Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What is the most overlooked, undervalued, underestimated aspect of WWII?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    K and C Rations

    Originally posted by OpanaPointer View Post
    Hershey bars! The start of many sessions of "international relations".
    Has anybody actually tasted a part of a 'C ' or 'K' ration pack similar to the ones issued to US forces in WWII?

    My father did after he was liberated by Patton's Third Army in 1945.
    Given some ham and eggs or pork 'paste' by a squad of G.I.'s.

    Bloody awful according to him An experience he didn't want again.

    He was a cook and butcher before the war and had eaten pretty well in pre-war France.
    He'd been eating 'Eintopf' (German vegetable stew), a kind of hard-tac bread and gruel for about five years after he went into the bag in the Dunkirk campaign.

    Couldn't wait to get back to 'real food'.

    Regards
    lodestar

    Comment


    • #77
      The undervalued rations that helped win the War in The West

      Originally posted by lodestar View Post
      Has anybody actually tasted a part of a 'C ' or 'K' ration pack similar to the ones issued to US forces in WWII?
      Come now.
      There were millions (if not billions) of these 'packs' produced. I'm sure plenty were still around in the sixties seventies to be fed to National Guard units, cadets, scouts, third world populations, prison inmates, out of work actors, railroad bums, bored housewives, recuperating junkies, high school domestic science classes, pomegranate farmers and Cuban exiles training for the Bay of Pigs.

      I'm sure someone's tasted one.

      Regards lodestar

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by lodestar View Post
        Come now.
        There were millions (if not billions) of these 'packs' produced. I'm sure plenty were still around in the sixties seventies to be fed to National Guard units, cadets, scouts, third world populations, prison inmates, out of work actors, railroad bums, bored housewives, recuperating junkies, high school domestic science classes, pomegranate farmers and Cuban exiles training for the Bay of Pigs.

        I'm sure someone's tasted one.

        Regards lodestar
        If you're that interested you can buy repro rations

        https://reprorations.com/Britain%20W...%20Rations.htm

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
          Unless you believe that Russia had already won the war in 1941 I don't see how you could be convinced that the Germans were never close to over running the Soviets.
          The German generals themselves knew that they had to win in 1941 or they would lose. They knew that they had to destroy the Red Army west of the Dvina/Dneipr rivers or they would lose. Halders diaries say so. The Germans didn't and they lost.

          The fact is that German military, industry and logistics were not up to the task. As long as the Soviet Union kept fighting Germany would lose. Given the genocidal German actions in the Soviet Union, the Red army was going to fight on, no matter what. Politics was irrelevant to the average Red Army draftee. They just knew they had to fight because otherwise the Germans were going to murder everyone they cared about. Thus the Germans were going to lose from day 1.

          You are making the classic error of looking at the war through modern political filters. Take off the cold war blinders and read some more accurate books.

          Wages of Destruction by Tooze and Red Army and Soviet Economy by Dunn are good to understand the relative economies and basically set out the economic reasons for the inevitability of the Red Army's victory.

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by AdrianE View Post
            The German generals themselves knew that they had to win in 1941 or they would lose. They knew that they had to destroy the Red Army west of the Dvina/Dneipr rivers or they would lose. Halders diaries say so. The Germans didn't and they lost.

            The fact is that German military, industry and logistics were not up to the task. As long as the Soviet Union kept fighting Germany would lose. Given the genocidal German actions in the Soviet Union, the Red army was going to fight on, no matter what. Politics was irrelevant to the average Red Army draftee. They just knew they had to fight because otherwise the Germans were going to murder everyone they cared about. Thus the Germans were going to lose from day 1.

            You are making the classic error of looking at the war through modern political filters. Take off the cold war blinders and read some more accurate books.

            Wages of Destruction by Tooze and Red Army and Soviet Economy by Dunn are good to understand the relative economies and basically set out the economic reasons for the inevitability of the Red Army's victory.
            Thanks for the book recommendations. The first is by Walter S Dunn, Jr., who also wrote "Second Front Now," a book which supports my opinion that the western allies could have opened a second front in NW Europe one year earlier.

            "The Soviet Economy and the Red Army, 1930-1945" is available in PDF format here:
            http://biblioteka.mycity-military.co...01930-1945.PDF

            Much better then the pricey edition available on Amazon.

            "Wages of Destruction" is available on Amazon for a reasonable price.

            https://www.amazon.com/Wages-Destruc...5806239&sr=1-1

            More about "Wages" here:
            http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=118859

            The following book should complement your suggestions well.

            https://www.amazon.com/Russias-War-H...5P6MGF60AR56P5

            Regards,Kurt
            Theo mir ist die munition ausgegangen ich werde diesen ramman auf wiedersehen uns in walhalla

            Comment


            • #81
              The Soviets fought so well because.......

              Originally posted by AdrianE View Post
              As long as the Soviet Union kept fighting Germany would lose. Given the genocidal German actions in the Soviet Union, the Red army was going to fight on, no matter what. Politics was irrelevant to the average Red Army draftee. They just knew they had to fight because otherwise the Germans were going to murder everyone they cared about. Thus the Germans were going to lose from day 1.

              You are making the classic error of looking at the war through modern political filters. Take off the cold war blinders and read some more accurate books.
              Spot on and quite beyond dispute.
              The Soviets won because losing meant the death of them as a people.

              The Nazi crusade was genocidal.That's what some analysts and dare I say it 'armchair generals in the West so often forget in the rush to look at:
              . German strategic options - not turning south to Kiev in August instead of pushing on to Moscow immediately, pushing South while simply anchoring the line on the Volga instead of assaulting Stalingrad, using the Panzer armies to defend instead of launching "Zitadelle" etc, etc
              . German technical, tactical and operational superiority
              . the 'mistakes' made by Hitler .....and...
              . the continuous bleat of 'if only he's listened to his generals!'

              All very interesting but in the end irrelevant simply because....
              The Soviets weren't going to stop just because of some defeats in the field or the fall of some cities or strategic pieces of turf.
              Many of you need (especially the robust US/UK fan boy brigade) to get it through your heads that the Soviet crushing of Nazism was THE epic of WWII.
              And for the umpteenth time I'm not disparaging the courage, sacrifice, and sense of duty of Western allied service men and women...it just wasn't the same thing or anything near the same thing that the Soviets went through.
              I'm not a Soviet fan boy as such (my mother's Polish and endured both Nazi and Soviet occupation) just a realist.

              Whatever the faults, tyrannical oppression and at times near insanities of pre-war Stalinist rule, it was cancelled out by Hitler's insane racial doctrine and his attempt to implement it with Barbarossa.
              The Nazi's just being themselves was all the guarantee needed to ensure they'd lose the war.
              However having said all that, it needs to be recognized that the massive, crucial and overwhelmingly decisive Soviet part in winning the war is NOT an
              "overlooked, undervalued, underestimated aspect of WWII".

              Almost all fair-minded historians recognize the importance of the Soviet role now-days

              Regards
              lodestar

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by Tuck's Luck View Post
                I don't need to 'educate' you.

                There's a whole internet out there. You just type your question into a search engine and thousands of links will emerge.

                Yes 'many of the ladies' did have pilots' licenses pre-war, and some didn't, but that doesn't detract from any of their accomplishments, least alone their wartime role.

                They flew all the 'cutting edge' craft of the day from Spits to Lancasters and all variations in between. They also flew them alone and without radio or radar communication.

                Their role was vital and courageous and in terms of 'women's lib', unprecedented. Like the Battle of Britain pilots who saved my country - those women are my WW2 heroes and the accolade is richly deserved.

                So why the sarcasm, did my question rile you somehow?
                The repetition of affirmations leads to belief. Once that belief becomes a deep conviction, you better wake up and look at the facts.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Female pilots of WWII, you know..Olga, Zoya, Raisa, Larisa

                  Originally posted by dutched View Post
                  So why the sarcasm, did my question rile you somehow?
                  I don't think Tuck's Luck was being sarcastic as such dutched.
                  Maybe she was just pointing out that basic factual information can be verified via the net, whereas the ACG Forum is more a debate and discussion site using those facts?

                  What I like about the site are the differing opinions about the causes and effects of various events, disagreements about the virtues and vices of armies, commanders, weapons, strategies etc. and yes, sometimes the touchy/sensitive and provocative stuff like politics and national bias.

                  Having said that it would be interesting to know what someone as robustly patriotically 'British' as Tuck who and feels so strongly about female WWII pilots from the UK thinks of what I said in Post #60......

                  The Soviets had female COMBAT pilots
                  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Not to take anything away from the great courage and daring of Western female pilots who served so bravely ...but...the Soviets had female COMBAT pilots.

                  The really are unsung. At least in the West.

                  Imagine if there had been a Briton or an American female combat pilot? Just one.

                  WE WOULD NEVER HEAR THE END OF IT!


                  Books, movies (Paltrow?, Streep?, Winslet?, Blanchett?, Foster?, Portman?, Knightley?), TV mini-series, documentaries, the works.

                  But then sometimes... when its not one of our guys or gals its kinda not the same is it?
                  Or am I being too unfair?


                  Relax Tuck, there is nothing wrong with being robustly and patriotically British.

                  Regards
                  lodestar

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by lodestar View Post
                    Come now.
                    There were millions (if not billions) of these 'packs' produced. I'm sure plenty were still around in the sixties seventies to be fed to National Guard units, cadets, scouts, third world populations, prison inmates, out of work actors, railroad bums, bored housewives, recuperating junkies, high school domestic science classes, pomegranate farmers and Cuban exiles training for the Bay of Pigs.

                    I'm sure someone's tasted one.

                    Regards lodestar
                    The canned goods didn't keep that long.

                    I've read that the C-rations which we ate in the late 70s were the same foods as the WWII version reconfigured from a box with six cans (3 meals and 3 extras) for an entire day to single meal boxes with one meal can plus extras. The extras included crackers, canned fruit, salt, pepper, instant coffee, sugar, a can of peanut butter, jelly, or cheese spread, etc.


                    The desirability of each meal was easy to determine from its slang name:

                    Ham and mother (ham and lima Beans)
                    Beans and mother (pork and baked beans)
                    Eggs and mother (ham and eggs)

                    Rocks and road wheels (pressed beef slices and potatoes in gravy) was edible if you were hungry enough.

                    I believe that the above four were the original four recipes from WWI.

                    Loaf, Chicken or Turkey and Tuna were quite edible and were at the top of the food chain while pork slices were one rung down. These were added in the 1950s.

                    Anyone who was in the US Army before 1981 is guaranteed to have tasted some or all of these.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by AdrianE View Post
                      The German generals themselves knew that they had to win in 1941 or they would lose. They knew that they had to destroy the Red Army west of the Dvina/Dneipr rivers or they would lose. Halders diaries say so. The Germans didn't and they lost.
                      Halder's diary does not state that the General Staff thought they would lose the war if they didn't destroy the Red Army west of the Dnieper. The Wehrmacht was led to believe by their Intel section that the Red Army would not be able to recover if their pre-campaign forces were destroyed west of the Dnieper, which is a huge difference from what you are suggesting. Even in late November von Bock was still believing the Soviets were out of men and equipment and that it would come down to "the last battalion" at Moscow to decide the campaign in 1941.

                      The fact is that German military, industry and logistics were not up to the task.
                      That was not apparent in 1941 and couldn't be without any precedent to gauge by. No one in Germany could predict the size and scale of the bombing campaign, its impact or industrial impact of the US on the course of the war. The US was not a consideration for Operation Barbarossa but later on during the war between the Axis and the Soviets the US/UK had a major impact of tipping the scales and assisting the Soviet war effort.

                      As long as the Soviet Union kept fighting Germany would lose. Given the genocidal German actions in the Soviet Union, the Red army was going to fight on, no matter what. Politics was irrelevant to the average Red Army draftee. They just knew they had to fight because otherwise the Germans were going to murder everyone they cared about. Thus the Germans were going to lose from day 1.
                      So how does that explain the hundred of thousands of if not millions of Soviet citizens that collaborated as workers, Police, Hiwis or other non-combat troops and also later in the campaign as combat troops.


                      Wages of Destruction by Tooze and Red Army and Soviet Economy by Dunn are good to understand the relative economies and basically set out the economic reasons for the inevitability of the Red Army's victory.
                      Personally, I have found that most people's understanding of "Wages" as its popularly called, consists of repeating the paraphrased opinions of others and rarely consists of analysis of the actual book. The reason for the Red Army's victory, if we have to super simplify it is attrition in a comprehensive sense. What was feeding that attrition rate and how the Soviets came out on top is complex, involves Western Allied factories, Western Allied bombers and many other aspects of the war in a holistic sense. "Wages" explains one aspect that is dependent upon many others and was not pre-scripted to follow a set course.

                      Anyway, just my 2 cents for the sake of the discussion.
                      Last edited by Javaman; 01 Feb 17, 05:05.
                      "Amateurs study tactics; professionals study logistics"
                      -Omar Bradley
                      "Not everyone who studies logistics is a professional logistician, and there is no way to understand when you don't know what you don't know."
                      -Anonymous US Army logistician

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by Javaman View Post
                        So how does that explain the hundred of thousands of if not millions of Soviet citizens that collaborated as workers, Police, Hiwis or other non-combat troops and also later in the campaign as combat troops.
                        Partly it was explained by the dissenters joining the ones who came to "liberate them from Communism", but to a larger degree it was explained by the fact the food supplies were confiscated by the Werhmacht and guess who had greater access to them and for what kind of services. This was often very effective for hunting down Jews in towns - "show me where the Jews are hiding and we'll give you a loaf of bread". What in the Western Europe only the Dutch experienced in the last months of the war, was very common in many parts of the Eastern Front for the most part of the war.
                        www.histours.ru

                        Siege of Leningrad battlefield tour

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by lodestar View Post
                          I don't think Tuck's Luck was being sarcastic as such dutched.
                          Maybe she was just pointing out that basic factual information can be verified via the net, whereas the ACG Forum is more a debate and discussion site using those facts?

                          What I like about the site are the differing opinions about the causes and effects of various events, disagreements about the virtues and vices of armies, commanders, weapons, strategies etc. and yes, sometimes the touchy/sensitive and provocative stuff like politics and national bias.

                          Having said that it would be interesting to know what someone as robustly patriotically 'British' as Tuck who and feels so strongly about female WWII pilots from the UK thinks of what I said in Post #60......



                          Relax Tuck, there is nothing wrong with being robustly and patriotically British.

                          Regards
                          lodestar
                          Ah, but my question was linking the pre war pilot licences which many of the AAT women had. If you are of a certain age you would understand this had to do with socially privileged class. Going on about the big hoohaa of women's liberation which was started by some middle class ladies who do tea, while the women of lower social classes already were working in factories and plant since Victorian times for meagre wages. Absolutely be proud, but at the same time don't get ratty it someone sighs at the table of your playing card pyramid.
                          The repetition of affirmations leads to belief. Once that belief becomes a deep conviction, you better wake up and look at the facts.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by Javaman View Post
                            Halder's diary does not state that the General Staff thought they would lose the war if they didn't destroy the Red Army west of the Dnieper. The Wehrmacht was led to believe by their Intel section that the Red Army would not be able to recover if their pre-campaign forces were destroyed west of the Dnieper, which is a huge difference from what you are suggesting. Even in late November von Bock was still believing the Soviets were out of men and equipment and that it would come down to "the last battalion" at Moscow to decide the campaign in 1941.


                            That was not apparent in 1941 and couldn't be without any precedent to gauge by. No one in Germany could predict the size and scale of the bombing campaign, its impact or industrial impact of the US on the course of the war. The US was not a consideration for Operation Barbarossa but later on during the war between the Axis and the Soviets the US/UK had a major impact of tipping the scales and assisting the Soviet war effort.



                            So how does that explain the hundred of thousands of if not millions of Soviet citizens that collaborated as workers, Police, Hiwis or other non-combat troops and also later in the campaign as combat troops.




                            Personally, I have found that most people's understanding of "Wages" as its popularly called, consists of repeating the paraphrased opinions of others and rarely consists of analysis of the actual book. The reason for the Red Army's victory, if we have to super simplify it is attrition in a comprehensive sense. What was feeding that attrition rate and how the Soviets came out on top is complex, involves Western Allied factories, Western Allied bombers and many other aspects of the war in a holistic sense. "Wages" explains one aspect that is dependent upon many others and was not pre-scripted to follow a set course.

                            Anyway, just my 2 cents for the sake of the discussion.
                            Wasn't it shown in Tooze's "Wages of Destruction" that Germany was bankrupt already in 1940?
                            "Keep Calm. Use Less X's"

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              UK female pilots? Maybe getting credit because of the Brit class system? hmmm?

                              Originally posted by dutched View Post
                              Going on about the big hoohaa of women's liberation which was started by some middle class ladies who do tea, while the women of lower social classes already were working in factories and plant since Victorian times for meagre wages. Absolutely be proud, but at the same time don't get ratty it someone sighs at the table of your playing card pyramid.
                              Very good point. I hadn't yet thought of it like that.
                              I would have eventually of course, my insightfulness, intelligence and overall competence in anything I do would have ensured it would have occurred to me shortly.
                              Thanks for saving me the trouble.

                              Over to you Tuck's Luck?

                              Regards
                              lodestar

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by ShAA View Post
                                Partly it was explained by the dissenters joining the ones who came to "liberate them from Communism", but to a larger degree it was explained by the fact the food supplies were confiscated by the Werhmacht and guess who had greater access to them and for what kind of services. This was often very effective for hunting down Jews in towns - "show me where the Jews are hiding and we'll give you a loaf of bread". What in the Western Europe only the Dutch experienced in the last months of the war, was very common in many parts of the Eastern Front for the most part of the war.
                                True, no quibble there.... Overall though, it goes against common sense to believe that a country that just finished a bloody civil war a generation before the Axis invasion and went through various civilian purges, suppressions, collectivization, etc. would show a patriotic solidarity. There is bound to be a large segment that was going to welcome change in just about any form, at least initially.
                                "Amateurs study tactics; professionals study logistics"
                                -Omar Bradley
                                "Not everyone who studies logistics is a professional logistician, and there is no way to understand when you don't know what you don't know."
                                -Anonymous US Army logistician

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X