Battle for North Africa (2 Viewers)

[OzDigger]

Anyone commit combat forces?

I did say "involved other countries in some form".

 

[swalterh]

Has there been a Battle or War (total or otherwise) that hasn't involved other countries in some form?


US Civil War: Britain supported the Southern states and had to pay reparations to the winning Union side.


Falklands War: The United States stripped their own aircraft to provide Britain with the latest Sidewinder missile (AIM-9L) increasing the kill ratio by about 70% over the earlier version.

I think if you consider the idea that all countries are in effect members of the same international community and are all in some way or another connected to the events going on around the globe, then I believe the answer to your question is no.

If you consider a substantial measure of direct military, humanitarian or economic support as a requirement to be considered "involved" then I think one could make the argument that there have been a number of conflicts bordering on the concept of total war that have occurred where the two main combatants were isolated and were responsible for concluding a result without foreign interferance.

 

[OzDigger]

I think if you consider the idea that all countries are in effect members of the same international community and are all in some way or another connected to the events going on around the globe, then I believe the answer to your question is no.

If you consider a substantial measure of direct military, humanitarian or economic support as a requirement to be considered "involved" then I think one could make the argument that there have been a number of conflicts bordering on the concept of total war that have occurred where the two main combatants were isolated and were responsible for concluding a result without foreign interferance.

I agree, however I suspect that each person in this thread has their own definition of Involvement and of Total War which will tend to convolute discussion.

 

[swalterh]

I did say "involved other countries in some form".

Then you are correct by this reasoning. Britain did keep a sharp eye on developments during this conflict. The Empress and her son, the Prince Imperial, eventually fled to Britain as did Napoleon III. I would say that Britain's interest in the conflict was much more intense than Austria, Italy or Russia's as these three powers were basically subdued by the diplomatic efforts of Bismarck. Even the United States sent General Phillip Sheridan to ride with the Prussian High Command to observe the notable events that transpired.

I'm suggesting that this conflict was left, by the European powers, for the Germans and the French to sort out and it is doubtful that any of the other powers would have become militarily involved. Italy had just been an ally with the Prussians during their little war with the Austrians in 1866. The Austrians of course had learned their lesson so to speak after the complete collapse of their armed forces at Koniggratz. The Russians would have had to march a long way in order to even be able to place combat forces in a position where they could do any damage and the British, well had a very small army designed for operations in localized affairs throughout the Empire. Not to mention the British Government feared French ships more than Prussian boots during this period and were probably more than pleased with their little Vicky’s (Princess Victoria) brave Prussian soldier (Crown Prince) giving the despised French foe the thrashing he deserved.

 

[OzDigger]

Then you are correct by this reasoning. Britain did keep a sharp eye on developments during this conflict. The Empress and her son, the Prince Imperial, eventually fled to Britain as did Napoleon III. I would say that Britain's interest in the conflict was much more intense than Austria, Italy or Russia's as these three powers were basically subdued by the diplomatic efforts of Bismarck. Even the United States sent General Phillip Sheridan to ride with the Prussian High Command to observe the notable events that transpired.

I'm suggesting that this conflict was left, by the European powers, for the Germans and the French to sort out and it is doubtful that any of the other powers would have become militarily involved. Italy had just been an ally with the Prussians during their little war with the Austrians in 1866. The Austrians of course had learned their lesson so to speak after the complete collapse of their armed forces at Koniggratz. The Russians would have had to march a long way in order to even be able to place combat forces in a position where they could do any damage and the British, well had a very small army designed for operations in localized affairs throughout the Empire. Not to mention the British Government feared French ships more than Prussian boots during this period and were probably more than pleased with their little Vicky’s (Princess Victoria) brave Prussian soldier (Crown Prince) giving the despised French foe the thrashing he deserved.

Again, I agree with you if we confine involvement to actual combatants then it was a France-Prussian only affair. Of course we would need to know the national history of every serviceman to be sure of that ^&grin

 

[swalterh]

Then you are correct by this reasoning. Britain did keep a sharp eye on developments during this conflict. The Empress and her son, the Prince Imperial, eventually fled to Britain as did Napoleon III. I would say that Britain's interest in the conflict was much more intense than Austria, Italy or Russia's as these three powers were basically subdued by the diplomatic efforts of Bismarck. Even the United States sent General Phillip Sheridan to ride with the Prussian High Command to observe the notable events that transpired.

I'm suggesting that this conflict was left, by the European powers, for the Germans and the French to sort out and it is doubtful that any of the other powers would have become militarily involved. Italy had just been an ally with the Prussians during their little war with the Austrians in 1866. The Austrians of course had learned their lesson so to speak after the complete collapse of their armed forces at Koniggratz. The Russians would have had to march a long way in order to even be able to place combat forces in a position where they could do any damage and the British, well had a very small army designed for operations in localized affairs throughout the Empire. Not to mention the British Government feared French ships more than Prussian boots during this period and were probably more than pleased with their little Vicky’s (Princess Victoria) brave Prussian soldier (Crown Prince) giving the despised French foe the thrashing he deserved.

Oh and can’t forget Belgium as the international rules regarding the conduct of war at the time required that the French army not enter Belgian territory unless it wished to be immediately surrendered or considered to be in a state of war with the Belgians. The Prussian General Staff under the direction of the brilliant Helmuth von Moltke (elder) planned the Prussian Army’s operational movements following the battle of Gravelotte & St. Privat to effectively pin Napoleon III and his Army of Chalons against the Belgian border that they knew the French would not be able to cross. Their efforts were rewarded with the subsequent battle fought at Sedan which was the decisive encounter of the campaign and consequently the war. It was also an action that featured the new breech-loading Krupp cannons. The victory culminated with the eventual surrender of the French Army and the Emperor. The war would continue, but in less fluid form. For all intents and purposes the remaining battles were mop-up encounters and siege operations conducted against Metz and Paris.

 

[swalterh]

Again, I agree with you if we confine involvement to actual combatants then it was a France-Prussian only affair. Of course we would need to know the national history of every serviceman to be sure of that ^&grin

Very true.

^&grin

 

[swalterh]

No idea what definition we are using but I am getting the impression a war is only a "total war" when the USA is in it.

Brett

Since 1917, any war that has involved America has also involved Australia (even though the first two were not obligatory like all the rest of them have been). Sorry that I consider the Civil War to be one of our “total wars” that didn’t include our digger friends. I didn't realize you would take offense, but yes we were dealing with some internal issues at the time that did not include other countries. As much as Great Britain wants to think it contributed to our Civil War in some meaningful way, they are mistaken. Unless the Brits want to consider their meaningful contribution being the waves of Irish imigrants who served in the US armerd forces because they couldn't stand living under British rule.

Shane,
Based on your line of thought then neither have the Americans succesfully participated in a total war without
assistance.

You meantioned "the American military establishment has always maintained the concept and tradition of “total war” fresh within its consciousness since the end of the Civil War".

I think you will agree WWI and WWII were total wars. It is easy to maintain the "concept and tradition" of total war if you do not actually join in until 2-3 years after they have started.

IMO the whole "concept and tradition" speaks towards the ruthlessness that we are willing to unlease on our enemies when they really make us mad.

I believe our guys, (Pershing & the rest of the US commanders) wanted to keep going till we ground the German Army to dust, but the French and British wanted to call it quits. This infuriated Pershing who predicted that the US would have to eventually come back and deal with the unfinished business. Then our European Allies decided in their infinite wisdom to dominate the peace negotiations, carved up the map of Europe and at the end of it we all wound up doing the same dance over again.

As far the Second World War, I think we can all agree on America's contribution in that one. Am I saying we did all alone? No way, but then nobody was going to get it done without us either. Yes Australia, we told Churchill to shove his Germany first strategy and sent our carriers to keep the sea lanes open(Coral Sea). Then we patched up our wounded carriers and gave everybody in the Pacific some breathing room (Midway).

Of course we all know how it ended (Big Boom) (Another Big Boom). Then you guys signed on with us indefinitely (ANZUS-1952). We must have done something impressive.

Now dont get me wrong I like all other "Allied" forum members appreciate the American contribution and sacrifice in WWI and WWII and what happens in the world today. However can you imagine the American outcry if the UK and Australia said to America when support was needed for Iraq and Afghanistan "No worries mate, we will be there in 2-3 years when the
time is right for us".

Regards
Brett

Brett

Speaking frankly, I don’t believe you Aussies have this luxury. The Kiwi’s apparently can do whatever they want, but the diggers have to come along too.

Link to ANZUS Treaty:

http://australianpolitics.com/topics/foreign-policy/anzus-treaty-text

Best
Shane

 

[The Military Workshop]

Shane,
You raise some interesting points.

I have no idea where your comment "Great Britain wants to think it contributed to our Civil War in some meaningful way, they are mistaken" comes from. Certainly happy to let USA have all the "contributions" to that war. Any offense I may have taken is the implication that somehow because you had a bloody and apparently successful total war (civil war) and joined in two World Wars half way through then the USA is the only country to have engaged in "total war".

As regards your comment about "concept and tradition" speaks towards the ruthlessness that we are willing to unlease on our enemies when they really make us mad". Please refer back to my previous comments about entry times of the USA into two world wars when their apparent friends and allies were under attack. Guess it takes some longer to realise who the enemies are.

You commented "Pershing and & the rest of the US commanders wanting to keep going till they ground the German Army to dust, but the French and British wanted to call it quits". I totally understand the US Army in the early years of WWI was busy having to deal with Pancho Villa in Mexico and suffered 8 dead. However perhaps you might understand why after four years of WWI the British and French might want to "call it quits". I suspect they were well and truly fed up with it by then. Perhaps the casualty figures from Wiki might explain

France 1,697,800 dead representing 4.29% of the population and 4,266,000 wounded.

Britain 995,939 dead representing 2.19% of the population and 1,663,435 wounded.

Australia 61,966 dead representing 1.38% of the population and 152,171 wounded.

USA 117,465 dead representing 0.13% of the population and 205,690 wounded.

It is all very well for the US commanders to be "gung ho" to continue the war because quite frankly they had only just got into it and were fresh. Now imagine increasing the USA deaths to population ratio to the same as Australia (ie 10 x). That would give 1,174,000 dead Americans and more than that wounded. Put that number in front of your President and Generals and see if they would want to call it quits.

Oh yes and lets not forget Pershing's enthusiasm for continuing the war as it has been mentioned on the forum before (by Louis I recall). Again Wiki "He controversially ordered his troops to continue fighting after the armistice was signed. This resulted in 3,500 U.S. casualties on the last day of the war, an act which was regarded as murder by several officers under his command".

Always good to get different perspectives. Most British and Australians would know far more about the American Civil War than they might about any American involvement in WWI. Whilst Americans might think their involvement won the war many British and Aussies would have a hard time thinking about what they did. How about looking at it from another angle ? What would have happened if they had joined from the start albeit with limited troops. Would it have ended quicker if they got serious quicker ?

I will leave this thread to you as I can sense a Gentle Friends coming in the near future.

Regards
Brett

 

[RPZ]

The Finns came about as close to waging "total war" as I can think of in defending themselves against the Russian invasion 1939-'40.

 

[Mitch]

I raised total war in the context that allied commanders like Patton, Montgomery and Harris realised the gravity of the situation and, the consequences for failure. so, for me, in my reading of it without addressing philosophical or other definitions means WWII was a total war. It was this in the base sense that it was all or nothing for both sides the so called freedom of the west and allied nations V the absolute destruction of the German and axis forces if they failed in their targets.

It was also total war and, I agree with the German ethos on this at the time where their was a total obfuscation between combatants and Non combatants. There was no distinction between these for a number of sides involved. I am not sure some of the definitions are helpful in encompassing material design and manufacturing when commenting on total war. Total war is and was different for England during this period to the US as there were no bombs falling on the US and, the severity of rationing was not as acute to name just two.

I would think its how you define total war to how you address if your country has been involved in one but, certainly looking at the second world war it was a war of annihilation between Germany and Russia and, as has been mentioned the war with the Fins and the Russians could be considered such. That is depending on what definition one chooses to use.

Was there total war in the African campaign? Not sure but, the definition which constantly comes from this theatre is a ''clean war'' This derived from the fact that very few civilians were present due to the geographic nature of the terrain but, interestingly, it has moved to the conduct of the troops involved. There are very many reports of POW's being murdered by both sides and, some cases of quite bad acts of brutal conduct which, could equal what we take for granted on the eastern front.

I suppose a case could be made that all war is a total war when the bullets start flying.
Mitch

 

[swalterh]

Shane,

How about looking at it from another angle ? What would have happened if they had joined from the start albeit with limited troops. Would it have ended quicker if they got serious quicker ?
Regards
Brett

Brett

On this point I think that consulting the positions of Prime Minister Churchill and the Allied Joint Commanders' deliberations over the eventual invasion of France (i.e. D-Day/Operation Overlord) might provide some insight into your inquiry.

Best
Shane

 

[swalterh]

Shane,

Any offense I may have taken is the implication that somehow because you had a bloody and apparently successful total war (civil war) and joined in two World Wars half way through then the USA is the only country to have engaged in "total war".

Regards
Brett

Shane ,

You suggest Britain has never fought a " Total War " , i found the definition of it...Total war is a war in which a belligerent engages in the complete mobilization of fully available resources and population.
During the outbreak of WW2 British men were conscripted , women were conscripted as Land Girls to aid farmers , & boys were conscripted to work in the coal mines , while children were evacuated to the countryside ( think i saw that in The Lion , The Witch & The Wardrobe )
the British Government began rationing goods & services for both consumers & manufactors alike...Any manufactor which did not produce useful items for war were tasked to do so....Britain enacted legal blackouts of artificial light...All the resources & manpower of the british Empire were tasked to the war effort...
As Head of State Churchill use his office to attempt to enlist help from the USA , an act of reaching out & expanding your list of allies & places to acquire much need resources...Churchill spoke to the people to encourage , strengthen & unite them against a common enemy...
" We Shall Never Surrender "
If i was to call any professor into a room & give them this definition of total war = Total war is a war in which a belligerent engages in the complete mobilization of fully available resources and population.

Would they all not agree , that this is what Britain had done ?!

Joe

Joe

Your argument is correct, but not entirely complete if attempting to counter my original point. In the post you’ve responded to I argue that neither Britain nor France have successfully waged total war without the assistance of another power.

I would never deny that the two powers have engaged in the total war concept. Not only was total war waged in the 20th century conflicts, but there were instances of total war being waged on the continent of Europe during the 19th century as well.

So again, you are correct. But, then so was my original post.

Shane

Brett

I also argue that the Franco-Prussian conflict constituted an example of total war as did the Napoleonic Campaigns. Obviously the World Wars were instances of total war. I find it interesting how worked up you've become over this issue. It seems that some Aussies feel as if their contributions to the First and Second World Wars are some how over looked by the Mother Country (Great Britain) and Big Brother (USA) and therefore make unrealistic and emotionally charged arguments about how those two countries didn't take the lead roles in these conflicts.

I would say that yes, the Australians did make a notable contribution to both war efforts and that the services and sacrifices of the Aussie and Kiwi soldiers should be appreciated and praised. The action at Gallipoli obviously served to strengthen the concept of national identity for the Australians and New Zealanders and despite poor leadership and planning from the British high command, will continue to be remembered as the ANZAC’s battle. This is due in large part to the courage and soldierly skills demonstrated by the men of Australia and New Zealand in this battle. The Australian and New Zealand contingents (Aussie 9th ID and Kiwi 2nd ID) at the battle of El Alamein arguably bore the brunt of the fighting and therefore deserve credit for their vital role in the eventual victory.

My apologies if anyone hailing from the land down under feels you get left out sometimes. This American is aware of and appreciative of your country’s services to the Allied cause of both conflicts and the subsequent actions in which Diggers and Yanks have shared combat responsibilities.

Shane

 

[swalterh]

I raised total war in the context that allied commanders like Patton, Montgomery and Harris realised the gravity of the situation and, the consequences for failure. so, for me, in my reading of it without addressing philosophical or other definitions means WWII was a total war. It was this in the base sense that it was all or nothing for both sides the so called freedom of the west and allied nations V the absolute destruction of the German and axis forces if they failed in their targets.

It was also total war and, I agree with the German ethos on this at the time where their was a total obfuscation between combatants and Non combatants. There was no distinction between these for a number of sides involved. I am not sure some of the definitions are helpful in encompassing material design and manufacturing when commenting on total war. Total war is and was different for England during this period to the US as there were no bombs falling on the US and, the severity of rationing was not as acute to name just two.

I would think its how you define total war to how you address if your country has been involved in one but, certainly looking at the second world war it was a war of annihilation between Germany and Russia and, as has been mentioned the war with the Fins and the Russians could be considered such. That is depending on what definition one chooses to use.

Was there total war in the African campaign? Not sure but, the definition which constantly comes from this theatre is a ''clean war'' This derived from the fact that very few civilians were present due to the geographic nature of the terrain but, interestingly, it has moved to the conduct of the troops involved. There are very many reports of POW's being murdered by both sides and, some cases of quite bad acts of brutal conduct which, could equal what we take for granted on the eastern front.

I suppose a case could be made that all war is a total war when the bullets start flying.
Mitch

Mitch

I think this is an excellent and insightful assessment about the nature and accepted understanding of the concept we term total war. I like how you highlighted that the details regarding the practice of total war differ depending on national perspectives and experiences.

I also agree that from the individual front line soldier’s perspective, all wars are in fact total.

Thanks
Shane

 

[swalterh]

Upon American entry into the war Roosevelt and Churchill were aware of the need to get America into the game somewhere in the West to take pressure off the beleaguered Red Army who had been holding its own against the Wehrmacht on the Eastern Front.

One of the greatest challenges facing the British and American high commands was their disagreement about when, where and how the allies would strike at the German military. The issue was hotly contested and repeatedly reviewed and reanalyzed. The Americans wanted to immediately cross the English Channel and invade France. The British were skeptical about the feasibility of an immediate cross channel invasion. They preferred to attack the Germans in Africa and the Mediterranean where it was believed they were more vulnerable. In the end Roosevelt and Churchill were able to reach a compromise. The allies agreed to initially conduct operations in the Mediterranean and then once the Germans were sufficiently weakened they would cross the English Channel and invade France.

 

[swalterh]

The initial operation undertaken by the Americans against the Germans was Operation Torch (1942). This was to be a joint Anglo-American amphibious operation against the French North African territories of Algiers and Morocco. Eisenhower was tapped as the overall commander.

There existed some interesting political aspects to this operation due to the questionable loyalties and intentions of the Vichy French forces garrisoning the intended landing areas. A covert attempt to compel the Vichy French to surrender before the landings did not materialize.

It was decided that the Americans would commit the bulk of the combat troops to the operation. Patton commanded the forces landing in Morocco. Generals Fredendall &Ryder directed the operations in Algiers. Upon hearing the news of the invasion, Hitler ordered German forces to occupy the remainder of French territory under the nominal control of the Vichy Government thus completing the total occupation of France.

Despite the success of the Torch landings, many weaknesses in the combat capability of American forces were exposed that highlighted the GI’s inadequate training and lack of experience. These shortcomings would be fully exploited by the Germans when the two forces finally faced off at the Kasserine Pass just a few months later.

 

[swalterh]

Realistically speaking, from a strategic perspective the continued operations in N. Africa that followed the Battle of El Alamein were in effect mop-up operations. Following this defeat at the hands of the 8th Army, the eventual fate of the German and Italian forces in N. Africa was all but sealed. Churchill and members of the British high command (such as Alan Brooke) were wise to encourage the Americans to hold off on their ambition to strike across the channel.

The ensuing campaign in Africa served as a dress rehearsal that enabled the American commanders and troops to gain valuable combat experience in a low risk operational theatre. Any military establishment that transitions from a peace to a war footing is inevitably going to experience some growing pains. Certainly had the Americans prevailed in their view that an immediate cross channel invasion of the continent be undertaken, the result would have been a significant setback for the allied war effort.

 

[waynepoo]

A question that has always intrigued me is weather the U.S.A would have delcared war against Nazi Germany after the Pearl Harbour attack had not Hitler rashly delcared war on the U.S first? (The third of his big blunders, the first his failure to invade the U.K. The second his invasion of the U.S.S.R)
My reading of history suggests that there was no mood for getting involved in a European war amongst the U.S population at the time and I have often wondered if that mood may have changed if Hitler had not declared war, I think myself the U.S people would have been rightly concerned with dealing with Japan first and leave Germany to the British and Soviets, any thoughts.
Wayne.

 

[Mitch]

I think that it would have been extremely difficult to sell to the US public a war on two very distant fronts had Hitler not overly rashly declared war on the US. I could never see what the axis alliance between japan and Germany did so, if he had been a clever diplomat he could have declared war on japan and, really caused a stink.

The priority for the US and, one that everyone accepted was Japan after Pearl. The US would not have entered the war when it did in terms of Europe and, this would have allowed Germany time and, the resources to finish off the Russians. Had this happened its unlikely US troops would have set foot in Europe and, for a good while US help would have continued in material support as had been prior to Pearl Harbour.

I think, Had the germans stuck to their original plan and taken Moscow they would have forced the Russians into either surrender or, some form of negotiated peace giving the germans time to strengthen the line from Moscow north and south. Interesting ''what if's'' though
Mitch

A question that has always intrigued me is weather the U.S.A would have delcared war against Nazi Germany after the Pearl Harbour attack had not Hitler rashly delcared war on the U.S first? (The third of his big blunders, the first his failure to invade the U.K. The second his invasion of the U.S.S.R)
My reading of history suggests that there was no mood for getting involved in a European war amongst the U.S population at the time and I have often wondered if that mood may have changed if Hitler had not declared war, I think myself the U.S people would have been rightly concerned with dealing with Japan first and leave Germany to the British and Soviets, any thoughts.
Wayne.

 

[Mitch]

I think your right about the prudence in terms of holding back the US pressure to mount an invasion earlier than was done. Upon entering the war there seemed a belief (most nations have it) that they were just going to show up and win the war. The Kasserine pass taught the US many hard lessons and, it showed what happens when you choose to ignore an army and its commanders that has experience in a specific theatre. They would have faced quite a battering from the enemy with poor preparation and inexperience to land early. many landings before D-Day showed that they (the allies) were just not ready to mount the scale of operation necessary to successfully land troops ashore with minimum casualties.
Mitch

Realistically speaking, from a strategic perspective the continued operations in N. Africa that followed the Battle of El Alamein were in effect mop-up operations. Following this defeat at the hands of the 8th Army, the eventual fate of the German and Italian forces in N. Africa was all but sealed. Churchill and members of the British high command (such as Alan Brooke) were wise to encourage the Americans to hold off on their ambition to strike across the channel.

The ensuing campaign in Africa served as a dress rehearsal that enabled the American commanders and troops to gain valuable combat experience in a low risk operational theatre. Any military establishment that transitions from a peace to a war footing is inevitably going to experience some growing pains. Certainly had the Americans prevailed in their view that an immediate cross channel invasion of the continent be undertaken, the result would have been a significant setback for the allied war effort.