Subject: WWII-L Digest - 13 Apr 1995 to 14 Apr 1995

From: Automatic digest processor <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 15 Apr 1995 00:02:02 -0400

There are 38 messages totalling 1158 lines in this issue.

Topics of the day:

  1. Help with report on Bradley.
  2. hitler declaration of war...
  3. Is haddo a fish?
  4. Women's WWII Literature (2)
  5. [2]: MEDIA: YAMATO
  6. INF: USN Chronology 04-14-95
  7. Re[2]: MEDIA:YAMATO
  8. Irish Neutrality
  9. TRIVIA: DUKW - Vehicle id (3)
 10. the Catholic Church in WWII.
 11. Its that time again....
 12. hitler declaration of war on U.S. (2)
 13. NOST: Obersalzberg Today (2)
 14. Diplomacy in WW2 (was: Ireland in WW2) (2)
 15. Rommel and other generals vs. Monty (3)
 16. Monty and Market-Garden
 17. Hermaphrodite BBs]
 18. Montgomery = McClennan?!? (2)
 19. Catholic Church and WWII (2)
 20. INF: 50 Years Ago - 14-APR-1945
 21. Accidental killing of Mar
 22. What If?
 23. Italian submarines
 24. IRELAND IN WWII ??
 25. Diplomacy in WW2
 26. Atomic Bombs (2)
 27. ACCIDENTAL KILLING OF

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

Date:    Thu, 13 Apr 1995 23:32:24 -0500
From:    "Louis R. Coatney" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Help with report on Bradley.

Don't forget to include his anecdote about how many people
  it takes to convince a Missouran he *is* a jackass.  :-)

Actually, it seriously reflects Bradley's responsiveness to
  criticisms and suggestions -- in sharp contrast (at least
  seemingly) to officers who only listened to sycophants.

Lou Coatney, [email-masked]

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

Date:    Fri, 14 Apr 1995 00:38:21 -0400
From:    Jodi Berls <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: hitler declaration of war...

I have always thought that one reason Hitler proceeded with his declaration
against the U.S., in support of the Japanese, was that he was hoping the
Japanese would reciprocate by attacking the Russians from the west. Or am I
out to lunch?

Also there were a number of naval officers who considered that the U.S. was
already in the war against Germany anyway, because of its defense of Atlantic
convoys. How much influence these naval officers' opinions would have had is
debatable, of course; but I suspect there wasn't much doubt among Germany's
professional officer corps that the U.S. would have gotten around to fighting
them eventually, in any case.

Jodi Berls
[email-masked]

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

Date:    Fri, 14 Apr 1995 00:38:25 -0400
From:    Jodi Berls <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Is haddo a fish?

Henry Sirotin wrote:

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

I tried this, to the limited, unscientific extent I had time for, and it was.
Two examples laid down in late summer or early fall of 1945 for which I could
actually find an entry in the dictionary: USS *Dogfish* ("any of various
small sharks, such as a spiny dogfish or smooth dogfish" (same thing as a bowf
in) ) and USS *Cusk* ("a large, edible gadoid fish found in the N. Atlantic"
(same thing as a burbot) ). Some of them appear to be names that were not
commonly used in the States; "cusk," for example is listed as "local British."
 There were some others I couldn't find in my trusty Webster's, such as
"diodon," but I'm sold that the story you recount is true.

Thanks for posting that. I've always wondered.

Jodi Berls
[email-masked]

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

Date:    Thu, 13 Apr 1995 22:52:52 -0700
From:    Sidney Allinson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Women's WWII Literature

You've probably come across her by now, but Marguerite Higgins was
probably the doyen of US women war correspondents.

And one of Hemingway's wives (his third, I think) became a noted
war correspondent. (Her name will come back to me the moment I
sign of Internet tonight.)  Drat - her name's on the tip of my
tongue. Anyway, an interesting sidelight was that she became the
paramour of Geroge Millar. Further digression; GM is a fine writer,
author of the best written account of British secret agent (SOE)
with the French Maquis - entitled, suitably enough - MAQUIS. He
met Mrs Hemingway (or ex-Mars hemingway by then ?) in Paris just
after the war, and they had a torrid affair. Millar wrote about it,
after agentlemanly silence of 40 years, in his superb book,
JOURNEY TO RESISISTANCE...
I tell ya, Mary, don't hang around with me - I'll pile so many books
on your reading list, you could never forgive me.  :-)

And his name isn't "Geroge", of course -- it's George Millar.

Enjoy.

Sidney.

--

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

Date:    Thu, 13 Apr 1995 22:54:34 -0700
From:    Sidney Allinson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Women's WWII Literature

Mary...
        There are some good short accounts of womens' experiences in WW2,
in THE GOOD WAR, by Studs Terkel.

--

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

Date:    Fri, 14 Apr 1995 01:57:17 EST
From:    "Carl Wernke - [email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [2]: MEDIA: YAMATO

 On Thu, 13 Apr 1995 15:03:07 EDT SGM Robert S.Rush wrote:
 Dan,
 >Believe the HYUGA and ISE (sp) were hermaphrodite in that the aft main
 > gun turrets were removed and short flight decks added

 Rob,

 ISE: Launched 2 Nov 1916 and completed on 15 Dec 1917; sunk on 28 Jul 1945
 by aircraft of US Task Force 38, five ktm NW of KURE.
 HYUGA: Launched 27 Jan 1917 and completed on 30 Apr 1918; sunk by US
 carrier aircraft of TF 38 at Kure on 24 Jul 1945.

 " In 1943/44 to make good the losses of carriers at Midway, both ships were
   converted to battleship-carriers, with guns forward and a flight deck aft.
   In June 1944 104 25mm AA guns were carried, and by September, 180 5in
   rocket-launchers (6 x 30). In October 1944, the catapults were removed to
   improve the arcs of fire for 'P' & 'Q' turrets."

   Resulting problem: Launch and recovery of aircraft. ???  Any ideas ?

   Carl Wernke
   [email-masked]

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

Date:    Fri, 14 Apr 1995 04:00:10 PST
From:    "Keller, Theron P." <[email-masked]>
Subject: INF: USN Chronology 04-14-95

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

1945
04/14 Sat.  United States naval vessels damaged, Okinawa area:
             Battleship NEW YORK (BB-34), by suicide plane,
              26 d. 00'N., 128 d. 00'E.
             Destroyer SIGSBEE (DD-502), by suicide plane,
              27 d. 15'N., 130 d. 25'E.
             Destroyer DASHIELL (DD-659), by suicide plane,
              27 d. 15'N., 130 d. 25' E.
             Destroyer HUNT (DD-674), by suicide plane,
              27 d. 15'N., 130 d. 25'E.
             Gunboat PGM-11, by grounding,
              26 d. 13'N., 127 d. 27'E.
             LST 241, by collision,
              14 d. 38'N,, 140 d. 19'E.
            Japanese naval vessels sunk:
             Frigate NOMI, by submarine TIRANTE (SS-420),
              East China Sea,
              33 d. 25'N., 126 d. 15'E.
             Coast defense vessel NO. 31, by submarine TIRANTE (SS-420),
              East China Sea,
              33 d. 25'N., 126 d. 15'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 22:32:23 -1000
From:    John DeVirgilio <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Re[2]: MEDIA:YAMATO

On Thu, 13 Apr 1995, Roger Coon wrote:

> 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
>

Mike & Brad,

The hybrid battleships were designed carry and launch 22 "JUDY" dive
bombers.  They would launch from the aft flight deck catapults and
land on Japanese held island runways or friendly carrier decks.

Aloha,

John F. De Virgilio

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

Date:    Fri, 14 Apr 1995 05:23:35 -0400
From:    Mike Brannaman <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Irish Neutrality

Good posting on the subject of Irish neutrality. Maybe a little pro-Irish
slanted, but still very informative.
I do not believe that Eire needs to apologize to anyone for its neutrality in
WW2. To look back on it 50 years later and from an American perspective is
not being fair or objective.
How did the Irish know in 1940 they were not going to be invaded? The British
certainly thought it was a possibilty for them. Second, IMHO, a countries
decision to go to war is mostly its own business. It may have been
shortsighted or naive for Eire to believe that neutrality would work for
them, but that is the benefit of hindsight.
For Mr. Coatney to say that Eire needs to apologize for its neutrality, first
maybe he should consider which nation had to be brought in the war after it
was in progress for 2+ years by the attack on Pearl Harbor.

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

Date:    Fri, 14 Apr 1995 06:55:00 EDT
From:    mc killop <[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

Gary,

Ike wore an Army uniform; the LST belonged to the Navy.  Need I say
more?

-------------------------------------------------------------------
|  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:    Fri, 14 Apr 1995 13:56:46 +0000
From:    Arnaud Bouis <[email-masked]>
Subject: the Catholic Church in WWII.

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.

Some bishops, priests, nuns, and Catholic lay people 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.
---------------------

You are forgetting the third group, the pro-fascists.

Some did actively support the totalitarian states. In Spain for example,
the church was, with Franco and the Army, the third "pillar" of the
totalitarian state.
The Vichy government also played on the anti-communist trends of important parts the French church to find political support. Even today, the Touvier affair reveals how, after the fall of Germany, some elements of the Church hid Axis war criminals from justice, out of some sympathy for the remnants of Vichy.

In Croatia things were much worse. Some priests were even charged with war
crimes. Croatian Catholic clergymen actively supported the exactions of the Croatian regimes.

-------------------------
During the war the Church primarily knew that they could not alone stop Hitler,
and that would they actively provoke the Nazi Party, they would jeopardize their whole structure in Germany. Priests were being daily sent to Concentration camps. The Pope therefore often chose to remain silent. In other words, one could say he chose self-preservation of the Catholic community rather than facing the fate of St Paul.

>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.

This is to forget the self-proclaimed role of the Church : protect the weak and proclaim Christian ethos. In the Catholic eye, not doing *everything* to stop the holocaust of millions while knowing about it is therefore a fault, to put it lightly. And as you demonstrate, through its net of well-informed contacts, the Vatican was fully aware.

The Church was not IMHO the Axis' "arch-enemy".  It could be said to be an "annoyance" to Hitler. In the subjugated countries, it often could be used with profit.

Just to balance the things out,

Arnaud.

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

Date:    Fri, 14 Apr 1995 07:58:57 EDT
From:    Alan Wild <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Its that time again....

First off, Mike, _A Soldier's Story_ is a must.

-Alan

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

Date:    Fri, 14 Apr 1995 07:58:23 -0500
From:    "Robert J. Granvin" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: hitler declaration of war on U.S.

In message <[email-masked]> World War II Discussion
List writes:
>                        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.

Based on the article snippet from December, 1941 that I posted a couple of
weeks ago, this is exactly what Hitler claimed publicly when the declaration
of war was announced to the public.  According to his announcement, the
United States attacked Japan and Germany was treaty (and morally) bound to
come to the aid of a member country who had chosen to stand up against U.S.
tyrrany and provocation (blah blah blah :-).

It looks like, all along, that Hitler _wanted_ to declare war on the U.S.
and used the attack on Pearl Harbor as a doorway to go ahead and make it
official.

I still think Hitler would have made a good psychological study... He was a
master at many things and yet some of his decisions make little sense.

--
Robert J. Granvin
Southern Minnesota Wing Confederate Air Force

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

Date:    Fri, 14 Apr 1995 08:44:55 -0500
From:    "William L. Huber - SAA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: TRIVIA: DUKW - Vehicle id

> >It was Ike who said there were 3 big factors in the US success
> >in Europe -   the C-47, the jeep and the DUKW.
>
> > Cheers, Bill Huber / [email-masked]
>
> What about those Large, Slow Targets (LST's)?
>
> Gary Speer

He didn't mention them in that particular quote.  I guess that was a
Navy thing and Ike was an Army guy talking to Army guys at the time.

Cheers, Bill Huber / see above.... :-)

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

Date:    Fri, 14 Apr 1995 08:47:00 -0500
From:    "William L. Huber - SAA" <[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

No, the quote I heard specifically mentioned the DUKW which is why it
occurred to me to post it to the list.

Cheers, Bill Huber / [email-masked]

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

Date:    Fri, 14 Apr 1995 10:12:43 -0400
From:    Barone <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: hitler declaration of war on U.S.

Terrence Lindell <[email-masked]> writes:
> 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.

        I wrote a short synopsis of this article a while back.  If there's
interest, I will dig it out and repost it.
--
Joe Barone
[email-masked]
Mulligan!?  On time and on target!?  Cripes!

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

Date:    Fri, 14 Apr 1995 16:42:02 CET
From:    "COL Donnell, Doug" <[email-masked]>
Subject: NOST: Obersalzberg Today

Hi everyone -

I'm back after a few relaxing days basking in WWII history.  A few weeks
back I posted some background on the Obersalzberg area and I'd like to
supplement that with some personal observations from our trip.

We stayed in the General Walker Hotel, one of the few remaining intact,
original (wwii vintage) buildings on the Obersalzberg.  It was originally
built as the Platterhof to house the "common" visitors to Hilter's area
at one Reichsmark per night.   By the time it was finished, the entire
Obersalzberg area had been placed in a security zone and the hotel was
used by party officials.  It was damaged in an air raid of 25 Apr 45,
but was rebuilt by the US Army to serve as a recreation area for troops
stationed in Europe and has remained in Army hands until now.  The plan
is to close it and turn all US facilities in Berchtesgaden over to the
German gov't by the end of this year.  (These facilities go well beyond
the hotel -  they also include a golf course, several lodges, large
buildings, a small support kaserne in Berchtesgaden, the former "Grand
Hotel" in Berchtesgaden, and a number of other various buildings).

Much of the Walker hotel is original.  Despite the air raid, the building
remained intact and much of the interior works and decorations are original.
The tables in the lobby were brought down from the Eagle's nest.  They
were probably not carted away by souvenir hunters because they're marble
topped and weigh a ton (I was trying to figure out how to get one out
to the car unnoticed :-)  ).

The hotel also accesses the bunker system and tours are given every day
by the hotel's tourguides.  We were only allowed in a relatively small
portion of the overall bunker system, but even at that it was enough to
get an idea of just how extensive the entire system was.  It was built
on two main levels to accomodate the slope of the mountain and the portion
that's open ends in an elevator shaft (long since inoperative).  The
"small" part I visited included the generator room, several storage
rooms, a briefing room, kitchen, offices (including Bormann's with it's
original wood floor), showers, WC's, and several others that weren't
labeled.

The entire Obersalzberg mountain is littered with the remains of various
buildings and installations.  Armed with a map, I dragged my kids through
the woods, explaining to them all the way how much they would appreciate this
in the future.  The remains of Hitler's Berghof are very easy to find.  All
that remains is the garage (intact), several retaining walls, and lots of
rubble.  One of the "After the Battle" magazines spoke of a few rooms
that could be accessed through a small opening near the garage, and I have
no doubt that there's more, given the size of the original building (HUGE)
and the fact that much of it was below ground level.  The Bavarian
Forestry Service planted trees throughout the area in 1952 when the decision
was made to again open the area to the public, and today, most of the
ruins are pretty much overgrown.

Part of the Obersalzberg complex consisted of a model farm, called the Gutshof.
Apparently Martin Bormann facied himself as a farmer and had the model
farm build so farmers could visit and see what the farm of the future looked
(or I should say, would look like).  The building today serves as the lodge
for the ski area.  Just up from the lodge are the remains of a pig sty that
was also part of the farm area.

Moving up the mountain, it's easy to see where the final guard checkpoint
was located.  Although the building is gone, the foundation remains next
to the road.

Bormann's house is completely gone, as is Goering's, although at the site of
Goring's house, as few bits of the foundation remain as well as the entrance
to his bunker (now sealed).  Goering's bunker was never connected to the
main bunker system of the Obersalzberg as Bormann refused to permit it, so
till the end about 20 feet of rock separated the two bunkers.

Next to the general Walker Hotel are the remains of two buildings, one is
large -- the former support building for the Platterhof -- a very large
building --previously 3 stories, but with only the ground floor remaining.
The other building is the guest house.  From a distance it appears fairly
intact, but getting a bit closer shows it to be in hopeless shape with the
floors falling through, etc.  This was the building that housed
Bormann's office as well as guest rooms for visiting VIPs.  Il Duce
spent his time on the Obersalzberg in this building.

Apparently, Hitler normally arrived in Berchtesgaden by train (one of the
guide's told me his private car was called the Amerika).  To accomadate
the train, a new wing was built on the train station.  It's still there,
though now serves as a travel bureau.

Gotta stop for now.  Will continue some time in the next few days.  Would
also be glad to answer any questions anyone might have while everything is
still fresh in my mind (also picked up a bunch of interesting books while
visiting).

                     Doug Donnell
                     [email-masked]

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

Date:    Fri, 14 Apr 1995 11:17:44 -0400
From:    Barone <[email-masked]>
Subject: Diplomacy in WW2 (was: Ireland in WW2)

Burt Knight <[email-masked]> writes:
> 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.

        I recall reading that Goebbels had used Roosevelt's death as
grist for his Ministry.  Did Germany send any condolences to the US?
Last Sunday's local newspaper featured an article on FDR and it mentioned
that Japan sent a very eloquent message to the US which surprised a great
many people.
--
Joe Barone
[email-masked]
It was a wasted trip, baby.  Nobody said
nothing about locking horns with no Tigers.

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

Date:    Fri, 14 Apr 1995 09:19:18 -0800
From:    John Riegsecker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Diplomacy in WW2 (was: Ireland in WW2)

At 11:17 AM 4/14/95, Barone wrote:
[...]
>        I recall reading that Goebbels had used Roosevelt's death as
>grist for his Ministry.  Did Germany send any condolences to the US?
>Last Sunday's local newspaper featured an article on FDR and it mentioned
>that Japan sent a very eloquent message to the US which surprised a great
>many people.

I never heard that, and must admit I'm very surprised that the Japanese
would have sent any kind of message.  I would be interested in hearing more
about that.

John Riegsecker                                 (206) 756-3566
Dept of Mathematics and Computer Science        [email-masked]
University of Puget Sound

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

Date:    Fri, 14 Apr 1995 11:37:21 -0700
From:    Jim O'Neil <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Rommel and other generals vs. Monty

>    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.
>
        Yes, this was an Intelligence failure par excellance; as good as
the US one in failing to predict the Battle of the Bulge - see Charles
McDonald "A Time of Trumpets" or something close...
        Another British foul up was the advance of the "link up" armor
division on a "frontage of one Tank", down some highway. The division just
kept beating itself senseless on German defenses with out any attempt to
outflank or by-pass German Resistance... an example of the Tunnel Vision
that can keep Commanders from accomplishing their mission by redirecting
their efforts, instead they take the "I was told to xxxxx , and I'm going
to regardless of xxxxxx".

Jim O'Neil   Indecision is the cornerstone of Military Flexibility

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

Date:    Fri, 14 Apr 1995 11:37:32 -0700
From:    Jim O'Neil <[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".
>>
I think William Lippert bracketed the target but didn't quite hit it. I
can't promise better, but here goes:
        The American Way is very up-tempo, rapidity of results are
emphasized, not infrequently to the decrement of good planning. Against an
Army that is more methodical, we often win because we execute a half baked
plan quickly and forcefully, while they are still trying to alter the plan
to fit the changes. Against an Army that can adapt readily, such as the
Germans in WW II, we have some problems. In Tunesia, where the Axis had
something approaching parity in maneuver, we got whacked pretty hard. I n
cases where we could not maneuver, and had to go toe to toe, we did not
fare well-Monte Cassino comes to mind [and a quick aside to point out that
the US Marine Corps is better at this toe to toe than the Army,  while
being inferior in wild maneuver battles].
        It is hard to say one Army is more or less "xxxxx" than another;
General O'Connor's attack against the Italians in 1940 was hardly a
Montgomery-esque affair. It would have fit well in  the "American school";
too bad he was captured, as he might have been the fellow that put Rommel
away before he ever got started! He was certainly as manuever and "Take a
Chance " oriented as Rommel, and his capture was just bad luck - just like
Rommels many fortuitous escapes from  near capture during the battles in N.
Africa. Overall, British Senior Officers tended to be a bit more sedate,
planning and executing with deliberation, rather than the rapid and
unco-ordinated American way. A quick look at the popular music of the day,
in each country, may help to see the tempo that country found comfortable.

Jim O'Neil   Indecision is the cornerstone of Military Flexibility

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

Date:    Fri, 14 Apr 1995 11:37:41 -0700
From:    Jim O'Neil <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Hermaphrodite BBs]

"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.

They were to be seaplanes that landed along side... a very poorly thought
out concept, since:
         a) seaplanes are slower and less able to carry a load than Carrier
aircraft, and US Fighters were already causing problems.
         b) the ship must slow down and provide a wind protected "slick"
for the seaplanes to land - a slow proceedure that left the ship very
vulnerable.

Jim O'Neil   Indecision is the cornerstone of Military Flexibility

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

Date:    Fri, 14 Apr 1995 11:37:50 -0700
From:    Jim O'Neil <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Rommel and other generals vs. Monty

Emmanuel,
I agrre with you wholly, but sometimes a "Nation" or Army will actually
cost itself more of some valuable resource in trying to save it! I remember
doing a study of Soviet Mass tactics in a "Breakthrough" attack and
wondering how/why they could possibly accept such losses [up to 80% of lead
battalions]... the answer is because they lose *less* troops over a four
day battle than we would [the US Army] with our "protect the troops"
approach! In fact they lose about 15-17 % less - just don't want to be in a
Lead Soviet Unit! It runs your life insurance premiums way up. Our way
spreads the casualties over the involved units more evenly. Their system is
actually better in a cold statistical analysis, but not acceptable in our
"way".

Jim O'Neil   Indecision is the cornerstone of Military Flexibility

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

Date:    Fri, 14 Apr 1995 11:38:06 -0700
From:    Jim O'Neil <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: 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.

Burt,
Don't forget Douglas McArthur - he fits in the group as founding father!

Jim O'Neil   Indecision is the cornerstone of Military Flexibility

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

Date:    Fri, 14 Apr 1995 13:55:09 EST
From:    Roger Coon <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Rommel and other generals vs. Monty

Jim O'Neil
        Would you possibly post your study of Soviet Mass tactics?
Or has it been published?  Enquiring minds want to know :)
Brad Coon

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

Date:    Fri, 14 Apr 1995 12:11:12 -0700
From:    David Alvarez <[email-masked]>
Subject: Catholic Church and WWII

Louis Coatney and Arnaud Bouis raise some important points concerning the
position of the Papacy/Catholic Church in WWII.

The Vatican failed to condemn Italy's invasion of Ethiopia.  Some Italian
bishops were unable to resist the tide of nationalism and false
patriotism that swept Italy and they mindlessly endorsed Mussolini's
action. One should note, however, that this clerical enthusiasm for
Italian imperialism did not extend much beyond Italy, so that one might
conclude that it was more a function of nationality than religion.  The
Vatican was more circumspect.  Pope Pius XI stated that if a nation had
the right to expand (as fascist propaganda claimed), a nation also had
the right to defend itself against attack.  This implicit endorsement of
Ethiopian resistance was removed by fascist censors from the version of
the papal statement that appeared in the Italian press.  Still, Pius XI
did not adequately rise to the occasion.  His ambivalence reflected 1)
scorn for the hypocrisy of "satisfied" imperial powers (e.g. Britain) who
rushed to condemn Italy and 2) fear that a setback in his African
adventure might topple Mussolini and lead to domestic disorders and the
appearance of a more anti-clerical regime.  In view of the
anti-clericalism of the fascists this latter excuse was pretty lame as
even the pope came to realize.  In the final years of his pontificate he
was increasingly disillusioned with the fascist regime and more vocal in
his criticism.  At his death (1939) he was considered by London and Paris
an ally against the totalitarian powers.  There were stories (false, but
they persist today) that he was poisoned by the fascists to silence his
opposition.

It is futile to cite the behavior of certain bishops or priests as
evidence concerning the attitudes or policies of the Vatican or the
Catholic Church.  Contrary to popular wisdom, the Church is not a
monolithic institution whose every action is controlled and sanctioned by
the pope.  Throughout history, but especially during the war, the Vatican
has been distressed by its limited ability to restrain clerics whose
clerical status is no protection against human weakness like ambition,
prejudice, stupidity, etc..  Does one discover the "policy" of the Church
in the behavior of the pro-fascist Monsignor Tiso of Slovakia or in the
anti-Nazi behavior of the brave German bishop, Clemens von Galen?  Does
one conclude that the Church sympathized with fascism because most of the
Spanish bishops supported Franco or does one conclude that it sympathized
with liberal democracy because most of the American bishops supported the
New Deal?

The Vatican/Catholic Church did not proclaim itself the "arch-enemy" of
Nazism--that was the appraisal of the Nazis themselves.  The Nazi
attitude toward the Catholic Church is less a matter of opinion than of
the historical record.  The files of the Nazi party and security services
are full of evidence of Nazi suspicion and antipathy.  An example: at a
conference in Berlin in 1941 to consider police measures against religion
the Gestapo chief, Heinrich Mueller referred to the Church as "these
extremely dangerous opponents."  Of course Nazis antipathy also extended to
denominations other than the Roman Catholicism.

David Alvarez
[email-masked]

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

Date:    Fri, 14 Apr 1995 14:56:14 GMT
From:    Dan Wilson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: NOST: Obersalzberg Today

     Was there any explanation for the choice of Amerika for his private
     rail car?

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: NOST: Obersalzberg Today
Author:  _WWII-L (SMTP.WWIIL) at SSWGATE
Date:    04/14/95 09:56 AM

Hi everyone -

I'm back after a few relaxing days basking in WWII history.  A few weeks
back I posted some background on the Obersalzberg area and I'd like to
supplement that with some personal observations from our trip.

We stayed in the General Walker Hotel, one of the few remaining intact,
original (wwii vintage) buildings on the Obersalzberg.  It was originally
built as the Platterhof to house the "common" visitors to Hilter's area
at one Reichsmark per night.   By the time it was finished, the entire
Obersalzberg area had been placed in a security zone and the hotel was
used by party officials.  It was damaged in an air raid of 25 Apr 45,
but was rebuilt by the US Army to serve as a recreation area for troops
stationed in Europe and has remained in Army hands until now.  The plan
is to close it and turn all US facilities in Berchtesgaden over to the
German gov't by the end of this year.  (These facilities go well beyond
the hotel -  they also include a golf course, several lodges, large
buildings, a small support kaserne in Berchtesgaden, the former "Grand
Hotel" in Berchtesgaden, and a number of other various buildings).

Much of the Walker hotel is original.  Despite the air raid, the building
remained intact and much of the interior works and decorations are original.
The tables in the lobby were brought down from the Eagle's nest.  They
were probably not carted away by souvenir hunters because they're marble
topped and weigh a ton (I was trying to figure out how to get one out
to the car unnoticed :-)  ).

The hotel also accesses the bunker system and tours are given every day
by the hotel's tourguides.  We were only allowed in a relatively small
portion of the overall bunker system, but even at that it was enough to
get an idea of just how extensive the entire system was.  It was built
on two main levels to accomodate the slope of the mountain and the portion
that's open ends in an elevator shaft (long since inoperative).  The
"small" part I visited included the generator room, several storage
rooms, a briefing room, kitchen, offices (including Bormann's with it's
original wood floor), showers, WC's, and several others that weren't
labeled.

The entire Obersalzberg mountain is littered with the remains of various
buildings and installations.  Armed with a map, I dragged my kids through
the woods, explaining to them all the way how much they would appreciate this
in the future.  The remains of Hitler's Berghof are very easy to find.  All
that remains is the garage (intact), several retaining walls, and lots of
rubble.  One of the "After the Battle" magazines spoke of a few rooms
that could be accessed through a small opening near the garage, and I have
no doubt that there's more, given the size of the original building (HUGE)
and the fact that much of it was below ground level.  The Bavarian
Forestry Service planted trees throughout the area in 1952 when the decision
was made to again open the area to the public, and today, most of the
ruins are pretty much overgrown.

Part of the Obersalzberg complex consisted of a model farm, called the Gutshof.
Apparently Martin Bormann facied himself as a farmer and had the model
farm build so farmers could visit and see what the farm of the future looked
(or I should say, would look like).  The building today serves as the lodge
for the ski area.  Just up from the lodge are the remains of a pig sty that
was also part of the farm area.

Moving up the mountain, it's easy to see where the final guard checkpoint
was located.  Although the building is gone, the foundation remains next
to the road.

Bormann's house is completely gone, as is Goering's, although at the site of
Goring's house, as few bits of the foundation remain as well as the entrance
to his bunker (now sealed).  Goering's bunker was never connected to the
main bunker system of the Obersalzberg as Bormann refused to permit it, so
till the end about 20 feet of rock separated the two bunkers.

Next to the general Walker Hotel are the remains of two buildings, one is
large -- the former support building for the Platterhof -- a very large
building --previously 3 stories, but with only the ground floor remaining.
The other building is the guest house.  From a distance it appears fairly
intact, but getting a bit closer shows it to be in hopeless shape with the
floors falling through, etc.  This was the building that housed
Bormann's office as well as guest rooms for visiting VIPs.  Il Duce
spent his time on the Obersalzberg in this building.

Apparently, Hitler normally arrived in Berchtesgaden by train (one of the
guide's told me his private car was called the Amerika).  To accomadate
the train, a new wing was built on the train station.  It's still there,
though now serves as a travel bureau.

Gotta stop for now.  Will continue some time in the next few days.  Would
also be glad to answer any questions anyone might have while everything is
still fresh in my mind (also picked up a bunch of interesting books while
visiting).

                     Doug Donnell
                     [email-masked]

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

Date:    Fri, 14 Apr 1995 16:21:34 EDT
From:    John Davis <[email-masked]>
Subject: INF: 50 Years Ago - 14-APR-1945

On 14-APR-1945, the following occurred -

World War II - The Battlefronts
-------------------------------
Western Front - The British 2nd Army continues advancing towards Bremen,
Soltau and Ulzen. Elements of the U.S. 9th Army reach the Elbe. In the 1st
Army sector, the XVIII Airborne Corps begins the final part of its
offensive against the Ruhr pocket. In the 7th Army sector, the XV Corps
completes the capture of Bamberg.

Italian Front - The U.S. 5th Army opens the final offensive in the IV Corps
zone by attacking towards the Lombard plain.

Philippines - In the I Corps area, the 37th Division makes slight progress
towards Monglo.

Okinawa - The 6th Marine Division opens a 2-pronged assault against the
Yae-Take hill mass on Motobu Peninsula. Gains are limited by strong
opposition and rough terrain but elements secure positions on the first
ridges. In the XXIV Corps area, action subsides after a final Japanese
counter-attack is repulsed before dawn. Kamikazes attack again, damaging
the battleship New York.

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

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 05:36:00 -0500
From:    Frank Scheidt <[email-masked]>
Subject: Accidental killing of Mar

 WWID> WID> Interesting.

 WWID> On VWAR-L, a former Marine described a similar occurrence
 WWID> in Vietnam, where the victim had both of his arms shot off
 WWID> by a squadmate by accident.

 WWID> However, in this case a young Marine officer pulled out his
 WWID> .45 and executed the perpetrator on the spot.

 WWID> Lou Coatney, [email-masked]

Interesting.

The "young Marine officer" would have been guilty of *murder*
while the "perpetrator" would have been guilty of whatever
"crime" extreme carelessness calls for.

I *hope* (but *doubt*) that the "young Marine officer" was brought
to trial.  If he *wasn't*, then he should, since there's no statute
of limitations on murder.  Officers are supposed to serve as
*good* examples for their men.

Do you know the answer?

     [email-masked]

___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12

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

Date:    Thu, 13 Apr 1995 05:37:00 -0500
From:    Frank Scheidt <[email-masked]>
Subject: What If?

 WWID> 3.  Had Hitler not declared war on the U.S. (Dec. 11/41).
       Would the alliance between Britain and the U.S. vs. Japan
       been enough for FDR to get into Europe as well.  I would be
       interested to hear what American subscribers especially
       the veterans think would have happened.

Franklin Roosevelt was so intensely an Anglophile that he'd have
done *anything* rather than see his beloved England go down to
defeat.  He could have faked an attack on some "innocent"
American vessel (just as Lyndon Johnson did in the infamous
"Tonkin Bay" (sp?) incident which was the real start of the
Vietnam war).  Righteous indignation would have caused other
incidents to "just happen" ...

Remember the "Lusitania" incident which helped bring us into World
War I (*also* to save England)?  That was a British passenger ship
which was sunk by a German sub in 1915 because Germany believed
that it was carrying munitions.  The British, of course, denied
that.  However, many years after World War ended it was found
via documents that the ship *had* been carrying munitions!  That
incident, which had killed 128 Americans, aroused public (U.S.)
indignation and was perhaps the principal reason for our
eventual entry into World War One.

After all, FDR was noted for twisting the truth.  For example.  At
one point, after the European War had begun and before the U.S. had
gotten sucked in, he said something about never "sending ouh boys to
fight on a foreign shore" ... then, after it was evident that
England was losing, he said something about this being one world
(or some such) so that, in reality, there *was* no "foreign shore"

BTW, to acknowledge my own possible bias here:  I was coming of
draft age as WWII approached, thus I was very much *against* our
entry.  It was obvious that FDR was doing his damnedest to get us
in.  Furthermore, at the time, there were many newspaper articles
(particularly in the Hearst chain) detailing British perfidy which
had helped get us into World War One, to "pick up British
chestnuts from the fire", as the Hearst newspapers put it.

 WWID> Kelvin Luther

           [email-masked]
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12

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

Date:    Fri, 14 Apr 1995 17:17:42 -0400
From:    Mike Yaklich <[email-masked]>
Subject: Italian submarines

        There is also an interesting short passage or two regarding Italian
submarine ops in ocean waters in Doenitz's "Ten Years and Twenty Days."  I
particularly liked the part where he admits that in independent operations in
certain southern waters the Italian boats' performance matched that of the best
German boats in the same areas.  One thing I remember from the Sadkovich book I
mentioned earlier is a comparison in which Sadkovich shows that in tonnage sunk
per boat employed for the entire war outside the Mediterranean Italian subs
actually did far better than the average German boat (Doenitz chooses to use
the first few months of Italian operations in the Atlantic to demonstrate via a
similar comparison the inferiority of the Italians in ocean ops).  I would also
comment on the fact that Doenitz considered the Mediterranean a "dead-end" or
"mouse-trap" for his U-boats, because once they passed Gibraltar inbound the
strong currents flowing in from the Atlantic and the strong British defenses
made it virtually impossible for them ever to leave the Med.  But the Italians
passed 32 boats out of the Med via the Gibraltar straits without losing a
single boat-- in fact, they actually completed more than forty such trips
(Bragadin).

        Regards

        Mike Yaklich

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

Date:    Fri, 14 Apr 1995 17:38:30 -0400
From:    Carlos R Rivera <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Catholic Church and WWII

RE: the most recent post by M. Alvarez, and I beg Joe Barone's brief
indulgence, yes, pun intended.

If I recall correctly, the church acted similarly when the labor unions started
to agitate against Communism in Poland.  I remember many dire warnings that
Catholics would suffer if they did not give to "Caesar" due respect/obedience.
Perhaps, the church needs historians to remind them of previous blindspots.
CRivera

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

Date:    Fri, 14 Apr 1995 17:18:50 -0500
From:    Greg Kelley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: IRELAND IN WWII ??

On Wed, 12 Apr 1995, Louis R. Coatney wrote:

>
> 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!
> Lou Coatney
> [email-masked]

Gosh, you mean all this time I've been laboring under the illusion that
such countries as Argentina, Sweden, Switzerland, Portugal, & Spain were
really on the ALLIED side all along and NOT neutrals?  Boy, you learn
something every day.....

[your turn, Lou-- how many of these nations were notorious Anglophobes
too?]

                                          Glad To Be Of Service!

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

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

Date:    Fri, 14 Apr 1995 17:36:24 -0700
From:    Sidney Allinson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Montgomery = McClennan?!?

It's odd now, to read the level of hostility against Field Marshal
Montgomery that is now expressed these days.
How times do change, and how impressions shift with each new
generation.
In Monty's own time - the Second World War - he was very popular
personally. Especially so among the lower ranks ('enlisted men').

--

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

Date:    Fri, 14 Apr 1995 20:36:30 -0500
From:    Burt Knight <[email-masked]>
Subject: Diplomacy in WW2

I don't believe Germany did send anything to the US on FDR's death, but
DeValera did!

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

Date:    Fri, 14 Apr 1995 20:37:06 -0500
From:    Burt Knight <[email-masked]>
Subject: Atomic Bombs

> Why not a Demo?

The bomb might not have worked!! 'Here, fellows, watch this new weapon
which will drive you to surrender.' .... 'OOPS!'

Only one had been exploded, a different design from either of the two
bombs used in war.  Theoretics are great but until the thing actually
works.... If it hadn't worked, we'd have given the japanese a great
opportunity to work with the bomb and, possibly, use it against us.  The
 unannounced raid makes sense in that the enemy wasn't ready for it and
may not have known what the Unexploded device was for a few days or
weeks, sufficient time to get another one up and on the ways.

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

Date:    Fri, 14 Apr 1995 20:46:29 -5
From:    "Carl D. Fago" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Atomic Bombs

 From:          Burt Knight <[email-masked]>

> Only one had been exploded, a different design from either of the two
> bombs used in war.

Not true.  The device exploded on the test stand was a plutonium
implosion device.  The type dropped on Hiroshima was a uranium cannon
device.  The type dropped on Nagasaki was the same type as used in
the test.

The thought was that they _knew_ the uranium cannon device would
work.  There was no doubt.  The big question on the plutonium
implosion device was whether the proper timing and sequencing of the
high explosive creating the implosion would work properly.  It was
the only one that required a full-up test.

 +---------------------------------+----------------------------+
 | *-=Carl=-*  [email-masked]        | One man's theology is      |
 |             GEnie - C.FAGO1     | another man's belly laugh. |
 | Carl Fago   State College, PA   |                            |
 +---------------------------------+----------------------------+

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

Date:    Fri, 14 Apr 1995 21:23:56 -0400
From:    Ben Frank <[email-masked]>
Subject: ACCIDENTAL KILLING OF

Despite all the nonsense posted about this matter, I have read no citations,
dates, or names. I'd say that this story is a fairy tale. Ben Frank

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

End of WWII-L Digest - 13 Apr 1995 to 14 Apr 1995
*************************************************