- Joined
- Jun 22, 2013
- Messages
- 20,271
- Reaction score
- 28,078
- Location
- Mid-West USA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
I hate seeing historical facts distorted, so as to portray a false impression. The 442nd didn't volunteer. In fact, the unit commander--a white dude--was like, "um, are you SURE that's what you want to do?"
Mine is when the 442nd rescued the "Lost Battalion" near Biffontaine. They lost many men doing it. If you recall, the 442nd was made up almost completely of Japanese-Americans, many of whose parents and other family members were in concentration camps in the U.S. It was the most highly decorated infantry regiment in the history of the United States. 21 medals of honor and so many Purple Hearts that they were known as "Purple Heart Battalion" ...
The Union was in a far better position than Nazi Germany was.
Secondly, Germany was by pretty much losing on ever level. They were being forced back on the Eastern Front, losing men and equipment every day. Smolensk, Kiev, Belgorod-Khar'kov, Belgorod. The best the Germans got was Lenino, and even then the Soviets gained ground. Germany had already lost it's main ally in Europe, they had been forced out of north Africa and were being bombarded from the air. They were undoubtedly losing the war.
Partially. A lot of Japanese victories were in areas that the USA and it's allies could not realistically prevent. On the other hand, Midway had resulted in an American victory, so had the Eastern Solomons. Guadalcanal too.
Hardly. As long as Hitler was in command, Germany wasn't achieving ****, save for destruction and death.
Generally curious here. How do you suppose a German comeback like that would've panned out?
I always felt bad for Bernard. At one point, he was top dog, then he was just a footnote.
I'm sure you are.
Because they are.
Well, I might understand that if the original post you had responded to claimed they volunteered for the assignment. But here is the post he made:
Where does it indicate they volunteered for the mission? Units are rarely given the option to "volunteer" in combat situations. I believe it was true that all the members of the 442 volunteered to join the Army, none were drafted to the best of my knowledge. So, you see my confusion and why I responded to your post?
Well, I might understand that if the original post you had responded to claimed they volunteered for the assignment. But here is the post he made:
Where does it indicate they volunteered for the mission? Units are rarely given the option to "volunteer" in combat situations. I believe it was true that all the members of the 442 volunteered to join the Army, none were drafted to the best of my knowledge. So, you see my confusion and why I responded to your post?
you'll have to forgive apdst ... we have a little bit of a history ... he figured out that the only way he can hold his own with me is by trying to put words in my mouth ... he does this quite a bit ... sad thing is that even when he does that, he still comes up on the short end of the stick ... but thanks for pointing this out ... it was a suicide mission ... I'm not surprised it was given to them ...
It glorifies an unglorifical event. "Rescued", implies that the 442nd volunteered for the mission; reveling in the deaths of many American troops that probably didn't need to die, as if to say, "See how well minorities can die, too?" That's a piss poor perspective of history
Two more examples are the charge by the 54th Mass at Fort Wagoner and the Native Guard at Port Hudson--both units under the commands of substandard generals--were used for target practice by the Confederates and ever since, both charges have been hailed as some of the most gloried events in American history, when in reality, under the command of better generals, both events may not have happened.
I suppose that's one way of looking at it, but the mere fact that the overall commanders sent troops to their deaths does not detract from the courage of those troops as they attempt to accomplish the mission. When my commanding officer tells me about a battle plan, I can bring up issues and suggestions, but once the order is given my job is to go out and accomplish the mission regardless. All I can do at that point is lead my men and ask them to do the best job they can.
That was the case with the 442 (and the 100th Bn). They were ordered to do something, and they did it with courage and determination; a damn fine job. I would not have personally picked that battle as my "favorite" in WWII; but the OP who did is entitled to his opinion.
No they weren't. They could have very easily been defeated at Gettysburg--which damn near happened--and the war would have had a very different outcome.
In hindsight, we know that. As I said in another thread, just because things turned out the way they did, doesn't mean that that was the only conclusion possible.
So did Antietam and part of The Seven Days, but The Army of the Potomac just kept on retreatin'.
Hitler could have just as easily released Guderians tanks on 6 June and again, history would have been very different.
A smashing victory, such as the one the Germans achieved during Market Garden, could have rallied the Wehrmacht and seen another assault through the Ardennes.
He was a joke! It was an insult to every British soldier serving in Europe that he wasn't relieved and cashiered from the service.
I am and I'm sure you've benefitted from it, in this thread...you're welcome.
Oh really? So The Union was being invaded from two fronts, being bombarded from the air, and was being blockaded by sea?
Not to mention the Union still had a larger population, a larger industrial base, and a better transportive system, the exact opposite of Nazi Germany.
It's doesn't matter what 'could' of happened, because that's NOT what happened. Hitler didn't suddenly realize he was a **** commander and hand over full command to his generals. He kept on declaring trapped German Divisions "Fortresses". He kept getting more and more suspicious of the Wehrmacht and more entrusting with the SS. He kept insisting on taking Germany down with him. That's what happened. That's what is in the history books.
Well, that's them. I'm not the most knowledgable on the Civil War.
But he didn't. He didn't send the Panzers, he didn't do anything useful. That's what happened. Something in that little brain of his told him not to, so he didn't. That's what everyone will recall if you ask them.
Look, if you want to discuss what could've gone differently, or what might have happened if X had been different then fine, make another thread and we'll talk about it over lunch.
Oh? How would that attack through the Ardennes ended any better for the Germans?
Heh. Bet you pissed off some Brits by saying that.
....thanks?
Retreating isn't losing. The Federals, during the Civil War, were retreating for the first two-and-a-half years of the war. The Army of The Potomac didn't score a significant victory until July of 1863. The United States was getting mauled by the Japanese until 1943. Who won those wars?
At anytime, prior to The Watch on The Rhine, the Germans could have rallied and achieved victory, or at least an armistice agreement.
Operation Market Garden could have left the door wide open for a German comeback in western Europe. Luckily for the Allies, Montgomery was never allowed to plan a major operation, again.
Well, it's like this: I'm very knowledgeble in military history. You're claiming that all of my conclusions are incorrect. The only way for you to be correct, would be for you to be an expert. But, all I'm seeing are grade school books with pictures for the big words and insults as your proof.
retreating isn't losing but surely the fact they were retreating suggests that the tide had turned?
Not necessarily. It was very possible that the Germans were simply falling back to re-group and conserve combat power.
I mean you could argue that the Germans left North Africa because of the eastern front and the introduction of the US to the war but given their losses it would be a stretch.
I'm not arguing that, I'm only pointing out that abandoning North Africa didn't spell the end of the German war effort.
Let's use WW1 as an example: The Western Front was static; the Eastern front was almost static. However, on the Southern Front, Germany was kicking ass all over the place. Because the Germans were never check mated, they were able to negotiate an armistice vice an unconditional surrender. The same scenario could have easily played out during WW2.
The Operation Valkyrie conspirators--had they been successful--wanted to do just that. They not only wanted to end the war, but wanted to end it where the lines stood at the time. It's probably a good thing they failed, actually.
ok but what did the Germans do after El Alamein in terms of re-grouping? They moved Rommel to the western front and ignored his requests to bring tank regiments closer in land, the Atlantic wall was a failure and they continued to lose ground in the East.
It doesn't take away from the fact, that had the Army of The Potomac been destroyed, or at least been forced into a tactical position that was untenable, the United States wouldn't have had any choice but to agree to a peace settlement. Something you have to understand, the mission of the Confederates was never to over-run the northern states.
7It's naïve to think that a larger population is guaranteed victory.
You're looking at history through a narrow prism. Just because it didn't happen, doesn't mean that it was an impossibility.
Again, just because it didn't happen doesn't mean it couldn't happen.
You should be, because historically speaking, they're all intertwined. To understand one, you have to know about the others. It prevents the, "oh no! There's no way that could have happened!", school of thought from existing.
Stop making the erroneous claim that there's no way the Germans could have won the war and I won't have to correct you. If you expect me to just go along with revisionist history, you're sadly mistaken, sir.
I'm well aware what might've of happened, but that's not what this debate is about. You made the claim that D-Day was the turning point. That was clearly wrong, and now you're going off about "What might've happened".
I know the Confederates never really wanted to over-run the northern states.
7
"Numbers do not decide a battle, but they sure help."
I'm well aware what might've of happened, but that's not what this debate is about. You made the claim that D-Day was the turning point. That was clearly wrong, and now you're going off about "What might've happened". The simple fact is that Germany had been losing since 1943. They had already lost Italy, North Africa, Kursk, Stalingrad.
D-Day was the hammer in the coffin, but it was not the turning point. That had alreay come and gone.
I'll be sure to pick up a book. Any reccomendations?
I never said there was no way for Germany to win the war, but with Hitler in command, it was a slim chance. And don't even start complaining about revistionist history, you just said D-Day was the turning point.
It sounds weird to say "Your favorite battle", but I can't think of a better way of putting it.
Simply, which WW2 battle do you find the most interesting, or the one you like to learn about most?
For me it has to be Kursk. It was the end for the Ostheer, the sign that Germany could never hope to achieve victory on the Eastern Front.
Retreating isn't losing. The Federals, during the Civil War, were retreating for the first two-and-a-half years of the war. The Army of The Potomac didn't score a significant victory until July of 1863. The United States was getting mauled by the Japanese until 1943. Who won those wars?
At anytime, prior to The Watch on The Rhine, the Germans could have rallied and achieved victory, or at least an armistice agreement.
Operation Market Garden could have left the door wide open for a German comeback in western Europe. Luckily for the Allies, Montgomery was never allowed to plan a major operation, again.
Well, it's like this: I'm very knowledgeble in military history. You're claiming that all of my conclusions are incorrect. The only way for you to be correct, would be for you to be an expert. But, all I'm seeing are grade school books with pictures for the big words and insults as your proof.
Market Garden was a cluster**** but by late 1944 even the Germans knew the game was up. From a strategic point of view, it was the Eastern front where they were really getting destroyed, not the Western front, and regardless of whether or not they could have mounted a comeback, they simply didn't possess the industrial and economic capacity to really turn the tide of the war once the US had joined in the fighting in a major way. Keep in mind Germany had been deficit-spending their asses off since the thirties.
Iwo Jima.
Now, that was one helluva fight.
I've always been more intrigued by the brutal fighting in the Pacific than in Western Europe, where bloody though it could be at times it was still largely a "gentleman's war."
Two, actually; for starters. "I Rode With Stonewall" by Henry Kyd Douglas and "From Manassas to Appomattox" by James Longstreet. Let me know when you finish those 800 odd pages and then you can move on to "Soldiering in The Army of Tennesse" by I don't recall, but thats what google is for and "Cavalry During The Gettysburg Campaign" by Edward Longacre. Theres another 300 pages or so. After yet, we can move on to stuff like "Plow Horse Cavalry" and "The Cavalry West of The River".
Are all but one of these books written from a Confederate perspective, you ask? Why yes, which is why most people don't have a clue; they only know half the facts. Believe it, or not, former Confederates, who chronicled their experiences are quite unbiased. You'll never see any Federal contemporaries admit just how close they came to getting their asses handed to them and certainly never admit to the levels of incompetance that existed in the Federal armies.
And, if nothing else, you have to read "Company Aytch" by Sam Watkins just because of the seriously humorous style in which it is written.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?