View Full Version : what if the US fleet entered the war early?
Hello all
As the post header stats would it have made any differnce if the US fleet enteried early? Maybe they colud have a deciseve victory over hsf? I would be interesting to see,
Fairweather
01 Jul 08, 17:04
I don't think the entry would have had any effect on the war at sea, apart from providing additionnal destroyers for convoy escort. The US's main impact was on land. The HSF was reluctant enough to face the GF as it was (or at least, the kaiser was), so heavily reinforcing would hardly encourage them to fight.
Unlike WWII the US may have come in on the side of Germany early on! There was no love for England or Germany at the time. Germany was a huge trading partner and US didn't like having it's ships stopped and searched by the British but, German blunders changed this!
Unlike WWII the US may have come in on the side of Germany early on! There was no love for England or Germany at the time. Germany was a huge trading partner and US didn't like having it's ships stopped and searched by the British but, German blunders changed this!
Exactly. That's the more intriguing "what-if?" right there.
JD
Unlike WWII the US may have come in on the side of Germany early on! There was no love for England or Germany at the time. Germany was a huge trading partner and US didn't like having it's ships stopped and searched by the British but, German blunders changed this!
AND don't forget how many German immigrants the US counted , and still counts.
Official website of the American embassy: about 1/3rd of all white Americans have full or partial German heritage.
No surprise of course, given the wide range of German names.
Nimitz - Spielberg - Sommer - Friedel and so on and so on.
German is also the 3rd most spoken language in the US.
1. English
2. Spanish
3. German
interesting. What if the English language had not won by one single vote against Dutch or German when the Americans decided which language would be the national one. Language does it all. Those British ****a's have been lucky, I tell ya! :p
Unlike WWII the US may have come in on the side of Germany early on! There was no love for England or Germany at the time. Germany was a huge trading partner and US didn't like having it's ships stopped and searched by the British but, German blunders changed this!
If the Germans instead of torpedoing ships with Americans on board, publicised the effects of the British blockade (which was as illegal as the U-Boot attacks on shipping)... who knows?
Just imagine the US fleet leading the HSF into battle against the GF. I wonder how well they would have faired?
There was never a chance of the US entering the war on the German side. On the one hand was the bumbling foreign-policy incompetence of the Kaiser in pre-war years, on the other hand the US allowance to the Entente to buy arms and ammo, keeping up the fiction of neutrality by insisting on "take-away" and pretending that this gave all war parties "equal opportunity". Yes, I say fiction of neutrality, without the US manufacturing ammo for the Entente the French and English would have had no ammo left for offensives by the end of 1914, because most of the French factories had been taken by the Germans and the English and remaining/newbuilt French capacity was not enough to keep up with the vastly higher than anticipated ammo (esp. artillery rounds) demand of trench warfare. Comparatively early on the Entente war was financed by US credits and the US economy was receiving a boom effect from war production for the Entente.
Read John Mosiers "Myth of the Great War", though IMO he focuses too much on the AEF's impact, he mentions the economic side as well.
- A note of caution on Mosier, though an academic he is not a historian and some parts of the book are questionable, but his economic and casualty statistics and the analysis of the different artillery technologies and organisations is sound. -
As a cynic you might come to the conclusion that the US entered the war to protect it's "investment" in an Entente victory.
Democracy-wise, comparing Germany and Great Britain or even France, there was no real difference, both sides had governments dependent on elected parliaments in which the old, conservative-authoritarian forces were under pressure by socialist-liberal forces, in Germany even more so than in Britain. Todays view of Imperial Germany and Prussia is distorted by the Nazi years and English propaganda from before WWI and onward, nowhere more so than in German academia Read Christopher Clarks Iron Kingdom: The Rise and Downfall of Prussia, 1600-1947 to gain a new, more balanced perspective. Though today a historian in Britain he grew up in Australia and developed a more neutral perspective.
Fairweather
02 Jul 08, 06:07
Sorry, but there was a huge difference between the British/French goverments and the German one. Germany wasn't a democracy, it was an autocracy; the Kaiser was in charge, the parliament had little power. For example, the army went to the foreign minister (or some similar person), asking for permission to invade France through Belgium. He said he would have to think about it. They replied that they had allready done it, and asking him was just a formality.
Sorry, but there was a huge difference between the British/French goverments and the German one. Germany wasn't a democracy, it was an autocracy; the Kaiser was in charge, the parliament had little power. For example, the army went to the foreign minister (or some similar person), asking for permission to invade France through Belgium. He said he would have to think about it. They replied that they had allready done it, and asking him was just a formality.
It was MUCH more complicated than that. e.g. The Kaiser could not make laws of his choosing, nor levy taxes without parliamentary consent. Calling that kind of state "an autocracy" is totally inappropriate. Your example above is somewhat wrong, because the German invasion on Belgium was preceeded by a diplomatic ultimatum.
One has to remember that when a British, a German and a French soldier met between the lines, usually only two of them had a right to elect his representative to the parliament. And the unhappy one without that right was not the German.
I agree with Rhetor. Germany was more democratic than is commonly believed. Unlike in Britain, the Kaiser's role was more political than in Britain, but he did not hold absolute power. He had the right to appoint governments and to sack them. But many other powers (taxation for example) lay with parlement. The German emperor could only hope that parlement was willing to pass the fleet laws for example. So, although there was no outright trias politica as there was in France and the US, there was definetely a separation of tasks and powers between the executive branch and parlement.
What "helped" in Germany was that parlement did not appoint the chancelors and that Germany had a few very good and persuasive ones that stayed in office for a long time and managed to swing public opinion behind some of the decisions that led to WW1, such as the fleet laws. But in itself the system in Germany was no less democratic than in other countries. Quite often, it was also the case that the Kaiser was following public opinion rather than making his own policy. The whole drive for colonies was something that stemmed from public opinion and was only reluctantly embrased by the government and the kaiser.
However, in Britain, to this day, the House of Lords (a wholy unelected body of nobility appointed by the queen/king and through inheritance) still holds the veto right on laws passed by the house of commons (which is an elected body). Many liberal reform acts in the early 1900s, as well as in the late 1990's, were defeated in the house of lords, eventhough the people (for as far as they had a vote to cast) elected a government that proposed these policies.
Don't forget that in all countries (even the US and France), items like universal suffrage were not available at the outbreak of the war. They didn't come until after WW1. So, compared to nowadays, none of the countries back then would qualify as democracies. More than 50% of the adult population couldn't vote in any of the countries. And in many it was even higher, as not only women were excluded, but as a man you needed to have a certain wealth/income before you were allowed to vote. The words "No taxation, no representation" stem from that era.
Fairweather
02 Jul 08, 08:36
Ok, I oversimplified. I blame my history teacher. However, regarding the House of Lords today, they can't block a bill indefinitely. They can block it 3 times. On the fourth attempt it automatically gets through.
Now, retreating hastily to the topic.....
and many people should blame their history teachers :nuts: I've noticed :lier:
There is not one country solely responsbile for the first World War. All participating countries bore responsibility, but of course, especially all European superpowers: Germany, Britain, France, Russia, Austria-Hungary, ...
it was the spirit of the time, imperialistic ambitions and sheer empty-headed nationalism.
If there is one country that has great responsibility for the run to WW I , it is France. They invaded Germany in 1871 for rather miserable reasons and they got clobbered by the Germans. The Germans took back some French territory, on which lived - in large part - German-speaking people. The French, addicted to militarism as they were, made plans for revenge.
The Britons also get away easily in assessing blame. Yes, Germany wanted to build a powerful fleet, so what, Which superpower didn't. The U.S. did it too, and for what, hunting down Mexican bandits? When the arms race had more or less cooled off, the Britons launched the Dreadnought, again heating up all tensions. So throwing all guilt at Germany like the Versailles Treaty stated, is just plain nonsense. But unfortunately, that is what many people tend to believe.. which is not that illogical of course, given WW II, which is more well-known to anyone than "the Great War".
Bullethead
02 Jul 08, 19:14
As a cynic you might come to the conclusion that the US entered the war to protect it's "investment" in an Entente victory.
I don't think that's cynical at all. It's definitely a better reason than we've had to get into some of our other wars :).
Of course the USA were the true winner of WWI. Every other participant, even the "victors" lost big, but the USA became THE economic and military superpower, they just needed WWII to demonstrate that fact beyond doubt. Presupposing a power-motivated policy the US government did everything right. But they were lying to their electorate and perhaps even to themselves about their motivation.
It was the German Army's treatment of Belguim that ultimately did Germany in. When they executed Belgian civilians and razed the town of Louvain, Germany was condemned world-wide and in the United States particularly. From then on there was little hope of a settlement because the Allies were determined to beat Germany down.
There you are falling a bit for the english propaganda.
While Loewen was an unfortunate incident and it's today in doubt wether there were actually any Francs-Tireurs in Loewen, it began with regrettable but understandable (as in how it happened, definitely NOT as in "excusable") reactions of inexperienced and nervous troops. The real failing was that of the military leadership, who thought that they had to statute an "example" and ordered retribution, which was, in principle but not to the extent as it actually happened, covered by the rules of warfare.
The very skilled english propaganda did of course use the incident fully, including such gross distortions as the "bayoneted babies" and it had persistent effects, still visible today.
But the violation of the Belgian neutrality was only an excuse for Great Britains leadership to enter the war on the french side. The rivalry between Germany and Britain only developed after the 1870's when the rising german industrial production and exports reached and then threatened to surpass british production and market share. The old mercantilistic "cookie" view of world markets was still prevalent, so Germany's industrial success was seen as a major threat to the trade-based British Empire.
The irony of it all is that the Empire was lost due to Britain exhausting itself politically, morally and economically in the war. It's position as the leading power in the world was taken over by the USA, who came to Britains aid like a "White Knight" in todays mergers and acquisition investment banking.
There you are falling a bit for the english propaganda.
While Loewen was an unfortunate incident and it's today in doubt wether there were actually any Francs-Tireurs in Loewen, it began with regrettable but understandable (as in how it happened, definitely NOT as in "excusable") reactions of inexperienced and nervous troops. The real failing was that of the military leadership, who thought that they had to statute an "example" and ordered retribution, which was, in principle but not to the extent as it actually happened, covered by the rules of warfare.
The very skilled english propaganda did of course use the incident fully, including such gross distortions as the "bayoneted babies" and it had persistent effects, still visible today.
Before the war German army was trained to be especially wary of "franc-tirreurs". Of course, when inexperienced soldiers are told to beware of armed civilians, they are susceptible to see those behind every corner. As it happened, the biggest instance of "franc-tirreur-obsession-related atrocity" happened not in Belgium, but in Kalisz/Kalisch in the then Russian part of Poland. An accidental discharge of a rifle led to some shooting between various German detachments (wooden houses were not a serious obstacle to modern rifle bullets, and for some soldiers it seemed as if they were shot at from these houses, when in fact the shooters were on the other side). Soon afterwards hostages were taken and decimated, and the whole city was shelled by artillery and burned; about 75% of the buildings were considered destroyed beyond repair.
As far as German military leadership is concerned, it seems that they were not capable to believe that a civilian could grab a rifle and start shooting at enemy military personnel without specific orders from his own government. Therefore, if an armed civilian was indeed captured, he was the living proof that the other side violated the laws of war, and harsh retribution was perfectly justified. Add to this the lack of experience and the "franc-tirreur obsession", and the atrocities like in Belgium or in Kalish are pretty assured.
To put matters into perspective, shelling a "franc-tirreur-infected" town seems to be a standard practice then. At the end of August 1914 when the Russians occupied Ortelsburg, a small town in East Prussia (today Szczytno in Poland), they were shot at, allegedly by armed civilians. Russian general Martos, commander of the XV Corps, withdrew his troops and had his artillery bombard the town.
The whole issue of franc-tirreurs is one of the many myths of the IWW. Sadly, most the German perspective seems to be lost forever, at least since mid-April 1945, when British Bomber Command chose to raze the centre of Potsdam, along with the Reichsarchiv building.
HMSWarspite
06 Jul 08, 07:02
However, in Britain, to this day, the House of Lords (a wholy unelected body of nobility appointed by the queen/king and through inheritance) still holds the veto right on laws passed by the house of commons (which is an elected body). Many liberal reform acts in the early 1900s, as well as in the late 1990's, were defeated in the house of lords, eventhough the people (for as far as they had a vote to cast) elected a government that proposed these policies.
Hate to disappoint you but the Lords have not been selected by the monarch for nearly 100yrs, they just enact the government choice. This dates from when Lloyd George got a reform bill through in c1909 which effectedly was the first step in the welfare state. He could only get it throught he Lords by appointing a whole load of his supporters, and the King (who initially wanted to refuse) averted a crisis by complying
UK is a whole lot more democratic than most others think - the monarch has no power, just incredible respect and hence influence. None of this is written down (no written constitution) but it soon would be if the monarch tried anything...
HMSWarspite
06 Jul 08, 07:21
and many people should blame their history teachers :nuts: I've noticed :lier:
There is not one country solely responsbile for the first World War. All participating countries bore responsibility, but of course, especially all European superpowers: Germany, Britain, France, Russia, Austria-Hungary, ...
I think your history teacher needs a little work... Of course the real reason for the horror of the first world war was that none of the powers concerned knew what technology had done to warfare, and so very 19th century ideas abounded in international relations...
it was the spirit of the time, imperialistic ambitions and sheer empty-headed nationalism.
Somewhat simplistic. The great powers had been at peace for at least 40 yrs, and a lot longer in some cases (e.g. Britain) and had not realised that the rules had changed so much...
If there is one country that has great responsibility for the run to WW I , it is France. They invaded Germany in 1871 for rather miserable reasons and they got clobbered by the Germans. The Germans took back some French territory, on which lived - in large part - German-speaking people. The French, addicted to militarism as they were, made plans for revenge.
I am afraid you have fallen for propaganda here. The Alsace question had largely falled quiet in French politics for many years and would not have driven France to war. The reason for the war was not a simple one, but IMHO was an inevitable consequence of balance of power politics leading to the creation of the Entente and the Triple Alliance, with no balancing view as to the likely effect of a full European war. None of the Great Powers would have gone to war had they been able to foresee the result (obviously), but once the balance of power reduces to 2 sides, the situation is a powder keg...
The Britons also get away easily in assessing blame. Yes, Germany wanted to build a powerful fleet, so what, Which superpower didn't. The U.S. did it too, and for what, hunting down Mexican bandits? When the arms race had more or less cooled off, the Britons launched the Dreadnought, again heating up all tensions. So throwing all guilt at Germany like the Versailles Treaty stated, is just plain nonsense. But unfortunately, that is what many people tend to believe.. which is not that illogical of course, given WW II, which is more well-known to anyone than "the Great War".
The German fleet was only a secondary influence in bringing Britain in to the war: the primary one was Belgian neutrality: it was close that Britain did not come in at all. The naval arms race put far more pressure on Germany, and was won about 1911 - after that everyone could see that Germany had lost it. You say 'so what' regarding Germany's building of the fleet, but such a fleet could have only one purpose: to challenge Britain. More than any other factor, German naval ambitions caused a reverse of the traditional British anti-French stance. Germany may not deserve all the blame for the war, but they did bring the full effect on themselves (first Britain, then US...)
There is a book by John Keegan, The First World War, which IMO gives the best explaination of the causes of WW1. Although the author is a Brit, the perspective is unbiased for the most part and judges all sides equally harshly. It's a rather depressing read of course but I highly recommend it.
There is a book by John Keegan, The First World War, which IMO gives the best explaination of the causes of WW1. Although the author is a Brit, the perspective is unbiased for the most part and judges all sides equally harshly. It's a rather depressing read of course but I highly recommend it.
which is exactly what I said in this topic. All superpowers had their part of responsability. :)
Bullethead
06 Jul 08, 14:19
I'm quoting bits of your post out of order because it makes more sense to me that way ;).
Before the war German army was trained to be especially wary of "franc-tirreurs". ... As far as German military leadership is concerned, it seems that they were not capable to believe that a civilian could grab a rifle and start shooting at enemy military personnel without specific orders from his own government. Therefore, if an armed civilian was indeed captured, he was the living proof that the other side violated the laws of war, and harsh retribution was perfectly justified.
The Germans got these ideas from the Franco-Prussian War, and I can't blame them. The interim republic that came into being after Napolean III was captured explicitly organized francs-tirreurs on a large scale and continually exhorted every patriotic Frenchman not in such a band to still do whatever he could to kill and obstruct Germans. And many heeded the call.
The war started in July 1870. By mid-September, the Germans, by all established rules of warfare, had won decisively. The regular and reserve French armies were off the board, the French government had fallen, and Paris was under siege. That should have been that and everybody home by Christmas. But the 3rd Republic didn't play by the rules. Its continued futile resistance kept the war going through the winter and into 1871. And all they had to fight with was francs-tirreurs. So you can understand how the Germans quickly got exasperated, and how they came to believe that all the terrorists in the countryside were government-incited, because most of them were.
The lesson the Germans took from this war was that times had changed. Republics could not be trusted to play like gentlemen and know when they were beaten, but could be expected to resort to terrorism and banditage to unnecissarily prolong wars and impede troop movements through their country. Therefore, they had to be prepared for this in future wars. Hence the training on dealing with francs-tirreurs. The Germans also decided that the only effective way of dealing with them was very harshly, to immediately discourage civilians for joining such enterprises. And they felt entirely justified in this, because francs-tirreurs don't play by the rules so need to be punished.
It should be noted that the Soviets did the francs-tirreurs thing to an even greater degree in WW2. In the event of invasion, they fully expected to have large units cut off behind enemy lines. Therefore, every such soldier had standing orders to act as a guerrilla and they had commissars on hand to make sure that happened. Mao's "Little Red Book" was also full of such stuff, the effects of which were seen in Viet Nam. And don't forget all modern-day francs-tirreurs, aka terrorists and jihadists.
The record seems pretty clear. Where you have a lot of irregular resistance, a goverment or 2 is at the root of it, even if there are a few rich individuals involved, too. The governments provide the money, the weapons, and the training of at least the initial cadres. The irregulars also operate in support of the governments' agenda. The governments may not be the one you're officially fighting, but they're still the enemy. This is what happened in France in 1870, on the Eastern Front in WW2, in Viet Nam, and today in Iraqi and Afghanistan. OTOH, when you don't have effective government support, you don't have much franc-tirreur activity. Hence, the lack of activity from the fabled French Resistance prior to D-Day.
Add to this the lack of experience and the "franc-tirreur obsession", and the atrocities like in Belgium or in Kalish are pretty assured ... Of course, when inexperienced soldiers are told to beware of armed civilians, they are susceptible to see those behind every corner.
I disagree--it wasn't an "obsession". It was an expected form of opposition that the Germans had seen a lot of before, and were prepared to overcome. IOW, it was just like how they built the Big Berthas to overcome the known Belgian forts.
I also don't think experience has much to do with it. You either have francs-tirreurs or you don't, and it's easy to tell by whether or not you're getting sniped at or having your roads mined and bridges blown. But practically every soldier since 1870 has been trained, to varying levels, to expect such things and how to deal with them.
Also, experienced soldiers are much more likely to shoot first, hide the evidence, and never report the incident. Inexperienced soldiers, who haven't yet seen enough of their friends blown up by kids wired with grenades or whatever, are far more likely to play by whatever ROEs are in place, and to snitch out their fellows who break those ROEs.
To put matters into perspective, shelling a "franc-tirreur-infected" town seems to be a standard practice then.
That had been the standard tactic since the Bronze Age at least. It survived as long as it did because IT WORKED. It didn't make the population explode in arms, it kept it cowed. Besides effectiveness, there were many other practical justifications for harsh treatment in the military mind of the time. By limiting combattants to trained soldiers, it allowed states to keep their army sizes down. By strongly discouraging civilians from causing trouble, it kept the bulk of them safe. And by eliminating their resistance, it shortened wars and thereby reduced overall suffering.
Note that these arguments are very similar to the justifications for nuking Japan, the government of which definitely had policies akin to those of the 3rd Republic and the USSR when it came to defense of the homeland. I find it hard to find fault with the results, either, because my father would almost certainly have been killed invading Japan, so I wouldn't be here.
I've had plenty of my own experiences with francs-tirreurs, too. And their were days, I have to admit, when I would happily have burned down whole towns to get rid of the terrorists. But we hanged Saddam for doing just that, so that option's definitely off the table for troops today.
One example for British early pre-WWI anti-German propaganda was the willfull mistranslation and misreporting of Wilhelm II. "Hun-oration". While he warned the German troops embarking for the "Boxer" campaign in China of Boxer atrocities like execution of prisoners etc. (using his usual clumsy oratory technique), he was represented in British papers as exhorting the troops to commit such atrocities.
The irony is that this misrepresentation is so persistent that even certain German historians accepted it as fact. No wonder I studied economics. Not although but because of my intense interest in history it's unlikely that I would have been very successfull studying history in the German academic landscape. I even have an "E" in naval history as proof, the teacher wrote
"Sie geben die Deutsche Marinegeschichte gut wieder - mangelhaft"
(translation) "You are retelling the German naval history well - E"
This was because I -purposefully- did not mention his central thesis, which has meanwhile become the "official" view of naval history in Germany. Of course this meant I left the upper 10 percent, but still graduated in the upper third.
That the "parliamentary" navy of 1848, as the first all-german fleet legitimised by a national parliament, is the only true precursor navy of todays German Navy.
True, there were some national patriots on those ships but the majority of the crews and some of the officers were foreign mercenaries, mainly Englishmen. The Imperial Navy is far more relevant for the internal makeup of todays German Navy and had far more influence on German and European (in fact world) history. For example, the today still feelable "boat-ship" social dynamic (as I sailed both in "ships" and "boats") is a direct heritage of the Imperial Navy and was relevant in the mutinies, which were a major factor in the demise of the Empire. But there is a growing movement in todays Germany to universally condemn nearly all pre 1957 military organisations and their members (with the exception of the 1848 patriots) as "non-tradition-founding".
The teacher in question, then a regular naval officer and now a tenured professor of history AFAIK, was one of the group of historians publicly attacking the 20th July 1944 conspirators for their "pro-Nazi" personal histories prior to the assasination attempt and their "right-wing-national" political convictions and plans for a post-Hitler Germany during the 50 year anniversary in 2004. Their "findings" were nothing new, but their campaign gained much publicity.
Bullethead
06 Jul 08, 20:07
The irony is that this misrepresentation is so persistent that even certain German historians accepted it as fact.
That sounds like trying to make an objective study of the 1860s in this country or, even worse, trying to point out the errors in the dogma on that subject that are currently beaten into kids. But the winners write the histories so what can you do?
That sounds like trying to make an objective study of the 1860s in this country or, even worse, trying to point out the errors in the dogma on that subject that are currently beaten into kids. But the winners write the histories so what can you do?
You could add the 1776-1784 period in your country to that :) or 1940-45 in France or...
But now i definitely have to go to sleep.
The Germans got these ideas from the Franco-Prussian War, and I can't blame them.
Of course
It should be noted that the Soviets did the francs-tirreurs thing to an even greater degree in WW2. In the event of invasion, they fully expected to have large units cut off behind enemy lines.
For such a statement you would have ended up in GULAG with 10 years' sentence, if you were lucky. In late 1930s the policy changed; all the specialists of guerilla warfare were persecuted and executed for "defetism", and all copies guerilla warfare manual were withdrawn and destroyed. In 1941 the official stance was that the "Red Army is Invincible". See Kenneth Slepyan's "Stalin's Guerillas".
I disagree--it wasn't an "obsession". It was an expected form of opposition that the Germans had seen a lot of before, and were prepared to overcome. IOW, it was just like how they built the Big Berthas to overcome the known Belgian forts.
I call it "obsession", because the Germans expected this form of opposition so much, that they actually believed that they have met with "franc-tirreurs", where in fact there were none of them - as in Kalisz, and I guess that in most of Belgium and France as well.
Kinda similar to the Dogger Bank affair, or the "Japs" paranoia hilariously portrayed in Steven Spielberg's "1941".
I also don't think experience has much to do with it. You either have francs-tirreurs or you don't, and it's easy to tell by whether or not you're getting sniped at or having your roads mined and bridges blown.
As I said, in Kalisz the whole affair happened because a soldier's rifle accidentally discharged. Inexperienced soldiers, soldiers who never were under fire, are prone to overreact.
Rhetor, you live in Danzig. Can you tell me something about how Germans or the German language is perceived there and in Poland generally nowadays? Unfortunately, I've never been to Poland (my father has), but every now and then I read articles about it and some of them claim that it is unwise to use German in Poland. Paradoxally, quite some Poles speak good German or a smattering of German (more than English)
I'm a bit curious about that :)
Here in my country there is no real resentment anymore worth mentioning, but they aren't really "popular" either :nuts:
Bullethead
07 Jul 08, 11:14
For such a statement you would have ended up in GULAG with 10 years' sentence, if you were lucky. In late 1930s the policy changed; all the specialists of guerilla warfare were persecuted and executed for "defetism", and all copies guerilla warfare manual were withdrawn and destroyed. In 1941 the official stance was that the "Red Army is Invincible". See Kenneth Slepyan's "Stalin's Guerillas".
Maybe so, but as with many other things that would get you killed during the Purges, when the Germans invaded, suddenly guerilla warfare switched back to being strongly supported. The Russians did in fact have large units hopeless cut off, and did expect them to conduct franc-tirreur operations. They sent them reinforcements and supplies, they sent in commissars to create new bands out of civilians, etc., and they caused the Germans no end of trouble. See Colin Heaton's German Anti-Partisan Warfare in Europe 1939-1945 :D.
As I said, in Kalisz the whole affair happened because a soldier's rifle accidentally discharged. Inexperienced soldiers, soldiers who never were under fire, are prone to overreact.
I can just tell you what I've seen with my own eyes. The more a soldier's been shot at in the past, the more likely he is to react automatically with extreme violence often disproportionate to the actual threat, and the less likely he is to feel remorse about it. He's seen the enemy do some sneaky things, he's seen friends die from hesitating at the moment of truth, and he's already done enough horrible things that killing a few more people, even if they really didn't deserve it, won't add noticeably to whatever's already on his conscience, if he still has one.
Green troops, true enough, tend to overestimate the actual threat, but at the same time they often hesitate to pull the trigger. The hesitation comes from them trying to think things through. They've got a head full of classroom training that they thought they understood but now it doesn't seem to fit what they see around them. Because they're haven't seen the consequences of hesitation, they haven't yet acquired the automatic reactions of a veteran. Because they haven't yet done many horrible things, they're still worried about their consciences. So with new troops, it's a question of whether their threat overestimation drives them into a panicked frenzy before their newbie indecision causes them to just freeze up. Either way, they still usually take their cue from their leaders, who are more likely to be experienced than they are.
That's why I said I don't think experience plays much part. Both veteran and green troops can overreact, although for different reasons.
Rhetor, you live in Danzig. Can you tell me something about how Germans or the German language is perceived there and in Poland generally nowadays? Unfortunately, I've never been to Poland (my father has), but every now and then I read articles about it and some of them claim that it is unwise to use German in Poland. Paradoxally, quite some Poles speak good German or a smattering of German (more than English)
I'm a bit curious about that :)
Here in my country there is no real resentment anymore worth mentioning, but they aren't really "popular" either :nuts:
If something is unwise, it is calling Gdansk "Danzig" in Poland :D :D
Jokes aside. Of course I am no sociologist, and I can only say how I see the issue.
During communism Germans were being constantly presented in the official, censored mainstream as the "eternal" enemies of Poland. It was actually quite easy just after the war, and even later, because of WWII and the long partition period before that. It might be helpful at least for Germans to understand these Polish emotions, when they realise that the Polish stereotype for a German is practically identical to the stereotypic view of a Prussian. This sentiments were a powerful propaganda tool, because the Commies could always claim that only their regime, the "eternal friendship" with the USSR and the Warsaw Pact is able to keep away the "German revistionists" and the "NATO imperialists" from taking away formerly German lands.
Many people, especially older, still believe that the "true nature" of Germans would reveal itself, and that Germans actually might want to return to the 1937 borders. Some polititians play skillfuly on these emotions. Mrs Erika Steinbach, the chairperson of Germans "Bund der Vertriebenen" (Union of the Exiled, organization of Germans formerly living in the "German East", territories now in Poland, Russia, Czech Republic) is especially annoying for Poles, because she was born in 1943 in the occupied of Poland (Rumia/Rahmel, about 30 kilometers from Gdansk/Danzig) as a daughter of a German NCO from the occupation forces. When such a person claims that she was "expelled from her homeland", even moderates might grind their teeth a bit.
But of course there is the other side. Very many Poles emigrated to West Germany before 1989; it were West Germans who, after the communist regime declared martial law in 1981 in order to crush the Solidarity movement, organized simply massive help, sending food and other necessities to Poland, where it was distributed by the churches. I remember well how dull and empty was life here in 1980s, the long queues before shops, where people waited for many hours before the shop actually started to sell anything. This German help is still well remembered.
Today thousands of German tourists come to Poland each year, and German language is heard normally in the streets around here. For years I haven't heard about any verbal or physical attack on a German because he or she was a German. The scare that when we join the EU, Germans will come back and claim their land, proved also unfounded - ironically, since people migrate from the former East Germany, many Poles from frontier area rented or bought cheap apartments in German towns - so it proved to be the other way round :D
Still, my Grandma (born 1925), a keen sports fan, can't bring herself to cheer the German athletes, with the sole exception of Boris Becker :D :D
The entire issue is terribly complicated; luckilly, the national animosities now seem to be passing from social science into history.
The entire issue is terribly complicated; luckilly, the national animosities now seem to be passing from social science into history.
Are you sure? Aren't you forgetting a head line in Polish newspaper prior to Germany - Poland only a month ago? :laugh:
Then again, we all asked for our bikes to be returned in 1988 :laugh:
Comes with football I guess :D
Are you sure? Aren't you forgetting a head line in Polish newspaper prior to Germany - Poland only a month ago? :laugh:
The dignified term "newspaper" ill suits a tabloid :D
Next time WE will be co-hosts. Come and cheer your teams, but don't loose your head :D
Maybe so, but as with many other things that would get you killed during the Purges, when the Germans invaded, suddenly guerilla warfare switched back to being strongly supported. The Russians did in fact have large units hopeless cut off, and did expect them to conduct franc-tirreur operations. They sent them reinforcements and supplies, they sent in commissars to create new bands out of civilians, etc., and they caused the Germans no end of trouble. See Colin Heaton's German Anti-Partisan Warfare in Europe 1939-1945 :D.
Check Slepyan. It was way more complex than that. Kenneth Slepyan spent years in Russian archives, researching thoroughly the partisan movement.
Green troops, true enough, tend to overestimate the actual threat,
That's exactly what happened in the early stages of the war.
Bear in mind that it was mostly the officers who did the overreacting; their green charges reported simply that there were snipers on every roof and in every window. Most of the 1914 atrocities were not instances of soldiers killing some cornered civilians on their own iniciative, but retributions carried out on specific orders given by senior officers. Therefore the exaggerated reports were a crucial factor there.
If something is unwise, it is calling Gdansk "Danzig" in Poland :D :D
Jokes aside. Of course I am no sociologist, and I can only say how I see the issue.
During communism Germans were being constantly presented in the official, censored mainstream as the "eternal" enemies of Poland. It was actually quite easy just after the war, and even later, because of WWII and the long partition period before that. It might be helpful at least for Germans to understand these Polish emotions, when they realise that the Polish stereotype for a German is practically identical to the stereotypic view of a Prussian. This sentiments were a powerful propaganda tool, because the Commies could always claim that only their regime, the "eternal friendship" with the USSR and the Warsaw Pact is able to keep away the "German revistionists" and the "NATO imperialists" from taking away formerly German lands.
Many people, especially older, still believe that the "true nature" of Germans would reveal itself, and that Germans actually might want to return to the 1937 borders. Some polititians play skillfuly on these emotions. Mrs Erika Steinbach, the chairperson of Germans "Bund der Vertriebenen" (Union of the Exiled, organization of Germans formerly living in the "German East", territories now in Poland, Russia, Czech Republic) is especially annoying for Poles, because she was born in 1943 in the occupied of Poland (Rumia/Rahmel, about 30 kilometers from Gdansk/Danzig) as a daughter of a German NCO from the occupation forces. When such a person claims that she was "expelled from her homeland", even moderates might grind their teeth a bit.
But of course there is the other side. Very many Poles emigrated to West Germany before 1989; it were West Germans who, after the communist regime declared martial law in 1981 in order to crush the Solidarity movement, organized simply massive help, sending food and other necessities to Poland, where it was distributed by the churches. I remember well how dull and empty was life here in 1980s, the long queues before shops, where people waited for many hours before the shop actually started to sell anything. This German help is still well remembered.
Today thousands of German tourists come to Poland each year, and German language is heard normally in the streets around here. For years I haven't heard about any verbal or physical attack on a German because he or she was a German. The scare that when we join the EU, Germans will come back and claim their land, proved also unfounded - ironically, since people migrate from the former East Germany, many Poles from frontier area rented or bought cheap apartments in German towns - so it proved to be the other way round :D
Still, my Grandma (born 1925), a keen sports fan, can't bring herself to cheer the German athletes, with the sole exception of Boris Becker :D :D
The entire issue is terribly complicated; luckilly, the national animosities now seem to be passing from social science into history.
Thank you, now I've got some idea :)
My father's family is from Danzig, but as German Catholics in Danzig/Gdansk, where you were either Protestant and a German or Catholic and a Pole, they were under pressure from both "sides" in the free-city time between WWI and WWII, especially later on when the Nazis came to dominate the German population.
I have visited Gdansk several times and have seen "our" houses but that doesn't mean I demand anything from the current owners of my familys former homes there.
My father's family is from Danzig, but as German Catholics in Danzig/Gdansk, where you were either Protestant and a German or Catholic and a Pole, they were under pressure from both "sides" in the free-city time between WWI and WWII, especially later on when the Nazis came to dominate the German population.
These were especially hard times. For everybody. Hopefully we all have learned our lessons.
My father's family were in part Poles from Danzig; they lived in Langfuhr.
I have visited Gdansk several times and have seen "our" houses but that doesn't mean I demand anything from the current owners of my familys former homes there.
It's exactly the same when Poles visit now Vilna or Lviv (formerly Wilno and Lwow/Lemberg).
As I said, some politicians play on these fears, and, still many people believe them. Less and less, but still too many.
As for me, thanks to the currency fluctuations, I am planning to finally visit Germany as a tourist, not a historian on a quest for archival records :D Czech Republic, and especially Prague seems now to be more expensive for a tourist than most parts of Germany.
As I said, some politicians play on these fears, and, still many people believe them. Less and less, but still too many.
It seems to me most of these fears and hatreds are slowly but surely disappearing as the older generations of people who actually lived during the Second World War are passing away. But Europe certainly was a total mess after the war, so I can’t really blame those people for feeling as they did. For example my paternal grandparents lost their home to the advancing Red Army in 1944. They lived in the Karelian Isthmus that was annexed by the Soviet Union in late 1944, and grandfather spent the war there fighting the Soviets. He hated Russians from the bottom of his heart till the day he died a couple of years ago.
But such feelings aren’t very common in my generation of Finns, even though I think some people who have never experienced the war personally continue to be angry and pass their feelings on to their children. I can only imagine how things here would be now if our military hadn't been able to stop the Soviets from conquering the whole country back in '44.
But mostly times have changed for the better in Europe. Considering the bloody history of our continent, it’s a miracle there haven’t been any major wars since WW2.
But mostly times have changed for the better in Europe. Considering the bloody history of our continent, it’s a miracle there haven’t been any major wars since WW2.
You seem to forget the various wars that sprung up after the disintegration of Jugoslavia (Bosnia, Kosovo). And nuclear threat of course would have made any conflict extremely costly.
You seem to forget the various wars that sprung up after the disintegration of Jugoslavia (Bosnia, Kosovo).
I don't think those Yugoslavian wars can be compared to a world war between great powers, even though the results were as deadly to the locals as in any other great war.
Sorry, but 300,000+ dead, 1 million+ displaced people, cities leveled to the ground and concentration camps qualifies as a major conflict I would say.
Sorry, but 300,000+ dead, 1 million+ displaced people, cities leveled to the ground and concentration camps qualifies as a major conflict I would say.
If I might interject... no one in their right mind would trivialize what happened there. But I think the point being made had more to do with potential blow-ups between Continental powers capable of employing major military force.
The conflict (I hesitate to even call this a "war") between Bosnia and Serbia - tragic as it may be - was a local affair, characterized not so much by the use of military force to further political, national or economic aims in the classical sense, but by the atrocities and terrorism typically associated with ethnic and religious fanaticism. The international or global "impact" was mainly emotional.
JD
vBulletin® v3.7.0, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.