The Official World War II thread

[SeattleUte]

One of my pet peeves is an American-centric view of World War II, even as someone who believes America has been the best thing that ever happened to the world. First, the Soviet Union pretty much could have beaten the Nazis without us, and it practically did. Four out of five German soldiers killed in the war were killed by the Soviet Union and its allies, at terrible cost to those peoples who fought the Nazis on their own homeland, cost that is incomprehensible to us Americans. As the eminent British historian Max Hastings recently wrote:

Consider, for instance, the strategic situation in July 1943. The US had been in the war for twenty months, Russia for twenty-five, Britain for almost four years. On the Eastern Front, four million men and 13,000 armored vehicles eventually participated in the Battle of Kursk and associated actions in the Orel and Kharkov salients. Hitler suffered a disastrous defeat and half a million casualties. Soviet losses were far higher.

The attention of the British and Americans, meanwhile, was fixed upon what was then their only significant ground effort, the campaign in Sicily. They committed to Operation Husky just eight divisions, and lost less than six thousand men killed. In the whole of 1943, US and British fatal casualties in operations against the Germans were around 60,000. Even in 1944, the Western Allies’ offensives in Normandy and Italy absorbed barely one third of Hitler’s forces, while the remainder continued to be deployed in the East.

This is why Andrew Roberts writes, in his excellent new study of wartime Anglo-American strategy: “In considering the roles of Roosevelt, Churchill, Marshall and Brooke”—the “four titans” of his title—”it is important to remember that the decisions of Hitler and Stalin far more profoundly influenced the outcome [of the war] than those of any Briton or American.” Four out of every five Germans killed in action died on the Eastern Front.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/arch...gination=false

The Eastern Front was the center of gravity of WWII, really the essence of what WWII was all about, where all the greatest battles were fought, where the greatest atrocities were committed by totalitarian regimes, and really the most interesting part of WWII. We had nothing to do with any of that.

Also, bear in mind that we fought WWII as partners with the British, and that is true for the war in the Pacific. That is why our side is commonly refered to as the Allies, or the Anglo-American forces.

As for the Japanese, maybe the Soviet Union would not have bothered. But the Japanese were not nearly as formiddable or threatening to our civilization as were the Nazis. The Nazis were also far greater mass murderers. But I think Japan's ill-conceived facsist monarchy was destined in any event to collapse before the tide of indusrialization and the impulse for democracy that we see in India and other Asian countries. Failing this, ultimately, the Chinese would have crushed them.

[PaloAltoCougar]

Soviet losses in WWII were stunning. The United States lost too many young lives (just over 400,000, I think), but the Soviets lost around 25 Million, including civilians, more than three times as many as the Germans (Holocaust victims are excluded from their total). And the damage to Soviet infrastructure was nearly as mindnumbing, although one the perverse benefit of jumpstarting a nationwide urban renewal project was a plus, I suppose.

One wonders if it was Russian and other ethnic groups' love of the Motherland, or simply Uncle Joe's ironfisted control over the populace, that played the greater role in the Soviet population's willingness to make such incredible sacrifices.

[concerned]

During the war, Stalin repeatedly accused Roosevelt and Churchill of dragging their feet on the Normandy invasion, and allowing the Communists and Nazis to destroy each other.

The Soviets were aided by a two front war; if the Nazis committed all their resources to the eastern front they might not have succomed as Napoleon did, or overrun their supply lines. (I just read somewhere that Germany's big problem was that Russia's rr system was a different gauge, requiring the Nazis to supply by truck and gasoline, which was inherently unsustainable). But Hitler never would have invaded the Soviet Union in a one-front war; it wasn't his priority.

[SeattleUte]

Soviet losses in WWII were stunning. The United States lost too many young lives (just over 400,000, I think), but the Soviets lost around 25 Million, including civilians, more than three times as many as the Germans (Holocaust victims are excluded from their total). And the damage to Soviet infrastructure was nearly as mindnumbing, although one the perverse benefit of jumpstarting a nationwide urban renewal project was a plus, I suppose.

One wonders if it was Russian and other ethnic groups' love of the Motherland, or simply Uncle Joe's ironfisted control over the populace, that played the greater role in the Soviet population's willingness to make such incredible sacrifices.

I think the countries that are the best fighters are authoritarian by whatever means, theocracy, fascism, communism. A free and democratic country like ours, where the people rule, doesn't have the stomach for true all out war. This is why we might have lost the Civil War, and McClellan almost beat Lincoln when Lincoln won reelection. Thank God for Abraham Lincoln, even though he had to suspend habeas corpus etc. to wage the war he had to fight to save the union.

[LA Ute]

Well, this information makes me view The Greatest Generation differently. All those lives lost were just a waste! They should have stayed home while we watched the Soviets win the war. Of course, the resulting Iron Curtain might have extended to, oh, somewhere around Ireland, but never mind geopolitical consequences!

[SeattleUte]

During the war, Stalin repeatedly accused Roosevelt and Churchill of dragging their feet on the Normandy invasion, and allowing the Communists and Nazis to destroy each other.

The Soviets were aided by a two front war; if the Nazis committed all their resources to the eastern front they might not have succomed as Napoleon did, or overrun their supply lines. (I just read somewhere that Germany's big problem was that Russia's rr system was a different gauge, requiring the Nazis to supply by truck and gasoline, which was inherently unsustainable). But Hitler never would have invaded the Soviet Union in a one-front war; it wasn't his priority.

Stalin was right; he had great insight into such things, and it made him furious it took us until June 6, 1944 to launch D-Day. On the other hand, Roosevelt and Churchill knew their constituents would not tolerate the kind of war Stalin was fighting. America is not the greatest warring country the world has ever known. We value life too much, it's nothing we should be ashamed of. Still, but for D-Day a Soviet Empire would have stretched from Kamchatka to the English Channel. That was the U.S./Anglo accomplishment.

[SeattleUte]

Well, this information makes me view The Greatest Generation differently. All those lives lost were just a waste! They should have stayed home while we watched the Soviets win the war. Of course, the resulting Iron Curtain might have extended to, oh, somewhere around Ireland, but never mind geopolitical consequences!

This is wrong.

[PaloAltoCougar]

Well, this information makes me view The Greatest Generation differently. All those lives lost were just a waste! They should have stayed home while we watched the Soviets win the war. Of course, the resulting Iron Curtain might have extended to, oh, somewhere around Ireland, but never mind geopolitical consequences!

When I got into this stuff back at the height of the Cold War, it didn't change my view of the U.S. or my dad's generation, but it changed the way I viewed the Russian people, which was a good thing, I think. One need only spend a few minutes on a bluff at Coleville-sur-Mer and one's respect for the Greatest Generation will never be diminished.

[SeattleUte]

When I got into this stuff back at the height of the Cold War, it didn't change my view of the U.S. or my dad's generation, but it changed the way I viewed the Russian people, which was a good thing, I think. One need only spend a few minutes on a bluff at Coleville-sur-Mer and one's respect for the Greatest Generation will never be diminished.

Well said.

In the past ten years there has been a renewed interest in WWII and an explosion of the literature, and I think the Russian people are now getting their due in English language works, though this information has always been availabe even in Shirer's work, as are the Anglo-American accomplishments further elucidated.

[LA Ute]

This is wrong.

Actually, it was ironic.

[Solon]

When I got into this stuff back at the height of the Cold War, it didn't change my view of the U.S. or my dad's generation, but it changed the way I viewed the Russian people, which was a good thing.

Add to that 25 million dead in WWII the number of people Stalin killed / starved to death during collectivization in the 30s (in the neighborhood of 10 million) and we're getting into some pretty crazy territory.

In one of the crazy twists of history, had Stalin not forced collectivization in an effort to jump-start the industrialization of Russia (Lenin had consciously circumvented the Marxist model of communist revolution overthrowing an industrialized state; there was no model for instituting a communist state on the agrarian society that was 1918 Russia), Russia likely would not have had the wherewithal to withstand the Nazi onslaught. They wouldn't have had the guns & tanks and oil without the horrific toll that collectivization exacted.

[USS Utah]

During the war, Stalin repeatedly accused Roosevelt and Churchill of dragging their feet on the Normandy invasion, and allowing the Communists and Nazis to destroy each other.

The Soviets were aided by a two front war; if the Nazis committed all their resources to the eastern front they might not have succomed as Napoleon did, or overrun their supply lines. (I just read somewhere that Germany's big problem was that Russia's rr system was a different gauge, requiring the Nazis to supply by truck and gasoline, which was inherently unsustainable). But Hitler never would have invaded the Soviet Union in a one-front war; it wasn't his priority.

I read an very interesting book on the Battle of Stalingrad recently which argued that Stalin's anger on the delay to the second front was largely for show. At the same time, Stalin was keeping secret the huge reserves he had before the 1942 German offensive. The book was The Secret of Stalingrad by Walter Kerr, which was fascinating.

Hitler was going to invade Russia, the only question was when. He wanted to dispose of the war in the west first, but after losing the Battle of Britain he changed his mind, thus accepting the two-front war he had argued was the mistake Germany made in World War I.

[Newbomb Turk]

During the war, Stalin repeatedly accused Roosevelt and Churchill of dragging their feet on the Normandy invasion, and allowing the Communists and Nazis to destroy each other.

The Soviets were aided by a two front war; if the Nazis committed all their resources to the eastern front they might not have succomed as Napoleon did, or overrun their supply lines. (I just read somewhere that Germany's big problem was that Russia's rr system was a different gauge, requiring the Nazis to supply by truck and gasoline, which was inherently unsustainable). But Hitler never would have invaded the Soviet Union in a one-front war; it wasn't his priority.

If the Japanese had invaded the Soviet Union from the East, it would have made a difference. It also would have made a huge difference if Hitler would have let his generals plan the strategy and kept his hands out of it. Early on, Hitler's interference proved beneficial (Holland, Norway, France, Poland), but when the Wehrmacht launched Barbarossa, Hitler made some fatal strategic errors. Diverting part of Army Group Center to the south in 1941 instead of letting them get to Moscow before October was just one of his many mistakes.

[LA Ute]

If the Japanese had invaded the Soviet Union from the East, it would have made a difference. It also would have made a huge difference if Hitler would have let his generals plan the strategy and kept his hands out of it. Early on, Hitler's interference proved beneficial (Holland, Norway, France, Poland), but when the Wehrmacht launched Barbarossa, Hitler made some fatal strategic errors. Diverting part of Army Group Center to the south in 1941 instead of letting them get to Moscow before October was just one of his many mistakes.

And Turk thus exposes his big brain. There is no turning back now, my son.

[Newbomb Turk]

And Turk thus exposes his big brain. There is no turning back now, my son.

I have a very small brain, about the size of a walnut......sort of like the Stegosaurus.

[concerned]

I think the countries that are the best fighters are authoritarian by whatever means, theocracy, fascism, communism. A free and democratic country like ours, where the people rule, doesn't have the stomach for true all out war. This is why we might have lost the Civil War, and McClellan almost beat Lincoln when Lincoln won reelection. Thank God for Abraham Lincoln, even though he had to suspend habeas corpus etc. to wage the war he had to fight to save the union.

I don't know how you draw that conclusion. The Russians were fighting for Mother Russia not the regime. The stories are legion that people in the Ukraine at first considered the Nazi's their liberators, and were willing to join them against the regime until the Nazi's began exterminating them.

The Nazis and Japanese thought the same thing--that Americans were soft, and wouldn't fight. They were wrong.

Citizens in totalitarian regimes have little loyalty; thats one reason you have mercenaries. Citizens in democracies have more to fight for and fight harder, IMHO. The Civil War is the best example on both sides--nobody has ever fought harder.

[USS Utah]

One of my pet peeves is an American-centric view of World War II, even as someone who believes America has been the best thing that ever happened to the world. First, the Soviet Union pretty much could have beaten the Nazis without us, and it practically did. Four out of five German soldiers killed in the war were killed by the Soviet Union and its allies, at terrible cost to those peoples who fought the Nazis on their own homeland, cost that is incomprehensible to us Americans. As the eminent British historian Max Hastings recently wrote:



http://www.nybooks.com/articles/arch...gination=false

The Eastern Front was the center of gravity of WWII, really the essence of what WWII was all about, where all the greatest battles were fought, where the greatest atrocities were committed by totalitarian regimes, and really the most interesting part of WWII. We had nothing to do with any of that.

Also, bear in mind that we fought WWII as partners with the British, and that is true for the war in the Pacific. That is why our side is commonly refered to as the Allies, or the Anglo-American forces.

As for the Japanese, maybe the Soviet Union would not have bothered. But the Japanese were not nearly as formiddable or threatening to our civilization as were the Nazis. The Nazis were also far greater mass murderers. But I think Japan's ill-conceived facsist monarchy was destined in any event to collapse before the tide of indusrialization and the impulse for democracy that we see in India and other Asian countries. Failing this, ultimately, the Chinese would have crushed them.

The Soviets had the manpower and the space within which to defeat Germany, but they did need material support via Lend Lease.

The other center of gravity for World War II was the Atlantic Ocean. At the very least, a German victory in the Battle of the Atlantic would have forced the Soviets to defeat Germany on their own without material support from Britain and the United States.

The British committed very little to the Pacific, and mostly on the Indian Ocean peripheral. The major campaigns of the Pacific War were fought by the United States with some help from Australia and New Zealand. The Dutch also participated in small way with the British on the periphery.

The estimates for the number of people killed during World War II vary between 50 million and 70 million based largely on the unanswered question of how many Chinese civilians were killed. Estimates say as many as 20 million Chinese civilians were killed, but this cannot be verified. If true, it would double the 10 million Hitler killed in the Holocaust.

China was a quagmire for Japan, and my certainly have had an affect ultimately such as the affect of Afghanistan on the Soviet Union, but Chinese could never have defeated Japan militarily.

[wuapinmon]

I love Stalag 17 and W.E.B. Griffin.

[Newbomb Turk]

The Soviets had the manpower and the space within which to defeat Germany, but they did need material support via Lend Lease.

The other center of gravity for World War II was the Atlantic Ocean. At the very least, a German victory in the Battle of the Atlantic would have forced the Soviets to defeat Germany on their own without material support from Britain and the United States.

The British committed very little to the Pacific, and mostly on the Indian Ocean peripheral. The major campaigns of the Pacific War were fought by the United States with some help from Australia and New Zealand. The Dutch also participated in small way with the British on the periphery.

The estimates for the number of people killed during World War II vary between 50 million and 70 million based largely on the unanswered question of how many Chinese civilians were killed. Estimates say as many as 20 million Chinese civilians were killed, but this cannot be verified. If true, it would double the 10 million Hitler killed in the Holocaust.

China was a quagmire for Japan, and my certainly have had an affect ultimately such as the affect of Afghanistan on the Soviet Union, but Chinese could never have defeated Japan militarily.

All good points. The Soviets lost a lot of soldiers for many reasons, one of which was Stalin's willingness to trade personnel for territory or equipment. There were stories about soldiers locking arms and marching abreast to clear minefields. Not the way I would choose to do it.

[LA Ute]

I have a very small brain, about the size of a walnut......sort of like the Stegosaurus.

No, no. We are on to you. No more of that "chucklehead" nonsense.

[Jeff Lebowski]

When I got into this stuff back at the height of the Cold War, it didn't change my view of the U.S. or my dad's generation, but it changed the way I viewed the Russian people, which was a good thing, I think. One need only spend a few minutes on a bluff at Coleville-sur-Mer and one's respect for the Greatest Generation will never be diminished.

Indeed. I have been on that bluff.

Pointe du Hoc blew my mind also.

[OrangeUte]

Indeed. I have been on that bluff.

Pointe du Hoc blew my mind also.

I recently watched Saving Private Ryan again. Never been, but the opening and closing scenes in the cemetery always choke me up with the old James Ryan character and his family going to see Captain Miller's grave. Powerful scene filmed in a powerful place.

I've been in Arlington many times. My father in law is a vet and is buried in a veterans cemetery in riverside California. Every national veterans cemetery I have ever been in feels like hallowed ground to me.

[SeattleUte]

I don't know how you draw that conclusion. The Russians were fighting for Mother Russia not the regime. The stories are legion that people in the Ukraine at first considered the Nazi's their liberators, and were willing to join them against the regime until the Nazi's began exterminating them.

The Nazis and Japanese thought the same thing--that Americans were soft, and wouldn't fight. They were wrong.

Citizens in totalitarian regimes have little loyalty; thats one reason you have mercenaries. Citizens in democracies have more to fight for and fight harder, IMHO. The Civil War is the best example on both sides--nobody has ever fought harder.

I draw that conclusion based on how we have actually waged every war we've fought compared to how the Russians, Germans and Japanese fought in WWII, the Viet Cong fought us, etc. From the start they fought super-aggressvely or a ghastly war of attrition, heedless of casualties on their side. And their soldiers were not mercenaries.

The ferocious way the Germans, the Soviets, the Japanese, and the Viet Cong fought us and our allies gives lie to this comment of yours,

Citizens in totalitarian regimes have little loyalty; thats one reason you have mercenaries. Citizens in democracies have more to fight for and fight harder, IMHO.

Have you read much about the battle of Kursk?

Totalitarian regimes also lack any morality, so they fight heedless of death and destruction to civilian populations.

On the other hand, Roosevelt and Churchill delayed the Normandy invasion precisely because they wanted to do it when the odds of success were maximized, and casualties might be minimized -- precisely because of the factor I identified, i.e., the limited tolerance of the populace to whom these democratically elected leaders had to answer for massive casualties.

In WWII we eventually did develop something like the German/Russian ethos, but it took time. We had to become more like our enemies, hardened, fearless, remorseless killers. Witness the massive destruction of civilian populations across Germany and Japan we eventually brought about. But today, in hindsight, this is regarded as a controversial, perhaps even dark side of the way we fought WWII, and unusual, not our natural inclination. This did not come naturally to American boys and thier commanders. Ken Burns actually discusses this in his WWII documentary.

Our eventual all out approach to WWII was unusual for us, in addition to this phenomenon taking time. How successful have we been in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan against those soldiers serving totalitatarian regimes? Were we willing to wage the kind of all out war that Stalin, Hitler and the Allies eventually fought in WWII?

In the Civil War, actually, it took a long time for the North to develop any kind of killer instinct it needed to win. Look at the Army of the Potomac's repeated failures despite more manpower and technology. It took Grant and Sherman, and they still were not as ruthless or efficient as the Wehrmacht (despite the Southern lore, Sherman didn't really shed much or any civilian blood, and he tried to avoid violence against civilains). Maybe more to the point, still, the South didn't employ the types of guerilla tactics that might have enabled it to win, fighting on its own soil and defending a vast region.

This is somewhat off point, but you do realize that in 410 a Visigoth army of about 30,000 sacked Rome, the most important city amid a civilization of millions with substantially more wealth and literacy (and freedoms) than the Germanic tribes.

Your humble opinion is just that. Very sentimental and lacking evidentiary support.

But there's nothing wrong with the way we are. We're morally better.

[Jeff Lebowski]

In WWII we eventually did develop something like the German/Russian ethos, but it took time. We had to become more like our enemies, hardened, fearless, remorseless killers. Witness the massive destruction of civilian populations across Germany and Japan we eventually brought about. But today, in hindsight, this is regarded as a controversial, perhaps even dark side of the way we fought WWII, and unusual, not our natural inclination. This did not come naturally to American boys and thier commanders. Ken Burns actually discusses this in his WWII documentary.

Our eventual all out approach to WWII was unusual for us, in addition to this phenomenon taking time. How successful have we been in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan against those soldiers serving totalitatarian regimes? Were we willing to wage the kind of all out war that Stalin, Hitler and the Allies eventually fought in WWII?

In the Civil War, actually, it took a long time for the North to develop any kind of killer instinct it needed to win. Look at the Army of the Potomac's repeated failures despite more manpower and technology. It took Grant and Sherman, and they still were not as ruthless or efficient as the Wehrmacht (despite the Southern lore, Sherman didn't really shed much or any civilian blood, and he tried to avoid violence against civilains). Maybe more to the point, still, the South didn't employ the types of guerilla tactics that might have enabled it to win, fighting on its own soil and defending a vast region.

Good points. You are right about Sherman.

When the Japanese invaded China they intentionally bombed cities, causing massive civilian casualties. The US and allies were outraged and called it a horrific war crime, unprecedented among civilized nations. Just a few years later we were firebombing Tokyo and Osaka and then vaporizing Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Times had changed.

[Jarid in Cedar]

Good points. You are right about Sherman.

When the Japanese invaded China they intentionally bombed cities, causing massive civilian casualties. The US and allies were outraged and called it a horrific war crime, unprecedented among civilized nations. Just a few years later we were firebombing Tokyo and Osaka and then vaporizing Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Times had changed.

I think some of the attitudes changed as we came to realize the extreme measures that the Japanese would undertake in defense of their homeland. Operation Downfall was conservatively estimated to cost 1 million American lives. After the experience with the kamikazi's around Okinawa(which Japan considered part of the homeland chain), I think American commanders realized that estimate was too low. In many ways, the experiences of Okinawa was the tipping point in the decision to drop Little Boy and Fat Man

[SeattleUte]

Good points. You are right about Sherman.

When the Japanese invaded China they intentionally bombed cities, causing massive civilian casualties. The US and allies were outraged and called it a horrific war crime, unprecedented among civilized nations. Just a few years later we were firebombing Tokyo and Osaka and then vaporizing Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Times had changed.

Correct.

Now I realize I failed to cite the most obvious support for my point, right beneath our noses. How many of us here "citizens in democracies" have demonstrated that becaue we "have more to fight for" we "fight harder" (I'm quoting concerned) by ourselves elisting in the army, or patriotically sending our sons and daughters to enlist. The U.S. has done away with the draft, and our armies are now disproportionately populated by men and women who joined because they lacked other more attractive economic opportunities. As America's wealth and freedoms have increased, noblesse oblige is virtually now a thing of the past, and military service is something mostly left by those with "the most to fight for" to the less privileged classes.

[happyone]

Correct.

Now I realize I failed to cite the most obvious support for my point, right beneath our noses. How many of us here "citizens in democracies" have demonstrated that becaue we "have more to fight for" we "fight harder" (I'm quoting concerned) by ourselves elisting in the army, or patriotically sending our sons and daughters to enlist. The U.S. has done away with the draft, and our armies are now disproportionately populated by men and women who joined because they lacked other more attractive economic opportunities. As America's wealth and freedoms have increased, noblesse oblige is virtually now a thing of the past, and military service is something mostly left by those with "the most to fight for" to the less privileged classes.

raises hand

About fighting harder - Max Hastings in his book Inferno opines that the totalarian regimes had much better infantry than the democracies - mainly due to coercion, ie if you don't press the attack you the powers that be shot you, so you have a better chance of surviving going forward. The numbers that both the Germans and the Soviets shot for cowardness is amazing. As a general rule the democracy's infantry would not press an attack in the face of stiff opposition. They would go to ground and call in arty or TAC air. Of course were are exceptions to this (Marines, Rangers etc)

Micheal Jones in his book Total War, quotes a young Russian machine gunner about fighting hard. Paraphrasing he said, What choice did I have - If I go back they will shot me, if I surrender the Germans will kill me, I have a better chance of surviving by fighting.

Both are excellent books by the way, I highly recommend both

SU, on the question if Stalin could have won the war on his own, I think you are discounting the effect the Lend-Lease had on Stalin ability to wage war. I've read some people I respect that opine that without the Studebaker truck (6x6) Stalin would not have been able to supply his armies and thereby would have lost. There is no question however that most of the fighting and dying was done on the Steppes of the Ukraine and Russia. The German order of battle in June 1944 shows that there were 59 German divisions in the France and the Low Countries and 29 in Italy with 163 on the Eastern Front and a further 46 scattered around the German "Empire".

Just an anecdote my brother told me about the intensity of the fighting between the two fronts. When he was assigned to the 3rd ID in the mid '80's they were teamed up with the German 7th Panzer as a sister Division. He went to some activities with veterans of the 7th. He said that the German Vets told him they considered fighting the Americans a "vacation" after fighting in Russia.

Oh and I agree on Point Du Hoc (see avatar) and the Cemetery at Coleville. I think everyone should visit both if they ever have a chance! I was also impressed with the AMC at Cambridge.

[LA Ute]

Quick hits:

Pointe du Hoc is a great story. Reagan's speech to the survivors in 1984 or so is a classic. Available on YouTube.

"April 1865" by Jay Winik tells the story of how the South's guerrilla units considered extending the war but decided not to, in a very American fashion. (The South really didn't have a central command, and Lee's surrender was only for the Army of Northern Virginia.) Had the guerrillas decided to keep fighting the war would have lasted much longer.

[SeattleUte]

Quick hits:

Pointe du Hoc is a great story. Reagan's speech to the survivors in 1984 or so is a classic. Available on YouTube.

"April 1865" by Jay Winik tells the story of how the South's guerrilla units considered extending the war but decided not to, in a very American fashion. (The South really didn't have a central command, and Lee's surrender was only for the Army of Northern Virginia.) Had the guerrillas decided to keep fighting the war would have lasted much longer.

The South could well have one the war.

[SeattleUte]

raises hand

About fighting harder - Max Hastings in his book Inferno opines that the totalarian regimes had much better infantry than the democracies - mainly due to coercion, ie if you don't press the attack you the powers that be shot you, so you have a better chance of surviving going forward. The numbers that both the Germans and the Soviets shot for cowardness is amazing. As a general rule the democracy's infantry would not press an attack in the face of stiff opposition. They would go to ground and call in arty or TAC air. Of course were are exceptions to this (Marines, Rangers etc)

Micheal Jones in his book Total War, quotes a young Russian machine gunner about fighting hard. Paraphrasing he said, What choice did I have - If I go back they will shot me, if I surrender the Germans will kill me, I have a better chance of surviving by fighting.

Both are excellent books by the way, I highly recommend both

SU, on the question if Stalin could have won the war on his own, I think you are discounting the effect the Lend-Lease had on Stalin ability to wage war. I've read some people I respect that opine that without the Studebaker truck (6x6) Stalin would not have been able to supply his armies and thereby would have lost. There is no question however that most of the fighting and dying was done on the Steppes of the Ukraine and Russia. The German order of battle in June 1944 shows that there were 59 German divisions in the France and the Low Countries and 29 in Italy with 163 on the Eastern Front and a further 46 scattered around the German "Empire".

Just an anecdote my brother told me about the intensity of the fighting between the two fronts. When he was assigned to the 3rd ID in the mid '80's they were teamed up with the German 7th Panzer as a sister Division. He went to some activities with veterans of the 7th. He said that the German Vets told him they considered fighting the Americans a "vacation" after fighting in Russia.

Oh and I agree on Point Du Hoc (see avatar) and the Cemetery at Coleville. I think everyone should visit both if they ever have a chance! I was also impressed with the AMC at Cambridge.

Good post. And good for you reading Inferno. It's on my pile.

I think a sublime backstory of WWII is these American boys thrown into the European and Asian bloodlands -- relatively naive and quite clueless about the Old World pathologies that led to this titanic conflict and not at all the hardened killers or seasoned fighters they would be fighting, nor with a natural disposition to become such -- eventually becoming what they had to be to save Western Europe and democratic Asia, and then returning to their farms, schoolhouses, and factories and leading decent quiet lives. Tom Hanks' last words in Saving Private Ryan -- "earn it" -- may be my favorite in cinema, and still give me an emotional reaction.