 |
| A German soldier, heavily armed, carries ammunition boxes forward with companion in territory taken by their counter-offensive in this scene from captured German film. Belgium, December 1944. A member of Kampfgruppe Hansen, they ambushed and completely destroyed the U.S. 14th Cavalry Group on the road between Poteau and Recht. (Source) |
And yes, I am that old. My paternal great-grandfather actually fought in that war with the 22nd New York Infantry Regiment. Apparently he was captured at the 2nd Battle of Bull Run (or 2nd Manassas if you prefer).
The regiment lost 10 officers and 42 men killed or mortally wounded, 9 officers and 55 men wounded, and 4 officers and 60 men missing out of 379 engaged. Lieutenant Colonel Thomas was mortally wounded and Captain George Clendon of Company E wounded. (Source)
(That would make Great-Grandpa Joseph one of those 60 missing.)
It all seemed pretty wonderful, not to mention colorful, to a young lad growing up in the '60s. It wasn't until later in life, seeing the Matthew Brady photos of the bloated dead at such places as Antietam and Gettysburg, that it began to dawn on me that war was a pretty nasty business.
My fascination with war and battle became a grim fascination from that point on.
Twenty-three years ago today I walked the field of battle where many men died repulsing the last Nazi offensive in the west of World War II, the so-called Battle of the Bulge. (More properly the Ardennes Offensive). One should also note that a great many Belgian civilians, to include women and children, also died in that wintry nightmare, murdered by German troops.
The German offensive began on the 16th of December, 1944, seventy-seven years ago. Never a year goes by without me thinking of that event.
I've written of old battlefields before, they haunt my dreams, especially those I've walked.
So, for at least today, remember those who fell in that battle seventy-seven years ago.
I will.
I wonder how many of Hitler's officers realized the inevitable, were horrified of the outright murder, and wondered their fate at the hands of an angry army horrified by the atrocities? After the battle, it was only retreat, mayhem was soon to follow, and many were probably wondering of their families, if there were any left to wonder about.
ReplyDeleteContrary to how they've been portrayed in film, most German officers were honorable men. They had been sorely stressed by events following the end of World War I. They wanted their country to return to its former glory, as short-lived as that was. (Remember the country of Germany did not exist prior to 1871.)
DeleteOnce into the war, many were horrified at the actions done in the name of the German people by a sick band of criminals in government and the armed lunatics spawned by that government.
Many realized that things were going to end badly and Germany would pay. What recourse was there but to fight on?
Fight on and hopefully pull something out of the whole mess. It's why we didn't surrender after Pearl Harbor, and why the Japanese didn't surrender after the tide turned on them.
DeleteFight. Fight to hold onto what you have. Fight hopefully until the other guy, even if they are winning, gets tired of it.
Which almost never works.
It worked in Vietnam, it worked in Afghanistan. People who are nowhere near the fighting tire of the necessary sacrifices.
DeleteDo you know how close a thing it was in the Pacific with growing American war-weariness? The big brass wanted to go into China as a way of even further encircling Japan. Nimitz, for one, wanted nothing to do with that. He knew that Americans were tired of the war, "Hey, we beat Hitler, that was the big deal right? Who cares about the Japanese?" was what people were saying. Having parades to celebrate the end of the war in Europe was an extremely dumb move.
Yes, people have short memories. Fighting on to the last extremity does work, sometimes.
The pussification of America towards war and the stupidity of our leaders is why it worked in Vietnam and Afghanistan.
DeleteAnd, yes, it was that close in the Pacific. We were tired and even in early 45, it was still not as supported as the European theater.
The parades? Had to do something to keep support up. But it kind of backfired.
Can't agree more.
Delete"...stupidity of our leaders" I'll buy. Most of our folks in country were anything but pussified.
DeleteThe question becomes WHY are we spending blood? Even in the ETO Eisenhower commissioned a "Why We Fight" film series. The Japanese and islamists attacked us; Germany and Vietnam?
War aims need to be clear and in the national interest. We were "done" in Afghanistan after far fewer years than we spent there.
We need to get smarter about committing our forces to combat and the WHY needs to be clearly articulated.
Boat Guy
Absolutely!
DeleteA regime that wanted to expand it's borders at the expense of it's neighbors, that wanted to exterminate certain groups within and without it's borders required total war before it was stopped. Even civil war results in nastiness and with cell phones everywhere results like Matthew Brady's photos will abound.
ReplyDeleteNylon12 - And yet we have made war a thing of videos and entertainment, a thing that happens "somewhere else" and without consequence. I worry that more than perhaps any other time of June 1914, people have no idea what we seem to be lurching towards.
DeleteI am worried as much but mostly because two of the worlds greatest militaries, Russia and China seem to be poised towards changing borders via force for not bigger reason that totalitarian leaders delusions of grandeur.
DeleteNylon12 - World War II wasn't the first time that happened.
DeleteYou're right about the prevalence of the cell phone camera, scenes of horror will abound. In fact they already are, footage out of Syria and Ukraine attest to that.
TB - Your reference to June 1914 is on point. My fear as well.
DeletePaweł - Precisely. You see clearly my friend.
DeleteSaber rattling by Russia and Communist China at the same time that Iran is also rattling sabers. Almost as if there's a new Axis or TriPowers forming.
DeleteAnd for once, North Korea is relatively quiescent. Relatively.
I miss mean tweets.
Oh yes, yes I do.
Deletespeaking of Iran:
Deletehttps://www.defensenews.com/global/mideast-africa/2021/12/16/iran-more-than-doubles-revolutionary-guards-budget-in-fy22-bill/
anyone surprised?
and the scenario reminds me of the late 1930s more than 1914
DeleteChinese are roleplaying Japanese, wanting East Asia Greater Prosperity Sphere
Putin is playing defender of the Russkiy Narod same way as certain German leader promised to bring all Germans under one Reich... And with Ukraine being cast the uneviable role of Czechoslovakia.
Poland might end up plaing "as herself". Shudder...
Paweł #1 - Not surprised at all, weakness at home encourages bad behavior abroad.
DeletePaweł #2 - Yes, Poland will be at the epicenter if things go south along the Russian border. Hopefully your Western allies won't leave you standing alone as we did in '39!
DeleteThe Xiden admin is already setting up just that scenario, leaving Poland hanging in the wind. Wouldn't be surprised if there was some secret partitioning deal going on between Putin and Xiden.
DeleteWon't be so easy this time.
DeleteSarge - Somewhat later and my fascination was World War II, but yes - I learned the history and battles before the savagery and inhumanity, which changed how I viewed the whole thing.
ReplyDeleteAs for Jess' question - certainly there were questions in 1944 about the direction of Germany (the assassination plot), but people will believe anything in a world of controlled information and/or desperation.
A sobering reminder of heroism and sheer, unabated desperation.
Sarge, a question if you know: had the offensive gone the other way, what was that actually supposed to accomplish? The Eastern Front was still collapsing and the US was still pouring men and material into Europe and advancing through Italy. How would this have -realistically - changed Germany's position?
It seems there is at least somewhat of a consensus that Hitler's intent was to put the Allied forces in a position where it would be to their advantage to negotiate a ceasefire, where Germany would not be completely overrun.
DeleteTB - Things would have gotten interesting in a hurry had the Germans reached Antwerp. Militarily they were offering themselves up to complete destruction. I remember Patton saying, facetiously I'm sure, that they should let the Germans get all the way to Paris, "Then we’ll really cut ’em up and chew ’em up."
DeleteBut whereas Hitler thought an actual military victory was possible (the man was quite insane by then) most of the German generals hoped it would cause dissension politically in the West, perhaps even destroying the alliance, they knew of the dislike of Montgomery on the American side and they also knew that the American people were getting war-weary. Then they could focus on stopping the Red Army's drive to Berlin. If the Western allies had fallen into squabbling, Stalin might have called off his advance. He didn't trust the West. (For that matter, Stalin didn't trust anybody!)
Unfortunately, fat chance trying to stop the Soviets from whatever they were going to do. Might have been successful with Britain and America if they managed to kill Hitler and turn on the senior leadership and offer status-quo with the western allies.
DeleteMight.
Probably wishful thinking on Germany's part, just as it was on Japan's part later.
By the time of the Bulge, it was, in America's eye, a crusade. Almost had to finish, to get to the end spot, in order to call it quits.
My only regret is we left so many nations hanging under the Soviets.
Patrick - Hitler's intent was a smashing military victory which would force the West to ask for peace. He was not a subtle man, he didn't believe in half-measures. Some of his generals pointed out that a smaller penetration, and subsequent encirclement of the Americans in the Ardennes, was more attainable and could cause the West to accept a cease fire. He absolutely forbid that, he wanted a full-blown replay of 1940. He was deluded, thinking that he still had the forces for that. He was also, quite probably, completely detached from reality by that point.
DeleteBeans - Stalin almost went for a separate peace in 1943. Remember, it wasn't necessary to stop the Red Army. If you could cut a deal pleasing to Stalin, that would definitely fly.
DeleteBut by 1944, the Germans were playing a very weak hand.
And yes, it was a crusade, which impacted the Pacific in very negative ways. (Like letting the Japanese keep the Emperor. No unconditional surrender there!)
Would Stalin have stayed with that deal? Probably not. He'd use the time to rearm, retrain, and then come westwardly in the worst possible way.
DeleteAs to the Emperor, the Japanese were aliens in comparison to Germany. Keeping the Emperor, but getting rid of the military/civilian command structure was definitely the right thing to do.
Stalin did whatever benefited Stalin.
DeleteAs to the Japanese, I still have mixed feelings about that.
History has proven that leaving the Emperor in and reforming regular society was the way to go. Right now they are probably our best allies, and we don't deserve them.
DeleteI'm not sure if history proves anything.
DeleteI too have been fascinated with war my whole life and I am several years older than you. My father substitute (uncle) was wounded in Korea and never sugar coated what war and actual combat was like. Some of the stories were too adult for my age but the man was the most honest and straight forward I ever met. His wounds were with him his entire life leading to joint replacement and had a role in his eventual death. A great antidote to John Wayne.
ReplyDeleteWar is never to be wished for, but if there is no alternative, we need to hit fast, and hit hard. A skill lost upon our current leadership.
DeleteAs was the case of so many German offfensives, the December 44 Ardennes was a massive gamble: that allies will stay passive, not being able to react fast enough, weather will stay bad precluding massive airpower advantage from being used, and that fuel will be captured to help reach Antwerp.
ReplyDeleteBut this was not 1940. Allies were veterans themselves by that time, if not in many cases of grunts on the front, but definitely in case of commanders. Weather turned clear soon enough, and fuel depots were burned by retreating US engineers. In the end Wehrmachts last and biggest gamble was lost, as Soviets used the moving of troops to the West to smash the front on the Vistula, and march right to the very Berlin doorstep at Oder.
Even if the gamble paid off and messively overblown endgoal of Antwerp was reached, Allies did possess enough forces to stage counterattack leading to encircling of German tip of the spear. And there would be definitely no separate peace with Anglosphere to let Germans deal with Soviets one on one.
But by that time Hitler was so much in direct control of command, surrounded by yes-men , and so himself divorced from reality that the operation was launched.
Every more sensible higher officer in German hierarchy reslised the war was lost by time of Stauffenberg plot and either was involved like Rommel himself, or was sidetracked despite staying loyal like Rundstedt or Guderian.
The Germans were betting that Monkey would lead the rescue, not Patton. They knew it would take a month for Monkey to react.
DeleteEven if he DID get all the petrol!!!
Pawel, thank you very much for the concise summary. It is helpful.
DeleteI concur, thank you Pawel!
DeleteWell said Paweł!
DeleteAnd Mark is also right. The Germans weren't expecting rapid decisive leadership and the ability of tired armies on the end of supply chains to be able to move properly and effectively in reaction to the attack.
DeleteUnfortunately for them, the American armies were quite familiar with rapid response and overstripping supply lines, as they had the fun days of France, once they broke out of the Bocage, to remember. And some truly great leaders who understood maneuver warfare.
Patton's push was not unexpected if one had watched how he worked in North Africa.
Mark - The Germans were betting nothing of the sort. They were placing all of their money on bad weather and a quick strike across the Meuse then on to Antwerp. Theirs was a foolish gamble which probably shortened the war.
DeletePawel,
DeleteYour description of Hitler in the last few paragraphs sounds very familiar. “… direct control of command, surrounded by yes-men , and so himself divorced from reality….”
I just can’t quite put my finger on what it reminds me of.
Ok, just kidding. But it is still worrisome.
Beans - At this point in the war most of the German campaigns were guided by Hitler's deluded fantasies which had hardly any basis in reality. The generals obeyed orders, remembering the fate of those accused in the 20 July plot. The soldiers, as soldiers always have, followed their leaders into battle and hoped for the best. Hitler seldom considered enemy capabilities, when told of them he always pointed to the events leading up to the fall of France in 1940. He thought his own generals to be timid and often wrong, so he seldom listened to them.
Deletejuvat - Worrisome indeed!
DeleteHitler was classic example of absolute gambler.
DeleteHe got lucky with Poland, that France didnt move more than 10 miles from border. But it ended up him in war with France and UK.
He got lucky in Norway but he lost half Kriegsmarine surface forces in the process.
He got lucky in Frnace, but he was left with UK to fight.
Then Battle of Britain happened and he got unlucky first time.
So he throws every chip won so far and invades Russia. He is initially lucky, until Moscow. He rebouinds a bit then Stalingrad happens. With Torch and El Alamein at similar time.
He doubles down on North Africa despite Rommel warning him that it cant be supplied enough with Malta and growing Allied airpower. He loses another full army there,
He gambles again at Kursk. And suddenly realises he has not much chips left.
He gambles agaion on V-weapons , loses bad.
The bulge was just bad bet of series of many.
One can say even his first bet in Poland was failed, because he initially believed UK will sit out the war. He had really no way to deal with UK, since Kriegsmarine was too weak to challenge RN other than undersea, and air force had no real strategic bombers and long range escorts.
There are always a lot of 'if's buts and maybe's' which is why I like Alternate History. Would the Ardennes offensive win WW2 for the Germans? No is the answer. If it was was successful it would have slowed the allies and perhaps allowed the Soviets to have moved much further west, By 1945 the Germans would have been facing an allied army with Pershing tanks as well as British Centurion and Comet tanks, all of which were superior anything the Germans had, they would also have been fighting with the allies having total air supremacy The Nazi fanboys may well talk about the German wunderwaffe but the reality is they would have been completely outgunned. The Nazi's may have been good at the tactical level but the reality is the allies were overwhelmingly superior at the strategic level.
DeleteRetired
And that's the heart of the matter right there.
DeleteChurchill had senior officers who would stand up to him and call him out. Hitler did not. Churchill and Roosevelt would listen to the likes of Alanbrooke and Marshall. That was the difference.
DeleteRetired
Guderian tried, and was fired for his efforts. Further argument with Hitler probably would have had him shot.
DeletePaweł - Hitler was a gambler, and to tell the truth, not a very good one. Early on he indeed got lucky, then he started taking his own military skills, such as they were, far too seriously.
DeleteThe fascination with warfare is as old as humanity, and the battlefields are everywhere, whether most folks know it or not. Peace and tranquility are not the natural order for mankind.
ReplyDeleteProbably sounds a bit grim, but it is what it is.
Strife and struggle are what make men strong. Pitting your strength and cunning against that of others is what drives evolution. Strength is best exemplified not by he who builds a wall, but by him who tears it down.
Idleness and ease do not breed strength, fortitude and resilience. Rather they give rise to deviance and decay. To any who are wise, it is evident in most major metropolitan areas of the world today.
As people become soft from 'interdependence' and the 'support' of social programs, there will always be those who will take advantage, through corruption and criminal enterprise. They will grow their enterprises into fiefdoms that support only evil and oppression. their power will continue to grow, and the evil deeds in which they engage will become more and more heinous. There is only one thing that can stop them, and that is war.
It doesn't really matter who starts the war, the result is always the same. Many people die, mostly in horrible ways. Many good, many bad. The strong and the weak alike. And in the end, those that survive are appalled by the death and destruction, and vow that this must never happen again, but memory is too short, and the cycle will repeat itself, again and again all through the ages of mankind.
Enjoy peace, while it lasts. It will not always be so. There will come again war and strife, destruction and devastation. Yes, enjoy the peace, but always prepare for war, because it will come again, in time. History teaches us this has always been so. There have always been times of peace, and times of war. There will always be an enemy, without or within, that must be defeated, so we can return again to peace, for a time.
The endless cycle of strife and horror. "Only the dead have seen the end of war" - George Santayana (Not Plato!)
Deletetwo quotes jump to my mind:
DeleteIt is well that war is so terrible, otherwise we should grow too fond of it.
Robert E. Lee
(eff the political correct club)
“The men in the room suddenly realized that they did not want to know her better. She was beautiful, but she was beautiful in the way a forest fire was beautiful: something to be admired from a distance, not up close.
And she held her sword, and she smiled like a knife.”
Terry Pratchett (regarding WAR, one of the four riders)
Paweł - Lee was no dummy.
DeleteOf course he was not! Apart from obvious military atrengths, he was a man of education for his times, back then West Point was MIT equivalent, and he got to be it's superintendent. And even after the war he considered education the way forward for US internal reconciliation.
DeleteOne can only imagine how faster the war would have ended if he become Union soldier instead... And this was close call as he was adamant anti-secessionist until Virginia decided to secede, and even then it was hard decision to him.
👍
DeleteI do not think the Bulge would have been such a surprise in October or November 1944, but by December, between the continued bombing of Germany and the destruction of transportation systems and refineries, and the already harsh winter conditions really let too many in the West get somewhat complacent. Didn't help that the attack was at a time of consolidation and resupply.
ReplyDeleteAnd no matter how one games it, it really was a doomed move. But that's what we humans are good at. Fighting after reason tells us it's over.
Bah. Gloomy war. During gloomy weather. Bah.
Hollywood has made much of the "harsh winter" conditions in December of 1944. At the start of the offensive it was cold and wet from rain, overcast, foggy, and miserable. The snow came later.
DeleteKeep in mind the German supply lines were shorter and they managed to move men and machines far more effectively than they should have been able to. And the Allies were at the end of a long logistics chain, Antwerp hadn't fully reopened thanks to Montgomery's error of not clearing the Scheldt estuary. If the Germans were going to strike, that moment was the perfect time.
But yes, a hopeless throw of the dice, a last gasp, a forlorn hope.
But that is what our species tends to do, fight on.
Sir Arthur Tedder was urging General Eisenhower to sack Montgomery by that time.
DeleteRetired
Ike was tempted, but he knew the damage it could do to the alliance.
DeleteAlso, Montgomery managed to somewhat show his value in his favourite task - set-piece battle - in crossing of Rhine. He used his strengths of preparation, and managed to force the crossing with minimum of casualties and Germans unable to stop him at any point. In a dramatic show of improvement, all 3 airborne divisions were sent ina single day-drop, contrasted to delayed drops in Market-Garden. He also managed after that to successfully cooperate with Bradley to encircle Ruhr area and trap 300 000 Germans in what was again, improvement over Falaise pocket.
DeleteHe did the set-piece very well.
Delete(Don McCollor)..After Thanksgiving, I was gifted an early Christmas present of Chief of Staff General Marshall's Biennial Report (Victory Report) 1943-1945 to the Secretary of War submitted Sept 1, 1945 (reprinted soon after by a local American Legion post). It is a candid account of the strategy, concerns, and fears at the highest level of Army operations during the last half of WW2. Eye opening, how many skeins of threads were intertwined across the world...
ReplyDeleteIt amazes me that we had the right people in the right places, like Marshall, to get through that war.
DeleteGiven the season, this seems fitting.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JLEPxkAFYuA
A very bad time for the Dutch.
DeleteMy father served in WWII and was very unwilling to talk much about it. He would on very rare occasion speak about it. He was in the Ardennes battle and what little he would say was a true tale of the horrors of war. Stacking up dead frozen corpses in order to make a place to be able to sleep up out of the mud and snow during that battle. Also what he saw when some of the camps were liberated was horrific. Those in the camps were in such bad condition that they were under orders to NOT take any pictures as they went past, and the Allied guards were under orders to shoot to enforce it. Yes, he got a picture over the side of the truck and yes, he got shot at.
ReplyDeleteHe never glorified war and was deeply affected the rest of his life.
Only those who have seen war know its horrors.
DeleteFunny how nobody got any photos of the gulags!
DeleteCameras were frowned upon in the USSR. For obvious reasons.
DeleteSarge - I hope that your great grandfather survived the war and didn't end up at a place like Andersonville. You inspired me to repost my post on visiting Luxembourg City. Numbers don't mean much, until you see them on the lawn.
ReplyDeleteBTW Stalin didn't trust us and we didn't trust him. It was a constant fear that he would make a separate peace with the Nazis. As dispicable as his regime was, the USSR fought 2/3rd of the Wehrmacht (according to historian Max Hastings) and a separate peace would have made the slog so much harder.
He survived.
DeleteTrue what Hastings said, other historians have noted that as well.