Battle for North Africa (1 Viewer)

[swalterh]

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.

Wayne

This was a question that we spent a good bit of time debating during one of my history courses. The good thing is that in reality Hitler made it rather easy for Roosevelt politically by declaring war on the US. The facts as you suggest, lead one to believe that Roosevelt would have experienced significant challenges when attempting to convince the American people that a war against Germany was also necessary had Hitler refrained from his declaration of hostilities.

During the early years of the conflict (1939-1941) there existed a sour taste in the mouth of the American public due to the percieved lack of gains from their efforts in the Great War. This was one of the more prevalent reasons behind the staunch isolationism inherent in the US prior to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Despite this, it is highly probable that due to the truly global nature of the conflict and the German-Japanese alliance, it would have been very difficult for the US to remain uncommitted at least in some form to the war in Europe. IMO Roosevelt, a truely masterful politician (he did win the Presidency 4 times, no small feat), would have found some way to convincingly commit American forces to operations against the Germans.

Shane

 

[swalterh]

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

Mitch

I agree with your thoughts regarding the US performance in Africa and the infeasibility of an early Allied landing in France. The American forces in Africa relied heavily on their British Allies for support and experience during their operations against the remnants of the DAK. IMO the American forces and commanders can’t be considered as being on par with their British & Commonwealth counterparts until the conclusion of the Battle of Sicily.

Shane

 

[Mitch]

I would say they were still slow to the party well after Sicily. If they had not sat on their thumbs at Anzio and not played the cautious build up strength and consolidate the beach head the Italian campaign could have been a whole lot different and a lot shorter.

It does bring us back to the point of US inexperience and judgment in terms of their ability to understand landing an army on a beach and what to do afterwards. Mind, the debacle at Dieppe shows the difficulty all the allied armies faced. However, WWII was such a learning curve in terms of warfare on officers and men its easy to sit with hindsight and no pressure and say X was poor and Y was good.
Mitch

Mitch

I agree with your thoughts regarding the US performance in Africa and the infeasibility of an early Allied landing in France. The American forces in Africa relied heavily on their British Allies for support and experience during their operations against the remnants of the DAK. IMO the American forces and commanders can’t be considered as being on par with their British & Commonwealth counterparts until the conclusion of the Battle of Sicily.

Shane

 

[swalterh]

I would say they were still slow to the party well after Sicily. If they had not sat on their thumbs at Anzio and not played the cautious build up strength and consolidate the beach head the Italian campaign could have been a whole lot different and a lot shorter.

It does bring us back to the point of US inexperience and judgment in terms of their ability to understand landing an army on a beach and what to do afterwards. Mind, the debacle at Dieppe shows the difficulty all the allied armies faced. However, WWII was such a learning curve in terms of warfare on officers and men its easy to sit with hindsight and no pressure and say X was poor and Y was good.
Mitch

Mitch

I'm wondering by your statements concerning hindsight and lack of "pressure" if you are suggesting that all of the members participating in this conversation have not been under fire. I believe it a fundamental aspect of the military and historical professions to analize the events of the past in order to gain a better grasp of the concepts and actions neessary for success in the future.

On this topic I would have to disagree with your assessment concerneing the quality of Amercan troops and commanders following the Sicily Campaign. Let's not forget who made it first into Messina. ("Can of Worms" officially open)

The Italian Campaign was, in the opinion of the American High Command, a distraction from the eventual effort that was to be undertaken against France. The Americans pulled their best formations and best commanders (yes, I mean Patton & Bradley) away from the Italian Theatre and began to consolidate material and manpower resources in order to prepare for Operation Overlord. The Italian Campaign served its political purpose of knocking Italy out of the war. Once this was achieved the operations on the Italian peninsula became more or less a side show. If you want to place the blame for the lack of success in Italy on the Americans, I'm more than willing to accept this. But, this can not be explained by degrading the quality and experience of the American troops and commanders. It can be explained by a lack of interest and will to commit better resources (material, manpower, command talent etc...) into a campaign that would not contibute to decisive success.

Shane

 

[lancer]

Mitch

I'm wondering by your statements concerning hindsight and lack of "pressure" if you are suggesting that all of the members participating in this conversation have not been under fire. I believe it a fundamental aspect of the military and historical professions to analize the events of the past in order to gain a better grasp of the concepts and actions neessary for success in the future.

On this topic I would have to disagree with your assessment concerneing the quality of Amercan troops and commanders following the Sicily Campaign. Let's not forget who made it first into Messina. ("Can of Worms" officially open)

The Italian Campaign was, in the opinion of the American High Command, a distraction from the eventual effort that was to be undertaken against France. The Americans pulled their best formations and best commanders (yes, I mean Patton & Bradley) away from the Italian Theatre and began to consolidate material and manpower resources in order to prepare for Operation Overlord. The Italian Campaign served its political purpose of knocking Italy out of the war. Once this was achieved the operations on the Italian peninsula became more or less a side show. If you want to place the blame for the lack of success in Italy on the Americans, I'm more than willing to accept this. But, this can not be explained by degrading the quality and experience of the American troops and commanders. It can be explained by a lack of interest and will to commit better resources (material, manpower, command talent etc...) into a campaign that would not contibute to decisive success.

Shane

Not to mention the tremendous advantage that the terrain of Italy could and did impart a huge advantage to those on the defensive. The slogging match in Italy was not going to win the war regardless of how well it might have gone. -- Al

 

[swalterh]

Operation Husky was again the result of a compromise reached between the British and Americans. The consensus was to continue with their Mediterranean focus (as prescribed by the British) and push back the eventual cross-channel assault on France (as espoused by the Americans).

From the beginning, the operation was mired by the competitive nature of the two allied commanders who would be responsible for directing the British and American ground forces (Montgomery & Patton). Under the original plan the British 8th Army would land @ Syracuse and make a drive for Messina to cut off the German and Italian escape route. Patton’s US 7th army would land to the west of the 8th Army and operate in support of the British left flank.

Amid much internal jockeying and controversial command decisions, the two armies conducted their own private operations in an attempt to show up the other by being the first to enter the key city of Messina. Montgomery led 8th Army methodically up the eastern coast towards the eventual goal. Patton conducted a dynamic campaign to capture Palermo and then raced across the northern portion of the island. Patton’s US 7th Army beat the Montgomery's British 8th Army into Messina.

This campaign served to increase the level respect for American arms amongst their allies (begrudgingly). It also initiated the transition of influence as senior partner of the alliance from the British to the Americans.

 

[swalterh]

Not to mention the tremendous advantage that the terrain of Italy could and did impart a huge advantage to those on the defensive. The slogging match in Italy was not going to win the war regardless of how well it might have gone. -- Al

It’s interesting to note that when analyzing the British/Commonwealth military operations during the First and Second World Wars (i.e. Somme, Gallipoli, Passchendaele, El Alamein, Italy, Caen, etc…) they advocate for and eventually find themselves repeatedly engaged in these types of “killing matches.”

This interesting happenstance may in some way be representative of the "British Bulldog” mentality. But, could also be related to the high command’s utter disregard for the lives of their soldiers and general civilian population (they are after all, still subjects of the monarchy and the most powerful institutions within British society are still dominated by the more aristocratic classes).

(Another "can of worms" officially open)

 

[Mitch]

Not really sure any can of worms needs to be opened as all these subjects are being discussed by intelligent mature people who have conducted themselves accordingly and, without some of the usual emotional baggage such interesting threads get!! Before I comment I don't think we need WWI battles in a African campaign thread when you have a WWI thread on going so, hopefully, we can stick with WWII here. especially, when Pershing and Patton were not exactly well known for their overall care and compassion in keeping their own men alive. Perhaps, the Bulldog spirit was attractive to US commanders?

I was not assigning blame etc on US commanders as you seem to be suggesting just replying in relation to the point you raised about competence of US commanders being lesser up to Sicily. I suggested on the evidence that it would have been after Anzio. The whole point of the Anzio landings was to by-pass large heavily fortified German positions and, as Al has posted stop the long hard footslog and attrition that was fought all the way through Italy. The fact that such an opportunity was missed to advance on a weakened German force well, lets be honest probably the only time the allies actually faced old men and boys, and speed to Rome unopposed cutting off some of the best troops in the Italian theatre was a blunder of epic proportions. Many commanders objected then and after the war in memoirs to the approach.

The taking of Messina was more really for personal gratification by both Monty and Patton and, allowed many good German troops to escape because of the focus on glory and beating another rival. Many Germans were by passed in haste only to be ''mopped'' up later by following troops so, I would not place accolades at the door of Monty or Patton in Sicily.

Not sure any of the troops actually would agree that Italy was a side show having had an Uncle footslog through Italy and lose his Brother there it was from every account published worse than what the troops who fought through France faced. I acknowledge the big party was Normandy but, this side show kept several very good German divisions and commanders away from France. I don't think anyone would have fancied facing the troops and mind set of Kesselring in the Boscage. Mind, that's a whole other discussion.
Mitch

It’s interesting to note that when analyzing the British/Commonwealth military operations during the First and Second World Wars (i.e. Somme, Gallipoli, Passchendaele, El Alamein, Italy, Caen, etc…) they advocate for and eventually find themselves repeatedly engaged in these types of “killing matches.”

This interesting happenstance may in some way be representative of the "British Bulldog” mentality. But, could also be related to the high command’s utter disregard for the lives of their soldiers and general civilian population (they are after all, still subjects of the monarchy and the most powerful institutions within British society are still dominated by the more aristocratic classes).

(Another "can of worms" officially open)

 

[swalterh]

Not really sure any can of worms needs to be opened as all these subjects are being discussed by intelligent mature people who have conducted themselves accordingly and, without some of the usual emotional baggage such interesting threads get!! Before I comment I don't think we need WWI battles in a African campaign thread when you have a WWI thread on going so, hopefully, we can stick with WWII here. especially, when Pershing and Patton were not exactly well known for their overall care and compassion in keeping their own men alive. Perhaps, the Bulldog spirit was attractive to US commanders?

I was not assigning blame etc on US commanders as you seem to be suggesting just replying in relation to the point you raised about competence of US commanders being lesser up to Sicily. I suggested on the evidence that it would have been after Anzio. The whole point of the Anzio landings was to by-pass large heavily fortified German positions and, as Al has posted stop the long hard footslog and attrition that was fought all the way through Italy. The fact that such an opportunity was missed to advance on a weakened German force well, lets be honest probably the only time the allies actually faced old men and boys, and speed to Rome unopposed cutting off some of the best troops in the Italian theatre was a blunder of epic proportions. Many commanders objected then and after the war in memoirs to the approach.

The taking of Messina was more really for personal gratification by both Monty and Patton and, allowed many good German troops to escape because of the focus on glory and beating another rival. Many Germans were by passed in haste only to be ''mopped'' up later by following troops so, I would not place accolades at the door of Monty or Patton in Sicily.

Not sure any of the troops actually would agree that Italy was a side show having had an Uncle footslog through Italy and lose his Brother there it was from every account published worse than what the troops who fought through France faced. I acknowledge the big party was Normandy but, this side show kept several very good German divisions and commanders away from France. I don't think anyone would have fancied facing the troops and mind set of Kesselring in the Boscage. Mind, that's a whole other discussion.
Mitch

Mitch

This is an excellent post. First I'd like to say that I as well have enjoyed our intelligent and mature discussion about these topics. I appreciate your commentary and agree that WWI related topics should be more thoroughly discussed on the WWI thread. I have to say that I concur with a large portion of your assessment regarding the Sicilian and subsequent Italian campaigns (especially regarding Monty & Patton’s competitive conduct during Operation Husky).

IMO both Monty & Patton were the best true battlefield commanders available to command troops from their respective countries. I suppose this created a natural tendency for them to want to compete with one-an-other and why during the operations in the ETO (1944-45) their respective AOR’s (areas of responsibility) were separated by the US 1st Army under command of Gen. Hodges. I think that Eisenhower deserves some form of credit for managing both of their personalities (at least in part) so their rivalry didn’t cause too many unnecessary frictions to allied cooperation.

I also agree that US Gen. Clark’s decision to capture Rome instead of attempting to cut off the retreating German forces is and will remain a controversial topic regarding military decision making.


Shane

 

[Jack]

Not to mention the tremendous advantage that the terrain of Italy could and did impart a huge advantage to those on the defensive. The slogging match in Italy was not going to win the war regardless of how well it might have gone. -- Al

I tried to drive the length of Italy in the 90s which was close to impossible so God knows how they even managed what they did in WW2!

 

[swalterh]

I tried to drive the length of Italy in the 90s which was close to impossible so God knows how they even managed what they did in WW2!

The terrain features alone (not to mention the German field works and battle hardened troops) would lead one to believe that the Italian front might not quite measure up to the perception envisaged by Winston Churchill as the “soft underbelly” of Europe.

As Mitch alluded to when recounting the experiences of his uncle, the German defenses in Italy proved to be a tough nut to crack for allied troops.

 

[RPZ]

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.

The overall mood at home was that we had no business getting involved in a another european dispute, but political forces here with FDR at the podium increased the beating the drums until the political justifications could be made. U.S. Navy ships were escorting convoys with war supplies, and as was inevitable one U.S. escort (name escapes me now) was attacked by a German U-boat.

Cutting off this supply line to Britain was crucial, so it was just a matter of time.

 

[The Military Workshop]

Shane,
Hard to keep up with this and the WWI thread as you make so many posts so will just respond to your comment to me below for now :

"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".

What you see as me being worked up over this issue might simply be the fact I happen to disagree with some of
your points. In view of the large number of historical related posts you make it is hardly surprising somebody
might not agree with all you say.

As for this comment that Aussies "therefore make unrealistic and emotionally charged arguments about how those two countries didn't take the lead roles in these conflicts" all I can say what post(s) by me or any Aussie on this forum , book or web site is this comment based on ?. How could any Aussie say that Britain did not take a lead role in WWI and WW2 or the USA when it actually joined them ?

Your above comment is similar to the one previously addressed to me where you said "As much as Great Britain wants to think it contributed to our Civil War in some meaningful way, they are mistaken". Nothing I have said would indicate such a position and you might perhaps have got this into your head from an earlier post by OzDigger about Britain supplying the South and paying reparations to the Union after the war.

Just a minor point. I note you have a habit of "liking" almost every post made in these historical threads even when
contrary to your own points. I now take it to mean more a "thank you for posting" rather than an agreement with
the content. So no need to "like" / thank me for this post as I am actually disagreeing with you and I do not need
a "pat on the head" for contributing to the discussion.

Regards
Brett

 

[swalterh]

Shane,
Hard to keep up with this and the WWI thread as you make so many posts so will just respond to your comment to me below for now :

"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".

What you see as me being worked up over this issue might simply be the fact I happen to disagree with some of
your points. In view of the large number of historical related posts you make it is hardly surprising somebody
might not agree with all you say.

As for this comment that Aussies "therefore make unrealistic and emotionally charged arguments about how those two countries didn't take the lead roles in these conflicts" all I can say what post(s) by me or any Aussie on this forum , book or web site is this comment based on ?. How could any Aussie say that Britain did not take a lead role in WWI and WW2 or the USA when it actually joined them ?

Your above comment is similar to the one previously addressed to me where you said "As much as Great Britain wants to think it contributed to our Civil War in some meaningful way, they are mistaken". Nothing I have said would indicate such a position and you might perhaps have got this into your head from an earlier post by OzDigger about Britain supplying the South and paying reparations to the Union after the war.

Just a minor point. I note you have a habit of "liking" almost every post made in these historical threads even when
contrary to your own points. I now take it to mean more a "thank you for posting" rather than an agreement with
the content. So no need to "like" / thank me for this post as I am actually disagreeing with you and I do not need
a "pat on the head" for contributing to the discussion.

Regards
Brett

Brett

I’m just an individual who enjoys spirited intellectual discussions. As an enthusiast of historical topics I possess no feelings of ill will towards those who present points that are contrary to my own. In the historical discipline we are trained to have an appreciation and understanding of alternate and competing views and we strive to incorporate as many varying opinions in our narratives as possible. But, at the end of presenting all available evidence, conclusions are expected to be drawn. I understand and appreciate that not all individuals will share my end views regarding historical & other topics. I actually enjoy people presenting differing viewpoints as it serves to perpetuate the discussion. In the end, the entire exercise is supposed to be enjoyable. My sincerest apologies if anyone has taken offense.

Thanks

Shane

 

[swalterh]

Shane,

Just a minor point. I note you have a habit of "liking" almost every post made in these historical threads even when
contrary to your own points. I now take it to mean more a "thank you for posting" rather than an agreement with
the content. So no need to "like" / thank me for this post as I am actually disagreeing with you and I do not need
a "pat on the head" for contributing to the discussion.

Regards
Brett

Brett

May I also point out that throughout the course of our deliberation here on this thread you have come around to agreeing with many of my points regarding the historical aspects of our discussion. I think that our disagreement is more over style rather than substance. Which is understandable. I accept full responsibility for any mix-ups.

Again I extend my appologies for all misunderstandings and will seek to minimize such happenstances in the future.

Best
Shane

 

[The Military Workshop]

Brett

May I also point out that throughout the course of our deliberation here on this thread you have come around to agreeing with many of my points regarding the historical aspects of our discussion. I think that our disagreement is more over style rather than substance. Which is understandable. I accept full responsibility for any mix-ups.

Again I extend my appologies for all misunderstandings and will seek to minimize such happenstances in the future.

Best
Shane

Shane,

Thanks. I really appreciated the "pat on the head" after mentioning there was no need.

You said "May I also point out that throughout the course of our deliberation here on this thread you have come around to agreeing with many of my points regarding the historical aspects of our discussion". Read it it any way you like but on the points I was commenting upon I did not feel much agreement with your comments.

I look forward to your future "lectures" but I will have to plead exhaustion and insufficient time and excuse myself.

Regards
Brett

 

[swalterh]

Shane,

Thanks. I really appreciated the "pat on the head" after mentioning there was no need.

You said "May I also point out that throughout the course of our deliberation here on this thread you have come around to agreeing with many of my points regarding the historical aspects of our discussion". Read it it any way you like but on the points I was commenting upon I did not feel much agreement with your comments.

I look forward to your future "lectures" but I will have to plead exhaustion and insufficient time and excuse myself.

Regards
Brett

You’re welcome for the “pat on the head” Brett, merely attempting to be inclusive. You are correct, I do not “like” a post because I necessarily agree with its content. To provide some insight on this issue, I add my “like” to posts to acknowledge that I’ve read them. I believe it to be bad etiquette to be engaged in an ongoing discussion with someone on a particular topic or thread and not let them know that I have indeed read their post.

When I agree with an argument or assessment, I let the person know I agree in my next post. If I disagree, then I post a rebuttal or refrain from posting a reply.

In case you haven’t noticed, I appreciate a good argument, especially one involving military matters, politics or history. So, I enjoy it when other members raise questions and provide counter arguments to the things I post. I wouldn’t be on the forum if I didn’t. I’m not on here to toot my own horn or engage in petty egoistic squabbling. I’m here to participate in enjoyable historical debates with other toy soldier collectors. I’m sorry that some of my posts might come across as pro-USA or seem controversial. I am a human being (that lives in the United States) and possess thoughts, opinions, feelings and convictions.

Now that we've effectively hi-jacked this thread in an attempt to sort out our personality conflict, how about we get back to the fun part of talking about the Campaign in North Africa. There were quite a few Aussie units involved in this theatre, why don't you "lecture" me on some of the aspects of their service.

Hope there’s no hard feelings.

Shane

 

[OzDigger]

Some interesting history threads recently, I hope they continue. Everyone has bias and I cannot see why anyone would be upset to see a member in America being Pro American, I am always surprised when they are not :wink2: ^&grin However it is important to note that not agreeing with someone being 'Pro' American' does not make them 'Anti' American.


Some observations so far.

Total War: I prefer the following (Oxford) definition: "a war which is unrestricted in terms of the weapons used, the territory or combatants (including civilians) involved, or the objectives pursued, especially one in which the accepted rules of war are disregarded." Imo a Total War has not yet occured, including, ACW, WWI and WWII, but of course those more personally involved are likely to consider otherwise. Btw I am well aware that Britain did not offically favor the Southern States, but the Northern states were a competitor regarding food imports etc.

Treaties etc:

Hitler was a psychopath and racist to the degree that his beliefs frequently overuled a sound military alternative, but he was not stupid. Hitler felt obligated to declare war on the US because of Germanys treaty with Japan, he did not like the idea.

The ANZUS Treaty does not obligate the United States or Australia to go to war if the other nation does.

Australia is a independent nation, our laws considers Britain to be a foreign power the same as say the United States. For example a person holding dual Australian/British citizenship cannot become a member of the Parliament of Australia. Queen Elizabeth II is a Constitutional (Ceremonial) Monarch of Australia, and cannot dictate government policy/decisions made, including going to war.

Battle for North Africa: I would favor Rommel as being the better and more aggresive battlefield commander, Montgomery being superior regarding logistics and planning. Both were great moral boosters for their time but history has demonstrated that both were also overated, not a surprise considering the amount of propaganda (from all sides).

 

[The Military Workshop]

You’re welcome for the “pat on the head” Brett, merely attempting to be inclusive. You are correct, I do not “like” a post because I necessarily agree with its content. To provide some insight on this issue, I add my “like” to posts to acknowledge that I’ve read them. I believe it to be bad etiquette to be engaged in an ongoing discussion with someone on a particular topic or thread and not let them know that I have indeed read their post.

When I agree with an argument or assessment, I let the person know I agree in my next post. If I disagree, then I post a rebuttal or refrain from posting a reply.

In case you haven’t noticed, I appreciate a good argument, especially one involving military matters, politics or history. So, I enjoy it when other members raise questions and provide counter arguments to the things I post. I wouldn’t be on the forum if I didn’t. I’m not on here to toot my own horn or engage in petty egoistic squabbling. I’m here to participate in enjoyable historical debates with other toy soldier collectors. I’m sorry that some of my posts might come across as pro-USA or seem controversial. I am a human being (that lives in the United States) and possess thoughts, opinions, feelings and convictions.

Now that we've effectively hi-jacked this thread in an attempt to sort out our personality conflict, how about we get back to the fun part of talking about the Campaign in North Africa. There were quite a few Aussie units involved in this theatre, why don't you "lecture" me on some of the aspects of their service.

Hope there’s no hard feelings.

Shane

Shane,
I will give that a LIKE.
Brett

 

[Mitch]

Apparently, Rommel and Monty even though enemies ''liked'' each other however, technology being the way it was they just had to settle with shelling each other with admiration!!!!
Mitch