24 Comments

  1. Durl

    Both Germany and Japan military leaders were confounded by the ability of the United States forces to adapt and overcome obstacles in World War II. If one of the Axis countries’ officers was killed, the units were usually rendered ineffective. If a US officer was killed, the next-in-command simply took over and the unit kept on fighting. So, “mutts” definitely made for a better fighting unit, because these men recognized that each had unique talents and made the best use of them.

    • Bookscrounger

      Yeah, that is definitely one of the points of this blog. And the book I’m working on. We get increased effectiveness and competitiveness from many independent agents, who straddle the tensions between cooperation and autonomy. Which raises the question: If we have the capacity to do this, and it is a superior strategy, why is it only recently emerging? The answer to that is a bit disturbing.

    • Bookscrounger

      Oh, and to the point of the master racism in this article, don’t you find it interesting that the people facing Hitler were named ‘Eisenhower’ and ‘Roosevelt’; and they won, not by genetic superiority, but cultural superiority? We listened to the same Jews they deemed as a scourge.

      And a lot of other ethnic groups as well. Even with the embarrassment of the Japanese internment camps, Daniel Inouye still represent the US courageously enough to receive the Congressional Medal of Honor.

    • Kelley

      That is not close to being correct. Both the Wehrmacht and the SS had well-established lines of command, with officers who were able to replace senior officers who were killed or wounded. The perception that German positions fell apart when frontline officers were out of commission is a myth propagated by chest-thumping Americans who have no grasp of facts but who have swallowed, without question, stories of American superiority on the battlefield. Typically, the Wehrmacht and the SS had much higher kill-ratios against American troops than the US Army military could claim against the German military. If there was any “superority” attributable to American forces, it was entirely on the basis of numbers, not the quality of commanders or the ability of soldiers. The battlefield of WWII underscore the following points with great clarity: (1) The ability to initiate and to maintain an offensive force is fundamental to long-term success in a “”conventional” war, as defined by WWII; (2) It is possible to overwhelm an army with better soldiers and armaments by flooding a theater of war with bodies. That happened on Western Europe after the US was able to commit millions of men to pull the asses of the miserable British out of the fire; and (2) on the Eastern Front, where the Soviet Union was able to lose nearly eight men for every German solider who died in combat.

      • Bookscrounger

        From reading this, I gather you believe that Nazi authoritarianism is superior to American autonomy; elsewhere you have suggested you think that Communist authoritarianism is particularly hateful. I would be interested in hearing you expand those positions.

        • Kelley

          I think American intervention in WWII made the spread of communism and the enslavement for decades by the Soviet Union of much of Europe possible. In this case, American involvement in the war was little more than a basis for making the expansion of Stalin’s brand of misery under the Bear possible.

  2. Kelley

    Actually, Germany was beating crap out of England and France before the US was able to pour many millions of soldiers in the war. It was not “diversity” – but of sheer numbers.

    • m

      American and German losses for western Europe were basically equivalent, slightly lower for the Germans depending on the source(s) consulted: report of the German High Command and DOD figures including North Africa & Italy. Numbers can be mixed and matched from different sources but all roughly tell the same story.

      What happened in Russia, as you mention was pure horror for both nations. Hitler was remarkably ignorant to invade Russia and that fact goes directly to the lack of diversity at the very top of the German hierarchy, which is to say there was none. What Hitler wanted, Hitler got because diverse opinions were not considered, construed as being unpatriotic or even subversive.

      The RAF, vastly outnumbered by the Luftwaffe, was able to hold them off in a military miracle every bit the equivalent of Marathon, so the notion that throwing overwhelming numbers against the Germans is solely what defeated them isn’t an adequate perspective. The “Battle of Britain” concluded before American entry into the war and England was the clear winner. German plans for the invasion of England by sea also were abandoned before American entry into the war.

      Meanwhile, Roosevelt and Eisenhower were listening to every reasonable opinion and considering every strategy. Whether that’s just better management or “diversity” or both is something I don’t think we can fully know.

      • Kelley

        Hitler’s generals advised against the invasion of Russia if he intended to fight a war on the Western Front. The objections became louder after Hitler had to divert troops to Greece. That delayed the deployment of the Wehrmacht to Russia and meant that the infantry and armored divisions would not reach primary targets in Russia until after the onset of winter. With regard to the Battle of Britain, that series of air battles was fought over England … not in the skies over France or Germany or Belgium or the Netherlands. Air battles are not nearly the same as battles on land. On land, the Wehrmacht and the SS were brutal adversaries.

        About the Eastern Front – the best account of that bloodletting I’ve ever found is Bloodlands:

        http://www.amazon.com/Bloodlands-Europe-Between-Hitler-Stalin/dp/0465031471

        Highly recommended. That front was nothing but a killing field.

        • m

          This photo of Stalingrad always tells the story for me, although I have read a great bit about Russia, it’s in the past. PTG, the Romanovs, Catherine, The Revolution and WWII. I recently had my DNA analyzed and it showed a hit from the area roughly around St. Petersburg so maybe that’ll rekindle my interest.

          Otherwise, for all they went through in WWII I’m surprised they’re as relatively peaceful as they are. If anyone has a “right” to be paranoid about their place in the world and their military then it must be them.

          http://imgur.com/gallery/U3Y2OEl

          When I was a little kid, not even yet in 1st grade, my mother would take me to visit my grandmother who had every LIFE and LOOK magazine ever published. I’d sit for hours in the front room looking at photos of WWII in Russia and China in those pages. I’m sure if I was “discovered” do that nowadays I’d be sent for counseling and therapy and that mom and grandma would’ve been arrested for child endangerment. LOL.

          • Kelley

            Having spent MUCH time in Germany … a good bit of it behind what was the Berlin Wall (die Berliner Mauer) and in other areas of East Germany (Ost Deustchland), I learned to hate anything that looks like the Soviet Union. My opinion has not changed after many years. Communism sucked then and it sucks today.

            i think that nearly all of the problems in Europe in 2016 are traceable to the outcome of WWII. The defeat of Germany opened the floodgate for the destabilization of the European Continent, most recently via the invasion of Muslims. It makes me sick to see European culture(s) under assault by millions upon millions of Muslim thugs who are better fit for life in pre-Middle Age society than in the modern world.

        • Bookscrounger

          Bruce,

          “Been there lately?” isn’t really an answer.

          Please, I’m curious to hear what evidence you have.

      • Kelley

        I’ve dealt with their [censored] face to face …. over there. I guess the trail of bodies around the world and the millions of lives compelled to live under a dictatorial regime that makes the middle ages look enlightened is not enough?

        • Walli

          While it’s true that ISIS has killed many Muslims (and far fewer non-Muslims) let’s not forgot that there are currently about 1.6 billion Muslims on the planet right now. Most of them, I wager, want what we want: to live peacefully on this planet. As far as “living under a dictatorial regime,” that’s certainly not true for all Muslim countries, some of which have had elected women prime ministers. The problem with your statement is it’s a sweeping generalization, and like all generalizations, a kernel of truth or a limited experience is then broadly applied to every person in a specific group. Muslims have spoken out against terrorism committed in the name of their religion. But as long as people persist in painting them all with the same brush, there will never be peace between us.

        • Walli

          Kelley, there are currently about 1.6 billion Muslims on the planet today. ISIS, which has killed many more Muslims than it has non-Muslims, has been widely denounced by Muslims for committing terrorism in the name of Islam. As for “living under a dictatorial regime” there are secular Muslim countries, including Indonesia, which is democratic and secular. It is home to 12.7% of the world’s Muslims, followed by Pakistan (11.0%- 182 million), India (10.9%), and Bangladesh (9.2%). Only 20% are in Arab countries. There are about 255 million people in the Indonesia. Eight Muslim countries, including Turkey and Senegal, have had elected women leaders. I believe that most Muslims want what we want, to live peacefully on this planet.

    • Bookscrounger

      A fundamental concept of our government is that everyone is innocent until proven guilty; and a fundamental concept of Christianity is, “Judge not, lest ye be judged.”

      I am curious to hear why you reject those two ideas.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *