Saturday, April 5, 2008

Bocage

The French Bocage or "hedgerow" was a huge disadvantage for the Allies.  When preparing for advancement through this area of France the Allies did not expect the Bocage to be as impeding as they were.  Essentially they were killing traps where the Germans could prepare for the unsuspecting Allies coming through the high walls.  Getting through the thick tall walls and deep roots was only their first difficulty.  Once through they had to be ready for the well rested and prepared opponents waiting for them.  It took the Allies time to find a good way to do this, and in many cases it required Sherman Tanks with white phosphorous.  

This important aspect of the war helped the Allies progress with better strategies.  A disadvantge like this made them think and prepare more for each fight.  Most importantly it was the men on the field that had to think for their survival.  This was something new for them, and it made them better and stronger soldiers.  Could the Bocage have been an advantage as much as it was a disadvantage for the Allies' troops?  

Battle of Metz Presentation 4/2

The Battle of Metz was not successful for the Allies for several reasons.  Allied plans left Patton and his troops in difficult situations.  They ran out of supplies, most specifically fuel, because the railroads were damaged or destroyed in initial attacks.  Even with this against him Patton pushed on.  The Germans put up a much stronger fight than had been expected, and this caused the battle to drag on.  

Even when the Germans were fighting strongly, the Allies did not change their strategy at first.  When they did finally change their strategy they were able to achieve more success.  Were the Allies' leaders being too stubborn?  How could they have changed their plans?  And should they have changed their plans?  

Eisenhower Presentation 3/31

Dwight D. Eisenhower was an important leader throughout his life.  During WWII he advised, planned, and commanded many battles and invasions.  Philippines, Normandy, and Sicily are just a few examples.  His leadership was very important for Allied success at this time.  

After WWII he was Supreme Commander of NATO, and later became the President of the United States.  Some individuals were concerned that he did not see the frontline enough, and this would be bad for his presidential role.  His successful military leadership would be important in his presidential leadership.   Would lack of frontline experience take away a necessary experience for him as a presidential leader?  

Photographers 3/31 Presentation

The Photographers of WWII were an important part of this time period for two reasons.  One they could create training videos to better train and prepare new troops.  And two they could better bring the information back home to the people in America.  This created a new cultural awareness that before had not impacted society as much as it now could.  Pictures were printed in magazines and short movie clips were shown weekly.  

This allowed people to create their own thoughts and ideas about what was going on overseas.  In some cases it gave people an empowerment to know what was really going on.  However this was not actually doing what many really thought it did.  People could not see the whole truth even with this photography.  Media sensory did not always allow the truth to be printed.  Facts were distorted or left out.  Few photographers would even see the real front line.  Was this good for the viewers to be seeing?  

Operation Overlord

This point in the war was a big step for planning and leadership of the Allies.  Coordination between the different military forces (air force, army, etc.) and the different Allied countries was used more effectively in Operation Overlord.  Eisenhower, now in overall command, was making a larger effort to make this happen.  The timing chosen for these attacks was also very important because a large portion of the German forces were already occupied in the East.  Also deception was a crafty and important role because they strategically made the German forces think that they would attack Pa da Calias instead.  Doing this they included many details like operations and commanders to throw off their opponents.  These were all things that they had struggled with in the past, and so their achievement was very important for their progress.  

Anzio/Monte Cassino 3/26 Presentations

These battles really show the unprepared side of the Allies.  Looking at the details of what happened, it can be seen that what many would call standard preparations and considerations were not taken.  In Operation Shingle (Anzio), there were not enough troops and supplies to follow through with their plans because they were directed to other battles.  When the troops did go in they were not prepared to do so because procedures and instructions were changed only a short time before.  At the Battle of Monte Cassino, those who planned the attack underestimated the lay of the land.  With the Allies at the bottom and the Germans on the top of the mountains, the Allies were definitely at a disadvantage.  

These lack of preparations cost the Allied forces greatly.  Could better planning have helped?  Was it possible for them to prepare any better without being omniscient?  Were these events inevitable costs of the war?

Friday, April 4, 2008

The photography presentation was by far the most interesting to me this week. However about censorship, the censoring of certain photos is still a practice that goes on today with Iraq unfortunately. But the photos shown were very high quality and displayed epic moments of the war. Very interesting note about catching certain people off guard in photos.

Marketgarden

I think the plan for marketgarden was reasonable and a good idea. The execution of this plan was a little flawed but still a good theory. People were desperate to end the war fast and get their boys home safe. Thats not uncommon, but mistakes made it impossible to complete. The lack of communication was probably the biggest reasons for the failure. If they could have told their commanders about the conditions and was going on would have been immensiley helpful. We learned about other battles and what problems they faced. It seems that this entire war countries faced the problems of outrunning their supply lines or just running out of supplies. I think that thats just an effect of war. It happens in every war.

The presentations this week were good. I didnt know all that stuff about the photographers or pictures that we see about the war. To know that some of them were censored is amazing. It makes you wonder if out government still doesnt try to do that and we just dont see it. The battles that we heard about all seemed to face the same problems we've been hearing over and over again. Its good to hear though that the US forces learned from their mistakes in these battles.

Robert Capa

Very intrigued by the stated line "that if your pictures are not good enough, then you are not close enough." then to go on to say that he was always in the front line, which seemed to be something rare. Later as stated by the presenter, the photos were burned in the printing process, and LIFE magazine printed 10 of these in june 19 1944 and described then as "slightly out of focus", explaining that Capa's hands were shaking in the excitement of the moment (something which he denied) and would later go on to write a autobiographical account about the war title Slightly Out of Focus. His autobiographical is a rather humorous account of the whole thing. Media Filters are just something that blow my mind, because I always feel that it is better to expose than to hide. 

Metz and Market Garden

Learning about the Battle at Metz it's hard to understand how our military leaders did not recognize the tactics that should have been used to secure it.  It seems that hundreds of thousands of lives could have been saved during the course of the war if our commanders would have given certain plans and strategies a little more thought and consideration.  Knowing the allies should have simply surrounded and cut off the troops in Metz it's hard to understand how our strategists could have overlooked this.  
It's also hard to understand the reasoning behind giving the most dificult air drops to inexperienced British troops.  When learning about some of these Allied decisions it is hard to grasp the lack of common sense that sometimes plagued the tactical decisions.  I thought learning about the German weapon The 88 was really interesting this week.  I specifically remember watching the Market Garden episode of Band of Brothers not too long ago and wondering what exactly that weapon was.  There is a intense scene that takes place in a snow covered woodland area where allied troops are trying to retreat as 88 shells are exploding above their heads splitting huge trees in two.  

Presentations and such

I enjoyed the presentations this week.  Learning about the role photographers played in the war was interesting.  But that sound really cliche, doesn't it?  It was interesting because that is a perspective we are often not privy to.  I suppose that's the goal of the photographer, though.  They take pictures of the soldiers, and of the war, in order to put the spotlight on them and their sacrifice.  The danger that they put themselves in is not meant to be highlighted.  That said, I presentation that gives them their due is appreciated.  The presentation on the battle of Metz was, while different, as enjoyable of a battle presentation as we've had.  That's saying something, considering that the presenter lacked any visual aids.  As an aside, it was funny for me to hear about Metz as a defensive juggernaut.  Why?  Because, unlike most American's, I follow european soccer - and Metz is downright awful.  Last place in Ligue 1, with a goal differential of -34.  To put that in perspective, the team in second to last place has a goal differential of -6.  But back on topic... it seemed odd, as has been noted, that the allies became so infatuated with taking such a well fortified city.  

Nobody's perfect:  Growing up, I watched the history channel an awful lot.  Sundays more than any other day, because that was when all the WWII shows would be on.  For whatever reason, I found this all fascinating.  Similarly, I enjoyed all of my history classes through middle and high school.  But having advanced a ways in to this class, I can't help but that I was led, to some extent, astray by this previous indoctrination.  That's not to say that the history channel or my earlier teachers lied to me.  Rather, it's simply noting that they didn't have the time do deal with the greater specificity this class can provide.  Particularly, this has been illuminated by the treatment of various generals.  Patton was an unstoppable force that blew across the western front.  Montgomery was a legend, and deserving of that status.  Rommel was a skilled genius in regards to desert warfare.  And growing up for some years in Abiline, Eisenhower may as well have walked on water.  All of these things are impressions a grade school kid will get from watching the history channel every Sunday.  These notions aren't disproved in the next two levels of education either.  Thankfully, this class has stepped forward and provided a more reasoned look at these commanders, including their flaws.  Patton's obsession with taking Metz was clearly a mistake, so he's not perfect.  Monty and Eisenhower both share in the blame for the monumental failure that was operation market garden.  Rommel, clearly, wasn't invincible, because he was defeated.  But no one is perfect, right?  Though these are all instances in which these legends were proven fallible, that does not make their legend any less justified, even if it is likely inflated.  

metz and lecture

The presentation on the battle of Metz had great information on the German and Allied tactics. I seems like Metz was an unlikely place to try to control because of the strong fortress around the city. It also seems poorly planned especially since there were a lack of supplies, like fuel.

The Battle for Antwerp versus the fall of the Nazi power was very frustraiting to hear about. I can understand wanting to take the gamble and try to end the Nazi regime, but for this to work out everything had to go perfectly. Montgomery shouldn't have been in charge of the operation; he represents the main failure of the Allied forces, not cooperating/communicating. In his desire for power and importance he did not take Antwerp and the surrounding areas like he was supposed to, which led to further failure to Allied troops. Without a way to get supplies, how did he expect to win against the well supplied Nazi's in Germany?

Presentations

I thought the presentation about photographers in World War II was interesting because the photographers and journalists today still have the same complaints about being censored by the government. While I agree that their job is very important to document and make a visual record of the war of the public; I feel that a little censorship is not bad. I personally don’t feel that a photographer should publish the last moments of a dying soldier or the faces of dead soldiers that are blown apart. The reason is that they have families and I do not feel it is right to do that to the family members.

The battle of Metz I thought showed that the Allies had a lot to improve in their intelligence gathering and they failed to learn lessons from the Germans about not attacking fortified defenses. In addition, it showed their failure to train for possible follow on missions after the initial invasion of Europe. However, I wonder if Metz would have been such a blood bath if the Allies supply chain would have been working properly and Patton do not have to stop for supplies before the attack.

Lecture

I thought the lecture this week shows that the invasion of Europe was not as easy or a guaranteed success like we think today. It was interesting to hear how far behind schedule the Allies had become because of the German’s defenses and hedgerows and until the third week of June the Germans still threatened to push them back into the sea until the Allies took Cherbourg. One has to wonder if the Allies did not destroy the German transportation network in France and the surrounding area if Operation Overlord could have succeeded. Another point in the lecture was the fact Montgomery seems to be the British version of MacArthur. They both seemed to care more about their ego and getting personal glory then seeing the war end.

Thursday, April 3, 2008

Presentations on Eisenhower, Photographers, and the Battle of Metz

The presentation on Eisenhower reinforced his leadership role by listing the many battles (and operations) that he oversaw during his command.  There is no doubt in my mind, or probably anyone else’s for that matter, that because of Eisenhower’s successes in WWII and the popularity that he gained, he was a sure winner for the Presidency.   By being appointed as commander of SHAEF, he was not only a leader of the American troops, but was also a leader of soldiers from many different countries as he led them in the invasion of Europe during Operation Overlord.  Even though I am familiar with his many accomplishments, it is still a subject that is worth repeating.

The presentation on the WWII photographers was very interesting.  When you think of war, it seems that the battles, the commanders, and the number of killed and wounded are much of what you hear and read.  The Signal Corps are usually not written in as part of this action.  I liked the detailed information shared such as the 352,000 negatives printed, the 9,100,000 feet of motion picture film shot, and the 35mm Bell and Howell that was mounted on gunstocks for better stability. 

The Battle of Metz, also known as the “forgotten battle,” is another one of those battles I was unfamiliar with until the presentation.  It was interesting to hear such facts as the Allies did not have the armor or heavy weapons to fight but they kept going.  The men were rotated from the front lines to behind the lines in order to rest and go back into battle.  Even though it is not one of the better-known battles, it, too, as many of the other battles, resulted in heavy losses for the Allies.  The use of white phosphorous to burn out the troops that did not surrender seems inhumane; however, war is inhumane.     

Market Garden

Why is it that every time that Monty wanted to do something the Allied command gives into his demands? Over and over again, history shows that he was an overrated general in military terms because of his lack of strategic awareness.  He should have never been promoted to high ranking command of combat troops because of his ineptness.  The battles that he "won" in North Africa were for a large part due to the Axis lack of supplies and looking elsewhere (Russia) in terms of reserve manpower and supply.  Monty's grandiose plan of Market Garden is a perfect example of his personal vendetta to glorify himself and bask in the rays of praise.  He ignored reports, oversimplified his plans, and continuously brought disaster upon his commands, especially in Market Garden.

Presentations

I thought the presentations this week were very interesting because I knew little about each of them. I had never really thought about the use of photography in WWII even though you always see battle photos in movies, books, etc. Now that I think about it, there really are few color pictures of this war. It makes sense if the film was poor quality and expensive. I can also see the need to use it in training medical personnel vs. making informational movies.

I have never even heard of the Battle of Metz. Since it was heavily fortified by the Germans, I would've assumed that it would be given more credit in history. I guess that since it wasn't a key part of the German defense it was overlooked.

Since it was important to not give one country the ability to claim the defeat of Germany, I didn't really understand why Eisenhower sided with Montgomery in Operation Market Garden. It seemed like Montgomery was all about using the British to defeat the Germans with the other Allies just backing them up. Without the other countries, England could not have been able to defeat the Germans. They just didn't have enough man power so I thought this move was a little risky on their part.

Hedgerows and presentations

I had not really thought about how much of a problem the hedgerows would have caused the troops during the war before this week. They presented the Allies with a unique challenge. The devices that were developed to break through the hedgerows were pretty clever. By this point were the infantry soldiers still thought of as unintelligent? I think the fact that the men who were fighting in areas with hedgerows were able to come up with ways to get through the hedges, is a great example of their knowledge and skill level.

The photography presentation was very interesting. It is interesting to see how far the profession has come since WW II. I didn't realize that there were photographers with the troops on Normandy. I also thought it was interesting to see how the pictures were used by the media.

I don't understand why we had no actual information on Metz before we tried to enter the city. It sounds like it was very well defended and protected from invasions. The battle cost us a lot of lives without us gaining anything. I agree that the city should have been bypassed.

Hedgerows

I'm sure there is an obvious answer that is not coming to me, but why didn't allied troops just burn the hedgerows down. Surely in the time it took to weld attachments to tanks, plant explosives, etc. they could have just set fire to the area, waited a day or two for everything to burn and gotten rid of the obstacle. While this would have been devastating to the landscape I'm sure blasting holes and driving tanks through them wasn't a great help either. Also based on their lack of accuracy with bombing I doubt too much care was put into protecting landscape.

the Bulge, Company Commander, and Metz

I was amazed to read about all the screw-ups in late 1944. How could so many top US generals- who for the most part had been very solid through out the war, make so many bad decisions all at the same time- from ignoring warnings from Ultra about a German build up, not issuing winter supplies, and letting themselves fall into the same position as the French had 4 years earlier?

The epilogue to Company Commander, though very brief, was one of my favorites parts of the whole book.

It was good to hear some fine information about a campaign that rarely gets attention and fit well with issue of the slowed allied advance covered in lecture- it seems questionable actions such as Metz occur more often then we realize

Presentations

Eisenhower-As this is my first WWII class, and most history classes focus on the political side of things in the U.S. it was actually interesting to me to hear about everything that Ike did before he became president. He was obviously a very experienced leader before taking on the presidency. You don't really hear much about individuals or leaders in the current war, which makes it hard to admire anyone for the great strategy put forth. Also because of this fact I doubt any military leader would ever have enough backing to be elected president in these modern times.

Photography-This was a great presentation. The images really speak volumes about what the troops were going through. Is there still anything like the signal corp to the point where soldiers in battle will take their own pictures or video, or is this now solely done by journalists? I think a lot is lost when it is a reporter's video from miles away rather than a soldier's video while in the middle of combat.

Metz-As everyone else has said I knew nothing of this battle until the presentation. Although there have been several battles and probably several more to come in class that I know nothing about. I did enjoy hearing about a battle that didn't go according to plan, and really was seen as a blunder by the Allies. I think the Allies victory means even more when you hear about such crushing defeats as these.

White Phosphorus

Its hard to image what soldiers went through when attacked with white phosphorus. Unless they were shielded with steel they were defenseless and burned to the bone. It would clearly be effective, but just gives perspective about how horrible the circumstances were in these battles. I think the pictures illustrate this.

The politics of Battle

This week we learned about, among other things, why politicians should usually keep their noses out of military business, especially in the case where they are already in a war to the finish. Without the support of Churchill, General/Field Marshall Montegomery may never have been able to convince Eisenhower and the others that Operation Market Garden would be a success, since he very well may have been relieved of command following the Goodwood debacle. While Eisenhower was always careful about including all the Allies in his planning and decision making, he also made sure that whatever plan conceived was up to military standards. Unfortunately, apparently this did not extend to Operation Market Garden, which as we learned, at the very least failed to accomplish its objectives, if not downright prolonging the war by committing valuable paratrooper divisions to a battle in which they fought as infantry, without armor or heavy weapons, against a numerically superior and upgunned foe. This particular battle just wasn't meant to be. Even had the planning gone better, there was still the problem of not one, not two, but three top notch German officers in the immediate vicinity, ready to take action and crusht the attacks. Of all people, they managed to send paratroopers against General Student, who pioneered the effort early in the war. Market Garden may not have been doomed from the beginning, but it as certainly fragile enough to shatter under any unforseen circumstances.

Metz

The battle of Metz, as was mentioned in the presentation, is rarely heard of. I think I may have only heard mention of it in passing, certainly no in depth coverage of it. I believe that this is indeed because of the negative review it got soon after the war, when the benefit of hindsight allowed us to look back and realize that it was hardly the necessary transportation and defensive hub that Patton believed it to be. I found the descriptions of this fortress city/collection of towns to be very interesting. To think that the Germans were able to use what had been designed as the perfect battleground centuries ago as exactly that is quite a feat. It took some forsight on their part to pull of such an operation, and apprently due to the lack of fuel for Patton, they had the time necessary to fully upgrade the city's fortifications to modern standards. Excellent presentation.

Eisenhower and Photographers

General Eisenhower I believe is one of the great examples of the statesman-warrior. His command skills were very adequate for the task (apart from the support of Operation MARKET GARDEN) but it was his skills as a statesman and coordinator that truly made such operations as TORCH and OVERLORD a success. Where Montegomery had good operational qualities as demonstated in North Africa, he lacked the calm compromising that Eisenhower was able to project and often incensed his allies as much as the enemy. It is not surprising he was able to hold the office of the Presidency fo the maximum of eight years.

Photography during WWII was a massive endeavor, as the presentation pointed out. Almost ridiculous amounts of film was shot, and many, many photographs. It is not surprising that WWII is one of the most-studied events of the twentieth century, it is certainly one of the most well-documented. I found it fascinating the bravery of many of the photographers of both the Army Signal Corps, and the civillians who went along as well. A good presentation on a fascinating, but usually overlooked, subject.

Wednesday, April 2, 2008

Battle of Metz

The Metz presentation was well done. Despite the fact that the region/city could have been bypassed, it really is a testament to tasks getting accomplished through sheer force of will. Patton's 3rd Army was short on supplies, short on fuel and still was able to get the job done. Absolutely amazing.

American training

I thought it was interesting to learn about American training for Operation Overlord. I thought it was interesting how ill prepard the troops were trained for battle once they were on the contintent. However, even without proper training it was great that troops were able to make due with what they had as it had to have been incredibly difficult and frustrating.

Battle of Metz

The most interesting thing about the Battle of Metz was that I had never herd of it. This was stated by the presenter who informed us that very little mention is given to this battle by the mainstream of U.S. History. I can see why that this battle is hardly mentioned with regards to it being such a costly and perhaps foolish military operation on the Western Front. I was not even aware of such fortifications being in existance in this location either. I thought that the Germans were only able to use the urban areas that were in between them and the Allies. It was a good call of them to recycle the resources that were in the old Magino Line.

Eisenhower

General Eisenhower was by far one of the greatets leaders the U.S. has ever had. I was interested by him starting the war out in the Pacific with McCarthur and then moving his way to the Atlantica by commanding SHAEF. He had much responsiblity considering that his command was joint by leading the the many nations who were fighting the Germans well before the U.S. entered the war. His conduct proves that he executed this job well.
Another point of interest was how he had to ballance the action on the Western Front between Monty and Patton. He showed reasonable leadership by permitting Monty to take the main action on this front opposed to Patton at times. An example being the Market Garden Campaign in which military resources were allocated to Monty's forces opposed to Bradely and Patton in the South.

Tuesday, April 1, 2008

presentations

I appreciate your all's comments on my presentation. I am really glad that I chose to write about "Ike" in respect to all the work he contributed in his lifetime. His ability to achieve a war career, Presidency, and other huge impacts on the United States government is phenominal. I do want to say sorry for my mispronounciation of "Overlord", it was way to early to put me on the spot. But enough about me...
In regards to the presentation on the photographers of World War II I found it very interesting how they put thier lives on the lines to take pictures. The fact that some of them were standing on the front line just for pictures, that is crazy. I do find it sad, however that only eight of these pictures survived. In retrospect, it might have made him more famous, but it still sucks. Anyway good on your presentation. I found it very thoughtful, and I liked how you did something different.

photographers and Eisenhower

The presentation on the photographers of WWII was very interesting. I had previoulsy heard of the censorship of the photographs, but had never seen any examples of what was censored. It is understandable that the US didn't want wounded soldiers shown, but it also gave the American citizens a false sense of the war. The information about colored film was very interesting, I did not realize that it was used mainly for training videos.
Eisenhower seems to have a great career. His participation in Normandy, the Italian campaign, and Operation Overlord seems to have really helped the Allies. I found it interesting that Eisenhower was never in battle during his military career.

Monday, March 31, 2008

Ike and Photographers

It was good in class today to step back a little from all the battles in the European theater and look at some individuals that played major roles in the events of WWII. I thought both presentations were good, especially the one about the photographers. I think it was important to show that propaganda was used by both sides and so was censorship. Too many times we look at all the negatives of the enemy and do not look at our own disappointments. An example of this would be the Japanese internment during the war. However it was cool to see all the equipment that the photographers used and some of the photos that were published and those that were not. As for the presentation on Ike I thought it was good to see how many operations and functions he served during the war. Obviously he was a key part in the Allied victory.