PTSD in the einsatzgruppen

Forgetful Coyote

Forgetful Coyote

Sergeant
Full Member
Minuteman
Dec 13, 2011
5,046
4,802
Georgia
#1
Wasnt sure where else to put this and sirhr will probably be most fit to answer.. but anyway, does anyone know if PTSD symptoms, mental breakdown, etc was more common in einsatzgruppen troops than traditional kraut troops fighting on the frontline? Any chance yall could point me in the direction of good accounts on the aftermath/effects on the troops who carried out and committed such atrocities? And for troops who were able to carry out such acts without mental repercussions, were they psychopaths regardless or did their upbringing in Hitler Youth-type stuff play a bigger role?
 
#4
Coyote... while not exactly PTSD as we would think of it today, yes, members of the Einsatzgruppen (special action squads) tasked with extermination of Untermenchen did suffer from having to, literally, shoot hundreds (some thousands) of people. After a short time, they were found to be, essentially, no longer able to function. A few did manage to deal with the mass killing. But likely as not, they had more issues than Readers Digest before they became executioners. As I recall, an incident that highlighted the problems with 'up close' executions involved, Himmler himself who went to witness an execution. He was splattered with blood and brain material when a point-blank execution was performed in front of him. He was violently ill (an embarrassment in front of his SS men). And went away with the idea that there needed to be a more 'sterile' way to perform what became known as The Final Solution (the Holocaust.)

His (and others') ideas were discussed at what became known as the Wansee Conference, where high-ranking Nazi officials started to develop the plans for the industrialized extermination of Jews and others who were not judged 'Aryan' enough. And shooting was considered inefficient. Industrial processes were, ultimately, needed.

I've not read Richard Rhodes "Masters of Death" on the Einsatzgruppen and the invention of the Holocaust. But I have read some of Rhodes other books which are all superlative. His book The Making of the Atomic Bomb is a classic of non-fiction technical literature and brilliantly-researched. Rhodes is a superb writer. I would suggest starting there. In fact, I am going to order a copy, because I like reading Rhodes.

After that, read House and Glantz books on the Russian Front.

Hope that helps.

Of note, if the Germans had left their Einsatzgruppen at home, they would have probably found close allies in the Ukraine, Belorussia, etc. These Baltic states hated Soviet rule and initially welcomed the Germans as liberators. If the Germans had exploited these areas economically and helped the farmers, etc. in those areas modernize, automate, mechanize, etc. they could have had their Lebensraum, massive agricultural and economic power... and very close allies. But racial purity theories put all these Slavs into the Untermenchen category... fit not for economic development and partnership... but for extermination and genocide. Stupid. But the Bohemian Corporal and his henchmen never were that bright, were they? Cunning, perhaps. But not that bright.

Cheers,

Sirhr



 
#5
Veer_G said:
You're getting too old to eat Zigeunerschnitzel after 9. Take a Pepcid and go pee. Oh, wait, my bad, I meant Balkanschnitzel.
Click to expand...

Zigeunerschnitzel is the ONLY schnitzel. Schnitzel master race.

It better be literally a game of find it in the sea of peppers and sauce too; none of this, let me throw what looks like spaghetti sauce on top of it shit.

I'm also not up to pee at 3, I'm also partially looking for Albanians on the way to the kitchen and/or hallway bathroom.
 
#7
I've wondered about this very topic regarding isis and their executions. That might work for a short time but you can't sustain that type of brutality without your soldiers reaching a breaking point.
 
#9
In todays world where History can be what ever libtards want it to be perhaps it is correct to call the einsatzgruppen troops. But, the way I understand it from my father and others who were there, the einsatzgruppen were not troops more like some kind of police force with no judical oversight. I was also told that considering the ethics of the time the Luftwaffe, the Wehrmacht fought as honorably as Americans or British did, as least on the western front. IMO calling the einsatzgruppen troops is a way of taring the guilt for their actions onto a lot of people who had nothing to do with them.

You might have heard from some old people that the 1930's were hard in America. Look how many people died building the Hover dam, but hundereds more were lined up to take the $.50/hr job. Consider that repariations made the 1930's much harder in Germany. This produced hard people who could do hard things.
 
Last edited:
#10
atomic41 said:
I've wondered about this very topic regarding isis and their executions. That might work for a short time but you can't sustain that type of brutality without your soldiers reaching a breaking point.
Click to expand...

I belive that ISIS head choppers are sexual sadists who get wood doing what they do, and like pedo's there is one way to stop them.
 
#12
atomic41 said:
I've wondered about this very topic regarding isis and their executions. That might work for a short time but you can't sustain that type of brutality without your soldiers reaching a breaking point.
Click to expand...

Yes and no.

The core difference is for the most part, the squads consisted of 'normal' (loosely used term here) people that were more or less raised like normal people. For one reason or another, ranging from what they felt was duty, lack of judgement, anger or fear of what would happen if they didn't carry their orders out, they killed and more or less knew it was wrong and immoral.

Most eastern born 'rural' Muslims, especially the 2 generations that have grown up while we have been at war are actually 'educated' that white men/Christians/United States/western civilization is the actual devil. They don't know better; its like being told the grass is blue since you were 2 and it being reinforced the entire time until someone tells you when you are 20 that the grass is green. Bullshit, it's blue.

Add the whole virgins and will of allah bullshit as well as being promised countless rewards for killing the infidel, the amount of moral objection felt is next to nothing.
 
#13
Diver: I think your assessment is quite correct. The Einsatzgruppen were not Wehrmacht soldiers at all. They were SS paramilitaries, to use today's parlance. And were, IIRC, formed by Heydrich. Who was not all there in the head to begin with. The Einsatzgruppen weren't fighting on a front line. They showed up after the hard work was done and began cleaning house in rear areas. Rounding up, exporting soon-to-be-slaves, looting everything not nailed down in the name of the Reich and killing those whose land they wanted... and whose grandmothers prayed to the wrong scroll. Their very name "deployment squads" or "Special Action Squads" implied something outside normal warfare or soldiers.

To call them soldiers or troops is a stretch bordering, IMHO, on an insult.

That said, later in the war, the SS fielded a number of superb divisions which caused much damage and destruction to Allied Forces while fighting in a traditional soldiers role. But the SS was a 'big tent' organization with many tentacles and many functions. And there was a lot of friction between the traditional German armed forces (Wehrmacht, Kriegsmarine and Luftwaffe) and the SS. And at times the SS leadership was almost certainly looking to supplant the Wehrmacht with their own 'racially pure' version of an Army made up of SS.

But death squads should never be compared to soldiers... whatever their uniform or nationality.

Sirhr

 
#15
sirhrmechanic said:
Diver: I think your assessment is quite correct. The Einsatzgruppen were not Wehrmacht soldiers at all. They were SS paramilitaries, to use today's parlance. And were, IIRC, formed by Heydrich. Who was not all there in the head to begin with. The Einsatzgruppen weren't fighting on a front line. They showed up after the hard work was done and began cleaning house in rear areas. Rounding up, exporting soon-to-be-slaves, looting everything not nailed down in the name of the Reich and killing those whose land they wanted... and whose grandmothers prayed to the wrong scroll. Their very name "deployment squads" or "Special Action Squads" implied something outside normal warfare or soldiers.

To call them soldiers or troops is a stretch bordering, IMHO, on an insult.

That said, later in the war, the SS fielded a number of superb divisions which caused much damage and destruction to Allied Forces while fighting in a traditional soldiers role. But the SS was a 'big tent' organization with many tentacles and many functions. And there was a lot of friction between the traditional German armed forces (Wehrmacht, Kriegsmarine and Luftwaffe) and the SS. And at times the SS leadership was almost certainly looking to supplant the Wehrmacht with their own 'racially pure' version of an Army made up of SS.

But death squads should never be compared to soldiers... whatever their uniform or nationality.

Sirhr
Click to expand...

Would you say the SS ever fielded soldiers that performed better in general than the Wermacht? Ive read that early on, the Waffen SS went into many of the early battles extremely overconfident and suffered massive losses but got better as time went on, survival of the fittest and all.
 
#16
Honestly, Coyote, I can't say. Certainly the SS groups were pretty motivated and, for lack of a better word, committed to their Fuhrer, as bats***t crazy as he was. But the Wehrmacht folks were, ultimately, professional soldiers.

But I'd argue that the Wehrmacht had better leadership as the German officer corps was one of the best trained in the world. Utterly professional. The SS were... racially pure... if you believe that crap. And being a student of Clausewitz, Dhouet and Sun Tsu trumped being blonde and uncircumcised, IMHO. Sort of like comparing the U.S. Army of professional officers, NCO's and troopers... to North Korean conscripts and buddies of Kim Jong Nutball. Who do you think is going to win a fight?

But that's a tough question....

Cheers,

Sirhr
 
#17
[IMG2=JSON]{"data-align":"none","data-size":"full","src":"https:\/\/www.snipershide.com\/shooting\/core\/webkit-fake-url:\/\/B260E330-B26F-428D-8110-784DC4F2A4F8\/File-Map_of_participants_in_World_War_II.png"}[/IMG2]


Keep in mind that eighty million Germans fought everything in green almost to a standstill, and in reality only Hitlers bad decisions in weapons development and on the Eastren front allowed the allies to gain the upper hand.

OK first attempt to post a pic did not work, lets try again:
 

Attachments

  • Map_of_participants_in_World_War_II.png
    Map_of_participants_in_World_War_II.png
    143.8 KB · Views: 45
Last edited:
#18
diverdon said:
[IMG2=JSON]{"data-align":"none","data-size":"full","src":"https:\/\/www.snipershide.com\/shooting\/core\/webkit-fake-url:\/\/B260E330-B26F-428D-8110-784DC4F2A4F8\/File-Map_of_participants_in_World_War_II.png"}[/IMG2]


Keep in mind that eighty million Germans fought everything in green almost to a standstill, and in reality only Hitlers bad decisions in weapons development and on the Eastren front allowed the allies to gain the upper hand.

OK first attempt to post a pic did not work, lets try again:
Click to expand...

Picture aside, that is a great point. The Leadership, in a binary decision situation, always made the wrong decision.

But ultimately, it came down to a lot of factors. And an almost-landlocked country with almost no internal resources could never have beaten the combined armies of the North American Continent (and that includes USA and Canada) once the industrial fires got stoked.

Read Richard Overy's "Why the Allies Won" and you can see the foregone conclusion.

But that does not mean Germany could not have inflicted some real damage before capitulation. Which, really, is what happened.

From a logistical and numeric standpoint, WW2 was a foregone conclusion before it really started. Germany and Japan had no chance without some really interesting twists... most of those twists revolving around the idea that they could consolidate economic and resource gains before invoking a powerful enemy... Which they both failed to do. If Japan had stopped before Pearl Harbour... set its sights into China and resource islands without 'awaking the sleeping giant...' they could have become an imperial powerhouse. If Germany had waited 3 - 4 years to build its Navy (sub service in particular) they would have been hard to stop.

But both got aggressive/political/cocksure... early. And paid with their defeat.

It came down to production, population and ability to crush isolated, landlocked nations. Germany being 'landlocked' on a continent. Japan being an island. It was decided before it started.

Read Overy.

Also Tooze, Wages of Destruction.

Damn it's getting harder to do this from memory as I get old and feeble.

Cheers,

Sirhr
 
#19
Well, as always sirhr, pleasure talking to ya! Thanks for the replies yall...
You think America could pull off a victory like what we did in the Pacific again, trudging on battle after battle and then annihilating thousands upon thousands of enemy civilians at the finish, but in the modern age with all the gutless wonders we got today?
 
#20
I won't speculate on the initial part of your question except to say that we have spent trillions on defense to help our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines take on our enemies with all the aplomb of killing baby seals. And the new sheriff in the SecDef's office is going to make sure they are allowed to do just that, IMHO.

Forgetful Coyote said:
(snip)with all the gutless wonders we got today?
Click to expand...


As for this part of your question... keep in mind that WW2 was not all skittles and beer when it came to bravery and commitment to the cause, greatest generation legends not withstanding.

There were draft dodgers. Zoot suit riots. Profiteers. A massive black market (some estimates were that the 'black market' economy equalled or exceeded the rationed economy.) There were Conscientious objectors and protesters (though not in great numbers.) There were troops who refused to fight and several mutinies. City councils in coastal cities refused to observe blackouts during the early years of the war, resulting in thousands of sailors being lost due to torpedoings (turning off the lights would have hurt business in NY, Boston, Miami, etc...). And by 1945, there was massive discontent at the length of the war and cost... and had the casualties come in from Downfall... there was a good chance that Japan would have gotten a negotiated settlement (Read Franks Operation Downfall). This was only averted by the dropping of the Atomic bombs which ended things fast and, arguably, before the population in the U.S. could act-out their war-weariness on the street or at the ballot box.

Remember that the U.S. was really only engaged in WW2 3.5 years. And was on the defensive for only about a year of that. After that, it was War of the Worlds and we were the Martians. England, Canada, Australia... were involved for 7 full years much of it on the defensive. China and parts of Asia were engaged for 12 years or more, entirely on the defensive.

How do you think the Greatest Generation would have behaved if they had to endure what England endured?

I've said it before and I'll say it again. I don't like the term Greatest Generation. Because every generation has its greatest... and its losers. The Vietnam generation contributed some 2 million troops to the military and sacrificed 50,000 killed and many thousands more wounded and scarred. The next generation stood at the Fulda Gap and, through their strength and commitment helped crumble the Soviet Union. And their kids have been the greatest when it came to our latest fight(s). What makes them less great than the Depression/WW2 generation? How about the WW1 Doughboys? They were pretty great. How about the amazing sacrifices of young people in the Civil War? They were pretty great, too. Or the Minutemen who left their farms and created a hell of a great Republic? Don't they deserve to be called Greatest? With all due respect to the WW2 generation, I think Tom Brokaw should have called his book "The Greatest of Their Generation." Because his book title insults those before and after... who were equally great.

As for today's gutless wonders... IMHO we get to see the 1 percent of Antifa moonbats peacenik hippies on the news every night. And hear the snowflakes whining endlessly and those that get all in our faces are the ones that make news. But I guarantee you the vast majority of the young people in our nation today would rise to the occasion if and when called. While the tiny noisy minority would act just like the whiny few who didn't contribute in WW2... but who never made most history books.

Cheers,

Sirhr

 
#22
If I could go back in time and had a chance, I would kill every one of einsatzgruppen, so that I never hear about their PTSD issues.

All of them fully deserve to be wasted on the spot with absolutely no deep thinking required.

It is that simple for me. Just about all of my relatives (ukranian Jews) were murdered in Ukraine (Kherson) during the WWII, in a joint effort by germans and, guess who, ukrainians. Even after 70+ years, it is absolutely impossible to forget.

This PTSD of einsatzgruppen is a ridiculous subject for discussion, with no sense of any kind.
 
Last edited:
#24
kortik said:
If I could go back in time and has a chance, I would just kill every one of einsatzgruppen, so that I never hear about their PTSD issues. But to be honest, I would kill them just because all them deserved to be wasted on the spot with absolutely no deep thinking required.

It is that simple for me.
Click to expand...

Kortik, if I had a time machine I would go with you, I agree they were evil. That is the reason I was so careful early in the thread to make the point that they were not "troops." Yet the Germans did not have a monopoly on evil in that chapter. Stalin was not exactly a prince among men. My Father was in the US Army Aircorps and until the day he passed away at 87 he felt firebombing Hamburg and Dresden civilians was a stain on his soul that nothing could erase. So my dad who spent his youth fighting NAZI's always cautioned me against being to quick to assume that all the evil on on one paticular side. If we were to start using our time machine to prevent bad people from doing bad things we would have to become the most prolific killers in history our selves.
 
#25
diverdon said:
Kortik, if I had a time machine I would go with you, I agree they were evil. That is the reason I was so careful early in the thread to make the point that they were not "troops." Yet the Germans did not have a monopoly on evil in that chapter. Stalin was not exactly a prince among men. My Father was in the US Army Aircorps and until the day he passed away at 87 he felt firebombing Hamburg and Dresden civilians was a stain on his soul that nothing could erase. So my dad who spent his youth fighting NAZI's always cautioned me against being to quick to assume that all the evil on on one paticular side. If we were to start using our time machine to prevent bad people from doing bad things we would have to become the most prolific killers in history our selves.
Click to expand...

You're a good man and there is a technically correct truth in your post. Having said that, I can not care less what fucking germans got in Dresden or Hamburg. My family used to be pretty big, until these MFs started it. I have nobody left to relate to, except for my aunt, who is 78 now. Typical American is lucky not to experience that kind of stuff. Anyway, sorry for getting my personal thing out in public.
 
Last edited:
#26
kortik said:
You're a good man and there is a technical truth in your post. Having said that, I can not care less what fucking germans got in Dresden or Hamburg. My family used to be pretty big, until these MFs started it. I have nobody left to relate to, except for my aunt, who is 78. Typical American is lucky not to experience that kind of stuff. Anyway, sorry for getting a bit personal...
Click to expand...

You won't get any argument from me that I am lucky. My paternal grandfather came to America from Germany in 1907 and brought my grandmother over in 1909. My Maternal grandparents came to America from Germany in 1911. Both came from large family. I'm not really sure on my mothers side, but on my fathers side not one male (from those who stayed in Germany) made it through WWII. My brother went over a few years ago and after an extensive search he found some female relitives one of whom had a bible with deceased family listed. More than 100 boys and men from the German branch of my family died in a 10 year period, none survived. So yeah I am lucky that my Grand parents came to America, I pray that my grand children have as much cause to be thankful to my Grandfather as I do.

But now you say that: "I can not care less what fucking germans got in Dresden or Hamburg" And there we must part ways for I cannot agree the buring civilians to death to destroy targets of little military value was a harmless thing. Yes the government of Germany attacked civilians in London and all along the Eastren front. But the women and children in Dresdan had no power to stop them and did nothing to deserve their fate.
 
#27
Dresden, Tokyo, Nagoya, Kobe, Cologne, Dortmund, Yokohama, Toyama, Kobe, Osaka, Sasebo, Sage.... Hiroshima, Nagasaki.... The list goes on and on.

Curtis E. LeMay and Arthur "Bomber" Harris... along with William T. Sherman and U.S. Grant from an earlier era.... and Dhouet and Clausewitz would all argue that anything that shortened a war was going to save lives in the long run. Gutting cities would shorten the war. Tragic as it sounds.

In total war, there remains a big difference between bombing the means of production and transportation (De-housing workers... to use the euphamism of the time) and killing people behind the lines after combat has moved forward.

While it sucked to be in Dresdan... if every citizen of Dresden had risen up against the Reich... along with the citizens of Hamburg, Berlin, Frankfurt, etc... the Reich would not have survived. Yes, I know... in a police state that's harder than it sounds. But the fact remains.... to quote Arthur Harris "They sowed the wind... they reap the whirlwind." The incineration of Dresden shortened the war. And Speer pointed out that one or two more raids like that would have ended the war. But Bomber Command had to switch gears to support the coming invasion. So the city campaign stopped long enough for the Reich to catch its breath, so to speak. And to launch the Ardennes Offensive.

No easy answers...

Sirhr


 
Last edited:
#28
sirhrmechanic said:
I

I've said it before and I'll say it again. I don't like the term Greatest Generation. Because every generation has its greatest...


I agree here but I would call Washington and his crew "Our Greatest Generation.". They had no option but victory and from my reading many of those boys fought through the winter snows w/o shoes,

Especially Washington. He was the one "Sine qua non" for America. No Washington, No America.

There is an excellent read.....His Excellency George Washington, by Joesph J Ellis.
Click to expand...
 
#30
Read it when it came out, growing up in NJ and hunting the same land these guys fought in, and camped in the winter I gotta say its gets mighty cold along the Delaware river and on into Valley Forge, as well as the hills of west Jersey. Get hold of a little book called the Cockpit of the Revolution if you want to get into the weeds on Washington and how the war was fought. No Washington, and his little band of fighters, they were very very few in number there would be no USA today.

Having lived in Germany I regard them as the kindest people in Europe, but I gotta say I agree with kotic, you declare war on me and my country as a little pissant country full of goddam shopkeepers and engineers, I will wax your whole fkn landscape with my oil and steel while my people eat very well you stupid fks. Total war means total war. What the Germans did to eastern Europe is deserving of full annihilation, sorry but if we had the a bomb when we were still fighting them I would have raised that whole goddam country.



Maggot said:
sirhrmechanic said:
I

I've said it before and I'll say it again. I don't like the term Greatest Generation. Because every generation has its greatest...


I agree here but I would call Washington and his crew "Our Greatest Generation.". They had no option but victory and from my reading many of those boys fought through the winter snows w/o shoes,

Especially Washington. He was the one "Sine qua non" for America. No Washington, No America.

There is an excellent read.....His Excellency George Washington, by Joesph J Ellis.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
#31
Jerry, Ive read some debate about whether we would have used the bomb in Europe. Some speculate that we would not have be cause they are to close ethnically to us..WASP, where as the Japanese could be painted as non Christian heathens and were genetically more far removed. There is also the issue of fall out.

Not to say they didnt deserve it.
 
#33
Sirhrmechanic, you make excellent and unargueable points, then to sum it up you state "to quote Arthur Harris "They sowed the wind... they reap the whirlwind." The incineration of Dresden shortened the war." I don't wish to seem overly argumentive, yet I have to disagre about who, how and when the wind was sown. When Wilson entered the US into WWI, the war to end all wars, he did so with a 17 point plan to insure a lasting and fair peace in Europe. Of course the British and French who had been fighting longer and harder felt the need to stick it to the Krauts, so they disregarded any concept of a fair peace.

The German soldier, including Corporal Hitler, did not yet feel that they had been defeated on the battle field. They felt that they had been betrayed politically. When the Great Depression hit the burden of reparations crystalized into hatred. This Hatred provided the fertil soil for the Third Reich. So it is my contention that the political elites of Britian and France had more to do with the "Sowing of the wind" than the people of Dresdan did.

As I mentioned Before, My Father was in the US Army Aircorp. in England at that time. He believed (and said that it was commonly believed in the Aircorp) that targets of greater military value could have been selected. I do not know as a fact that "they" were correct, I only know what they believed.
 
#34
Diver:

I don't disagree with your points. Harris was an unapologetic 'revenger.' He wanted payback for the Blitz, even though that was nowhere near the level of destruction put on Axis cities by the Allies.

But Speer was very clear that Dresden and Hamburg shook the leadership to their cores.

And the 'precision' bombing theories of the inter war years proved utterly unworkable. Even though that was what was believed by the Allied leadership, especially the Americans. That only targets of military significance should be bombed. But when studies showed that in combat conditions Norden Bomb sights could barely hit within 5 miles of a pickle barrel... the theory was destroyed. Even though the precepts of the Air Corps leadership, officers and, probably all the way down to the NCO's was that you didn't bomb civilians. The only way the Allies could, therefore, proceed was to bomb military targets knowing deep down that by bombing a factory, they were, in reality, de-housing (bombing out) the workers who lived around that factory.

Harris took it further in Gomorrah. And did it to send a message. Because he was an unapologetic SOB, to use a reasonably fair term. The U.S. upper echelons, Doolittle, Spaatz, etc. never subscribed to this. Even LeMay still justified to himself and his men that there were military targets in the cities they firebombed (see below). But even the precision-bombing acolytes still undertook area bombing late in the war... because they had to.

But your dad was right on. U.S. taught its Air Corps, all through the war, that targets were military in nature. Even Hiroshima and Nagasaki were targeted at military pinpoint targets, swaddled in a mask of their military target value. Though the Hiroshima target was the Aioi bridge and it exploded over a hospital, the city was chosen 'militarily' because it was HQ to two Japanese Army groups and a major transit center for troops. Nagasaki had a large armory complex. The Targeting Committee used these factors to justify what was, in essence, the razing of two cities. Even LeMay in firebombing some 67 Japanese cities justified the military value of the raids to his pilots by using the Japanese production methods of having small workshops spread in homes... all over a city. These 'home workshops' would produce simple parts and might have one lathe or drillpress or mill in the house. Parts would be collected each day and moved to large assembly plants. But when the houses burned. you could see the drill presses sticking out of the rubble. For LeMay, this was enough to point to his pilots that they were bombing military targets.

Today, the promise or precision weapons is matching up with the dreams of the pre-war prophets like Mitchell. But there are still civilian casualties. In WW2, you had 19th century accuracy combined with 21st century three-dimensional warfare. Until the two caught up to each other, razing cities was a bad choice that had to be made. And it was masked, to large extent, by giving the aircrew the illusion that they were bombing military (non-human) targets while the reality was something different. Never good when words do not match deeds. And I am sure this dichotomy caused a lot of angst with pilots who had it drilled into them that they were bombing only military targets with 'surgical' precision. And learning that the reality was something different. Your dad, it seems, had a very natural reaction to being told one thing by higher-ups while having to execute something completely different from the air!

Cheers,

Sirhr

P.S. If you want some interesting and very readable books on the topic, let me know! I'll send a list and they are all available cheap on ABEbooks.com
 
#35
So got a couple of PM's asking for the above reading list. Here's the books I suggest:

Richard Frank's "Downfall, the end of the Japanese Empire." A phenomenal read. Frank is one of the best military history researchers since Toland. An amazing read and a great analysis.

Warren Kozak "LeMay: The Life and Wars of Curtis E. Lemay." Dispels a lot of myths about a guy who was one of the best (and bravest) bomber pilots, group leaders and commanders ever. And goes into a lot of the strategy.

Curtis Lemay and Bill Yenne "Superfortress: The B29 and American Airpower in WW2."

Henry Probert "Arthur 'Bomber' Harris: His Life and Times, etc.." A very definitive biography. Which also goes into the background on the firebombing raids.

Albert Speer "Inside the Third Reich" Lots of "Speer" trying to explain "Speer" and make himself look good in the post-war period. But he delves into the firebombing and the impact it had on all the leadership. Not just Dresden, but Gomorrah against, I think, Hamburg.

Two documentaries worth watching:

PBS American Experience: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkT_ieG4Joc The Bombing of Germany

And Errol Morris utterly superlative "The Fog of War" which I think is must-watching for anyone who is interested in modern warfare: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LsRRTvPigY

The Errol Morris Documentary gets taken down off PBS all the time for copyright infringement... but always pops up again. It is an incredible watch. BTW, before he passed on, Robert McNamara was the human being on this planet I most would have liked to have had lunch with. I find him fascinating... and repellent... all at once. Noone, IMHO, had a more interesting historical ride through the 20th Century.

These will keep you busy for a while and if I remember any others, I will post!

Cheers,

Sirhr

 
#36
This has been a very informative and interesting read. Thanks sirh!

The wife is first generation American, her dad was born in Germany and came over on the boat post WW2. Her grandfather was Wehrmacht and was captured/POW by the US. Her dad still pisses and moans about his fathers treatment by his captures. I've had to bite my tongue many times or just walk away when that shit starts as he stands on American soil...
 
#38
Maggot said:
Jerry, Ive read some debate about whether we would have used the bomb in Europe. Some speculate that we would not have be cause they are to close ethnically to us..WASP, where as the Japanese could be painted as non Christian heathens and were genetically more far removed. There is also the issue of fall out.

Not to say they didnt deserve it.
Click to expand...

Read Richard Rhodes, The Making of the Atomic Bomb. If the European War had not been over by the time of the Trinity test, it would have been dropped on Germany the second it was ready. No debate over WASPs or fallout or anything else. It would have been used.

The analysis in Rhodes and Frank utterly dispel the 1960's-1980's revisionism that surrounds Truman's authorization. There is no question... none whatsoever... that the bomb would have been used in Germany and, as it was, in Japan.

In retrospect, we can complain that it was overkill, un-warranted, inhumane, blah blah blah. But in the United States in 1945... it was not only the right decision, it was the only decision.

And, IMHO, the proof that Truman made the right decision has been demonstrated for c. 72 years through the fact that no other nuclear weapon has been used 'in anger' sinabce. The Bombs used in Japan have saved millions or, perhaps, tens of millions of lives. Because without the global wake-up call created by Hiroshima (arguably moreso by John Hersey's book "Hiroshima" then atomic weapons would have been used in the Cold War. With devastating consequences.

Japan would have lost 3 - 5 million subjects (not citizens... subjects) had Olympic and Coronet been necessary. They would have been killed like harvesting wheat. The U.S. would have taken 1 million casualties, of those 100K+ killed. As horrific as the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were, they saved the world from massively larger death-tolls in the subsequent generations.

Can I prove otherwise? No. I can't prove an alternative history. But I don't think I'm wrong on this assessment. And lots of historians agree.

Cheers,

Sirhr

P.S. ArmyJerry.... breaking his neck in front of his kids???? Has anyone ever considered the possibility that you were Patton in a former life? And I mean that in all the best ways!
 
#39
sirhrmechanic said:
Read Richard Rhodes, The Making of the Atomic Bomb. If the European War had not been over by the time of the Trinity test, it would have been dropped on Germany the second it was ready. No debate over WASPs or fallout or anything else. It would have been used.

The analysis in Rhodes and Frank utterly dispel the 1960's-1980's revisionism that surrounds Truman's authorization. There is no question... none whatsoever... that the bomb would have been used in Germany and, as it was, in Japan.

In retrospect, we can complain that it was overkill, un-warranted, inhumane, blah blah blah. But in the United States in 1945... it was not only the right decision, it was the only decision.

And, IMHO, the proof that Truman made the right decision has been demonstrated for c. 72 years through the fact that no other nuclear weapon has been used 'in anger' sinabce. The Bombs used in Japan have saved millions or, perhaps, tens of millions of lives. Because without the global wake-up call created by Hiroshima (arguably moreso by John Hersey's book "Hiroshima" then atomic weapons would have been used in the Cold War. With devastating consequences.

Japan would have lost 3 - 5 million subjects (not citizens... subjects) had Olympic and Coronet been necessary. They would have been killed like harvesting wheat. The U.S. would have taken 1 million casualties, of those 100K+ killed. As horrific as the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were, they saved the world from massively larger death-tolls in the subsequent generations.

Can I prove otherwise? No. I can't prove an alternative history. But I don't think I'm wrong on this assessment. And lots of historians agree.

Cheers,

Sirhr

P.S. ArmyJerry.... breaking his neck in front of his kids???? Has anyone ever considered the possibility that you were Patton in a former life? And I mean that in all the best ways!
Click to expand...

You are quite correct in the savings of lives.

Personally, I think Jerry is spoton. Fuck Nazis, ISIS, Kim Dung Swill, and anyone else who promotes slavery and inhumanity. But cut his dick off, stuff it in his mouth, and let him choke on it for a while before you break the neck. FuckNazis.
 
#40
Great post above Sirh, agree, Truman did save millions and he did make he right decision, I gotta disagree thet it stopped them from being used in the cold war though, I slept right next to nuke bunkers that was full of little bitty artillery nuke shells as well as Pershing2 warheads. If the reds would have massed we would have small nuked them and traveled through or around the blast areas to get the rest of them.

Not really just break his neck but in a flying scissors neck snapping move flipping dead body 180 over. I dont like despots or serfs of despots, they are a danger to all good men and shall be dealt with accordingly..
 
#41
Army.... I agree we would have used them in the Cold War. So would have the Sovs. In the right circumstances.

But my argument is that the stockpiling of Nucs and the willingness of both sides to use them... made sure that neither side used them. It ensured that the right circumstances were never achieved. This meant that, intentionally, neither side did anything that would cause them to be used.

That is the legacy, IMHO, of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Both sides knew what would have happened. And could do the math of having Hiroshima repeated tens of thousands of times. So both sides lived with the Sword of Damocles hanging over their heads... under the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction and the theories of Kahn... and they did this by walking on diplomatic tippy-toes. World War 3 was not possible -- both sides knew it, because both sides were fundamentally rational. Both knew there would have been no winners. And I forgot who said it... but had WW3 happened, WW4 would have been fought with sticks and stones. Probably by cockroaches (and perhaps lawyers and Keith Richards... the only survivors.) Again, rational nation states understood this and lived accordingly. The Soviets were chess players. The Americans were poker players. Both understood the others' games, however. And could live in what became called detente.

That said, the whole modern concept of limited war... grew from the fact that Total War (as Clausewitz had posited) was no longer possible. So limited war was the doctrine from 1949 on... in the form of Korea, Vietnam, Central America, Angola, The Sandbox and lots of other cat-and-mouse games played by submarines and bombers flying figure-8's and Spy Games in the streets of Berlin, London and Vienna. The Cold War never got hot because everyone knew what 'hot' meant. John Hersey was translated into cyrillic, after all. Hot meant the end of civilization. Which is fine with cave-dwelling Islamists. But life-loving Russians did not want to live in a smoking ruin any more than Freedom-loving Americans did.

Interesting thread, this.

Cheers and keep working on them rastling moves, Army. If you hit them with a chair in the process, you get bonus points! Nothing is too violent for despots. Too bad most die in rather inane ways. Because there are so many ways that they 'should' go. None pleasant.

Sirhr
 
#42
These daysI feel kind of weird as an old man looking back, nuke war is perfectly fine IMHO, hell we trained to fight in it if we survived the blast. Now I get looked at weird, even here on the hide when I advocate nuking the shit out of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia after being attacked on our soil, sometimes I wonder what happened to the millions I served with and got indoctrinated the same way. Now I feel like I ended up in a country of filthy freaking peace lovin communist hippies.
 
#43
You calling me a hippie???

I was brought up under nuke em til they glow... Shoot em after dark and drill through 5 inches of glass to get the oil doctrine.

And would not be opposed to nuking the cap out of enemies. But when both sides have Armageddon sized arsenals... I see detente as preferable.

But Karachi Pyongyang and Kabul... Self lighting glass parking lots are useful, too.

Cheers,

Sirhr
 
#45
Not really just break his neck but in a flying scissors neck snapping move flipping dead body 180 over. I dont like despots or serfs of despots, they are a danger to all good men and shall be dealt with accordingly..[/QUOTE]

Unfortunately, I don't have that skill set at 53 ;) years of age. What pisses me off to no end is that he seems upset (to this day) that the Americans "supposedly " treated him (his father) unfairly. This while he stands in this country, with ground that HE owns fair and square, living a great life, etc... We did not start the fight, we finished it. And unfortunately 600,000 young Americans got their senior trip plans messed up by his relatives. I'm done, 'cause it pisses me off. Needless to say, him and I aren't close.
 
#46
sirhrmechanic said:
And I forgot who said it... but had WW3 happened, WW4 would have been fought with sticks and stones.
Sirhr
Click to expand...

In an interview Einstein was asked with which weapons the third world war would be fought. He answered - in German - with the following remark:
Ich bin [mir] nicht sicher, mit welchen Waffen der dritte Weltkrieg ausgetragen wird, aber im vierten Weltkrieg werden sie mit Stöcken und Steinen kämpfen​
(from Calaprice, Alice (2005). The new quotable Einstein. Princeton University Press. p. 173. ISBN 0-691-12075-7)

Which translated means something like
I am not sure with which weapons the third world war will be fought, but in the fourth world war they will fight with sticks and stones.​
 
#47
tnichols said:
Not really just break his neck but in a flying scissors neck snapping move flipping dead body 180 over. I dont like despots or serfs of despots, they are a danger to all good men and shall be dealt with accordingly..
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, I don't have that skill set at 53 ;) years of age. What pisses me off to no end is that he seems upset (to this day) that the Americans "supposedly " treated him (his father) unfairly. This while he stands in this country, with ground that HE owns fair and square, living a great life, etc... We did not start the fight, we finished it. And unfortunately 600,000 young Americans got their senior trip plans messed up by his relatives. I'm done, 'cause it pisses me off. Needless to say, him and I aren't close.
[/QUOTE]

His dad fought on a loosing side and was captured. That could cause some resentment (or maybe shame) in any of us. If you want to push his buttons a little, you could tell him how glad you are that his dad wasn't captured by the Russians, cause he wouldn't have been here to make a hot daughter. (Said with a warm smile) :)
 
#48
MtnCreek said:
Unfortunately, I don't have that skill set at 53 ;) years of age. What pisses me off to no end is that he seems upset (to this day) that the Americans "supposedly " treated him (his father) unfairly. This while he stands in this country, with ground that HE owns fair and square, living a great life, etc... We did not start the fight, we finished it. And unfortunately 600,000 young Americans got their senior trip plans messed up by his relatives. I'm done, 'cause it pisses me off. Needless to say, him and I aren't close.
Click to expand...

His dad fought on a loosing side and was captured. That could cause some resentment (or maybe shame) in any of us. If you want to push his buttons a little, you could tell him how glad you are that his dad wasn't captured by the Russians, cause he wouldn't have been here to make a hot daughter. (Said with a warm smile) :)[/QUOTE]

Probably a lot of truth in that. I do know that her dad's uncle was nabbed by the Russians, and that did not turn out so well.
 
#49
tnichols said:
Probably a lot of truth in that. I do know that her dad's uncle was nabbed by the Russians, and that did not turn out so well.
Click to expand...

I think that the number of German POW's from the Eastern Front who returned to Germany (in the 1950's) was 5 percent of those captured.

It did not end well for them at all.

That said, the USSR lost, what, between 20 million and 30 million soldiers and civilians? Maybe higher? Out of a base population of 170 million? I would not be all that nice to the enemy either knowing that somewhere north of 10 - 15 percent of my population had been killed by Germans?

BTW to put that into American terms... our population in 1940 was 130 million. Mostly on the coasts. If we had taken the same losses, it would have meant the extermination of every citizen west of the Mississippi and East of California, Oregon and Washington. Plus a couple of coastal cities wiped out for measure. Think of that. No human left alive in that swath of the country.

WW2 killed off something close to 100 million people including all combatants. China, especially.

We have it easy these days. Really easy.

Cheers,

RPR
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

PatMiles
End of an Era: Boy Scouts of America Officially Changes Name to Embrace Inclusivity After 114 Years!
Replies
45
Views
2K
10ring'r
10ring'r
D
White Hat Mentality
Replies
0
Views
281
DocRDS
D
Maggot
Si Speigel
Replies
3
Views
2K
lonegunman762x51
lonegunman762x51
*Nine
Competitive divisions that make sense
Replies
16
Views
1K
A.Huggy
A.Huggy
c1steve
How the left is pushing us toward civil war, and how this has worked in the past.
Replies
47
Views
3K
Snipe260
Snipe260
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Merch
Alerts