and tried to prepare his men the best he could. The information on Montgomery was important because it showed that some areas were taking into consideration the condition of troops and supplies, because both are a necessity to winning any kind of battle. It was surprising to me that the Allies had such success after El Alamein; it was mentioned that they never lost after this battle, it was a turning point for the Allies.

On North Africa

First, I'll comment on the presentations.  

The presentation on Tobruk was well done.  I especially appreciated the improvised use of the chalkboard.  I'll admit that I thought it looked kinda funny at first, but it ended up working pretty well.  It served to illustrate the larger point that the battles waged in North Africa were indeed important, and also very back and forth.

The El Alamein presentation had many of the same strengths (it did lack the chalkboard, though).  Once again, it was well demonstrated both that the tide of battle swayed all across the desert, and (perhaps more importantly) why the battled swayed when and how it did.  

Despite the impressive and thorough job done by the presenters, I still have one question.  Why is it that Erwin Rommel is one of the biggest names of WWII?  It seems that anyone who knows much of anything about WWII knows of the Desert Fox.  I suppose I should clarify that I know of his multiple successes. My more specific query, then, is what was it about Rommel that allowed him to be as successful as he was?  Tactics?  Moxy?  Luck?  And specifics would be appreciated.

North Africa

Tobruk was interesting because I never knew that North America was such a back and forth battle. In addition, I thought it was amazing how Tobruk held out for so long the first time but feel so quickly during the 2nd offensive by Rommel. I like how the presentation showed that Rommel, the great German general, was just like everyone else and made mistakes. Usually history forgets about a great individual’s mistakes and only remembers their victories. I was wondering if Germany would have taken the Suez Canal if Tobruk would not have held out for so long the first time?

In the presentation about El Alamein I thought it was interesting in Montgomery’s method of waging war. Montgomery really used the allies’ vast industry to his advantage by stockpiling before the battle and in his belief in training, which many allied troops greatly lacked. The battle also showed the way that Hitler always got too hands on with battles and didn’t let his generals general and didn’t look at the overall picture. I thought another interesting fact was that Rommel was absent when the battle started. I wonder if Rommel was present if the battle would have turned out differently?

North Africa

Tobruk was interesting because I never knew that North America was such a back and forth battle. In addition, I thought it was amazing how Tobruk held out for so long the first time but feel so quickly during the 2nd offensive by Rommel. I like how the presentation showed that Rommel, the great German general, was just like everyone else and made mistakes. Usually history forgets about a great individual’s mistakes and only remembers their victories. I was wondering if Germany would have taken the Suez Canal if Tobruk would not have held out for so long the first time?

In the presentation about El Alamein I thought it was interesting in Montgomery’s method of waging war. Montgomery really used the allies’ vast industry to his advantage by stockpiling before the battle and in his belief in training, which many allied troops greatly lacked. The battle also showed the way that Hitler always got too hands on with battles and didn’t let his generals general and didn’t look at the overall picture. I thought another interesting fact was that Rommel was absent when the battle started. I wonder if Rommel was present if the battle would have turned out differently?

Tobruk & El Alamein

I thought the presentation on Tobruk was very informative.  It was hard for me to believe that neither side really understood or took advantage of the use of camoflauge until well into the battle.  You would think with all the preperation and planning that go into military operations that would be one issue that would be greatly focused on.  Upon further investigation I found out that this battle resulted in the very first successful halting of the German blitzkrieg panzer attack.  


I am presently in a Nazi Germany history class and one of the key factors as to why the German's failed to win the war was very poor military organization and the lack of logical and well planned operations.  Obviously the battle of El Alamein is a prime example of the Allied forces simply outsmarting the German army.  I know that Montgomery and the allied forces were supplied with better more effective fire power, but it seems very clear that Rommel was simply out-planned and out-manuevered by Montgomery.  

Presentations

Tobruk was interesting to hear about. It was interesting to hear that British forces pushed back the German forces and then the Germans forces did the opposite, etc. It was like they were going back and forth, back and forth, but no one could deliver that final blow for awhile. Rommel should have waited for supplies and the Germans should have retreated. These two things cost them dearly. I wonder if either side would have learned what needed to be done to be successful in the desert before the war if anyone would have had a swift, decissive victory.

El Alamein was also unique. Churchill personally made the trip there to shake things up and that shows how important it was. Montgomery's strategy of stockpilling until attacking was definitely different than others we have heard about. I think this strategy can help to explain the huge difference in casualty rates, that and Hitler's refusal to retreat. To say that someone wasn't aggressive enough might be a little off. A good defensive can make a good offensive is the old saying. It obiviously gained him a lot of respect among his troops and they probably fought even harder for him.

Presentations on North Africa

Nice job to both of you. I have been fascinated with the North African campaign and the shear mobility afforded by the flat open desert. It truly was some of the first highly mobile armored warfare, and the lessons learned by both sides had an effect on the rest of the war, and undoubtedly were applied to more recent conflicts in the Middle East. You both captured the idea that as a general, Rommel could be seen as superior to his British counterparts, but his lack of supplies, and apparent disregard for supply lines were to come back to get him in the end. Montgomery was able to just slug it out in a war of attrition, something Rommel could not afford. Also, it was telling how the Italians prepared the fortress of Tobruk, lost it to the British rather quickly, then their defenses were used against the Afrika Korps when the time came to retake the port. One wonders what may have happened if the Italians had been able to hold on to the city until Rommel arrived in Tripoli with the Afrika Korps. His initial dash may have been decisive with the ability to resupply from the close Tobruk, right from the start.

Pacific

As for the battles we went over this week, you can see why the Japanese had so much trouble in the later years of the war. Had America pursued a "Japan first" policy, no doubt the Empire of the Rising Sun would have crumbled even faster than it did. The Japanese land tactics seem to be well-rehearsed and trained for, but only for offense. Nearly every defensive battle they fought they lost, and lost with most of their troops. I realize that the bushido code wanted a glorious death in battle, but it seems to make little operational sense, much less strategic, to fight badly in order to die gloriously. And that is almost what it seems they did. Some of the fortresses they lost with such casualties would have been successfully defended much longer and at great cost to the attackers had they been adequately commanded. I don't doubt the Japanese infantryman or Royal Marine was not a fierce warrior, but their lives were thrown away in glorious, but operationally unsound movements.

Bougainville

Again, sorry for the late reply, and well done on the presentation. It is always fascinating to study in-depth a particular battle. Not much here, everything was covered in the presentation.

Training > Dedication

What was it that allowed the Marines in the Pacific Theater to inflict greater casualties to the Japanese in almost every major land-based conflict we've studied?

In the Battle of Tarawa, the Marines lost 1200 while the Japanese fought to the death, losing 4483 of their 4500 soldiers. During the fighting near Guadal Canal, the Japanese lost nearly 30000 men, while the Marines lost 1200, along with 560 losses from the Army.

In the first case, the Japanese even had the defensive position. Psychologically, I would expect the Japanese to have an advantage, being brought up and trained to follow bushido, they were certainly willing to do whatever it took to attain victory. Granted, the US troops were mentally tough in their own right, but nobody wanted a glorious death. The goal was victory, rather than glory.

The Banzai charges must account for most of this discrepancy, similar to "over-the-top" charges of WWI trench warfare. But even in situations where close combat was initiated by the Japanese, as in the fight on "Bloody Ridge", the Marines are able to hold off the Japanese, inflicting huge losses.

Bougainville and Nimitz Presentations

It was interesting how the Japanese-American soldiers played such an important part in thwarting the Japanese attack on Bougainville. I know during the war there was a lot of prejudice against persons of Asian ethnicity within the states, but its nice to hear that the reports from the linguistics officers were taken seriously. This battle really emphasised the importance of the element of surprise, and thus the importance of military intelligence.

Nimitz is definately an interesting fellow. How did an unassuming, quiet man who ran aground on one of his first assignments manage to rise to such a prominant position in the Navy? Were there any other major leaders in the military who had been court-martialed? Submarines were the red-headed stepchild of the Navy at the time, which adds even more mystique to the appointment of Nimitz to command.

Good work on the presentations.

Nimitz and MacArthur

I apologize for the later response here, but I did think the presentations were very complete and informative. It just goes to show you that regardless of of if you think you have a pretty good understanding of something, you can always learn more. For instance, it never occurred to me that MacArthur had graduated from West Point at the top of his class with outstanding grades. That's quite an accomplishment, and no doubt his intelligence was a reason for his later successes. I got the idea that had his personality been a little more toned down, he may have been able to achieve the same successes without the unnecessary battles he chose to fight.

Nimitz on the other hand was probably the only military commander (aside from Eisenhower, who was also a very calm individual) who could work side by side with MacArthur and actually get things done. His cool and composed character allowed a greater finesse to show in his operations, as opposed to MacArthur's bravado.

Pacific Theater

I have been really interested in the Pacific theater this year due to the fact that I did not know much about it because it was really never taught in high school. Yes we were taught about the Bataan Death March, Pearl Harbor, and the atomic bomb, but that was about it. The rest of the the classes dealt more with the war in Europe. Yet I have heard that some of the most intense fighting took place during the island hopping battles in the pacific. Also, it was very interesting to hear about the characters in the war like Nimitz and MacArthur.

March 3-5