MEMBERS of the Greatest Generation - especially those with weak hearts - might want to steer clear of an upcoming PBS documentary that suggests the Allied victory in World War II was "tainted" and questions whether it can even be called a victory.
Moreover, the documentary, titled "The War of the World: A New History of the 20th Century," asserts that the war could only be won by forming an unholy alliance with a dictator - Joseph Stalin, who was as brutal as the one they were fighting, Adolf Hitler - and by adopting the same "pitiless" and "remorseless" tactics practiced by the enemy.
The three-part documentary is a companion to the best-selling book, "The War of the World: Twentieth Century Conflict and the Descent of the West" by Harvard and Oxford historian Niall Ferguson. The one-hour Part One of the documentary premieres Monday night at 10 on Ch. 13. The other two parts air the following two Mondays. World War II is the focus of Part Two.
His thesis: Instead of looking at the 20th century as having been disrupted by two world wars with periods of relative peace before, between and after them, it is more appropriate to view much of the history of the century as a continuous bloody conflict that was interrupted occasionally for a few short, exhausted catnaps of relative calm.
More at link http://www.nypost.com/seven/06262008/tv/its_all_one_war_117294.htm
As a student of history, leaving out ideologies, or nationalist bias, many of these statements are more or less true. I'll go through Haz's post and the post by Brosometal and give my interpretation based on 40 years of study.
First I have no idea how anyone could consider the victory tainted, or doubt that it was anything but a military victory. Economically however the question of who won is raised by simply looking at the 2 major enemy powers. Germany and Japan today wield ECONOMIC power beyond the wildest dreams of the leaders who took them into war.
The allegation that the war could not have been won without alliance with Stalin is perfectly valid. Had the Soviets not drawn off the larger portion of the German and other axis troops Normandy, if it happened at all, would have been the bloodiest disaster in the history of the western world. If American Sherman tanks fought a battle like Kharkov or Kursk, against massed Tigers and Panthers they would have been destroyed in record time. As an example, Michel Wittmann stopped a US Battalion, destroying its armor, in an incident immortalized in a painting called "Wittmanns corner" The force at his command ? One tank. (I'm writing this off the top of my head, so spelling is iffy, and EXACT details could be off but I will stand by the basic outlines. I think the tank was a Panther, but it may have been a Tiger) The standard ratio preached to American tankers was 5 or 6 to one, While the Tiger or panther was killing the first 3 or 4 Sherman's it would give the remainder a chance to get behind it and fire into the only spot their inadequate 75 mm guns could penetrate. Many American tankers survived only because their armor was not thick enough to detonate the German anti tank shells that passed completely through their Sherman's from side to side.
Was Stalin as bad as Hitler ? No, He was worse, Stalin's orders killed about twice as many Soviets as Hitlers, as one minor example, Soviet Partisans ( stay behind guerrilla fighters ) and returned POW's, in fact ANY ONE who had been behind German lines, according to Solzhenitsyn, were ALL sent to labor camps for at least 5 years, many for as much as 25 years, they had seen how the west lived, in bombed out, over run Germany, and therefore could no longer be trusted to remain loyal to the "Workers Paradise". The reason so many Soviets died in German captivity was NOT because of GERMAN brutality, They did not treat Russian prisoners MUCH worse than others, They starved to death because Stalin would not allow Red Cross food parcels (which made a BIG difference to American and British captives, many times these prisoners had luxuries like cigarettes that were not available to their guards) to be delivered to Soviet prisoners as he would have been required to allow the same privilege to Germans in Soviet custody.
If by Pitiless, and remorseless tactics, they mean "Blitzkrieg" That also is true, up to a point, Close air support as apply by the Ju-87 Stuka was originated by the US Marine Corps during the "Banana wars" and adapted by the Germans. The combined arms, armored thrust tactics that allowed Germany to conquer Poland in 30 days owe much to the thinking of Heinz Guderian, but they also owe much to Americas George Patton and England's JFC Fuller. Military theorists of MANY countries were exchanging thoughts and ideas during the inter war period, Partly because they were like minded scholars , and partly because during the depression the only ones who would listen to them were others of like mind.England, France, and America had won the LAST war, so they stuck with what had worked 20 years earlier since they already had that matériel in stock. Germany had lost the war and been deprived of ALL military equipment beyond small arms. Ever notice that the German Rifle of WWI the K 98 Mauser evolved only slightly between 1914 and the Current Yugo surplus rifles, because it was seen to have worked effectively. Every other aspect of war fighting was examined closely and by 1939 had adapted the latest technological advances.Actually WWII was some what LESS brutal due to the absence of poison gas.
The single interrupted war theory is also valid, At the end of WWI the Imperial German Army had not been "Decisively" beaten, They had been pushed back true, but they were already developing tactics such as the "Sturm Truppen" and equipment like the portable machine gun, and were receiving a huge influx of EXPERIENCED reinforcements freed up by the collapse of Russia Germany was surrendered by politicians who could no longer feed their people. This gave birth to the "stab in the back" legend that Hitler later used to mobilize the German people. Adolph claimed that the German Army was still capable of beating the Allies (possible but debatable) But was let down by civilians who failed to support them and instead sold out to the communists, Actually the Blockade worked and starved Germany out of the war, this is what led to Hitlers fixation on Lebensraum (Living space ) actually a requirement for enough land to feed Germany without relying on imports, like OUR current fuel situation. The punitive nature of the treaty Of Versailles, insisted on by financially ruined Britain and France guaranteed another war.
Despite what many think, there were less than 10 years peace between the installments of THE WAR. American, and British troops were taken from Europe in 1918 and instead of being returned home were sent to Siberia and North Russia, initially to guard supplies sent to the anti communist "White" Russians, they soon found themselves back in combat that lasted until the early 20's (I think it was either 21 or possibly 24, this was also the beginning of the "Cold War" and the only time that US and Soviet forces actually shot at each other under their own flags) The first shots by a belligerent of round 2 occurred in the so called "Marco Polo Bridge incident" between Japanese and Chinese troops igniting a fight that would last until august 1945, the incident happened in 1929.
So it can be argued that a continuous state of war with shifting loyalties existed from August 1914 until the Fall of the Berlin wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.
As to Brosometals comment about Enemy of my enemy, Germany and the soviet Union were not enemies prior to 5am June 22 1941, the slow reaction of the Soviet forces was due to Stalins inability to accept that his Friend Adolph Hitler would do such a thing. In fact, invading German troops moving into Russia passed trains loaded with Ukrainian grain be shipped into Germany. Remember the Soviet German non aggression pact that carved up Poland between the TWO invading armies. In 1924 the Wiemar republic (post WWI Germany) was banned from having many types of military hardware German Chief of Staff Von Seekt arranged a deal with the Soviets German factories and training areas would be allowed to operate in Russia in exchange for sharing the technology developed, this was later expanded into trade agreements as Hitler built stockpiles for the coming war. Many of the German pilots and mechanized troops who served in Spain and Poland received their training in the Soviet Union, while the Soviet T-34 tank was developed and built in German owned and operated factories.
Since I've been up all night, I Left for work at 2 pm Thursday and have not been to bed yet, so I'm crashing
MBTV
Forum Index
Help
Calendar
Contact Info
Register as a member
