No one seems to have mentioned the geat 19th century 'land-grab' and the expansion of empire...Jim

John, I wouldn't say you were being sarcastic, I would say you were being very realistic and most of all, honest. I can''t remember how many times during an alert I shook my head and wondered just who was it that came up with these plans? Like I meantioned, we were expected to make the run from Bad Tolz to Augsburg, through the chaos of fleeing civilians, and attempting to deploy German, American, and some French units. (I don't believe there were any British units near us) in those oh so reliable M151A2s . In addition, we had no ammo except that which we had for our 45s, no M-60s, no 203s, radios that worked when they wanted to..We had no commo people in Tolz, (They were Augsburg and we seldom, if ever, seen them) we did have a worn out Ithica shotgun and a couple of M-16s..but then again..no ammo. We were expected to draw all of this from the company...Augsburg....well we did have some crusty rounds for the shotgun.

After reading Coyle's Team Yankee a few years later, when I got to the part of using the nukes. I wondered how long it would have been before the tactical nukes were used in our scenario? I have a feeling the answer would be "sooner than we thought". Although, I would have preferred to have been nuked than gased.

I think you're right John, it would have been a mess. I don't believe that the RDF would have made a difference either. I don't know if we could have held out that long.

I always had a lot of respect and sympathy for the folks in Fulda. I had a pretty good idea of what they could expect. We at least were given the luxury of a few hours....maybe. (Though I doubt it) In looking back, I think there was indeed, a general attitude of living each day as if it were your last.

This has been a good discussion, in both subjects.

Steve

I suppose I shouldn't labor a discussion that's really in the wrong thread (someone said something about World War I...?) but since I started the madness...

It occurs to me that NATO planning for a war in central Europe eventually devolved into something like the US plans to defend the Philippines before World War II.

The "Bataan Plan" (US-Philippino forces fall back to Bataan and hold out for the US Navy to reach them) was older than the war; in fact, MacArthur was supposed to fall back there to begin with, which he didn't, thereby potentially compromising it.

That said, the plan's very nature gives a sense of desparation, in abandoning most of the Philippines early on. I don't think the US Army was optimistic about the plan's success, but in the face of no other way of reconciling the defense of the philippines with the capabilities of US and Philippino forces (especially during the 'belt-tightening' years of the '30s), there was no other option that anybody in the War or Navy departments could come up with.

The fact that the United States abandoned the brave Philippinos and Americans in those islands during 1942 was tragic, but , even without the debacle at Pearl Harbor, the result was predictable. The only other option (and something the US was not prepared to do) was grant the Philippines independance, and hope the Japanese would recognize and respect their neutrality in a future war. The merits of that plan can be clearly debated on both sides. In short, it was an unsolveable problem, precisely the kind one tries, in war and peace, to lodge one's enemy into.

In a hypothetical fight in central Germany, politics dictated that the US, Uk, Belgium, Holland, and others could not deploy their troops further back. Beyond politics, the Bundeswehr could hardly be expected to abandon half of West Germany just to stay out of artillery and tactical airpower range of GSFG, since probably half of these troops lived in those districts, and yet could hardly be expected to try to defend these areas alone. To forward toward the IGB of course meant that really, only tattered remnants of units would be fighting on while REFORGER was underway. Seems crass, but politics are crass. Of course, take away politics, and a good deal more wars could be avoided, too!

Thus the saying and our realization that we were in fact, merely a speed bump for the Red Army.

Off topic still.

First, I was there in the times of high drug use, high racial tension, low unit strength (due to RVN levies or the down-sizing thereafter), etc. I'm not saying we weren't capable, but we had a lot of problems ....

There was a book -- I really wish I could remember the title, Red something -- that was one of those WW3 stories. Russkies come across, NATO defends, things are touch-and-go, but unskilled numbers begin to get upperhand. Decision must be made to go (tactical) nuclear to stop 'em --- and the Germans decline (couldn't waste own turf) !!!! Made for some very interesting considerations of our plans & assumptions.

John

Red Storm Rising.
Indeed, he was correct though about the training cycles from December until Spring and the state of the troops during this period. Especially those which were furthest from the border..at least that was my observation. My frame of reference in USAEUR is 1984-86. Before that was CONUS and a whole different world altogether.

Indeed, and was a major consideration in round two.

The book I believe you are referring to is Red Army, a novel by former intel officer and defense analyst Ralph Peters (he's still on the TV now and again--I think it's the same guy; sure sounds like him!) His case was that if everything went well for the Warsaw Pact--admittedly a big if--they could have won a limited though decisive victory, through a strategy of exploiting NATO's big weakness--a coalition war in which one partner didn't simply coerce the rest. Further, he demonstrates Soviet doctrine at it's best--presenting NATO with a series of mixed signals and insoluable problems through an elaborate, scientifically managed plan that, while not as flexible as NATO's, was flexible enough where it needed to be.

Peters' book was in the final analysis a criticism of NATO doctrine and politics, as well as the popular image in the west of the potential for World War III. His book was conciously non-technical (no constant parade of nomonclature--T-80s, M1s, etc), because he was more interested in the human element. Further, he felt that NATO was 'soft' because it allowed internal politics to weaken it's mission. So the book was, for it's time, a hard-nosed jeramiad proclaiming NATO's political weaknesses. While he acknowledges similar problems on the other side of the fence, he downplays Non-Soviet Warsaw Pact participation altogether.

I remember the book so quickly and vividly because it's one of my all-time favorite reads! Oh, Good heavens are we off topic.

Ahh...read Hemmingway's A Farewell to Arms, too! Good book that shows the horror and desparation of World War I....admittedly lame, but perhaps if gives the post some chance of relevancy.

Prof'F8:

Yup, Red Army it is. And Ralph Peters is still cranking out some thought-provoking stuff, more so (IMHO) than many other ex-military talking heads ever did.

You wouldn't happen to be in Carlisle ?

John

Wow, i guess il be staying up late tonight after all lol.
I realy like you input on this topic. not only am i personaly interested by history. european and military history, but i also wish to do good on my debate.

Forgive the long time it took for me to post, challenged sec.5 math and a lot of homework doesnt leave much time to read all the good stuff you guys commented.

Now, ive been assigned my country. i will be debating as russia. any good links or books i should be aware of to defend the country i represent.

please keep the posts i enjoy the topic as much as most of you folks reading also

Francois

EDIT: are there anything before the 1800's thats could relate to world war one? a conquest over a certain country? On monday were to recieve a portfolio with info on our country, and il be visiting hte library a visit. hopefully il find some info that wasnt posted and il share with you

When I first went to college, a History teacher made us break into groups, pick a major combatant from WWI, and then convince everyone else that your nation was not to blame. Being somewhat of a masochist, my group picked Serbia. Our presentation was a canned press conference, in which we pinned all the blame on one of Austria's ministers. We had the Serbian flag, a tape of the WWI-era Serbian national anthem (from the Yugoslav Embassy in DC), and while we didn't lie, we DID ignore quite a bit of evidence pointing at the Serbian government. Our conclusion was that there are too many factors to point at just one nation - they were all to blame.

Fascinating though it may be, can we keep the topic in THIS thread to the beginnings of WW1please?...Thanks, Jim

Francois:

Russia isn't my strong suit, but given the relationship of Russia to Serbia and Austria/Germany, you pretty much have the roots of the war.

I do not have any specific Russian-oriented" references, but I suspect the major general histories will provide you more than enough information and bibliographic data to chase down.

Some of these have been mentioned before
The Guns of August, Tuchman
The Great War, Terraine
The First World War, Gilbert
The First World War, Keegan
The First World War Vol I, Strachan **
The Myth of the Great War, Mosier **
The Pity of War, Ferguson **
** means I have, but have not read yet -- the last two may not be germane ....

Good Luck !
John

Frank,

Here are a few that deal with the late 1800s, the drive to gain empire, and a significant component to WWI.

The European Side (sort of)

The Rise and Fall of the British Empire
Lawerence James

A Generation of Materialism
Carlton Hayes (Dated but useful)

The British Imperial Century 1815-1914
Timothy Parsons

The Tools of Empire: Technology and European Imperialism in the 19th Century
Daniel Headrick

European Imperialism
Alice Conklin and Ian Fletcher ( A collection of papers)

Sorry I've nothing really on Germany or other continental states......I should fix that.

For Russia
the only one I can suggest off hand is :
The Last Czar
Edvard Radzinsky

One other..more of analysis of the era as a whole, but again, useful for understanding the war.
The Literature of the Great War Reconsidered Beyond Modern Memory
Patrick Quinn
Steven Trout (A friend of mine)


Of course, there are titles regarding the American Imperial era and if you'd like them, let me know.

Steve

Thanks guys, il be able to know what to look for now

more great info is more than welcomed!
Frank