Althouse: "Today we remember those who fell and we honor all who fought right here in Normandy. They won back this ground for civilization."

June 6, 2019

"Today we remember those who fell and we honor all who fought right here in Normandy. They won back this ground for civilization."

"To more than one hundred and seventy veterans of the Second World War who join us today – you are among the very greatest Americans who will ever live. You are the pride of our nation. You are the glory of our republic.... To the men who sit behind me, your example will never grow old. Your legend will never die. The blood that they spilled, the tears that they shed, the lives that they gave, the sacrifice that they made, did not just win a battle, it did not just win a war… they won the survival of our civilization."

Trump, today, at Normandy.

317 comments:

«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 317 of 317

Michael K said...: D Day Memorial says 2500 Us troops killed on D Day.

2335 killed at Pearl Harbor.

Closer than I thought but those are pretty good numbers.; 6/6/19, 4:00 PM
readering said...: Michael K. You have your sources, I have mine. (Don't know about "Truth") But hey, why should I deprive you of soothing stress relief of saying you can't believe I'm that stupid every couple of days. Kinda old-guy Trumpian. I'll keep up the comments.

I only decided Vietnam was a terrible mistake when I studied it after it ended. During the war I was a gung-ho RC anti-Communist supporter. Still think the N Vietnamese Catholic-persecuting Communists were horrible. But us in the war . . . . Another story.; 6/6/19, 4:00 PM
alanc709 said...: The decision that won WW2 for us was the Japanese decision to strike south on Dec 7, 1941, instead of invading Siberia. Russia stripped their eastern defenses to stop the German army short of Moscow that month. Everything else was inevitable once Japan decided to expand the war instead of supporting their German "allies".; 6/6/19, 4:01 PM
readering said...: The Soviets had already defeated the Japanese in '39. The forces at hand in '41 could not be trusted to do better. Their whole reason for going to war at all was to get natural resources held by allies. They were way overstretched as it was after four years of war in China. It is a tribute to their ability that such small infantry forces defeated the incompetently led armies of the US and UK for so long (And the Dutch.) Until Guadalcanal.; 6/6/19, 4:08 PM
bagoh20 said...: What Trump said today got me thinking. If the command knew that 92% of the men in the first wave would be killed, and that 80% of the second, and it would take 6 waves to break through, would they still have done D-Day? Did they expect that? Can you imagine if the men knew that? Maybe they did to some degree. They were assaulting well entrenched fortifications with an incredibly easy aiming position at these unprotected men running off these landing craft. It was pretty obvious that you were a sitting duck down there. I wonder why they didn't use some kind of shielding that the men could walk behind on the beach. Even just metal shields that each squad could carry or roll and walk behind it.; 6/6/19, 4:12 PM
rcocean said...: I'm not going to argue much about D-day losses. Here's what the OFFICIAL US History says:

"[The Estimate of 2,000 killed and wounded] is frankly a guess, based on a number of estimates of various dates and various headquarters, none of which agree. Under the Army's present casualty reporting system, it is unlikely that accurate
figures of D-Day losses by unit will ever be available. The V Corps History gives D-Day losses as 2,374, of which the 1st Division lost 1,190, the
29th Division 743, and corps troops 441. The after action report of the 1st Division and the 29th Division history both scale down their own losses slightly .
. See Joseph H. Ewing, 29, Let's Go (Washington,1948), p. 306. Source for the 1st Division report is its own G-I report of daily casualties; source for the
29th Division figures is not given. On 8 June the 1st Division G-I issued a "corrected" casualty report for D Day and D plus I which reduced total losses
reported for the two days from 1,870 to 1,036. See V Corps G-3 Jnl. Neither the original report nor the corrected one conforms to the division G-l's accounting
in his monthly report of operations. See study of First Army casualties during June 1944, prepared by Royce L. Thompson, MS. Hist Div files.

Note: US Airborne losses are placed at 250 KIA.; 6/6/19, 4:14 PM
Roughcoat said...: we were the only ones fighting the Japanese.

Over 10 million Chinese military casualties and some 22 million dead Chinese civilians would seem to argue otherwise. By 1945 the Nationalist armies totaled c. 6 million troops, and millions more served in the Nationalist forces but were eliminated from the order of battle through death and wounding. The Sino-Japanese War lasted 7 seven years and the Nationalists could have surrendered at any time and thus ended China's vast suffering but they fought on regardless, and in doing so tied down over half a million Japanese troops in the so-called China Quagmire. The war devastated China and fatally weakened the Nationists for the confrontation with the Communists in the war's aftermath. Chiang could have reach an accommodation with Japan and concentrated on attention to eliminating the Communist threat in distant Yan'an, where Mao's forces more or less sat out the war, but he chose to fight on two fronts instead.

Also, the British fought in Burma and, briefly but decisively, in India (in the twin battles of Imphal/Kohima).

See "Forgotten Ally: China's World War II, 1937-1945" by Rana Miller. The title is apt in the context of your post.

The Soviets likely won not have won the war without the Normandy invasion and the campaign in the West that followed. I deem this too big of a subject to explore properly here, except to say that even after the Battle of Kursk, Stalin was putting out peace feelers to the Germans to reach a negotiated settlement. At the same time he continuously and relentlessly pressed the Americans and British for an invasion of the continent. He feared that, Lend Lease or no, he lacked the resources and, yes, the manpower, to defeat the Germans without an invasion/campaign in the West. He was almost certainly correct in this regard. If nothing else, an unchallenged German occupation in the West would have the Germans the strategic depth they needed to fight the Red Army to a standstill in the East. To say nothing of the resources it would have provided the Reich, especially in regard to manpowr and material.; 6/6/19, 4:15 PM
Anonymous said...: Putting the pacific war "on hold" from Jan 1942 to June 1943, allowed the Nips to dig in and increase aircraft production. it cost us a lot of lives later on in 1944-45.

That leaves out Coral Sea, Guadalcanal, and Midway. The entire USMC was dedicated to the Pacific along with 80% of the Navy, a fair amount of Army and some AAF.; 6/6/19, 4:17 PM
rcocean said...: The figure of 2,500 KIA seems inaccurate to me.

No more than 2 US Divisions or 18 Infantry battalions attacked on June 6th. The 28th Division didn't suffer major losses. That leaves 8,000 or so men at Omaha Beach. For the 2,500 KIA figure to be correct, almost 2,000 KIA would have to be incurred at Omaha Beach. That's a 25% death rate. But where are the WIA? If the US Army History says 2,000 dead AND wounded, where are the wounded? The usual WIA to KIA ratio is 3-1. Even at Tarawa, another bloodbath, the WIA to KIA ration was 1 to 1. For the 2,000 dead to be accurate we should have 2,500 WIA which we don't have.; 6/6/19, 4:20 PM
Not an oldster. said...: That's my president!; 6/6/19, 4:21 PM
Roughcoat said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 6/6/19, 4:24 PM
alanc709 said...: The Drill SGT said...
alanc709 said...

I'm 8 years USAF. What was your military service,

The USAF is a military service? Who knew?

just a bit of friendly banter:)

Yeah, the Air Force is a slight bit more..... lax than the army, admittedly.; 6/6/19, 4:26 PM
rcocean said...: "That leaves out Coral Sea, Guadalcanal, and Midway. The entire USMC was dedicated to the Pacific along with 80% of the Navy, a fair amount of Army and some AAF."

Midway and Coral Sea were DEFENSIVE naval actions. Guadalcanal was an attempt to retake an island that the Nips had took in June 1942. The Nips used maybe 30,000 men at Guadalcanal, and we used 1 Marine Division for the first 3 months. In the Central Pacific, we did NOTHING until Tarawa in November 1943. In the SW pacific we didn't start going up the Solomon islands toward Rabual until June 1943. We didn't take any real OFFENSIVE action for almost 1.5 years after Pearl Harbor. I'm not denigrating those who were fighting and stopping the Nips, I'm saying we didn't start any MAJOR OFFENSIVES.; 6/6/19, 4:26 PM
Roughcoat said...: That leaves out Coral Sea, Guadalcanal, and Midway.

And, let's not forget, the battles then taking place on the ground and in the skies over New Guinea, venue for some of the most desperate fighting in the Pacific War.; 6/6/19, 4:26 PM
readering said...: NG was Aussies.; 6/6/19, 4:27 PM
rcocean said...: BTW, I'm using the words Nips and Japs because i'm tired of typing out JAPANESE every single time.; 6/6/19, 4:28 PM
alanc709 said...: readering said...
The Soviets had already defeated the Japanese in '39. The forces at hand in '41 could not be trusted to do better. Their whole reason for going to war at all was to get natural resources held by allies. They were way overstretched as it was after four years of war in China. It is a tribute to their ability that such small infantry forces defeated the incompetently led armies of the US and UK for so long (And the Dutch.) Until Guadalcanal.

Possibly, true. But Japan had a large land army in Manchuria, was fighting the Pacific War on a shoestring, and Russia had pulled a lot of troops west to stop the Germans. I'm not saying they could have won WW2 by invading Russia, because America would probably have come in eventually. But allowing Russia the freedom to use those reserves in Siberia to stop the Germans within sight of the Kremlin didn't improve their chances of victory. Going south was a short-sighted strategic blunder. Even after taking the Dutch east Indies, Japan still lacked the necessary fuel products to carry on a large-scale war. Going South couldn't win their future, but they went anyway.; 6/6/19, 4:32 PM
effinayright said...: rcocean said...
Getting tired of the whole D-day nonsense. Sorry. 110,000 Americans killed fighting the Japanese. More Americans killed at Pearl Harbor than D-day.
************

Me, I'm getting tired of the whole rocean nonsense. 183,588 US Servicemen died in the European theatre. What's yer friggin point?

Other than for you being wrong, WHY would it be more important that "More Americans [were] killed at Pearl Harbor than D-day." Who are you, MacNamara's ghost, putting body count in a sneak attack as more important than a strategy victory in the largest-ever land invasion?

As for the rest of your bullshit ---we eagerly await Armchair Admiral Rocean's "A Revisionist History of WWII."

We shouldn't commemorate OUR D-Day successful invasion because the Russians had a big one going on the Eastern Front? Where's the freakin logic in THAT?

The D-Day invasion was "unnecessary"? "We would have won anyway"? Who is this "we" you speak of?

What would "we" have won if Stalin's army had gone unopposed all the way to the Atlantic?; 6/6/19, 4:37 PM
rcocean said...: Monthly Production of Japanese Fighter Aircraft June 1942 -June 1944

June 1942 500/month
June 1943 1,000/month
June 1944 1,500/month

By pursing a "Germany First" strategy, we allowed the Japanese to rapidly increase their aircraft production. Had we stuck back and retaken the Philippines the Japanese wouldn't have had the Bauxite and other raw materials necessary to increase their merchant and aircraft production.; 6/6/19, 4:37 PM
Roughcoat said...: In the SW pacific we didn't start going up the Solomon islands toward Rabual until June 1943.

Except the whole time we were fighting a ferocious naval and air war in the region, a necessary precursor to the advance through the islands. The outcome of those air and naval battles were by no means pre-determined; we won some and lost some and were stalemated in others. The navy lost more men in the battles during that period than the ground forces, and the losses in materiel -- warships and planes especially -- was astonishing. Total casualties alone do not tell the full tale, do not come close to doing so -- they can't and never will. Most of the sea battles were in the nature of old-fashioned surface engagements, gunfights with torpedoes, the last campaign of its kind and we shall never see its likes again.

See "Neptune's Inferno: The U.S. Navy at Guadalcanal" and "Night Naval Battles in the Solomons" for further info on the topic.; 6/6/19, 4:38 PM
rcocean said...: I'm pointing out that D-day is overblown and gets far too much publicity and that Pearl Harbor and other important battles are forgotten.; 6/6/19, 4:38 PM
rcocean said...: "Except the whole time we were fighting a ferocious naval and air war in the region, a necessary precursor to the advance through the islands."

We certainly were NOT fighting a "ferocious AIR war." We're talking about a few fighter and bomber squadrons in NG and the Marines and AAF operating out of Henderson Field on Guadalcanal. We're not talking about thousands of aircraft, we're talking about a few hundred.

Again, the whole point is NOT that we were not fighting. Its that we could have been taking major offensive action in 1942 and 1943 in the Pacific and taken Rabual in Jan 1943 - if we'd wanted. That would've led to an invasion of the Philippines in Oct 1943 instead of Oct 1944. Others have stated we could have attacked Guam right after Midway in August 1942 instead of waiting 2 years. After all, the Nips only had 2 carriers to our 5.; 6/6/19, 4:44 PM
readering said...: alanc709. Kinda like a big game of risk. Where do you put lots of armies and where a few? The Soviets and Japanese mutually benefited one another. The real story of Japan is that they had no business trying to be a mighty empire against all the bigger neighbors they were surrounded by. By 1945 even the Nationalist Chinese had the Japanese army on the run.; 6/6/19, 4:46 PM
Roughcoat said...: NG was Aussies

You don't know what your talking about. USAAF forces were conducting air operations in the area from spring 1942, from bases in Australia as well as New Guinea. U.S. Army ground troops began arriving and conducting combat operations in June and by November the U.S. 32nd Division under Eichelberger was fighting the Battle of Buna-Gona, alongside the Australians.; 6/6/19, 4:49 PM
Original Mike said...: I think casualty numbers and strategy misses the point (by a country mile). Storming the beach (D-Day, the South Pacific) had to be terrifying, yet they did it.; 6/6/19, 4:59 PM
narciso said...: what is striking is how much chiang kaishek's forces held up against the Imperial Army, whereas the Communists basically held their powder dry except possibly in Manchuria, and yet Truman stabbed Chiang in the back, allowing Mao to win,; 6/6/19, 5:02 PM
narciso said...: then they issued a white paper, whitewashing the exercise, this was what initially exercised the alsop brothers, of course Laughlin currie, a Soviet spy in the Treasury Department, blocked a critical loan to Chiang, and other associates like John Carter Vincent, painted Mao as simple Agrarian reformers' they were ultimately purged from the Department, but not before they had done their damage,; 6/6/19, 5:05 PM
Roughcoat said...: Its that we could have been taking major offensive action in 1942 and 1943 in the Pacific and taken Rabual in Jan 1943 - if we'd wanted. That would've led to an invasion of the Philippines in Oct 1943 instead of Oct 1944. Others have stated we could have attacked Guam right after Midway in August 1942 instead of waiting 2 years. After all, the Nips only had 2 carriers to our 5.

Highly arguable -- I totally disagree on several points.

After Midway the Kaigun probably had 7 aircraft carriers in service, although the numbers are unclear. After the Battle of the Santa Cruz Islands in October 1942 we were down to one carrier, Enterprise, and she had been severely damaged.; 6/6/19, 5:09 PM
Roughcoat said...: Again: in naval war numbers alone do not adequately tell the tale, and are deceptively less than numbers involved in continental warfare. Emphasis on deceptively. E.g., an army can lose hundreds of tanks in single campaign; navies that lose hundreds of ships are considered annihilated. I realize that this comparison is somewhat of an apple-and-oranges type, but I believe it does have validity in the context of this discussion.; 6/6/19, 5:12 PM
Roughcoat said...: narcisco @5:05 PM:

Yes, precisely. At the risk of repeating myself, I strongly suggest "Forgotten Ally." The author doesn't gloss over Chiang's flaws but is sympathetic to his plight.; 6/6/19, 5:16 PM
narciso said...: Pearl Harbor was a surprise attack against a country not officially at war, D Day the first major offensive against Nazi Germany in Western Europe,; 6/6/19, 5:18 PM
Michael K said...: The navy lost more men in the battles during that period than the ground forces, and the losses in materiel -- warships and planes especially -- was astonishing.

Yes, "Neptune's Inferno,"< and Hornfisher's other books are terrific.; 6/6/19, 5:20 PM
Roughcoat said...: By 1945 even the Nationalist Chinese had the Japanese army on the run.

The successes of Operation Ichi-Go (April to December 1944)in Central China radically belies this assertion. The Nationalist armies were exhausted by the long campaign (as were the Japanese) and pretty much adopted a defensive posture until the Japanese surrender. They did not give in but they most certainly did not have the Japanese on the run.; 6/6/19, 5:25 PM
Roughcoat said...: Narcisco: Italy is in Western Europe.; 6/6/19, 5:26 PM
Roughcoat said...: Narcisco:

I don't agree that Truman stabbed Chiang in the back. Nor do I hold any truck with the notorious "who lost China" debate that so vexed the American foreign policy establishment in the aftermath of the Chinese Civil War. No Americans "lost" China. What happened to China was a tragedy. China was lost because of the war with Japan. It's "triumph" over Japan was as Pyrrhic as a victory can and could ever be.; 6/6/19, 5:32 PM
Michael K said...: why should I deprive you of soothing stress relief of saying you can't believe I'm that stupid every couple of days. Kinda old-guy Trumpian.

You're not always stupid. Just when you say Kerry "served honorably." He should have been dishonorably discharged for his antics in Paris with the NV while an officer in the Navy Reserve. In fact, he may have been as Carter saw his records changed. Carter's Sec Navy reissued his medals. When someone is dishonorably discharged his medals are cancelled.

Also, you seem to believe the hoax about Bush and the TANG. Kevin Drum, who is at least as far left as you , investigated in 2004 when the rumors of the CBS story were circulating. He concluded the story was false and the records were forged. That was before the Microsoft Word forgery was discovered. If you still believe that, you are a fool.

I am not a fan of Bush, I volunteered for McCain in 2000. I agree Vietnam was a mistake. Eisenhower would not even assist the French. Max Boot's biography of Lansdale suggests there might have been a possibility with someone other than MacNamara but I doubt it.; 6/6/19, 5:32 PM
narciso said...: I was using shorthand, those from Anzio to rapido river, would think that Italy was a big deal, but Normandy was a magnitude larger,; 6/6/19, 5:35 PM
Original Mike said...: "Narcisco: Italy is in Western Europe."

I've never understood why D-Day was considered necessary, given that we were in Italy.; 6/6/19, 5:36 PM
Michael K said...: China was lost because of the war with Japan

A good book about the war in China is Gerhardt Neumann's incredible story. He got his degree in Mechanical Engineering in 1938 in Germany and traveled across Russia to Hong Kong for a job with the Chinese airline only to find it defunct. He answered an ad for a job as a mechanic with the AVG and spent the war in China. Given that he was Jewish, that was good place to be. It is a terrific book and says a lot about the Chinese government at the time.; 6/6/19, 5:38 PM
bagoh20 said...: Clearly the world has needed more gun control for a long time.; 6/6/19, 5:42 PM
Anonymous said...: Having the likes of Lester Holt on such hallowed ground turns my stomach.; 6/6/19, 5:44 PM
narciso said...: well the bulk of the german forces were in france, although some had been redirected to Norway, in the deception operation,

let just say stewart service, carter Vincent, john Fairbanks didn't do any favors, and they shaped the response against chiang, and minimized the impact that mao's victory would have,; 6/6/19, 5:44 PM
Original Mike said...: "well the bulk of the german forces were in france,"

Last I looked, Italy is connected to France. Were the mountains too great an obstacle?; 6/6/19, 5:48 PM
JPS said...: Original Mike,

"I've never understood why D-Day was considered necessary, given that we were in Italy."

Others here can probably answer better than I can, but the Italian campaign was a terrible slog. We invaded Sicily in July 1943 and the toe of mainland Italy in September of that year. We took Rome in June 1944. Tenth Mountain Division and others were fighting like hell (and taking awful casualties) in the northern mountains through much of April 1945.

Given the terrain, Italy never offered the opportunity to attack massively into the industrial heartland of Germany the way northwestern Europe did.; 6/6/19, 5:53 PM
Narr said...: The US effort in 1942 was focused on stabilizing the Pacific theater--rather, defining the theater. Despite Germany First the immediate problem was out there--the UK and USSR could hold the Germans--they had to--but only the US could support Chiang (good to see someone recognize him and the Nat. forces--when I was in school he was treated as a vicious nonentity and they were a bunch of slackers) and establish the base and logistic structure it would take to counterattack eventually.

All the while fighting a new kind of naval war against a very skilled opponent.

As for a few shoulda-couldas: So the Jap aircraft production went up--so did everyone else's, proving squat. Where were the troops to liberate the Philippines to come from, when they had trouble getting to and fighting in the Solomons and N. G.?

Yeah, the Sovs did more damage to the Reich, but then again they helped build them up, colluded with them against the democracies, got snookered, and lost WAY more people than they needed to when they finally were forced to get real. That's what ideological stupidification can do to a people.

All the Allies needed each other and they knew it. The Krauts needed a lesson good and hard and any idea of somehow soaring above the fray with fine-tuned L-L and air power is shallow. Shallow soaring.

It's apparent who here has some clues and who doesn't.

Narr
Profoundly shallow?; 6/6/19, 5:54 PM
Original Mike said...: "Given the terrain, Italy never offered the opportunity to attack massively into the industrial heartland of Germany the way northwestern Europe did."

Well, but, you take France from Italy and then you have the ports to supply the invasion of Germany.; 6/6/19, 5:56 PM
JPS said...: Original Mike, an addendum: Festa della liberazione is April 25. Not until that day in 1945 were Turin and Milan free of the Nazis.; 6/6/19, 5:58 PM
Bay Area Guy said...: @Original Mike:

"I've never understood why D-Day was considered necessary, given that we were in Italy."

It's a provocative question. There are some unpleasant political answers to it.

Perhaps, for another thread. Don't want to detract from our courageous young men who stormed the beaches at Normandy; 6/6/19, 5:58 PM
JPS said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 6/6/19, 5:59 PM
Original Mike said...: "Festa della liberazione is April 25. Not until that day in 1945 were Turin and Milan free of the Nazis."

Good point.; 6/6/19, 6:03 PM
Michael McNeil said...: “They won the survival of our civilization.”
Temporarily.

It's never anything other than temporary.; 6/6/19, 6:05 PM
JPS said...: Sorry, Original Mike - my point is, we wouldn't have been into southern France, in your counterfactual, until well after what was to be V-E Day. In fact we did invade the south of France in August 1944. Those forces and our forces in Italy were never near linkup before the war's end.

[I am embarrassed to add, I originally wrote that we were largely unopposed. In fact the casualties were quite substantial on both sides. But the Germans withdrew much more rapidly than in the north, and this invasion seems to get less coverage simply because it wasn't the game-changer that D-Day was: By that time we were already on the ground and advancing from Germany's west, and Operation Dragoon doubled down.]; 6/6/19, 6:05 PM
Original Mike said...: I guess I've never thought about it very deeply.; 6/6/19, 6:05 PM
Roughcoat said...: Narr: I agree, completely and totally.

I was once asked, in an official capacity, if it was necessary to use atomic weapons against Japan. I replied that it was, and cited the reasons. But I went on to say that, over and above the military reasons, it was necessary and proper to inflict maximum punishment on both Japan and Germany, while they continued to wage war, for the purposes of exacting vengeance on and delivering retribution against those two nations and their peoples. The two had to be utterly smashed and made to understand that their defeat could not be attributed to a stab in the back, as Germans claimed for the First World War, or an "unfair" Portsmouth Treaty, as Japanese claimed for the Russo-Japanese War. They had to be smashed, beaten down, crushed and humiliated. After they threw in the towel, it was correct and proper to lift them back up. But first they had taste bitter defeat and be made to vomit it back up.

If the Allies had done that to Germany in 1918-19 -- invading, occupying, and partitioning the country, as we did in 1945 -- all the unpleasantness that followed could well have been avoided.

As for "why I've never understood why D-Day was considered necessary, given that we were in Italy." Simple answer: because, once in we couldn't get out.; 6/6/19, 6:13 PM
Original Mike said...: You certainly can't argue with the results. The strategy was a success.; 6/6/19, 6:24 PM
Michael McNeil said...: While we're talking about D-Day and the northwest European War as well as the War in Italy, please note the DVD documentary entitled “Thunderbolt” (cost $2 at present at Amazon – via Althouse's portal) presenting original footage filmed entirely in color, documenting American fliers of P-47 Thunderbolt fighter-bombers conducting “Operation Strangle” in Italy during World War II. Introduced by Jimmy Stewart; narrated by Commanding General Carl Spotz.; 6/6/19, 6:25 PM
narciso said...: and you see how the Control junta, still after the second bomb, was still considering fighting on, if Operation Overcast had gone on that fall, it would have been like the archipelago campaign on steroids, so there was the unconditional surrender terms, but subsequently when it came to establishing the govt, some fellows with a lot of 'blood in their ledger' like abe's grandfather kishi, who was the administrator in korea, kodama and sasagawa were let go to form the ldp, also the ones who directed some of the atrocities like nanking, were not held accounrable,; 6/6/19, 6:26 PM
Michael K said...: If the Allies had done that to Germany in 1918-19 -- invading, occupying, and partitioning the country, as we did in 1945 -- all the unpleasantness that followed could well have been avoided.

I think this was the basis of Roosevelt's "Unconditional Surrender" decision.; 6/6/19, 6:27 PM
Michael K said...: also the ones who directed some of the atrocities like nanking, were not held accounrable,

A friend of mine, a pathologist, who served in Korea in the 1950 campaign, was very angry that MacArthur suppressed all evidence of atrocities. The Japanese had done some experiments on prisoners that obtained useful data on Hemorrhagic fever, a disease that killed a lot of Americans in Korea.

Here is a bit on the Japanese experiments that were clearly a war crime, but we could have used the data to save lives.

Epidemic hemorrhagic fever with renal syndrome was recognized for the first time in 1951 among United Nation troops (1). Since that time it has been known as Korean hemorrhagic fever (KHF) and has remained endemic near the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) between North and South Korea. In recent years the disease has invaded the southern parts of the Korean peninsula and 100 to 800 hospitalized cases are clinically diagnosed each year (Table 1).

KHF is an acute infectious febrile, often fatal, otherwise self-limited, illness of viral etiology characterized by severe toxemia, widespread capillary damage, hemorrhagic phenomena and renal insufficiency (2).

Similar diseases to KHF as shown in Figure 1, have been described by Japanese from Manchuria (3,4,5), from the Soviet Union (6,7), from Scandinavia (8,9,10), from several countries in Eastern Europe (11) and recently from Japan (12).

In early 1940's Japanese and Russians reproduced hemorrhagic fever by injection of urine and blood of the patients into monkeys (4) and volunteers. The injection of a suspension of Trombicula mite obtained from Apodemus agrarius into human caused hemorrhagic fever, and mites have been suspected as its reservoir(13). Many attempts have been made to isolate the causative agent of KHF and clinically similar disease.; 6/6/19, 6:34 PM
Roughcoat said...: The notion that Chiang was a vicious nonentity and that the Nationalist forces were composed of slackers is itself a vicious myth perpetrated by the Communists and is one of the grossest instances of historical distortion and revision in modern times. Communists are quite proficient standing history on its head for their own nefarious purposes. In fact it was the Communists who were the slackers, and their general lack of engagement -- or, at best, their desultory and half-hearted engagement -- in the war with Japan was a moral atrocity of the worst sort. In recent years, however, Chinese officialdom has begun to acknowledge the enormous sacrifices made by the Nationalists and have begun to speak favorably of Chiang, recognizing him as a patriot who helped save the nation from Japanese domination.

Chiang was in an impossible situation, starting from the time he came to (tentative) power in the aftermath of the 1911 revolution. Few national leaders in history have faced the type, magnitude, and multiplicity of challenges he had to deal with. It is a testimony to his intellect, statecraft, and will that he carried on as long -- and in not a few instances, as successfully -- as he did.; 6/6/19, 6:34 PM
narciso said...: Its rather striking the west went to war for Poland in europe, and in connection to china in the east, yet both were lost to Marxism, at the end, Poland by 47, China by 49, and that domino had impact on the operation in Indochina, to a degree, although that French expedition was probably illconsidered,; 6/6/19, 6:46 PM
Roughcoat said...: Well, better to say that Chiang's situation, or serial situations, after 1911 were difficult if not immediately impossible. As time went on they became increasingly difficult, and in the end, impossible.

As for the general failure to hold Japanese military commanders and civilian leaders accountable for war crimes: yes, but ... at least Matsui was hanged for Nanjing. Too bad Prince Asaka was allowed to skate. Granting him immunity from trial was an astute political move, and probably a necessary one, but it was a travesty of justice nonetheless.

Tojo and Yamashita were hanged, but Homma was executed by firing squad an end that was too good for him.; 6/6/19, 6:46 PM
Roughcoat said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 6/6/19, 7:08 PM
rcocean said...: "After Midway the Kaigun probably had 7 aircraft carriers in service, although the numbers are unclear"

I guess. If you count a couple light and escort carriers and obsolete tubs like the Hosho. They only had 2 fleet carriers left.; 6/6/19, 7:12 PM
Roughcoat said...: We should also have executed all the senior officers of the Waffen SS and a goodly number of their mid-ranking and even junior level officers as well. At least we should have imposed lengthy prison sentences on large numbers of the latter.

And we should have executed EVERY man of every rank from top to bottom who served in the Einsatzgruppen, Ordnungspolizei units, and other other special action groups and formations such as the Dirlwanger and Kaminski Brigades. Most of the rank and file in those units skated. In the aftermath of the war in the two Germanies and the Baltic states thousands of mass murderers from those units went on to live their lives as they saw fit, without being called to account the atrocities they committed.; 6/6/19, 7:13 PM
rcocean said...: "He should have been dishonorably discharged for his antics in Paris with the NV while an officer in the Navy Reserve."

Was Kerry required to be in the Reserve after active duty? Surprising that he would accuse Americans of behaving like "Jenghis Kahn" while drawing Naval reserve pay. But then he threw his medals over the fence before it didn't.; 6/6/19, 7:16 PM
effinayright said...: rcocean said...
Monthly Production of Japanese Fighter Aircraft June 1942 -June 1944

June 1942 500/month
June 1943 1,000/month
June 1944 1,500/month

By pursing a "Germany First" strategy, we allowed the Japanese to rapidly increase their aircraft production. Had we stuck back and retaken the Philippines the Japanese wouldn't have had the Bauxite and other raw materials necessary to increase their merchant and aircraft production.
************
More bullshit --it seems an inexhaustible resource for you. Here are the comparable figures for the US during the years in question:'

1942 1943 1944 1945
US.Fighters 1,157 4,036 10,721 23,621 38,848

Yearly Japan 6,000 12,000 18,000

Now, my child, I wish to remind you that Japan had been on a war footing since the 1930's, while WE were at peace. So it takes only garden-variety logic to understand that they had a head start. THEY had up-and-running manufacturing facilities. WE did not.

So... Where were the American troop ships, aircraft carriers and aircraft to execute this fantasy of yours vs. the enormous advantage the Japanese held in the Pacific?

China, not the Philippines, were major sources of bauxite then--and the Japs already held that territory. So your bauxite theory is bullshit.

Here's a list of world bauxite sources as of 2014. Note which country is NOT on the list. Clue: its capital is Manila.

https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/the-world-s-leading-bauxite-producing-countries.html

And this: https://thediggings.com/mines/usgs10110369

"Bauxite - Philippines" is a producer deposit site in Philippines Territory, The Philippines. It is a deposit, *** not*** considered to be of world-class significance."

Also, WE took the most successful pilots out of combat and sent them back to the US to train new pilots. The Japanese let their best to fly until they died. NOT smart.

So, as the war ground on, the ratio of kills-per-sortie dramatically increased in our favor,
negating whatever advantages the Japs had regarding production rates.

And don't forget: we eventually had the advantage wrt to heavy bombers like the B-29. They could bomb our island bases, but WE could bomb the living crap out of their cities.

Which we did.

Bottom line:

"Between 1940 and 1945 Japan produced nearly 75,000 aircraft. The US produced nearly 300,000. Japanese losses by the time of surrender were 43,110."

https://world-war-2-planes.com/japanese-aircraft.html/

Focusing on fighter aircraft production is simple bushwa.; 6/6/19, 7:17 PM
rcocean said...: "If the Allies had done that to Germany in 1918-19 -- invading, occupying, and partitioning the country, as we did in 1945 -- all the unpleasantness that followed could well have been avoided."

I think keeping Germany disarmed in the 30s would have been sufficient. But France/UK couldn't manage that.; 6/6/19, 7:18 PM
narciso said...: Indeed one of the top official in the ss general karl Wolff certainly skated, along with mengele and barbie (who had provides some intelligence to us and UK intelligence) Brunner who was eichmann deputy, found his way to Syria, and a host of others that made murenberf seem a little hollow.; 6/6/19, 7:20 PM
effinayright said...: Blogger Bay Area Guy said...
@Original Mike:

"I've never understood why D-Day was considered necessary, given that we were in Italy."

It's a provocative question. There are some unpleasant political answers to it.

Perhaps, for another thread. Don't want to detract from our courageous young men who stormed the beaches at Normandy
**************

Please: no cryptic references to "unpleasant political answers": stand and deliver! WHAT WERE THEY???

Look at a freakin MAP.

How would we deploy hundreds of thousands of men and materiel over the Alps? Would Switzerland allowed us to do that?; 6/6/19, 7:22 PM
Robert Cook said...: "College students should NEVER have gotten a deferment during Vietnam war. But Trump got his like everyone else. Then got diagnosed with bone spurs and that's that. Good grief, even if he'd been drafted, do you really think Trump would've ended up in combat? He would've gotten put in Intelligence or "The Finance Corps" or rear echelon job."

This should be flipped: NO students (or young people) should have EVER been drafted and compelled to give up their civilian lives togo fight a pointless, murderous war that had no purpose and was justified on a lie (the Gulf of Tonkin incident).

As to Trump (and Major DICK Cheney) getting exemptions, it's not that they got exemptions that is objectionable, it's that they resorted to subterfuge and lies to avoid putting their lives on the line in a barbarous, horrid, meaningless war and then later, as heads of government, send other young people to be maimed or killed in equally barbarous, horrid, pointless, meaningless and criminal wars.; 6/6/19, 7:23 PM
Richard Dillman said...: Trumps speech was impressive. It was poetic, moving, beautiful, and eloquent in several ways. While I realize that he didn’t write it, he certainly delivered it effectively. I wonder who did write the speech. Does anyone know the author?; 6/6/19, 7:27 PM
narciso said...: You voted Bush and dole in 1992 and 1996 over bill Clinton right,; 6/6/19, 7:41 PM
narciso said...: Nuremberg, the problem goes back to Kellogg briand treaty that thought you could outlaw war, and the Washington naval convention both reduced our capacity to field significant deterrents in the 30s; 6/6/19, 7:49 PM
Michael K said...: NO students (or young people) should have EVER been drafted and compelled to give up their civilian lives togo fight a pointless, murderous war

Does that include the Soviet kids who died by the millions or do you only hate Americans?; 6/6/19, 7:50 PM
Michael K said...: THEY had up-and-running manufacturing facilities. WE did not.

The Japanese had a samurai -like pilot training program that did not allow them to ramp up training when they suffered losses.

The USAAC trained 200,000 pilots in WWII. I once mentioned this as evidence of the greatest educational institution in US history. It was during a faculty meeting. You can imagine the reaction.; 6/6/19, 7:54 PM
Roughcoat said...: They only had 2 fleet carriers left.

We had only 2 carriers after Midway. The Saratoga, which was held in reserve east of Midway and did not take part in the battle, was sent to the West Coast for much needed repairs, and did not return to the combat zone (Solomons) until November 1942. You need to get your facts straight on this.

Our two carriers were not sufficient to conduct big-scale offensives in the Pacific, amid island chains held by the Japanese and which provided bases for Japanese navy and army bomber and fighter units. After the Santa Cruz battle we had only one carrier (the Saratoga, not the badly damaged Enterprise, as I mistakenly wrote in a preceding post). At the same time the Japanese enjoyed a numerical superiority in surface warships -- battleships, heavy cruisers, and destroyers.

Little known fact: the aircraft carrier situation after Santa Cruz was so desperate that the U.S. asked the British for help. The British responded by dispatching carrier HMS Victorious to Pearl Harbor, arriving in March 1943 under the codename "USS Robin." She served with the Pacific Fleet through July of that year. Provided with U.S. aircraft, and U.S. Navy uniforms for her British crew, she conducted conducted combat operations in the Solomons in tandem with Saratoga as part of Carrier Division I, most notably providing support for Operation Cartwheel (the invasion of New Georgia).

NOTE: during this period in the Pacific War the U.S. had only 2 operational fleet carriers: Saratoga and Victorious. THE JAPANESE HAD FOUR fleet carriers but failed to press their advantage in flattops. Victorious was recalled to RN service at the end of July when the first of the Essex class fleet carriers arrived in the Pacific Theater.

Excellent article on this subject at http://www.armouredcarriers.com/uss-robin-hms-victorious; 6/6/19, 8:03 PM
readering said...: 2 things about Italy. Mark Clark could have destroyed the German army from behind but preferred to March into open city Rome, giving Germans chance to retreat to defensible line. And after invasion of S of France in August, the Germans outnumbered allies in Italy. (But no offensive capability with no air force and inadequate armor).; 6/6/19, 8:07 PM
readering said...: Churchill wanted to go from Italy to the Balkans instead of invading France. But that would have been provocative to the Soviets and not the best route to Germany. Plus transportation not as good.; 6/6/19, 8:11 PM
Narr said...: Didn't know about USS Robin!

Geoffrey Perret's Winged Victory about the USAAF in WWII is vivid and pretty solid.

Just on aircraft and pilots, yes we outbuilt them and everyone else in numbers and variety, and eventually in overall quality. Both Germans and Japs had superlative pilots but their policy was "fly till you die." The US and to a degree the UK were able to pull experienced pilots out of combat to teach new pilots the ropes.

I'm not as sure about the IJAF but the Luftwaffe ended up using up its training units and pilots in combat, and then turning the useless non-flyers into, usually bad, infantry.

Scissors crisis: one side gets bigger and better, the other smaller and crummier.

Narr
Serves the bastidges right; 6/6/19, 8:22 PM
narciso said...: The luftwaffe through the condor legion, had also three years of combat aviation experience in Spain before the war began in earnest.; 6/6/19, 8:26 PM
Roughcoat said...: Correction: Saratoga rejoined the Pacific Fleet(after repairs) in the summer of 1942 and, with Enterprise, covered the Guadalcanal landings on August 7. It is important to note that the covering force including the two carriers was withdrawn from the area after the disastrous Battle of Savo Island on the night of August 9-10. Reason: the force commander, Frank Jack Fletcher, concluded that his two-carrier task force was for the time being too weak to meet a determined Japanese naval offensive in the combat zone.

So much for the offensive capability of the Pacific Fleet in the late summer of 1942.; 6/6/19, 8:27 PM
Roughcoat said...: Damn autocorrect: Savo Island battle was fought on the night of 8-9 August not 9-10.; 6/6/19, 8:31 PM
Roughcoat said...: "Winged Victory" is indeed very good, as is the same author's "There's a War to Be Won." I met Perret at a military history conference and edited his contribution, an essay about the development of the M1 Garand, to the conference proceedings. Nice guy, terrific military historian and writer.; 6/6/19, 8:34 PM
rightguy said...: Not only was the Omaha defensive position on high bluffs, it was defended by a regular German infantry division- the 352nd. The other four beaches were largely defended by "static divisions" which were made up of older men and east European "volunteers". The SD's put up limited resistance and many of the "volunteers" surrendered at their first opportunity.

Yes, Omaha was an extremely tough objective. My impression from reading 1st person accounts, is that multiple individual soldiers performed suicidal acts to assail individual strong points. Without these extremely heroic individual actions, the assault would have failed.

And yes, Dr. K, everything in Saving Private Ryan was crap except for the battle scenes, which were extra-ordinary. The whole idea of sending a squad to rescue one guy behind impenetrable enemy lines is stupid and completely implausible. Why not just have the guy guy report to HQ and wait there until the paratroopers are relieved? I could go on and on.; 6/6/19, 8:36 PM
wildswan said...: I think Trump's speech threaded the needle between honoring the American sacrifice and acknowledging our Allies. It was patriotic but not divisive. When I say "not divisive", I'm aware that whenever anything unifying, like Trump's speech, or beautiful or religious is done in this country or by this country, the left will instantly dump on it. I simply assume as a fact of discourse that chuck or someone like him will shout "bone spurs" or something like that at every point. It doesn't mean anything to me because being ugly is their strategy. It's how you know someone is a lefty. But for others not locked in lefty oppositional disorder, there is a question of how to have national self-respect without finding it necessary to go to war with other nations that also have national self-respect. Trump was saying - among other things - that America did a great thing in landing on D-Day and liberating Europe but there were Europeans who landed or were there already who also fought the same battle. The implication was that there was a unity which we should strive to find again. And Trump was saying that that unity existed even though Americans fought for America and American ideals. In a new situation, he was implying, we should feel that America could be great again and yet be in unity with Europeans - the ones who hold by Europe's great traditions. But we shouldn't expect it to be easy. A burning hatred of all that America and Europe stand for exists inside America and Europe just as it did when Hitler embodied and armed such a hatred.; 6/6/19, 8:36 PM
Roughcoat said...: Charming factoid: the British crew of aircraft carrier Victorious (codenamed "Robin") for the most part enjoyed their service with the U.S. Pacific Fleet. In particular they enjoyed the food -- the victualing of U.S. warships in combat zones was surpassingly excellent in terms of both quantity and quality. The Brits particularly appreciated the unlimited quantities of ice cream the USN provided!; 6/6/19, 8:43 PM
narciso said...: The niland bros were the real life inspiration the story wasnt exactly the way it was depicted.; 6/6/19, 8:47 PM
Roughcoat said...: rightguy:

Concerning the flaws in "Saving Private Ryan": the coauthor of my book on the 2nd Marine Division in WW2 -- a combat veteran of the battle for Tarawa, Saipan, and Tinian -- was quite scornful of the scene depicting American soldiers strolling through the countryside behind German lines, chatting as if on a Sunday walk in Central Park and not bothering to maintain any intervals whatsoever. He was also disgusted with that aforementioned speech delivered by the Sergeant Horvath character.; 6/6/19, 8:52 PM
Roughcoat said...: And yet ... the "Ryan" battle scenes were indeed extraordinary. During my tenure as editor/writer at the Cantigny First Division in Wheaton IL I spoke with Big Red One veterans of the Omaha Beach landing who told me in no uncertain terms that the battle scenes -- particularly the Omaha Beach scene -- were really superb.; 6/6/19, 8:58 PM
narciso said...: They said the actors went through a sort of bootcamp but that proper attitude cant be taught it has to come from within.; 6/6/19, 8:58 PM
narciso said...: Had their been previous amphibious assaults facing that sort of withering close range firs?; 6/6/19, 9:00 PM
narciso said...: Fire, was it that way at guadalcanal for instance; 6/6/19, 9:06 PM
Howard said...: Narisco... what a fucking maroon.; 6/6/19, 9:09 PM
narciso said...: Stop looking in the mirror

https://library.canisius.edu/archives/niland; 6/6/19, 9:15 PM
Roughcoat said...: Had their been previous amphibious assaults facing that sort of withering close range fire?

Yes. The 8th Marines landing at Tarawa/Betio on the second day of the battle. The landing craft got stuck on a reef forcing the Marines to wade some 600 yards through concentrated machine gun fire just to reach the sea wall. Losses were horrendous. My coauthor was gut-shot in the water and his company lost 90 men before reaching the shore. Losses in other units were comparable.

And yet, like the brave men at Omaha, the survivors persevered and overcame the defenders on the third day.; 6/6/19, 9:15 PM
narciso said...: I hadn't really investigated that particular battle,; 6/6/19, 9:17 PM
Roughcoat said...: The Guadalcanal landing was unopposed -- the Japanese were taken by surprise and fled into the bush as the Marine landing craft approached the shore.

The savage fighting -- and it was very savage indeed -- began shortly thereafter, when the Japanese recovered from their surprise.; 6/6/19, 9:20 PM
narciso said...: I got some of that from in harm's way and hornfsucher who related the naval aspect of the conflict.; 6/6/19, 9:23 PM
Michael K said...: The 8th Marines landing at Tarawa/Betio on the second day of the battle.

That was partly bad planning as the tides were not known. The actor Eddie Albert was a LtJG running a landing craft and rescued a bunch of guys.; 6/6/19, 9:24 PM
Roughcoat said...: Tarawa/Betio regarded as one of the fiercest -- hence most heroic -- battles in USMC history. Many good accounts have been written about this three-day battle (including, I am compelled to say, that which appears in my own book). The huge losses stirred controversy back home and prompted a congressional investigation. The battle cast much doubt provoked on the efficacy of amphibious assaults on a defended shore. Nonetheless such assaults continued to be conducted. Fortunately for us, after Tarawa the Japanese stopped trying to stop landings at the water's edge. Instead they determined to let the U.S. landing force come ashore and then wipe it out on the beachhead.; 6/6/19, 9:28 PM
Michael K said...: Howard drops by to troll and annoy the adults,.; 6/6/19, 9:28 PM
Roughcoat said...: Eddie Albert rescued my coauthor, under fire, after he (coauthor) took a round in his gut while wading ashore. My coauthor and Eddie became lifelong friends as a result. Eddie was the real deal. He was a "salvage officer" at Tarawa, which meant he cruised about in the lagoon in his LCVP rescuing wounded Marines, all the while under heavy machine gun fire. At one point he dueled, with his LVCP's machine gun, a Japanese machine gun crew that had taken up residence in the Nimonoa, half-sunk ship in the lagoon.; 6/6/19, 9:32 PM
narciso said...: A very unassuming fellow, his son? Played Charlton Heston's navy captains son in midway one of the last big Hollywood extravaganzas of this type; 6/6/19, 9:38 PM
readering said...: You look at a globe and say, how the hell did Guadalcanal become the turning point of the Pacific war on land? Especially if you then see photos of the place. And yet it was.; 6/6/19, 10:26 PM
rightguy said...: Roughcoat :"was quite scornful of the scene depicting American soldiers strolling through the countryside behind German lines, chatting as if on a Sunday walk in Central Park and not bothering to maintain any intervals whatsoever..."

My feelings exactly. It looked like a boy scout hike through the scenic Normandy bocage.; 6/6/19, 10:35 PM
Anonymous said...: folks have been talking about aircraft production numbers. Thr real constraint for the Japs and to a lesser extent the Krauts was pilot production. What gave the Japs a huge edge early was the Zero, which was unsurpassed early, but was dated by 1943, and the Naval pilot force. Each man the result of a two year training program and several years of operational flying. By comparison, they were sending pilots with as few as 10 hours of stick time on combat missions in 1945. As a civilian, I think I soloed at about 10 hours; 6/6/19, 11:35 PM
Anonymous said...: " rcocean said...
The figure of 2,500 KIA seems inaccurate to me.

No more than 2 US Divisions or 18 Infantry battalions attacked on June 6th. The 28th Division didn't suffer major losses. "

Three US divisions plus many non-divisional engineers and armor landed on D-day. On Omaha, the 1st and 29th landed with 4 regiments abreast, followed by 2 more.

On Utah, it was the 4th

The 29th, a Virginia NG unit landed nearest Pointe du Hoc. They are the troops in both the Longest Day and Saving Pvt Ryan.; 6/6/19, 11:39 PM
rcocean said...: "We had only 2 carriers after Midway. The Saratoga, which was held in reserve east of Midway and did not take part in the battle, was sent to the West Coast for much needed repairs, and did not return to the combat zone (Solomons) until November 1942. You need to get your facts straight on this."

LoL. yes, "Lets get our facts straight". We had the Hornet, Wasp, Enterprise. USS Saratoga arrived in Pearl Harbor on June 6th, 1942 - a day AFTER Midway. She was hit by another Nip Torpedo in August 1942 in the Solomons. Then returned to action in November 1942.

Are you trolling or ill-informed?; 6/7/19, 1:44 AM
rcocean said...: Three US divisions plus many non-divisional engineers and armor landed on D-day. On Omaha, the 1st and 29th landed with 4 regiments abreast, followed by 2 more.

Yes, you're correct we had 4 regiments at Omaha, plus 2 on Utah. That's 18 battalions. Add in the Rangers and we're up to maybe 20.; 6/7/19, 1:47 AM
rcocean said...: What were the British Carriers doing in August 1942? There's no reason they couldn't have lent us one.

Throw in the USS Ranger, and we could've had 6 Carriers and gone directly for Guam in August 1942. A landing there would've completely changed the war.; 6/7/19, 1:52 AM
readering said...: Don't understand why folks can't just make their points without insulting whomever they are responding to. The subject isn't even ideological.; 6/7/19, 1:53 AM
rcocean said...: He was also disgusted with that aforementioned speech delivered by the Sergeant Horvath character.

As you and Dr. K have stated, the whole movie was absurd, except for the D-Day scene. The last battle at the end was exciting, but made no sense. We're they trying to save the bridge or deny it the Germans and blow it up? Why were the Germans sending their tanks into a built up town ahead of the infantry? Why were the Germans strolling into town like they were on a parade, hadn't they already attacked before? Can you really throw 60mm mortar rounds like they're hand grenades? Did P-51's attack Tanks and what kind of bomb destroys the Tank but not everyone else?

And I'm still trying to figure out why the medic ran forward to take out the MG nest.

Anyway, the first 30 minutes are great, and that young chick accompaning Grandpa to the Cemetery was super-hot.; 6/7/19, 1:59 AM
rcocean said...: "Don't understand why folks can't just make their points without insulting whomever they are responding to. The subject isn't even ideological."

Well, that's the internet. Plus, from discussions on other sites, I've noticed that military discussions always bring out combative types.; 6/7/19, 2:02 AM
Narr said...: SPR: great war movie from a technical standpoint, probably the best overall IMHO. They certainly got the visuals right, and the combat sequences are amazing (I saw it on the big screen a few days ago, the first time since it first ran).

But yes, horribly flawed in so many ways. The sensibilities on display were far more 1990s than 1940s, and there were plot holes big enough to drive the 21st Panzer Division through.
(Within three days, the deaths are all noticed in DC, brought to the attention of GCM, and a plan hatched to get the last Ryan out . . . nah.)

The cameo appearances by big names didn't really add much. (Longest Day's problem; Is Paris Burning? did it better.)

The screenplay tried to cram to much in. The glider-pilot incident reveals a little-known side of the battle, but is too long. Emerson, yeah, OK; the Steamboat Willy subplot brought to my mind Clausewitz's admonition that in war the worst mistakes sometimes arise from soft-heartedness.

Balkowski's Omaha Beach is pretty thorough on 1st Div activities.

Yes to Perret's A War to be Won, as well as his early Days of Sorrow, Years of Triumph (?)

Narr
Insult-free; 6/7/19, 12:32 PM
rcocean said...: "the Steamboat Willy subplot brought to my mind Clausewitz's admonition that in war the worst mistakes sometimes arise from soft-heartedness."

The steamboat willie thing, had me shaking my head. If you don't want to take prisoners, then shoot him. If you want to take POW's - than take them. But don't have a Private argue for 5 minutes in a combat zone with a Captain about it.

Anyway, they let Steamboat go, and he ends up shooting Captain Hank. As if Steamboat could recognize Captain Hank from 100 yards away. As if Steamboat had a CHOICE in rejoining the German Army and going back into combat. But we're all supposed to cheer when the Typist shoots Steamboat and takes everyone else POW.

I found the whole subplot bizarre. Its as if Spielberg was endorsing killing POW's. Its that kind of Fake-tough attitude that unrealistic. We WANTED the Germans to surrender. Because every German that surrendered, meant there was one we didn't have to fight. We lost thousands of men in the Pacific, killing Japs who refused to surrender.; 6/7/19, 4:02 PM
Narr said...: rcocean: not sure if you're disagreeing or not.

The Emerson-quoting Upham and his distancing (wrong end of the telescope at one point) thinks he can remain clean and above it, is more afraid to kill than to die, and finally kills because it has become personal.

I'm not sure SW is meant to recognize Miller, but it's not that important. I didn't cheer anything.

Narr
Many a soldier has died trying to surrender; at least it got that right; 6/7/19, 7:03 PM