Subject: WWII-L Digest - 15 May 1994 to 16 May 1994

From: Automatic digest processor <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 May 1994 00:01:40 -0400

There are 49 messages totalling 1834 lines in this issue.

Topics of the day:

  1. reply (4)
  2. INF: USAAF 16 MAY 44
  3. Bombing (8)
  4. Nazis - left or right? (4)
  5. Churchill and Seagulls (2)
  6. WEAP: P-61
  7. INF: USN Chronology 05-14-94
  8. INF: USN Chronology 05-15-94
  9. INF: USN Chronology 05-16-94
 10. MUSSOLINI (2)
 11. ADMIN: Introduction to WWII-L (2)
 12. ADMIN: Thanks for the Introduction to WWII-L
 13. LST explosion at Pearl Harbor
 14. Air Power in Southwest Pacific (5)
 15. Post Traumatic Stress
 16. Massacre of Italians near Rome
 17. US Casualties Battle of Bulge vs. Pacific (2)
 18. TRV: THE PLAQUE WAR ON SLAPTON SANDS
 19. [TRIV] Police Dogs and Victory Cabbages (5)
 20. Bombing of Rails to Camps (2)
 21. INFO ME 410 and B-24
 22. Netiquette
 23. A byrd in the internet is worth...

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

Date:    Mon, 16 May 1994 01:00:22 +0200
From:    Emmanuel Gustin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: reply

On Sat, 14 May 1994, Joe Canepa wrote:

>          World War II was an effort to defeat racist right-wing regimes
>          engaged in genocide in a path towards world domination.
>          To stop these effort extreme measures had to be used,
>          including the bombing of civilian populations. Not a
>          happy choice, but the alternative: the systematic extermination
>          of groups of innocents was much worse.

I think that this is at least 19/20 hindsight. The existence of the
extermination camp was only a rumor until the very end of the war. The first
large British attack on a German city, 'Operation Millenium', was on 30
May 1942. At that time, the racism of the nazi's was well known, but I
don't think (I may be mistaken, I don't know the date) that a decision
about the 'Endlosung' had already been made in Germany. The allied could
not take this into account when they decided on area bombing.

Germany, Japan and Italy were probably seen, in the first place, as
nations that fought aggressive wars to expand their territory. This, more
than any moral considerations, made Britain, France, and the US go to war.
Moral consideration may have been important for Roosevelt, but they were
certainly not decisive for the US as a whole. I remember reading that
when, in the early 30's, Roosevelt reacted on the Japanese war crimes in
China by asking for an 'isolation' of Japan, he found almost no support
and strong opposition.

Note that military expansion was forbidden after WWII, that some German
generals were convicted in Neurenberg for 'preparing and leading an
aggresive war', and that the UN declared that borders of countries are
unchangeable. Thus declaring a time-honoured European tradition illegal...
Certainly a wise decision, to end about four- or five thousand years of
expansion warfare! Applying the principle to actual wars has been more
difficult;  it has worked in Korea, the Falklands, and Kuwait; it failed
miserably in the Middle East; and it was misused in Vietnam.

The rest of your post is current-day politics; I certainly don't agree
with it, but it shouldn't be on this list. Yet I would like to single
this out:

>  This government armed Iraq

Because this is repeated time and time again, and I would like to know:
what weapons did the US actually sell/send to Iraq? I had the impression
that most of their armament had Soviet origins, with some French
contributions.

( I've read some reports in a weekly here, but I don't consider it reliable.
  Recently these journalists interviewed an alledged arms dealer, who told
  them that the USSR still stored a lot of flyable Ju 87 Stuka's for use in
  the next war, and that he could sell them one :-). Sad that this is
  probably not true... )

Emmanuel Gustin

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

Date:    Mon, 16 May 1994 07:09:00 EDT
From:    mc killop <[email-masked]>
Subject: INF: USAAF 16 MAY 44

COMBAT CHRONOLOGY OF THE US ARMY AIR FORCES
TUESDAY, 16 MAY 1944
FTP SITES
  1. ftp.rutgers.edu in directory pub/wwii/usaf
  2. byrd.mu.wvnet.edu (129.71.32.152) in pub/history/military/airforce/
     wwii_chronology

AIRCRAFT MENTIONED IN THIS REPORT:
  A-20, Douglas Havoc
  B-24, Consolidated Liberator
  B-25, North American Mitchell
  P-47, Republic Thunderbolt
  P-51, North American Mustang

CHINA-BURMA-INDIA (CBI) THEATER OF OPERATIONS

  BURMA-INDIA (Tenth Air Force): In Burma, about 70 B-25s and fighter-bombers
hit the Myitkyina and Hogin areas; 11 B-24s hit Ywataung and Sagaing
marshalling yards and the town of Akyab.

  CHINA (Fourteenth Air Force): 8 B-24s blast the motor pool and warehouse
areas at Mangshih.

MEDITERRANEAN THEATER OF OPERATIONS (MTO)

  STRATEGIC OPERATIONS (Fifteenth Air Force): 2d Fighter Squadron, 52d
Fighter Group, moves from Corsica to Madna Airfield, Italy with P-51s.

  TACTICAL OPERATIONS (Twelfth Air Force): In Italy, medium bombers attack
railroad bridges and a tunnel in C Italy; light bombers blast guns in
Roccasecca while fighter-bombers and fighters just behind enemy lines seek
out motor transport targets, crater roads and hit bridges, harassing the
already strained communications network, while US Fifth Army troops push
rapidly W and NW and British Eighth Army forces push through the last
defenses of the Gustav Line in an effort to isolate Cassino, a joint effort
by British 13 Corps and Polish 2 Corps.

PACIFIC OCEAN AREA (POA, Seventh Air Force): Kwajalein Atoll-based B-24s
pound Wake Island. B-25s from Makin Island hit Nauru and Ponape Islands.

SOUTH PACIFIC AREA (SOPAC, Thirteenth Air Force): On New Britain Island, 40+
fighter-bombers hit the Vunakanau area; fighters on sweeps hit barges at
Jacquinot Bay and Mioko Harbour, vehicles at Kurakakaul, Mandres Bay and
Vunarima, and N of Vunakanau, a small vessel in Mandres Bay and a sawmill at
Keravat. On Bougainville Island, fighter-bombers hit occupied areas at
Tunuru, near Kieta and Manetai Mission, and at Tinputs.

SOUTHWEST PACIFIC AREA (SWPA, Fifth Air Force): In New Guinea, aircraft
continue to pound a variety of targets including airfields and supply areas
on Noemfoor and Biak Islands, AA guns, supplies and occupied villages in the
Wakde Island-Maffin-Sawar coastal area, and bridges, villages, troop
concentrations and AA positions.
  Unit moves in New Guinea: 8th Bombardment Squadron (Light), 3d Bombardment
Group (Light), from Nadzab to Hollandia with A-20s; 9th Fighter Squadron,
49th Fighter Group, from Gusap to Hollandia with P-47s.

SOURCES:
AIR FORCE COMBAT UNITS OF WORLD WAR II, Office of Air Force History,
  Headquarters USAF, 1961, ISBN 0-912799-02-1
COMBAT SQUADRONS OF THE AIR FORCE, WORLD WAR II, Office of Air Force
  History, Headquarters USAF 1982
THE ARMY AIR FORCES IN WORLD WAR II: COMBAT CHRONOLOGY, 1941-1945 by the
  Office of Air Force History, Headquarters USAF, 1973
THE MIGHTY EIGHTH WAR DIARY by Roger A. Freeman, ISBN 1-85409-071-2

Jack McKillop
USAF (Airways and Air Communications Service)
1955-59

-------------------------------------------------------------------
|  Jack McKillop              |  Those who have long enjoyed such |
|  Bellcore                   |  privileges as we enjoy forget in |
|  Piscataway, NJ USA         |  time that men have died to win   |
|  [email-masked]  |  them.                     FDR    |
-------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date:    Mon, 16 May 1994 07:50:52 EDT
From:    Ken Koester <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: reply

On Sat, 14 May 1994 00:06:39 -0400 Joe Canepa said:
>         World War II was an effort to defeat racist right-wing regimes
>         engaged in genocide in a path towards world domination.
>         To stop these effort extreme measures had to be used,
>         including the bombing of civilian populations. Not a
>         happy choice, but the alternative: the systematic extermination
>         of groups of innocents was much worse.

Unfortunately, strategic bombing had little or nothing to do with stopping
genocide.  And the argument that extreme situations demand extreme measures
is morally weak, IMHO:  I put it to you that, for example & hypothetically,
committing genocide in order to stop genocide is senseless.

ken koester
[email-masked]

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

Date:    Mon, 16 May 1994 08:12:02 EST
From:    rick robinson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Bombing

====================================================================
 Unfortunately, strategic bombing had little or nothing to do with stopping
 genocide.  And the argument that extreme situations demand extreme measures
 is morally weak, IMHO:  I put it to you that, for example & hypothetically,
 committing genocide in order to stop genocide is senseless.

 ken koester
 [email-masked]
===================================================================

 Maybe I have the wrong slant on this, but I was always under the
  impression that strategic bombing was utilized to further the
   concept of destroying the enemy's will, desire and ability to
   wage war.

 Also, the concept of 'correct conduct of war' seems to me to be
   an oxymoron (such as 'fair fight', 'semi-boneless ham', 'military
   intellegence', etc.).  The only concept to war is to defeat whom-
   ever is your opponent (however repugnant this might seem).  To
   do otherwise is NOT to wage war, but to concede to the desires
   and wishes of your opposition.

 To quote (or paraphrase) General George-  "The aim is NOT for YOU
   to die for your country, it is for YOU to make that other poor
   dumb son-of-(deleted) die for HIS country".  (implied-  use what-
   ever methods you have at your disposal).

 Just my thoughts (and eleven cents worth (inflation) <GR>).

===>>> KARAOKE-- Japanese for tone-deaf drunk with a microphone <<<===

Rick Robinson/KD4GNK
Tape Librarian, DOIM
Fort Knox, Kentucky   40121-5000     (502) 624-8645
[email-masked]
[email-masked]

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

Date:    Mon, 16 May 1994 08:26:53 EDT
From:    Ken Koester <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Bombing

On Mon, 16 May 1994 08:12:02 EST rick robinson said:
>====================================================================
> Unfortunately, strategic bombing had little or nothing to do with stopping
> genocide.  And the argument that extreme situations demand extreme measures
> is morally weak, IMHO:  I put it to you that, for example & hypothetically,
> committing genocide in order to stop genocide is senseless.
>
> ken koester
> [email-masked]
>===================================================================
>
> Maybe I have the wrong slant on this, but I was always under the
>  impression that strategic bombing was utilized to further the
>   concept of destroying the enemy's will, desire and ability to
>   wage war.

I don't doubt that that is what the planners thought they were doing.
But the campaign failed to accomplish its objectives.

ken koester
[email-masked]

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

Date:    Mon, 16 May 1994 07:51:33 CDT
From:    Tim not Timothy Scherrer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: reply

In response to Joe Canepa's post about Panama/Iraq/Haiti--let's drop
this topic because I'm about ready to start a flame war here.  The post
was making me (a gulf war vet) pretty angry.  TAS

************************************************************************
*  Tim A. Scherrer          "You'll be fighting WWII for the rest of   *
*  Facilities Supervisor     your life", Ron Scherrer, 1971            *
*  WP:816-785-5253                                                     *
*  HP:816-665-6704                                                     *
*  ID# [email-masked]                             *
************************************************************************

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

Date:    Mon, 16 May 1994 14:53:52 +0200
From:    Bengt Nilsson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Nazis - left or right?

>Another of the enduring myths created by leftist college "educators" is
>that the Nazi regime was "right wing".
>NAZI is an abbreviation of National *Socialist* German Workers Party.
>Its fundamental credo was class-hatred, directed at aristocrats, intellectuals,

>and the prosperous middle-class. Scarcely the charicteristics of the Right.

Thus wrote Sidney Allinson.

Isn't this putting a bit too much into a name? The German Democratic
Republic was hardly democratic, was it?

As far as I remember the Nazi party was indeed from the beginning a
revolutionary party with socialist ideas. The Strasser brothers belonged
to that wing of the party if I'm not mistaken. However, the Nazis as they
developed as a party under Hitler can hardly be described as socialist.
Did Hitler attempt to socialize the industry? Did he not have a close
cooperation with for instance the Krupp family? Did he not as he rose
to power seek the support of Hugenberg and other groups from the right?

Did he not persecute the Social Democrats and the Communists from the
very start? I would think that besides the Jews there was no other group
he hated more than the Socialists. If you want to analyze the party name
I think it would be more appropriate to focus attention on the "National"
part.

Bengt Nilsson
[email-masked]

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

Date:    Mon, 16 May 1994 08:55:34 EDT
From:    Robert E George <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Churchill and Seagulls

I recall that Churchill once did express concern that "Potemkin"/deception
warfare battleships (that is, structures designed to look like battleships
to overflying German recon. aircraft but built at a fraction of the cost)
would not be believable unless seagulls flocked around them.

     Rob

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

Date:    Mon, 16 May 1994 08:57:25 -0400
From:    Christopher Morton <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Bombing

>
> On Mon, 16 May 1994 08:12:02 EST rick robinson said:
> >====================================================================
> > Unfortunately, strategic bombing had little or nothing to do with stopping
> > genocide.  And the argument that extreme situations demand extreme measures
> > is morally weak, IMHO:  I put it to you that, for example & hypothetically,
> > committing genocide in order to stop genocide is senseless.
> >
> > ken koester
> > [email-masked]
> >===================================================================
> >
> > Maybe I have the wrong slant on this, but I was always under the
> >  impression that strategic bombing was utilized to further the
> >   concept of destroying the enemy's will, desire and ability to
> >   wage war.
>
> I don't doubt that that is what the planners thought they were doing.
> But the campaign failed to accomplish its objectives.

Yeah, but it accomplished enough other objectives that I'm not picking
cotton without pay in Alabama, for Afrika Korps uniforms.

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

Date:    Mon, 16 May 1994 08:58:22 -0400
From:    Christopher Morton <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: reply

>
> On Sat, 14 May 1994 00:06:39 -0400 Joe Canepa said:
> >         World War II was an effort to defeat racist right-wing regimes
> >         engaged in genocide in a path towards world domination.
> >         To stop these effort extreme measures had to be used,
> >         including the bombing of civilian populations. Not a
> >         happy choice, but the alternative: the systematic extermination
> >         of groups of innocents was much worse.
>
> Unfortunately, strategic bombing had little or nothing to do with stopping
> genocide.  And the argument that extreme situations demand extreme measures
> is morally weak, IMHO:  I put it to you that, for example & hypothetically,
> committing genocide in order to stop genocide is senseless.

Not if YOU are going to be a victim of the genocide that you want to stop.

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

Date:    Mon, 16 May 1994 09:43:28 -0400
From:    Christopher Morton <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Nazis - left or right?

>
> >Another of the enduring myths created by leftist college "educators" is
> >that the Nazi regime was "right wing".
> >NAZI is an abbreviation of National *Socialist* German Workers Party.
> >Its fundamental credo was class-hatred, directed at aristocrats, intellectuals,
>
> >and the prosperous middle-class. Scarcely the charicteristics of the Right.
>
> Thus wrote Sidney Allinson.
>
> Isn't this putting a bit too much into a name? The German Democratic
> Republic was hardly democratic, was it?
>
> As far as I remember the Nazi party was indeed from the beginning a
> revolutionary party with socialist ideas. The Strasser brothers belonged
> to that wing of the party if I'm not mistaken. However, the Nazis as they
> developed as a party under Hitler can hardly be described as socialist.
> Did Hitler attempt to socialize the industry? Did he not have a close
> cooperation with for instance the Krupp family? Did he not as he rose
> to power seek the support of Hugenberg and other groups from the right?
>
> Did he not persecute the Social Democrats and the Communists from the
> very start? I would think that besides the Jews there was no other group
> he hated more than the Socialists. If you want to analyze the party name
> I think it would be more appropriate to focus attention on the "National"
> part.
>
Just as in Italy, the principle was state CONTROL of industry, not state
OWNERSHIP.

The Nazi goal was to ELIMINATE class conflict through top down control,
rather than to CAUSE class conflict.  The exception was their treatment of
the Jews, who were treated as an economic class unto themselves, not unlike
the Soviet treatment of the "kulaks".  In both cases, an entire mythos was
created around the group in question.  This enabled the state to blame a
variety of ills upon the disfavored group as well as to justify its
elimination.  The principle difference was that although there were objective
standards for who was a Jew, the "kulak" definition was infinitely expandible
until "kulak" came to mean "anyone disfavored by someone with power in the
collectivization apparatus".

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

Date:    Mon, 16 May 1994 09:09:47 -0500
From:    Jon Stevens <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Nazis - left or right?

On Mon, 16 May 1994, Bengt Nilsson wrote:

> >Another of the enduring myths created by leftist college "educators" is
> >that the Nazi regime was "right wing".
> >NAZI is an abbreviation of National *Socialist* German Workers Party.
> Isn't this putting a bit too much into a name?
> as a party under Hitler can hardly be described as socialist.
> Did Hitler attempt to socialize the industry? Did he not have a close
> cooperation with for instance the Krupp family? Did he not as he rose
> to power seek the support of Hugenberg and other groups from the right?

According to The 25 Point Program of the NSDAP,

11. We demand the abolition of income unearned by work.
12. ...We demand ruthless confiscation of all war profits.
13. We demand nationalization of all trusts.
16. We demand...immediate communalization of department stores....
22. We demand the abolition of a paid army and formation of a national
peoples army.
25. ...We demand the creation of a strong central state power.

Admittedly, this was in 1920 but still shows the socialist orientation
of the Nazis.  If they had won the war, IMHO, they probably would have
gone much futher than these earlier points.  I think that Hitler held
Hugenberg and other right-wingers in contempt also.  What happened to
him after the Nazis gained power?  Hugenburg or any other right-winger
had no place in the Nazi government.  Socialist is the word that should
be focused on in the NSDAP.  Any one else have a comment?

Jon Stevens

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

Date:    Mon, 16 May 1994 09:47:24 GMT-6
From:    Terry Moore <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: WEAP: P-61

Hello, Michael!

Thanks for the note and glad to hear from you. Hope you are well.

> Somehow I've blown away all of Dr. Moore's great posts on the P-61.
> I'd been saving them all but somehow destroyed or lost the file.
> Damn Friday 13th. If someone has a comprehensive version of the data
> I would really appreciate it.

> Dr. Moore, this IS GOOD STUFF, keep it coming.

    Don't worry. I will post to this list all that I have on the P-
61. It will take some time, but I will do it. At the time, I have
guests from Germany and will post what I can when I can.

    Thanks for the note again. All the best.

    Terry

Terry Moore, Professor of German and French, Amarillo College
P.O. Box 447, Amarillo, Texas 79178, voice 806-371-5077
fax 806-371-5370

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

Date:    Mon, 16 May 1994 07:54:59 PST
From:    "Keller, Theron P." <[email-masked]>
Subject: INF: USN Chronology 05-14-94

UNITED STATES NAVY CHRONOLOGY
from:
//byrd.mu.wvnet.edu/pub/history/military/wwii/naval_chronology/chr4(4,5).txt

1944
05/14 Sun.  Japanese naval vessel sunk:
             Destroyer INAZUMA, by submarine BONEFISH (SS-223),
              Celebes Sea,
              03 d. 08' N., 119 d. 38' E.

Theron P. Keller
Logicon, Inc.
Dahlgren, VA  22448 USA
[email-masked]

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

Date:    Mon, 16 May 1994 07:55:11 PST
From:    "Keller, Theron P." <[email-masked]>
Subject: INF: USN Chronology 05-15-94

UNITED STATES NAVY CHRONOLOGY
from:
//byrd.mu.wvnet.edu/pub/history/military/wwii/naval_chronology/chr4(4,5).txt

1944
05/15 Mon. United States Naval Air Bases, Ebeye and Roi-namur,
           Kwajalein Atoll in the Marshall Islands, are
           established.
            German submarine sunk:
             U-731, by United States naval land-based aircraft
              (VP-63) and British surface craft, western
              Mediterranean area,
              35 d.54' N., 05 d. 45' W.

Theron P. Keller
Logicon, Inc.
Dahlgren, VA  22448 USA
[email-masked]

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

Date:    Mon, 16 May 1994 07:55:27 PST
From:    "Keller, Theron P." <[email-masked]>
Subject: INF: USN Chronology 05-16-94

UNITED STATES NAVY CHRONOLOGY
from:
//byrd.mu.wvnet.edu/pub/history/military/wwii/naval_chronology/chr4(4,5).txt

1944
05/16 Tue.  Japanese submarine sunk:
             I-176, by destroyers FRANKS (DD-554) and HAGGARD
              (DD-555), north of Solomon Islands,
              04 d. 01' S., 156 d. 29' E.

Theron P. Keller
Logicon, Inc.
Dahlgren, VA  22448 USA
[email-masked]

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

Date:    Mon, 16 May 1994 16:56:26 +0200
From:    Stefano Ruberto <[email-masked]>
Subject: MUSSOLINI

Was Benito Mussolini the greatest politic of this century???

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

Date:    Mon, 16 May 1994 10:07:01 CDT
From:    "Robert J. Granvin" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Bombing

> > Maybe I have the wrong slant on this, but I was always under the
> >  impression that strategic bombing was utilized to further the
> >   concept of destroying the enemy's will, desire and ability to
> >   wage war.
>
> I don't doubt that that is what the planners thought they were doing.
> But the campaign failed to accomplish its objectives.

It didn't destroy the enemy's will _across the board_ to continue the
fight, but depending on who you were and where you were, it did.  It did
do substantial damage to the infastructure, making it difficult to impossible
to move anything or anyone anywhere.  Near the end of the war, Germany was
forced to move as much by night as possible.  A lot of daylight traffic
simply stopped.  The damage done to the manufacturing infastructure can be
seen in ball bearings for aircraft that are nowhere near round.

The ability to fight was seriously damaged.  Come D-day, the Axis was not
able to mount an effective air defense.  Still a serious threat in 1944
and 1945, the threat was nowhere as compared to 1943.  The damage to the
Japanese infastructure ended up having them distill various trees down to
an alcohol to use for fuel for suicide planes.  The will was definitely
not hampered, though the image of fighting to the last man on every island
is not entirely accurate when there was a route of escape.

Bombing usually results in solidifying public sentiment and the willingness
"to take it" for the greater cause.  But this polarization can't last
forever, and the first to want to make it stop are the troops getting the
brunt of it.  Therefore, when looking at whether strategic bombing did or
did not affect the will to continue the fight, it is important to look at --
and separate -- the opinions of the military, the military combatants and
the civilian populations.  You will almost certainly get three radically
different answers.  These distinctions seem to not be pursued when trying to
determine the effectiveness at destroying will.  (I won't bring Iraq into
the picture, but it does serve as an example -- the public opinion was
substantially different than the troops in the field).

--
Robert J. Granvin                                    Southern Minnesota Wing
[email-masked]                                       Confederate Air Force

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

Date:    Mon, 16 May 1994 11:45:57 -0400
From:    Barone <[email-masked]>
Subject: ADMIN: Introduction to WWII-L

Revision: 16 May 1994
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Welcome to WWII-L, a list dedicated to the discussion of the greatest
cataclysm of the Twentieth century (and, hopefully, the last.)  I am Joe
Barone and I'll be listowner until further notice.  I can be reached at
[email-masked].

        WWII-L will be self-moderated.  This means that each of you will
always try to remember that there is a human being on the other end of the
wire, and the "Golden Rule" is rule number one!

        Our subject is HUGE and not everyone will be interested in everything
that moves over the list.  To ease YOUR burden of sorting the items you wish
to read, I offer the following "flags".  They will go FIRST on the Subject:
line.  (This section will be enforced when traffic gets heavy, otherwise
members may use their discretion on the matter.)

EDU   For discussion of aspects of teaching about the war.
SCI   For discussion of science and technology; may overlap with WEAP.
WEAP  For talk of weapons, usage of weapons, and "My favorite weapon."
POL   Political discussions, such as the effects of the Yalta Conference.
TAC   Tactical and Strategic discussions, "Island hopping vs. Single axis"
REF   References, review, where-to-buy, etc.
INF   Tables of Organization, raw data, chronologies, etc.
DOC   Reproductions of documents, Declarations of War, Speeches, Treaties, etc.
GEN   "Let's find a category for this."
TRV   For you trivia buffs. Try to stump everyone.
VET   For reunions, VA announcements, Legislation affecting veterans.
HOME  For discussions of events on the "Homefront".  To help distinguish
      WHICH homefront we're talking about, use the following format:
      HOME:US for the U.S.A.,
      HOME:GER for Germany, and so forth.
NOST  For nostalgia items, such as trips to battle sites, historical
      recreations, museum information, where to buy badges and hats, etc.
ADMIN For listowner use, to post introduction and related material.
      Responses to these articles are welcome, but only listowner
      should originate an "ADMIN" article.
WANT  For trading, suggestion on stores worth visting, etc.  Please offer to
      send more information via e-mail rather than posting an entire inventory.
MEDIA To review and report TV and other media "events".
NEWS  For reproductions of newspaper, magazine, and other articles from the
      period under discussion.  Present day news items should be post under
      "MEDIA".
ARC   For discussion of on-line resources and materials, such as those avail-
      able via ftp or gopher.  Discussion of the WWII-OLA (On-Line Archives
      should be posted under this flag.)
TROUBLE  Error messages from a site or address. Last chance to contact me
      before I'm forced to delete you! Anyone who knows the member in question
      is urged to contact them and have the problem corrected.

        Some items will overlap, of course, but the main thrust of the item
should be clear.  Try not to ask so many questions in a single post that the
flags become inoperative.  Several short posts are preferable to one long one,
and are easier to answer and quote.  You should change the flag in the subject
line if the thread takes a new direction.  If you reply to a posting which
didn't have a flag, please insert the proper flag.  (This can help categorize
the subject for people who have to download the mail via slow modem, one of
the main reasons for having the flags at all.)

|       Threads have been known to mutate so that the Subject: line no longer
| gives any indication of the content of the message.  I ask that you check
| the Subject: line when replying to a message and change it to something
| more appropriate if this is the case.
|
|       Since messages may arrive at sites out of order, it's always a good
| idea to quote portions of a previous message that you are responding to.
| This does not mean that the entire message with headers should be included,
| but those lines that are relevant.  It helps if proper attribution (who
| said the quoted material) is given.  Also, try to avoid quoting large
| tracts of text and simply adding a "Me too!" line without adding
| additional information.  A good rule of thumb is not to have more quoted
| text than new material.  Of course, content is always more important than
| style so please remember that these are only suggestions.

        Abbreviations are another subject that needs attention.  While many
of us will be comfortable with the most arcane and obscure acronyms and
abbreviations, many of the readers of this list are here to learn more about
the war and will have trouble decyphering your articles if they are packed
with "LAH", "CinCUS", "StuG III", etc.  PLEASE expand these terms at least
once in your post.

        Similarly, since this list is primarily in English, could we please
translate the "foreign" terms?  A long discussion on "Kido Butai" or
"Wacht-am-Rhine" without an explantion of the terms isn't polite if we
exclude part of the list because they have no clue as to the meaning of
the terms.  The converse should also be remembered: English is not the
primary language of many members of the list.  Usenet short-hand should
also be expanded once to avoid redundant traffic explaining what such
abbreviations as BTW mean ("by the way").

        Now we come to the REALLY hard part.

        Some subjects have been beaten to death or evoke strong emotional
responses.  However, I realize that they'll come up from time to time.
If you feel that the following topics must be addressed, ensure that your
wording is precise; consider the responses that it might evoke; and use
the topics flag.  It is not my duty to censor any pertinent topic from this
list, but these topics should be handled carefully.  Failure to do so may
result in "flame wars" which will *not* be tolerated on this list.  The
mailing list suffered through one flame war pertaining to the second topic
below.  It nearly killed the list so I am loath to see if the list can
tolerate another.  Also, in regards to the Holocaust, there is another
mailing-list, HOLOCAUS-L, devoted to the topic so readers should subscribe
to that list for a more thorough discussion of that topic.  The current
list of topics are:

        1. The Holocaust.
        2. Internment of Japanese-Americans in the US.

        Also, while conspiracy theories were all the rage during in the 1970s
and 1980s, they're rather passe now.  Their novelty is gone and there is little
or no evidence to support them.  Occam's razor applies here: don't attribute
to malice the results of ignorance.  Accordingly, the following topics are
discouraged:

        1. Did Roosevelt know about the coming attack on Pearl Harbor and
           intentionally do nothing in order to drag the US into the war?
        2. Did Churchill allow the bombing of Conventry to occur in order
           to protect the secret of Ultra?

|       While on the topic of touchy topics and flame wars, there are a
| few individuals in the world who delight in posting the most assinine
| assertions for the sole purpose of enraging the more serious members of a
| group.  These people seem to derive pleasure seeing how much traffic they
| can generate.  A subset of this group may actually believe the preposterous
| things that they are claiming.  Regardless of such an individual's
| motivation, though, if a message angers you, I ask that you not respond
| immediately, if at all.  First, you would probably be playing right into
| their hands and, secondly, nearly every other sensible person will have
| the same response as your own.  I try to stay on top of this list in order
| to prevent such flame wars, but propogation delays make it impossible for
| me to react instantaneously.  Hopefully, I'll have the wisdom to discern
| "flamebait" from an actual desire to debate an "unpopular" theory.

        One last item, STATE YOUR REFERENCES!  You're in tough company here.
Some of the folks in this list are VERY sharp, and you'll end up with egg on
your face if you haven't done your homework.

        Normally the listserv will want you to subscribe from your own account
rather than having me add you to the list.  This allows the software to confirm
mailing routes as I don't always get your full address in the mail.

        Contact me if listserv gives you any problems and we'll seek a solution.

SUBSCRIPTION INFOMATION:

ALL Messages are to go to:

[email-masked] (internet)
listserv@ubvm                (bitnet)

Send the following commands  in the body of the message.

To SUBSCRIBE:
subscribe wwii-l (your name)

To UNSUBSCRIBE:
unsubscribe wwii-l

To turn mail off for a period without unsubscribing:
set wwii-l nomail

To turn mail back on when ready:
set wwii-l mail

To Digest (have all postings sent in one mailing per day):
set wwii-l digest

To restore normal mail (undigest the list.)
set wwii-l mail

To confirm that your posting has been sent to the list:
set wwii-l ack

To get a copy of your posting sent to you:
set wwii-l repro

(Ack will send you a note saying "your file has been succesfully distributed,
and repro will send a copy back to you of your posting..

To retrieve logfiles for WWII-L send mail to [email-masked] or
                                             listserv@ubvm (for bitnet)
with this message in the body:
get wwii-l log9207c

This file will contain all the postings sent to the list in the third week
of July.

The files are held for two months and broken down by seven day periods (which
usually don't coincide with the calendar "week".  Thus you might see this
kind of entry

WWII-L LOG9207A  (for 01-07 July, 1992)
WWII-L LOG9207B  (for 08-14 July, 1992)
WWII-L LOG9207C  (for 15-21 July, 1992)

You can also get the files by ftp if you have access.  FTP into
ubvm.cc.buffalo.edu and cd to WWII-L.  The files are in ascii format
and the machine is case sensitive.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here's a tip on getting older messages from the listserver:

Date:         Wed, 16 Sep 1992 18:06:11 CDT
From: DONALD NEWCOMB <[email-masked]>
Subject:      Getting back articles and the database

  One of the "niftiest" features of the listserver is the database
search. This allows the user to search for any subject and print
either an index of the "hits" or the articles themselves. For
instance if you mail the command sequence below to "[email-masked]"
or "[email-masked]" it will send you an index of all
articles in the archive that deal with weapons (the WEAP: tag).
_
//Job
Database Search DD=Rules
//Rules DD *
sel * in wwii-l where subject contains ("weap:")
index
/*
_
If you change the word "index" to "print" it will return you a copy
of the articles themselves. I think you can start with the listserv
"help" command and find a complete set of instructions  for using the
database. The complete instructions are very complex and should only
be tackled by someone with experience with data searching experience.

Donald R. Newcomb - Univ. of Southern Mississippi - Gulf Park
   <[email-masked]>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If I haven't suffciently confused you, send me e-mail and I'll finish
the job. :-)  I can be reached at the following address:

Joe Barone, WWII-L Listowner
[email-masked]
W: (401) 842-4054
Always wit' da negative waves, Moriarty!  Always wit' da negative waves!

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

Date:    Mon, 16 May 1994 16:48:41 BST
From:    Stephen Baldwin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: MUSSOLINI

>       Was Benito Mussolini the greatest politic of this century???
No.
(Otherwise he wouldn't have got himself strung up on a butcher's hook.

smb

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

Date:    Mon, 16 May 1994 11:59:22 -0400
From:    "Steven Pudlo, Dept. Computer Svcs." <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: ADMIN: Introduction to WWII-L

Suggest the addition on new subject header:

PROP    Political propoganda, (Left wing/Right wing/All of the above/etc.)

                                                Nyuk! Nyuk :-) Steve
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Steven E. Pudlo  - [email-masked] |"Life may be a drag BUT
STC Programmer/Analyst - (203) 885-2343  |  it sure beats the only
Three Rivers Community-Technical College |           known alternative"
574 New London Turnpike                  |                     (S.E.P.)
Norwich, CT. U.S.A. 06360                |No one gets out of it alive..
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date:    Mon, 16 May 1994 12:40:30 EDT
From:    Ken Koester <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Bombing

On Mon, 16 May 1994 08:57:25 -0400 Christopher Morton said:
>> >
>> > Maybe I have the wrong slant on this, but I was always under the
>> >  impression that strategic bombing was utilized to further the
>> >   concept of destroying the enemy's will, desire and ability to
>> >   wage war.
>>
>> I don't doubt that that is what the planners thought they were doing.
>> But the campaign failed to accomplish its objectives.
>
>Yeah, but it accomplished enough other objectives that I'm not picking
>cotton without pay in Alabama, for Afrika Korps uniforms.

There was never any danger of that, with or without strategic bombing.
It didn't win the war, and it couldn't have lost it, either.

ken koester
[email-masked]

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

Date:    Mon, 16 May 1994 12:55:46 EDT
From:    Ken Koester <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Nazis - left or right?

On Mon, 16 May 1994 09:09:47 -0500 Jon Stevens said:
>According to The 25 Point Program of the NSDAP,
>
>11. We demand the abolition of income unearned by work.
>12. ...We demand ruthless confiscation of all war profits.
>13. We demand nationalization of all trusts.
>16. We demand...immediate communalization of department stores....
>22. We demand the abolition of a paid army and formation of a national
>peoples army.
>25. ...We demand the creation of a strong central state power.
>
>Admittedly, this was in 1920 but still shows the socialist orientation
>of the Nazis.  If they had won the war, IMHO, they probably would have
>gone much futher than these earlier points.

The NSDAP even by 1923 was considerably different than in 1920, and by
1933 and 1934 (the purge of the socialists) enormously different.  Hitler's
support at the time of his accession to power came predominantly from the
middle class; nazism can be seen as a middle class mass movement in response
to lower class or labor mass movements that had been building steam for
over 50 years.  I think it is clear that the socialist element to the NSDAP
disappeared in 1934 & would not have been revived later.

> I think that Hitler held
>Hugenberg and other right-wingers in contempt also.  What happened to
>him after the Nazis gained power?  Hugenburg or any other right-winger
>had no place in the Nazi government.  Socialist is the word that should
>be focused on in the NSDAP.  Any one else have a comment?

Not completely true.  Hitler did have contempt for potential rivals or
power centers, but he did not send the industrialists to camps as he did
the communists, socialists, etc.  In fact, the "coordination" of the '30s
was considerably easier among the right-wing elites than in the rest of
society.  After all, they already agreed with many of his policies.

ken koester
[email-masked]

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

Date:    Mon, 16 May 1994 13:09:10 EDT
From:    Ken Koester <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Bombing

No reply line from Robert's mailer, alas (-:

----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>> > Maybe I have the wrong slant on this, but I was always under the
>> >  impression that strategic bombing was utilized to further the
>> >   concept of destroying the enemy's will, desire and ability to
>> >   wage war.
>>
>> I don't doubt that that is what the planners thought they were doing.
>> But the campaign failed to accomplish its objectives.
>
>It didn't destroy the enemy's will _across the board_ to continue the
>fight, but depending on who you were and where you were, it did.  It did
>do substantial damage to the infastructure, making it difficult to impossible
>to move anything or anyone anywhere.  Near the end of the war, Germany was
>forced to move as much by night as possible.  A lot of daylight traffic
>simply stopped.  The damage done to the manufacturing infastructure can be
>seen in ball bearings for aircraft that are nowhere near round.

Yes--"near the end of the war".  But near the end of the war, the damage done
by strategic bombing was only one headache among many.  I mean, with the
enemy on the Rhine & across the Vistula and the end in sight, does it really
matter that the trains no longer run in the day (or night, for that matter)?

>The ability to fight was seriously damaged.  Come D-day, the Axis was not
>able to mount an effective air defense.

True.  But wasn't that a result of the *operational* bombardment campaign
against *France* & not the *strategic* campaign against *Germany*?  A
campaign (France) resisted strongly by the Air Corps, if memory serves.

>Bombing usually results in solidifying public sentiment and the willingness
>"to take it" for the greater cause.

Precisely.  No one has ever "broken the will to resist" or whatever phrase
you like of a country with strategic bombing with the possible exception of
Iraq--and even then the country bounced back so quickly one is entitled to
scepticism.

> But this polarization can't last
>forever, and the first to want to make it stop are the troops getting the
>brunt of it.

Yes, but if you are bombing the troops, is that really "strategic bombing"
any more?

> Therefore, when looking at whether strategic bombing did or
>did not affect the will to continue the fight, it is important to look at --
>and separate -- the opinions of the military, the military combatants and
>the civilian populations.  You will almost certainly get three radically
>different answers.

Very apt point.  Is this to develop into a serious discussion of the
strategic bombing campaign--it didn't really start that way (-: --and if
so, are we going to talk about the costs, opportunities foregone, vs.
perceived benefits, etc.?

ken koester
[email-masked]

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

Date:    Mon, 16 May 1994 13:25:47 EDT
From:    Ken Koester <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: ADMIN: Thanks for the Introduction to WWII-L

This list has got what *has* to be the best intro to new subscribers of
any list I have ever seen.  Kudos to the deserving listowners, past and
present (-:

ken koester
[email-masked]

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

Date:    Mon, 16 May 1994 14:17:34 -0500
From:    John Davis - Mailing Lists <[email-masked]>
Subject: LST explosion at Pearl Harbor

In looking through the US Navy chronology files stored at Marshall I ran
across the following item -

05/21/1944  Sun. United States naval vessels sunk:
        LST 43, LST 69, LST 179, LST 353, LST 480, by
        accidental explosion, Pearl Harbor.

Does anyone have any additional information about this incident. I would
love to know what caused the explosion, how many casualties, etc. Five
ships exploding at once; I just can't even imagine it.

----------
John Davis ([email-masked])
Cary, N.C.
----------

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

Date:    Mon, 16 May 1994 14:18:00 -0400
From:    DAVID WILMA 415-744-2485 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Air Power in Southwest Pacific

          I remember reading about how outclassed U.S. fighters, especially
          p-39s, were in New Guinea in 42-43.  We had a family friend who
          was shot down and walked out of the jungle after a tangle with a
          Zero and by all accounts the Japanese had it over the U.S. in
          this area.

          Question:  Was this imbalance a factor in air superiority?  Were
          the Japanese airplanes and doctrine better?  Obviously something
          went right for the Allies, but I would like to know if it was
          much of a factor.

          Dave Wilma
          [email-masked]

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

Date:    Mon, 16 May 1994 15:13:41 -0400
From:    Dan Ford <[email-masked]>
Subject: Post Traumatic Stress

Though it's not strictly germaine to the list, you might want to read
Monday's Wall Street Journal review of *Achilles in Vietnam* by Jonathan
Shay, whom I met on the list.

It's an amazing book that any war veteran ought to look at, as well as
any literature major!

Especially in light of the fact that it came out practically on the day
that Chesty Puller's son and Vietnam veteran/activist killed himself. I
think it is probably true, as one of you notes in his .sig file, that
every veteran fights his war for the rest of his life.

Cheers - Dan     <[email-masked]>

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

Date:    Mon, 16 May 1994 10:57:11 GMT-6
From:    Terry Moore <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Massacre of Italians near Rome

Hello, All!

The name of that movie was "Massacre in Rome".

    Hope this helps.

    Terry
----------------------------------------------------------------------

> > Speaking of the massacre of 335 Italian civilians in the Ardeatine Caves
> > in Rome, wasn't there a movie based on that from the perspective on an
> > SS officer sometime back in the early/mid 80's?  I saw something on HBO
> > some years back that I have to assume represented that event.
> >
> > Any clues out there?
>
> I think this movie stared Marcello Mastriano(sp), playing a priest, and,
> perhaps, Richard Burton, playing the SS officer.  I don't recall the name
> of the movie.  I am sure somebody else will.
>

Terry Moore, Professor of German and French, Amarillo College
P.O. Box 447, Amarillo, Texas 79178, voice 806-371-5077
fax 806-371-5370

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

Date:    Mon, 16 May 1994 10:47:48 GMT-6
From:    Terry Moore <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: US Casualties Battle of Bulge vs. Pacific

Hello, Emery!

>
>         Is it true that there were more US casualties in the Battle of the
> Bulge than US casualties in the entire Pacific theatre during WWII?
>
    No. Total casualty figures for the US during the Battle of the
Buldge did not nearly come close to the total casualties suffered by
this country in the Pacific. The reason for that is, is that American
combat troops were in physical contact with the Japanese longer than
they were with the Germans. Thus casaulties were greater.

    I think you may claim that the Bulge cost us more casualties than
any single other action in WWII, but certainly not in comparison with
the entire Pacific Theater of Operations.

    Hope this helps.

    Terry

Terry Moore, Professor of German and French, Amarillo College
P.O. Box 447, Amarillo, Texas 79178, voice 806-371-5077
fax 806-371-5370

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

Date:    Mon, 16 May 1994 15:31:20 -0400
From:    Dan Ford <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Air Power in Southwest Pacific

On Mon, 16 May 1994, DAVID WILMA 415-744-2485 wrote:

>           I remember reading about how outclassed U.S. fighters, especially
>           p-39s, were in New Guinea in 42-43.  We had a family friend who

I don't agree that American aircraft were outclassed. They were extremely
tough, high-powered, and heavily armed, and with experienced pilots they
gave a good account of themselves. Note John Lundstrom's findings for the
first six months of the Pacific War: 41 Grumman Wildcats shot down by
Japanese Zero pilots, 40 Zeros shot down by American Navy Wildcat pilots.
And at that time the Japanese had the edge in experience!

It's one of the pop-historian devices to say that our planes were junk,
to make the initial defeat and the ultimate victory look better. Thus all
the thousands of words written about the "obsolete" P-40 flown by the AVG
Flying Tigers. Which would you rather be flying, a P-40 with two fifties
and four thirties, self-sealing fuel tanks, and pilot armor, or a slower
Nakajima Ki-27 "Nate" with two 7.7 mm guns and no armor whatsoever?

Cheers - Dan     <[email-masked]>

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

Date:    Tue, 17 May 1994 03:31:05 +0200
From:    John Ausland <[email-masked]>
Subject: TRV: THE PLAQUE WAR ON SLAPTON SANDS

  Oslo, May 16.
  Burt Knight sent me a private message, noting that the men aboard the LSTs
during Exercise Tiger were engineers.  Yes, mostly, but not all.  Actually, the
bookkeeping on Tiger is uneven, and no one is certain how many men perished.
I do not recall any records being kept of any landing craft I boarded, either
during exercises or the landing.  Hence, it would have been difficult to account
for all of us had something happened.
  This confusion led to an aspect of the tragedy which has yet to be discovered
by the press, which may be just as well.  It is what I call the battle of the
plaques.  I will not go into great detail, but this is essentially what
happened.
  A number of years ago, someone (no one now seems to be sure who it was) got a
plague created, which indicated that most of those who died were from the 4th
Infantry Division.  This plague was on the rock near Ken Small's tank (which he
rescued from the sea - a great story) when I visited Slapton Sands in 1992.
  There is now another plague on the rock.  Someone, who shall go unnamed, got
his dander up about the original plaque and had another one made.  One morning,
it was found on the rock, with the old one lying near by.  This one gave a more
accurate account of which units were involved.
  I have not seen this plaque but understand it perpetuates an error in the
first plaque, by refering to Operation Tiger, rather than Exercise Tiger.
  It is now my understanding that yet another plaque will appear at the end of
May. I do not know what it will say.
  If all this seems rather rough, it is because I have picked it up along the
way and have not wanted to devote enough time to the question to sort out all
the details.
  One thing is certain: there are different opinions about what should be on a
plaque on Slapton Sands.
  Regards, John Ausland/Oslo Norway

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

Date:    Mon, 16 May 1994 12:57:07 -0700
From:    Henry Frummer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: US Casualties Battle of Bulge vs. Pacific

According to Bauer (History of World War II) The total American
casualties for the Battle of the Bulge was 77,000 approx.  According to
Costello (The Pacific War) the total came to about 296,000 casualties for
the Pacific Theatre.

It would be more interesting if people responded with facts instead of
opinions, correct or not.  Even my figures are open to interpretation.  For
instance does Costello's numbers include non-combat casualties like
sickness and accidents?

 On Mon, 16 May 1994, Terry Moore wrote:

> Hello, Emery!
>
> >
> >         Is it true that there were more US casualties in the Battle of the
> > Bulge than US casualties in the entire Pacific theatre during WWII?
> >
>     No. Total casualty figures for the US during the Battle of the
> Buldge did not nearly come close to the total casualties suffered by
> this country in the Pacific. The reason for that is, is that American
> combat troops were in physical contact with the Japanese longer than
> they were with the Germans. Thus casaulties were greater.
>
>     I think you may claim that the Bulge cost us more casualties than
> any single other action in WWII, but certainly not in comparison with
> the entire Pacific Theater of Operations.
>
>     Hope this helps.
>
>     Terry
>
> Terry Moore, Professor of German and French, Amarillo College
> P.O. Box 447, Amarillo, Texas 79178, voice 806-371-5077
> fax 806-371-5370
>

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

Date:    Mon, 16 May 1994 16:17:31 -0400
From:    Steven VEST <[email-masked]>
Subject: [TRIV] Police Dogs and Victory Cabbages

Folks:

     With all of the "heavy" subjects we've been discussing, here's
something of a bit less importance.   It has been the habit of the
English and Americans to change the names of obviously German named
objects during the World Wars.  Sauerkraut became Victory Cabbage, German
Shepherds became Police Dogs.  At one time I'd heard the name that was
adopted for the Dachshund but I've since forgotten that name.  Does
anybody remember that name?  Also what other things were renamed during
the war years?  Did the German Measles become the European Spots etc.?

==========================[email-masked]===========================
= Steven Vest: Head, Off Campus Lib. Services: Nova University, Ft. Ldl, FL =
="You know that these are not the best of times.                           =
=                But they're the only times I've ever known."    Billy Joel=
================No statements made here reflect Nova University==============

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

Date:    Mon, 16 May 1994 13:31:54 -0700
From:    Joshua A Fleming <[email-masked]>
Subject: Bombing of Rails to Camps

   I just watched Schindler's list a few nights ago and I believe there
was a part in it where the Jews were wondering why the Allies did not
bomb the railroad lines which led to the death camps.
     Did the United States or Britain have reliable knowledge of the
systematic genocide and if so, did we abstain from these types of attacks
because they would have been a drain on the war effort?
    I would be interested to hear about this.

    Thanks,

        Joshua

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

Date:    Mon, 16 May 1994 15:54:21 CDT
From:    "Robert J. Granvin" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Bombing

> No reply line from Robert's mailer, alas (-:

No?  Bummer.  :-)

> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> >> > Maybe I have the wrong slant on this, but I was always under the
> >> >  impression that strategic bombing was utilized to further the
> >> >   concept of destroying the enemy's will, desire and ability to
> >> >   wage war.
> >>
> >> I don't doubt that that is what the planners thought they were doing.
> >> But the campaign failed to accomplish its objectives.
> >
> >It didn't destroy the enemy's will _across the board_ to continue the
> >fight, but depending on who you were and where you were, it did.  It did
> >do substantial damage to the infastructure, making it difficult to impossible
> >to move anything or anyone anywhere.  Near the end of the war, Germany was
> >forced to move as much by night as possible.  A lot of daylight traffic
> >simply stopped.  The damage done to the manufacturing infastructure can be
> >seen in ball bearings for aircraft that are nowhere near round.
>
> Yes--"near the end of the war".  But near the end of the war, the damage done
> by strategic bombing was only one headache among many.  I mean, with the
> enemy on the Rhine & across the Vistula and the end in sight, does it really
> matter that the trains no longer run in the day (or night, for that matter)?

It depends entirely on where your supplies are coming from.  If you're on
the Rhine and your supplies are protected 500 miles away, but the lines
are cut 250 miles away, it's an issue.

of course, we all must accept one thing -- strategic bombing is still a
debate today, though it clearly has benefits.  Whether it was a major
factor in WWII depends on what it affected.  WWII was also the first
attempt to use strategic bombing to an end, so was an experiment.  There
would be no way to adequately judge its effectiveness until after the war
was long over.  Whether there has been a clear answer yet today is still
open for debate, since in some areas it did nothing, others it made things
worse and yet others polarized opinion against the allies stronger than
before.

> >The ability to fight was seriously damaged.  Come D-day, the Axis was not
> >able to mount an effective air defense.
>
> True.  But wasn't that a result of the *operational* bombardment campaign
> against *France* & not the *strategic* campaign against *Germany*?  A
> campaign (France) resisted strongly by the Air Corps, if memory serves.

If you focus on just one air force, the most famous one, perhaps.  Yet
the 12th Air Force did a lot of strategic bombing campaigns and had a
significant effect on the ability to move up the Italian boot.

Strategic bombing was far less effective in the south Pacific.

The strategic campaign against the oil and fuel refineries, however, were
quite effective and resulted in much of the Luftwaffe being left on the
ground in the end.  This is obviously a benefit, but one also needs to
compare the capability of the force at that time vs. the cost of cutting
that supply.  That alone would be an enormous task -- and very controversial
when completed in any case.

Seeing Me-262s being towed out to the runway by cows -- because all the
horses were dead and there wasn't enough fuel for the tugs, is a
sobering picture of results of a strategic campaign against part of the
infastructure.

> >Bombing usually results in solidifying public sentiment and the willingness
> >"to take it" for the greater cause.
>
> Precisely.  No one has ever "broken the will to resist" or whatever phrase
> you like of a country with strategic bombing with the possible exception of
> Iraq--and even then the country bounced back so quickly one is entitled to
> scepticism.

Mostly yes.  The British population was more determined than ever when the
Battle of Britain turned into "let's level London."  The German population
polarized in much the same way.  Japan was polarized to start with :-).

The theory of the whole concept, of course, is that eventually (a key word),
the population will get so tired of the hardship and constant danger that
they will just get tired of it and want to accept an end which will make
things better than they are now.  That's kindof a western attitude and may,
in fact, be accurate, but you have to go through the anger phase first and
it's hard to go from anger to acceptance.  It will almost certainly happen,
but the human will is more than likely going to outlast the will of the
opposing force.  The attacking party may run out of the will to continue
the attack before the recipient gives up.

> > But this polarization can't last
> >forever, and the first to want to make it stop are the troops getting the
> >brunt of it.
>
> Yes, but if you are bombing the troops, is that really "strategic bombing"
> any more?

You don't bomb the troops.  You bomb the supply lines, the storage facilities,
the manufacturing plants ... If you can prevent the troops from getting the
supplies, food and ammunition they require, then the troops (Eventually)
become relatively insignificant.  They can't do much.

> > Therefore, when looking at whether strategic bombing did or
> >did not affect the will to continue the fight, it is important to look at --
> >and separate -- the opinions of the military, the military combatants and
> >the civilian populations.  You will almost certainly get three radically
> >different answers.
>
> Very apt point.  Is this to develop into a serious discussion of the
> strategic bombing campaign--it didn't really start that way (-: --and if

I certainly hope it doesn't.  :-)

> so, are we going to talk about the costs, opportunities foregone, vs.
> perceived benefits, etc.?

I would definitely be interested in what the expectations were of the
strategic campaign during WWII vs. the results.

--
Robert J. Granvin                                    Southern Minnesota Wing
[email-masked]                                       Confederate Air Force

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

Date:    Mon, 16 May 1994 17:01:33 -0400
From:    Ron Babuka <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Air Power in Southwest Pacific

>          I remember reading about how outclassed U.S. fighters, especially
>          p-39s, were in New Guinea in 42-43.  We had a family friend who
>          was shot down and walked out of the jungle after a tangle with a
>          Zero and by all accounts the Japanese had it over the U.S. in
>          this area.
>
>          Question:  Was this imbalance a factor in air superiority?  Were
>          the Japanese airplanes and doctrine better?  Obviously something
>          went right for the Allies, but I would like to know if it was
>          much of a factor.
>
>          Dave Wilma
>          [email-masked]

Yes - If a P-39 did try to tangle with a Zero the results would often lead
to the American pilot walking out of a jungle.  The key as Claire Chennault
stated was to put yourself in a tactical position where you could take
advantage of the best aspect of your craft while not allowing the enemy to
take advantage of his.

The key in the early years of the war was to make one-time diving/slashing
passes at Japanese aircraft and then high tail it home.  The P-39 was a
decent fighter when down low as long as it did not try to dogfight or
manuever to altitude. It could also mass some very serious firepower that
could chew up lightly armored Japanese aircraft if it could get its nose on
target.

Personally I feel the  strength of American airpower rested behind the
stick and was not the aircraft themselves.  The Americans were slightly
better at evaluating new tactics and employing them on the battlefield.
The American aircraft could take more punishment and still get the pilot
home.  The Americans  had a system in place for picking up pilots after
they were downed.  Most importantly the Americans had a more practical
training system for pumping out quality pilots during a wartime footing,
whereas the Japanese continued with the same pre-war training regime that
was not conductive to delivering new pilots at the faster pace that the war
required.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ron Babuka                                         National Warplane Museum
Cornell University                                 Geneseo, New York
CIT - Information Resources
Ithaca, New York 14850
(607) 254-6492

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

Date:    Mon, 16 May 1994 16:04:07 -0500
From:    John Lundstrom <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Air Power in Southwest Pacific

In comparison with Zeros (and F4F Wildcats, for that matter, too), most
P-39s did have a distinct disadvantage in that they lacked two-stage
superchargers for better high altitude performance. The AAF pilots were not
as well trained in gunnery and tactics as IJN and USN/USMC. What helped the
Allies tremendously in SW Pacific in 1942 was that the same Japanese (main
base, Rabaul) had to fight two enemies simultaneously: MacArthur's 5th Air
Force in New Guinea/Australia and the Guadalcanal-based CACTUS Air Force.
The difference in forces really took hold in November 1942 and later. Even
big reinforcements by Imperial Japanese Army Air Force units in late 1942
failed to halt the growing Allied air superiority. Incfreasing use of P-38s
and F4U Corsairs, as well as P-47s in larter 1943, really turned the tide in
the South/Southwest Pacific.
                John Lundstrom

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

Date:    Mon, 16 May 1994 14:14:32 PDT
From:    Sidney Allinson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [TRIV] Police Dogs and Victory Cabbages

In England, the name "Alsatians" has always been used for what are
usually called "German Shepherd dogs"in the United States. Last time
I was there, recently, the British still call them "Alsatians" (from
Alsace, where they're said to have originated.)
        Changing things German was much more prevalent during the
First World War.  One example I can mention, is the renaming back then
of the Ontario town of "Berlin" to the more patriotic-sounding name
pf "Kitchener". Young Canadians (or American tourists) must wonder
why a town with a name like Kitchener makes such a bid deal every year
over its Oktoberfest.  :-)

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

Date:    Mon, 16 May 1994 17:25:29 -0400
From:    Emery Ford <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [TRIV] Police Dogs and Victory Cabbages

On May 1 Steven Vest writes:

>
>
>Folks:
>
>With all of the "heavy" subjects we've been discussing, here's
>something of a bit less importance.   It has been the habit of the
>English and Americans to change the names of obviously German named
>objects during the World Wars.  Sauerkraut became Victory Cabbage, German
>Shepherds became Police Dogs.  At one time I'd heard the name that was
>adopted for the Dachshund but I've since forgotten that name.  Does
>anybody remember that name?  Also what other things were renamed during
>the war years?  Did the German Measles become the European Spots etc.?
>
Hello,
        I believe Hamburger was renamed Salisbury Steak.  Perhaps
Dauschunds were renamed Hot Dogs...

        --Emery

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

Date:    Mon, 16 May 1994 14:42:16 PDT
From:    Sidney Allinson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Bombing of Rails to Camps

The German concetraion camps were bombed on occasion; mostly camps
situated in Germany, that is, within bomber range. Camps in Poland were virtually unreachable by RAF/USAAF airvraft, owing to the extreme long distance,
and the fact that Russia would not allow us facilities to land there, to
refuel for the return flight to bases.
        One note on this. When Buchenwald concentration camp, in Germany,
was liberated in 1945, a Parliamentary delegation of eight Members of
Parliament went over to see the truth first-hand.
        I have their brief report, and I'll post just a short quote that
may partially anser you:
        "... Buchenwald camp's maximum capacity was said to have been
120,000.... It was impossible to estimate the percentages of various
nationalities still remaining in the camp; we met many Jews, and Poles,
Hungarians, Czehs, French, belgians, Russians, and others. A "few dozen"
Britons at any time in the camp...
        Up ti 1st April, 1945, the total number of those killed at
Buchenwald was 51,572....
        "Some [ex-prisoners] we spoke to paid tribute to the precision
with which the Royal Air Force had bombed the camp factory (killing it
was said, about 200 Nazis, 400 forced workers, and 150 Nazi women
resident
near the camp, including the camp commandant's wife..."
        Bombing concentration camps was difficult, and more than not
endanged prisoners as much as their guards. Liable to be criticized
either way - not enough, or too much.

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

Date:    Mon, 16 May 1994 17:39:01 -0400
From:    Christopher Morton <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Bombing

>
> On Mon, 16 May 1994 08:57:25 -0400 Christopher Morton said:
> >> >
> >> > Maybe I have the wrong slant on this, but I was always under the
> >> >  impression that strategic bombing was utilized to further the
> >> >   concept of destroying the enemy's will, desire and ability to
> >> >   wage war.
> >>
> >> I don't doubt that that is what the planners thought they were doing.
> >> But the campaign failed to accomplish its objectives.
> >
> >Yeah, but it accomplished enough other objectives that I'm not picking
> >cotton without pay in Alabama, for Afrika Korps uniforms.
>
> There was never any danger of that, with or without strategic bombing.
> It didn't win the war, and it couldn't have lost it, either.

I wouldn't be willing to risk it at ANY level.  BOMB! :)

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

Date:    Mon, 16 May 1994 14:53:58 -0700
From:    Patrick Charles <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [TRIV] Police Dogs and Victory Cabbages

        I believe during WWI in New Orleans, they changed the name of
Berlin Street (Avenue?) to General Pershing Street (Avenue?).

                Patrick J. Charles
                University of Washington

On Mon, 16 May 1994, Steven VEST wrote:

> Folks:
>
>      With all of the "heavy" subjects we've been discussing, here's
> something of a bit less importance.   It has been the habit of the
> English and Americans to change the names of obviously German named
> objects during the World Wars.  Sauerkraut became Victory Cabbage, German
> Shepherds became Police Dogs.  At one time I'd heard the name that was
> adopted for the Dachshund but I've since forgotten that name.  Does
> anybody remember that name?  Also what other things were renamed during
> the war years?  Did the German Measles become the European Spots etc.?
>
>
> ==========================[email-masked]===========================
> = Steven Vest: Head, Off Campus Lib. Services: Nova University, Ft. Ldl, FL =
> ="You know that these are not the best of times.                           =
> =                But they're the only times I've ever known."    Billy Joel=
> ================No statements made here reflect Nova University==============
>

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

Date:    Tue, 17 May 1994 08:38:14 +1000
From:    Derek Monz <[email-masked]>
Subject: INFO ME 410 and B-24

Some of you on the list may remember my requests for pathfinder
information, well I have lots of good stuff on both USAAF and RAAF and
RAF in Europe but not the Pacific. I cam across a Photo in a past issue
of "air enthusiast" that dealt with british b-24's in the pacific. I did
not get that issue(DAMN) but... it showed a British b-24 with a radome in
place of the ball turret. I was wondering if:
1.  anyone who has the issue could tell me the unit that the plane belonged to?

2. Any kind list member could give me any info or pointers to info about
British PFF ops in the Pacific in WWII.

Secondly, I have a picture book on german a/c in WWII and its ays that
the Me410 was used as a Night fighter!. I never knew this, is it true and
if so what radar systems did it have?.
     Thankning you all in advance,
Derek Monz.

 [email-masked] Msc (Geology) 1994.
disclaimer: - I didn't do it!.

" In the beginning Boeing created the B-17 and they were pleased. It came to
pass that the United States Army Air Corps saw what Boeing had wrought and
they too were pleased, and they praised the big bird that Boeing had
brought forth. And it also came to pass that the Luftwaffe saw the B-17
and they were sorely afraid exclaiming loudly "oh woe is me, oh woe is
me"".
                            ((-------))
                                \o/
                                 |
                               _/ \_

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

Date:    Mon, 16 May 1994 18:49:31 -0400
From:    Dan Ford <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [TRIV] Police Dogs and Victory Cabbages

Maybe somebody mentioned this already, but what about the Victory
Cherries in bloom in Washington DC?

Cheers - Dan     <[email-masked]>

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

Date:    Mon, 16 May 1994 19:24:39 -0400
From:    "Mark A. Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Netiquette

I am not the Owner of this list, so perhaps I should not be commenting
here, but I'll take the risk of offending to air a pet peeve of mine
concerning messages replying to previous messages.

It is the habit of many people to copy the ENTIRE previous message, then
merely append a single line or two.  It seems to me that this is
inappropriate at best, because:
1.  It can be difficult to find the single line of original text among
    the 34, 40, or (in one case) an astonishing 63 lines of repeat text!
2.  It wastes my time, even when I can find it; in my case, the mail
    program I am using takes a significant amount of time to scroll down
    each page; thus, a single-screen-page (c.15-17 lines) message is about
    five times faster to read than a two- or more screen message.
3.  When including past messages several times, the lines often overflow
    the right margin of the screen, so that one gets this result:

>>> xxxxx xx xxxxxxxx xx xxxxx xxxx x xxx xxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxx x xxxxx
xxxxxxx xxxx x xxxx.

    This is even more difficult to read!!!

Suggestions:
1.  If you feel the need to include portions of previous messages in your
    replies, do so SELECTIVELY, not INCLUSIVELY; that is, edit your
    message so that it includes the very minimum of previously sent text;
    in my experience, and that of other usegroup readers I've asked,
    even a small amount of repeat text is enough to "cue" my mind to
    the previous message.
2.  The default should be NOT to include previous messages; when in doubt,
    send less, not more!

Thanks.  This has been a rather long message than I intended, but when
one is receiving 70+ messages a day, and wants to read them all, a little
courtesy goes a long way.

                                Sincerely,
                                Mark A. Campbell

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

Date:    Tue, 17 May 1994 01:53:51 +0200
From:    Emmanuel Gustin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Air Power in Southwest Pacific

On Mon, 16 May 1994, DAVID WILMA 415-744-2485 wrote:

>           Question:  Was this imbalance a factor in air superiority?  Were
>           the Japanese airplanes and doctrine better?  Obviously something
>           went right for the Allies, but I would like to know if it was
>           much of a factor.

The P-39 was a very disappointing aircraft, and the most important reason
for this was the low performance of its Allison V-1710 engine at high
altitude. (The same problem that reduced the usefulness of the P-51A
strongly.) This was no error of Bell; the P-39 prototype had a
supercharger, but the USAAC and NACA decided to delete it: the
supercharger was unreliable, and the policy of the Army stressed
low-altitude combat above the battlefield. The P-39 was outperformed by
most other fighters of WWII; the RAF ordered some, but soon rejected it.
Nevertheless, the USSR seems to have liked it; they were given almost half
of the production of the P-39. Nothing really surprising in that: the USSR
also had a preference for low and medium altitude combat. (The USSR also
recieved most P-63s, so probably the majority of Bell's war production
went to the Red air forces.)

The Japanese airplanes had a brief period of superiority, but that was not
so absolute as many reported. It seems that, after dismissing for years
the possibility that the Japanese could develop modern combat aircraft,
the US forces swung to the other extreme.

The Mitsubishi A6M 'Zeke', better known as 'Zero' did have quite a lot of
deficiencies: no armour, no self-sealing fuel tanks, indifferent armament,
light structure, bad high-speed handling. It could out-climb any US
fighter, out-turn them most speeds, had a larger range than any US
fighter, and it had an all-round vision canopy. The Nakajima Ki.43 'Oscar'
shared most of these advantages and disadvantages, but was only available
in very small numbers in December 1941. The great reputation of these
aircraft was due to their very skilled, combat-experienced pilots, and
strategic and tactical surprise. Things were reversed when the Japanese
lost many pilots and were unable to give their replacements proper
training, while the US pilots got better training and introduced new
tactics. It became hopeless for Japan when the US used its technological
advantage and industrial power and produced far superior combat aircraft
in huge numbers. The Japanese did also produce a few modern combat
aircraft, but these were always outnumbered.

Japanese doctrine was not really good, with errors in tactics and
strategy. They sacrificed armour and sturdiness for performance in most of
their aircraft, until it was too late. They never seem to have made up
their mind about the use of carriers vs. battleships. They never had a
joint command for their naval and army forces. They often were very
careless about reconaissance and intelligence; their estimates of US
forces and losses were sometimes ridiculously wrong.

Emmanuel Gustin

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

Date:    Mon, 16 May 1994 21:48:07 EDT
From:    "Jonah Triebwasser, Adjunct Instructor,
         Marist Coll" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Churchill and Seagulls

Sue - My collection of Churchill books reveals only the story posted
elsewhere on the list about WSC having food scattered about dummy
ships to fool the Germans into thinking that the ships were
operational. I will write Churchill's official biographer, Prof.
Martin Gilbert, to see if he ever heard of the periscope story. Regards-
>This may be a silly question but, in a history class a couple yrs.
>ago I read or was told by prof. the legend that Churchill was
>involved in a scheme to train seagulls to, ah, delicately put, "dirty"
>periscopes of German subs.  Could this possibly be true?  I am
>intrigued. I hope my ignorance isn't showing too badly.
>Thanks,
>Sue
>[email-masked]

Jonah Triebwasser
Adjunct Instructor
Marist College
Dyson Building (Adult Education)
Poughkeepsie, New York12601
Tel: (914) 575-3331, ext. 7037
E-Mail: [email-masked]

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

Date:    Mon, 16 May 1994 22:06:30 EST
From:    Larry & Kim Jewell <[email-masked]>
Subject: A byrd in the internet is worth...

>Date:    Sun, 15 May 1994 11:47:02 PDT
>From:    Sidney Allinson <[email-masked]>
>Subject: Re: ARC: GPO Military History Bibliography
>
>Thank you, Larry.
>When I get to understand what "byrd" is, I'll certainly take a look.
>Best regards.

Sorry about that. Byrd is the ftp site I help moderate. All kinds of
information available, including a great raft of items on WWII.

Byrd is accessible via FTP, gopher, or WWW. Ask you wizards or service
provider about reaching byrd.mu.wvnet.edu.

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

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

End of WWII-L Digest - 15 May 1994 to 16 May 1994
*************************************************