So another idea from my friend Dave is to tackle the fun topic of accuracy of American Military themed movies. At first, I was taken aback. Lately, movies have become much more attentive to accuracy, but some...well, we're not gonna go there. May have to revisit some really baaaaaad history movies (Pearl Harbor...::vomits slightly in my mouth::), but we'll see. So far, I've got a few in mind, going to be watching "Tora, Tora, Tora" again as well as "Midway," "Gods and Generals," and others if I can. I look forward to watching some great and not so great films once again and critiquing them on their accuracy.
If you have any ideas for films, please feel free to comment.
Here's what I've got so far:
Midway
Tora, Tora, Tora
Gettysburg
Gods and Generals
John Adams (not fully a military film, but Adams does become a pirate!)
Band of Brothers
The Pacific
We Were Soldiers
The Patriot
Saving Private Ryan
Windtalkers
Jarhead
The Longest Day
Battle of the Bulge
A Bridge to Far
Black Hawk Down
The New World
The Great Escape
Great Raid
Flyboys
Glory
Thin Red Line
The Alamo (Not really American, but still a neat movie)
Sergeant York
The Green Berets
In Harm's Way
Sands of Iwo Jima
The Horse Soldiers
The Dirty Dozen
Pearl Harbor
I'm sure there are more, but this is a pretty comprehensive list.
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
Friday, March 4, 2011
Washington: The Great Military Genius?
I will admit, I've been on a World War II tear personally (I recently watched "The Pacific" and am reading accounts of two of the Marines profiled in that series about their experiences in that firestorm), but I didn't want this to be a purely WWII blog. So I'm shifting gears and asking for input on America's first true military hero: George Washington.
What made Washington so great? Let's explore his experiences in war. As a young twentysomething, he started the French and Indian War and accompanied Braddock on his infamous march of destiny into the Pennsylvania wilderness. Unlike many of the contemporary British officers, he tasted defeat often early in his career and I believe this helped to forge the officer he would become. To often, success surprisingly leads to an inability to be a great officer. So to learn via failure is a great indicator of future success. He also learned how failure can be a good thing. If you look at Washington's record on the battlefield, he has really only two complete successes on the open battlefield: Trenton and Princeton. Monmouth can be considered a tactical and strategic victory, but he sustained higher losses than the British so that's a push in my mind. Yorktown, while an important victory, was a siege, not an open field fight. Look how many times Washington lost: Brooklyn Heights, Kip's Bay, Brandywine Creek, Germantown. He really doesn't have a good battlefield record, but realized something later generals (I'm singling out Napoleon and Lee here...trust me, I'm doing a post on Lee later about this) should have realized. From a strategic perspective instead of fighting to win, Washington often fought not to lose. How is that different? Washington realized he would never be able to win America's independence outright...he didn't have the troops or resources. But he could outlast the British government in England to the point where he could make the war to costly in blood and treasury for them to continue. Ultimately, this would happen. Yorktown led not to the end of the war because of the surrender of a British field army, rather, it ended due to the collapse of the wartime government (Americans call it an administration) at that time. The new government simply sued for peace to end the fighting.
Another thing I think Washington learned was to care for his troops. This is seen several times throughout the conflict. First is the cleaning up of the camps in 1775. He separated ill soldiers, tried to get them better rations and equipment. While this was not always possible, his troops recognized this. He appealed to them to continue the war after their victory at Trenton when many of them were due to go home at the end of the week. Many people point to Saratoga as the turning point of the revolution. If you ask me, there wouldn't be a Saratoga without a Trenton and a week later, Princeton. These twin victories sustained the Revolution through its darkest hour. Upon being forced out of Philadelphia and his failure to recapture the city, Washington set up the army at Valley Forge. Furloughs were given to officers to go home for part of the winter and many did to escape the difficult conditions. It would have been very easy for Washington to go home to Mount Vernon, where he had not seen in over three years. But he stayed with his men, fought with Congress for clothing, pay, and food. He improved sanitation and medical conditions as best he could.
Washington also recognized good subordinates, a must for any commander. Granted, he made a huge collapse of faith in Benedict Arnold, but otherwise he chose solid second tier commanders such as Greene, Harry Lee, Wayne and Knox. He also knew how to us the personnel sent to him by Congress. Most were former European officers who exaggerated their own opinion of themselves, but a few stood out above the rest. Officers like Steuben (Inspector General), Kościuszko (engineer), and in highest regard, the Marquis de La Fayette. These officers served Washington with distinction.
Another area that I believe made Washington a good general was his pre-war experience in charge of Mount Vernon. He had to run the plantation efficiently and effectively in order for it to succeed financially. It helped with logistics and planning when it comes to operating an army. Supply sometimes is harder to achieve than the actual combat tactics, so directing Mount Vernon's veritable army of slaves certainly helped make Washington a better army commander.
All these things came together in Washington to help him succeed where I believe other top ranked commanders in the Continental Army would not have.
What made Washington so great? Let's explore his experiences in war. As a young twentysomething, he started the French and Indian War and accompanied Braddock on his infamous march of destiny into the Pennsylvania wilderness. Unlike many of the contemporary British officers, he tasted defeat often early in his career and I believe this helped to forge the officer he would become. To often, success surprisingly leads to an inability to be a great officer. So to learn via failure is a great indicator of future success. He also learned how failure can be a good thing. If you look at Washington's record on the battlefield, he has really only two complete successes on the open battlefield: Trenton and Princeton. Monmouth can be considered a tactical and strategic victory, but he sustained higher losses than the British so that's a push in my mind. Yorktown, while an important victory, was a siege, not an open field fight. Look how many times Washington lost: Brooklyn Heights, Kip's Bay, Brandywine Creek, Germantown. He really doesn't have a good battlefield record, but realized something later generals (I'm singling out Napoleon and Lee here...trust me, I'm doing a post on Lee later about this) should have realized. From a strategic perspective instead of fighting to win, Washington often fought not to lose. How is that different? Washington realized he would never be able to win America's independence outright...he didn't have the troops or resources. But he could outlast the British government in England to the point where he could make the war to costly in blood and treasury for them to continue. Ultimately, this would happen. Yorktown led not to the end of the war because of the surrender of a British field army, rather, it ended due to the collapse of the wartime government (Americans call it an administration) at that time. The new government simply sued for peace to end the fighting.
Another thing I think Washington learned was to care for his troops. This is seen several times throughout the conflict. First is the cleaning up of the camps in 1775. He separated ill soldiers, tried to get them better rations and equipment. While this was not always possible, his troops recognized this. He appealed to them to continue the war after their victory at Trenton when many of them were due to go home at the end of the week. Many people point to Saratoga as the turning point of the revolution. If you ask me, there wouldn't be a Saratoga without a Trenton and a week later, Princeton. These twin victories sustained the Revolution through its darkest hour. Upon being forced out of Philadelphia and his failure to recapture the city, Washington set up the army at Valley Forge. Furloughs were given to officers to go home for part of the winter and many did to escape the difficult conditions. It would have been very easy for Washington to go home to Mount Vernon, where he had not seen in over three years. But he stayed with his men, fought with Congress for clothing, pay, and food. He improved sanitation and medical conditions as best he could.
Washington also recognized good subordinates, a must for any commander. Granted, he made a huge collapse of faith in Benedict Arnold, but otherwise he chose solid second tier commanders such as Greene, Harry Lee, Wayne and Knox. He also knew how to us the personnel sent to him by Congress. Most were former European officers who exaggerated their own opinion of themselves, but a few stood out above the rest. Officers like Steuben (Inspector General), Kościuszko (engineer), and in highest regard, the Marquis de La Fayette. These officers served Washington with distinction.
Another area that I believe made Washington a good general was his pre-war experience in charge of Mount Vernon. He had to run the plantation efficiently and effectively in order for it to succeed financially. It helped with logistics and planning when it comes to operating an army. Supply sometimes is harder to achieve than the actual combat tactics, so directing Mount Vernon's veritable army of slaves certainly helped make Washington a better army commander.
All these things came together in Washington to help him succeed where I believe other top ranked commanders in the Continental Army would not have.
Doing Britain's Dirty Work
I've been on a bit of a WWII tear, so please bear with me, I really plan for this to be an American Military History blog, but been inspired by a good friend of mine...thanks Dave.
A while back, I recently looked into the European Theater of Operations and made a startling realization about the British Army: they let the "colonials" do all the dirty work. Let's look shall we?
Canada - Their troops got some pretty raw deals. First, Dieppe. I mean, the British select the 2nd Canadian Infantry Division for this raid on a port city. They take serious losses...granted the Allied did learn a lot that would save Allied lives at Normandy two years later, but still, I think the Canucks got the short end of the stick. Next, the 1st Canadian Army was assigned the far left flank of the Allied advance, although they were not on the left flank of the landing at Normandy (Juno, the middle British sector beach versus Sword, the leftmost beach). It was their job to clear the Channel ports of German resistance (Le Havre, Dieppe, Boulogne, Calais, and Dunkirk). For their big finale, the clearing of the Scheldt Estuary was left to the Canadians in fighting on Walchren Island.
New Zealand - The 2nd New Zealand Division was assigned to Europe and fought in Greece and Crete. After being evacuated to Egypt, the division participated in the fight with Italy and Germany in the desert. They played a major supporting role in El Alamein and ultimately worked to expel the Axis from the North African shore. They were refitted during Sicily, but were sent to Italy and was involved in one of the most vicious assaults of the war at Monte Cassino. They finally went on to help penetrate the Gothic Line in Italy.
Australia - They took some serious beatings in World War II. They served in Greece, Crete and Egypt along with surrendering to the Japanese at Singapore. One of the most difficult fights for the Aussies was the defense of Tobruk, the port in Libya in North Africa. The Aussies were surrounded for nearly a year before being relieved, constantly harassed by air and on land, only getting supplied by the sea. In 1941 it was the Australians who broke Rommel's back at El Alamein through ferocious fighting.
India - These troops made up the bulk of the 14th Army found in Burma. They fought in the jungle and kept the Japanese out of India especially at the vicious jungle fights at Imphal and Kohima. Their forces also helped liberate Burma through the unbearable jungles.
Sure makes me wonder what was Britain's motivation...expendable colonials? Necessary Allies? We may never know. Just something to think about...
A while back, I recently looked into the European Theater of Operations and made a startling realization about the British Army: they let the "colonials" do all the dirty work. Let's look shall we?
Canada - Their troops got some pretty raw deals. First, Dieppe. I mean, the British select the 2nd Canadian Infantry Division for this raid on a port city. They take serious losses...granted the Allied did learn a lot that would save Allied lives at Normandy two years later, but still, I think the Canucks got the short end of the stick. Next, the 1st Canadian Army was assigned the far left flank of the Allied advance, although they were not on the left flank of the landing at Normandy (Juno, the middle British sector beach versus Sword, the leftmost beach). It was their job to clear the Channel ports of German resistance (Le Havre, Dieppe, Boulogne, Calais, and Dunkirk). For their big finale, the clearing of the Scheldt Estuary was left to the Canadians in fighting on Walchren Island.
New Zealand - The 2nd New Zealand Division was assigned to Europe and fought in Greece and Crete. After being evacuated to Egypt, the division participated in the fight with Italy and Germany in the desert. They played a major supporting role in El Alamein and ultimately worked to expel the Axis from the North African shore. They were refitted during Sicily, but were sent to Italy and was involved in one of the most vicious assaults of the war at Monte Cassino. They finally went on to help penetrate the Gothic Line in Italy.
Australia - They took some serious beatings in World War II. They served in Greece, Crete and Egypt along with surrendering to the Japanese at Singapore. One of the most difficult fights for the Aussies was the defense of Tobruk, the port in Libya in North Africa. The Aussies were surrounded for nearly a year before being relieved, constantly harassed by air and on land, only getting supplied by the sea. In 1941 it was the Australians who broke Rommel's back at El Alamein through ferocious fighting.
India - These troops made up the bulk of the 14th Army found in Burma. They fought in the jungle and kept the Japanese out of India especially at the vicious jungle fights at Imphal and Kohima. Their forces also helped liberate Burma through the unbearable jungles.
Sure makes me wonder what was Britain's motivation...expendable colonials? Necessary Allies? We may never know. Just something to think about...
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
R.I.P. Frank Buckles
I won't deny that World War I is not my specialty, I cannot deny the significance of this event. Frank Buckles, the last American veteran of World War I, died Sunday. It is truly an end of an era. I believe the last major passing of US veterans occurred in the 1950s with the deaths of the veterans of the Civil War. This also got me thinking about our last "doughboy."
World War I is another one of those "overlooked" wars here in America. It did not occur on any US territory and also not one memorialized in D.C. To most Americans, names like Chateau-Thierry and Belleau Wood don't evoke emotions like Pearl Harbor or Valley Forge. That is not to discount the veterans of that terrible conflict do not deserve our recognition and thanks. They endured much in the trenches, gas and for the first time, air attacks.
World War I was a nasty affair. Imagine the linear type tactics of the 19th century meeting the newest technology of the 20th: airplane, gas shell and most lethally, the machine gun. It also saw a new nickname for the US Marines: "Teufelhund"...literally translated "Devil Dogs." World War I invokes words such as "trenchfoot" and "mustard gas." It also led to the collapse of three monarchies in Europe (Germany, Austria-Hungary and Russia).
What made it even more tragic was when the World War I veterans retired, America didn't want to listen to them. That was in the 1960s during Vietnam. Now, they are indeed a memory of a forgotten, misunderstood war now lost to the annals of American Military History.
World War I is another one of those "overlooked" wars here in America. It did not occur on any US territory and also not one memorialized in D.C. To most Americans, names like Chateau-Thierry and Belleau Wood don't evoke emotions like Pearl Harbor or Valley Forge. That is not to discount the veterans of that terrible conflict do not deserve our recognition and thanks. They endured much in the trenches, gas and for the first time, air attacks.
World War I was a nasty affair. Imagine the linear type tactics of the 19th century meeting the newest technology of the 20th: airplane, gas shell and most lethally, the machine gun. It also saw a new nickname for the US Marines: "Teufelhund"...literally translated "Devil Dogs." World War I invokes words such as "trenchfoot" and "mustard gas." It also led to the collapse of three monarchies in Europe (Germany, Austria-Hungary and Russia).
What made it even more tragic was when the World War I veterans retired, America didn't want to listen to them. That was in the 1960s during Vietnam. Now, they are indeed a memory of a forgotten, misunderstood war now lost to the annals of American Military History.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)