WW2 Allied Leadership

[michaelmaltby]

"Winter War is a shamefull page of Russia's history anyways.." WHY Stasoid, because it wasn't moral, or because they had the crap kicked out of them ... gained enough territory "to bury their dead".

Explain to me how the Soviets could humiliate Japan in the summer of '39 and be humiliated by the Finns, by Xmas?

MM

 

[stasoid]

It's a good question MM, I dont actually know. Either because of the Finns were strong or the Russians just sucked. The soviets achieved their objectives but the kill ratio was humaliating for them, indeed.

It was shamefull because it was an unprovoced attack on a de-facto neutral country.

 

[Freebird]

Dont think that would work with Nazi Germany. Fanatical regime fought till the last man was out of ammo as you know from history.

For how long you were going to "blockade" them? .

Oh, but it did work. The shortage of fuel caused by the blocade greatly hampered the ability of Germant to wage war, it caused the defeat in the Desert, and it was a factor for the decline of the Luftwaffe, as they were short fuel for training. The shortage of other raw materials, from rubber to bauxite, tungsten other metals steadily decreased the Axis ability to maintain the war economy effectivly.

Explain to me how the Soviets could humiliate Japan in the summer of '39 and be humiliated by the Finns, by Xmas?

MM

In both cases the attacker took heavy casualties from a well prepared defender?



But this thread is getting waaaaay off topic, it's about leadership, remember?

 

[BombTaxi]

Dont think that would work with Nazi Germany. Fanatical regime fought till the last man was out of ammo as you know from history.

For how long you were going to "blockade" them? For 10? 20 years? In a few years they would've built ICBMs and nukes, you wouldnt have place on Earth to hide.

Er, they were blockaded and bombarded from day 1 of WW2 and it worked. Look at the Battle of the Bulge - the offensive failed primarily because it ran out of fuel, fuel which was unavailable because Bomber Command and 8th AF were levelling Germany's POL infrastructure while 2nd TAF and other elements hammered the distribution network. That was 1944, so your vision of a 10 year blockade seems a bit exaggerated. And as you should know from history, the Nazi regime did no such thing as 'fight till the last man was out of ammo'. They did put up a highly spririted defence of their homeland, but were not as fanatical as you suggest. I suggest you drop some of the hyperbole and prove to me that the Allied blockade and bombardment of Germany had no effect on her ability to wage the war - and show me some estimate of when Germany would have had an ICBM with a nuclear warhead ready for use. I bet it's long after the means to deploy and launch it have ceased to exist

 

[syscom3]

But this thread is getting waaaaay off topic, it's about leadership, remember?

Respond to my remarks about the air force leadership.

Your opinions?

 

[stasoid]

We're going off topic, agreed. I better keep my mouth shut for a while.

Last comment, promise.

Just imagine: no Eastern Front, no landing in Sicily, no D-Day, just air raids and blockade from the sea. You bomb them at night with your pre-historic B-17s, they launch few hundreds V2 rockets on London per month. Who will give up and surrender first?
They are not under pressure from the east, can relax and focus on creating new wonderweapons. Two years later their V-rockets can reach New-York, 5 years - LA. Me-262 night fighters just a matter of time. Nuclear-powered U-boats next... Will you continue your blockade in these conditions, or you will start fighting face to face?


Er, they were blockaded and bombarded from day 1 of WW2 and it worked. Look at the Battle of the Bulge - the offensive failed primarily because it ran out of fuel, fuel which was unavailable because Bomber Command and 8th AF were levelling Germany's POL infrastructure while 2nd TAF and other elements hammered the distribution network

They ran out of fuel because Soviets took Romanian oil fields 5 month earlier.

 

[Marcel]

They ran out of fuel because Soviets took Romanian oil fields 5 month earlier.

You're absolutely right if you combine it with the Allied bombing of the synthetic fuel factories. All parties contributed to the defeat of Germany. People in the west tend to ignore the Russian part (cold war thinking is hard to shake off after 40 years, I think ). The Russian fight was the biggest drain on German resources and manpower during the war and was paramount in the defeat of the Nazi's. Because of them and the other Allied countries, I was able to grow up in a free country. I think we should acknowledge that.
It's a sad thing that the Russians replaced one dictator with another in Eastern Europe and I feel slightly guilty towards these people for me having grown up in freedom, while they suffered under communist regime.

Still I think FDR didn't "sell" Eastern Europe. It was the only sensible thing to do. A war against Russia would have ended in many more years of conflict in a war-tired world. One thatmight not have necessary been won by the Western Allies. We Europeans might all have spoken Russian by now.

 

[Arsenal VG-33]

The soviets made multiple attempts to convince Great Britain and France to sign Collective Security pact against possible agression on Poland from Germany, instead France and UK signed Munich Treaty in 1938 giving Hitler a green light to go Ost.

Do not confuse Czecholosvakia with Poland. More precisely, giving Hitler a "green light" to take the Sudatenland. I remind you that Poland also partook in Munich 1938, taking Eastern Silesia for herself. The Poles were quite pleased with the results of this treaty.

 

[Amsel]

Still I think FDR didn't "sell" Eastern Europe. It was the only sensible thing to do. A war against Russia would have ended in many more years of conflict in a war-tired world. One thatmight not have necessary been won by the Western Allies. We Europeans might all have spoken Russian by now.

I get what your saying, and the western allies were tired, but if there ever was a time to defeat the Soviets it was in 1945. They barely took Berlin and the casualties that occured were extreme. After such a horrific war, maybe the west didn't have the heart as much as they had the ability to save Eastern Europe from bondage. One can't blame the leaders though. Nobody wanted to keep fighting.

 

[Freebird]

Respond to my remarks about the air force leadership.

Your opinions?

OK, but let's first agree on what criteria make a "Great Leader"

For Strategic Leader: {eg Nimitz, Brooke, Arnold}
Operations Planning
Deployments
Command appointments
Advise Political leaders if plans are unrealistic, suggest alternatives
Sending balanced forces to all areas


Tactical Leadership {eg Patton, Morshead, Slim}
Best use of Available forces
Reaction to unexpected circumstances
Reduction of avoidable casualties
Best tactics to accomplish the mission


Care to add some more criteria?

In both cases, the best candidates took actions that couldn't have been done by another. In general, the tactical leader is given a job to do with certain forces, and expected to make the most of what he has.
The strategic leader decides on operational plans in the theater, chooses subordinates, and decides on the allocation of forces

As for best AF leader, I would nominate three individuals.

Hap Arnold who over saw the transformation of the prewar air force that was 3rd rate, into the preeminent AF that no other country could match. Part of his "greatness" was his ability to pick great subordinates for both staff and command. Nearly all of them were kept around for the post war USAF and help build that up.

Gen. Kenney who commanded the 5th (and later the FEAF) AF for doing the most with the least.

Gen LeMay for being a brilliant bomber tactician and after the war commanded the SAC.

To be honest, I don't know enough about Kenney LeMay to make a final choice, what "outstanding" actions did they take in WWII?

 

[merlin]

To be honest, I don't know enough about Kenney LeMay to make a final choice, what "outstanding" actions did they take in WWII?

In that case, my I recommend the:
'Flying Buccasneers The Illustrated Story of Kenney's Fifth Air Force' By Steve Birdsall, with an Introduction by General George C Kenney. ISBN: 0 7153 7750 7

An excelent book.

 

[Waynos]

The soviets made multiple attempts to convince Great Britain and France to sign Collective Security pact against possible agression on Poland from Germany, instead France and UK signed Munich Treaty in 1938 giving Hitler a green light to go Ost.

So, you don't think that it was the Non-aggression pact of 23 Aug 1939 that gave the green light to the invasion of Poland ONE WEEK later? Interesting view.

But you and freebird are right, as fascinating as this discourse has become it is off topic and it is a shame to ruin someones carefully thought out thread so we'll leave it there.

It is amazing to see how the events of history are interpreted so differently in different countries though.

 

[michaelmaltby]

Waynos "...it is a shame to ruin someones carefully thought out thread so we'll leave it there." Thanks and it is wobbling a bit but a very interesting thread.

Stasoid - it troubles me the amount of revisionist material that is being injected into history nowadays - and I'm not singling out you. Things like a renewed efforts by Russia historians to say England and France could have prevented the war if only they had permitted Stalin to take up military positions in Poland in '39. That kind of statement doesn't wash true. Yes - capitulating to Stalin might have stopped Hitler but only by tradingone evil for another. Stalin used the same approach to set the stage for taking over Estonia, Latvia in '39. "We need bases on your land to defend ourselves ... (against Finland)". We know how that worked out. If Russian historians want to do some genuine work instead of trying to suck up to Putin for grant money ... determine why Russia was poised in offense in June 1941. Why Estonians and other Baltic people were deported to Russia just days before Barbarossa (the surprise attack Stalin was fully warned about), and why trains of ore and resources rolled into German territory hours before the first guns fired that night. Was Stalin desperately trying to appease Hitler. Or despite all, did he like FDR know that the Russia people wouldn't fight (Germany) unless seriously provoked?

No one so far has nominated Stalin for political leader, if I'm correct. Are we all so revolted by his tactics..? Russia has a long history of leaders like Ivan the Terrible, Peter the Great and others, who did absolutely inhuman things but forced their country forward -- kicking and screaming.

BTW - anyone see the Home Box Office made-for-TV movie "Stalin" starring Robert Duvall. I seriously recommend it - think it can be found at Amazon.com.

Chairs,

MM

 

[Freebird]

Waynos "...it is a shame to ruin someones carefully thought out thread so we'll leave it there." Thanks and it is wobbling a bit but a very interesting thread.

MM

Perhaps it should be split?

It could make TWO interesting topics...


Any thoughts on "leadership criteria"?

 

[michaelmaltby]

When I was contemplating this thread I was concerned about how the thread on Country Participation had turned into a bit of a Commonwealth bash ... the thread itself was turning up good material but it was getting personal. With that in mind I appreciated that splitting into political and military leadership might prevent a repeat. But I didn't think further than that as to tactical, strategic etc. and subdivision.

A leader is a leader .... sometimes you recognize a leader immediately, sometimes you don't until the times get tough and someone steps up. A smart leader listens to those around and learns. A bold leader takes chances .. like Cortez burning the ships when his expeition arrived in Mexico. A strong leader is secure and doesn't let jealousy weaken. I'm saying all of this because I wouldn't necessarily split the thread ... I don't think we're irreconcilibly bogged down here .. yet

On the other hand, a split by land, air and sea might open things up though ..

MM

 

[Soundbreaker Welch?]

"Winter War is a shamefull page of Russia's history anyways.." WHY Stasoid, because it wasn't moral, or because they had the crap kicked out of them ... gained enough territory "to bury their dead".

Explain to me how the Soviets could humiliate Japan in the summer of '39 and be humiliated by the Finns, by Xmas?

MM

I think General Georgi Zhukov's willingness to take high casualties and stil push on tol win the battle helped defeat the Japanese in 1939. His tactics weren't bad either, he basically surounded the invading force.

Perhaps the Russian General in charge of invading Finland wasn't as good at fightig.

 

[diddyriddick]

I don't consider Eisenhower as one of the greatest leaders. He was unable to suppress the ego's of his subordinates like Patton and Montgomery eniough. This led to many extra casualties and disasters like Market Garden. He was a military diplomat. Not outspoken enough, so all parties would accept him.

Precisely my point, Marcel. Imagine how fractious the allied high command would have been without a moderating voice on all the personalities involved. So if you are going to assign one person to lead the combined allied armies, who would it be? Marshall is out-Roosevelt would never give him up as chief-of-staff. I know of nobody else who had the diplomatic skill to unify that command.

While you are undoubtedly correct that disasters like Market-Garden might have played out decidedly different, if at all, what about allied achievements that were possible because of allied harmony? Would Overlord been possible w/out it? I don't believe it.

I've heard it argued persuasively that Ike had the fault of lacking the necessary combat command experience to be a theater commander, but this is the first time that I've ever heard it argued that his diplomacy was a liability.

Just my two cents....

 

[parsifal]

A comparison of the battles fought in the winter war, and those fought at Khalkin Gol and Nomonhan requires some understanding of the factors involved. In the Far East, the Siberian Army had emerged from the purges relatively unscathed....those statistics that you see about 9 out of ten generals being killed etc are not including those that had been assigned to the Far East. I remember reading recently that 8 out of the 9 admirals of the Red Navy were excecuted....and then realized that at least three admirals from the Far East Fleet did not get the chop. So, the material available to the Soviets in the Far East was vastly better led than that in the west. And the results of that are obvious. Whereas in Finland the war was a series of continual bumbling and stuff ups, you see none of that in the battles against the Japanese. The officers in that theatre were experienced soldiers, and it showed. Zhukov was one of those soldiers

Incidentally, Zhukov was not profligate with either lives or materiel in this battle. According to Wiki...."Casualty estimates vary widely: Some sources say the Japanese suffered 45,000 or more soldiers killed with Russian casualties of at least 17,000. The Japanese officially reported 8,440 killed and 8,766 wounded, while the Russians initially claimed 9,284 total casualties. It is likely that figures published at the time were reduced for propaganda purposes. In recent years, with the opening of the Soviet archives, a more accurate assessment of Soviet casualties has emerged from the work of Grigoriy Krivosheev, citing 7,974 killed and 15,251 wounded."

In the air, the Japanese did better, with modern research indicating the loss of 88 aircraft to the Soviet 225. This battle saw the first use of the Russian RS-82 Rockets, and the first use of Bacteriological weapons by the Japanese

Returning to the issues as to why the battles in Siberia went better, the second glaringly obvious reason was the weather.....the battles at Khalkin Gol (which is the Khalkin River in English) were fought in clear, dry, Summer weather,, whereas the Battles in Finland were fought in the dead of winter. In Finland, the Soviets were short of winter clothes and equipment, their ski troops barely knew how to ski, and troops literally froze by the thousand. The cold was the cause of the vast majority of casualties for the Russians. They foundered in exactly the same way as the Germans did two years later, when they too were caught by General Winter unprepared. It should come as no surprise that the Soviets were cut to pieces the same as the Germans

The next major issues was one of supply. Whilst supply was short in Khalkin Gol for the Russians, they were relatively close to their supply heads (about 100 miles, whereas the japanese were operating over 450 miles from their depots). The Russians managed to pool over 25000 trucks and cut roads to the battle, whereas the Japanese were forced to try and rely on completely inadequate horse drawn supply. This had a major effect on the combat effectiveness of the respective armies.

In the Finn war, the reverse was true, the Finns were operating relatively close to their supply heads, whilst the Soviets were not. The Finn formations remained in supply, whilst the Soviet supply system broke down completely. Without supply, in the cold, you die...end of story

Lastly a word needs to be said about the Finns themsleves. The Finns were the masters of forest warfare....it was their home, and they tended to know it in detail. This allowed them to set up repeated ambushes that destroyed many Soviet formations. This advantage was not given to the invading Japanese, who were fighting without local knowledge, and without any forest skills to speak of.

There is one other terrain feature to note....parts of the Finn lines were fortified (the Mannerheim Line) which gave the outnumbered Finns a further advantage. The Japanese were on the attack, and therefore did not have the advantage of fortifications.

 

[Marcel]

Precisely my point, Marcel. Imagine how fractious the allied high command would have been without a moderating voice on all the personalities involved. So if you are going to assign one person to lead the combined allied armies, who would it be? Marshall is out-Roosevelt would never give him up as chief-of-staff. I know of nobody else who had the diplomatic skill to unify that command.

While you are undoubtedly correct that disasters like Market-Garden might have played out decidedly different, if at all, what about allied achievements that were possible because of allied harmony? Would Overlord been possible w/out it? I don't believe it.

I've heard it argued persuasively that Ike had the fault of lacking the necessary combat command experience to be a theater commander, but this is the first time that I've ever heard it argued that his diplomacy was a liability.

Just my two cents....

Diplomacy doen't make you a good leader. A good leader knows when to use his stripes, especially with subordinates like Montgomery and Patton.
Another point against him is that he tended to lead by remote control, staying behind in his HQ at Granvile, far from the front. A difficult task with the ruined communication lines ad rapidly moving fronts of September 1944.

 

[michaelmaltby]

Parsifal ... I agree totally with your analysis re: Khalkin Gol-Nomonhan and the Winter War. Several years ago I struggled through Alvin Coocke's (Sp?) massive volume "Nomonhan" - way more detail (from Japanese POV) than I could absorb but I remember a reference to the decision that Stalin made to put Zhukov totally in charge without the usual political commissar overlord-boss (to second guess and intimidate). The serving commissar was instructed to stay east of the battle area and butt out ... and he was a long serving senior party official. That decision in itself gave Zhukov an authority and freedom to command that was out-of-character for the USSR.

My question to Stasoid about the 2 wars was largely rhetorical.

MM