LONDON (Reuters) - Nearly half of Britons in a poll said they had never heard of Auschwitz, the Nazi death camp in southern Poland that became a symbol of the Holocaust and the attempted genocide of the Jews.
posted
This isn't really that suprising. The only reasons why America would know about the details of the Holocaust is because we've always taught ourselves that we entered WWII for noble purposes. The UK entered WWII because Nazi Germany posed an imminent threat to their homes. To convince themselves that they were the good guys, Britons just had to look outside and see the wreckage from German bombing, America, with the exception of a couple of balloons and saboteurs, was untouched after Pearl Harbor. Furthermore, there are more Jews living in the United States than any other country in the world so there are considerably more people in this country to remind us of what happened. Without those Jews, would America know any more about the Holocaust than they do about Rwanda, Kosovo, or Dafur. How many Americans are aware of the Holocaust of the Armenians? I didn't know until I visited Israel and saw a few thousand signs about it in Jerusalem. How Americans are aware that between 4 and 8 million non-Jews were exterminated in the Holocaust? All this and I still doubt that 50% of Americans could name one Holocaust concentration camp.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are a lot of very undereducated people in England. The education system is sadly lacking in many areas.
Most people however, will have heard of the Holocaust.
It was probably a multiple choice question: i.e. "What or who was or is Auschwitz?
A Nazi Death Camp A member of the Nazi party A city in Germany bombed during WWII Another word for the Third Reich."
In that way, it makes it less likely. People would go Ummmm and pick one, even if they had a general idea that it was somehow connected to the Nazis or Germany during WWII it would likely be wrong.
posted
I had the Holocaust burned into my brain after studying it in 5th grade, 6th grade, 7th grade, 8th grade and as a sophomore in my Four Revolutions class. It actually became a joke among my friends: "We've run out of things to do on the lesson plan! Quick, get out the World War II stuff!"
Note that I didn't learn anything about World War I until that same Four Revolutions class. Vietnam or the Cold War wasn't even mentioned in any course material anywhere and despite what I like to say, all of the reading material we were assigned *was* written after 1980, so some mention should be in there.
Also, it wasn't until after I was out of high school did I find out how much the Russians were part of WWII. The more I find out, the more I believe that they won that war for us, not the other way around.
Posts: 903 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know that I subscribe to the notion that either side won the war for the other.
If Hitler hadn't tied up so much of his Warmacht trying to attack Russia, the war would have gone on for much, much longer - likewise, if Hitler wasn't splitting his focus between East and West, he could have made a better showing against Russia, even allowing for the weather.
posted
I read that in 8th grade (can't remember why) and it's stuck with me ever since. I finally got a copy of both for myself.
Posts: 14745 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:If Hitler hadn't tied up so much of his Warmacht trying to attack Russia, the war would have gone on for much, much longer - likewise, if Hitler wasn't splitting his focus between East and West, he could have made a better showing against Russia, even allowing for the weather.
If Hitler hadn't attacked Russia, Stalin would probably have attacked him in 1942 or 43. But if we assume that Russia remains neutral, there is no way short of atomic bombardment that the Allies could win. The men defending the beaches of Normandy were the dregs of the Wehrmacht; undermanned, underequipped garrison units. And the invasion was still a cursed close-run thing, not to mention the fight to expand the beachhead. If the whole, or even the half, of the Wehrmacht had been able to fight the landings, they would have squashed the invasion like a bug.
It might have been possible to free Norway, since the garrison there could hardly be reinforced against the Royal Navy. But the rest of Europe could have been held against anything short of nukes. Even a landing in neutral Spain is iffy; Franco would immediately sign a treaty of alliance with Hitler, and the Panzers would come down like a hammer. Anywhere the Germans could get to by train, there's just no way the Allies can win - even apart from their better experience and organisation, the German logistics would be infinitely superior. As witness the difficulties supplying the invasion force in 1944, before the capture of Caen. And there would be no "if you see no planes, it's the Luftwaffe", either. In fact, fighting over territory it controlled, the Luftwaffe would have similar advantages to those of the RAF in the Battle of Britain.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
KoM, you're premise rests upon that an amphibious invasion of Normandy would be impossible. However, what many people are completely unaware of, is that France was already invade prior to D-Day. The Allies had already driven through Italy and into the south of France. It would have been very possible, although much more difficult to wage a one-front campaign through France. I'm sure this would have taken much longer, but over the long run, America's size and industrial strength would simply have proved to be an unstoppable force. Without Russia, we also would have to commit less material to resupplying the Russians and the naval units could have gone to help our effort on the Western front or even have helped bring a quicker end in the Pacific. Again, as divided as Germany was, the US and the UK were equally so.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hardly dregs - and Rommel had been called back to coordinate the defense of the beaches.
While the D-Day landing achievement was a heroic effort on behalf of the men dying on those beaches, it was a disasterous blunder by the command staff planning that operation.
A front loading troop transport is just not a good idea.
And while Stalin might have attacked, he had not undertaken any effort to modernize his military to the point it could go toe-to-toe with the Nazi military.
Assuming Russia remained neutral, a stalemate would have developed until a technological advance broke the impasse or until sheer attrition took it's toll in terms of men and material.
Although while a nuke would have been effective, a FAE would have made quite an impression as well.
posted
newfoundlogic, you have restored my faith in American ignorance. France had not been invaded prior to D-Day. Italy had been invaded, true. That invasion never got any further north than Rome, and I submit that it would not have been possible if the Wehrmacht hadn't been distracted.
There was an invasion of southern France, but it was considerably later than D-Day.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
One day, my rather anti-American housemate was complaining about the Americans on his course, and how they were so ignorant that they didn't know anything about the geography of the country they were living in (Britain). I cited another BBC poll from a few years ago which found that most British people had no idea where East Anglia was (which is the area where Cambridge and Norfolk are, north east of London, by the way).
He said blankly, 'what's East Anglia?'. He wasn't joking. People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw scones.
Posts: 1528 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The notion that Russia won the war for the Allies is a very true statement to say the least. The Garrison in Normandy was for the most part not very good. Not to mention the fact that they didn't have enough fuel for their Tigers etc. to ever properly counterattack the allies. The Russians were burning up Germany armor on the Eastern front not to mention eating German Veterans for the sheer fact that the Russians were suiciding themselves against the Germans. Not to mention the Germans gave up North Africa for Russia.
Plus the fact is if Germany could have concentrated the power of its airforce in the western theater of operations and swept the allies from North Africa we would have never even invaded Italy to even to begin to mention France. Not to mention if America had to concentrate more forces in Europe the Pacific theater of operations would have been a much more difficult conflict. It is of my opinion that if Hitler didn't believe so much in public terror and what not the LuftWaffe would have ended up crushing the RAF anyhow. That and a Wehrmacht properly fueled with more equipment and industrial capacity because of less British/American bombing would have fared much better.
Americans are far too believing in their military might and strategic prowess. It is something that in my opinion very much puts the American WWII soldier in a lesser light. They were fighting a war that was far from certain. They are some of the greatest heros of our time because unlike myself they never knew for certain that we would win. They did not ride into battle knowing every one would be victorious. They had inferior armor to German soldiers and even in many instances inferior planes.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think the Pacific was such a diversion as all that. Certainly, many ships and aircraft that could otherwise have fought in Europe were diverted, but how many tanks and soldiers do you need to invade a Japanese-held island? Rather fewer than stormed the beaches of Normandy. And just how useful would those ships have been against Germany?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
And that is why the Pacific theater is the most undervalues part of WWII and I won't go on talking about how it was a rather large diversion.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
First off, the defenders of Normandy were NOT the dregs of the Third Riech:
quote: Normandy was preferred because of its weaker defenses. A preliminary aerial attack on the bridges and railways of northern France isolated the battlefield from the rest of the country in the spring of 1944. Meanwhile the invation fleet, the Tactical Air Force of 6,000 airplanes and the 45 divisions which were to fight the Battle of Europe assmbled in the United Kingdom. to oppose them, Rundstedt, German commander in the west, had an outnumbered air force and a non-existent navy, but over 50 divisions, including ten armored, of which 40 formed Army Group B, under Rommel, on the Channel coast.
quote: ...Montgomery in particular insisted on increasing the number of assaulting divisions from three to five and of airlanding divisions from one to three. Eisenhower was of one mind with hjim and secured the postponement of the landing from May to June 1944 accordingly.
Both quotes were taken from:
World War II: A Visual Encyclopedia Published 1999 by PRC Publishing Ltd
There are really too many factors that go into a battle as large in scale as the Normandy Invations to pin down any one or two causes as the causes of victory. Allied air power, the destruction of railways and bridges leading into the invation zone of Normandy, the allied campaign of deception, the fact that Rommel wasn't present at the time of the landings, and just plain old luck.
Would it have been different if Hitler was fighting a single front war? Most likely, he would have had more military power left by then, and he could focused it more effectively on that spot. However, its likely that more forces would have been concentrated to make the attack. Speculating on it, while somewhat fun, is rather pointless Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I still don't believe Russia won the war for the simple fact that over the term the industrial might of the United States simply would have overwhelmed Germany. Furthermore, eventually we would have defeated Japan in much the same way we did. Once we did that and our full strength could be brought against Germany our ability to simply outproduce them would have won us the war. The diversion that was the Pacific theater was enormous. All the infrantry alone would make a significant difference. Those same Marines that took island after island could have been used in amphibious operations in Europe. Furthermore, could you imagine the additional air power that could have been brought against Germany with tens of aircraft carriers swarming the seas around Europe? It isn't simply that we would outproduce Germany, its that we would be able to destroy their factories at will while ours safely on the other side of the Atlantic could be going full steam. With that additional naval power, Germany's u-boats would have trouble denting the Atlantic supply line.
The invasion of Southern France took place a mere two months after D-Day. That along with Normandy would have in itself created its own two front problem for Germany.
The only potential problem I see for the US winning a long period, drawn out conflict, is that Germany's ability to create new and advanced weapons was phenominal. When the war ended there were still multiple projects that were only in the prototype stage and could have caused the US great harm. However, this too might have lead to Germany's own demise. When Germany created its King Tiger tank and jet fighters it hindered its own ability to produce them. America's simple Sherman was able to be produced several times faster and as the war showed, overwhelming quantity can beat quality.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why the assumption that there would be no Pacific war? We are discussing what would happen if Russia was out of it; no mention was made of Japan.
Aircraft carriers, indeed. You cannot fly a WWII vintage strategic bomber off an aircraft carrier, there ain't room. Further, those ships carried something on the order of 50 planes, total. The Luftwaffe had somewhere around 2000 aircraft in 1940. In any case, if you want an aircraft carrier, what's wrong with Britain?
It doesn't matter if you're landing marines or armoured divisions; the Wehrmacht, given that it has a strategic reserve and control of its own airspace, can smash them faster than you can land them. Certainly, you might manage damaging raids, like Dieppe, but that has absolutely zero strategic effect. What does Hitler want ports for?
"A mere two months"? In war that is an eternity. And in this alternate-history scenario it would not create a two-front problem for Germany, for the good and simple reason that the Normandy invasion would be smashed.
Industrial potential is a fine thing, and I agree that Germany couldn't close the Atlantic. Still, the industrial power of occupied Europe was hardly trivial, even compared to the US. Give Speer another year, at the very least, to organise it; give the Luftwaffe control of continental airspace, so that the strategic bombing is less devastating; watch Europe outproduce you.
In any case, it doesn't matter how many tanks you've got coming out of your factories; you need to get them ashore faster than Hitler can send Tigers to counter their attack.
Finally, note that you would not be able to destroy their factories at will. Even in our history, German production increased until fairly late in 1944. That's with a strategic bombing campaign being essentially unopposed. Now imagine the Luftwaffe free to concentrate on home defense.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think Russia won the War. I don't think America won the war (um, it wasn't just America involved in D-Day. Several countries were involved, including the United Kingdom and Australia). I do think that Hitler lost the war out of stupidity. You don't fight a two front war against strong militaries. He could have handled Russia and almost did if it wasn't for the winter. He might have handled America, although there were few actual confrontations that can be used as comparisons. What he couldn't do is handle Russia and America with its allies simultaneously. Even some of his top leaders understood what horrible risks were taken near the end.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know about Aushwitz. I'd like to see American numbers. I think that we'd be about the same, and I wouldn't be surprised if we were worse.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
I'm not bringing this up to say you're wrong, but are you aware this statement places you well outside the mainstream professional historigraphy?
Russian troops were already pushing west by the time D-Day took place; the Germans had been cut off from the vital Caucusas oil fields.
A typical estimate of Russian casualites runs about 11 million. US casualites? Around 400 000 total, in both theatres.
So the Russians were moving towards Germany before the western allies, and they contributed far, far more in terms of manpower.
And you're saying that the emphasis on the Russian contribution to WWII is incorrect? Can you explain yourself a bit more, so I know what the heck you're talking about?
And the US wasn't really fighting two wars. Only the Pacific Navy was engaging the Japanese in any signifigant way up until '44, when Guadacanal was invaded. The vast majority of the US military, especially the army and air force, was exlusively focussed on Europe.
Posts: 1515 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: Why the assumption that there would be no Pacific war? We are discussing what would happen if Russia was out of it; no mention was made of Japan.
I assume that eventually we would defeat Japan in much the same way we did and at that time we would be able to bring our full force against Germany.
quote: Aircraft carriers, indeed. You cannot fly a WWII vintage strategic bomber off an aircraft carrier, there ain't room. Further, those ships carried something on the order of 50 planes, total. The Luftwaffe had somewhere around 2000 aircraft in 1940. In any case, if you want an aircraft carrier, what's wrong with Britain?
You would fly fighters off of the carriers or fighter-bombers. You could also, if you truly desired, fly B-25 Mitchells like Doolittle did. The fighters are important because fighter launching from the UK couldn't reach as far as the bombers did. This time when the bombers were flying without fighter cover is when they took their most significant losses. Carriers could also be located anywhere there is water, anywhere in the North Sea, the Atlantic, the Artic, or the Medditeranean. Assuming there were about 50 aircraft per carrier, that's still a significant amount of aircraft considering there were tens of carriers in operation by the end of WWII. Furthermore, that doesn't include land-based Marine aircraft that were based on islands. If there were only ten carriers that would still be quater of Germany's airpower right there.
quote: It doesn't matter if you're landing marines or armoured divisions; the Wehrmacht, given that it has a strategic reserve and control of its own airspace, can smash them faster than you can land them. Certainly, you might manage damaging raids, like Dieppe, but that has absolutely zero strategic effect. What does Hitler want ports for?
It matters if you're putting together an invasion force larger than Normandy. I imagine that if a Normandy type invasion wasn't possible Eisenhower and staff would have put a land based plus amphibious force invasion together. Add in airborne divisions and another front in Southern France and Germany has its hand more than full. The Dieppe raid was fooling because the Allies simply were ready yet and attacked something they simply could breach. As I've already demonstated Germany wouldn't even have dominance over its own airspace.
quote: Industrial potential is a fine thing, and I agree that Germany couldn't close the Atlantic. Still, the industrial power of occupied Europe was hardly trivial, even compared to the US. Give Speer another year, at the very least, to organise it; give the Luftwaffe control of continental airspace, so that the strategic bombing is less devastating; watch Europe outproduce you.
Of course Europe wasn't trivial, but many countries weren't producing for Germany. The UK, of course, was on our side, Spain, Portugal, Switzerland, and Sweden were neutral. Italy was captured and became an Allied power. Occupied nations proved to be far less efficient than Germany itself. Again, as I've shown, strategic bombing would be more devastating.
quote: In any case, it doesn't matter how many tanks you've got coming out of your factories; you need to get them ashore faster than Hitler can send Tigers to counter their attack.
With all those extra ships you can get armor and men ashore much faster. Besides, Hitler showed himself inept at doing just that.
quote: Finally, note that you would not be able to destroy their factories at will. Even in our history, German production increased until fairly late in 1944. That's with a strategic bombing campaign being essentially unopposed. Now imagine the Luftwaffe free to concentrate on home defense.
With WWII aircraft of course its impossible to destroy anything "at will," but you can heavily damage a nation's ability to make war. Strategic bombing was never unopposed for the simple reason that Germany had fighters attacking our bombers and we didn't have fighters to defend our bombers. The Luftwaffe already was concentrating on "home defense" as much as it ever was going to be. Germany's jet fighters did not appear over the skies of the USSR, but over its own soil. Up until the end of the war Hitler was thinking offensively. He ordered that all but one of every ten of his most advanced jet fighters be designed for air to ground bombing. Considering this mindset, me know Germany's own leader would have prevented it from ever being devoted to a true defensive posture, which was the only way Germany could hope to outdo the US.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: Russian troops were already pushing west by the time D-Day took place; the Germans had been cut off from the vital Caucusas oil fields.
From Operation Torch on, Germany was virtually in full retreat from both fronts. If Germany hadn't invaded Russia, they never would have seen the Caucasas seeing as how they were in the USSR.
quote: A typical estimate of Russian casualites runs about 11 million. US casualites? Around 400 000 total, in both theatres.
This has more to do with the efficiency with which we fought. The number that you would actually have to look at to prove your point would be how many Germany died at Russian hands as opposed to American, and while Russia would still probably be in the lead, the difference would be less staggering.
quote: And the US wasn't really fighting two wars. Only the Pacific Navy was engaging the Japanese in any signifigant way up until '44, when Guadacanal was invaded. The vast majority of the US military, especially the army and air force, was exlusively focussed on Europe.
At the very least you'd have to count all those men who served on ships as men who could fire rifles. More importantly you might need to read The Influence of Sea Power upon History by Alfred Mahan.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The limiting factor in getting men ashore is not the number of ships, God knows the Allies had hundreds of them, but the port capacity. You have to capture a port. That is not possible.
Naval fighters are not optimised for long-range strategic escort missions; they wouldn't be able to reach Germany unless they launched from the Baltic. And I quoted the number of German aircraft in 1940. You may rest assured that it would be rather higher in 1944.
quote: The Luftwaffe already was concentrating on "home defense" as much as it ever was going to be.
Well, that's just ridiculous. If there's no war with the USSR, just who is Hitler supposed to be attacking? So that's a good few thousand planes that are now stationed in Europe instead of the Eastern Front. The jet fighters are overrated anyway, they were too fast to hit propeller bombers.
I repeat, Italy could not be captured, because no naval invasion was going to work anywhere the Wehrmacht could get to by rail. Look, it doesn't matter how large your invasion force is, as long as you stay within the realms of practicality. The Wehrmacht strategic reserve would be about two or three million soldiers; the strength that fought in Russia, in other words. There is no way you can land that many soldiers. Even as it stood, Normandy was a close-run thing; if Rommel had been able to bring his tanks in one day earlier, he could well have thrown the invasion into the sea.
I'm sorry to keep repeating this, but you don't seem to be getting it : You cannot invade Europe against an undistracted Wehrmacht. It can't be done. Just give it up, OK?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:This has more to do with the efficiency with which we fought. The number that you would actually have to look at to prove your point would be how many Germany died at Russian hands as opposed to American, and while Russia would still probably be in the lead, the difference would be less staggering.
Ten out of eleven German casualties were on the Eastern Front. EDIT : Now also with link.
quote:At the very least you'd have to count all those men who served on ships as men who could fire rifles.
Yes, all hundred thousand of them. Ship crews just aren't that large. But as I've repeatedly said, the numbers just don't matter, you have to get them ashore.
quote:More importantly you might need to read The Influence of Sea Power upon History by Alfred Mahan.
I've read it. It applies to the era of sailing ships and limited warfare. Certainly, the blockade wasn't doing the German economy any good; but unlike an eighteenth-century king, Hitler wasn't about to surrender because of that. The reason being, if he won the war, the economy would encompass the entire world; if he lost, the economy was the least of his worries.
In any case, how is America supposed to blockade Germany any more effectively than what they were already doing? It's not as though Germany had any colonies to snap up, either. Europe is pretty big; given sufficient rationing, the Germans could probably scrape by without world trade.
[ December 02, 2004, 10:51 PM: Message edited by: King of Men ]
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I watched something on the History Channel tonight about an alleged sequel to Mein Kamp. It was fascinating. Shocking, scary, and fascinating. But is it real? That is the question. And the answer: If I devoted an hour of my life to watching that show, it darn well better be real. Posts: 925 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
they haven't????? ![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
