Regardless of Iwo Jima, I think the US Marine reputation built in the PTO was well justified. Except for the CBI front, it was the Marines that did the bulk of the fighting, and the US could not have won without them. The Army would have needed extensive retraining in order to carry out amphibious ops. But the US Army has nothing to feel embarrassed about; the ETO was their war, just as the PTO was the Marines'.

This topic always results in heated discussions about who had the best troops.
Here are a few facts. After WW2, the US Army was so impressed by the way German troops had performed in NWE, that they commisioned some in depth research into German combat effectiveness. They discovered that MAN FOR MAN, the German soldier in Normany inflicted casualties on the Allies in a ratio of one & a half to one (i.e. if you want to look at it this way, each German soldier was worth one & one half Allied soldiers). The Germans lost the war in NWE due to Allied air & artillery superiority specifically & out-production generally.

If we look at the BoB for a moment, we see that 14th Cavalry did a bunk, & two regiments from the 106th ID (US) were surrounded & surrendered after two days. Incidentally this surprised some of the Germans present who had fought on the Eastern Front, as they were used to being surrounded in winter conditions, & in some cases had used the "moving pocket" tactic, where a surrounded unit continued, despite being behind enemy lines, to push westward towards it's own lines. However, it would be wrong to take these actions as indicative of US combat efficiency (even in the Bulge). This is because 106th ID was a "green" unit fresh from the States. It was a recently raised unit which had not had a chance to form any real esprit de corps. It was dropped in the isolated Ardennes region, in bad weather, & it was generally ineffectively led (despite the fact that the two regimental commanders were career soldiers). After the surrender, many men of the units involved tore off their insignia, ashamed of how easily they had given in. But this illustrates how important the morale factor is in combat. A soldier who has confidence in his officers & his weapons, & believes in what he is fighting for will always perform better than a "placeman". This is not necessarily linked to training (although training helps); after all the American riflemen in the War of Inpedendence were not trained militia (though they were frontiersmen), yet they were capable of independent effective combat. To return to the BoB, Peipers men were frequently held up by isolated groups of US soldiers, who fought their own private battle to stop him. Many of these soldiers were not first line combat troops, they were in many cases engineers, who took the decision to stay & blow a vital bridge which prevented Peipers advance, until he ran out of petrol.

Just to balance the account, 130,000 Commonwealth soldiers surrendered at Singapore. They outnumbered the Japanese 2 - 1, & the Japs were almost out of ammunition. However, because of the rapid Japanese advance through Malaya, these men thought they were beaten, so they were.




Sorry, I can't agree with this generalisation either. US research has proved that in ANY combat unit, by far the majority of the fighting falls on a few individuals, the rest just make up the numbers. The US research discovered that around 95% of combat soldiers (I mean the REAL combat soldiers who saw the enemy face to face) suffered some kind of what we would call Post Traumatic Stress or similar psycological disorders. The other 5% showed no symptoms. To put it crudely, the research concluded that combat drives every one nuts in some way, except for the 5% mentioned, who were bonkers already! Significantly, a high percentage of soldiers who performed heroic deeds belonged to the 5%. (I'm doing this from memory, so the %ages may be slightly out.) This would not have been a surprise 100 years before; research after the US Civil War showed that troops almost never actually indulged in bayonet fighting, one side or the other would usually turn before it got that far, & that some soldiers during a battle never fired their rifles, although they did continue to load them - muzzle-loaded weapons were picked up from the battlefield with up to five balls down the barrel - the soldier had continued to load his weapon, but never fired it! Anecdotal evidence indicates that this also happened in the Napoleonic Wars amongst others.

Examination of British Commonwealth soldiers winning the VC, shows that most had some sort of inbuilt feeling of responsibility, irrespective of rank; this was not instilled by army training.

Country of origin definitely affected soldiers performance during WW2, & this was noted by their enemies also. For example, the Germans considered the British lacklustre in attack, but dogged in defence ( a trait that Napoleon would no doubt agree with). The Americans showed more dash in attack, the Germans thought, but were over reliant on tank & artillery support, & tended to use material superiority rather than take knocks, also they were too fond of the frontal attack & loath to manoeuver. By contrast, the Allies were very respectful (perhaps over respectful) of German capabilities. The Germans were impressed with Polish troops in 1939. In Russia they varied between contempt & awe. Most Germans considered the Russians to be much harder troops than their Western counterparts. Interestingly, Allied units respect for German mortar use was mirrored by a German respect for the Soviets in this field. As far as the Italians were concerned some units fought well. Contemporary British accounts show that Italian artillery units nearly always fought well. Rommel's Desert Army was always made up of more Italian troops than German, & they fought well despite being handicapped by poor equipment. The Bersaglieri (light infantry) & Alpini(mountain troops) were crack units, with a high esprit de corps dating back to the foundation of the Italian state in the mid 1800s.
Allied troops tended to regard the Japanese as "fanatical". The Japanese coped with jungle living much better than European soldiers, & like the Russian, was more hardened to privations.

Funny, I always thought it was called the "fried egg", due to it's general shape & colours.

[quote]


An important thing to keep in mind here is that the Russians (unlike the Americans) were defending their homeland against a direct invasion by a hostile, extremely aggressive invader on their own soil....could have something to do with the ferocity with which they did so. Once the island hopping started coming close to home, the same could be said of the Japanese soldiers--regardless of who initiated the conflict, once the fighting started getting very close to home, reaching Japanese soil at Iwo Jima, the Japanese quite expectedly fought with a remarkable, fanatical determination against what they perceived as an aggressive invader....no wonder they were "harder" troops. One wonders how American soldiers would have fought had they been doing so on their own soil.....very likely with a fervor scarcely imaginable.

I have to agree with that last statement Rory. Look at what the American Civil War sodlier did. The ferocity of the fighting, putting up with the misery ad deprevation. And again when the West was being settled against the finest light cavalry in the world...the American Plains Indians. Woe betide anyone who thought they could invade the American homeland and have us roll over like a couple of countries in Europe did in WW2

Quite untrue. The American line broke in the Ardennes, and the troops retreated en masse. The only thing that stopped the Germans was lack of fuel, giving the 101st and other US reserve units the chance to use the lull to move up to Bastogne and other strongpoints. Even then, the Germans were unable to use their panzer groups to crush the defenders because they hadn't fuel.

This has to be the biggest myth about the Bulge. The bulk of the troops falling back were ordered to and this caused others to flee. Many who paniced were new and poorly trained. Look up the battles fought around Krinkelt and Rocherath. The Americans held their ground against the 12th SS, no air cover, just anti-tank guns and Sherman tanks. It was veteran US infantry. The US 7th Armored reached the fighting soon enough for them to lose men at Malmedy on the 17th. It was this armored unit that secured St.Vith and held out long enough for the airborne to get to the front. These are not myths, read the German accounts at the time. With the shoulders of the penetration holding, the center reinforced faster than the German's could (10 armored at Bastone before the 101) they were doomed before they ran out of gas. Peiper was not resuplied because those US troops were kicking the butts of his follow on forces. Why did Peiper keep changing his route. Our pioneers kept blowing up the bridges, and establishing blocking points. Some held, others were over whelmed. The Germans discovered that the US Army could be very swift to react and very mobile. The real tragedy was putting Monty in charge of half the battle and squandering this ability.

A common myth I've heard in Australia and around the world is:

"If we hadn't won the war, we would all be speaking German."

There are two things wrong with this statement.

1. Since when is an invaded country forced to speak the invaders language? France was occupied for 4 years and not forced to speak the German language.

2. The saying is commonly used here in Australia by 'uneducated' history teachers. If we were to be speaking any language it would be Japanese. The Germans were never a direct threat to the Australians during WW2. Today, the war in Europe far overshadows the Pacific War and the real Japanese threat to Australia is not recognised as much here.

Chas

Regardless of whether units were ordered to retreat or simply ran, or whether individual units on the shoulders held, the fact of the matter was that the American line broke. The British and Indian troops on the Malayan Peninsula were ordered to retreat and ordered to surrender at Singapore. Does this make 'em the equal of the Japanese soldiers, simply because the retreat was ordered? Of course not; the Japanese were better, which was why retreat was ordered. My point about the Bulge was that once the factor of air support was taken away, the Germans were superior to the Americans (and other Allies as well; I suspect some of you Yanks are taking this personally). I'm not saying the Germans had a walk in the park -- of course there was resistance and delaying tactics, but none of them would have been of any use if he had the fuel to properly manouver. And what attacks on Peiper's supply lines? He outran his supply lines.

Yes, engineers did a good job of blowing bridges, etc, but that's irrelevant to the discussion of man-to-man quality.

I think some of you guys have mistaken this for a debate on who won the Battle of the Bulge -- it isn't, there's no debate there. I just used the bulge as an example to prove a point.

Your right David, the Japanese were better trained, better equipped and in a better strategic position in Malaya than the Commonwealth forces. The Germans in the Battle of the Bulge were not necessarily better trained or equipped than the Americans (which could be subject to discussion), but they were definitely under better strategic position and thus able to drive Yankie back.

Chas

Two of the three Japanese divisions in Malaya were combat experienced (the Imperial Guards were the odd ones out and guess who performed the worst). This made a big difference against the inexperienced British Empire forces.

The Japanese in addition to this had over 200 tanks against none and total air superiority. Percival also had the behaviour of the IJA at Nanjing as a pointer of what might happen if they stormed Singapore city. Which is why he opted for surrender before that could happen.

David

My point exactly. It was the quality of the troops.

Myths: the second atom bomb wasn´t necessary & neither was the bombing of Dresden; but of course it was, a few more wouldn´t have gone amiss either. Basic rule of conflict when somebody gives you a bloody nose & doesn´t fight by any established rules;when gaining the upper-hand,put the boot in!! so they don´t get up. Chivalry is something considered honourable but it´s downright selfish when others depend upon the result of whether you win or lose. The Japanese came off lightly considering.

You, of course, know that the bombing campaign over Germany and Japan were/are considered war crimes according to international law. If they were committed by the Axis powers, the perpetrators would have been executed after the war.
There was no military gain in bombing German cities, other than murdering as many people as possible; the same can be said about the firestorms unleashed over Tokyio and other cities. (And didn't achieve their goal of break the morale, btw.) The Japaneese were close to surrender nuclear weapons or not -and a simple demonstration, for what the scientists at Manhattan project begged for, would have been enough. Read some contemporary history books. (Your local library has probably a good selection of them. And read Vonegut. He was in Hamburg at the time, and he has some interesting insight into the bombing.)
This kind of argument is called "the slippery slope". If you stop playing by the rules, you become the same evil you are fighting against.
EDITED

"A taste of their own medicine" springs to mind, as well as "fight fire with fire". If my culture,race,civilizacion depended on the way I fought for it ,there would be no monument for a chivalrous loser in my name. Since the begining of flight has there ever been a war where civilians haven´t been objectives (or any other war for that matter). By the way how many people actually know that it was Winston Chuchill who first suggested dropping chemical agents on the Kurds. The survivors of Dresden, Hiroshima & Nagasaki should have been made to see what their armed forces had done. No wait the Germans are fully aware of what happened before but to this day the Japanese are not being taught these facts of history in their schools. By the way I read "slaughter-house 5" by Kurt Vonnegut, good literature but hardly an objective historical account. It was thanks to the Nuremburg trials that the "just followed orders" defence was no longer (& still isn´t) viable for war crimes, but fact remains that axis & allied air-crew charged as such are documented where?? how many executions??

I can only repeat: if you violate the ethical, and legal laws using these comfortable "fight fire with fire" arguments, you become the same -or worse- monster you are fighting. Not to mention it stands against every single principles of the civilized world. You really should read Vonnegut -he has some real eye-opening books on ethics.

(Churchill was a monster, by the way, as the whole British Empire. "Fight for freedom" while they conducted a racist and murderous rule in their colonies... They did use poison gas in the '20. Even their conduct in Ireland was shameful.)

Now you are treading the thin ice of the deep,deep cold lake because I can tell you now that the history books in your local library are probably sanitized,pacified, even warped politically correct versions of true history. A few points I´d like to make clear :Check what I edited in my previous post about Vonnegut ,hardly a deep thinking messiah.Would it have been the same book if he was half-Russian German? At least Churchill beat the shot out of Hitler,Mussolini & Stalin in the good guy stakes.Which was the first country to abolish slavery? How many black front-line infantry units did the U.S. have in WWII As for the "conduct in Ireland " from the independance of the Republic; be careful what you read & believe, I´ve been there ,I know .Maybe you should see what you can find to read about the Kennedy clan,from Joseph right up to Jean(former Ambassador). I want to make it clear here that the best boss I ever had in the army was Irish, from the republic & catholic too. In my time I found a lot more just like him.You should try asking him about shame-ful actions;he was quite knowledgable on the subject .As youré in the states you could try asking a marine WWII veteran if Japan was on its knees were the atom bombs necessary. Is it fair to judge the past with 21st century ethics? I don´t want to bore any body here so I´ll finish off with an old saying "people who live in glass houses shouldn´t throw stones" !!!!!!!!! I can´t resist putting that somebody had to" fight dirty" for your freedom & some have died too!!!!!!!!

It's painfully obvious that you have strong opinions and that's great, However do some fact-checking prior to making broad statements about war crimes-
The Hague Conventions, addressing the codes of wartime conduct on land and at sea, were adopted before the rise of air power. Despite repeated diplomatic attempts to update international humanitarian law to include aerial warfare, it was not updated before the outbreak of World War II. The absence of positive international humanitarian law does not mean that the laws of war did not cover aerial warfare, but there was no general agreement of how to interpret those laws
-IN OTHER WORDS- NO WAR CRIME

I thought this thread was about the greatest myths, so my post was about what I think is a myth, not a soldier vs soldier discussion. The ability of the soldiers is not the same from one point to the next. The capabilities in Normandy, in all armies, were not the same as in the Ardennes. If you pick a point in time and ask who was better, it can be different than another point. For much of the war the German army had the advantage of a solid core of battle tested and capable NCO's. This became less of an advantage as their enemies also gained experience.




It was more that the follow on forces were unable to resupply Peiper, than he out ran his supplies. Semantics, but Peiper was not to his goal when he was stopped.

Our engineers are not relevant? Peiper might have disagreed. They are part of the over all man power picture, yes? So, who was his resupply fighting against, desperately, and unable to break through? Only after they failed to break through did Pieper abandon his vehicles and walk out. The US Army soldier was very effective there, around Stavelot. As good as the soldiers Peiper had.

1)Yes, you are right as I am sure many Vietnamese villagers who where touched by napalm would agree

2) Again you are right if only they had the shining example of how the native Indians were treated to set thier standards by.

3) Glad to see you learned from those mistakes made decades ago and I commend you on your excellent treatment of the Iraqi population/prisioners. (Don't take this as a dig at the army etc. , I've been there, I am just proving a point.)

If you go back in any countries history you can find all sort of things that are not acceptable by todays standards. It is the way the country moves forward that matters.

John
It's not strong opinion. (Unless you consider neutrality strong.)
Your argument "IN OTHER WORDS- NO WAR CRIME" makes the whole Nuenberg Trial unlawful, as many of the crimes there were, in fact, no crimes legally at the time. They were hanged using retroactive laws, stirring up controversy from day one.
Fact-checking might help to uncover the why legal basis was so shaky. So according to your rational these people were, in fact, innocent.

REMEARMR
Sorry to upset you, but the sad fact is, that after the Spanish and Portugeese, the British looted their way through the globe. As much as the Germans are always reminded to their role in the atrocities during the war, I think, it's important, to keep that in mind. (The Opium Wars, the Boxer Revolution, etc... shameful examples of a racist empire. Orwell started to write because of his experience in Siam. Remembering the past is very important, and not just the parts we like. The whole mess in Iraq, Iran, Paletine is also something that the old British Empire gave us all to enjoy. Not to mention that the Irish were slaughtered well into the '80s, which is hardly history -just ask Bono .) Just because I point out that the Empire was not exactly a very nice thing if you happened to be brown, does not mean I have anything against Great Britain. Condemning the terror bombings also does not mean pro-nazi sentiments. I abhore all atrocities regardless who committs them.

In Iraq the British troops had their share of atrocities, too, and this whole argument becomes meaningless, when I confess, that I am, in fact only working in the US as a researcher, and I'm not a citizen of the country. I'm happy to say I can see this whole spectacle from an outsider's point of view.

Spongya It would be interesting to know how old you are. It would also be interesting to know where you are from. It would also be interesting to know if you stick flowers in the gun barrels of your soldiers & tanks.By the way Bono is avidly anti IRA. Orwell once wrote eople sleep soundly in their beds at night because rough men are prepared to do violence on their behalf. I will say again somebody "fought dirty" & some died for the freedom that you live in, free to express your idealistic,pacifistic & moralistic views . when you are over 30 they will have eroded or dissappeared.

It should be noted that Hermann Goering called the Nuremberg trials "victor's justice", the victors trying the vanquished. And truth be told, he was right. The Soviets didn't want to bother with trials in the first place, but just summarily execute them all.

There were trials by the Soviets, at least in the occupied territories.

I'm sorry to contradict again, but the trials were held because Stalin INSISTED on "fair" trials. The Western Allies wanted the summary executions. (Look it up. Very strange twist of events.)
Did those bastards deserve to be hanged? With the exception of Jodl, sure thing. Many, many more would have deserved the same fate. (The trials would have been fair, to be honest, only if Allied "suspects", such as Bomber Harris had been put to trial -this would have been proven it wasn't a "victor's trial'. Also, as one American prosecutor remarked, these trials are only justified if the victors themselves don’t commit such acts in the future. Yeah, right. )

I am pretty sure that alot of Axis prisioners seemed to not return to their homes till along time after the war (if they were one of the few who did). This doesn't include the whole communities that were banished on his orders. And I seem to recall the Russian soldiers were not overly polite to the locals when they occupied areas near/inside Germany.