Subject: WWII-L Digest - 19 Mar 1994 to 20 Mar 1994

From: Automatic digest processor <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 1994 00:00:36 -0500

There are 18 messages totalling 507 lines in this issue.

Topics of the day:

  1. TAC: IJN vs Army (WAS: Wehrmact v. Waffen-SS)
  2. Swapping American & Japanese civilians
  3. Japan a military junta? (2)
  4. TAC: Cooperation of forces. (2)
  5. INF: Flying Tigers Turn 51
  6. Command cooperation between allies
  7. IHT INTERNET ADDRESS
  8. Relocation of Japanese during WW
  9. Swapping American & Japanese Civilians
 10. German Nightfighters using AT cannons?
 11. WEAP: Heavy A/C guns? (2)
 12. TAC:  Timid tanks
 13. Wehrmacht troops killing Waffen-SS troops?
 14. GEN: MODEL DECALS
 15. HELP!!!

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:    Sun, 20 Mar 1994 01:05:13 -0500
From:    Christopher Morton <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: TAC: IJN vs Army (WAS: Wehrmact v. Waffen-SS)

>
> >
> > >         So. I ask this: Did some Heer troops ever kill Waffen-SS troops
> > > and if so where and when? Did the Waffen-SS "look down" on the Heer?
> >
> > In a similar vein, I was told in college by a professor, that Japanese
> > Army and Navy intelligence operatives sometimes killed each other in
> > "turf" battles in China.
> >
> > Given that they were involved in the drug trade (among other things), this
> > isn't that hard to believe.
> >
> > Anyone heard anything similar?
> >
> I have always been amazed at the lack of cooperation between the IJN and
> the Japanese Army at any level. I've been working on a collection of
> stragtegic plans for 42-43 in the Pacific (both Allied and Japanese). When
> you read Allied plans (such as ELKTON) you see the "Army will do this and
> the Navy will do that and each will support the other" but the Japanese
> order read something like "the Army intends to do this, the Navy intends to
> do that, and try to get along, OK?" If such orders were written by a plebe

Didn't the IJN "forget" to tell the IJA about the outcome of the Battle of
Midway?  Didn't the Army finally learn the truth after receiving endless
excuses about why the Navy couldn't get the Army to places where it needed to
go?

------------------------------

Date:    Sun, 20 Mar 1994 01:08:43 -0500
From:    Christopher Morton <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Swapping American & Japanese civilians

> * There was at least one major swap of civilian internees. Japanese
> diplomats in the U.S. were gathered and interned at the Hot Springs VA
> resort; there may have been businessmen and journalists among them, I
> don't know. They were taken to a swap point off the South African coast
> sometime in 1942 in the Swedish (i.e. neutral liner) GRIPSHOLM along with
> Red Cross parcels and there exchanged for a shipload of American
> civilians including Joseph Grew, the US ambassador to Japan, and Joseph
> Alsop, the newspaper correspondent and secretary to Claire Chennault of
> the American Volunteer Group, who'd been caught on Hong Kong island on
> Christmas Day when it fell to the Japanese.

I believe that a book concerning the Japanese returnees on the Gripsholm
was published in the last couple of years.  I think it was discussed on
National Public Radio, either on "All Things Considered" or "Fresh Air".

------------------------------

Date:    Sun, 20 Mar 1994 07:08:09 -0500
From:    Daniel Ford <[email-masked]>
Subject: Japan a military junta?

I don't agree with the earlier posting that said Japan was effectively
ruled by a military junta by the end of 1941. In fact, it still had the
full constitutional form of government, which to be sure had become
increasingly militaristic at least since 1931, when the Japanese army
launched a *coup de main* (pardon my French) in Manchuria.

Tojo did not really assume full control over the government until the
Pacific War was well underway. Toward the middle or end of 1942? I don't
remember. And even when he did, he was still following the constitutional
forms (he merely combined the more important cabinet posts in his own
person). More important, he was still governing with the approval of the
constitutional and extra-constitutional authorities. When the war was
lost, Tojo stepped down and was peaceably replaced by a "peace party"
that would try to get Japan out of the mess it was in.

I'm not sure that many westerners can fully understand the Japanese
government of the time. The emperor was much more than a figurehead,
though he was far from a monarch in the old European sense. As a god, he
was listened to with (literal) fear and trembling. I see it as a
government with a god to guide it, a bunch of cabinet ministers to do the
work, and an amorphous group of lords and elder statesmen hovering in the
background. It was the last group who stepped in in 1945, deposed Tojo,
and with the emperor's blessing tried to find a formula for surrender.

A few westerners have made a good tho not persuasive case that the
emperor was actually the war leader, most recently in a British/PBS movie
called (I think) HIROHITO. There was also a book: JAPAN'S IMPERIAL
CONSPIRACY. I don't agree, but the fact that they found evidence aplenty
to support the case shows that there was more power-sharing in Japan from
1931 to 1945 than we usually believe.

Regards -

Dan Ford      <e-mail: [email-masked]>

              <postal: 433 Bay Road, Durham NH 03824 USA>
              <voice or fax: +1-603-868-5850>

------------------------------

Date:    Sun, 20 Mar 1994 10:40:11 -0500
From:    William Eldridge <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: TAC: Cooperation of forces.

On the thread of lack of cooperation of "friendly" forces:

The British sent into occupied France espionage/sabotage/commando teams of
the competing SOE (Special Operations, Executive) and SAS (Special Air
Service). There was no love lost between them, with more than one instance
of teams betraying their opposite numbers to the Germans!

I wish I could recall my source for this bizarre fact. It might have been
William Casey's *The Secret War Against Hitler* [Washington, DC : Regnery
Gateway, 1988], but more likely it was Charles Fraser-Smith's *Secret
Warriors: Hidden Heroes of MI6, OSS, MI9, SOE, and SAS* [Exeter, England:
Paternoster Press, 1984].

-- Bill Eldridge

------------------------------

Date:    Sun, 20 Mar 1994 21:41:27 +0700
From:    "Peter E. Beal" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: INF: Flying Tigers Turn 51

I visited Kunming last November. Prior to going I tried to find people
who had been there to get some pointers.  I was told that a ex-Flying
Tiger mechanic had openned a bar and had one unopenned bottle of scotch
on a shelf for each surviving member of the Flying Tigers.  Each bottle
was being held in readiness should the intended recipient ever show up in
Kunming.

I was told that the concierge or manager of the Kunming Hotel
knew were this bar was located.  This proved not to be the case and I
never found the place.

Does anybody know about this bar?

------------------------------

Date:    Sun, 20 Mar 1994 13:33:50 -0230
From:    OLAF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Command cooperation between allies

I've been doing some reading on the Canadian and American military
presence in Newfoundland during World War II. Canadian forces
arrived there first to provide Newfoundland with defences against
possible enemy attacks. The Leased Bases agreement between England
and the USA led to the subsequent arrival of American forces as
well. One of the problems that ensured from this was command
cooperation between Canadian and American forces. Indeed, in a war
that engaged so many allied, this was a fairly common problem in
many different theatres.

In Newfoundland, the local Canadian commander tried to bounce the
problem back to his superiors outside Newfoundland. He was told
that "the delicate problem of divided or unified command devolves
on PJBD or Chiefs of Staff and not on local commanders." This was
a reference to the Permanent Joint Board of Command which was set
up in 1940 for purposes of coordinating Canadian and American
defence strategy for all of North America. However, the higher
staffs could not agree on coordinating arrangements, which left the
ball, more or less, back in the local commanders' court.

My question is this. Can anyone suggest sources (books or articles)
which examine this problem of command cooperation between different
Allies during World War II? I'd prefer sources which do not address
this question incidentally, but as the main focus. Please post on
WWII-L or else e-mail me.

Thanks in advance,

Olaf Janzen
Department of History
Sir Wilfred Grenfell College
Corner Brook, Newfoundland
A2H 6P9
tel: (709) 637-6282
FAX: (709) 639-8125
e-mail: [email-masked]

------------------------------

Date:    Sun, 20 Mar 1994 13:32:31 +0100
From:    John Ausland <[email-masked]>
Subject: IHT INTERNET ADDRESS

  Oslo, March 20.  In event anyone is interested, the International Herald
Tribune in Paris now has an Internet address: [email-masked]
  I have been in touch with them, and it works fine.
  Regards, John Ausland/Oslo (near Lillehammer) Norway

------------------------------

Date:    Sun, 20 Mar 1994 14:36:50 EST
From:    John Sloan <[email-masked]>
Subject: Relocation of Japanese during WW

HI all,
Just returned from long trip during which had to turn mail off. See today
from comments that I missed a discussion of the relocation of Japanese on
West Coast during WWII. From the critical comments I picked up that
apparently were after the main discussion, it seems this might be a "no no"
topic. It is of some interest to me, because my father was involved in the
original decision process. It is my experience that at least some people who
have strong opinions on this topic have never read the major document
published on it, that is, _Final Report Japanese Evacuation from the West
Coast, 1942_ US Gov Printing Office, Wash 1943.  This was prepared by Lt Gen
DeWitt for Dept of Army and is over 600 pages long with many photos,
diagrams, charts and tables etc.  At any rate I happen to have it here.
If anyone who had strong opinions one way of the other wants to discuss it
with me directly off the list I will be more than happy to provide
information from this detailed study. (It might surprise some folks). And I
can provide some eye witness information from my parents and even my own
recollections as a child.
John Sloan
[email-masked]

------------------------------

Date:    Sun, 20 Mar 1994 11:47:00 PST
From:    Stephen Fox <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Swapping American & Japanese Civilians

Since Dan Ford mentioned the use of the M.S. "Gripsholm" to accomplish
the exchange of American & Japanese civilians (there is at least one book
out on this, but name excapes me at the moment), I thought I'd add that
that wasn't the end of the "Gripsholm's" work in this regard.  Later
the ICRC used it for exchanges between the U.S. and Germany (civilian
internees, "official personnel," and POWs).  Another Swedish ship, the
"Drottingholm," was similarly employed.

The exchange that has particularly interested me because of my research
re German civilan interenees in the U.S., was one completed on Jan.7,
1945, in Switzerland.  In exchange for civilian internees brought
from the U.S.(including many originally arrested in Latin America), the
U.S. got back scores of badly wounded POWs, most airmen who had survived
being shot down or crash-landing, and were amputees and/or stretcher
cases.  The internees arrived in Switz by train from Marseilles, and the
Americans similarly from camps in Germany--all arranged through the St.
Dept. and shephered by the ICRC (Internaltion Commission of the Red Cross).

There are many articles on these wartime exchanges in the _State Department
Bulletins_, 1944-45.

        Steve

********************************************
*       Steve Fox                          *
*       History Department                 *
*       Humboldt State University          *
*       Arcata, CA  95521                  *
*       (707) 826-4788                     *
*       FAX: (707) 826-4496                *
*       [email-masked]              *
********************************************

------------------------------

Date:    Mon, 21 Mar 1994 00:35:15 +0100
From:    Emmanuel Gustin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: TAC: Cooperation of forces.

On Sat, 19 Mar 1994, Larry & Kim Jewell wrote:

> Concerning the thread on the Japanese Navy and Army cooperating so poorly:
> Is it safe to say that on the whole the Allied forces cooperated much
> better than their Axis counterparts?
>
> If so, was this key to winning the war, very important, or reasonably
> important?
>
> Were there Allied commands which acted just as badly (back up your conjecture)
> and if so were they better or worse than Axis equivalents?

The allied command structure was obviously better than that provided by
the Japanese Navy and Army, and better than the Hitlerean 'divide and
rule' command structure. But there were a few problems within the allied
structures too. I don't claim to know all, but I remember some.

The worst case was probably the situation in the CBI -- China / Burma /
India -- theatre. The Chinese army was hopeless, and the British and
American units in the area weren't friends. Throughout the war, the three
parties were actively sabotaging the other's plans, just to replace them
with one of their own invention. Stilwell tried to capture Mitkyinia (sp?)
without informing his British commander, Mountbatten, because he didn't
trust him, and led the offensive from the front line, because he didn't
trust his Chinese subordinates either. Part of the problem was that the
command structure was so complicated that nobody understood it.

Bad relations between the governments of Britain and Australia hurt too.
Early in the Pacific war an Australian general in South-East Asia acquired
the right to have any command that he didn't like, judged by his
government first, before executing it. I don't remember his name.

Relations between the French and the British Expeditionary Force in May
1940 were at times less than friendly. At first, the BEF had been placed
under the command of Gamelin --- at least some lessons of WWI had been
learnt --- but the defeat of course reduced the British willingness to
obey French generals. And the French, understandably, were always
suspicious that the BEF would leave them alone and go home.  It also seems
that when the British retreated to Dunkirk, they at times refused to give
equipment they had to abandon to the French. Cooperation with the Belgian
Army was equally bad. These frictions contributed to the abandonment of
the last attempt to cut off the penetration of the German tanks behind the
lines. But one could argue that it was impossible anyway.

In late 1944 there was a brief conflict between de Lattre and, if I
remember well, Devers, when the former refused to obey the latter's
orders. Ike solved the problem by giving the French what they wanted:
Paris. He had to do a lot of diplomacy to deal with de Gaulle. On 6 June
1944, de Gaulle (who was infuriated for severals reasons, including being
told about Overlord at the last moment) refused to join the speeches of
the other leaders. When he spoke later he only mentioned the French (a few
hundred) and quietly forgot about all the others involved in the operation!

Emmanuel Gustin

------------------------------

Date:    Mon, 21 Mar 1994 00:49:24 +0100
From:    Emmanuel Gustin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: German Nightfighters using AT cannons?

On Fri, 18 Mar 1994, Gudmundur Helgason wrote:

> I have been wondering (and not finding this in my sources) if the German
> nightfighter force used anti-tank big caliber (50mm or so) cannons on
> RAF night bomber formations? It would seem that one or two rounds of
> that heavy ammo would take care of any bomber if well places, after all
> if such a round kills a T-34/85 then a lightly armoured Lancaster should
> suffer heavily.

There were at least experiments with heavy guns. There obviously was a
need for improved armament; but the problem, it seems, were not the
British aircraft but the sturdy B-17s. The 7.9mm and 13mm machineguns were
completely useless against them, and they often took a large number of
20mm hits -- the average fighter with the average pilot of average
shooting ability simply didn't have enough ammunition to shoot one down.

So the Germans did experiment with 50mm guns. This was tried with the Me
210/410 and the Me 262; they all carried a long-barrelled cannon in the
nose. As far as I know, that were all day fighter versions. Weight and
slow firing speed were of course major disadvantages. At least some more
useful cannon were developed specially for aircraft: the MK 114 fired 55mm
shells at 150 rds/min and a velocity of 600m/sec; the MK 412 even managed
300 rds/min at 1000m/sec. I don't remember how far development was in
1945.

I can seek for more info if you want.

Emmanuel Gustin

------------------------------

Date:    Sun, 20 Mar 1994 19:57:33 EST
From:    Larry & Kim Jewell <[email-masked]>
Subject: WEAP: Heavy A/C guns?

This talk of AT guns on planes has me wondering if anything larger than
the 75 mm howitzers used in the Pacific were ever mounted on aircraft
during the war. I keeping getting flashes of something similar to HMS
Furious (light cruise in WWI that mounted 18" guns in single turrets.
Bizarre arrangement.)

Larry J

[email-masked]; Co-Moderator: BYRD.MU.WVNET.EDU (Historical docs)
"Sunday's horoscope is note worthy because of its strange, sudden and wholly
unpredictable and inexplicable occurrences, affecting all phases of life."
Your Horoscope" L.A. Evening Herald Express, Sat, 12/06/41

------------------------------

Date:    Mon, 21 Mar 1994 02:11:12 +0100
From:    Emmanuel Gustin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: WEAP: Heavy A/C guns?

On Sun, 20 Mar 1994, Larry & Kim Jewell wrote:

> This talk of AT guns on planes has me wondering if anything larger than
> the 75 mm howitzers used in the Pacific were ever mounted on aircraft
> during the war. I keeping getting flashes of something similar to HMS
> Furious (light cruise in WWI that mounted 18" guns in single turrets.
> Bizarre arrangement.)

Larry,

    The Italians fitted a 102mm gun in the nose of the four-engined Piaggio
P.108A bomber, for anti-shipping purposes.  It was fixed with a slight
depression (which required new shooting tables). I don't think that it was
ever fired in anger. Not many P.108s were built, and most were 'normal'
bombers. Before WWII, the USSR built an aircraft with a recoilless 102mm
cannon (a weight was fired backwards) for air-to-air use, but common sense
soon won.

Emmanuel Gustin

------------------------------

Date:    Sun, 20 Mar 1994 19:46:52 -0600
From:    [email-masked]
Subject: TAC:  Timid tanks

Joe,

     If you go into SLA Marshall's little "8 days at Bastogne"
book, he tells about an American infantry roadblock wiped out
by halftracks and grenadiers, in full view of an inactive
platoon of American tanks, concerned about provoking heavier
armor!  (As I remember, SLAM even mentions/censures the plt
ldr.)

     There is also the classic case of the First Battle of
Alamein, when New Zealanders were abandoned to be bagged.
(I believe it was the 4. NZ Bde.)  In this case, the timid
tanks were British, and it cause quite a Commonwealth row!

Lou Coatney, WIU

------------------------------

Date:    Sun, 20 Mar 1994 19:51:29 -0600
From:    [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Japan a military junta?

Good post in reply to mine, Daniel, but remember that anyone
  acting contrary to the militarists -- however constitutionally
  -- ran the very real risk of assassination, etc.

The militarists were running things from the time of the invasion
  of Manchuria on.  Presumably/apparently, they had the Emperor's
  acquiescence.

Lou Coatney, WIU

------------------------------

Date:    Mon, 21 Mar 1994 11:32:01 +1000
From:    John Foster <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Wehrmacht troops killing Waffen-SS troops?

>         So. I ask this: Did some Heer troops ever kill Waffen-SS troops
> and if so where and when? Did the Waffen-SS "look down" on the Heer?

Hi all
     I was that close to going out and buying a copy of Kelly's Heroes when
the word came through. Good one Joe
     I used to work with a giant German who was a paratrooper and he told
me of a time in Holland near Arnheim when his unit were desperate for
ammunition,blankets etc and there was a large store in the town that was
controlled by some official type(maybe somone could fill me in).This fellow
refused their every plea for supplies until the British attacked the town and
my friend and his pals were literally a block away from the advancing troops
and retreating in great haste when this official ran out and through open the
doors of the store imploring them to take what ever they wanted before the
enemy got it.I won't repeat what they said to this guy but after they did
they filled him full of lead and proceded on their way.My friend was an ardent
nazi by the way and still was when I was told the story.An interesting
man,battle hardened and wary he had contempt for all British troops and
especially for the weapons they equipped their commandos with compared to his
own.More stories if you are interested?
                                                        Regards
                                                          John
****************************************************************************
You got Tick Tock I said and did a superb mime of a watch.He took off his boots
14th may 1943 Tunis

------------------------------

Date:    Mon, 21 Mar 1994 12:53:13 +1000
From:    Mick Fauchon <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: GEN: MODEL DECALS

        Is there such a thing as the MODELING-L?

                                                Mick.

--                                                                          --
Mick Fauchon                          | Internet: [email-masked]
Reference Section, Auchmuty Library   | Ph  (intl+61+49) 215861
University of Newcastle, AUSTRALIA    | Fax (intl+61+49) 215833

On Sat, 19 Mar 1994, GEORGE BAUER wrote:

> Sounds to me like a good question for the MODELING-L.
>
> Not WWII...
>

------------------------------

Date:    Sun, 20 Mar 1994 23:12:17 -0500
From:    Kate Raikes JMU <[email-masked]>
Subject: HELP!!!

I've just joined this network and its very interesting.  I am a student at
JMU and I'm doing a project on Anglo-Soviet relations during the war.  I've
had fairly good luck with older monographs, but I've had a problem finding
more recent ones.  I could also use some suggestions for good journal
articles (or just good journals in general).  I'd appreciate any feedback
that any of you have.  Thanks!

Kate Raikes

------------------------------

End of WWII-L Digest - 19 Mar 1994 to 20 Mar 1994
*************************************************