The War

[KCFutbol]

Has anyone else been watching the Ken Burns documentary on PBS? Pretty good stuff. Even though I was aware of a lot of this it is still amazing to see how close we came to losing.

So many strategic blunders by the Allied "leaders" that cost so many lives.

Another thing it reinforced is my disgust with the overused and overhyped term " the Greatest Generation". This is my parents generation and it has always bothered me how this generation mistreated blacks, hispanics, native americans, japaneese americans, etc. These Americans were good enough to fight for their country, fight for "freedom" but were treated like crap before, during, and after the war.

To me this forever diqualifies this generation from ever being "the Greatest Generation".

[NDTeve]

The fact that this generation brought America to the forefront and defeated the greatest villains of the 20th Century makes them much more likely to deserve "the Greatest Generation" than any of ours (in spite of their shortfalls)

[kman]

Another thing it reinforced is my disgust with the overused and overhyped term " the Greatest Generation". This is my parents generation and it has always bothered me how this generation mistreated blacks, hispanics, native americans, japaneese americans, etc. These Americans were good enough to fight for their country, fight for "freedom" but were treated like crap before, during, and after the war.

To me this forever diqualifies this generation from ever being "the Greatest Generation".

I've been watching, fascinating considering that I'm a WWII history buff.  I'm also a little disinchanted on that generation treatment of minorities, esp. African Americans... unbelievable, unfair treatment, in fact inexcusable.  it's a wonder that this group of Americans even fought in that war.

[ComandanteCero]

Kurt Vonnegut and Joseph Heller certainly didn't seem to think the War was all it was cracked up to be.  I don't think it was quite the glorious, morally clear campaign many folks make it out to be today.  It was war, and war is always messy (especially at the massive scale it was waged).

[Highlander]

Has anyone else been watching the Ken Burns documentary on PBS? Pretty good stuff. Even though I was aware of a lot of this it is still amazing to see how close we came to losing.

So many strategic blunders by the Allied "leaders" that cost so many lives.

Another thing it reinforced is my disgust with the overused and overhyped term " the Greatest Generation". This is my parents generation and it has always bothered me how this generation mistreated blacks, hispanics, native americans, japaneese americans, etc. These Americans were good enough to fight for their country, fight for "freedom" but were treated like crap before, during, and after the war.

To me this forever diqualifies this generation from ever being "the Greatest Generation".

I would love to see this documentary.  I read everything I can get my hands on about WWII. 

I would, however, contest the idea that we came close to losing the war.  Actually, the outcome of the war was really never in question once the US entered the war and probably even before the US entered in the European theater.  For certain, we did not prosecute the war as efficiently as possible and the cost in lives and material to the US and its allies were going to be horrific in every forseeable case but the correlation of forces always ensured an allied victory from late 1941 onwards. 

Secondly, I would suggest that it is wrong to judge generations by standards set by later generations.  We are not all that enlightened in and of ourselves regarding human rights, we just have the benefit of being further along on social evolution that brought us from wherever we began to the point we are today and will continue to evolve into the future.  When we entered WWII, the US was only 80 years removed from slavery.  As a result, the "greatest" generation was most likely more human rights conscious than the former generation and the generation before that and so forth.  Also, we have not had to live through things like WWII and a great depression like that generation did; those things certainly change ones world view much more towards self preservation.  We have had it relatively easy and that, among other things, colors our perception.   

Kurt Vonnegut and Joseph Heller certainly didn't seem to think the War was all it was cracked up to be.  I don't think it was quite the glorious, morally clear campaign many folks make it out to be today.  It was war, and war is always messy (especially at the massive scale it was waged).

 

World War II was total war in nearly every which way imaginable.  Perhaps less in the US than in Europe and Asia but it is an interesting study in what nations will do when their very existence is at stake.  The idea of human rights begin to mean very little.  During the war, the US and its allied engaged in a lot of things that hardly seem justifies now such as the terror bombing of German cities (which went on well after German armies had collapsed on the western front).  It was indeed not as clean as many may think.  The contest between the Germans and the Soviets, and to a lesser extent, the Chinese and the Japanese reached truly horrific levels.  I will still defend the use of the atomic bombs to end the war in Japan.  It was a bit of a gamble but the repeat of Okinawa and Iwo Jima on a huge scale and the associated loss of life, which was likely despite consipiricies that suggested Japan was ready to capitulate, was just too much to contemplate.

[aknowledgeableperson]

I would, however, contest the idea that we came close to losing the war.  Actually, the outcome of the war was really never in question once the US entered the war and probably even before the US entered in the European theater. 

Of course, it is a matter of definition but if you look at some things that just happened to go our way it is very conceivable that the outcome would have been far different than it was.

The battle of Midway could have been a Japanese victory if a couple of decisions made by both sides were not made or were different.
If Hilter had allowed his army to fight differently in Stalingrad it could have been a German victory.
If the German army had reacted a little differently during the Normandy landing we could have been pushed back to the sea.

Yes, it is all a matter of what if's but even our leaders did have some doubts about the outcome and whether our citizens had the stomach to fight it out till the end.

Read some books on individual battles and on the war itself and you just might come away with a different opinion

[Highlander]

Of course, it is a matter of definition but if you look at some things that just happened to go our way it is very conceivable that the outcome would have been far different than it was.

The battle of Midway could have been a Japanese victory if a couple of decisions made by both sides were not made or were different.
If Hilter had allowed his army to fight differently in Stalingrad it could have been a German victory.
If the German army had reacted a little differently during the Normandy landing we could have been pushed back to the sea.

Yes, it is all a matter of what if's but even our leaders did have some doubts about the outcome and whether our citizens had the stomach to fight it out till the end.

Read some books on individual battles and on the war itself and you just might come away with a different opinion

I have read a huge volume about the war, and spent way too much of my small fortune buying books on those very battles.  I do not want to bore the entire forum to death with this subject but I will say that the weight of numbers would have eventually achieved a victory for the allies even if these key battles were lost.  The only one of those battles that was really not a foregone conclusion was Midway where we indeed got very lucky (e.g., the Blitzkrieg had run well out of steam even before the Stalingrad encirclement).  At the time of Midway, however, and despite the losses at Pearl Harbor, the US was in the process of outfitting an additional 22 aircraft carriers.  No way Japan could have ever competed against that kind of industrial capacity.  The Japanese leadership expected the US to look for a peaceful resolution with its fleet destroyed at Pearl Harbor and that their island conquests would provide them a belt of security.  Neither happened.

I agree that there was a limit as to how much carnage we were going to stomach but the Russians did most of the bleeding for us in Europe and in the Pacific, it was more a battle of material than it was men (that would have changed, of course, with an invasion of Japan).   

[Gretz]

I would love to see this documentary.  I read everything I can get my hands on about WWII. 

I would, however, contest the idea that we came close to losing the war.  Actually, the outcome of the war was really never in question once the US entered the war and probably even before the US entered in the European theater.  For certain, we did not prosecute the war as efficiently as possible and the cost in lives and material to the US and its allies were going to be horrific in every forseeable case but the correlation of forces always ensured an allied victory from late 1941 onwards. 

Secondly, I would suggest that it is wrong to judge generations by standards set by later generations.  We are not all that enlightened in and of ourselves regarding human rights, we just have the benefit of being further along on social evolution that brought us from wherever we began to the point we are today and will continue to evolve into the future.  When we entered WWII, the US was only 80 years removed from slavery.  As a result, the "greatest" generation was most likely more human rights conscious than the former generation and the generation before that and so forth.  Also, we have not had to live through things like WWII and a great depression like that generation did; those things certainly change ones world view much more towards self preservation.  We have had it relatively easy and that, among other things, colors our perception.   
 

World War II was total war in nearly every which way imaginable.  Perhaps less in the US than in Europe and Asia but it is an interesting study in what nations will do when their very existence is at stake.  The idea of human rights begin to mean very little.  During the war, the US and its allied engaged in a lot of things that hardly seem justifies now such as the terror bombing of German cities (which went on well after German armies had collapsed on the western front).  It was indeed not as clean as many may think.  The contest between the Germans and the Soviets, and to a lesser extent, the Chinese and the Japanese reached truly horrific levels.  I will still defend the use of the atomic bombs to end the war in Japan.  It was a bit of a gamble but the repeat of Okinawa and Iwo Jima on a huge scale and the associated loss of life, which was likely despite consipiricies that suggested Japan was ready to capitulate, was just too much to contemplate.

That is almost exactly everything I was about to write in response to the first few posts until I read yours.

Of course, it is a matter of definition but if you look at some things that just happened to go our way it is very conceivable that the outcome would have been far different than it was.

The battle of Midway could have been a Japanese victory if a couple of decisions made by both sides were not made or were different.
If Hilter had allowed his army to fight differently in Stalingrad it could have been a German victory.
If the German army had reacted a little differently during the Normandy landing we could have been pushed back to the sea.

Yes, it is all a matter of what if's but even our leaders did have some doubts about the outcome and whether our citizens had the stomach to fight it out till the end.

Read some books on individual battles and on the war itself and you just might come away with a different opinion

I spent much of my childhood obsessed with WW II military history and the war, particularly the Russo-German conflict, was my area of concentration for my history and german degrees at the University of Missouri.  The outcome of the war, in the European theater at least, was very likely at least as early as the failure to take Moscow from Zukhov in 1941, and was certainly a foregone conclusion by the end of 1942.  What was more at stake was the look of a post war world, which could have been an equally dark totalitarian European under total Soviet domination, were it not for Western Allied intervention.  While Allied ground activity on the Western front, and particularly the wholesale destruction of German industry by allied air power, certainly affected the duration of the war and the post-war distribution of power, few academics would agree that the outcome of the war was in question after the German failures in Southern Russia in 1942 and probably long before.  The war was really lost for Germany when Sealion was dropped in favor of Barbarossa, and may have ended the same anyway.

[QueSi2Opie]

Has anyone else been watching the Ken Burns documentary on PBS?

I watched both "Flags of our Fathers" and "Letters From Iwo Jima" prior to watching this amazing PBS documentary for the past three evenings. It's been keeping me from taking my nap before work. 

[kman]

I often wonder, had Hitler waited another four years before starting this war..1944-1945, WWII would have had a different outcome; in Germany's favor, IMO.  Why, because of the German development of super weapons.i.e. rocket, jet technologies, etc.

[kuslamb]

Do you think that all the development of the rockets, jets, etc... would have occurred without the war.  Granted, Germany has brilliant scientists either working for them or being forced to work for them, but do you think that the neighbors of the Germans as well as the United States would have allowed them to stockpile advanced weaponry.  Obviously surveillance technology was not as advanced in the 40's as it is now, but there have been ways of knowing what is going on inside other countries for many years.

[ComandanteCero]

There was also the problem of Germany's brain drain.  Lots of German scientists were getting the hell out of Germany even before the final days, and i think one way or another, the U.S or Britain would have caught on to what was going on and reacted in some way (if not outright competition, atleast sabotage). 

[aknowledgeableperson]

The point of my post was not that Germany or Japan would have won the war, but that the war would have dragged on for a longer period of time.  And with that longer period of time the American stomach for war may have lessen so that the war in Europe would have ended before the taking of Berlin or when the troops got to the German border.  In the Pacific who knows what kind of scenerio would have occurred, let's say, Japan did take Midway and a few battles for other islands had taken longer and were more bloody than they were.

Normandy was not a forgone success when the battle started.  And if German military leaders responded like they should have the invasion probably would have failed.  Then what?  If our leaders thought that no matter what it would have succeeded then why were they so worried.

In looking back we can make statements like Germany was beaten in 1942 and so on but if you go back to those times and look at it without knowing the ending you will have a very different opinion.

[LenexatoKCMO]

I will still defend the use of the atomic bombs to end the war in Japan.  It was a bit of a gamble but the repeat of Okinawa and Iwo Jima on a huge scale and the associated loss of life, which was likely despite consipiricies that suggested Japan was ready to capitulate, was just too much to contemplate.

Not just ready to capitulate - there is increasing evidence that overtures were actively being made. 

One also has to evaluate the costs of our massive blunder of not allowing the Army to go into China in support of the nationalists - no Korean War, no Vietnamese War, no contemporary power struggle with the PROC, etc. 

[ComandanteCero]

I wonder though, wouldn't that action (going into China against the Mao) have pissed off the Soviets?  It's interesting to think of what might have happened, but I think if it hadn't been the Korean War, maybe there would have been some crazy China War (with Soviets supporting Maoist rebels in some messed up and prolonged guerilla war.  Maybe a kind of Vietnam before Vietnam)

[LenexatoKCMO]

I wonder though, wouldn't that action (going into China against the Mao) have pissed off the Soviets? 

It might well of pissed them off, but at that point, China was still fair game, the Soviets were still licking their wounds, and eastern China was a long, long ways away from the Soviet's effective military range, and Mao's army was a relatively rag tag outfit.  MaArthur saw where things were headed and asked Truman for permission to cross the sea of Japan, but the idiot said no.  No matter how bad the fight on the ground would have been, would it have possibly been worse than the millions of casualties in the two subsequent wars or the billions of people that have now had to suffer under a totalitarian regime for half a century?

[Highlander]

It might well of pissed them off, but at that point, China was still fair game, the Soviets were still licking their wounds, and eastern China was a long, long ways away from the Soviet's effective military range, and Mao's army was a relatively rag tag outfit.  MaArthur saw where things were headed and asked Truman for permission to cross the sea of Japan, but the idiot said no.  No matter how bad the fight on the ground would have been, would it have possibly been worse than the millions of casualties in the two subsequent wars or the billions of people that have now had to suffer under a totalitarian regime for half a century?

We could have said the same for Russia at the end of WWII but at the end of 6 years of war, Europe and the US had little stomach for continuing the conflict in spite of ever-growing concerns about the intentions of the Soviets, even as early as 1944.  My father went to war in 1945 in the Pacific, he, at least, wanted no part of returning to deal with either Chinese or Russians a few years later. 

Other issue:  Japan made feeble attempts to contact the allies towards the end of the war to end the conflict but all attempts involved unacceptable conditions whereas it had been agreed by the allies that there would be no separate peace agreements with the axis and unconditional surrender would be the only way to end the conflict.

The point of my post was not that Germany or Japan would have won the war, but that the war would have dragged on for a longer period of time.  And with that longer period of time the American stomach for war may have lessen so that the war in Europe would have ended before the taking of Berlin or when the troops got to the German border.  In the Pacific who knows what kind of scenerio would have occurred, let's say, Japan did take Midway and a few battles for other islands had taken longer and were more bloody than they were.

I agree that it may have dragged on longer but I disagree that we would not have had the resolve to carry it through.  The US was already in the process of advanced planning of the invasion of Japan, which would have resulted in enormous US casualites.  We were indeed committed to the end game.

Normandy was not a forgone success when the battle started.  And if German military leaders responded like they should have the invasion probably would have failed.  Then what?  If our leaders thought that no matter what it would have succeeded then why were they so worried.

In looking back we can make statements like Germany was beaten in 1942 and so on but if you go back to those times and look at it without knowing the ending you will have a very different opinion.

At Casablanca in Jan 43, the US, Britain and France (free france) agreed to seek unconditional surrender.  You would not do that if you believed the outcome of the war was still in question.  As far as Normandy is concerned, Germany had conquered far more territory than it could ever defend.  The beaches of Norway, Denmark, Belgium, Holland, and France from Brittany to the Belgian border still bristle today with nazi-era fortifications.  German armies were spread too thin and could not be concentrated quickly enough in the face of overwhelming air supremecy to throw the invasion back into the sea, even if Hitler had been awoken on the morning of June 6.  They could defend, and they did that extremely well, but they absolutely lacked the capability for sustained offensive action with the overwhelming firepower massed in the anglo-American armada offshore and in the skies above.

[LenexatoKCMO]

Other issue:  Japan made feeble attempts to contact the allies towards the end of the war to end the conflict but all attempts involved unacceptable conditions whereas it had been agreed by the allies that there would be no separate peace agreements with the axis and unconditional surrender would be the only way to end the conflict.

Since the Fall of the USSR, there has been documentation come forth that the Japanese were earnestly attempting to work through the Soviets to broker a deal with the Americans, not just the feeble, impractical effort you describe.  Some may doubt the validity of the Soviet info, but it certainly is enough to question why we have had the mantra that the Japanese would have fought to the last man shoved down our throats. 

We could have said the same for Russia at the end of WWII but at the end of 6 years of war, Europe and the US had little stomach for continuing the conflict in spite of ever-growing concerns about the intentions of the Soviets, even as early as 1944.  My father went to war in 1945 in the Pacific, he, at least, wanted no part of returning to deal with either Chinese or Russians a few years later. 

Apples and oranges.  Yes, the writing was on the wall about the Soviets too - but they were an established power with a large standing army that would have taken years to defeat on their own turf.  Mao was basically leading a small out-dated militia on its heels. 

[aknowledgeableperson]

At Casablanca in Jan 43, the US, Britain and France (free france) agreed to seek unconditional surrender.  You would not do that if you believed the outcome of the war was still in question.  As far as Normandy is concerned, Germany had conquered far more territory than it could ever defend.  The beaches of Norway, Denmark, Belgium, Holland, and France from Brittany to the Belgian border still bristle today with nazi-era fortifications.  German armies were spread too thin and could not be concentrated quickly enough in the face of overwhelming air supremecy to throw the invasion back into the sea, even if Hitler had been awoken on the morning of June 6.  They could defend, and they did that extremely well, but they absolutely lacked the capability for sustained offensive action with the overwhelming firepower massed in the anglo-American armada offshore and in the skies above.

(1)  Saying that unconditional surrender was the end point does not lead to say the outcome was not in question.  It says that we, as a group, are in it to the end.  Say France could drop out once the Geman army was out of France instead of to the end or England will crease its efforts once it feels that Germany is no longer a threat.

(2) If the allies felt that Normandy was a done deal then why the concern about failure expressed by Eisenhower?  Much can go wrong during that large of an operation and if it did fail it would have been many months until another invasion would have taken place.  And again, looking back one could say Germany was done but during the time there were many that were still concerned about Germany's capacity to wage war.

[BVC]

Since the Fall of the USSR, there has been documentation come forth that the Japanese were earnestly attempting to work through the Soviets to broker a deal with the Americans, not just the feeble, impractical effort you describe.  Some may doubt the validity of the Soviet info, but it certainly is enough to question why we have had the mantra that the Japanese would have fought to the last man shoved down our throats. 

If there is any shred of truth to the assertion that the Japanese were working separately through the Soviets, (which I think is total bullshit) I would love to see it.  The Soviets didn't participate one bit on the effort in Japan and the British did not til after V-E.  If the Japanese government was serious about negotiating a peace settlement, they were talking to the wrong government.  Total war is a mess but if wars like the US Civil War and World War II had to be fought the way they were.  Would you really have supported negotiated settlements with absolute butchers like Hitler and Hirohito?  I hope not.

The use of the atomic bomb twice, while killing a horrible amount of non-military citizens, actually killed less citizens than the invasion of Germany, less than the bombing of Tokyo using British tactics for leveling Dresden, and the Soviets lost unfathomable amounts of their citizenery.  The use of the bomb was justified particularly that the Japanese would have in fact fought to the last person standing.  Kamikaze attacks, Okinawa, etc. support that they were in fact fighting to the last man.