Revisionist tendencies and Ambrose Sindrome

[boredatwork]

In order to answer to a monumental misconception of the forces engaged and their effect, it is important, now that the concept I was trying to made failed to be understood, is to go down the same path my argument´s adversaries are trying to use.

Where are the Poles and the Free French?
Where are the CAnadians, Australians, New Zeelanders, Indians? And if you have included them in the Commonwealth, why don;'t you write the total amoutn of forces after all?

You could add the Poles and Free French, you could add the Portugese, and the Spanniards, and the Norwegiens, and the Yugoslavians, and the Greeks, and the Filipinos, and the Mongolians, and the Syrians, and the Iraqis, the Ethiopians, the Dutch, the Belgians, and dozens of other minor powers but for the purposes of this discussion it's irrelavent.

You and Karl have posted nice figures to illustrate a point that was NEVER in question: The Axis powers were substantially outnumbered in WW2. Nowhere in this thread have I or anyone else claimed otherwise.

However in the context of KARL's thread to criticise dramatised exageration of American combat prowess

But Ambrose´s Band of Brothers or D Day had the tendency of giving the US a special aura the equals to Excelence...

he goes on, whether intentional or not to advance arguments which "have the tendency of giving Germany a special aura that equals to Excelence:"

The specific one I was commenting on was:

It took four more years for three empires, USA, British and Russia, almost half of the world surface and population and almost all the wealth and natural (oil) resources to beat a country a little bigger than Texas without ZERO natural resources.

Notice he uses "Empire" which, in the context of 1939-1945 already implies us Canadians, the Aussies, the Kiwis, the South Africans, the Indians, and dozens of smaller nations and then, by his statement implies by exclusion that the full and complete resources of the 3 mentioned "empires" were focussed on Germany and Germany alone - which, IMO, sounds an awful lot like the kind of exageration and skewing of history that he argued against in his first post. If he had said to "beat a country a little bigger than Texas, Japan, and their greatly outnumbered allies" I would have had no issue and would not have commented because, in the context of how he was using it in an argument it would have been much closer to the facts.

My numbers were merely to illustrate that Germany was hardly alone against the world. Greatly outnumbered yes, but alone no.

[alecsandros]

Ok, since I see we pretty much agree, I suggest we start naming the origins of the (faulty) revisionist tendencies, both pro and anti - axis.

Anti-axis
I'll start by naming a few books published in my own country, while under soviet influence (1944-1989):
I don't know if they have been translated in English, but I'll try to do it here:
- "Tales about general Vatutin", from the late '40s. The book has about 200pg, that cover various "brave, courageous and worthy" deeds accomplished by the Russian general, by contrast with the "heartless, sub-human" actions of the Germans. It was in fact a propaganda book, anti-German and pro-soviet.
- "The Romanian army in the Second World War", published in the late 70s, is a 600pg book, that presents only the events happening from 1944-1945, not mentioning the 1941-1944 period during which the Romanian army was at war with the soviets.

- All the history manuals failed to mention the war between RO and RUS; as if the Romanian army were only at war with the Hungarians and the Germans...

Pro-axis
An extreme-right wing party known as the "New Right" appeared in 1996 Romania. It presently has around 10.000 followers, they mantain several websites and publish 2 or 3 regional papers.
Their claims, amongst others:
- Zyklon B was a parasite-removal gas, that left the prisoners unharmed.
- Stalingrad was a German/Romanian victory, covered up by "the jews".
- their doctrine is centered upon the apparition of the "new man", whose characteristics are clearly of nazist influence.
...

[Karl Heidenreich]

alecsandros:

What happened in the educational or cultural stages of Romania, or any country under soviet occupation and influence, it´s very understandable. The soviets were no only totaliatarian and communists but also those that really recevied the wrath of the nazis and saw their countries entirely destroyed by them. Also they were those in which the great percentage of the Death Camps were located. I fully understand why the soviets did many of the things they did, starting for calling World War II the Great Patriotic War.

The problem that I mentioned, here, was in regards of the western allies, that as I see it only found their pride shadowed by the German proficiency in their war making capacity.

Both, the Soviets and the North Americans peoples and historians, have the same misconception: that they won the war single handed. Which is a fact it wasn´t that way and that would have been imposible, for any of them alone, to win. And none of them would have been able to win, whatever they did, if the British wouldn´t have offered the resistance they did, neither. They needed each other and all produced their share of contribution. Of course we have to give more credit to the soviets (which is sad for me personally) because it was their blood the one that almost filled the bucket of all the war casualties and greatest national effort, Stalin or not Stalin.

But with the last arguments I do feel the issue is done. Is it?

Best regards,

[VeenenbergR]

mckenny. What is really bothering you? I agreed upon the vision that the landed 1500 (within weeks followed by another 6000 AFV's) tanks and TD's were more than a match for the German army, if it wanted to drive them bach in the sea.I stated that thoose 1500 were not alone, but backed up by a massive air and naval fleet (these are the facts!) AND that the Allied army (like the German Army) except from the regular divisions had many smaller units to back them up.

Other but very important strength factors were the Allied unlimited supply (ammo!): they shelled the German Army day and night so that the German Army (always also lacking sufficient supply) fought under exhausting, stressing conditions what explained most of their failing to hold the line or failing to succesfully counterattack. The US infantry divisions each had a full fledged batalion of tanks!!! Explaining, apart from the excellent artillery support, their ability to push back German infantry units.

So mckenny: for me it is clear that apart from the units in the field: fighting spirit(motivation), their training, experience, equipment, weapons, tactical skills/leadership, high command/leadership, intelligence, the support (air, naval, artillery), supplies/resources and terrain all explain VERY WELL what historically happened.

Germany's stronger side (operational, tactical)

fighting spirit(motivation): Germans, Soviets, Finns, Poles, Greek, Yugoslavs (Serbs, Croats): high; other nations: less; Italians: low
training: Germans (excellent training of Panzer crews, infantry), Commonwealth, USA: high; other nations: less
experience: depends on time units were exploited in the field.
equipment: Germans: excellent; Commonwealth, USA, Soviets: good; rest: less
weapons: Germans: excellent; Commonwealth, USA, Soviets: excellent to good; sometimes mediocre (British armour); rest: less
tactical skills/leadership: German best in the world!; Commonwealth, USA, Soviets: excellent to good; sometimes mediocre; rest: less;

Germany's weaker side (operational, tactical)

high command/leadership: Germans: good; Soviets: better; Commonwealth, USA & rest: mediocre
intelligence: Germans: mediocre; Soviets: good; Commonwealth, USA: good to excellent; rest: mediocre
the support (air, naval, artillery): Germans: good; Soviets: average to mediocre; Commonwealth, USA: excellent! rest:
supplies/resources; Germans: weak; Commonwealth, USA, Soviets: excellent

Casualties of WWII:

The bloodiest (highest KIA) per hour combat of WWII were the bombings of German and Japanese cities. Death tolls of over 20-30.000 per hour! That makes city bombing so horrible.
Berlin after a serious raid is shocking to look at, with whole boulevards burning and streets awash with water from the fire fighting units (see movie on you tube), everywhere destruction, people traumatized.
In the ground fighting the cauldron breakout battles on the Eastfront (and that of Falaise) were the most bloody battles (if looking to the casualty rate per hour).
The most bloody of them was perhaps the breakout of the Budapest garrison.
At sea it is the sinking of ships like the Gustloff, Goya, Steuben, Teja, Totila but also of the Yamato, Bismarck and Scharnhorst.

[Byron Angel]

People interested in a more or less objectively neutral evaluation of the WW2 German infantryman against his contemporary opponents might consider reading R N Dupuy's "Numbers, Prediction, & War".


Byron

[mkenny]

People interested in a more or less objectively neutral evaluation of the WW2 German infantryman against his contemporary opponents might consider reading R N Dupuy's "Numbers, Prediction, & War".


Byron

There are several threads here on this system.

http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forums/s ... ight=Dupuy
http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forums/s ... hp?t=85575

[hammy]

An extreme-right wing party known as the "New Right" appeared in 1996 Romania. It presently has around 10.000 followers, they mantain several websites and publish 2 or 3 regional papers.
Their claims, amongst others:
- Zyklon B was a parasite-removal gas, that left the prisoners unharmed.

...

Zyklon B WAS a "parasite-removal gas" and was widely and routinely used by sanitation authorities in both Europe and in the US before WW2 to fumigate ships , Railway carriages , and clothing , in order to kill insect pests , in particular the Typhus - bearing Human body louse .
Similar compounds of Insecticide are still used today for the same purpose , ( though the label on the tin is changed ! ) .
In fact I'll bet if you went into the store cupboard of the port sanitary department at Ashdod or Haifa today you would find it for use if needed .
In these comparitively disease-free times , we have forgotten the scale of the sanitary problems that were universal from eighty years ago back to pre-historic times , and it is only those who now live in the worst of slums in the most failed States , or those who neglect totally their personal cleanliness and living spaces who now encounter these conditions .
Time was it wasn't like that , and any journey involving contact with a mass of strangers would be likely to afflict you with a variety of small new " friends ".
Drastic , routine , enforced and thorough de-contamination was the norm , and this was applied to you , to your clothes and possessions , and to the conveyance which carried you .

The rather tentative " Debate " at present is whether the " Gas Chambers " aspect of the Holocaust occurred as per the orthodox account given out during the end , and immediately after , WW2 , or whether that standard account is not fully historically accurate .

Unfortunately what should be a deliberate historical enquiry into the evidence and a subsequent assessment is rendered impossible by the hysteria surrounding the issue and the vested interests many groups have in ensuring that the "Story as previously told" is in fact , " Fact Irrefutable " .
The only people to publicly voice any doubt at present are Far Right groups of Loonies , and a few isolated investigators or commentators on the historical era who are consequently immediately labelled and vilified as " Holocaust Deniers " as if the whole terrible episode was in question , as opposed to questioning just part of one aspect of it .

That the issue is still a Hot Potato , rather than a matter for historians , is that should the " Gassing of the Jews in the Camps " ever become questionable , then the extreme wing of the Zionist faction fear that some of the Western sympathy enjoyed still by the state of Israel , and engendered out of our "Guilt" , would evaporate , and therefore that some of their many present mistreatments of the Palestinians , ( Christians as well as the more numerous Muslims remember ! ) , would cease to be viewed with the degree of tolerance by the West that has been customary since 1948 .

The nuts and bolts of this and the many arguments to and fro can be found in extensive film form on the " You - Tube " system and going there is far less boring than reading my turgid prose on the subject .
If you enter " David Irving " as an initial search that should take you to the work he has done and the "related Videos" should run you past the rest , which includes the history of "Gas Chambers" ( the sanitary kind ) and "Gas Vans" , and Zyklon B , Allied propaganda on the subject during WW2 , recent Chemical analysis done on the masonary of the installations at Auschwitz , Capacity/Fuel requirement aspects of crematoria , Reconaissance photo analysis/evaluation of aerial photos of the camps late-war , and why the Allies didn't destroy the rail lines into the camps , and on , ad nauseam .

I dont like David Irving the man , I think he is one of those historians who gives the appearance of having fallen in love with his subject matter ( and therefore is falsely credited with love for the people and policies that are part of it ) , his undoubted deep knowledge of the Third Reich has made him appear overconfident and brusque in manner in public , and he has been very unwise in accepting any platform and any audience in the past to publicly state his arguments , hence his recent imprisonment in Austria .
But having listened to his expositions , I dont think he is some latterday Nazi supporter .

[alecsandros]

@ Karl: I;m not saying that I don't udnerstad the reasons for the russian manipulation. What I wanted was to start naming some sources for the revisionist tendencies, so as to have some identifiable facts/events to talk about instead of general afirmations such as "some believe the Germans were much worse than mainstream historians believe". (who believes that? why? when and under what circumstances?)

@Hammy: though the informative value of the Holocaust-revisionists is not zero, it ain't to big either. There are 13 countries in which publicly denying the Holocaust will put you in jail (my own included). And there are several hard-reasons for that, that I won't start writing here. I'll only add this: Some people have to much time on their hands and want to show of in front of others, whatever the cost.

All the best

[minoru genda]

Here we go again. Those claiming impartiality keep trying to show the object of their admiration only lost because everyone else ganged up on them.

..... What do YOU think were the principal factors behind the defeat of the German army?

Yes, mkenny could you please be so kind and let us know what do you think was the main cause/causes behind the German defeat?

[hammy]

@Hammy: though the informative value of the Holocaust-revisionists is not zero, it ain't to big either. There are 13 countries in which publicly denying the Holocaust will put you in jail (my own included). And there are several hard-reasons for that, that I won't start writing here.

No , dont post anything on here that can get you in trouble .
In the UK we are still fairly free of what George Orwell (who wrote "Animal Farm", and "1984" ) described as "thought-crime" although some of the recent law here on Child-molestation and in regard to radical Islamism is getting uncomfortably close to that .
Who in their right minds denies the Holocaust anyway ? Its like denying water is wet .
Revision , on the other hand is a different thing . Literally , to revisit the topic , review , re-evaluate , re-interpret , reassess . As historians we can do that , providing we dont re-write it to suit some end of our own . I say listen to what the people have to say and then form your dispassionate view of the matter . That's what we do in here , isnt it ? Argue sometimes , yes , but generally sift and refine and achieve a concensus , or if not , then a summary of the opposing views ?

I'll only add this: Some people have to much time on their hands and want to show of in front of others, whatever the cost.

All the best

I hope that isn't directed at me , old lovey ? I mean whatever for ?

[Bgile]

Who in their right minds denies the Holocaust anyway ?

Ahmadinejad

[mkenny]

Yes, mkenny could you please be so kind and let us know what do you think was the main cause/causes behind the German defeat?

Why? Is there some policy that any question asked MUST be answered?
I am not one for 'what if's' They rarely produce anything constructive and in my experience the one posing the 'what if' question has a ready made scenario where (invariably) the conditions are twisted to provide the outcome he wants. Usualy it is a 'what if Germany had wunder-waffen X in 1940' type of debate where history can be re-written and Germany wins.
If pushed then the reason is simple, monumental arrogance. How any one nation thinks it can take on everyone and come out victorious is beyond me. Clearly the leaders in Germany were insane and those in power below them cowardly for not getting rid of the madmen.

mckenny. What is really bothering you?

Nothing. I just like to inject some reality into the conversation when I see it straying into absurdity.

Other but very important strength factors were the Allied unlimited supply (ammo!)

Not so. The Allies were operating under a very severe shortages of supplies. That is why they decided to halt at the German borderin 1944 and regroup instead of pushing into Germany.
The US in particular badly miscalculated its suppy situation and ran out of Shermans in late 1944. The situation was so bad the British had to transfer 350 Shermans from their reserves to the US Army. Ammunition was another US bottleneck. Again the British had to lend them over 100 25pdr guns and Tractors because they had a shortage of ammo for their own 105mm Guns.

[minoru genda]

Yes, mkenny could you please be so kind and let us know what do you think was the main cause/causes behind the German defeat?

Why? Is there some policy that any question asked MUST be answered?
I am not one for 'what if's' They rarely produce anything constructive and in my experience the one posing the 'what if' question has a ready made scenario where (invariably) the conditions are twisted to provide the outcome he wants. Usualy it is a 'what if Germany had wunder-waffen X in 1940' type of debate where history can be re-written and Germany wins.
If pushed then the reason is simple, monumental arrogance. How any one nation thinks it can take on everyone and come out victorious is beyond me. Clearly the leaders in Germany were insane and those in power below them cowardly for not getting rid of the madmen.

hahaha
No, no policy of course, but I'm surprised to find it is so hard for you to reply to that simple question unless you have a hidden agenda. It is not a "what if" by the way. It is just a simple question that of course you don't have to answer if you don't want. What do you think was the main cause/causes behind the German defeat in World War II? It has nothing to do with "wunder-waffen", or anything like that, and since you seem to have a liking to figures and numbers blaming it all on arrogance seems just an excuse to skip the question.

[Byron Angel]

I am not one for 'what if's' They rarely produce anything constructive and in my experience the one posing the 'what if' question has a ready made scenario where (invariably) the conditions are twisted to provide the outcome he wants. Usualy it is a 'what if Germany had wunder-waffen X in 1940' type of debate where history can be re-written and Germany wins.
If pushed then the reason is simple, monumental arrogance. How any one nation thinks it can take on everyone and come out victorious is beyond me. Clearly the leaders in Germany were insane and those in power below them cowardly for not getting rid of the madmen.

..... It is not conjecture that Germany lost the war. While it is fair to say that identifying specific reasons why Germany lost the war may involve certain points of conjecture, you certainly seem to carry no fear of that when expressing your very adamant opinions regarding relative troop quality and weapon quality. I'm rather bemused by your sudden reticence to offer your thinking on reasons why Germany lost the war. Interesting.

The Allies were operating under a very severe shortages of supplies. That is why they decided to halt at the German borderin 1944 and regroup instead of pushing into Germany.

The US in particular badly miscalculated its suppy situation and ran out of Shermans in late 1944. The situation was so bad the British had to transfer 350 Shermans from their reserves to the US Army. Ammunition was another US bottleneck. Again the British had to lend them over 100 25pdr guns and Tractors because they had a shortage of ammo for their own 105mm Guns.

..... I won't disagree that post-Normandy Allied operations were limited by logistical restrictions due to German stay-behind occupation and demolition of coastal ports. But, apart from offering up isolated anecdotes, what is the basis of your argument that "the Allies were operating under a VERY SEVERE SHORTAGES of supplies"? What exactly does that mean? Looking at the sequence of operations, the Allies landed at Normandy in June and fought a series of major battles around Caen through July. In August they broke out of the Normandy perimeter, broke the German counter-attack and overran large parts of France. The Market Garden offensive was launched and Antwerp was seized in September. Aachen was captured in October. The battle for Huertgen Forest was fought and won in November and December. By the end of November, Antwerp was unloading convoys over her docks. The German Bulge offensive was absorbed and repelled in December 44 / January 45. Allies re-group in February 45 and prepare to breach the Rhine barrier. Cologne is taken and the Rhine crossed in the first week of March. The Ruhr Pocket is developed and liquidated by mid-April.

Montgomery was fighting and advancing on his front along the Dutch/North German border during this period as well.

While it is true that significant portions of the NWE front were idled in order to logistically fully support offensive efforts in selected areas, I can identify no period during which important offensive operations on the NWE front were brought to a comprehensive halt for any terribly significant period of time.


Byron

[Karl Heidenreich]

Bgile:

Ahmadinejad

Steve: this guy is NOT in his right mind. This guy is delusional and dangerous. In order to answer the question properly:
Q/ Who in his right mind denies the Holocaust?
A/ No one!