I am not sure what you mean by this but this was exactly what Hitler wanted and expected (as far as fighting to the end & last man - his expectation for the Germans write large was every bit like the Japanese Ruling Junta for the guys on Iwo Jima - different reasons and culture sure, but every bit the same general expectation of no surrender, honorable death in battle, no prisoners etc.)
I would point out that this was exactly what he and his his closest associates actually did in the end (as far as hunkering down in an underground bunker)
Maybe you were just saying that German strategy was different and I agree,
Krauts and Japs were whom we were fighting back then if you don’t like the language take it up with your Dad and Grand Dad. I used those terms to enforce the intense racial prejudices of the time, which tied in with my opinion at the end of my statement. As for the last part of your statement the Japanese had no choice but use static defenses as a tactic at the end of the war it was their only option. Once the might of US industry came to bare we overwhelmed them with men and machines. Our campaign to retake the Pacific was slowed precisely because the IJA relied on fortified positions this is why we adopted an island hopping campaign. Once the US Pacific fleet was reconstituted we could force non-strategic IJA strongholds to wither on the vine. Napalm was used to great effect especially during the home island campaigns precisely because of static emplacements.
No, you did not. You used them to simply refer to the Germans and the Japanese. Your posts were not about racial prejudices, they were about the logistics of warfare, and “Germans” and “Japanese” are perfectly good words.
Maybe your grandfather used racist words. So what? Please don’t throw around racial epithets unless you’re discussing racial epithets, which you were not.
I’ll leave aside any discussion of the merits of using “Krauts” and “Japs” in a thread about defensive tactics - or even “Huns” and Nips" :smack:
This is a pretty confused statement. As Entreprise noted, on most Pacific islands there was no space for sweeping manoeuvers, whether in attack or defense - just overwhelming firepower and head on assault against well dug in desperate defenders. This does not mean that the defenders did not mount counter-attacks to retake lost positions. The island hopping campaign was dictated by the map of the Pacific - not either American or Japanese tactics - and it was slowed by space and logistics as much as the fortified positions. Non-strategic stongholds were left to whither and napalm was used to good effect but this has nothing to do with whether the Japanese use static defenses. Incidently, as I remember it, there were no Home Islands campaigns - they surrendered before we had to assault the Home Islands. See all the previous threads on the dropping of the Bomb.
Regarding the diference between the Germans and the Japanese, I think there was a real difference . Hitler certainly called for his forces to fight to the last man and die before they surrendered but - apart from his cronies in the bunker - very few of them did so. Even the Waffen SS generally gave up when the situation was hopeless. There was just no tradition of mass suicide - as opposed to individual heroism and sacrifice - in European culture. On the other hand, there are many examples of Japanese troops dying in preference to surrender. Partly a long term cultural meme and partly militeristic indocrination throughout the 20s and 30s.
Going back to the OP, the thing to remember is it’s not an either/or. Well dug in defenses are vital - they are a force multiplier and essential if the defending troops are not to be slaughtered by the attacking firepower - but an effective defense should ideally have sufficient forces to counter-attack and retake lost positions - the alternative is to be slowly destroyed, even if the attackers can’t or won’t outflank the defense.
A majority of people back then used those terms and worse (I’m sure your Grandfather was included). Watch some old war era movies or cartoons or read some war era newspapers (see below). If my intent were to be racially divisive every mention of the then enemy in every post would have been “Tojo” and “Fritz” that was not the case. My mentions were to remind everyone or the racial hatred exhibited by all sides during the war this is obliviously something you never knew or want to forget regardless of historical context. I mentioned Kraut in conjunction with their capture by the Russians these people held a great racial hatred for each other the German’s saw Slavs as “untermench” I didn’t know any Russian slang (sorry). As for Japan I guess you’re too young to remember wartime cartoons (they stopped showing them in the 70’s). Bugs Bunny with thick glasses squinty eyes and larger buckteeth than normal or him dressed a Hitler. Why did we find it necessary to place American citizens of Japanese descent in internment camps and not Germans? One justification giving at the time was to protect them from racist (then called angry) neighbors
World War II: NEWARK EVENING NEWS. Dec 8, 1941. "U.S. Declares War! Japs Smashing Manila, World War II: CLEVELAND NEWS. Ded 15, 1937. “Survivor Tells First Story of Jap Attack. Reveals U.S. Gunboat Crew Fought Planes Until Warship Sank.”, World War II: HARRISBURG TELEGRAPH, Aug 14, 1945. “EXTRA” “WAR IS OVER; ALLIES ACCEPT JAP SURRENDER” , World War II: THE CHICAGO DAILY NEWS, Dec 11, 1941. "U.S. Sinks Jap Battleship World War II: CHICAGO HERALD AMERICAN. “EXTRA” in huge red letters above the masthead at top. “U.S. SINKS 7 JAP WARSHIPS” , World War II: ROCKFORD REGISTER-REPUBLIC, Dec 8, 1941. “EXTRA” huge bold headline above masthead. “AWAIT FDR WAR CALL AS JAPS RENEW RAIDS” World War II: NEW YORK DAILY MIRROR. Aug 15, 1945. "Truman Announces: WAR OVER. Japs Accept All Terms THE BOSTON DAILY GLOBE. Aug 15, 1945. "FIGHTING STOPS ON ALL FRONTS; Truman Accepts Jap Unconditional Surrender NEW YORK DAILY NEWS. Aug 15, 1945. “It’s Official! JAPS GIVE UP” THE BALTIMORE (MD) EVENING SUN. Aug 11, 1945. "Allies Accept Jap Offer If Emperor Obeys Orders of Supreme Commander; World War II: THE HAGERSTOWN (MD) DAILY MAIL. Dec 14, 1937. “Japan Meets Demands of F.D.R.; Nanking in Flames; Japs Form New Chinese Government.” CHICAGO DAILY TRIBUNE, Aug 11, 1944. “M’Arthur Hits Philippines; B-29s Bomb Jap Port of Nagasaki and Sumatra Oil Base” World War II: CHICAGO DAILY NEWS, Feb 1, 1945. “RESCUE YANK CAPTIVES FROM JAP PRISON CAMP. Rangers free 513 on Luzon” World War II: CHICAGO DAILY NEWS, Aug 10, 1945. “REPORT JAPS ASK PEACE IF HIROHITO CAN REMAIN.”
Most of them were not interned, merely relocated. And tens of thousands of whites from hostile nations were treated the same way, so the motive was not mere racism.
I thought the ‘fact’ that Japanese didn’t surrender was a myth.
?
I thought if given a chance, they surrendered as readily as any other nation. It’s just that they usually were not given the chance.
{not to slam just the U.S. or the ANZACS…but Japanese behavior of POWs early in the war made the Allies not willing to surrender themselves so they didn’t think of taking prisoners…not that there wasn’t racism involved as well}
Japanese soldiers had been trained to believe that they would be tortured and/or killed if they surrendered, so many of them really did prefer to fight to the death or commit suicide. Many civilians at Okinawa chose suicide because they believed they would be tortured by the Allies. What’s more, many of them were fully aware of the brutal treatment that Allied prisoners received at the hands of the Japanese and saw no reason to believe they would be treated any better if captured. Once take prisoner, they were often so amazed and grateful at being treated humanely that they talked their heads off when questioned; the interrogator often only had to offer them a cigarette and a cup of tea and speak to them in a friendly manner. Another reason so many of them talked so freely was that they received no training as to how to behave after capture because it was assumed that they would simply never allow themselves to be captured. That said, I don’t doubt there were at least some cases in which Allied troops killed Japanese soldiers rather than allow them to surrender, particularly towards the end of the war when it was becoming known just what sort of horrors were being inflicted on Allied POW’s (e.g. being used in medical and biochemical warfare experiments, being used for food when surrounded Japanese garrisons ran short of rations, etc.).
I tried finding a cite…but am at work and cannot goof off too much but I had read that when Americans and ANZACS really tried to take prisoners, they usually could and in amounts much greater than they thought they would.
Guess I’ll leave it for more an expert…if they come along. I could be remembering incorrectly.
It was very rare indeed for Japanese soldiers to surrender whether or not allied forces were in the mood to take prisoners.
It was near the end when it was apparent to the Japanese that the war was lost that some Japanese started surrendering.
To answer the O.P. the Germans were very successful using manouver tactics in defence on the Russian front.
When the Russians were going to mount a major attack on the Germans it was usually telegraphed beforehand by the massive build up of forces plus often deserters would give the likely assault date to the Germans.
The Germans would then very quietly move the majority of their forces back ten or twenty miles leaving a skeleton force of M.G.s in their old front line.
On the day of the assault the Russians would unleash their massive artillery bombardment on the largley empty German positions,the remaining Germans would then fall back .
Russian armour followed by infantry would then move forward mile after mile wasting fuel and ammo,suffering breakdowns and gradually losing their alertness .
After they had penetrated ten or twenty miles the Germans would go around and attack them from the flanks,pinching off the assault from the follow up troops and usually inflicting devestating damage on the soviets.
Can you give an example of a battle where they did this? Certainly the normal German defensive formation did not concentrate forces in the front line (see previous posts) but moving “the majority of their forces back ten or twenty miles” and “go around and attack them from the flanks,pinching off the assault from the follow up troops and usually inflicting devestating damage on the soviets” - I can’t think of an example.
Not saying it didn’t happen - it was a big war - just not sure it was a usual, or successful, tactic against the Soviets.
In the winter of 42-43 (after Stalingrad), I believe the Germans did this in Southern Russia…basically allowed the Russians to penetrate, then cut them off from the flank.
Not sure what you mean here. German defensive tactics in WW1 were generally excellent, in that they did exactly what MarcusF outlined - dig a good set of trenches, man them enough to prevent the enemy capturing them unopposed, keep most of their troops out of reach of the nuclear-level artillery barrage and move them forward into the trenches (and shell-holes) while the allies were wading across no-mans land. They generally held their trenches relatively easily, or recaptured them easily from the ragged remmnants of the Ango-French assault troops. Since they were sat on captured enemy terrain, they also spent more time building concrete bomb-proofs and ‘permanent’ trenches than the allies - who were notionally in ‘temporary’ trenches until they could eject the Germans.
As has been said before, in modern warfare no defense can hold if you give the enemy enough time to assemble a meat-grinder and then hammer your positions into dust- you need to disperse your forces in the rear area and move them forward in counter-attack. Bear in mind that once modern firepower made an entrance, all you need is a handful of intact troops, and they can slow any advance across beaten ground to a literal crawl, giving you time to reinforce.
It was quite a common tactic,off of the top of my head I think it was used at Kharkov,when the Germans were retreating.
I might have a look round to give you a proper cite.
Whenever Hitler put his oar in with one of his "You will not give up any ground to the enemy without fighting to the last man"type orders it tended not to be used.
The tactic which the Germans called loosely “Allowing the enemy to punch air” was finally sussed out by the Russians who on occasion would dispense with the very long,massive artillery barrages in favour of a short sharp shellingbefore a major attack.
If I remember rightly the “withdraw before the Russian attack and let the massive artillery barrage fall upon largely empty positions” tactic was a very late war development and was pioneered by General Heinrici. It was certainly employed by him in the battle for the Seelow Heights in April 1945. I am not aware that it was a widely used stratagem, and it would be unlikely the Soviets would have continued until April 1945 with the massive artillery barrages with which they opened their major offensives if this had been a common German tactic.
but I had read that when Americans and ANZACS really tried to take prisoners, they usually could and in amounts much greater than they thought they would.