American Contribution

The Enigma machine first appeared in 1919 and the US Government purchased one in June 1928. In 1932, Major Evans of the US Signals Corp was given a demonstration of the machine in Berlin, submitting a full report to the Asst Chief of Staff (G2) in Washington. Nothing further was done.

It was indeed the Poles who devoted time and effort to deducing how to decipher codes from the Enigma machine but their efforts were rendered obsolete because the Germans added more rotors to Enigma thus vastly increasing the possible combinations. Given more time, there is no doubt that the Poles could have broken the new codes - but time ran out and they provided the fruits of their research to the British.

And it was the British who definitively 'broke the codes' and maintained the advantage. Bletchley Park is a huge place and the effort put in to codebreaking there was enormous.

So yet again, it's just not as simple as 'the Poles did it', 'the British did it/ didn't do it', etc etc.

It was an Allied effort - the baton being passed from one group of specialists to another, the final result being victory. One might just as well say that the USA didn't really do much toward the A-Bomb ; it was all down to the Norwegians......

 

I think it is safe to say that both wars was won by many noble men of all countries that dedicated their lives to a morale issue. Despite those who, by their incompetence, greed or stupidity, caused loss of advantage and lives, those brave souls won the war. A thousand Barnes Wallises would not be able to storm Normandy, but think about how much the one contributed. And there were millions of people that made similar contributions. The Liberty ships, the Higgins boats, and many other things that had a huge impact on the war effort, were the result of a dedicated individual working for the Allied team, with a strong devoted team back home.

 

I really don't understand comments like this. You can call Hitler evil, you can call him the worst leader Germany ever had due to what ultimately happened in the war that he started, but to call him a "dumb @$$" or imply that he was a complete moron and utterly brainless only reveals a lack of insight and consideration on the subject. How many really bad books on Hitler don't have emotive titles incorporating words such as "madman", "insane", etc.? Yeah, I know Hitler is an emotional subject but as historians we should resist having our emotions overwhelm us into making silly statements bereft of factual basis. Hitler was born a poor working stiff and became the most powerful individual in German history. You can't tell me that a "dumb @$$" could pull that off. Hitler girded up a reluctant and divided nation for a war that few of them wanted and yet managed to conquer most of Europe. Again, no "dumb @$$" could accomplish that.

What we can say is that Hitler overestimated his German forces and underestimated his enemies. This was his fatal flaw and one that ultimately condemned millions of people to horrible deaths and destroyed the Germany he ostensibly was defending and promoting. Now, the overestimation of one's own forces and underestimation of one's enemies isn't something that "dumb @$$" Hitler alone suffered from. Napoleon suffered from the same delusions and his Grande Armee limped out of Russia with less than 10% of its forces because of them. The US' continuing troubles in subduing a conquered Iraq originates in the same underestimation of an enemy and overestimation of one's own abilities. There are many things for which we can criticize Hitler. If we make emotional and unsubstantiated statements about Hitler being a moron or brainless we only reveal that we have yet to achieve anything but an amateur approach to history. And as they say, those who do not know, or understand, their history are condemned to repeat it. I don't intend on repeating it.

 

Ironcross, I hope I didn't come across as making a personal attack. I have seen many people make similar statements, and even many books published with titles to the same effect. Most times comments such as these are just off the cuff. I do think, though, that if we want to understand the history of World War II, or any history for that matter, we have to watch ourselves and keep ourselves from making simplistic statements that do not further understanding and merely obscure the truth behind our own rhetoric and propaganda. I meant no offense.

 

Some of you oldsters may recall the old Avalon Hill War games? I recall once my 3 friends in the 10th grade linked up four of those games (Stalingrad, Blitzkrieg, Africa Korps, and the D-Day one) into one giant map. We all took turns going into the back room to make secret deals with one another. But I knew Norman and Jim would link up to attack Rob (my best friend), but I knew Rob was the better player of them all. I was assigned the small upper peninsula area on the Blitzkrieg map. Everyone one else had areas more contiguous to the central map. After the first turn Rob began calling for me to openly side with him as the two other guys linked up to finish him off. I could have reached his area by land, but pretended that I would make a sea invasion instead, making semi-plausible excuses as to why. I took my time getting all my forces to the sea ports and did not reach the main battle area until the 5th turn. By that time Jim's army was more or less wiped out, and Norman's army had just a few divisions left in retreat. Rob had rapidly won against their mindless frontal attacks but his army was reduced to only 25%. I proceeded to finish him off.

The USA came in late both world wars and became the super power of the Western world.

 

Granted, the USA did not come into the war at the beginning, but it was mainly due to a reluctance to get into a European conflict. Especially after the tumoil it created after the first one. WWI was a tough learning curve for the US. Despite the fact that we were in battle less time and lost less soldiers, we had a huge number of losses compared to what was expected. This in addition to the influenza losses, which many blamed on the war (with good reason). Later consequences included the War Bonus movement, with the subsequent tragedy caused by MacArthur, and the failure of the League of Nations.

I often wonder if Churchill didn't shout for joy when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. He had to know that the only real chance they had to completely beat Germany, was to get us fully into the war. Dec. 7th put this nation on a full war footing. I have no doubts that Churchill was both outraged and sympathetic, but as a practical person, his big concern would have been over the extent of our losses and how they would affect our ability to battle.

 

Wonder if Churchill had to fight with the " Japan first" military persons over the " Europe first" choice. I think it was FDR´s choice which , thinking that Japan attacked the US, sounds a bit odd, doesn´t it? I´m not complaining that Hitler was beaten that fast but why "Europe first"?

 

FDR was itching to get into the war for quite a while and had already got the US financial foot in the door of the war long before US troops took up arms against Germany. Japan, while it could pack quite a surprise punch, was no match for any of the Allies in a long war. Germany was easily the strongest of the Axis powers and posed the greatest danger. The US could essentially turn their back on Japan and hold them off with one hand while using the main mailed fist of the US to throttle the Germans. Then the focus could shift to the Japanese. Given that the US had to fight a two front war FDR's priorities were definitely right.

 

I've read several books along this line of late, but I believe it was 'Why the Allies Won' by Overy, that mentioned that from about 1942 on the Japanese were able to build 7 air craft carriers while at the same time the US built 96. I could be wrong about the 96 - it could have been 94. I'd have to go to the library and get the book. Strategically it made sense that the Japanese could be easily held at bay, and that the best idea was to free up Britain from possible U-boat blockade-starvation. Also Americans - being mainly European- were more concerned about freeing Europe than freeing China and the Islands of the Pacific. If I recall right, there was later worry that Germany might be building an atomic bomb.

 

It is my understanding that the Navy recognized that they were not ready to support a war against the Japanese aircraft carriers, nor to invade the islands needed to challenge the Japanese. The Germans were not a naval threat other than the subs. If we had not lucked out at Midway and some of the other battles, Japan could have taken much longer to repel. The decision to fight Germany first was a good one. Tanks and aircraft could be put into mass production faster than ships. Troops could be trained and sent quicker to England and Africa. There was also a risk that Germany could be able to attack Britain and eliminate it for a base against them. We know this to be no threat in retrospective, but then, who could say with certainty that England was safe.

 

Just saw a document on actually the 20th July bomb attack on Hitler, but it did probably tell why " Europe first" won. In the early negotiations( 1942-43 ) with Stalin FDR wanted Stalin to attack Japan, and Stalin told yes but only after Germany was beaten. SO that seems to give more light to the decision of "Europe first".

 

"Me? Fighting in two fronts? Who do you think I am, Hitler?"

 

After Stalingrad Germany was really on the defensive and their fate was sealed. I believe a lot of the best German generals at the time felt this way but still held out some hope for a comeback. With that in mind the United State's greatest contribution to WW2 wasn't really fighting manpower but material and air support. A lot of documentaries and literature that interview high ranking axis personnel all seem to have that reply in common. Allied air support absolutely devastated Germany's capability to execute a protracted war or any hope of a comeback.

This is greatly understating the role other nations had in Japan's problems. One nation that gets underrated a lot is China. They tied up an enormous amount of Japan's manpower on the mainland. KMT and Communist tactics is what kept Japan from utilizing China's vast land and resources to revitalize their depleted military. If the forces in China capitulated then Japan would have had an immense landbase to work off of and they could have expanded with a well supplied land invasion. One reason that Japan didn't push up from Manchuria after the USSR beat them in that one battle is because they were being squeezed from the southern region by the Chinese forces as well.

 

You have a point there. Even today and in this forum, China is left out. Does anyone have any info as to China's contribution? I know most of the time, the Nationalists and Communist fought against each other more than the Japanese much like the fight in Yugoslavia.

 

War_nerd - reading Siegfried Knappe again recently reminded me that he stated that the only reason he thought the war MIGHT be lost after Stalingrad was because he saw at that point that Hitler was going to make winning impossible with his constant demand of mindlessly holding ground in suicide pockets. The Panzers were not being allowed to operate freely. They were being forced to dig in when being cut off from their supplies to hold pockets to the last bullet and drop of their blood. So Knappe stated at that point, while he was near the Stalingrad pocket, that he realized the war MIGHT be lost. Germany was on the defensive mainly from the point Hitler started to screw up everything - which had kind of shown its ugly face in late 41 and early 42 near Moscow. But at Stalingrad - Hitler allowed Stalin to lure him into a Verdun situation trying to take a pointless pile of bricks - because once it had been arty'ed and bombed into rubble that's all it was. In the past the Panzers had bypassed such cities and cut them off from behind.

The point is Knappe and his fellow officers did not believe that Germany was too weak to beat Russia even after Stalingrad. They just felt that Hitler's constant messing up of things was what might cause them to fail.

But as regards the Americans - I believe Otto Carius when he stated near the end of his book: "Five Russians were, after all, more dangerous than thirty Americans." Americans, then as now, depended on air power to move their fronts. When Von Luck was fighting the Americans in the northern tip of the Maginot Line, it becomes very plain there, considering the forces involved, that the Americans were not fighting all that well when up against Germans with good cover. Personally I believe it was that battle there where the Americans fully made up their mind to allow the Russians to take Berlin.

 

I think Carius had it wrong. Despite the usual mistakes of warfare, Americans were more dangerous than the Russians. Not as vicious or as cruel, but more dangerous. They did not go out of their way to commit suicide to achieve a goal, but they did not falter from their duty. The Russian leadership had no qualms about sacrificing their troops. The American troops were better educated, better trained, and better supplied. The Russians were fighting because Germany had attacked their homes, killed and raped their families. American troops fought because they were protecting their homes from future attacks. The first is an act of revenge. The second is an act of intelligent reasoning.

American troops understood that taking more time and saving troops lives was important in the overall scheme of things. When you look at the Russian casualties, both civilian and military, the numbers are staggering. A lot of people make a big point about the low number of American killed as proof of their lesser role. My belief is along the words of Patton. "Your job is not to die for your country, your job is to make the other poor bastard die for his country".

As far as it goes, the Germans began establishing defensive positions several years before the Allies landed on Normandy. The Russian front was in constant flux and the Germans had no ability to establish any real defenses. And I have never felt that Hitler really treated the Russians with respect. His battle plans were almost disrespectful of them.

As far as the American use of airpower, it was extremely effective. The Germans feared our aircraft like the P-47 as much as earlier foes had feared the Stuka.

 

Sorry, Seadog,

to me it seems not always the US thought that cleverly on the tactics ( I guess every army in the world has had its share of stupid moments ):

1.COMBAT UNITS ARE AUTHORIZED TO BASE DAILY REPLACEMENT REQUISITIONS ON ANTICIPATED LOSSES FORTY EIGHT HOURS IN ADVANCE TO EXPEDITE DELIVERY OF REPLACEMENTS. TO AVOID BUILDING UP OVERSTRENGTH, ESTIMATES SHOULD BE MADE WITH CARE. SIGNED EISENHOWER.

http://www.5ad.org/hurtgen_joe.htm

2. Hurtgen forest

3. If you compare the British and US losses in the Normandy campaign you must start to wonder why the US losses are so much bigger.


----------

http://www.ww2f.com/showthread.php?t=13438

http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/wwii/usarmy/manpower.aspx

 

Well during the initial beach landings Omaha and Utah were much more heavily fortified by the Nazis than the British landing positions. This is historical fact and it's specifically mentioned in quite a few documentaries. Not all the landings were vicious shoreline to bunker firefights.

Also, at the time the U.S. soldiers were certainly more green. It wasn't until a little later in the war that the experienced officer/nco's were able to make a difference.

 

The battle of Normandy losses figures from an earlier thread here in the Forums.

Losses in Normandy:

Germany: 30,000 dead, 80,000 wounded, 210 000 missing ( over 70% of these captured )

UK 11,000 killed, 54,000 wounded and missing

Canada 5,000 killed, 13,000 wounded and missing

US 29,000 dead, 106,000 wounded and missing.

Unfortunately the link I used in 2003 is not working anymore but we agreed back then these were correct figures.

 

Seadog - yes, the thing about American air power - since WWII most of our combat has enjoyed Air superiority. While that is a good thing, after 60 years I begin to wonder what would ever happen the day we have to go to war with out Air superiority. I doubt our army even knows how or has plans for such a thing. They'd have to dust off battles from WWI. I suppose they could study the Wehrmacht or the Russians in 41. But always having it your way is not always a good thing. Difficulty builds character. I think the US military is so spoiled and takes everything for granted that a DAY is looming in the future when all our gadgets will be subverted by a sly enemy and we will be sitting ducks with out pants down. Like this battlefield internet they are building up - every trooper connected and seeing what the HQs see. Knowing how duffless the US military is in keeping hackers out of their networks, I have a bad feeling some enemy will one day hack into our systems in combat. If by that time our troops have come to rely on this system - well....