The contrarian view, from Lieutenant Colonel William F. Moore, USAF HyperWar: OVERLORD: The Unnecessary Invasion
Air Force Colonel in support of strategic bombing shocker. I said he was a contrarian. I didn't say he was right!
There are many thousands of Staff College alternative views of how past battles were fought. Students are tasked to come up with pros and cons and suggest what they would have done. It is not an exercise in criticism -but to train commanders to evaluate and command by making decisions . Writing up history will not impress the staff instructors.
Good point, Wills, which places a lot of these Staff/War College papers in some context. I read quite a few of them, and there is indeed usually an 'angle'. There've been serious Internet arguments over some of them's contents, and I'm not sure I've ever seen anyone raise the point above.
Indeed, some of the students early attempts are often torn apart critically and that is right. However, what it does indicate to the instructors there are some who are capable of constructing plans and others will not. These must not be confused with staff college publications where conflicts are 're-fought' using logs.
I disagree with Lt-Col Moore's argument on a number of levels but here's what I find most objectionable: the alternative strategy of not invading western Europe and relying on the Red Army and the Allied air forces to defeat Germany boils down to "Let the Russians do all the dying". Furthermore, if it were to be generally accepted in the US that the US should not intervene (or should pull its punches if it does intervene) in wars which its allies can win on their own, even when its intervention would end the war sooner, then why should US allies send troops to fight alongside the US in places like Iraq and Afghanistan when the participation of their comparatively small forces is not going to make much difference? Rob
I disagree with Lt-Col Moore's argument on a number of levels but here's what I find most objectionable: the alternative strategy of not invading western Europe and relying on the Red Army and the Allied air forces to defeat Germany boils down to "Let the Russians do all the dying". Furthermore, if it were to be generally accepted in the US that the US should not intervene (or should pull its punches if it does intervene) in wars which its allies can win on their own, even when its intervention would end the war sooner, then why should US allies send troops to fight alongside the US in places like Iraq and Afghanistan when the participation of their comparatively small forces is not going to make much difference? Rob Rob, Present day U.S. foreign policy has virtually nothing to do with the political circumstances and attitudes of 1944. It's an inappropriate and irrelevent comparison. By 1944, all the Allied nations, especially the Russians, were considering and preparing for the post war political landscape. Before you develop too much sympathy for the Russians, I suggest you read a little about their handling of the Warsaw uprising. At a mercenary level, defeating Germany without having to expend additional Commonwealth and American lives would not have been an unattractive outcome to many. That option, however, carried the very real risk of massive Soviet control and influence in Europe.
Post war policy: Austria Rehabilitation Plan II (1945) Austria Rehabilitation Plan III (1945) One of my bosses had this on his wall. framed. 'Make a decision for Christ's sake, even if it is a wrong one' That is what many a thesis is about. An alternative might not be agreeable to all but it proves that the author has the ability to plan. 51% of your decisions right- you might win 49% and you lose!
Canuck, Your comment that "Present day U.S. foreign policy has virtually nothing to do with the political circumstances and attitudes of 1944" is true, but I'm not talking about how present day US foreign policy might be different had there been no OVERLORD, I'm talking about how the foreign policy of other countries might be different today if there had been no OVERLORD. What would the French attitude toward the US be today had the US Army divisions in the UK stayed put until T-34s were visible from Dover? Okay, I'm exaggerating, most likely the fall of Berlin would have triggered a delayed landing, but as you imply the Soviets would probably have occupied all of Germany, plus Austria, Denmark, perhaps the Netherlands and maybe part of France. There might have been a West France and East France, instead of a West Germany and East Germany. "Let the other guys do the dying" might be an appropriate policy in some circumstances (this was Nationalist China's policy after Pearl Harbor), but it was just not an option for the major and middle-sized Allied countries. Think of all the soldiers of 1st Canadian Army who volunteered to fight Hitler and who for several years simply sat and waited in the UK for OVERLORD to be launched. If the landing had been delayed until 1945 and had involved nothing more than occupying territory the Red Army had not yet reached (like the combat-less British re-occupation of Singapore after the Japanese surrender), the Liberal government in Ottawa might have been relieved but the soldiers would have been ashamed and probably angry. I rather suspect that the US soldiers and the US public would also be pretty disgusted to think that the US Army had played no direct role in the defeat of Germany. Given that Moore feels that Hitler could have been defeated by the Red Army and the UK-based strategic air forces, I'm a little surprised that he didn't argue against Torch, Husky and the invasion of Italy too. It certainly would have saved US lives if all the ABC (American, British, Canadian) landings were delayed until the Gemans collapsed. By the way, I have no particular sympathy for the Soviets. They were as nasty as you imply. Rob
Canuck, Your comment that "Present day U.S. foreign policy has virtually nothing to do with the political circumstances and attitudes of 1944" is true, but I'm not talking about how present day US foreign policy might be different had there been no OVERLORD, I'm talking about how the foreign policy of other countries might be different today if there had been no OVERLORD. What would the French attitude toward the US be today had the US Army divisions in the UK stayed put until T-34s were visible from Dover? Okay, I'm exaggerating, most likely the fall of Berlin would have triggered a delayed landing, but as you imply the Soviets would probably have occupied all of Germany, plus Austria, Denmark, perhaps the Netherlands and maybe part of France. There might have been a West France and East France, instead of a West Germany and East Germany. "Let the other guys do the dying" might be an appropriate policy in some circumstances (this was Nationalist China's policy after Pearl Harbor), but it was just not an option for the major and middle-sized Allied countries. Think of all the soldiers of 1st Canadian Army who volunteered to fight Hitler and who for several years simply sat and waited in the UK for OVERLORD to be launched. If the landing had been delayed until 1945 and had involved nothing more than occupying territory the Red Army had not yet reached (like the combat-less British re-occupation of Singapore after the Japanese surrender), the Liberal government in Ottawa might have been relieved but the soldiers would have been ashamed and probably angry. I rather suspect that the US soldiers and the US public would also be pretty disgusted to think that the US Army had played no direct role in the defeat of Germany. Given that Moore feels that Hitler could have been defeated by the Red Army and the UK-based strategic air forces, I'm a little surprised that he didn't argue against Torch, Husky and the invasion of Italy too. It certainly would have saved US lives if all the ABC (American, British, Canadian) landings were delayed until the Gemans collapsed. By the way, I have no particular sympathy for the Soviets. They were as nasty as you imply. Rob I have Thanks for the explanation Rob. I didn't see that point of view from your original post. I would agree that the 'national pride' of the western allies would never have allowed them to remain on the sidelines, no matter how sound the strategy of using Russian lives might be. The military and the public would have been outraged. Please also excuse my lack of manners. Welcome aboard!
Thanks for the warm welcome. I think this site is going to be one of the few I visit all the time. fyi, my area of greatest interest is "Operation C", about which I've written one article. It's at Leonard Birchall and the Japanese Raid on Colombo if anyone is interested. I also wrote one entitled "Was the RCN Ever the Third Largest Navy?", which is at http://www.navalreview.ca/wp-content/uploads/public/vol5num3/vol5num3art2.pdf. Best regards, Rob
when you think the war was over in Western Europe in the incredibly short time of 12 months - think how much time it would have taken to drive a sherman from Utah Beach to Czechoslovakia on WW2 roads, even against no resistance and the time is remarkably short. It's always interesting to think " what could have been " but there was no alternative to a land battle for Europe in some way shape or form by the Western Allies
