The Political Correctness Haters' Club

[Cult Icon]

@Enrico_sw  The vastly underfunded US Army in 1939 was very tiny compared to major European armies.  It was less than 190,000 men, with obsolete equipment.  Its combat doctrine was heavily based on the French military.  Basically it was inoperable in a real war which would require armies in the many millions.

 

The American military growth and expansion of 1939-1944 was unbelievable, and it eliminated unemployment, dramatically improved America's capital stock, and secured fast economic growth/rapid improvement in living standards for the next 15 years.

 

The Red Army was a very strange and complex beast.  I would say that in weapon design/fielding the Red Army was superior to the West primarily in cannon designs (120mm mortars, very powerful artillery pieces), rocket artillery, submachineguns (PPSH) and armored fighting vehicles. (T-34, SU/ISU, IS, KV, etc.).  The 120mm mortars were very horrific in their firepower and widespread availability.  The rest of their equipment being adequate/average.  The Reds follow the same philosophy as the Russians do today- robust weapons systems, easily manufactured in large quantities.  They rather have a slightly inferior and cruder weapon in order to have more reliability and numbers. 

 

Where the Reds were terrible at was communications technology and electronics.  Much of the Soviet electronics industry was overrun in 1941 which severely impacted command and communications and severely impacted their military efficiency.

 

The way they used their weapons was also very unusual compared to the West.  They used quite little ammunition per weapon and by 44/45 had a great, excess quantity of weapons that they lacked the ammunition and supplies to operate.  I suspect that this imbalance had to do with them being a command and control/communist economy.  Red Army combat units in 1945 were pretty funny in that way, as their TOEs were extremely overloaded with excess heavy weapons.

 

Finally, in the Red Army human beings were essentially a form of ammunition/perishable.  They were remarkably casualty-insensitive, and generated their combat power through much more direct means (violent close combat with massed infantry and tanks, and cannons used in close range/direct fire) than the Allies, which preferred to use indirect firepower.

 

Both the Germans and the Soviets operated on the "two army" model- they had a fully motorized minority of their army and the rest was horse-drawn/railroad dependent.  This is a severe disadvantage to a fully motorized army.

[Cult Icon]

christy attributes post-ww1 pacifism for the defeat of 1940.  Is that what they teach people in school?

 

Your comments on poor French leadership are interesting.  I don't know anything about that.  I do understand the nature of the fighting in 1940, though.  IMHO the case presented by Frieser and others make the most sense to me.  They largely blame obsolete combat doctrine for the failure.

 

The French army was not a poorly funded army, in fact it was a premier army in world affairs in the 1930s and expected to stop the hun in their tracks.  Their tanks and equipment are kind of interesting in that they are based around combat/design philosophy that is closer to the end of WW1 than the beginning of WW2.  A lot of expensive fortifications and artillery firepower.

 

Maybe the French (and worldwide jokes on french military incompetence) are too hard on themselves for being defeated so quickly in 1940.  I believe that they were beaten in a similar way the Soviets were beaten in 1941- the main difference was that the Soviet leadership corps was more brutal which caused more problems for the Germans.

 

 

[Enrico_sw]

On 6/6/2019 at 3:38 AM, Cult Icon said:

The Red Army was a very strange and complex beast. 

 

I think communism is a crappy ideology, but I've always liked the Russians. Very interesting people and they have a strong "heart", meaning they are always ready to give everything (and everyone) for victory. That's the most important thing IMHO. You can win even if you have a flawed strategy with a strong heart, but you can never win if you are not ready to give everything (we were like this a century ago, but our spirit has collapsed in 1939 - France is the shadow of its former self since then. Quite sad, but it's true).

 

Russia also have a very favorable geography (wide country, harsh natural environment). I don't think it's possible to invade this country (you enter in it like butter, but you end up frozen to death, bullet-riddled or bitten to death by men, women or even children).

 

Have you seen the movie Cross of Iron with James Coburn? There is a scene with Russian women and German soldier, it's very well done.

[Enrico_sw]

On 6/6/2019 at 3:57 AM, Cult Icon said:

christy attributes post-ww1 pacifism for the defeat of 1940.  Is that what they teach people in school?

 

"Christy" is right, it's one of the major explanations. If you look at historical documents, pacifism is found in many parts of society: arts (pictorial, musical, etc.), newspapers, intellectuals, politics, etc. Munich agreement (1938) is the best illustration of all this; it's a very wide alignment of artists, journalists, intellectuals and politicians. People thought that this agreement was the hope of a longlasting peace.

 

School has evolved a lot in the past years. It's more and more infused with pc ideas (whose point is always the same: "the West is bad"). Critical thinking is less and less taught. When I was a kid, we used to analyse historical documents a lot... they don't do it any more (they have more and more "moral" courses).

 

On 6/6/2019 at 3:57 AM, Cult Icon said:

Maybe the French (and worldwide jokes on french military incompetence) are too hard on themselves for being defeated so quickly in 1940.

 

There are no "worldwide" jokes. Just jokes from the US media outlets (the nice politically correct media like CNN that think they own the world, whereas they don't even own themselves...) because we were against the war in Iraq in 2003 (which was, let's face it, one of the most dumb/pointless act in the 21st century, based on a lie called WMD, which was broadcasted by people like... CNN).

[Cult Icon]

On 6/11/2019 at 5:08 PM, Enrico_sw said:

 

I think communism is a crappy ideology, but I've always liked the Russians. Very interesting people and they have a strong "heart", meaning they are always ready to give everything (and everyone) for victory. That's the most important thing IMHO. You can win even if you have a flawed strategy with a strong heart, but you can never win if you are not ready to give everything (we were like this a century ago, but our spirit has collapsed in 1939 - France is the shadow of its former self since then. Quite sad, but it's true).

 

Russia also have a very favorable geography (wide country, harsh natural environment). I don't think it's possible to invade this country (you enter in it like butter, but you end up frozen to death, bullet-riddled or bitten to death by men, women or even children).

 

Hmmph, this wasn't what I meant.  Over three million red army troops surrendered in 1941, and vast numbers also surrendered in 1942.  Millions of Red Army troops surrendered- far more Reds surrendered than French in 1940!.    The Red Army's "fanaticism" was largely held by the brutality of their internal police (NKVD, commissars, etc.), ruthless combat doctrine/culture and rigidity to orders.   The reliability of Red army troops varied greatly because they were multi-racial and multi-cultural in composition.  Red troops ranged from disloyal (non-Slavs, Ukrainians, etc.) to fanatically loyal (Slavs who were communist party members, etc.).  The military culture was designed to put everybody in line and handed out brutal punishments to those who deviated (summary execution, or being sent to penal battalions).  

 

Their army reminds me of the Orcs in Lord of the Rings...- literally they were far more brutal than western armies.  Being a totalitarian state- their practices were not subject to public criticism/pressure like in the Western Democracies and Soviet officers treated their infantry like they were forms of ammunition.  As the Red Army moved West, they impressed countless people from other countries into the infantry, like Ukrainians.

 

The Red army probably processed over  40 million casualties in WW2 (including well over 15 million dead ).  Unlike US/UK forces which had more uniformity- their army had very dramatic variation in its qualities.  They ranged from horse-drawn rifle corps to Tank Armies & Artillery Corps with extreme combat power.  Thorough the war, their generals launched low reward offensives and attacks constantly on the Eastern Front- literally throwing millions of lives away with little gain on the battlefield. Yet, at the same time, they launched some of the most powerful and sophisticated offensives of the war.  The variation even existed on the operational level- from poor quality to world-class.

 

[Cult Icon]

To further illustrate an example of a common and poor quality soviet attack:

 

eg. The Soviet assault divisions, prior to a week's attack, would get railway shipments filled with personnel with basic training or even with varying degrees of training (up to no training at all!).  There would also be shipments of tanks and other armored vehicles.  The assault battalions would get refilled with all these personnel.  Then, without much or any unit or specialized training at all (this type of training takes weeks or  months), they get ordered to "go over the top".  The Soviet unit leaders would be under regulation to not deviate from their precise orders- which were generally of the advance to point/hill XXX and achieve "victory at any cost" .  Officers and men who betray their orders are to be relieved or even arrested.

 

While their shipment of personnel and equipment is impressive- their shipment of ammunition is decidedly not with only 2-3 refills of ammo available.  This means that assault forces cannot halt and straddle German defenses with firepower.  They HAVE to advance sharply and kill them in close combat.

 

After a brief, 15 minute artillery barrage that does little, the assault battalions would go over the top and advance full-frontally into the teeth of German defenses, taking maximum casualties from well-organized defensive strongpoints.  The Soviets would advance as far as humanly possible and stop only when their units were so decimated that they couldn't advance any more.  The casualty bill would be something like 5,000 Soviets cut down to cut down 1,000 Germans to advance marginally (1 KM or more of ground taken).

 

Meanwhile, fresh reserves are shipped in again to refill Soviet assault divisions...rinse repeat!!!

[Cult Icon]

A world class attack- the "Soviet Blitzkrieg of 1944 and 1945" (which would be in the minority of Soviet attacks- the majority were more like the above) would involve weeks of careful planning and reconnaissance, aided by Soviet special forces and the Soviet air force.  There would be considerable logistical planning- designed to sustain attacking armies for weeks and to supply them hundreds of KM into the enemy's rear area.

 

Ammunition and supplies would also be hoarded while starving those in the field for weeks.  The fate of the operation would be decided by Soviet veteran troops with the best combat morale, leadership, equipment, and training (Soviet Tank Armies, Guards Tank Corps, Guards Mechanized Corps, Guards Airborne Corps, Guards Rifle Corps, Artillery Corps, etc.).   For weeks they would also conduct suitable unit training and maneuvers.   

 

The net effect of this preparation would be starkly different: Instead of struggling for months, the German front would be breached within 24-72 hours by firepower that turns the frontline into the surface of the moon (thousands of barrels firing), massed air assault by medium bombers and ground-attack aircraft, and a massed infantry attack supported by armored vehicles.  German counterattack reserves would be unable to challenge this and there would be a fighting retreat.

 

And this is only phase 1- the soviet armored forces would mass in the breach and launch a deep drive into the German rear, advancing as far as possible . The German frontline would experience disintegration and there would be a general fighting retreat that would last until Soviet logistics wear out- either tens or hundreds of KMs behind the original frontline.

[Stromboli1]

Fuck off!

 

[Enrico_sw]

 

[Enrico_sw]

 

[Cult Icon]

On 6/11/2019 at 5:57 PM, Enrico_sw said:

 

"Christy" is right, it's one of the major explanations. If you look at historical documents, pacifism is found in many parts of society: arts (pictorial, musical, etc.), newspapers, intellectuals, politics, etc. Munich agreement (1938) is the best illustration of all this; it's a very wide alignment of artists, journalists, intellectuals and politicians. People thought that this agreement was the hope of a longlasting peace.

 

There are no "worldwide" jokes. Just jokes from the US media outlets (the nice politically correct media like CNN that think they own the world, whereas they don't even own themselves...) because we were against the war in Iraq in 2003 (which was, let's face it, one of the most dumb/pointless act in the 21st century, based on a lie called WMD, which was broadcasted by people like... CNN).

 

While I don't deny the existence of pacifism, I haven't seen any evidence that it was the primary motive for the French collapse in the field.  the BEF fought just as well as the French- which was poorly.  The primary cause of the collapse was German military innovation (1920s-1930s).

 

In the USA there were jokes about the French being military incompetents for decades. I knew them as a kid, too in the 1990s.  I think the British have something going on about that too.

 

 

[Cult Icon]

On 6/11/2019 at 5:08 PM, Enrico_sw said:

 

Have you seen the movie Cross of Iron with James Coburn? There is a scene with Russian women and German soldier, it's very well done.

 

Yes, but I dislike that film except for the battle scenes- which were decent for the time.  The film takes place in the backwater of the Eastern Front, the Kuban Bridgehead and is based on a semi-autobiographical fictional novel (written by a combat veteran).  

 

 

 I find it a rather "fake" non-historical movie with a political agenda created by people with limited understanding of the Eastern Front. This is very common with any film that involves the Eastern Front (whether German, American, or Russian made).  The TV series "Generation War" was completely warped by nonhistorical political agenda (anti-war bias).  

 

 

Have you seen Stalingrad (1993, German?)  This film is also warped by an anti-war political agenda but to its credit a lot of its imagery is historically accurate.  The best "East Front" WW2 movie I've seen is Der Untergang (Downfall).  Recently there is a Finnish movie that's supposed to be good but I haven't seen it yet.

 

I have for many years wanted to see a good film or miniseries about the Eastern Front but I have never encountered any more- I largely stick to my documents, WW2 newsreels/combat footage and my personal library.  

 

 

[Cult Icon]

"WW2: Stalingrad, Bastogne, Kursk, Carentan, Overlord."

 

@Enrico_sw  With Stalingrad and Kursk, there have been outstanding and groundbreaking works being punished in the past couple of years (particularly by Jason Mark/David M Glantz for Stalingrad).  For Kursk there are a lot of titles by numerous authors- a recent one that is very important is the abridged version of a US Army study:

 

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0811738078/?coliid=I39Y7NP97Y0BI1&colid=3HAAVHRCYIHIK&psc=1

 

When I first started being interested in WW2, the first battle I enjoyed was the Battle of the Bulge.  

 

In the other thread I was going to ask you "what is the meaning of Verdun" in France?  It seems to be some kind of cultural lynchpin

[Stromboli1]

[Enrico_sw]

21 hours ago, Cult Icon said:

In the other thread I was going to ask you "what is the meaning of Verdun" in France?  It seems to be some kind of cultural lynchpin
 

 

Yes, it is a lynchpin. Verdun is one of the most important battles of WW1. It was called the "mother of all battles". It's a very long one (nearly 10 months) and it's very symbolic. In terms of pure strategic military advantage, it's not the most important battle, but it was key for the morale of the French troops and it helped creating a myth of an unbreakable French army (that was key in establishing the strong reputation that it carried... until 1939).

 

It's a pure French/German battle (just the two nations, continuing a feud that started in 1870). In that sense, the stakes were great for both nations. The Germans wanted to "bleed the French army to the death". They chose a key spot: vulnerable (the French roads to Verdun were crappy, whereas the German logistic was really good), symbolic (key in the history of the Franks and for the german Holy Roman Empire) and strategic (close to shell factories and logistic points).

 

The idea of the Germand leaders was to break the forces quickly in order to break our morale and make us capitulate. They chose to attack quickly with a surprise effect. They used a strategy called "Trommelfeuer", which is basically to start a continuous rain of shells and bombs. So, the battle started with a pure rain of steel (2 million shells in two days).  Nearly everything was wiped out by the fire, but, against all odds, the French survivors rose (even the crippled, the limping ones) and resisted against the German army progression, with everything they had (rifles, machine guns, pistols - the French artillery was nearly dead). The Germans were stopped by a handful of French soldiers and the bumpy ground they created also slowed them down. That's this resistance that is praised and the "heroism" boosted the morale of the French army.

 

The rest of the battle is a story of attrition (with the artillery heavily involved, and, for the first time in history, airplanes). In the end, the French won, though it was really a bloodshed on both sides. Anyway, it stayed as a key symbol of "heroism"  in the collective memory.

 

The Germans compared Stalingrad to Verdun during WW2 (many of the oldest officers in Stalingrad served during Verdun). Heroism played a great part in Verdun, but like what you mentionned about Stalingrad, the orders given to the French troops were very stringent: "resist or die where you stand". No surrender was allowed and the handful of soldiers who tried to retreat were gunned down by their own troops with no mercy...

[Enrico_sw]

@Cult Icon The landscape around Verdun nowadays... it still have signs of a war that happened a century ago!

[Cult Icon]

on a side note, the lack of a modern, well researched and authoritative series on the Normandy campaign has always bothered me.  The publishing market is awash with junk books about normandy of low historical value and of a very superficial nature.    In reality the good material can be found, but only by reading many dozens of books that cover individual aspects in detail, and then the student has to form a mosaic of all the sources & put it all together.  It's a lot of work that could have been circumvented if there was a series that integrated all the information in a few thousand pages.

[Cult Icon]

It would be interesting to see SJW complain about the health sacrifices that are needed to be made by male models.  In order to look like this, one has to consume hundreds of grams of protein every day, put great stress on joints/muscles, spend many hours a week being a gym rat, and overall risk health complications later in life:

 

 

I guess it's not "manly" enough to complain about this idiotic standard 

[Cult Icon]

another made up movie using WW2 to "speak" about racial issues- this time it's about a black girl..