Remembrance Day thoughts

4 posts / 0 new
Last post
Remembrance Day thoughts

Here are two examples that reflect the mindset of the war pushers:

During the Polish campaign Hitler called general Kurt Student (General Inspector of German airborne forces) and demanded to know why paratroop units have not been engaged (at that time Germany had parachute units and infantry, which was being dropped on gliders)

General Student gave this answer: "Paratroopers are far too valuable to be used in this type of a war. I will use them only in those missions, where regular army cannot be employed."

And yet they ended up wasting plenty of paratroopers on Crete island in May 1941. German losses amounted to 2000 men, paratroopers and glider infantry!

And even though Britain had sustained a military defeat on Crete, English newspapers have been printing articles with sarcastic overtones - what is the point of capturing an island in a sea, which you do not control? Pretty much the only way to supply it is by air, which would tie up plenty of valuable resources, which could have been used elsewhere.

By the same token Hitler got involved in North Africa, having to supply his troops over a sea, which he did not control. Only about 15 percent of ships were making it through.

In his mind he was probably trying to complicate the Allied operations in the Mediterranean theater. But it did not amount to much, since the decisive factor in that theater of operations was the willingness of Italians to fight.

And, as one can read in books, during US invasion of Sicily ALL Duce soldiers and officers have fled as the US armada was approaching. The examples of personal bravery and self-sacrifice have been plentiful on all sides.

During the Crete campaign, a German military surgeon was operating the wounded, even though he himself had been wounded and had to be supported. But still, no amount of personal sacrifice can correct the ineptitude at the top.

And here is an example from the British side, an offensive, which was a losing proposition even before it started:

In October 1917 Fieldmarshal Douglas Earl of Haig, started an offensive in Flanders. He had a series of earlier local successes which had apparently resulted in his detachment from reality. Somehow he forgot to take into account such a simple fact that Flanders are a dried-up marshland; after the artillery barrage destroyed the system of dikes and levees, it became flooded. Tanks could not go, but they sent the soldiers anyway to wade in knee-high mud. The offensive failed, losses were very high.

In my opinions, all those war-pushers should be locked up and given plenty of toy guns and toy soldiers to play with, this way there would be much fewer widows and orphans.


Absolutely. But it is not only military leaders who are guilty of this. Look at George W. Bush, his administration and advisors who ignored history (the Vietnam and Soviet Afghan Wars) and decided that it would be a good idea to attack, invade, occupy and wage war in Afghanistan.

Look at Stephen Harper. He has never served in the military, yet look at how much of a hardon he has for the Afghan war. Even now, (unless he changes his mind as a result of the political fallout over the Canadian Afghan detainee exchange and torture allegations) he's desperately trying to work around the House's last war resolution and have at least some Canadian troops militarily engaged in Afghanistan beyond 2011. This is in spite of the fact that 64% of Canadians recently polled want the troops out now.

I mean, what the fuck?

lonewolfbunn lonewolfbunn's picture

Doctrine is to attack with a 3:1 ration of attackers vs defenders.

The island in this case was defended by 10'000 British soldiers and 30'000 irregular soldiers.  The attacking force had 10'000.

The germans won a battle attacking with 1:4 odds. It spoke volumes for the airborne forces. Hitler  however was so angry with the German losses that despite a tactical victory they never used paratroopers again in that context.