World War 2

[Swart]

None of the beaches would compare to Omaha.

True. But none were as easy as Utah. However, Caen was particularly bloody and the Canadian's barely held there own. The bulk of the post-d-day German forces were thrown at the British sector.

Interesting point. Some time ago I spoke to an old frenchman who was a child in Normandy during d-day. He told me he saw the American troops advancing into town, and every one was black.That's one thing you don't see on "Private Ryan".

More ironic than interesting. After the British abandoned the Australians, basically turning their backs on them at their greatest time of need, all the Australian divisions were needed in their own defence.

That's an entire topic in itself. Still, it would have been interesting if one of Australia's three divisions had been involved in d-day. If Britain had offerred two British divisions in exchange for one Australian, I think it would have been worth it all round. Curtin threatened to withdraw Australia from the Empire and send the GG back home if our troops weren't sent back. The fall of Singapore left Australia effectively defenceless. The crime of the British surrender there was absolutely traitorous. Hoards of tropps were sent in one day, and they surrendered the next.

I can't argue with you there, however I think it should be qualified that the European war was faught chiefly in Russia. The European war and the Pacific wars had nothing in common except that they were fought at the same time. Had the Axis coordinated their activities, it is likely that Germany could have defeated the USSR.

A large contributor was the fact that the Japanese felt slighted that Hitler didn't consult with them before invading Russia and refused to assist in Siberia. Once Stalin found out he ordered the Siberian trrops to Moscow's defence at the last minute. This turned the tide of the German advance. Japan also deliberately did not consult with Hitler before dec;laring war on the US. These were the dual nails in the coffin. Without America, Britain could not invade Europe. Without Germany being occupied in Russia, it would not have succeeded.

IMO, WWII is by far the most interesting period of world history. We have the Nazi's to thank for their meticulous record keeping and failing to destroy their incriminating and highly detailed records.

What amazes me is the incredible moral paradoxes that have occurred as a result of WWII. For example, the knowledge we have gained from the medical experiments conducted by the Nazi's have saved more lives than those that have been killed on the battlefields. Everything we know about hypothermia (for example) comes from the Nazi's immersing people in cold water of varying temperatues and watching how long it took them to die.

Similarly for the Falklands war. That many lessons were learnt from the Falklands war about how to treat battlefield casualties that almost the entire medical fieldbook had to be rewritten. Also, since Falklands, nobody builds warships out of aluminium anymore and no uniforms are made from synthetic materials.

And also, everybody decided the harrier was a good a/c.

 

[Swart]

Honestly, British schools that teach World War II really do put an emphasis on, "Britain stood alone for a long, long time, but when push came to shove, we were not alone." However, in American schools, kids are taught that the Americans won the war.

I spoke with a German teacher recently. According to German history, Napoleon was winning the battle of Waterloo until the Prussians showed up and saved the day.

 

[jhollas]

I spoke with a German teacher recently. According to German history, Napoleon was winning the battle of Waterloo until the Prussians showed up and saved the day.

Hmm... This is a difficult one. Yes and no.
Wellington had two plans of action, dependent on whether or not he received support from the Prussians. After all, they had no way of knowing when they would arrive.
However, I would not agree that we won because of the Prussians. No, we won because of the threat of the Prussians, that caused Napoleon to send off a few Regiments to meet them, but even then he wasn't sure that it was actually the Prussians approaching! It could have actually been reinforcements that Napoleon was expecting.
No one can deny that the final blow was struck by the British Army, when it surrounded and crushed the Old Guard.

 

[jhollas]

That's an entire topic in itself. Still, it would have been interesting if one of Australia's three divisions had been involved in d-day. If Britain had offerred two British divisions in exchange for one Australian, I think it would have been worth it all round. Curtin threatened to withdraw Australia from the Empire and send the GG back home if our troops weren't sent back. The fall of Singapore left Australia effectively defenceless. The crime of the British surrender there was absolutely traitorous. Hoards of tropps were sent in one day, and they surrendered the next.

Whoever built the defences was a fool. All th guns pointed out to sea, and they had absolutely no good defence facing inland, so all the Japanese did was walk up behind us. Yes, I admit the surrender was a real kick in the teeth.
If I have to be completely honest mate, I don't know much about the Australian defence in World War II. I take it that you were under a lot of threat from Japanese invasion?

A large contributor was the fact that the Japanese felt slighted that Hitler didn't consult with them before invading Russia and refused to assist in Siberia. Once Stalin found out he ordered the Siberian trrops to Moscow's defence at the last minute. This turned the tide of the German advance. Japan also deliberately did not consult with Hitler before dec;laring war on the US. These were the dual nails in the coffin. Without America, Britain could not invade Europe. Without Germany being occupied in Russia, it would not have succeeded.

The terms of the Axis never stipulated that Germany had to declare war on America. Hitler was a fool for doing so.

 

[Swart]

If I have to be completely honest mate, I don't know much about the Australian defence in World War II. I take it that you were under a lot of threat from Japanese invasion?

After Singapore, the Japanese swept through the Dutch East Indies and Melanesia like a tidal wave. The Japanese continually bombed Darwin until it was virtually levelled. The Japanese thought there were dozens of squadrons when in fact there was only one squadron of 40 P-40's. There were virtually no troops in Darwin and all the Naval ships were sunk. The deception of the Air Force was only possible because the P-40's were made of plywood and were easily repaired. In the space of 6 weeks, the Boomerang was designed and mass produced to aid in the defence of Australia. A total of 200 Boomerags were built and put into service.

In preparation for the invasion of Australia, three Japanese midget submarines were sent into Sydney harbour where one launched a reconnaissance plane. One sub sank a ferry. Two of the subs were sunk and it is believed the other was scuttled by its two man crew. The recon plan flew southwest from Sydney and crashed not far from my Grandfather's farm in Camden. The pilot committed suicide.

The plan for Australia's defence was to retreat back to a line from Brisbane across the country called the Brisbane line. American troops were sent to Brisbane to assist Australian troops, however they clashed with Australian troops and a pitched battle was fought for 1 day between Australian and US troops before order could be restored.

The Japanese invasion force was stopped by the battle of the Coral Sea, which was a precursor to the Battle of Midway. It was the first carrier fleet battle of the Pacific. The Japanese then decided to take Port Moresby in PNG by going overland. The freshly recruited 9th Division fought the Japanese along the Kokoda trail and managed to stop them just outside of Moresby. By this time Midway had been fought and it's carrier fleet decimated. The offensive thrust of the Japanese had been blunted and the superior weapons production of the US enabled the allies to roll Japan back.

 

[jhollas]

The plan for Australia's defence was to retreat back to a line from Brisbane across the country called the Brisbane line. American troops were sent to Brisbane to assist Australian troops, however they clashed with Australian troops and a pitched battle was fought for 1 day between Australian and US troops before order could be restored.

Was this Blue on Blue, or did the Americans know they were fighting Australians? There weren't exactly a lot of enemy troops in the area at the time...

 

[Agrippa]

Whoever built the defences was a fool. All th guns pointed out to sea, and they had absolutely no good defence facing inland, so all the Japanese did was walk up behind us. Yes, I admit the surrender was a real kick in the teeth.

Hope you don't mind if I intrude.

The heavy guns of Singapore, contrary to myth, did have the capacity to fire inland. They were equipped with armor piercing shells instead of high explosive weapons, which meant any shots fired inland would have essentially been useless. It was a failure of logistics, rather than design.

 

[Swart]

Was this Blue on Blue, or did the Americans know they were fighting Australians? There weren't exactly a lot of enemy troops in the area at the time...

Oh they new who they were fighting. The US troops were reservists from the US South. One of the US soldiers went on a rape and murder spree and a bunch of US soldiers joked to some Australian troops about it. One of the Austraian soldiers shot a particlarly offensive US soldier and from then on it was on for young and old. The US barracks were under siege for many hours.

It was very well hushed up and only declassified after 50 years.

 

[Swart]

Hope you don't mind if I intrude.

The heavy guns of Singapore, contrary to myth, did have the capacity to fire inland. They were equipped with armor piercing shells instead of high explosive weapons, which meant any shots fired inland would have essentially been useless. It was a failure of logistics, rather than design.

There were two failures with Singapore. The one you mentioned and that of air superiority.

Given six months notice. Singapore could have been fortified to hold off just about any attack from the mainland. However, without air support it would be relatively easy to breach defences. Even the best island fortress ever consructed (Corregidor) couldn't hold out alone.

I think the main lesson from WWII was that air superiority is what wins wars. The era of the battleship was dead.

 

[Agrippa]

There were two failures with Singapore. The one you mentioned and that of air superiority.

Given six months notice. Singapore could have been fortified to hold off just about any attack from the mainland. However, without air support it would be relatively easy to breach defences. Even the best island fortress ever consructed (Corregidor) couldn't hold out alone.

I think the main lesson from WWII was that air superiority is what wins wars. The era of the battleship was dead.

Didn't the regional C-in-C (Percival, if I'm not mistaken) refuse shipments of Spitfires and Hurricanes, saying that his Brewster Buffaloes would be good enough? The problem with the Buffaloes being that they were hopelessly obsolete. Even if they had been flying cover for Prince of Wales and Repulse, for example, the Japanese land based bombers could have outrun them.

 

[jhollas]

Didn't the regional C-in-C (Percival, if I'm not mistaken) refuse shipments of Spitfires and Hurricanes, saying that his Brewster Buffaloes would be good enough? The problem with the Buffaloes being that they were hopelessly obsolete. Even if they had been flying cover for Prince of Wales and Repulse, for example, the Japanese land based bombers could have outrun them.

Aye, because he was a proud fool.

 

[TScott]

Didn't the regional C-in-C (Percival, if I'm not mistaken) refuse shipments of Spitfires and Hurricanes, saying that his Brewster Buffaloes would be good enough?

Not sure it was him, it may have been his RAF commander. Percival had plenty of fault in the fall of Singapore, though. He failed to commit his reserves when they were needed the most. It's interesting though that while the US considers December 7, 1941 as the day of infamy, the Japanese consider February 15th as the day of infamy. To their way of thinking a force of 70,000 commonwealth forces surrendering to a force of 30,000 Japanese, while the superior force still possessed the means to resist was reprehensible. To them, in their way of thinking, it shamed them for their very humanity. Japanese did not traet POWs well because to them surrendering was just about the most dihonerable thing a man could do. I would almost guarantee that if Percival or just about any other commander in the war against Japan had it to do over again they would not have willingly surrendered.

 

[jewishprincess613]

Schindlar's List is an excellent movie.

 

[jgarden]

Not sure it was him, it may have been his RAF commander. Percival had plenty of fault in the fall of Singapore, though. He failed to commit his reserves when they were needed the most. It's interesting though that while the US considers December 7, 1941 as the day of infamy, the Japanese consider February 15th as the day of infamy. To their way of thinking a force of 70,000 commonwealth forces surrendering to a force of 30,000 Japanese, while the superior force still possessed the means to resist was reprehensible. To them, in their way of thinking, it shamed them for their very humanity. Japanese did not traet POWs well because to them surrendering was just about the most dihonerable thing a man could do. I would almost guarantee that if Percival or just about any other commander in the war against Japan had it to do over again they would not have willingly surrendered.

Only the British would have all there big guns pointing out to sea at Singapore, never expecting a land based attack. Apparently it was the "common knowledge" of the time, that the Japanese soldiers could not engage in night attacks because they were Oriental and anyone with "slanted" eyes could not see at night.

My grandfather served with the Canadians in WW1, and said that the "colonial" troops disliked the British Officer corps more than the Germans. Colonial troops were considered inferior, expendible and ofter used as "shock" troops that suffered the highest casualities. My grandfather said that the real reason casualties among British officers were so high because they were often under fire - from both sides.

 

[TScott]

My grandfather served with the Canadians in WW1, and said that the "colonial" troops disliked the British Officer corps more than the Germans. Colonial troops were considered inferior, expendible and ofter used as "shock" troops that suffered the highest casualities.

The misadventure at Dieppe was an excellent example of this.

 

[jhollas]

Only the British would have all there big guns pointing out to sea at Singapore, never expecting a land based attack. Apparently it was the "common knowledge" of the time, that the Japanese soldiers could not engage in night attacks because they were Oriental and anyone with "slanted" eyes could not see at night.

That's rubbish. Maybe the Toms told each other that in the mess for a laugh, but the commanders didn't believe that for a second.

My grandfather served with the Canadians in WW1, and said that the "colonial" troops disliked the British Officer corps more than the Germans. Colonial troops were considered inferior, expendible and ofter used as "shock" troops that suffered the highest casualities. My grandfather said that the real reason casualties among British officers were so high because they were often under fire - from both sides.

Then, with all due respect, your grandfather was the exception to the rule. Yes, the Colonial troops were often at odds with their officers, but to say that they shot them in the back?
British Officer casualty rates were so high because they actually put themselves in the line of fire along with their soldiers. Lead from the front, and lead by example. In a war where casualties were inevitable, it was the only way to encourage the soldiers to follow your orders.

 

[jgarden]

Then, with all due respect, your grandfather was the exception to the rule. Yes, the Colonial troops were often at odds with their officers, but to say that they shot them in the back?
British Officer casualty rates were so high because they actually put themselves in the line of fire along with their soldiers. Lead from the front, and lead by example. In a war where casualties were inevitable, it was the only way to encourage the soldiers to follow your orders.

"Fragging. When one American killed another American, usually a superior officer or an NCO, the term "fragging" came into use. Although the term simply meant that a fragmentation grenade was used in the murder, it later became an all encompassing term for such an action. It is known that "fraggings" did occur during Vietnam, but the precise number is uncertain."

"During the years of 1969 down to 1973, we have the rise of fragging - that is, shooting or hand-grenading your NCO or your officer who orders you out into the field," says historian Terry Anderson of Texas A & M University. "The US Army itself does not know exactly how many...officers were murdered. But they know at least 600 were murdered, and then they have another 1400 that died mysteriously. Consequently by early 1970, the army [was] at war not with the enemy but with itself." (www.home.mweb.co.za/re/redcap/vietcrim.)

"Fraggings" have undoubtedly occured in most wars, but achieved a higher profile when the term was coined in Vietnam. It was a direct result of major moral problems and alienation, where "conflict" between those in authority and their "subordinates" overflows onto the battlefield.

 

[oldrooster]

That's rubbish. Maybe the Toms told each other that in the mess for a laugh, but the commanders didn't believe that for a second.

Then, with all due respect, your grandfather was the exception to the rule. Yes, the Colonial troops were often at odds with their officers, but to say that they shot them in the back?
British Officer casualty rates were so high because they actually put themselves in the line of fire along with their soldiers. Lead from the front, and lead by example. In a war where casualties were inevitable, it was the only way to encourage the soldiers to follow your orders.

Most of the colonial troops held the British officer in high regard on the Western front. Their generals weren't very good, but their line officers were some of the bravest men I have ever seen....

 

[kurabrhm]

I am studing WW2 in detail. Anyone know of any good books, DVD's or websites etc that could be useful?

I am looking at:
Holocaust
Politics
Nazi's
Hitler
Japan
Russia
America
Evacuation (GB)

I suppose you could say every thing I can get my hands on.

I forgot to mention this to you a long time ago. So here's my reccomendation for your ww2 studies.
"The United States and World War 2: the awakening giant", by Martin Folly.
Its a personal reccomendation since Folly was once my University lecturer in US history. I can tell you he's one of a kind!

 

[MadeInOz]

There's a book called "World at War" I'm not sure who the author is, but it is a very comprehensive history book on everything that happened in the second world war.