Subject: WWII-L Digest - 12 Apr 1995 to 13 Apr 1995

From: Automatic digest processor <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 1995 00:00:34 -0400

There are 86 messages totalling 2969 lines in this issue.

Topics of the day:

  1. WEAP: Faulty Torpedoes (2)
  2. Catholics and Nazism
  3. Submarine names
  4. Raid on Cabanatuan #18
  5. Battleship YAMATO
  6. USN designations
  7. INF: USN Chronology 04-13-95
  8. ADMIN:Ernst JUnger
  9. MEDIA:VE Day in Germany
 10. IRELAND IN WWII ?? (2)
 11. El Alamein (was: Defense against Amphibious invasions) (2)
 12. Rommel and other generals vs. Monty (9)
 13. QUERY: Diego Suarez Comma (2)
 14. Ireland in WWII
 15. TRIVIA- DUKW Vehicle id
 16. TRIVIA: DUKW - Vehicle id (4)
 17. Apology not necessary
 18. G. Prien a pow? mystery solved
 19. Monty (3)
 20. Quack Quack DUKW
 21. ADMIN: Ireland discussion (2)
 22. U.S.S. Olympia display  (was: WEAP: Ship designations)
 23. Re[2]: Rommel and other generals vs. Monty
 24. Monty and Market-Garden (4)
 25. atomic bombs (2)
 26. Defense Against Amphibious Invasion
 27. MEDIA:YAMATO
 28. QUERY: Diego Suarez C
 29. WEAP: Alaska-class Large Cruisers
 30. hitler declaration of war on U.S. (6)
 31. (literal) Torpedo Boats
 32. Atomic Bombs
 33. Roosevelt Bridge
 34. atomic bomb demo for Japanese?
 35. Apology
 36. Re[2]: MEDIA:YAMATO (3)
 37. Ireland in World War II ?
 38. Ireland in World War II
 39. Catholics (and Fascism) and Nazism
 40. WEAP: Ship designations
 41. Its that time again....
 42. GEOG:Concentration Camps
 43. Is haddo a fish? (2)
 44. Sandy Neck Bomb Target
 45. Hermaphrodite BBs]
 46. [INF] USAAF 14 APR 45
 47. Kwantung Army 1943-45
 48. IRELAND IN WWII
 49. Monty...other Brit. Generals
 50. ATOMIC BOMBS
 51. INF: 50 Years Ago - 13-APR-1945
 52. Russia enters the Pacific
 53. Hitler Declares War
 54. HERMAPRODITE BBs
 55. Ireland in WW2
 56. Montgomery = McClennan?!?

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

Date:    Thu, 13 Apr 1995 00:04:20 -0400
From:    Jodi Berls <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: WEAP: Faulty Torpedoes

Ken Martin wrote:

>I don't know if this will help but haddock is a cold water north Atlantic
fish.  Fine eating too.

Right, but there was a Gato-class sub named *Haddock*, too, so I'm thinking a
"haddo" is some other kind of sea creature or fish, too. I don't think
they're the same thing.

Jodi Berls
[email-masked]

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

Date:    Wed, 12 Apr 1995 21:07:50 -0700
From:    David Alvarez <[email-masked]>
Subject: Catholics and Nazism

Louis Coatney's suggestion that the Catholic Church in general and the
Papacy in particular sympathized with Nazism and turned a blind eye to
the Holocaust deserves a response.  Of course a stage production (in this
case "The Deputy") no more "documents" such sympathy and blindness than a
production of "Peter Pan" documents the existence of Never-Never Land.
References to Argentina, Spain, Ireland, etc. might be counterbalanced by
references to Belgium, Poland, the rest of Latin America, etc., but
argument from lists leads nowhere.

Throughout the 1930s the Vatican believed that Nazism could be moderated
and that Hitler did not really mean what he said.  In this it was
mistaken as were all the other powers (with the possible exception of the
Soviet Union) at the time.  Like other powers the Vatican also was
mistaken in believing that Mussolini might be a restraining force on
Hitler.  For its trouble the Vatican reaped a vicious persecution of the
Catholic Church in Germany.  Pope Pius XI abandoned the policy of
patience in 1937 when he issued an encyclical, MIT BRENNENDER SORGE,
which denounced the doctrine of racialism and the idolization of the
leader and the state.  This document had to be smuggled into Germany to
avoid Gestapo surveillance, and many German priests received their copies
only the very morning (Palm Sunday) they stepped into their pulpits to
read it.  By the time of his death (February 1939), Pius XI was so noted
for his anti-totalitarian stance that even the French Communist
newspaper, L'HUMANITE, praised his attack on "stupid racialism" and
"barbaric Hitlerism."  His successor, Pius XII, actually collaborated
with the anti-Nazis resistance in Germany by agreeing (winter-spring
1939-40) to serve as a secret channel of communication between that
resistance and the British government.  When he received advance word
from the resistance circle in the Abwehr of plans for the western
offensive, Pius sent warnings to Belgium and Holland.  Even the most
cursory survey of the records of the Nazi Party and the German security
services will reveal that the Nazis considered the Catholic Church and
the Vatican their arch-enemies.

No one did enough to prevent or stop the Holocaust, and it is no excuse
to say that the record of the Vatican is no worst than any other power.
Some bishops, priests, nuns, and Catholic laypeople testified by word and
deed against the genocide and some did not, just as some Lutherans,
Anglicans, police officers, carpenters, professors, farmers, etc., etc.
testified and some did not.  There is enough shame (and righteousness) to
go around everyone.

These points are pursued with more eloquence and wisdom in the following
sources:

Owen Chadwick, BRITAIN AND THE VATICAN DURING THE SECOND WORLD WAR
(Cambridge Univ. Press, 1986).

Robert Graham, IL VATICANO E IL NAZISMO (Edizioni Cinque Lune, 1975).

ACTES ET DOCUMENTS DU SAINT SIEGE RELATIFS A LA SECONDE GUERRE MONDIALE
(Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1965-1981).  Twelve volumes of diplomatic
cables, memoranda and reports from the Vatican Archives.

David Alvarez
[email-masked]

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

Date:    Thu, 13 Apr 1995 00:20:29 -0400
From:    Jodi Berls <[email-masked]>
Subject: Submarine names

Rod Rupert wrote:

>Haddo is another name for the humped-back or pink salmon.

Aha! Thanks. I've always loved the names of these boats and often wondered
who selected them and why. Some are obvious--I keep barbs (among other
species) in one of my aquariums and they are fiercely aggressive, though
small. Gar are tough and crafty; I know from having spent many pleasant hours
trying to catch a particular one. (Actually, I think I would have been
disappointed if I ever had managed to catch that fish. The battle of wits was
more fun than a victory would have been.) But I'm wandering off topic.

In general, I think they picked swell names.

Jodi Berls
[email-masked]

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

Date:    Wed, 12 Apr 1995 21:37:37 -0700
From:    James Wilson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Raid on Cabanatuan #18

INSTALLMENT EIGHTEEN IN A SERIES
Raid on Cabanatuan
a scenario of the published book
"Raid on Cabanatuan"
by Forrest Bryant Johnson
(C) 1988 A Thousand Autumns Press
all rights reserved
REPRODUCED ELECTRONICALLY WITH PERMISSION
4/12/95

January 30, 1945:

7:55 P.M.
----------
A full moon rises on the battle in the camp. Rangers are carrying out
POW's too weak to walk. One POW dies of a heart attack at the
front gate. Another POW is accidentally left behind in the camp.

7:45 P.M.
----------
As the raid begins on the camp, the guerrillas under Captain Pajota
destroy part of the Cabu Bridge with a "time bomb" and open fire on
Japanese commander Oyabu's men. With Banzai charges, wave upon
wave of Japanese rush the damaged bridge in a vain effort to cross.
The guerrillas hold their position and slaughter the charging Japanese
using rifles and a machine gun. Pajota's bazooka destroys the Japanese
tanks and a truck before they can effectively enter the battle.

--- TO BE CONTINUED ---
(For info on obtaining a copy of the Book and/or scenario,  and or
missed List episodes, E-Mail:  Jim Wilson :  [email-masked])

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

Date:    Thu, 13 Apr 1995 00:44:09 -0400
From:    Paul Silverstone <[email-masked]>
Subject: Battleship YAMATO

I am sure it was known that the final voyage of the YAMATO was the final
one.  I once met a man who had been a cadet at the Japanese Naval Academy
stationed on the YAMATO.  He told me the cadets were ordered off the ship
at that time, much to their chagrin and disappointment.  He also recalled
witnessing the mushroom cloud over Hiroshima from the Academy.
Paul Silverstone

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

Date:    Thu, 13 Apr 1995 00:51:58 -0400
From:    Paul Silverstone <[email-masked]>
Subject: USN designations

The numbering of cruisers in 1920 was confused.  The original building
numbers of cruisers from 1888 were just that and were not used in
official documents.  The CA and CL designation were originally 1st line
and 2nd line cruisers.  The distinction between heavy and light did not
occur until the London Treaty of 1930.
The original armored cruisers received the CA designation 2 through 13, 1
being the battleship Maine.  The remainder were
14 Chicago (no original number)
15 Olympia (6)
16 Columbia (12)
17 Minneapolis (13)
18 St. Louis (20)
19 Charleston (22)
  Notice Milwaukee (21) did not get a number as it had been lost.
The CL numbers were 1-3 Chester class (originally Scout cruisers),
4-13 Omaha class, then some of the above CA's
14 Chicago
15 Olympia
16 - 21  Denver class (14-19)
22 -23  New Orleans and Albany.  (no original numbers as they
 were purchased abroad)
Pensacola became CL 24 and the next cruisers were all CL until July 1,
1931 when they were reclassified CA, under the London Treaty, as they
had 8-inch guns.
Paul Silverstone

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

Date:    Thu, 13 Apr 1995 04:00:13 PST
From:    "Keller, Theron P." <[email-masked]>
Subject: INF: USN Chronology 04-13-95

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

1945
04/13 Fri.  United States naval vessel damaged:
             Destroyer escort CONNOLLY (DE-306), by suicide plane,
              Okinawa area,
              26 d. 55'N., 126 d. 46'E.

Information compiled by U.S. Navy Historians.  For more information,
contact the Naval Historical Center at (202) 433-3940.
Archived by: "Larry W. Jewell" <[email-masked]>
Posted by:
Theron P. Keller
Logicon, Inc.
Dahlgren, VA  22448 USA
[email-masked]

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

Date:    Thu, 13 Apr 1995 09:28:41 BST
From:    Stephen Baldwin <[email-masked]>
Subject: ADMIN:Ernst JUnger

With apologies to the list....

Someone wanted me to send them privately part one of my 2 posts on
Ernst Junger. Truth to tell, I can't remember who it was...
If you would like to email me, I've just found a copy of my post...

steve baldwin
[email-masked]

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

Date:    Thu, 13 Apr 1995 05:25:32 -0400
From:    Mike Brannaman <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: MEDIA:VE Day in Germany

>   Schwilk said Nazi crimes under Hitler, however horrible, were
>comparable to other mass murders of the century -- by Stalin, the
>Khmer Rouge in Cambodia and the Americans with the atomic bomb.
The dropping of the atomic bomb saved thousands of American AND Japanese
lives. The Japanese military was prepared to mobilize EVERYONE to stop the
Americans with little more than spears and spears. They would not have fared
well against the Americans.
This kind of rhetoric is reminiscent of the media PC whining that went on
during the Gulf War about whether it was "fair" or "sporting" or "nice" to
use overwhelming air power on an enemy. The use of overwhelming force saved
lives on both sides in both instances. Sorry for straying from WWII.

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

Date:    Thu, 13 Apr 1995 07:42:00 EDT
From:    mc killop <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: IRELAND IN WWII ??

 >> The fact that Mr deValera sent a message of condolence to Germany
 >> after the death if Hitler in no way implies any suggestion that
 >> Ireland as a whole was "pro Nazi".
 >> It simply meant that Mr deValera seemed to take neutral diplomacy
 >> a bit far; naivete, not Nazidom.
 >> The deValera letter had little -- if any -- relationship to Ireland's
 >> thousands of years of history.
 >> [Sid Allinson]
 >
 >Jack, Jim, Sid?!,
 >
 >Give me/us a break!  The Irish were so obsessed by their hatred
 >  of Britain that they couldn't join the rest of the world
 >  community in fighting Nazism ... at least by the end of the
 >  war?  Even *Brazil* was in it!

Ah Lou, I see you are up to your old tricks again.  I thought we
had gotten rid of you once but you are resurrected again.  OK, let
me explain things to you.

Each country of the world has a RIGHT to make it's own choices on
whether to wage war or not.  Look at the U.S.  The war in Europe
started on 1 Sep 1939.  We did not go to war until the Japanese
attacked Pearl Harbor on 7 Dec 1941.  WHY?  Simple, the American
people did NOT want to go to war again; they had had enough in
World War I.  We finally declared war on Japan ONLY on 8 Dec 1941.
Then Hitler did something really stupid; he declared war on the
U.S. on 10 Dec 1941 and we reciprocated the next day.  I hate "what
if" questions but (1) "what if" the Japanese had not attacked us
and/or (2) "what if" Hitler had not declared war on the U.S.?  Would
we have gone to war???

Let us play another "what if" game.  Assume that Washington,
Franklin, Jefferson, et al., had LOST the Rebellion and the British
had done the same things to the American as they had the Irish.
Also assume that the English had performed as well in the 1845-1849
American potato famine; and the Americans finally won their war of
Independence against Britain in 1921 except that New England was
partitioned and remained part of Britain; and finally, the Brits
occupied naval bases in New York City, Philadelphia, and
Charleston until 1938.  Would you have been willing to go to war
and fight the Germans if you had been an American citizen in 1939.

 >If Ambassador to Ireland Gray was insufferable, what was
 >  Ambassador to Great Britain Joe Kennedy?  He was telling FDR
 >  to chuck the British because they wouldn't/couldn't fight!
 >  (And what *was* John F. Kennedy doing, "fraternizing" with
 >  a beautiful Nazi agent?)

That's it Lou, throw more of your bovine excrement into the works.
Joe Kennedy did NOT remain as Ambassador to the Court of St. James
throughout the war; he resigned and came home before we got into
the war.  Gray remained Ambassador until the Irish forced his
ouster in 1946 by complaining to the State Department.  His
"savior," FDR, had died by then and he had nobody to protect him.
And what the hell does whatever JFK did have to do with this
discussion.  Get a life Lou!

 >Considering how Churchill attacked the French Fleet in June 1940
 >  and had prepared to invade Norway in early 1941, I don't think
 >  the Irish need to feel singled out -- persecuted.  Churchill
 >  and the British were *desperate* in 1939-41 -- with good reason
 >  -- and I wonder how many ships those "treaty ports" might have
 >  saved for their contribution to the "Good War."  How many days
 >  might the war have been shortened by those ships and how many
 >  thousands of innocent lives saved?

The Brits invading Norway in 1941 would have been fine because the
Germans had occupied the country in 1940.  And you are saying that
if a country is *desperate*, they are entitled to do anything?
Seems to me that one of Hitler's arguments was that Germany was
*desperate* for more land for it's people and that is why they had
to occupy all of Europe.  And finally, "Good War?"  There are NO
good wars!

 >Eire *needs* a lengthy (if futile) apologetica for its
 >  (irresponsible) neutrality during World War II.  Unlike
 >  Switzerland, it was in no serious danger of Axis invasion, ever.

That's your opinion Lou.  Personally, I don't feel I have to
apologize for what the Republic of Ireland did in their own self
interest.  Many people in this world, including Americans and
especially American vets, are waiting for the Japanese to apologize
for their activities during the war.  There are also many people in
the world waiting for the British to apologize for 768 years of
brutality, oppression, genocide, etc.

 >This raises another, more serious question which follows in a
 >  separate post.
 >
 >Lou Coatney
 >[email-masked]

Finally Lou, you seem to be a hawk.  What branch of the military
were you in?

-------------------------------------------------------------------
|  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:    Thu, 13 Apr 1995 07:39:51 -0400
From:    "Steven Pudlo, Dept. Computer Svcs." <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: El Alamein (was: Defense against Amphibious invasions)

Chris Bailey writes;

>McClellan on the other hand, was CLUELESS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

History has perfect 20/2o hindsight. Let's not hogtie McClellan too much.
His penchant for careful planning and preparation did cause delays, but
his superior (Lincoln himself) was much of a hinderance in forbidding Mac
the use of much of his (Mac's) troops in any adventures south.

Abe seems to have been very concerned about keepping DC safe from all those
southern tree stump cannons pointed their way...Another 20/20 vantage.

Mac was no Patton, but neither was he TOTALLY a bozo.

Sorry about being off-topic, Joe, but history is history...

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

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

Date:    Thu, 13 Apr 1995 07:53:56 GMT-6
From:    "Robert T. Moore" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Rommel and other generals vs. Monty

Hello, William!

However, also consider why Montgomery preferred to fight in this
fashion. His attitude was motivated out of the following
considerations:

    1. Materiel-Britain did not have access to the huge amounts of
such as did the Americans.

    2. His plodding, methodical planning, was derived from a WWI
mentality that was prevalent during those days. The British never
seemed to get away from the psychological effects of the terrible
carnage experienced in WWI. It was this fear of repetition of
mistakes that led to such caution.

    My two cents' worth on this.

    Hope this helps, and thank you.

    Terry

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

Date:    Thu, 13 Apr 1995 05:58:19 -0700
From:    Ed Kettler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: QUERY: Diego Suarez Comma

You wrote:

>
>Burt Knight asks
>
>  > I just came across a refernce to a Commando raid on Diego Suarez,
May 4,
>  > 1942.  Does anyone know anything about this?
>
>Operation =Ironclad=: On 25 and 28 April British convoys with a landing
>force sailed from Durban, South Africa.  After joining up with other
naval
>forces, the fleet ultimately included 2 carriers and a battleship. On 5
May
>carrier planes attacked the Vichy French airfields and ships in
northern
>Madagascar around Diego Suarez, sinking an auxiliary cruiser and a
>submarine.  The British landed troops. Their advance was held up for
two
>days by French defenders until French resistance collapsed May 6.  On
the
>7th a French submarine was sunk while attacking the British force, but
>another sub and a gunboat escaped to southern Madagascar and eventually
to
>Toulon.
>
>Source: J. Rohwer and G. Hummelchen, =Chronology of the War At Sea,
1939-
>1945= (New York, 1972) V. 1.
>
>As Gerhard Weinberg observed, the Vichy French fought everyone--the
British,
>Americans, Australians, Thais, Free French--everyone but the Axis, that
is.
>
>Edward Miller  [email-masked]
>
>
To extend the story a little bit, the Japanese used midget subs to
attack the British units at anchor in Diego Suarez Bay on 30 May.
Ensign Akieda's midget sub torpedoed Ramilles, and then sank a tanker
which came alongside to to help the BB.  The sub was crippled by DCs,
but both men escaped.  They were surrounded by British troops, and
killed when they refused to surrender.  Source:  Edwyn Gray's _Operation
Pacific_.

Ed Kettler
[email-masked]

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

Date:    Thu, 13 Apr 1995 09:00:31 -0500
From:    Ron Babuka <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ireland in WWII

>
>Finally Lou, you seem to be a hawk.  What branch of the military
>were you in?
>

Jack  - I agreed with 99% of what you said in your posting - but I always
get nervous when I see statements like this.  I have never been in the
military but I would hate to have any of my thoughts or opinions thrown out
based on this point alone.   Being in the military may enlighten and/or
personalize ones knowledge and perspective of WWII militarily and
politically, but it does not validate it.

Point in hand, while my father saw combat in the Pacific during WWII, he is
often incorrect in his interpetation of the politics and history of that
period, but he is never wrong in what happened to him and his mates.

If I made a mistake in interpeting your post I apologize.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ron Babuka
Cornell University
CIT - Information Resources
Ithaca, New York 14850
(607) 254-6492

Fax: 607-254-6404
http://ir-www.cit.cornell.edu/IR_staff/ron_babuka.html

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

Date:    Thu, 13 Apr 1995 08:06:24 CST
From:    Gary R Speer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: TRIVIA- DUKW Vehicle id

Jack McKillop responds to the question,
>The actual designation was "DUKW."  What does each letter indicate?
>Who was the manufacturer?
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
with this answer:
>Someone gave me a copy of THE OBSERVER'S FIGHTING VEHICLES
>DIRECTORY, WORLD WAR II several years ago and I enjoyed looking at
>the pictures (especially of the '41 Chevy car which I used to own
>as a teenager) but this is the first time I have ever used it on
>the net.
>
>The DUKW was officially a "Truck, 2-1/2 ton, 6x6, Amphibian" made by
>General Motors Corporation (GMC).  This vehicle was designed in
>conjunction with the boat-designing firm of Sparkman & Stephens in
>New York City and used the standard GMC truck chassis.  It was
>standardized in Oct 42 and was in production until the end of the
>war; a total of 21,147 were built.
>
>DUKW-353 was GMC's identification of this vehicle; anybody out
>there work for GM who can decipher this stuff?
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------
>|  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    |
>-------------------------------------------------------------------

Jack is correct with the date and manufacturer.  And, amazes us with the
correct designer, who was Roderick Stephens of Sparkman and Stephens.

The engineers for the OSRD (Office of Research and Development?) was
Palmer-Crosslett-Putnam.

Allan got the Utility correct yesterday.

Any other guesses?  Which code stands for which designation?

Gary Speer
[email-masked]

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

Date:    Thu, 13 Apr 1995 08:16:35 PDT
From:    Jim Brady <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: IRELAND IN WWII ??

>Give me/us a break!  The Irish were so obsessed by their hatred
>  of Britain that they couldn't join the rest of the world
>  community in fighting Nazism ... at least by the end of the
>  war?  Even *Brazil* was in it!

Why is it "obsessive" for the Irish not to fly to the defense of a nation that has tormented it for
centuries? Kids learn at the sandbox that if you bully someone, they're not going to help you
out when you get in a jam. What goes around, comes around. England was actually lucky to
have the U.S. enter on its side.

>
>If Ambassador to Ireland Gray was insufferable, what was
>  Ambassador to Great Britain Joe Kennedy?
In a word? Try "retired."

>Considering how Churchill attacked the French Fleet in June 1940
>  and had prepared to invade Norway in early 1941, I don't think
>  the Irish need to feel singled out -- persecuted.

Are you talking about when the English AND French scuttled the fleet? And you are talking
about Nazi-occupied Norway -- I don't think Norwiegans would have felt too put-upon. Perhaps
you missed these observations during your flame-induced absence from the list.

>Eire *needs* a lengthy (if futile) apologetica for its
>  (irresponsible) neutrality during World War II.  Unlike
>  Switzerland, it was in no serious danger of Axis invasion, ever.

It's most amusing to see you arbitrating who should apologize to whom. Why waste these
keen sentiments on a list of us foolish historians and hobbiests? Why not get them right off to
the appropriate diplomatic circles?

>
>This raises another, more serious question which follows in a
>  separate post.

Yes -- But that's between the list owner and you.
>Lou Coatney
>[email-masked]

-- Jim Brady
-------------------------------------
Name: Jim Brady
E-mail: [email-masked]

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

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

Date:    Thu, 13 Apr 1995 08:20:51 CST
From:    Gary R Speer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: TRIVIA: DUKW - Vehicle id

Congratulations to Mike Bechthold!  He must be using the same source I used.
And, I agree;  doesn't make sense.  But apparently, it made a BIG difference
on D-Day at Normandy and on Omaha Beach when other supply methods were delayed.
Thanks for the participation.

Gary Speer  ([email-masked])
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
He writes:
>From:         Mike Bechthold <[email-masked]>
>
>DUKW stands for:
>
>D = 1942
>U = utility
>K = front-wheel drive
>W = two rear driving axles
>
>Except for the U, none of the letters seem to make any sense.  However,
>the fact that this designation was assigned by the engineers at General
>Motors may have something to do with this :-)
>
>Mike Bechthold
>Wilfrid Laurier University
>Waterloo, ON
>Canada
>[email-masked]

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

Date:    Thu, 13 Apr 1995 09:32:01 EDT
From:    Alan Wild <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Rommel and other generals vs. Monty

William Lippert said:
<stuff del'd>
>Monty's style worked not only for him but also for Britain.  Since Monty
>had superior material, human, and intelligence assests, why should he
>have risked them with some bold and daring operation a la Patton?

I think Op Market Garden, an obvious failure termed success by Monty,
was a waste of lives over material. I understand that Monty wanted to
apply pressure to the launching areas of the V-1 & 2, but one airborne
div, landing behind the lines, against a panzer division, for a bridge?

Murphy's Uncertainty Principle:  You can know something has gone wrong only
                                 when you make an odd number of mistakes.

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

Date:    Thu, 13 Apr 1995 08:36:05 CST
From:    Gary R Speer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Apology not necessary

**** This is sent to the [email-masked], as my system has
     a problem with the "-" in MEADE-EMH1. Sorry****

TO: Sergeant Major Robert S. Rush:   [email-masked]
Actually, I appreciate the insight, as my son's high school track coach
teaches world history and asked me to lecture on D-Day.  Your approach
and style and facts will give me a good outline of what and how to cover
the topic in 90 minutes.  Fortunately, I did have some video from a commercial
tape and last summer's TV offerings on D-Day.

Thanks.

Gary Speer
UT Austin
[email-masked]

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

Date:    Thu, 13 Apr 1995 08:49:40 PDT
From:    Jim Brady <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: G. Prien a pow? mystery solved

>I am reading a book that clears up the mystery of Gunther Prien's escape from
>a pow camp we had on the list a few months ago.  The book is The Faustball
>Tunnel by John Moore.  25 German pows, mostly submariners escaped from a pow
>camp in Arizona on Dec 23 1944.  4 of the escapees were sub commanders and one
>of these was Friedrich Guggenberger commander of the sub that sank the Ark
>Royal.  When the US Army described him as a highly decorated sub commander some
>newspapers mistakenly reported that it was Prien who escaped.  All 25 were
>recaptured although it took 6 weeks to find the last of them.  A lot of the
>book reads like a real life Hogan's Heros but with the roles reversed, bumbling
>American guards and clever German pows.
>
>
>       Mark Walter    [email-masked]
>
"The Ace of the North Atlantic" (author I can't recall) really rings some bells with some recent
points on the list. In this book about Otto Kretschmer (misselled, sorry -- I'm away from my
sources) the author recounts prison life in both England and later in Canada. While in England,
an escape from the camp had two Luftwaffe pilots unsuccessfully trying to steal a plane and fly
back to Germany. They are thwarted through some technical difficulty, so they surrender.
Problem is, their English is so good, the English military demands to know what British unit
they've desserted. They insist they are really German POWs. It goes to the point where they
are put into courtmarshall proceedings before someone finally can verify their absence. At the
camp, a mock tribunal ridiculed them for first failing Germany by getting captured and then
worse, failing to perform even in the British army.

 In Canada, the Germans persued a very active intelligence operation by way of coding their
letters. (Kretschmer had worked out a code with his wife in the event of his capture.) They
gleaned much from reading Canadian and American papers: boastful companies would take
out ads proclaiming how their particular product or industry was contributing to the war, and
Germans would figure by upswings of products and by the shifts in demands in classified ads
for employment as well as civilian news what the American war strategy was doing. Vaguely I
remember that the POWs got the idea invasion preparations were
underway.

  The activity climaxed in some escapes for a planned rendez-vous with U-boats, months in the
making. The U-boat got hung-up just outside the bay because of patrols, and the POW, after
crossing Canada, *almost* made it past a sentry  who wondered why this guy
was walking around the woods by the water at night.

  The POWs also had a huge tunnel that was found out on the eve
of their own "Great Escape."

  Fasinating picture of strife inside the camp -- rioting and protests
the Germans held in reponse to beatings. Illegal military court held
to try a U-Boat captain for surrendering his boat without scuttling
it....Vivid and gruesome account of (I believe -- help me out, Terry) Gunther Prien getting
rammed in his conning tower, losing his legs as he lost his life...

 -- Jim Brady
------------------------------------ t
Name: Jim Brady
E-mail: [email-masked]

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

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

Date:    Thu, 13 Apr 1995 08:49:24 -0500
From:    Greg Kelley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: QUERY: Diego Suarez Comma

On Mon, 10 Apr 1995, Edward S. Miller wrote:

> Burt Knight asks
>
>   > I just came across a refernce to a Commando raid on Diego Suarez, May 4,
>   > 1942.  Does anyone know anything about this?
>
>
> As Gerhard Weinberg observed, the Vichy French fought everyone--the British,
> Americans, Australians, Thais, Free French--everyone but the Axis, that is.
>
> Edward Miller  [email-masked]

Gosh, that must have come as quite a surprise to members of the Vichy
French military such as Lieutenant Dominique Fay-- remember him?  He was
the naval officer commanding one of STRASBOURG'S secondary turrets back
on 27th November 1942, killed by shellfire from German tanks on the
Toulon docks [the rest of the turret crew didn't escape unscathed, either]
SOURCE: Auphan & Mordal, FRENCH NAVY IN WORLD WAR TWO

A number of serving members of the Vichy French military lost their lives
against German i.e. AXIS forces in 1942.  'Course, if you don't consider
the Japanese-backed Thai regime to be a member of the Axis, then I
suppose the Croats and Slovaks were only belligerant neutrals....

                                          Glad To Be Of Service!

                                          Greg Kelley
                                          St. Paul Public Library
                                          [email-masked]

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

Date:    Thu, 13 Apr 1995 09:55:55 -0400
From:    Lee Windsor u <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Rommel and other generals vs. Monty

Hello All,

I would just like to pipe in on Monty's side here as well.

While perhaps he was not the daring opportunist that other great
commanders have been, he was, above all, a fine professional officer and
a first rate trainer and leader of soldiers.  His high training standards
meant that his men were well aware of their responsibilites whether they
were section leaders or corps commanders.  As others on the list have
pointed out, one cannot fault him for taking into consideration the
physical and mental limitations of his country which had not really
recovered from WWI before it launched into WWII.  In these circumstances,
his caution is understandable.  The British public would be quite
unwilling to accept the loss of yet another entire generation.

In the end, he did the job he was assigned to do.

"Why put a man where a shell can do the job!"

Lee A. Windsor                             [email-masked].
8th Canadian Hussars                                  35 High St.
Wilfrid Laurier U.                                  Waterloo, ONT
Waterloo, Ontario                                         N2L 3X7
                         "Semper Fidelis"

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

Date:    Thu, 13 Apr 1995 10:11:07 -0400
From:    "J. R. Tracy" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Monty

        Repeating a recurring theme:  I think Monty was a bit of a jerk, but
not a bad general, certainly not as bad as he is widely regarded here in the
States.  He certainly got the job done, and despite his plodding manner, had a
forcefulness about him that carried plans forward.  His efforts in the eastern
sector of the Normandy buildup had as much to do with Patton's breakout as
Patton's own actions (hoo - I'm sure there'll be some posts on that one!) and
he did play a significant role in containing the Ardennes offensive.  Of
course, Monty always overstated his own contributions, and frequently 'revised'
his plans in hindsight to suit the historical outcome.  He wasn't *really*
trying to break out beyond Caen, he was *deliberately* tying up German forces
so his beloved allies could grab the glory.  Uh, right, Bernard, whatever you
say.
        If Monty had been a humble type, a little more considerate of his
peers, I think his achievements would be more highly regarded.  However, his
arrogance was an integral part of his personality, and perhaps even a key to
his success.  It is difficult to separate the personality from the record, and
so Montgomery will always remain a controversial figure.

        On a side note, the comments on McClellan make me wonder, is there an
American Civil War mailing list?

Bye for now,

        JR

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

Date:    Thu, 13 Apr 1995 08:01:59 CDT
From:    Michael P LaForge <[email-masked]>
Subject: Quack Quack DUKW

Truck 2- 1/2 ton, 6x6, Amphibian
Net Weight:  14880 lb.
Payload:   5175 lb.
Length:   31'
Width:   8'3"
Height:   8'10"
Wheelbase:  164"
Armament:   MG, .50 cal., HB, M2 flex or
 MG, .30 cal, M1919A4 flex on an M36 ring mount
Engine:   GMC Model 270 inline Hydrovac 6 cyl, 91.5 H.P.
Max speed land:   50 MPH
Max speed water:   6 MPH
Range @ Max:   240 land, 50 water (miles)
Source:   Handbook of Ordnance Materiel, OST 9-159,
 The Ordnance School, Aberdeen Proving Ground,
 February 1951. (OST is Ordnance School Text)

Of course, nowhere in the description do they
mention DUKW. How 'bout Dual Use Karrier, Wheeled?

 Mike LaForge
 U.S. Army Technical Center for Explosives Safety (USATCES)
 Explosives Safety Logistics Division (ESL)
 Defense Environmental Restoration Program - Formerly Used
 Defense Sites(DERP-FUDS)
 DSN: 585-8762  FAX: 585-6009  COMM: 815-273-8762

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

Date:    Thu, 13 Apr 1995 07:19:24 -0700
From:    Sonnenschein Nath and Rosenthal <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: WEAP: Faulty Torpedoes

On Wed, 12 Apr 1995, Jodi Berls wrote:

> Rod Rupert wrote:
>
> >After reviewing all available data on every warshot
> that had been fired to date, (this was late 1943) they concluded
> that the magnetic exploder was too sensitive...
>
> It never ceases to amaze me that these boats accomplished so much with such a
> crummy primary weapon. The Germans had very similar problems with theirs in
> the Atlantic. My analysis is that the only navy with decent torpedoes was
> Japan--do you know what they did differently? Did they just not mess around
> with magnetic exploders or give up on them sooner?
>
> Is a "haddo" a fish? I couldn't find it in the dictionary.
>
> Jodi Berls
> [email-masked]
>
        It is true the Germans (and the British) had similar problems
with their torpedoes, but the situation was resolved much quicker. The
Germans simply deactivated their magnetic feature and relied on the
contact exploder. The Japanese tested and trained with their torpedoes
extensively during the mid-late 1930's and the result was, arguably ,the
best torpedoes to be used during the war. Our record of testing and
training was pale in comparasion, the situation was not resolved for 18
months,
and the result cost hundreds of lives and IMHU added months to the war.

Doug Shireman

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

Date:    Thu, 13 Apr 1995 10:31:52 -0400
From:    Barone <[email-masked]>
Subject: ADMIN: Ireland discussion

        Can we please tone it down?  I allowed Jack some latitude with
his installments of Irish history since he has been a prolific contributor
to this list since Day 1 and he stated up front that he was laying the
groundwork to discuss why and how things were in the pre-war years.  To
accuse Catholics of some dogmatic preference for Nazism is as groundless
as stating that all Caucasians have genetic Nazi tendencies.  Please keep
the discussion focused on facts; not ad hominen arguments, emotional
outbursts, or sophistry.  Thank you.
--
Joe Barone, WWII-L listowner
[email-masked]

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

Date:    Thu, 13 Apr 1995 10:34:15 -0400
From:    Pat Marsden <[email-masked]>
Subject: U.S.S. Olympia display  (was: WEAP: Ship designations)

I went through both vessels on March 11th of this year.
They are well worth the $3.00 admission.  I was amazed at the
large open spaces in the Olympia.  I guess I'm used to WWII
ships where everything is narrow corridors and passageways.
There was also an large amount of "fancy" woodworking in
the Olympia.  You can definitely see the transition taking
place from wooden ships to more modern steel vessels.  I
was disappointed that one couldn't get into the fore or aft
8 inch gun turrets, but I got over it.  The only other
comments I would have is that the Olympia gets quite cold
down in the bowels of the ship.  At least in the non-summer
months, you might want to bring a jacket.

It was an interesting trip for me - it was the first time
my father and future father-in-law met.  They had so much
fun running all over the ships that the whole awkward situation
was a piece-of-cake.

The ships are located just a few blocks from Independence
Hall and the Liberty Bell and just a few blocks south of
the mammoth Ben Franklin Bridge.  You can actually see
the Olympia from I-95N but you have to look quick.  It's painted
in the traditional white and tan of that period. We simply
followed the signs for the historic district and once there,
headed for the water.  You can't miss it.  Penn's Landing
may also have a direct exit off of I-95 but I just can't
remember.

Here is the documentation I have:
(typo's are mine, reproduced without permission, etc. etc.)

Tour phamplet from the
CRUISER OLYMPIA ASSOCIATION INC.
Penns Landing, Del Ave. & Spruce St.
Philadelphia, PA 19106
(215)-WA2-1989

Ships open 7 day a week, 10AM - 4:30 PM
(except Christmas and New Year's Day)

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

Welcome aboard.

At the foot of Spruce Street, at Philadelphia's beautiful Penn's
Landing on the Delaware River, you can visit two symbols of America's
nautical past, the U.S.S. Olympia and the U.S.S Becuna.  Declared
a national shrine, they have been preserved for your enjoyment thanks
to the efforts of the Cruiser Olympia Association.

The Olympia, symbol of an age.

The story of the U.S.S. Olympia is really the story of America's
military and political maturity.  Built under a program to
moderize the American Navy, the Cruiser Olympia was one
of America's first steel ships.  From the day of launching
on November 5, 1892 until the day of her retirement on
September 1, 1922, no vessel served the United States with
more honor and distinction.  And few participated in as many
crucial world events.

If any date marks the beginning of the United States' reign as
a world power, it is surely May 1, 1898.  On that morning, the
Olympia, flagship of the Asiatic Squadron, stood eyeball to eyeball
with the Spanish fleet in the choppy waters off the coast of the
Philippines.  From her bridge, Commodore Dewey surveyed the scene.
Then he issued the order, "You may fire when ready, Gridley."

Thus the Battle of Manila Bay exploded into history.  When the smoke
had cleared seven hours later and the Spanish fleet had been totally
devastated, the world knew that the United States had arrived as a
world power.

During the years following the Spanish-American War, the Olympia
continued to serve in the forefront of American history.  For over
a decade, as flagship of the North Atlantic Squadron, she protected
American lives and property in such faraway places as Panama, Smyrna,
Turkey, and the Dominican Republic.  Later she acted as a training
ship for midshipmen from the United States Naval Academy.

When World War I broke out, the Olympia was designated flagship of
the United States Patrol Force.  First as an escort for Allied
vessels in the North Atlantic and later by patroling for enemy ships
off the American coast from New York to Nova Scotia.  On June 8, 1918,
she was given the task of landing a peace-keeping force at the
turbulent port of Murmansk in Russia.

In December, 1918, the Olympia became the flagship of the U.S. Naval
Forces in the Eastern Mediterranean.  She served as ambassador of good
will and as a symbol of American strength.

The Olympia's last assignment came in 1921.  It proved to be a fitting
conclusion to her years of service and dedication.  On October 3, she
was ordered to sail from Plymouth, England to La Havre, France.
There, with full military honors, she took aboard the body of the
Unknown Soldier and carried it to it's final resting ground at Arlington
National Cemetery.

Today the Olympia serves as the flagship of Penn's Landing.  As the sole
survivor of the Spanish-American War fleets and of the "New Navy" of the
1880's and 1890's, she is a proud symbol of a time when America grew to
maturity.

The Becuna, an underwater warrior.

Resting a few feet from the Olympia is the World War II guppy-class
submarine, U.S.S. Becuna.  Like the Olympia, the Bucuna boasts a
colorful past and an inportant place in America's naval history.

The story of the Becuna begins on May 27, 1944, when she was comissioned
to serve as submarine flagship of the Southwest Pacific Fleet under General
Douglas MacArthur.

>From August 23, 1944 until July 27, 1945, under Commander H.D. Sturr, USN,
she searched out and destroyed enemy vessels from the Philippines to the
South China and Java Seas.  In five war patrols Becuna is credited with
destroying thousands of tons of Japanese Naval and Merchant ships.  For
her valuable contribution toward the war effort, she received four Battle
Stars and a Presidential Unit Citation.

When World War II came to a close, so did the Bucuna's fighting days.
But not her valuable service to the United States Navy.  Beginning in
1949, she served with the Atlantic Fleet in the Caribean.  Later she
made two cruises with the Sixth Fleet to the Mediterrean and to Scotland.
In 1951, she was converted from her basic Fleet type configuration to
a Streamlined Fast Underwater Submarine known as a Guppy 1A type.  The
addition of the German-type snorkel air system allowed her to increase
her diesel engines' underwater speed.  Other additions included the
installation of a large electric battery (for longer underwater endurance),
sophistcated radar, fire control and torpedo equipment (including nuclear
warheads).  The Becuna served in the Atlantic and Mediterrean during the
Korean and Vietnam Wars.  She ended her long and valorous carreer as a
training submarine in New London, Connecticut.  She was decommissioned
on October 1, 1969.  Becuna is the last of her type exhibited, serving the
Navy continously from 1944 to 1969 with a long a distinguished career.

In case you're wonderng...

U.S.S. OLYMPIA
PROTECTED CRUISER - Named for the city of Olympia, capitol of the state
of Washington.  She was launched in 1891 at Union Iron Works, San Francisco,
Cailfornia and commisioned in 1895.
DISPLACEMENT - 5870 tons
LENGTH - 344 feet
BEAM - 53 feet
MEAN DRAFT - 21.5 feet
MAXIMUM SPEED - 23 knots
TWIN SCREWS - 3 cylinder Triple expansion engines, 18,000 HP,
6 Scotch (Fire tube) boilers
COMPLIMENT - 34 Officiers and 440 men, including the Marine Guard.
ARMAMENT - Four 8 in., Ten 5 in. Fourteen 6 pounders, Six 1 pounders,
Six 18 in. torpedo tubes.

U.S.S. BECUNA
WEIGHT - 1,526 tons
BEAM - 27 feet
TORPEDO TUBES - 10
TORPEDOES - 24
PERISCOPES - 2
MAXIMUM CREW - 66
Four General Motors 16 Cylinder Diesel Engines producing 20.3 knots
surface speed.  252 Battery Cells for Underwater Electrical Propulsion
at 9 knots.  Complete Ventilation-Air Condition-Heating and Water plants.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

The rest of the phamphlet has cross-sectional and plan views of the
Olympia.  (I'm no ascii artist so you won't see those reproduced here).

Hope this has been interesting...

patrick,

--
Patrick D. Marsden          | Naval Research Laboratory     | (202)-404-8229
Computational Physics, Inc  | Planetary Atmospheres Section | Opinions are mine
[email-masked] | Code 7641                     |  and mine alone.
http://power.nrl.navy.mil   | Washington, D.C.  20375       |      * NRA *

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

Date:    Thu, 13 Apr 1995 10:40:16 EDT
From:    "OConnor, Christopher M" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: Rommel and other generals vs. Monty

>From what i know of Monty, and I will admit that it is not much, he was
a great general and even better leader.  His vcharacter though was often
left something to be desired.  I am pretty certain that he often was
in personality conflict with many AMerican generals, but in the end
he got the job done and kicked the Germans out of Africa and in the
situation that they were in, isn't that the most important thing.  I
be mistaken, but in a war winning as soon as possible is usually the
most importent option, not making sure everyone likes you.
Chris

>Hello All,
>
>I would just like to pipe in on Monty's side here as well.
>
>While perhaps he was not the daring opportunist that other great
>commanders have been, he was, above all, a fine professional officer and
>a first rate trainer and leader of soldiers.  His high training standards
>meant that his men were well aware of their responsibilites whether they
>were section leaders or corps commanders.  As others on the list have
>pointed out, one cannot fault him for taking into consideration the
>physical and mental limitations of his country which had not really
>recovered from WWI before it launched into WWII.  In these circumstances,
>his caution is understandable.  The British public would be quite
>unwilling to accept the loss of yet another entire generation.
>
>In the end, he did the job he was assigned to do.
>
>"Why put a man where a shell can do the job!"
>
>Lee A. Windsor                             [email-masked].
>8th Canadian Hussars                                  35 High St.
>Wilfrid Laurier U.                                  Waterloo, ONT
>Waterloo, Ontario                                         N2L 3X7
>                         "Semper Fidelis"

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

Date:    Thu, 13 Apr 1995 10:09:37 -0500
From:    "William L. Huber - SAA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: TRIVIA: DUKW - Vehicle id

>                                     But apparently, it made a BIG difference
> on D-Day at Normandy and on Omaha Beach when other supply methods were delayed.
>
> Gary Speer  ([email-masked])

It was Ike who said there were 3 big factors in the US success
in Europe -   the C-47, the jeep and the DUKW.

He had high praise for those ugly beasts but they really did the job.

Cheers, Bill Huber / [email-masked]

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

Date:    Thu, 13 Apr 1995 10:55:41 EDT
From:    William Lippert <[email-masked]>
Subject: Monty and Market-Garden

   Monty has been largely criticized for Market-Garden - a criticism I
find much more harsh than it should be.  In general, Monty is faulted for
not being "bold" or "daring".  But his Market-Garden plan was both.  If
we criticize him for conservatism, then how can we fault him for his
major (albeit unsuccessful) attempt at being "American"?
   Market-Garden itself was not such a poor conception.  It had two major
objectives insofar as I see - a bridgehead over the Rhine and neutralizing
V-1,2 sites.  The former, as everyone knows, was instrumental to defeating
Germany.  The Rhine was an obstacle that had to be overcome sooner or later
and when the Americans captured the Ludendorff Bridge at Remagen, it was
more of a stroke of luck than any great American planning or battlefield
culture.
    The V-1,2 issue must not be minimized as it tends to be by Americans.
The British were suffering terribly by the attacks, both in terms of
damage and morale.  Unlike in the Battle of Britain, where at least
the Germans could be fought in the air and the populace received some
warning, the sudden and humaneless V weapons brought about a psychosis
of helplessness.  Thus it was essential that the British do their best
to neutralize the V crisis, just as Monty did.
   Finally it must be remembered that Monty was a British general.  Americans
tend to look at him as an Allied general or a general of war, but one
cannot remove his nationality.  The criticisms of his personality - arrogance,
selfishness, self-aggrandizement, while not untrue, are tainted by the
American perspective.  These traits were largely the result of Monty pushing
the interests and image of Britain (though he did not exclude himself).
American generals, too, tended to do this when in command of almost exclusively
American soldiers.  I don't know but imagine that the British had their share
complaints about American generals.
   I have never been overly fond of Monty myself.  But, even as I write, I
am forced, in the interests of objectivity and detachment, to re-evaluate
my opinions of him.  My biggest fault with him was that he didn't do things
the American way (or what Americans wanted).  Rommel, for example, whom
most Americans respect, did do things in the style of Americans.  But in
that opinion I tended to forget that Monty was British fighting for Britain.

William Lippert
The American University

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

Date:    Thu, 13 Apr 1995 11:12:36 -0400
From:    "Steven Pudlo, Dept. Computer Svcs." <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: ADMIN: Ireland discussion

Joe Barone, World's Greatest Listowner writes...

>To accuse Catholics of some dogmatic preference for Nazism is as groundless
>as stating that all Caucasians have genetic Nazi tendencies.

You mean we don't? That ain't what I've been hearing.;-)
                                                                Steve
(shameless, ain't I?)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Steven E. Pudlo  - [email-masked] |"Life may be a drag...
Erstwhile Network Coord. (203) 885-2343  |    But it sure beats the
Three Rivers Community-Technical College |       only known alternative"
574 New London Turnpike                  |                     (S.E.P.)
Norwich, CT. U.S.A. 06360                |No one gets out of it alive..
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date:    Thu, 13 Apr 1995 11:46:58 -0400
From:    "Joseph Spruill, Captain,
         U.S.S. Enterprise" <[email-masked]>
Subject: atomic bombs

        The Japanese are a very proud people and everybody would have fought
hard against an Allied invasion, killing hundreds of thousands (perhaps
millions) of both Americans and Japanese.  I believe the bombs were
necessary to avert this massacre.  However, there I do wonder if the same
effect could have been achieved by demonstrating the bombs power on some
uninhabited atoll.  Any ideas?

Joey

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

Date:    Thu, 13 Apr 1995 11:52:28 -0400
From:    Mike Bechthold <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Monty

In his memoirs, A Date With History, Charles Stacey, the official
historian of the Canadian Army in WWII quotes a British general as
telling Harry Crerar that Montgomery "is an efficient little shit."  This
really sums the man up - efficient yes, but a shit too!

Mike Bechthold
Wilfrid Laurier University
Waterloo, Ontario, Canada

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

Date:    Thu, 13 Apr 1995 12:25:26 -0400
From:    Mike Yaklich <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Defense Against Amphibious Invasion

        The failed landing in the Black Sea was a small-scale affair at
Ozereyka Bay in the spring of '43.  Romanian troops defending the beach and
supporting German artillery turned back the landing, which included tanks,
costing the Soviets some 1,200 men (hey, Greg, there's a plug for your boys!).
A subsidiary operation at Novorossiyisk did gain a foothold and led to a
small-scale epic battle lasting nine months, in which one of the leaders on the
Soviet side was political officer Leonid Brezhnev.  Gee whiz, having mentioned
the Romanians in a positive light, I should also say that one of the three
German attempts to come ashore on the island of Leros in the Aegean in November
1943 was repulsed by Italian 152-mm coast defense guns the Stukas had failed to
knock out (the other two landings and a reinforcing paratroop drop succeeded
and Leros fell in less than a week).

        Regards

        Mike Yaklich

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

Date:    Thu, 13 Apr 1995 12:27:51 -0400
From:    Mike Yaklich <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: MEDIA:YAMATO

        To expand on Ben Frank's post regarding the YAMATO's plan for a one-way
cruise-- in the "best-case" scenario the ship was supposed to beach itself on
Okinawa and serve as a heavy battery aiding the defenses, and carried extra
460-mm HE shells for this purpose.

        Regards

        Mike Yaklich

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

Date:    Thu, 13 Apr 1995 16:19:00 UTC
From:    "Edward S. Miller" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: QUERY: Diego Suarez C

On Mon, 10 Apr 1995, I wrote:

  > As Gerhard Weinberg observed, the Vichy French fought everyone--the
  > British, Americans, Australians, Thais, Free French--everyone but the
  > Axis, that is.

The quotation comes from Weinberg's comment on the German and Italian
occupation of Vichy France in November 1942:  "[T]rue to the policy of
fighting only the friends and not the enemies of the country, the French
armistice army allowed to Vichy did not fire a shot against the soldiers of
either Axis power."
  Weinberg also observes that "the vicious eagerness with which the Vichy
militia hounded and slaughtered those who opposed the Germans served to
descredit the regime they served.  The extent to which the Vichy government
inaugurated anti-Semitic measures and its police enthusiastically
participated in the rounding up of Jews for deportation and murder remained
as a blot that time did not erase but instead made more conspicuous."

Source: Gerhard Weinberg, =A World in Arms= (Cambride Univ. Press, 1994), p.
516.

Greg Kelley responded:

  > Gosh, that must have come as quite a surprise to members of the Vichy
  > French military such as Lieutenant Dominique Fay.... A number of serving
  > members of the Vichy French military lost their lives against German
  > i.e. AXIS forces in 1942.

No doubt there were true patriots even in Vichy France.  Certainly the Free
French and the Resistance helped rehabilitate the honor of France.

  > 'Course, if you don't consider the Japanese-backed Thai regime to be a
  > member of the Axis...

The comic-opera naval war between Thailand and Vichy in French IndoChina
occurred in January 1941.  (Vichy won.)  Was Thailand a de facto member of
the Axis then?  Interesting question. Japan did not occupy it until December
1941.

Edward S. Miller   [email-masked]

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

Date:    Thu, 13 Apr 1995 12:31:07 -0400
From:    Mike Yaklich <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: WEAP: Alaska-class Large Cruisers

        Henry Sirotin is right that the HAWAII was not ready for combat before
the war ended, mainly as its armament scheme of 12-inch main guns was being
reconsidered (Jane's, 1945).  BTW, Henry, I'd be interested in taking a look at
that info you offered earlier regarding the composition and combat-readiness of
Kwantung Army units in 1945.  I know I already had a lengthy post on that
subject but I wanted to see if I missed anything important (experience teaches
that the answer to that question is usually "yes").

        Regards

        Mike Yaklich

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

Date:    Thu, 13 Apr 1995 11:55:01 -0400
From:    "Joseph Spruill, Captain,
         U.S.S. Enterprise" <[email-masked]>
Subject: hitler declaration of war on U.S.

        Was Hitler bound by the German-Japanese to declare war on the U.S.
or was Hitler just being stupid.  I'm a bit confused there.

Joey

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

Date:    Thu, 13 Apr 1995 12:46:03 -0400
From:    Matthew Savoie <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: El Alamein (was: Defense against Amphibious invasions)

Chris,
        Having researched a lengthy seminar paper on George B. McClellan and
Pres. Lincoln last year, I must rebutt your comment that McClellan was
"clueless."  Granted, he was not the bold battlefield commander that Lee,
Grant, et al, were; he was, however, an excellent organizer and trainer of a
nearly all volunteer army that went on to do great things under Grant.
        Sorry for interjecting the Am. Civil War on this list, but I felt
the record must be corrected.
Matt
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew M. Savoie           |    "Not to know what happened before you were |
Western New England College |    born is to remain always a child."         |
1215 Wilbraham Road         |         - Cicero                              |
Box 1830                    |                                               |
Springfield, MA 01119       |    [email-masked]                           |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date:    Thu, 13 Apr 1995 12:48:12 -0400
From:    Mike Yaklich <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: (literal) Torpedo Boats

        These "Motoscafi esplosivi" were used to disable the British heavy
cruiser YORK at Suda Bay in Crete, March 1941.  The ship was beached and never
sailed again, although the Germans subsequently claimed that they "sank" the
YORK with their dive-bombers.

        Regards

        Mike Yaklich

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

Date:    Thu, 13 Apr 1995 13:03:07 -0400
From:    Lee Windsor u <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Monty and Market-Garden

On Thu, 13 Apr 1995, William Lippert wrote:

Some deleted

>    I have never been overly fond of Monty myself.  But, even as I write, I
> am forced, in the interests of objectivity and detachment, to re-evaluate
> my opinions of him.  My biggest fault with him was that he didn't do things
> the American way (or what Americans wanted).  Rommel, for example, whom
> most Americans respect, did do things in the style of Americans.  But in
> that opinion I tended to forget that Monty was British fighting for Britain.
>
> William Lippert
> The American University
>

William,

You made some interesting points in your post, but could you please
clarify for me what you mean by the "American way".

Lee Windsor
Wilfrid Laurier Univ.

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

Date:    Thu, 13 Apr 1995 12:25:37 -0500
From:    "Robert J. Granvin" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Atomic Bombs

Of course, out of habit, I delete email as quickly as I get it... So I
failed to save the message questioning (again) whether a "demonstration
bombing" would have had an effect.

As an individual, I'm sure that it would have "impressed" a lot of people.
But whether it would have had a significant effect is probably not as open-
ended a debate as one might think.

Much has been made about the fact that the U.S. "Warned" (though in reality
the warning would probably be seen as typical rhetoric) of the great reign
of ruin which would befall Japan if they failed to surrender.  They didn't,
so Hiroshima was bombed.

There was a short gap, while the Allies prepared the second bombing and also
to see if Japan would respond.  They didn't and Nagasaki was bombed.

Much can be debated about the "Demonstration" bombing of Hiroshima.  There
were factions wanting peace before the bombing, but the military leaders
even after the second bombing were even more adamant about fighting to the
end.  It took the intervention of the emperor, who had no reason to believe
we had only two bombs, to stop the war.

A demonstration of power usually requires that it also demonstrate the
effects.  Laying nuclear waste to an unpopulated, undeveloped island might
be impressive, but when you can see the effect on buildings, roads,
infastructure and yes... people, then you get a real feel for the
"demonstration."

Nuclear war is a horrible thing.  Non-nuclear war is a horrible thing.
Hell, any war is a horrible thing.  Sometimes it's just horrible to walk
down to the corner drug store.

Reflecting on 20-20 hindsight and the resources of history, interviews and
post-war analysis, it becomes pretty clear that bombing an atoll would have
done little to nothing to impress the Japanese military.

On the big picture, it's entirely possible that Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved
even more lives than it can ever conceive of.  It's a quietly held belief
that at least part of the reasons that nuclear weapons have _never_ been
used since in any capacity against "live" targets is because we have
experienced first hand the short and long-term results of such use.

The best way to save lives in a war is to end it quickly.  Or, better yet,
not start one in the first place.  But when you can't avoid that, it's got
to be ended immediately.

--
\\ Robert J. Granvin                                 User Services Specialist
// School of Statistics - University of Minnesota            [email-masked]

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

Date:    Thu, 13 Apr 1995 13:30:03 EDT
From:    Alan Wild <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Monty and Market-Garden

Hi William,... you were saying:

>   Market-Garden itself was not such a poor conception.  It had two major
>objectives insofar as I see - a bridgehead over the Rhine and neutralizing
>V-1,2 sites.  The former, as everyone knows, was instrumental to defeating
>Germany.  The Rhine was an obstacle that had to be overcome sooner or later
>and when the Americans captured the Ludendorff Bridge at Remagen, it was
>more of a stroke of luck than any great American planning or battlefield
>culture.

I have given the harshness some thought, but have recounted all I have
read and the facts, most important, that surround his career. Prof Moore
put it well, to paraphrase: he was fighting from a WWI perspective, and
he really couldn't waste a thing. Yet he did in Market Garden. The bridge
at Remagen might have been luck, but the 3rd Army crossed the Rhine with
an entire division at 10pm the night before Monty sent smoke over, and
then followed it with a airborne drop, this after nearly 20,000 rounds
of artillery pulverized the far side. He used about 18,000 troops as I
recall reading. Anyway, Patton beat him across because he had kept the
Germans on the run, and hit the Rhine at the run himself. The German
situation was a mess. Now, Monty had already planned the announcement
of his Rhine crossing. In fact Churchill had a speech ready, identifying
Monty's as the 1st modern Army across. The press had been given the
facts: Patton crossed in division strength just hours before Monty.
I wonder what the conflicting headlines .vs. Churchill speech did for
anglo-american relations at the time... :-| 'Must've gone up Monty's "arse".

Amicably, Alan

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

Date:    Thu, 13 Apr 1995 13:43:11 EDT
From:    Alan Wild <[email-masked]>
Subject: Roosevelt Bridge

14Apr45

As reconstruction took place, a railroad bridge crossing the Rhine near
Mainz was given the name Roosevelt Memorial Railroad Bridge. Patton
arrived to officially open it to traffic. Handed a large pair of scissors
with which to cut the ribbon, Patton handed them back demanding, "... a
god-damned bayonett... (I'm not) a god-damned tailor".

Source: _Patton's Third Army_, A Chronology by Charles M. Province

-Alan

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

Date:    Thu, 13 Apr 1995 13:36:17 EDT
From:    William Lippert <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Monty and Market-Garden

On Thu, 13 Apr 1995 13:03:07 -0400 Lee Windsor u said:
>
>William,
>
>You made some interesting points in your post, but could you please
>clarify for me what you mean by the "American way".
>
>Lee Windsor
>Wilfrid Laurier Univ.

   The American way is difficult to sum up in so many words - understanding
the totality of any people is no small endeavor.  But if you agree that
each nation has a distinct culture different from other nations, then you
could accept that there is an "American Way".  This American way need not
be labeled as either better or worse than other national ways, but it is
distinct.
    So what might the "American Way" be on the battlefield?  People on this
list are probably more knowledgeable than me about cross-cultural studies,
both focused on wars and cultures in general.  Nonetheless, I will attempt,
at your request, to write something about what I think the American way of
war is.
    First, Americans fight wars more casually than other soldiers.  Please
keep in mind that these are all generalizations and that there are always
exceptions.  Anyway, it seems to me that other nations have pursued their
wars with a much greater furvor and fanatacism.  This is probably partly due
to the political circumstances; it was rare for Americans to actually have
to defend their home on their own soil.
   Second, Americans have emphasized a doctrine of personal initiative and
operational flexibility.  This means that it is generally acceptable when
a soldier disobeys orders or goes beyond orders to achieve some goal that
no one had thought of.  Despite what Patton said in the movie, individuality
is an essential component of American fighting and society.
     Some German - either Hitler or a general - said something to the effect
that Americans are so good at making war because war is chaos and Americans
exist in a permanent state of chaos.  Every American can probably provide
many examples of how our society is chaotic.  And in wars Americans show
that they are the best not so much in controlling chaos but making the
best of it.
    So how is this different from Monty or other countries?  First, the
leadership flexibility down to the level of squad is important.  Not all
countries lack this, but it might be said that Americans have this trait
more than others.  Second, boldness, dashing, and risk are also very American,
though not contrary to other cultures.  Monty, and the British in general,
are more systematic and organized than the Americans - in most areas of
life.  Thus it should be no surprised that Americans criticize Monty
and the British in general for being methodic rather than quick and decisive.
   I will end this now as I must catch a plane to Boston.  I'm sure others
will either correct me and/or add to my quick thoughts.  It is very interesting
to be comparing the cultures of armies.  I have always had the highest regard
for Ike not because he was a great general but a great diplomat and cross-
cultural leader.

William Lippert
The American University

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

Date:    Thu, 13 Apr 1995 13:02:04 -0500
From:    "Louis R. Coatney" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: atomic bomb demo for Japanese?

>
>         The Japanese are a very proud people and everybody would have fought
> hard against an Allied invasion, killing hundreds of thousands (perhaps
> millions) of both Americans and Japanese.  I believe the bombs were
> necessary to avert this massacre.  However, there I do wonder if the same
> effect could have been achieved by demonstrating the bombs power on some
> uninhabited atoll.  Any ideas?
>
> Joey
>

Yo.  Joe.

     This has been discussed at length.  The basic arguments against
it have been:

1. What if the bomb hadn't worked?

2. Would this have only forewarned the Japanese of the Bomb, enabling
  them to prepare -- psychologically/propagandistically -- against it?
  The shock/terror value of the Bomb was everything, in forcing the
  Japanese to surrender.

3. We had only a very few bombs.  What if the Japanese had been alerted
  to intercept B-29s flying alone?

It is a good, humanitarian idea/intent, but I'm afraid President
  Truman couldn't have risked doing anything but going "all out."
  Thousands of people were dying, every day the war continued.
  The Japanese were still on the *offensive* in China.

Lou Coatney, [email-masked]

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

Date:    Thu, 13 Apr 1995 14:03:45 -0400
From:    Mike Yaklich <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Apology

        Well done on the speech, Bob.  Good luck when you present it in real
time.

        Regards

        Mike Yaklich

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

Date:    Thu, 13 Apr 1995 13:25:13 GMT
From:    Dan Wilson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: MEDIA:YAMATO

     And speaking of Japanese battleships, I'm reading Ballantine's
     Illustrated history of WWII No.11, Leyte Gulf (Page 143). They refer
     to a hermaphrodite battleship. Anyone know what they mean by that?
     Sure doesn't make sense using the definition of hermaphrodite I
     learned on the playground.

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: MEDIA:YAMATO
Author:  _WWII-L (SMTP.WWIIL) at SSWGATE
Date:    04/13/95 12:53 PM

        To expand on Ben Frank's post regarding the YAMATO's plan for a one-way
cruise-- in the "best-case" scenario the ship was supposed to beach itself on
Okinawa and serve as a heavy battery aiding the defenses, and carried extra
460-mm HE shells for this purpose.

        Regards

        Mike Yaklich

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

Date:    Thu, 13 Apr 1995 13:35:02 -0500
From:    "Louis R. Coatney" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ireland in World War II ?

>  >> The fact that Mr deValera sent a message of condolence to Germany
>  >> after the death if Hitler in no way implies any suggestion that
>  >> Ireland as a whole was "pro Nazi".
>  >> It simply meant that Mr deValera seemed to take neutral diplomacy
>  >> a bit far; naivete, not Nazidom.
>  >> The deValera letter had little -- if any -- relationship to Ireland's
>  >> thousands of years of history.
>  >> [Sid Allinson]
>  >
>  >Jack, Jim, Sid?!,
>  >
>  >Give me/us a break!  The Irish were so obsessed by their hatred
>  >  of Britain that they couldn't join the rest of the world
>  >  community in fighting Nazism ... at least by the end of the
>  >  war?  Even *Brazil* was in it!
>
> Ah Lou, I see you are up to your old tricks again.  I thought we
> had gotten rid of you once but you are resurrected again.  OK, let

My questions/points make folks feel ... uncomfortable, do they,
  Jack?  :-)

> me explain things to you.
>
> Each country of the world has a RIGHT to make it's own choices on
> whether to wage war or not.  Look at the U.S.  The war in Europe
> started on 1 Sep 1939.  We did not go to war until the Japanese
> attacked Pearl Harbor on 7 Dec 1941.  WHY?  Simple, the American
> people did NOT want to go to war again; they had had enough in
> World War I.  We finally declared war on Japan ONLY on 8 Dec 1941.
> Then Hitler did something really stupid; he declared war on the
> U.S. on 10 Dec 1941 and we reciprocated the next day.  I hate "what
> if" questions but (1) "what if" the Japanese had not attacked us
> and/or (2) "what if" Hitler had not declared war on the U.S.?  Would
> we have gone to war???

We *were* getting into it, Jack.  The 50 4-pipers, Lend-Lease,
  Iceland, Neutrality Patrol, U.S. military "observers" sharing
  line duties, etc., all show the trend.  Hitler would have
  had to declare war on us, sometime.  Our "neutrality" had
  already become a joke.

> Let us play another "what if" game.  Assume that Washington,
> Franklin, Jefferson, et al., had LOST the Rebellion and the British
> had done the same things to the American as they had the Irish.
> Also assume that the English had performed as well in the 1845-1849
> American potato famine; and the Americans finally won their war of
> Independence against Britain in 1921 except that New England was
> partitioned and remained part of Britain; and finally, the Brits
> occupied naval bases in New York City, Philadelphia, and
> Charleston until 1938.  Would you have been willing to go to war
> and fight the Germans if you had been an American citizen in 1939.

Considering France -- our Revolutionary War ally, and the "other"
  "sponsor" of the N. American colonies -- had been overrun/
  subjugated by the Nazis, YES.  Again, my point was/is that
  Britain wasn't the *only* Ally and opponent to Evil incarnate.

>  >If Ambassador to Ireland Gray was insufferable, what was
>  >  Ambassador to Great Britain Joe Kennedy?  He was telling FDR
>  >  to chuck the British because they wouldn't/couldn't fight!
>  >  (And what *was* John F. Kennedy doing, "fraternizing" with
>  >  a beautiful Nazi agent?)
>
> That's it Lou, throw more of your bovine excrement into the works.
> Joe Kennedy did NOT remain as Ambassador to the Court of St. James
> throughout the war; he resigned and came home before we got into
> the war.  Gray remained Ambassador until the Irish forced his
> ouster in 1946 by complaining to the State Department.  His
> "savior," FDR, had died by then and he had nobody to protect him.
> And what the hell does whatever JFK did have to do with this
> discussion.  Get a life Lou!

:-)  (Old Joe was only cashiered after Britain won the Battle of
       Britain, though, Jack.)

>  >Considering how Churchill attacked the French Fleet in June 1940
>  >  and had prepared to invade Norway in early 1941, I don't think
>  >  the Irish need to feel singled out -- persecuted.  Churchill
>  >  and the British were *desperate* in 1939-41 -- with good reason
>  >  -- and I wonder how many ships those "treaty ports" might have
>  >  saved for their contribution to the "Good War."  How many days
>  >  might the war have been shortened by those ships and how many
>  >  thousands of innocent lives saved?
>
> The Brits invading Norway in 1941 would have been fine because the
> Germans had occupied the country in 1940.  And you are saying that
> if a country is *desperate*, they are entitled to do anything?
> Seems to me that one of Hitler's arguments was that Germany was
> *desperate* for more land for it's people and that is why they had
> to occupy all of Europe.  And finally, "Good War?"  There are NO
> good wars!

No, Jack.  The Brits were making plans to invade Norway *before*
  the Germans did.  The Anglo-American "protective occupation" of
  Iceland is another case in point of the importance of strategic
  bases.

(Gudmundur, any comments on Island?  :-)  )

"The Good War" is Studs Terkel's book title and quite appropriate,
  unless you consider the active opposition to Evil immoral.  By
  1939, Britain was somewhat less arrogant and inhuman than it had
  been up through the end of World War I.

>  >Eire *needs* a lengthy (if futile) apologetica for its
>  >  (irresponsible) neutrality during World War II.  Unlike
>  >  Switzerland, it was in no serious danger of Axis invasion, ever.
>
> That's your opinion Lou.  Personally, I don't feel I have to
> apologize for what the Republic of Ireland did in their own self
> interest.  Many people in this world, including Americans and
> especially American vets, are waiting for the Japanese to apologize
> for their activities during the war.  There are also many people in
> the world waiting for the British to apologize for 768 years of
> brutality, oppression, genocide, etc.

You're right, Jack.  The Brits *do* owe the Irish a formal, public
  apology -- but not Northern Ireland.

>  >This raises another, more serious question which follows in a
>  >  separate post.
>  >
>  >Lou Coatney
>  >[email-masked]
>
> Finally Lou, you seem to be a hawk.  What branch of the military
> were you in?
>
> [Jack MacKillop]

A "hawk"?  I believe in using military force readily, to prevent
  militarism from getting another start in the world and beginning
  another, more terminal world war.  That's all.

I volunteered for the Draft in late '66, after I discovered my
  Board had lost my records, Jack.  Although I knew the Vietnam
  War was a just war -- to defend the Indochinese from the
  subjugation and genocide which *did* follow our desertion of
  them -- I was quite glad not to have to go there and probably
  die in a lost war for a nation/people that would only betray
  me.

I counted every day and served my time honorably.

What is your military service background, Jack?  (You can reply
  to this, back-channel, if you like.)

Lou Coatney, [email-masked]

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

Date:    Thu, 13 Apr 1995 13:40:04 EST
From:    Roger Coon <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Re[2]: MEDIA:YAMATO

Mike,
        The Japanese battleships Ise and Hyuga, orginially mounting
12-14" (6x2) had the last pair of turrets removed and a brief flight
deck put in place.  They were to carry 22 single engine amphibious
aircraft if memory serves, although I don't believe that they ever
actually did.  I am sure that these are the hermoaphroditic BBs in
question.  At one time there was discussion of doing the same to the
Fuso and Yamashiro (probably the ugliest battleships of the war) but
it never came about before they were sunk.
Hope that helps,
Brad Coon

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

Date:    Thu, 13 Apr 1995 13:45:55 -0500
From:    "Louis R. Coatney" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ireland in World War II

> >Considering how Churchill attacked the French Fleet in June 1940
> >  and had prepared to invade Norway in early 1941, I don't think
> >  the Irish need to feel singled out -- persecuted.
>
> Are you talking about when the English AND French scuttled the fleet? And you are talking

Ummm ... No.  ??  I'm talking about when Force H from Gibraltar
  *attacked* the French Battle Squadron at anchor at Mers El Kebir
  (Oran) and blew up the BRETAGNE (killing almost 1,000 French
  sailors) and badly damaged DUNKERQUE and assorted other ships.

> about Nazi-occupied Norway -- I don't think Norwiegans would have felt too put-upon. Perhaps
> you missed these observations during your flame-induced absence from the list.

Maybe I should have been here for the discussion, then.  The Norwegians
  were prepared to fight *anybody* who violated their neutrality.  A
  few of their officers were pro-German, at that.

> -- Jim Brady
> E-mail: [email-masked]
>

Lou Coatney, [email-masked]

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

Date:    Thu, 13 Apr 1995 13:54:03 -0500
From:    "Louis R. Coatney" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Catholics (and Fascism) and Nazism

Good, strong and informative post rejecting my notion of
  any collaboration between the Vatican and the Nazis, David.

However, a few lingering questions:

1. Did the Vatican protest the Fascist Italian invasion of
  Ethiopia?

2. Have you seen the book WHILE THE POPE KEPT SILENT, by
  Alexander Ramati?  It is about the occupation/devestation
  of Assissi by the Nazis, after Sep43, presumably.  I
  *believe* Ramati is/was a priest.

    I realize the Pope was worried about retaliation -- not
  only against the Church, but against Catholics generally
  -- but why no direct appeal to Hitler for compassion?
  (Or did he?)

Lou Coatney, [email-masked]

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

Date:    Thu, 13 Apr 1995 11:58:22 -0700
From:    Jim O'Neil <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Rommel and other generals vs. Monty

>However, also consider why Montgomery preferred to fight in this
>fashion. His attitude was motivated out of the following
>considerations:
>
>    1. Materiel-Britain did not have access to the huge amounts of
>such as did the Americans.
>
>
>    2. His plodding, methodical planning, was derived from a WWI
>mentality that was prevalent during those days. The British never
>seemed to get away from the psychological effects of the terrible
>carnage experienced in WWI. It was this fear of repetition of
>mistakes that led to such caution.
>
Terry
3. And of great importance - The British could not afford to lose too many
more men. They had not fully recovered from WW I and they had sustained
*large* losses of manpower [both casualties & Captured] from 1939 thru '42.
Britians demographics still showed the effects of these two wars as late as
the mid-70's.

Jim O'Neil   Indecision is the cornerstone of Military Flexibility

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

Date:    Thu, 13 Apr 1995 14:08:35 GMT-6
From:    "Robert T. Moore" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Rommel and other generals vs. Monty

Hello, Alan!

Would like to add to your post.

> I think Op Market Garden, an obvious failure termed success by Monty,

    I think that is correct. Monty wanted to put a good face on a bad
situation.

> was a waste of lives over material. I understand that Monty wanted to
> apply pressure to the launching areas of the V-1 & 2, but one airborne
> div, landing behind the lines, against a panzer division, for a bridge?

    Not really. He was looking to use this area to launch an attack
into the Ruhr. Had the operation succeeded, there is a very good
chance that he could have done so and, arguably, shortened the war,
as it was Ruhr, that provided much of the impetus for Hitler's war
making capability.

    Regarding landing one division behind the lines on top of one
Pz.Div. There were actually two, the 9th (Hohenstaufen) and 10th
(Frundsberg) SS- Panzer divisions that were sent there for rest and
replenishment. The corps was commanded by Willi Bittrich, one of the
earliest members of the Waffen-SS.

    British intelligence refused to believe that there were any
German units there of consequence and went ahead with the operation,
even so.

    Thanks for allowing me to add to your post.

    All the best.

    Terry

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

Date:    Thu, 13 Apr 1995 15:03:07 EDT
From:    "SGM Robert S. Rush" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Re[2]: MEDIA:YAMATO

Dan,
Don't have my data with me, but believe the Hyuga and Ise (sp) were
hermaphrodite in that the aft main gun turrets were removed and short
flight decks added.  Planes could fly off, but don't know how they
would land (splash?). Much like the catapult Hurricane fighters on
some of the merchantmen during the early years of the Battle for the
Atlantic.

Hope this helps.

Rob Rush
[email-masked]

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

Date:    Thu, 13 Apr 1995 15:50:21 -0400
From:    Christopher Dale Bailey <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: hitler declaration of war on U.S.

On Thu, 13 Apr 1995, Joseph Spruill, Captain, U.S.S. Enterprise wrote:

>         Was Hitler bound by the German-Japanese to declare war on the U.S.
> or was Hitler just being stupid.  I'm a bit confused there.
>
> Joey
>
Hitler was not bound by anything to declare war on the US, his treaty
with Japan was purely defensive.  As was stated a few days ago, the
decision to declare war on the US was one of Hitler's many dumb moves.  I
believe however as has been stated here before that the Uinted States and
Germany were on a collision course and bound to go to war one way or the
other.

                        Chris Bailey  LaGrange College, LaGrange, GA
                        [email-masked]
                        "Rommel"

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

Date:    Thu, 13 Apr 1995 15:22:40 GMT-6
From:    "Robert T. Moore" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: WEAP: Ship designations

Hello, Jorge!

I don't think so. They used names to convey the type of ship and I
don't have access to the system that was used. I think flowers or
names thereof in Japanese were used for destroyers.

    You might try getting a copy of Japanese Destroyer Captain. That
is discussed in there as I remember.

 Sorry I couldn't be of more
assistance.

All the best.

Terry

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

Date:    Thu, 13 Apr 1995 15:23:23 GMT-6
From:    "Robert T. Moore" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: hitler declaration of war on U.S.

Hello, Joey!

No. He wasn't being stupid. It was the one time in the war that he
honored a treaty commitment.

Terry

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

Date:    Thu, 13 Apr 1995 15:24:41 GMT-6
From:    "Robert T. Moore" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: atomic bombs

Hello, Joey!

To answer your question. No. The Japanese would have felt it was a
trick or a hoax and to convince those at home at what they saw and/or
heard would have been difficult to convey.

Terry

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

Date:    Thu, 13 Apr 1995 16:45:42 -0500
From:    "Mr. Orange" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Its that time again....

        Yep, it's nearing the end of the semester for all us college students
  on this list. That means papers are going to be due and pleas for help
  on finding references. So with out further ado, here's my plea for help....

        I'm doing a biography on Omar Bradley. Not as extensive aa a paper
   that Chris was doing, meaning I don't have to act him out, but just a
   10 page blurb on the life of Gen. Bradley. I would appreciate any information
   references, stories, accounts, or anything you boys can throw at me.

        I've been following this list ardently for about five months now and
    I have to say it's been some very interesting reading. No, that wasn't a
    kiss-up. So if any of you can toss me some info, I'll send you a cookie..

                Thanks in advance,
                        Mike Baker, Edinboro University of PA
                           The "Other" Edinburgh
                        [email-masked]

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

Date:    Thu, 13 Apr 1995 17:00:19 EDT
From:    Henry Sirotin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: GEOG:Concentration Camps

Dear Bill,

Thanks for the correction; two hours sleep will do that.

Regards,

Henry

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

Date:    Thu, 13 Apr 1995 17:15:52 EDT
From:    Henry Sirotin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Is haddo a fish?

_Many_ years ago, either the Naval Institute Proceedings or
Readers Digest (now there's a pair!) ran an article by one of
the officers who selected submarine names. By some time in 1944,
they had run out of common names and all the practical alternatives.            He said that at that point, they chose
"fish-sounding words" out of the dictionary and ran them by
the ichthyologists at either the Museum of Natural History
in NYC or the Smithsonian (as I said, I read this a _long_
time ago), who assigned the words as names to rare fish known
to that point only by their Latin scientific terms. The Navy would
then use these "officially certified" names for the subs. Was he
kidding? I don't know, but someday it might be interesting to take
a look at what fish the high numbered WWII boats actually
represent.

Henry Sirotin

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

Date:    Thu, 13 Apr 1995 15:08:32 CDT
From:    Michael P LaForge <[email-masked]>
Subject: Sandy Neck Bomb Target

Hello all!!

  I am seeking information on another Formerly Used Defense
 Site (FUDS) as part of the Defense Environmental Restoration
 Program (DERP).

  This time the site is a former bomb target in Massachusetts
 on Cape Cod called Sandy Neck Bomb Target.  The target was
 located on the Sandy Neck Spit in Barnstable County, on the
 north side of Barnstable Harbor.  This search for archival
 information is being conducted prior to a site inspection to
 be completed in June 1995.  The site inspection and personal
 interviews will seek to determine what types of ordnance were
 expended on the site during its use as a target during the Second
 World War.

  After determination of the amount and types of ordnance
 present, the site will be prioritized for cleanup by the US
 Army Corps of Engineers in Huntsville, Alabama.

  The type of information we are seeking concerns types of
 ordnance used, aircraft delivering the ordnance, occurrences
 of explosive accidents and injuries due to disturbed ordnance items
 as well as discussions with former military and civilian personnel
 familiar with the site.

  Any and all responses are appreciated and feel free to back
 channel me rather than cluttering the list if you like.

 Mike LaForge
 U.S. Army Technical Center for Explosives Safety (USATCES)
 Explosives Safety Logistics Division (ESL)
 Defense Environmental Restoration Program - Formerly Used
 Defense Sites(DERP-FUDS)
 DSN: 585-8762  FAX: 585-6009  COMM: 815-273-8762

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

Date:    Thu, 13 Apr 1995 17:08:00 CDT
From:    Alex Bielakowski <[email-masked]>
Subject: Monty

Despite his many accomplishments in North Africa (I still think he would
have lost if Rommel had had the same amounts of men, tanks, and supplies
), I have never been able to forgive Monty for Operation Market-Garden.
That operation was badly planned and thought out.  Many of the other
Allies realized it wouldn't work, but in the spirit of co-operation they
sent thousands of men to their deaths.  I especially remember the fate
of the Polish 1st Independent Parachute Brigade, who had been willing to
die jumping into Warsaw during the uprising, but who were spared in
order for them to die uselessly in the Netherlands.

Alex Bielakowski

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

Date:    Thu, 13 Apr 1995 18:09:57 -0400
From:    Carlos R Rivera <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: hitler declaration of war on U.S.

>
> Hello, Joey!
>
> No. He wasn't being stupid. It was the one time in the war that he
> honored a treaty commitment.
>
> Terry
>
---might I differ here?  What about the secret protocols of the August 1939
treaty between Germany and the Soviets, which divided Poland between the two.
CRivera

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

Date:    Thu, 13 Apr 1995 17:35:41 CST
From:    Gary R Speer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: TRIVIA: DUKW - Vehicle id

To:   "William L. Huber - SAA" <[email-masked]>

 - - - - - -
>It was Ike who said there were 3 big factors in the US success
>in Europe -   the C-47, the jeep and the DUKW.

>He had high praise for those ugly beasts but they really did the job.

> Cheers, Bill Huber / [email-masked]

What about those Large, Slow Targets (LST's)?

Gary Speer

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

Date:    Thu, 13 Apr 1995 15:16:35 -0700
From:    "Haque,Sultan" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Rommel and other generals vs. Monty

Alan Wild said:

>I think Op Market Garden, an obvious failure termed
>success by Monty was a waste of lives over material.
>I understand that Monty wanted to
>apply pressure to the launching areas of the V-1 & 2,
>but one airborne div, landing behind the lines, against
>a panzer division, for a bridge?

Correct.  Not only did Monty squander lives in a futile
attempt to take the shine off Patton's Third Army exploits
but, by diverting much needed gasoline from Patton,
effectively prevented him from driving onto Berlin
and ending the war in the West months earlier.

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

Date:    Fri, 14 Apr 1995 01:12:40 +0200
From:    Emmanuel Gustin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Rommel and other generals vs. Monty

On Thu, 13 Apr 1995, Jim O'Neil wrote:

> 3. And of great importance - The British could not afford to lose too many
> more men. They had not fully recovered from WW I and they had sustained
> *large* losses of manpower [both casualties & Captured] from 1939 thru '42.
> Britians demographics still showed the effects of these two wars as late as
> the mid-70's.

But did it work? Monty seemed to prefer frontal attacks on the enemy,
crushing them through overwhelming power. He tried it at El Alamein, when
crossing from Sicily to Italy, at Caen, and when crossing the Rhine.
Probably also on other occasions. Sometimes it worked, but sometimes it
didn't: the first attack at El Alamein and a large series of attacks at
Caen were failures. The cost of this must have been rather high, although
I have no idea of the numbers.

On the other hand, Montgomery often failed to grasp the opportunity for a
quick and cheap 'kill'. His slow chase of Rommel across the Desert is the
most infamous one. His failure to close the gap at Falaise at an early
stage was another, but it must be admitted that Bradley carries some of
the blame for that (which he honestly accepted).

Someone commented on Montgomery's 'British' style of warfare.
Montgomery's frontal attacks and obsession with artillery seem somehow
similar to Russian operations at the Eastern front. Perhaps he was not
so unique as he preferred to think :-). But then, the Russian tactics are
generally regarded as horribly wasteful with lives.  The German style of
warfare, also honored by the Americans, insisted on fighting a battle on
a limited scale to create an opportunity --- such as operation 'Cobra' or
the breakthrough at Sedan --- which then is exploited to crush the enemy
at low cost.

Finally, Market-Garden may have been daring, but it was also very
Montgomerish in that it stretched all available resources to the limit
and beyond, in order to shorten to war but also to enhance the glory of
the originator. The Polish paratroopers in Arnhem were dropped piecemeal
simply because there were not enough aircraft available.

Emmanuel Gustin

\ Emmanuel Gustin                                     [email-masked] /
|           Physics Department, University of Antwerp, Belgium            |
|      -------------------------------------------------------------      |
|                     From StdTxts IMPORT Disclaimer;                     |
/     Aviation & Military History Page : http://www.vestnett.no/vulcan/   \

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

Date:    Thu, 13 Apr 1995 19:03:39 EDT
From:    "SGM Robert S. Rush" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Hermaphrodite BBs]

Mike,
found it
>From S&S Encyclopedia of WWII
"In reaction to heavy carrier losses at Midway and in the Solomons, both
Hyuga and Ise were refitted n 1943.  The two after turrets were replaced
by an aircraft deck covering a hanger for 22 dive bombers.  In action,
planes were to be lauched by two catapults... For lack of trained pilots,
neither of these ships was ever used as a carrier. Both were sunk in
late 1945."

Still haven't figured out how they planned to recover the aircraft.

Rob Rush
[email-masked]

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

Date:    Thu, 13 Apr 1995 19:53:00 EDT
From:    mc killop <[email-masked]>
Subject: [INF] USAAF 14 APR 45

COMBAT CHRONOLOGY OF THE US ARMY AIR FORCES
SATURDAY, 14 APRIL 1945
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
  A-26, Douglas Invader
  B-17, Boeing Flying Fortress
  B-24, Consolidated Liberator
  B-25, North American Mitchell
  B-26, Martin Marauder
  B-29, Boeing Superfortress
  F-5, Lockheed Lightning
  L-5, Stinson Sentinel
  Mosquito, de Havilland
  P-38, Lockheed Lightning
  P-40, Curtiss
  P-47, Republic Thunderbolt
  P-51, North American Mustang

NOTE: A number in parenthesis after a target name indicates the number of
bombers attacking.

CHINA-BURMA-INDIA THEATER

  CHINA THEATER (Fourteenth Air Force): In China, 24 B-24s, supported by 12
P-51s, bomb Loyang and knock out a bridge over the Yellow River; 30+ B-25s
and 130+ fighter bombers attack bridges (knocking out at least 6), river,
road, and rail traffic, troops, storage areas, town areas, and general
targets of opportunity over the vast expanse of S and E China; the 118th
Tactical Reconnaissance Squadron, Fourteenth AF (attached to 23d Fighter
Group), based at Chengkung, begins operating from Laohwangping with P-40s and
P-51s.

  INDIA-BURMA THEATER (Tenth Air Force): In Burma, 41 P-47s and P-38s attack
troops, supplies, and fuel dumps at Tawnghkam Nawng-hkam, Mong Kung, Loi-
makhkawn, and Nawngkaw; 8 P-38s damage bridges at Kong pau and Kyawngteng;
446 transport flights are flown to forward areas.

EUROPEAN THEATER OF OPERATIONS (ETO)

  STRATEGIC OPERATIONS (Eighth Air Force): 3 missions are flown.
  Mission 948: 1,167 bombers are dispatched without escort to visually attack
enemy pockets on the French Gironde estuary; 2 B-24s are lost; other Allied
AFs and French naval units attack similar targets; the air attacks precede a
ground assault by a French detachment of the Sixth Army Group on the defense
pockets which deny the Allies use of port facilities in the Bordeaux area:
  1. 480 of 490 B-17s hit 15 strongpoints and flak batteries in the Bordeaux/
Royan, Pointe Coubre and Pointe Grave areas; 1 B-17 is damaged beyond repair
and 1 damaged; 1 airman is WIA.
  2. 315 of 336 B-24s hit 12 strongpoints and flak batteries in the same area
as Force 1; 2 B-24s are lost, 3 damaged beyond repair and 1 damaged; 18
airmen are KIA, 8 WIA and 12 MIA.
  3. 338 of 341 B-17s attack 4 strongpoints and flak batteries in the
Bordeaux/Royan area without loss.
  4. 31 P-47s and P-51s fly scouting missions.
  5. 9 of 11 P-51s escort 8 F-5s on photo reconnaissance missions over
Royan and Germany.
  Mission 949: 10 of 11 B-24s drop leaflets in Germany, the Netherlands and
France during the night.
  Mission 950: An experimental bombing operation is flown by a Mosquito and
B-24s against Neuruppin Airfield, Germany; the mission is unsuccessful.
  1 of 4 B-24s completes a CARPETBAGGER mission to Denmark during the night.
  HQ 352d Fighter Group and the 486th and 487th Fighter Squadrons move from
Chievres, Belgium to Bodney, England with P-51s.

  TACTICAL OPERATIONS (Ninth Air Force): In Germany, 18 B-26s fly a leaflet
mission in the Ruhr area; fighters fly patrols, sweeps, and armed
reconnaissance, and support the US 3d Armored Division SW of the Elbe/Mulde
River junction near Dessau, the 9th Armored Division in the Borna and
Lobstadt area, XX Corps elements which continue to arrive at the Zwickauer
Mulde River, the VIII Corps along the Weisse Elster River S of Gera, XII
Corps elements in the Bayreuth area, the 2d and 5th Armored Divisions along
the Elbe River in the Barby-Magdeburg and Tangermunde areas. Units moving in
Germany: HQ XXIX Tactical Air Command (Provisional) to Gutersloh; HQ 84th and
HQ 303d Fighter Wings from Haltern to Gutersloh; HQ 100th Fighter Wing from
Metz, France to Konigstein; 167th Liaison Squadron, Ninth AF (attached to
Sixth Army Group) from Kaiserslautern to Pfaffengrund with L-5s; the 377th
and 378th Fighter Squadrons, 362d Fighter Group from Rouvres, France to
Frankfurt with P-47s; the 389th and 390th Fighter Squadrons, 366th Fighter
Group, from Asch, Belgium to Handorf Airfield, Munster with P-47s.

MEDITERRANEAN THEATER OF OPERATIONS (MTO)

  STRATEGIC OPERATIONS (Fifteenth Air Force): 318 B-17s and B-24s hit
ammunition factories at Avigliana, Spilimbergo, Malcontenta, and Palmanova,
and a motor transport depot at Osoppo, Italy and the Klagenfurt, Austria
marshalling yard as a target of opportunity; 158 fighters provide escort; 29
P-38s bomb and strafe railroad targets in the Munich and Regensburg, Germany-
Linz, Austria areas; 54 P-51s fly escort for MATAF B-25s bombing targets in N
Italy.

  TACTICAL OPERATIONS (Twelfth Air Force): In Italy during the night of 13/14
Apr, A-20s and A-26s continue to hit communications in the Po Valley; bad
weather over the N part of the Brenner line prevents medium bomber attacks
but the B-25s hit alternates on the S part of line at Salorno, San Ambrogio
di Valpolicella, and Chiusaforte, bomb guns SE of La Spezia in support of the
US Fifth Army, and hit 5 defensive positions along the British Eighth Army
front in the Argenta area; fighter bombers concentrate on supporting Fifth
Army forces SW of Bologna.

PACIFIC OCEAN AREA (POA)

  AAFPOA (Seventh Air Force): 24 Angaur Island-based B-24s pound supply and
personnel areas at Tigatto in the Philippine Islands.

  HQ AAF (Twentieth Air Force): B-29 units arriving at Northwest Field, Guam
Island from the US: HQ 16th Bombardment Group (Very Heavy) and the 16th and
17th Bombardment Squadrons (Very Heavy); HQ 501st Bombardment Group (Very
Heavy) and the 21st and 485th Bombardment Squadrons (Very Heavy).

SOUTHWEST PACIFIC AREA [SWPA, Far East Air Force (FEAF)]: B-25s sweep the
Canton-Hong Kong, China waterways, hitting shipping and other targets and
B-24s bomb four airfields on Formosa. In the Philippine Islands, B-24s,
B-25s, A-20s, and fighter bombers fly numerous strikes in support of ground
forces and against airfields, gun positions, defenses, and troop
concentrations throughout Luzon, Cebu, Negros, and Mindanao Islands.

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
WORLD WAR II IN THE NORTH PACIFIC by Kevin D. Hutchinson, 1994,
  ISBN-0-313-29130-6

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 them.  |
|  [email-masked]  |                       FDR              |
-------------------------------------------------------------------

13/2351Z APR

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

Date:    Thu, 13 Apr 1995 20:08:02 -0400
From:    COHEN <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: hitler declaration of war on U.S.

                       Concerning Terry's reply to Joey about Hitler's
declaration of war, I may be wrong but I believe Hitler was under
no obligation to declare war because the Axis treaty only said one
party had to come to the aid of the other only if that country were
attacked by a third party.
                                        Harold J. Cohen
                                        Ithaca College

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

Date:    Thu, 13 Apr 1995 20:13:30 EDT
From:    Henry Sirotin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Kwantung Army 1943-45

For the first two years of the general Pacific War (1941-43) the
Kwantung Army included between 13 and 17 divisions, all of them
considered "first-line." Some specialized units were withdrawn
for service elsewhere in 1941-1943, but for the most part the
KA was at peak strength in January 1944, when it consisted of
these 17 divisions: 1,8,9,10,11,12,14,23,24,25,27,28,29,57,71
Infantry Divs; 1,2 Tank Divs. These field formations were
supported by some Independent Mixed Brigades and numbers of
Border Guard and Line-of-Communication Units (these were
formal titles), as well as corps and army units. It should be
noted the Imperial General Staff regarded this elite force
too weak to defend Manchuria- their estimate was a minimum
of 30 fully effective divisions to hold against the Russians.

In the event, these divisions were almost entirely withdrawn
by April 1945. In many cases, they were pulled out piecemeal,
with separate battalions formed into "Expeditionary Units."
This process could drain up to a third of a division at a time.
The schedule was approximately as follows (dates may be off by
about a month in some cases, and represent the first movement of
a division's units; destinations are where the various "ExUnits"                and divisional remnants were committed by August 1945):
August 1945):
 1 ID   Jun44   Guam, China
 8 ID   Jul44   Eniwetok, Philippines
 9 ID   Jun44   Carolines, Okinawa
10 ID   Jul44   Carolines, Philippines, Formosa
11 ID   Jun44   Guam, bulk of div to Japan Mar45
12 ID   Jan45   Formosa
14 ID   Feb44   Palaus
23 ID   Nov44   Philippines
24 ID   Jul44   Carolines, Yap
25 ID   Jul44   Carolines, bulk of div to Japan Mar45
27 ID   Feb44   China
28 ID   Jun44   Okinawa
29 ID   Feb44   Guam
57 ID   Mar45   Japan
71 ID   Jun44?  Marianas, bulk of div to Japan Mar 45
 1 TD   Mar45   Japan
 2 TD   Jul44   Philippines

By July 1944, there were only seven divisions in th KA, including the
newly formed 107 ID. All divisions numbered from about 100 to 119
were created in 1944 and were rated at 1/3-1/2 the effectiveness of
elite units; all divisions 120 and above were 1945 divisions, and were
even weaker. In January 1945, the official estimate was that the KA
had 50% of its January 1943 capability (newly formed units had replaced
the withdrawn formations) and was seriously deficient in weapons, air
power, armor, engineering and communications. Officers, especially
company grade, were in very short supply, and the army had no reserve.
On 15 March 45 all remaining elements still assigned to the first line
divisions were ordered back to Japan. The new divisions formed
in Manchuria in 1944 and 1945 were pulled together from second-
and third-line elements, chiefly Border Guard and Line-of-Communication         Units, stiffened by IMB combat units and a few units left behind by the
withdrawn divisions. Apparently few of the large number of men
mobilized in 1944-45 in Japan were sent to Manchuria, as the General
Staff was afraid they would lose control of the Sea of Japan to
American air/sea power, and the men could not be brought home.

There were 24 divisions in the KA when the Russians struck in August 1945.
With the Japanese estimate of their combat effectiveness (100%=first-line),
these were:
 39 ID   80%  brought from China, Jul45
 59 ID   40%          "           Jun-Jul45
 63 ID   40%          "           Jun45
 79 ID   55%          "           Jul45
107 ID   60%  formed Manchuria, Mar?44
108 ID   65%         "          Jul44
112 ID   35%
117 ID   40%  brought from China, Jun45
119 ID   70%  formed Manchuria, Oct44; high effectiveness because it
  included elements and equipment of the 23 ID
122-128 ID, inclusive   20% each   all formed Manchuria, Feb45
134-139 ID, inclusive   15% each            "            late Spr?45
148 ID   15%  formed Manchuria, late Spr?45
149 ID   15%              "

This equals an overall combat effectiveness for the KA of 33%, or eight
divisional equivalents (as against the minimum of 30 estimated to be
required) when the Russians attacked. In fact, when questions of
equipment, supply, and unit cohesion are raised, they may not have
had that level of efficiency.

The major source for these details was MIZUMACHI Katsushiro, JAPANESE
PREPARATIONS FOR OPERATIONS IN MANCHURIA, JANUARY 1943-AUGUST 1945,
Japanese Monograph 138, Military History Section, Headquarters,
Army Forces Far East, 1953.

Henry Sirotin

(Note to Mike Yaklich: I'm sorry, I didn't see your all Manchuria posts.
Our system was down part time and I missed one or two. I hope this
doesn't duplicate too much of it.)

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

Date:    Thu, 13 Apr 1995 17:17:33 -0700
From:    Sidney Allinson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: IRELAND IN WWII

Despite the awkward relations between neutral Ireland and the United Kingdom
which was fighting the Axis during the Second World War, there was a certain
amount of dicreet co-operation.
        Discreet, in that neither country felt it politic to make a public
show of aiding and abetting...
        One significan contribution made by Ireland to the Battle of the
Atlantic and the war against German U-Boats was by quietly providing what
was known as the "Donegal Corridor".
        The Royal Air Force's Coastal Command's 'air umbrella' could extend
just so fat into the Atlantic.(Ireland's refusal to allow Britain use of
the Treaty Ports near Cork was a factor in this.)
        So as to extend the range of patrol aircraft, the RAF built a
flying-boat base in County Fermagh, which provided an extra 200 miles of
air cover. However, to take advantage of this extended range from the warters
of Lough Erne (Ulster) it was would be neccesary for the British planes to
fly out to the west, over part of Eire's (Ireland's) territory.
        The need was for a narrow air corridor extending from Lough Erne in
Ulster (Northern Ireland) continuing into Donegal Bay via the Ballyshannon
region of Eire.
        Arranging this took some diplomacy. The UK's representative, Sir
John Maffey, met with Ireland's Prime Minister, Taoiseach Eamonn deValera,
on January 21, 1941, and the request for co-operation was granted --
under three conditions:
        Firstly, the arrangement was to be kept secret, not to be made
                public in any way
        Secondly, the such flight over Ireland were to held "aa a good height"
        Thirdly, that flights over Finner Camp, Ireland, was to be avoided.
And so it was that this "secret" arangement was made -- its secret known
only to the entire population of Ireland and Ulster, who could look up at
a crowded sky, any hour of the day.  Locals also helped at the scene of
numerous crashes. In Donegal during WW2, there were 37 crashes of RAF and
USAAF aircraft (Some relics of these crashes are still to be seen in the museum
at Finner Camp.)
        Nine U-Boats were confirmed sunk by RAF planes from Lough Erne by
this route. One was U-456, which in February, 1943, had sunk the neutral Irish
freighter, "Kyleclarke".On May 12 that year, an RAF Sunderland flying-boat
was logged going out to sea over the Donegal Coast Watch station - G for George
of 423 Canadian Squadron, Coastal Command. Soon afterwards, Canadian pilot
Flight Lieutenant Musgrave caught U-456 on the surface, and the U-boat was
sunk after a gun-battle lasting 25 minutes.
        The Irish ship, "Kyleclarke", had been avenged by the RAF, thanks to
the existence of the Donegal Corridor.

The wartime arrangement is not much mentioned these days.

Regards -- Sidney.

--

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

Date:    Thu, 13 Apr 1995 20:29:10 -0400
From:    Ron Charlton <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Monty...other Brit. Generals

Interesting thread re: Monty. C'mon lets not be bashful about our true
feelings about the Field Marshal ;-)

Have you noticed  that for the most part our impression of the British
military in WWII, like or dislike, seems to be focused on that one person,
Montgomery. This is probably because of his interactions with the best known
American trio of Eisenhower, Patton and Bradley.

In my opinion this is unfortunate because we tend to ignore other British
generals who were excellent military leaders and did not run off at the
mouth. The one who immediately come to mind is William Slim, who worked
wonders in Burma.

Ron Charlton
[email-masked]

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

Date:    Thu, 13 Apr 1995 19:38:36 -0500
From:    Terrence Lindell <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: hitler declaration of war on U.S.

Regarding the recent discussion on why Hitler declared war on the
US following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, there is a 1992 article
that addresses the question.  See Gerhard L. Weinberg, "Why Hitler Declared
War on the United States."  _MHQ:  The Quarterly Journal of Military
History_ 4 (Spring 1992): 18-23.

Terry Lindell
Department of History
Wartburg College
Waverly, Iowa  50677
[email-masked]

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

Date:    Thu, 13 Apr 1995 20:46:55 -0400
From:    Ben Frank <[email-masked]>
Subject: ATOMIC BOMBS

Two thoughts come to mind. First of all, we didn't have but two atom bombs
available for immediate use. If one were used in a demonstration, for instance,
as some of the atomic scientists recommended, an explosion over Tokyo Bay, and
there was no Japanese reaction, there would only be one bomb left to use
tactically. As was seen, the dropping of one bomb, the one over Hiroshima,
evinced no reaction from the Japanese. So, as far as I am concerned,
demonstations were out. The dropping of the second bomb forced the Japanese to
sue for peace and end the war, and that was what we
wanted. I cannot agree to any other conclusion but that two bombs had to be
dropped. Ben Frank

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

Date:    Thu, 13 Apr 1995 17:56:46 -0700
From:    Sidney Allinson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Rommel and other generals vs. Monty

Whether a general is a "pain in the ass" or not is an odd criterion for
judgement.
Of any general.
Patton was not exactly a gentleman...  Nor was he tactful. But he was
a very effective military leader.
Slamming Monty is often more a reflection of national "styles" (or
prejudices) than anything.

--

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

Date:    Thu, 13 Apr 1995 18:10:42 -0700
From:    Sidney Allinson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Rommel and other generals vs. Monty

Field Marshal Montgomery's reluctance to sacrifice his men in showy
attacks stemmed from his own personal experiences as a front-line
fighting soldier in the trenches during the First World War.
Incidentally, he was awarded the Distinguished Service Order, Britain's
second highest award, for his "distinguished bravery in the field". It was
very unusual for a DSO to be awarded to any officer below the rank of
Major at the time (when he was a captain).
Monty's actual experience of battle, during a war that killed a million
British and Commonwealth soldiers, made him loathe to waste the lives
of his soldiers in flashy attacks. That, and his unfortunate tendency
to be sure of himself, did not endear himself to many, particularly
Americans. But then, who like Patton, either? Another good soldier, if
a different style. :-)

Sidney.

--

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

Date:    Thu, 13 Apr 1995 21:24:45 EDT
From:    John Davis <[email-masked]>
Subject: INF: 50 Years Ago - 13-APR-1945

On 13-APR-1945, the following occurred -

World War II - The Battlefronts
-------------------------------
Western Front - In the British 2nd Army sector, the XXX Corps is advancing
towards Bremen. The VIII Corps is advancing towards Ulzen. In the U.S. 9th
Army sector, the XVI Corps captures an area north of the Ruhr between
Witten ad Westhofen. In the 3rd Army sector, the XX Corps continues to move
troops across the Weisse-Elster. The VIII Corps is mopping up on the west
bank of the Saal. In the 7th Army sector, the XV Corps enters Bamberg.

Eastern Front - Vienna finally falls to the Russians. The 2nd Ukraine Front
now heads for St Polten.

Philippines - In the I Corps area, the 25th Division continues attacking
northwards on Mt. Myoko. The last of the Japanese defences are overcome on
Caballo Island. The 11th Airborne Division prepares for the final assault
against Mt. Malepunyo and Mt. Macolod. On Cebu, the Americal Division
continues attacking Babay Ridge.

Okinawa - The preinvasion bombardment of Ie Shima is intensified. The 6th
Marine Division prepares to attack Japanese positions on the Yae-Take hill
mass of Motobu Peninsula. The XXIV Corps is occupied mopping up enemy
infiltrators and repelling counter-attacks.

Japan - A massive B-29 raid is carried out on Tokyo, razing a large part of
the city. 327 bombers take part in the raid.

=============================================================================

Sources: "United States Army in World War II, Chronology 1941-1945" compiled
by Mary H. Williams, Office of the Chief of Military History, Department of
the Army, "2194 Days of War" by Cesare Salmaggi and Alfredo Pallavisimi,
"Facts On File Yearbook 1945, Person's Index Of World Events" edited by R.L.
Lapica.

Copyright 1995 by John B Davis, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Previous articles are archived at ftp.webcom.com in directory /pub/jbd/www
and can be accessed via the WWW by URL: http://www.webcom.com/~jbd/ww2.html.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Davis                           |                      [email-masked]
Cary, North Carolina                 |            http://www.webcom.com/~jbd/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date:    Thu, 13 Apr 1995 22:09:58 EDT
From:    Henry Sirotin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Russia enters the Pacific

Dear Andreas,

Sorry for the delay in getting to this.

The Imperial Japanese Army, never having the experience of massed firepower
that all Western armies witnessed in World War I, was never prepared to
deal with Western-style warfare in World War II. They couldn't have
stopped a determined combined arms (infantry-armor-artillery-air) offensive     by the Russians, the Americans, or the British. They adopted some of
the technology they saw (such as tanks and light antitank weapons),
but never fully understood their use or implications. As a Japanese
naval officer commented after a staff conference on why some of
the first Japanese Army units committed on Guadalcanal failed to report
after their first contact with US Marines: "These aren't the Chinese."

I've sent a post on Kwantung Army OB- will try and add IJA TO&E later.

Regards,

Henry Sirotin

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

Date:    Thu, 13 Apr 1995 22:48:29 EDT
From:    Henry Sirotin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: TRIVIA: DUKW - Vehicle id

I think Ike's reference was to "C-47s, the jeep, and _landing craft_."
including everything from th LCVP's on up.

HS

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

Date:    Thu, 13 Apr 1995 22:53:25 -0500
From:    Burt Knight <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Hitler Declares War

What seems to be omitted here is that by December 1941, the US and
Germany had been at war, albeit undeclared, for close to a year.  We
assisted in blockading Germany, helped track german capital ships,
raiders, and submarines, provided weapons for their opponents and we had
 ordered our naval vessels to sink any german warship on sight.
Hitler's declaration, while the second most foolish thing he did in the
war just behind June 22, 1941, cited all the infringements and attacks
on German sovereignty and had as legit a line as the US entry into WW1
as a co- belligerent.
BWK

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

Date:    Thu, 13 Apr 1995 22:53:37 -0500
From:    Burt Knight <[email-masked]>
Subject: HERMAPRODITE BBs

Half Battleship, half Carrier, all bastard and couldn't do either job
well.  Sort of like the Russian combination mortar/shovel which lobbed a
 1/2 lb grenade 400 yards and weighed 30 lbs (no record of it's digging
ability) or the Italian Rifle/Grenade Launcher which used the same bolt
interchangably between two receivers (blank ammunition in the grenade
launcher, standard ammo in the rifle and let's hope we didn't mix it
up).
BWK

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

Date:    Thu, 13 Apr 1995 22:53:47 -0500
From:    Burt Knight <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Ireland in WW2

Ireland furnished a number of volunteers into the Royal Army, Air Force
and Navy but chose to remain neutral as did over 75 other countries
including Switzerland, Sweden, Cuba.

Ireland DID observe the diplomatic nicety of expressing regrets at the
death of another country's head of state, something few other neutrals
did or even considered. As to who was right, I don't know but the rules
of diplomacy are specific and unbending- when another country's leader
dies, you should express some regrets and condolences, even if he was a
'devil' incarnate.

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

Date:    Thu, 13 Apr 1995 22:54:15 -0500
From:    Burt Knight <[email-masked]>
Subject: Montgomery = McClennan?!?

Monty was renowned throughout the British army as a superb 'TRAINER' of
troops, not as a combat leader.  His 3rd Division survived the debacle
in France almost intact and constituted the major mobile reserve of
England after Dunkerque.  He, more than any other general, established
the training and procedures that the UK and Commonwealth armies used
throughout the war.  He was pompous, arrogant, egotistical,
insufferable- in other words he, Patton, and Mark Clark were comparable
personalities.
BWK

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

Date:    Thu, 13 Apr 1995 22:53:35 -0500
From:    "Roddy R. Rupert" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Is haddo a fish?

On Thu, 13 Apr 1995, Henry Sirotin wrote:

> someday it might be interesting to take
> a look at what fish the high numbered WWII boats actually
> represent.
>

Some, if not most, of the high numbered WW-II boat names do seem obscure.
Here is a partial list:

477             CONGER
478             CUTLASS
479             DIABLO
480             MEDREGAL
481             REQUIN
482             IREX
483             SEA LEOPARD
484             ODAX
485             SIRAGO
486             POMODON
487             REMORA
488             SARDA
489             SPINAX
490             VOLADOR

The only name that I can immediately associate with a fish I've either
seen or read about is REMORA, although SEA LEOPARD, CUTLASS, and CONGER
seem reasonable. The rest sound somewhat "fishy" :-)

-------------------------------------------
Rod Rupert    [email-masked]
Springfield, MO

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

End of WWII-L Digest - 12 Apr 1995 to 13 Apr 1995
*************************************************