Did farm boys make the best soldiers?
SolomonW
farming community and the army preferred them to city people.
Do you agree?
William Black
> According to a book I am reading, the best recruits tended to come from the
> farming community and the army preferred them to city people.
I assume you don't mean engineers and signallers here.
--
William Black
"Any number under six"
The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of
Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat
single handed with a quarterstaff.
Dave Smith
Perhaps some farm boys grew up with a solid work ethic and respect for
their elders which made them a little tougher and more obedient. I
don't know of any reliable records that indicate the quality of soldiers
based on a rural or urban upbringing, so we would have to go by
anecdotal accounts.
My father in law fought in the American army in WWI and I must have been
a good soldier because he was promoted to sergeant within a short time.
I was under the impression from what he had said about his childhood
that he had been raised on a farm because he told so many stories about
his life on the farm. As it turned out, his family had only spent one
year in farming, so perhaps it just seemed like a life time to him. They
moved back to the city, so must of his childhood was spent in the city.
My father, OTOH, was raised in the country. His family has a small
property and raised rabbits and chickens, and had their own cow, and he
and his brothers worked for local farmers. They moved to the city in his
first year of high school, so records would likely show that he he was
recruited from the city.
I have just finished reading Dick Winters book, Beyond the Band of
Brothers, and Winters has high praise for a number of the men in his
unit, both city boys and farm boys.
Dave
> According to a book I am reading, the best recruits tended to come from the
> farming community and the army preferred them to city people.
Clarify which army.
In the American Civil War the farm boys succumbed to contagious
diseases to which their city-bred brethren had built up immunities. In
the 1940s, farm boys of all nationalities were probably accustomed to
no indoor plumbing and no electricity so the adjustment to living in
the field might have been easier. Being a good soldier is about
discipline, obedience, and being a productive member of a team. IMHO
for the U.S. Army I can see where farm boys might not adjust as easily
to regimentation and authority.
Dave Wilma
www.DavidWilma.com
deem...@aol.com
> the 1940s, farm boys of all nationalities were probably accustomed to
> no indoor plumbing and no electricity so the adjustment to living in
> the field might have been easier.
I agree with this. Also, they were probably more used to hunting,
fishing, hiking, and working outdoors.
Being a good soldier is about
> discipline, obedience, and being a productive member of a team. IMHO
> for the U.S. Army I can see where farm boys might not adjust as easily
> to regimentation and authority.
Disagree. The cities tend to be the breeding grounds for rebellion
and challenge to authority. (This is a VERY big generalization) Farm
life is all about discipline, obedience, and working as a team. I'm
betting your average farm kid of the time was more used to hard
physical labor.
deem...@aol.com
Recruits vs soldiers? I can see farm and rural recruits being more
used to boot camp conditions, living outdoors, etc. Once they were
trained, I don't see a whole lot of difference. Higher education
levels from more urban types would be a plus for many fields.....yes,
even infantry.
Michele
news:056d3fb6-8ac5-4e77...@x12g2000yqx.googlegroups.com...
So the question that has to be asked before the question is, what makes a
good soldier.
I notice nobody has mentioned being used to killing. There is a school of
thought according to which being used to kill small farm animals and even
larger ones, say pigs, helped a lot when it came to killing human beings.
Especially with a bayonet.
Generally speaking, however, I think it's a moot question. All armies had
plenty of farm boys for the very simple reason that that was the
overwhelming majority of the people at the time, so, assuming farm boys were
indeed the best soldiers, nobody felt a lack of them. OTOH every army felt a
lack of suitable candidates for all sorts of specializations, even down to
truck drivers, and even for the infantry.
Bradipus
> In
>> the 1940s, farm boys of all nationalities were probably
>> accustomed to no indoor plumbing and no electricity so the
>> adjustment to living in the field might have been easier.
>
> I agree with this. Also, they were probably more used to
> hunting, fishing, hiking, and working outdoors.
I suppose a farm boy has killed more animals than a city boy.
> Being a good soldier is about
>> discipline, obedience, and being a productive member of a
>> team. IMHO for the U.S. Army I can see where farm boys might
>> not adjust as easily to regimentation and authority.
>
> Disagree. The cities tend to be the breeding grounds for
> rebellion
> and challenge to authority. (This is a VERY big
> generalization) Farm life is all about discipline, obedience,
> and working as a team. I'm betting your average farm kid of
> the time was more used to hard physical labor.
I agree.
Country life is less innovative than city life.
--
o o
L
___
Dave Smith
> I agree.
> Country life is less innovative than city life.
I have to disagree with that. Farmers are very innovative. You have
probably heard the term "farmer fix". They may not always do things by
the book, but they had all sorts of ways to make things work. Farm
equipment needed a lot of maintenance and was prone to break down.
Farmers had to learn how things worked and how to fix them, and more
important, how to do it without ready access to spare parts.
As I suggested before, it would be hard to determine if recruits were
city boys or country boys without going through individual biographical
information. My father spent his first 14 years on a farm but moved to
the city, enlisted at age 19, having lived in the city for 5 years and
having been recruited in the city. Recruiting centres tended to be in
the cities, so most recruits would have listed in larger centres.
My father's farm experience was probably a great asset to him. He
learned a lot about equipment from working on farms. He got proper
technical training in high school and then went to an aircraft school
before enlisting in the air force. The country living was probably most
helpful to him when he was shot down in April 1943 over Denmark. He
walked over 100 km, mostly through bush and farm fields, sleeping in
barns and one night in a manure pile... which was nice and warm.
He went into the air force as an airman, was promoted to sergeant when
he went on air crew, was awarded a DFC, and was commissioned.
deem...@aol.com
>> I suppose a farm boy has killed more animals than a city boy.
Agreed, but how that translates into killing humans is
debatable.
>
> > Being a good soldier is about
> >> discipline, obedience, and being a productive member of a
> >> team. IMHO for the U.S. Army I can see where farm boys might
> >> not adjust as easily to regimentation and authority.
>
>
> I agree.
> Country life is less innovative than city life.
If you mean less technologically advanced, I'll agree. if you
mean making do with what you have, rigging what you need, etc, I
totally disagree. Farm/rural folk have to be more self-sufficient
because there's much less of a safety net.
deem...@aol.com
> I notice nobody has mentioned being used to killing. There is a school of
> thought according to which being used to kill small farm animals and even
> larger ones, say pigs, helped a lot when it came to killing human beings.
The Japanese tried to use this as a defense for their cruelty.
They said that since Japanese were much less used to being around farm
animals, slaughtering them, etc that they tended to go into a frenzy
when the killing began.
> Especially with a bayonet.
Very little killing was done with the bayonet.
>
> Generally speaking, however, I think it's a moot question. All armies had
> plenty of farm boys for the very simple reason that that was the
> overwhelming majority of the people at the time, so, assuming farm boys were
> indeed the best soldiers, nobody felt a lack of them. OTOH every army felt a
> lack of suitable candidates for all sorts of specializations, even down to
> truck drivers, and even for the infantry.
The US farm boys tended to be much more technologically savvy than
the others. They were used to cars, tractors, mechanical farm
machinery, etc. A fair number were decent mechanics and
electricians.....at least they understood the basics on how motors,
etc worked.
Bill Shatzer
-snip-
> Generally speaking, however, I think it's a moot question. All armies had
> plenty of farm boys for the very simple reason that that was the
> overwhelming majority of the people at the time, so, assuming farm boys were
> indeed the best soldiers, nobody felt a lack of them. OTOH every army felt a
> lack of suitable candidates for all sorts of specializations, even down to
> truck drivers, and even for the infantry.
Dunno 'bout the Axis nations or the other Western allies but that
wouldn't be true of the United States.
According to the 1940 census, the US population was 56% urban, 43% rural
- and the census notes that almost half of the rural population did not
reside on farms but rather in small towns, villages and hamlets which
were not large enough to qualify as "urban".
The 1920 census was the first which showed a majority of the population
living in urban areas. Before 1920, it might be correct that a majority
(although not an "overwhelming majority") of the population was farm
boys (and girls). By 1940 that was clearly no longer the case.
Bill Shatzer
> According to a book I am reading, the best recruits tended to come from the
> farming community and the army preferred them to city people.
Not mentioned by others was that "farm boys" tended to have a greater
familiarity with firearms. The proportion of the rural population who
owned and used firearms on a regular basis prior to induction was
considerably larger than that of the urban population.
Hunting, both for meat and to control predators and vermin was much more
common in the rural populations.
Not that you can't train a "city boy" to be proficient with a rifle but
it tends to come easier to a person who grew up using firearms.
deem...@aol.com
> - and the census notes that almost half of the rural population did not
> reside on farms but rather in small towns, villages and hamlets which
> were not large enough to qualify as "urban".
I'd bet the same, or even greater % urban, would go for most of
Western Europe. Maybe not Portugal or Spain.....Southern Italy was
pretty rural....but the rest were probably at least 50% urban.
Definitely the UK, Belgium, Netherlands, Denmark.
I guess it's how urban/rural would be defined. Lots of medium
sized towns scattered through France and Germany.
William Black
> SolomonW wrote:
>
>> According to a book I am reading, the best recruits tended to come
>> from the
>> farming community and the army preferred them to city people.
>
> Not mentioned by others was that "farm boys" tended to have a greater
> familiarity with firearms. The proportion of the rural population who
> owned and used firearms on a regular basis prior to induction was
> considerably larger than that of the urban population.
That may not be that big an advantage in many armies.
Armies like their soldiers to do things 'their way'.
Having a selection of people who come out with stuff like "My uncle Zeke
says it don't happen that way..." isn't going to go down well.
mtfe...@netmapsonscape.net
> deem...@aol.com, 18:21, mercoled? 24 marzo 2010:
> > Disagree. The cities tend to be the breeding grounds for
> > rebellion
> > and challenge to authority. (This is a VERY big
> I agree.
> Country life is less innovative than city life.
Interesting; one of the things that supposedly gave the US an advantage
was that the farm boys were more used to working on machines. Since
machines (jeeps, trucks, tanks) broke down in the field even under
ideal circumstances, having a group of people used to keeping such things
running might be considered an advantage.
Not sure how city life is more "innovative" in that regard.
Mike
mtfe...@netmapsonscape.net
> >
> > I notice nobody has mentioned being used to killing. There is a school of
> > thought according to which being used to kill small farm animals and even
> > larger ones, say pigs, helped a lot when it came to killing human beings.
> The Japanese tried to use this as a defense for their cruelty.
> They said that since Japanese were much less used to being around farm
> animals, slaughtering them, etc that they tended to go into a frenzy
> when the killing began.
I've actually never heard that as a Japanese defense.
Can you recall where you read that?
Mike
deem...@aol.com
> Armies like their soldiers to do things 'their way'.
>
> Having a selection of people who come out with stuff like "My uncle Zeke
> says it don't happen that way..." isn't going to go down well.
True to a point, but having recruits know which end is which
and what those little lead and brass things are can't hurt.
A bit more seriously, since the US was building an army from
scratch, having some guys proficient with firearms was a plus. This
might've been different for the Euro nations.
mtfe...@netmapsonscape.net
> Generally speaking, however, I think it's a moot question. All armies had
> plenty of farm boys for the very simple reason that that was the
> overwhelming majority of the people at the time, so, assuming farm boys were
Actually, the US had a larger city than rural population by the mid 1920s.
Mike
Bradipus
I suppose we disagree because we think to different countries.
USA farms were much more technologically rich than European
farms.
USA has always been innovative in farm technology because there
was little manpower, on the contrary Europe always had plenty
of underemployed farm workers, many of them had to hemigrate in
Nineteenth century.
That means also that USA farmers were more prone to accept
changes than European farmers.
deem...@aol.com
> I've actually never heard that as a Japanese defense.
>
> Can you recall where you read that?
>
> Mike
I'll have to look it up. I believe it was in "The Great Pacific
War".....the author's name escapes me (He is/was Japanese)
David H Thornley
>
> I'll have to look it up. I believe it was in "The Great Pacific
> War".....the author's name escapes me (He is/was Japanese)
>
it isn't there.
--
David H. Thornley | If you want my opinion, ask.
da...@thornley.net | If you don't, flee.
http://www.thornley.net/~thornley/david/ | O-
deem...@aol.com
> deemsb...@aol.com wrote:
>
> > I'll have to look it up. I believe it was in "The Great Pacific
> > War".....the author's name escapes me (He is/was Japanese)
>
> Ienaga? I don't remember that from my reading, which doesn't mean
> it isn't there.
That sounds right. It might not have been a specific trial
defense.....rather after-the-fact justification by some officers and/
or writers. I'll try to dig it out and look it up later tonight. I
think it was in the last chapter or so where he was covering
atrocities.
William Black
So how did the USSR manage?
mtfe...@netmapsonscape.net
> >
> > I've actually never heard that as a Japanese defense.
> >
> > Can you recall where you read that?
> I'll have to look it up. I believe it was in "The Great Pacific
> War".....the author's name escapes me (He is/was Japanese)
I think you mean Ienaga's book; I don't recall him saying that in the book.
Mike
Diogenes
<deem...@aol.com> wrote:
>>snip<<
>
> The US farm boys tended to be much more technologically savvy than
>the others. They were used to cars, tractors, mechanical farm
>machinery, etc. A fair number were decent mechanics and
>electricians.....at least they understood the basics on how motors,
>etc worked.
As a result of a rural upbringing I am a fairly competent carpenter,
plumber, electrician, engine mechanic and general tinkerer. If you
live on a farm you get pretty darn good at fixing everything from
tractors to barn doors. You don't have much choice.
----
Diogenes
The wars are long, the peace is frail
The madmen come again . . . .
mtfe...@netmapsonscape.net
> mtfe...@netMAPSONscape.net wrote:
> > Bradipus <ahem...@never.mind.it> wrote:
> >> deem...@aol.com, 18:21, mercoled? 24 marzo 2010:
> >
> >>> Disagree. The cities tend to be the breeding grounds for
> >>> rebellion
> >>> and challenge to authority. (This is a VERY big
> >
> >> I agree.
> >> Country life is less innovative than city life.
> >
> > Interesting; one of the things that supposedly gave the US an advantage
> > was that the farm boys were more used to working on machines. Since
> > machines (jeeps, trucks, tanks) broke down in the field even under
> > ideal circumstances, having a group of people used to keeping such things
> > running might be considered an advantage.
> So how did the USSR manage?
Not sure they had a large portion of their farms mechanized.
Mike
deem...@aol.com
> So how did the USSR manage?
Not very efficiently. (Obviously well enough, though) Their
vehicles broke down with alarming regularity. The US-built trucks were
probably at least as important as the weapons that they received.
Diogenes
When I went through US Army basic training we shot what was then
called the "Trainfire" course, which had popup targets out to ~ 600
yards. Our battalion CO was very gung-ho on rifle marksmanship and he
held a little ceremony for the top scoring shooters. Talking among
ourselves we found that every single one of us had grown up with
firearms and learned to shoot as kids. The Army marksmanship training
program was very good as I recall, but most of the things it taught
(sight picture, breath control, trigger squeeze) were already second
nature to us.
Bradipus
FWIK in Europe firearms are much more strictly controlled by all
Governments that don't like people go around with guns
(revolutions etc.)
Moreover hunting was not so common among poor farmers who cannot
afford to buy a rifle and a hunting licence.
deem...@aol.com
It's in Soldiers of the Sun by Meiron and Susie Harries...pp 477-78
of my copy. They quote Yuji Aida in Prisoner of the British...A
Japanese Soldier's Experiences in Burma. Not only is he quoted as I
said, but also saying that the excesses of the Bataan Death March, etc
can be linked to the lack of herding experience among the Japanese.
mtfe...@netmapsonscape.net
OK. Japanese are nothing if not facile with after-the-fact rationalizations.
I wonder how they explained the difference between (eg) Bataan and the
exemplary treatment POWs received in the Russo-Japan war, though. So
far as I know, they had no more herding experience earlier in the century :-)
Mike
Bill Shatzer
"The Great Pacific War" was a 1920s novel by Hector Bywater imagining
(with some accuracy but much inaccuracy as well) a future war between
the US and Japan.
I certainly hope that was not your source as "The Great Pacific War" was
a fiction novel.
I suppose there might be two books with the same title but Bywater's
opus had sufficient renown that it has pretty much preempted the title.
I doubt anyone would reuse that title, more or less as "War and Peace"
or "Moby Dick" are unlikely to be reused.
Tero P. Mustalahti
> I guess it's how urban/rural would be defined. Lots of medium
> sized towns scattered through France and Germany.
Well, if your primary job is not in agriculture or forestry and you live
in a settlement larger than a hamlet or village, I would say that you
are urban, even if the population of your town is in the low thousands.
If your neighbors do not work in agriculture, either, you are definitely
urban.
Tero P. Mustalahti
Michele
news:b193d665-a936-4ae4...@z3g2000yqz.googlegroups.com...
>> According to the 1940 census, the US population was 56% urban, 43% rural
>> - and the census notes that almost half of the rural population did not
>> reside on farms but rather in small towns, villages and hamlets which
>> were not large enough to qualify as "urban".
>
> I'd bet the same, or even greater % urban, would go for most of
> Western Europe. Maybe not Portugal or Spain.....Southern Italy was
> pretty rural....but the rest were probably at least 50% urban.
> Definitely the UK, Belgium, Netherlands, Denmark.
>
Which pales in comparison with the numbers of infantrymen put into uniform
by the USSR or China. I mentioned the "majority" - meaning out of everyone
on the planet.
> I guess it's how urban/rural would be defined. Lots of medium
> sized towns scattered through France and Germany.
>
The point would not be about living in an isolated farm or in a small town
or large hamlet - where you still have first-hand experience with working
most hours outdoors in the field, digging holes, killing chicken and
rabbits, and not questioning your pa or employer.
Michele
news:hodsqg$rd3$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Michele wrote:
>
> -snip-
>
>> Generally speaking, however, I think it's a moot question. All armies had
>> plenty of farm boys for the very simple reason that that was the
>> overwhelming majority of the people at the time, so, assuming farm boys
>> were indeed the best soldiers, nobody felt a lack of them. OTOH every
>> army felt a lack of suitable candidates for all sorts of specializations,
>> even down to truck drivers, and even for the infantry.
>
> Dunno 'bout the Axis nations or the other Western allies but that wouldn't
> be true of the United States.
>
And they are the exception.
Michele
news:749b695b-1832-4e59...@g28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
> >
>> I notice nobody has mentioned being used to killing. There is a school of
>> thought according to which being used to kill small farm animals and even
>> larger ones, say pigs, helped a lot when it came to killing human beings.
>
> The Japanese tried to use this as a defense for their cruelty.
> They said that since Japanese were much less used to being around farm
> animals, slaughtering them, etc that they tended to go into a frenzy
> when the killing began.
>
>
> Very little killing was done with the bayonet.
>>
I'm not advocating that the school of thought above was right; I was just
reporting it.
>> Generally speaking, however, I think it's a moot question. All armies had
>> plenty of farm boys for the very simple reason that that was the
>> overwhelming majority of the people at the time, so, assuming farm boys
>> were
>> indeed the best soldiers, nobody felt a lack of them. OTOH every army
>> felt a
>> lack of suitable candidates for all sorts of specializations, even down
>> to
>> truck drivers, and even for the infantry.
>
> The US farm boys tended to be much more technologically savvy than
> the others. They were used to cars, tractors, mechanical farm
> machinery, etc. A fair number were decent mechanics and
> electricians.....at least they understood the basics on how motors,
> etc worked.
>
Of course. More the exception than the rule, however.
Tero P. Mustalahti
> FWIK in Europe firearms are much more strictly controlled by all
> Governments that don't like people go around with guns
> (revolutions etc.)
Hunting weapons (i.e. long guns like rifles and shotguns) were not that
strictly controlled in most European countries. You usually needed a
license, but getting one was in general not difficult if you had a farm.
Even in the Soviet Union it was not uncommon for rural folks to have
hunting rifles, especially not in Siberia where wild predators were
common and could pose a threat to farm animals and hunting was still a
part of everyday life for many people.
It was different for city dwellers, however, since most of them did not
have a valid reason for gun ownership in the eyes of the officials. Then
again gun control for pistols was before WW2 still more relaxed in most
European countries than it is today. Generalizations concerning pistols
are difficult, since the laws varied a lot between countries.
> Moreover hunting was not so common among poor farmers who cannot
> afford to buy a rifle and a hunting licence.
In the intensive farming areas of countries like France there was not
that much to hunt, either. Birds and rabbits perhaps.
Tero P. Mustalahti
Tero P. Mustalahti
> I wonder how they explained the difference between (eg) Bataan and the
> exemplary treatment POWs received in the Russo-Japan war, though. So
> far as I know, they had no more herding experience earlier in the century :-)
German POWs were also treated very well by Japanese during WW1, up to a
point that guards and POWs formed friendships in some occasions. Of
course there were only a small number of them, but I don't think anyone
could take take the animal killing excuse for WW2 seriously, especially
when we know that under the militarist government there was a general
brutalization of Japanese military training. For example beating new
recruits was a standard practice in order to "make the tougher", which
had NOT been the case before.
Tero P. Mustalahti
Don Phillipson
news:4baa954a$0$819$4faf...@reader5.news.tin.it...
> mtfe...@netMAPSONscape.net, 23:30, mercoled? 24 marzo 2010:
> > . . . one of the things that supposedly gave the US an
> > advantage was that the farm boys were more used to working on
> > machines. Since machines (jeeps, trucks, tanks) broke down in
> > the field even under ideal circumstances, having a group of
> > people used to keeping such things running might be considered
> > an advantage.
>
> USA has always been innovative in farm technology because there
> was little manpower, on the contrary Europe always had plenty
> of underemployed farm workers, many of them had to hemigrate in
> Nineteenth century.
> That means also that USA farmers were more prone to accept
> changes than European farmers.
The practical outcome may have been simpler than that.
If half a dozen British soldiers came across a wrecked
vehicle during WW2, probably only one or two would have
any driving experience let alone be capable of putting the vehicle
into service. Among any 6 US soldiers, at least 4 would
have held driving licences and one or two were likely to
be experienced in car repair and making wrecks go again.
Farm roots mattered less.
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)
jaz...@yahoo.com
> On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 15:02:13 -0400, "deemsb...@aol.com"
>. . . . .
>
> As a result of a rural upbringing I am a fairly competent carpenter,
> plumber, electrician, engine mechanic and general tinkerer. If you
> live on a farm you get pretty darn good at fixing everything from
> tractors to barn doors. You don't have much choice.
>
> ----
> Diogenes
I built and operated small, chemical research "Pilot Plants" and
"Market Development Plants" in the 70's and 80's. Research meant
that you often didn't know exactly what was going to happen so you had
to improvise, change, and otherwise re-do in order to figure out how
to make the product.
I always wanted farm boys as operators, (and engineers if I could
get them.) They were ". . .pretty darn good at fixing everything from
tractors to barn doors. . ." and it showed.
-Jason
deem...@aol.com
I was wrong...it's "The Pacific War".
deem...@aol.com
> <deemsb...@aol.com> ha scritto nel messaggionews:b193d665-a936-4ae4...@z3g2000yqz.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> According to the 1940 census, the US population was 56% urban, 43% rural
> >> - and the census notes that almost half of the rural population did not
> >> reside on farms but rather in small towns, villages and hamlets which
> >> were not large enough to qualify as "urban".
>
> > I'd bet the same, or even greater % urban, would go for most of
> > Western Europe. Maybe not Portugal or Spain.....Southern Italy was
> > pretty rural....but the rest were probably at least 50% urban.
> > Definitely the UK, Belgium, Netherlands, Denmark.
>
> Which pales in comparison with the numbers of infantrymen put into uniform
> by the USSR or China. I mentioned the "majority" - meaning out of everyone
> on the planet.
Agreed.
>
> > I guess it's how urban/rural would be defined. Lots of medium
> > sized towns scattered through France and Germany.
>
> The point would not be about living in an isolated farm or in a small town
> or large hamlet - where you still have first-hand experience with working
> most hours outdoors in the field, digging holes, killing chicken and
> rabbits, and not questioning your pa or employer.
My experience with rural areas and people is they question
things about as often as anyone else. Unless the father/boss is a
tyrant, things are very informal...but when it's time to work
(planting, harvest, fixing things)...it's time to work.
William Black
Have you any evidence to back that up?
I very much doubt that 33% of British men had driven a motor vehicle in
WWII unless the army had taught them to drive.
I also doubt that 66% of US men had either...
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> According to a book I am reading, the best recruits tended to come from the
> farming community and the army preferred them to city people.
There are so many variables that I don't think one can make
generalizations.
As others mentioned, we must first determine the definition of a good
'soldier'. Remember that 'soldiers' encompassed a great many fields,
from automotive and aviation mechanics, engineers, office clerks,
medics, electronics tech, laborer, artillery, as well as the
traditional infantry rifleman. What makes a good rifleman is not
necessarily a good mechanic.
Also, remember there were a great many different types and skill
levels of "farm boys". Not all were creative with tools and machines
or strong and hard workers; some were lazy and troublemakers just as
you'd find in any group. There was a likely a difference if the boy
was the son of a farm owner vs. the son of a landless farm hand. Our
histories talk about farm families who own the farm, but gives less
info on the lifestyle of the hired hands. There were probably many
'farm boys' who were actually from nomadic families, very poor,
unskilled, who drifted around looking for work, especially during the
Depression.
Indeed, one of the problems the Army found after the Depression was
that they had to initially reject many boys because their health was
so bad from poverty or ignorance. As described in a sociology book
(Plainview USA), many small towns of pre-war U.S. were isolated with
very poor education. Farming and family care were unchanged for many
years and relied on superstition and tradition. I suspect this was
more of a problem with rural boys than city boys due to the isolation
and lack of money. (This was also a problem in recruits for the
Willow Run bomber plant and other war time centers; the customs of the
new rural folk clashed badly with the existing people.)
As an aside, cartoonist Bill Mauldin wrote a series of books
describing his life (beyond the well known "Up Front"). He grew up on
a farm in a cash poor family and well describes the lifestyle,
education, and economics his family had to deal with. His books also
go into detail about the life of an infantryman.
City boys did not lead a uniform lifestyle either. Certainly a boy
who was into books and school and headed toward college probably
wasn't as physically rugged as boys from a farm (and the army often,
though not always, found appropriate technical work for such boys,
such as the MED SEDs). But plenty of city boys grew up in a physical
environment. It wasn't uncommon back then for boys to leave school at
8th grade and take industrial jobs. Entry level jobs meant laborer--
digging ditches, loading trucks, railroad track gang, warehousemen,
etc. Factories used plenty of laborers simply move raw and finished
materials from one work station to the next. So, plenty of young men
from the city got quite tough from working in those occupations. Even
kids staying in school (a great many dropped out) had afterschool jobs
involving physical work.
David H Thornley
> I very much doubt that 33% of British men had driven a motor vehicle in
> WWII unless the army had taught them to drive.
>
> I also doubt that 66% of US men had either...
>
I find that very believable. Very many people owned cars, and while
driving wasn't the universal thing of today, it was very common.
My grandparents had cars at the time, and they weren't all that well-off.
deem...@aol.com
> I find that very believable. Very many people owned cars, and while
> driving wasn't the universal thing of today, it was very common.
> My grandparents had cars at the time, and they weren't all that well-off.
Mine, too. There were about 30 million adult males in 1940. US
car manufacturers built over 15 million cars during the 1930s....and
more during the 20s. 2/3 is quite believable.
mike
>
> I find that very believable. Very many people owned cars, and while
> driving wasn't the universal thing of today, it was very common.
> My grandparents had cars at the time, and they weren't all that well-off.
>From a 1940 population of 132,164,000- There were 27,165,826
autos registered, around three times greater per capita rate
of the nearest French or UK rate, which in turn was far greater
than what Germany was at, Autobahns notwithstanding.
After all, the lowest of the low, Tom Joad, owned an old truck
in the Grapes of Wrath, as did many of the Quarter Million
real life Oakies.
**
mike
**
Diogenes
Your experience reminds me of an article I read a few years ago (I
think it was in the American Heritage Invention & Technology magazine)
about the Manhattan Project. The author stated that the unsung heroes
of that undertaking were the technicians and engineers whose efforts
converted the theoretical physics of Oppenheimer, Teller, Fermi et.al.
into actual reality. One of the project managers later described them
as " . . mostly Midwestern farm boys who'd grown up with a
dawn-to-dusk work ethic and had the uncanny ability to fix just about
anything."
mike
> I suppose there might be two books with the same title but Bywater's
> opus had sufficient renown that it has pretty much preempted the title.
> I doubt anyone would reuse that title, more or less as "War and Peace"
> or "Moby Dick" are unlikely to be reused.
Saburo Ienaga. Its an odd read, though.
**
mike
**
Diogenes
There's an amusing story about the "Grapes of Wrath". During the Cold
War a Soviet diplomat saw the film and had an inspiration. He
approached his superiors and said "Here is a movie made by the
Americans themselves which shows how the Wall Street plutocrats grind
the faces of the working class. We can turn this into a first-rate
propaganda coup."
Accordingly the Soviet government made countless copies of the film
(without paying a penny of royalties, of course) and began showing it
on collectives all over the Worker's Paradise. The reaction of the
audience, however, was not what they had expected.
Russians leaving the movie were overheard to say "These are the >poor<
people in America and yet THEY HAVE THEIR OWN AUTOMOBILE!"
Stalin had the film immediately yanked from further distribution; the
ultimate fate of that clever Soviet diplomat is unknown.
Diogenes
As I recall there was a WWII US armored commander (Patton?) who made
the same point. He claimed that his men had a huge advantage in
mechanized warfare because most of them had been tooling around (and
working on) a Model T from the time they were sixteen years old.
However after D-Day a high percentage of the Quartermaster Corps
drivers were black (e.g., the Redball Express), and it is not likely
that very many black Americans of that period had the opportunity to
drive a car or truck before entering the army.
Diogenes
Col. David Grossman has written several seminal books on the subject
which he terms "killology". In one of them (On Killing: The
Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society ) he
contrasts the treatment of Russian POW's by the Japanese in 1905 with
the systematic atrocities they later visited upon enemy soldiers and
subject civilians in WWII. Grossman states that this was a result of
an organized, calculated effort by the Japanese military leadership to
transform the national martial ethic into one of brutality and
barbarity.
Judging from the behavior of the Japanese Army that effort was
successful.
Col. Grossman also claims that the extremely violent interactive video
games of today are doing to our children what the Japanese Army NCO's
did to their subordinates in the 1930's.
mtfe...@netmapsonscape.net
> However after D-Day a high percentage of the Quartermaster Corps
> drivers were black (e.g., the Redball Express), and it is not likely
> that very many black Americans of that period had the opportunity to
> drive a car or truck before entering the army.
A great many blacks of the time were from the South, and were driving
trucks and tractors, if not their own.
Mike
mtfe...@netmapsonscape.net
> On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 11:45:54 -0400, "Tero P. Mustalahti"
> <term...@gmail.com> wrote:
> subject civilians in WWII. Grossman states that this was a result of
> an organized, calculated effort by the Japanese military leadership to
> transform the national martial ethic into one of brutality and
> barbarity.
Quite possibly; the Japanese forces ca. 1905 were led by old (no longer
officially) samurai and had more discipline.
> Judging from the behavior of the Japanese Army that effort was
> successful.
> Col. Grossman also claims that the extremely violent interactive video
> games of today are doing to our children what the Japanese Army NCO's
> did to their subordinates in the 1930's.
Not that much different from what they watch or read in Japan today; doesn't
seem to be much of a problem with brutal violence in Japan now.
Mike
deem...@aol.com
> Quite possibly; the Japanese forces ca. 1905 were led by old (no longer
> officially) samurai and had more discipline.
The IJA had loads of discipline....just maybe the wrong kind.
Brutality and atrocities were systemic. The Rape of Nanking wasn't a
spontaneous action...it was ordered.
I've read that the normal punishment for infractions was a slap
or even punch in the face. That would tend to brutalize the ranks.
Also, the officer candidate schools were pretty harsh.....lots of
deprivation which made the average officers, on graduation, smaller
than the civilian average.
William Black
> William Black wrote:
>> I very much doubt that 33% of British men had driven a motor vehicle in
>> WWII unless the army had taught them to drive.
>>
> The army did teach at least some people to drive.
Lots of them, including Spike Milligan and my father.
But I've no idea how many.
As the British army was the first fully motorised army in the world I
imagine it may well have been more than I thought.
Dave Smith
>> The army did teach at least some people to drive.
>
> Lots of them, including Spike Milligan and my father.
>
> But I've no idea how many.
>
> As the British army was the first fully motorised army in the world I
> imagine it may well have been more than I thought.
I don't know about other armies, but the Canadian armed forces requires
drivers to be trained and qualified in each class of vehicle. Just being
able to drive and having a licence does not mean that they would know
how to drive the types of vehicles they would be using in the army. Most
cars would have had standard transmissions at the time, but a lot of
military vehicles we 4 wheel drive. Some had dual transmissions and
drivers would have to learn how to use that combination of gears and
ranges. Tracked vehicles are very much different from wheeled vehicles.
And then there is the specialized equipment like winches, lifts and
wreckers. Training includes pre trip inspections, maintenance and road
tests.
Vehicles of that era were not as reliable as vehicles today and
breakdowns were common. The army did not want to find itself short of
transport due to misuse and lack of maintenance.
I was in a technical unit and everyone in our unit received driver
training in all the vehicles we had ( all were wheeled vehicles). There
were other local units for infantry and artillery in which only a small
number were trained and qualified as drivers. As a result, our members
of our unit were often sent along on their training exercises as drivers.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> Your experience reminds me of an article I read a few years ago (I
> think it was in the American Heritage Invention & Technology magazine)
> about the Manhattan Project. The author stated that the unsung heroes
> of that undertaking were the technicians and engineers whose efforts
> converted the theoretical physics of Oppenheimer, Teller, Fermi et.al.
> into actual reality. One of the project managers later described them
> as " . . mostly Midwestern farm boys who'd grown up with a
> dawn-to-dusk work ethic and had the uncanny ability to fix just about
> anything."
Not all accounts were positive. For instance, the MED hired young men
as laborers to build the pile under the stadium. These were guys who
knew they would be soon drafted and were just killing time. Their
work ethic left something to be desired. (I wish I could remember
where I read this.)
Also, at Los Alamos, the children of the construction people were very
poorly behaved and rather disruptive at the Los Alamos school.
mike
Overall, Auto ownership in the South was the least per capita
in the US pre WWII
Generally, the Midwest was the highest, then the following
West, then East and the Mid-South, with 'Old South' last.
Tractor sales also mirrored this.
But the per capita rate for Autos in the South still exceeded the UK
rate
**
mike
**
mtfe...@netmapsonscape.net
> >
> > Quite possibly; the Japanese forces ca. 1905 were led by old (no longer
> > officially) samurai and had more discipline.
> The IJA had loads of discipline....just maybe the wrong kind.
Not really; look at the career of Col. Tsuji, for example. He once
burned down a building where his superiors were being "entertained"
by some local professionals, forged orders, etc. There were numerous
assassinations and attempts at such by junior officers throughout the
late 20s and 30s, etc. None of these are the earmarks of disciplined
force.
> Brutality and atrocities were systemic. The Rape of Nanking wasn't a
> spontaneous action...it was ordered.
By whom? Tokyo was so shocked by it that it was one of the reasons the
"comfort women" program was initiated.
> I've read that the normal punishment for infractions was a slap
> or even punch in the face. That would tend to brutalize the ranks.
Those would be relatively minor punishments; beatings were very common.
> Also, the officer candidate schools were pretty harsh.....lots of
> deprivation which made the average officers, on graduation, smaller
> than the civilian average.
??
Mike
deem...@aol.com
> burned down a building where his superiors were being "entertained"
> by some local professionals, forged orders, etc. There were numerous
> assassinations and attempts at such by junior officers throughout the
> late 20s and 30s, etc. None of these are the earmarks of disciplined
> force.
That was part of their charm. Seriously, the junior officer
revolt was sanctioned by many of their superiors. It was a way for
things to get done without the old guys having to put themselves or
their honor on the line. By discipline I meant the IJA put up with
enormous hardships and didn't quit. They suicided when ordered. They
made suicide attacks when ordered. They rarely surrendered. They
endured hardships that we would find unimaginable...and still
soldiered on. Maybe fatalism is as good a word for it, but they just
kept on until it was just humanly impossible.
>
> > Brutality and atrocities were systemic. The Rape of Nanking wasn't a
> > spontaneous action...it was ordered.
>
> By whom? Tokyo was so shocked by it that it was one of the reasons the
> "comfort women" program was initiated.
By the commanders on the spot. They ordered all men with
calloused hands to be executed. They allowed the troops free reign
without trying to put the brakes on.
> > Also, the officer candidate schools were pretty harsh.....lots of
> > deprivation which made the average officers, on graduation, smaller
> > than the civilian average.
>
> ??
I'll have to dig for that. I've read that the Japanese military
academies essentially starved the cadets when they were young
teenagers. They slept in inheated rooms, often without blankets...all
of which was supposed to toughen them. This resulted in stunted
growth, bowlegs and other malnutrition-related problems. Don't
remember where I read it, though.
mtfe...@netmapsonscape.net
> > Not really; look at the career of Col. Tsuji, for example. He once
> > burned down a building where his superiors were being "entertained"
> > by some local professionals, forged orders, etc. There were numerous
> > assassinations and attempts at such by junior officers throughout the
> > late 20s and 30s, etc. None of these are the earmarks of disciplined
> > force.
> That was part of their charm. Seriously, the junior officer
> revolt was sanctioned by many of their superiors. It was a way for
Actually, the people assassinated were often their superiors. It would
be more correct to say their superiors were often afraid of the junior
officers.
> things to get done without the old guys having to put themselves or
> their honor on the line.
Having direct, written orders contramanded by an inferior doesn't usually
"get things done"; it usually lead to breakdowns, as it did throughout
the pre-US war period.
> By discipline I meant the IJA put up with
> enormous hardships and didn't quit. They suicided when ordered. They
That would be no different than the way the armed forces performed in
the Russo-Japan war.
> made suicide attacks when ordered. They rarely surrendered. They
> endured hardships that we would find unimaginable...and still
> soldiered on. Maybe fatalism is as good a word for it, but they just
> kept on until it was just humanly impossible.
True, but true of a lot of armies in that war.
> > > Brutality and atrocities were systemic. The Rape of Nanking wasn't a
> > > spontaneous action...it was ordered.
> >
> > By whom? Tokyo was so shocked by it that it was one of the reasons the
> > "comfort women" program was initiated.
> By the commanders on the spot. They ordered all men with
> calloused hands to be executed.
I'd love to see a reference for those orders; certainly, the upper command
was suitably embarrassed, and wanted it stopped.
> > > Also, the officer candidate schools were pretty harsh.....lots of
> > > deprivation which made the average officers, on graduation, smaller
> > > than the civilian average.
> >
> > ??
> I'll have to dig for that. I've read that the Japanese military
> academies essentially starved the cadets when they were young
> teenagers.
They weren't allowed into the academies as young teenagers.
>They slept in inheated rooms, often without blankets...all
> of which was supposed to toughen them. This resulted in stunted
> growth, bowlegs and other malnutrition-related problems. Don't
> remember where I read it, though.
Many of the recruits were from the poorer rural districts, and already
suffered from malnutrition, etc. Indeed, the poor conditions of the
rural areas (compared to, say, Tokyo) was one of the things fueling the
anger of junior officers, who sought to "purify" the nation.
Mike
Bill Baker
> Have you any evidence to back that up?
>
> I very much doubt that 33% of British men had driven a motor vehicle in
> WWII unless the army had taught them to drive.
>
> I also doubt that 66% of US men had either...
Forgotten your Huxley, have you?
Every time the subject comes up, you state the same conceit, that the
motorization of American culture is historically overblown and that of
the UK forever underestimated. It's just not true. My grandmother,
growing up on a farm in rural Idaho in the 1920's, knew how to drive
before she started high school. Fifty years later she could still
recite the steps to start a Model T from memory. From her
recollections it sounded like most of her classmates knew how to drive
as well. Not all households owned a motor vehicle, but most knew how
to drive one.
Conversely, when I lived in North Ealing in 1977, my memory is that
maybe half of the households owned a car. The landlord of our bedsit
didn't. The sassy Irish mum a few houses down whose daughter I was
sweet on, she didn't. I suppose more than half the neighbors knew how
to drive but not much more than that. Almost none of the local teens
knew how to drive. I remember that clearly because I amazed they were
when I talked matter-of-factly about getting my license and driving
myself to high school when I got home.
The UK never had a Henry Ford or the equivalent of a Model T. Fact.
Maybe that's a good thing. More likely that the geography of the
nation and the massive investment in rail transit in the hundred years
prior to WWII precluded the need for a Model T. You'll get no argument
from me on that tenet.
Don Phillipson
news:vosnq5ltelojj7jq6...@4ax.com...
> Your experience reminds me of an article I read a few years ago (I
> think it was in the American Heritage Invention & Technology magazine)
> about the Manhattan Project. The author stated that the unsung heroes
> of that undertaking were the technicians and engineers whose efforts
> converted the theoretical physics of Oppenheimer, Teller, Fermi et.al.
> into actual reality. One of the project managers later described them
> as " . . mostly Midwestern farm boys who'd grown up with a
> dawn-to-dusk work ethic and had the uncanny ability to fix just about
> anything."
The phenomenon was general for the period (science 1900-1950,
i.e. lives of people born between Einstein and Feynmann:)
1. The research degree (PhD) became a professional
requirement. Laboratories of the period contained raw
materials but not the gadgetry now normal -- so that in
many branches of science it was normal for the PhD
candidate to spend up to a year designing, building and
debugging a new sort of machine, and only thereafter
use it for the production of new data that would earn
his research degree.
2. There were obvious discrepancies between life
on the farm and life in the big city. Secondly there was
a vigorous "talent-spotting" regime that recognized
unusual brains and imagination in students (e.g. teenagers
at rural colleges) and pushed them into advanced training.
The elite science schools of all countries (USA, Germany,
Canada etc.) put the best brains of town and country together.
3. Scientists whose careers were launched during or
before the Depression (1929-39) usually felt grateful that
they had careers at all, and commonly developed strong
personal values of public service, i.e. the duty of the
scholarship beneficiary to repay the community that had
helped him along.
4. The model laboratory of 1900-1950 (#1 above)
was later agreed to be Cambridge University's Cavendish
Laboratory (physics) as managed by Nobel laureate
Ernest Rutherford, where talent ran free to develop
however it could (cf. discoveries of the neutron 1932,
and later DNA structure.) This ideology of ultra-cheap
"sealing wax and string" experimenation was later
condemned by some scientists as mystical and incoherent,
thus a bad model for "Science Policy" as sought in the
1970s: but its main merit was encouraging the
ingenuity and manual skill cited among early nuclear
scientists and their technical staff.
(Ref. #3 above, I worked in the 1970s as staff historian
for a government laboratory. One of our heroes was
a prairie farm boy, home-schooled, whose first formal
schooling was at a Western farm college: and a
decade later held a CalTech PhD, worked in food
laboratories through the Depression, in the 1940s
confronted Lysenkoism, and in the 1950s introduced
molecular biology into Canadian government laboratories.
Early in his career he became an expert refrigeration
engineer (building his own equipment (#1)) which turned
out useful exporting food to wartime Britain: late in his
career he started collecting baby teeth in order to
monitor the effects of fallout from atomic bomb tests.
This man's career combined personal talent, early
opportunity, a balance of theoretical and manual
ability, and a noble ethic of public service in both
peacetime and wartime.)
Bill Shatzer
> The UK never had a Henry Ford or the equivalent of a Model T.
Just to pick a nit, Ford began building Model Ts in Great Britain in
1911 and between 1913 and 1923, the Model T was the best selling vehicle
in the UK.
William Black
> On 2010-03-25 10:54:46 -0700, William Black
> <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> said:
>
>> Have you any evidence to back that up?
>>
>> I very much doubt that 33% of British men had driven a motor vehicle
>> in WWII unless the army had taught them to drive.
>>
>> I also doubt that 66% of US men had either...
>
> Forgotten your Huxley, have you?
>
> Every time the subject comes up, you state the same conceit, that the
> motorization of American culture is historically overblown and that of
> the UK forever underestimated.
Eh?
deem...@aol.com
> the Russo-Japan war.
I haven't read of Japanese soldiers of that era suiciding when
ordered.
Maybe fatalism is as good a word for it, but they just
> > kept on until it was just humanly impossible.
>
> True, but true of a lot of armies in that war.
True, but the IJA took it to the extreme. Few armies suicide
rather than surrender....even when they know surrender is pretty much
a death sentence.
> I'd love to see a reference for those orders; certainly, the upper command
> was suitably embarrassed, and wanted it stopped.
Iwane Matsui, who was commander of the Central China
Expeditionary Force (which took Nanking), ordered all Chinese men with
calloused hands or evidence of "tight bands" on their hair to be
rounded up and executed. After that, I guess it's when you define the
"Rape" as having begun. The IJA entered the city on 12/13....the first
rapes weren't reported until 12/16. The period of "official"
atrocities lasted 10 days, but the rapings and killlings continued
into January...which is when an embarrassed high command got the local
commanders to control their troops.
>
> > > > Also, the officer candidate schools were pretty harsh.....lots of
> > > > deprivation which made the average officers, on graduation, smaller
> > > > than the civilian average.
>
> > > ??
> > I'll have to dig for that. I've read that the Japanese military
> > academies essentially starved the cadets when they were young
> > teenagers.
>
> They weren't allowed into the academies as young teenagers.
They entered at 14 (I've always thought 13 as becoming a teen)
and left at 21. One report stated that the average cadet gained 3
pounds and 1/2 inch during their training. That's 14-21.....unless the
Japanese are a lot different in their development than anyone else
I've ever heard of, that's extremely stunted.
> Many of the recruits were from the poorer rural districts, and already
> suffered from malnutrition, etc. Indeed, the poor conditions of the
> rural areas (compared to, say, Tokyo) was one of the things fueling the
> anger of junior officers, who sought to "purify" the nation.
Over half of the officer cadets during the 30s were from urban
areas.
All of this is from the same books by the Harries'....endnotes
site papers from the Brit War Office which come from IJA documents.
mike
In a few ways, Austin Motors was like Ford, but Herbert Austin wasn't
able to transition the company smoothly from War Orders back
to Consumer Goods with the Armistice. and lost traction
against the cheap US import.
He had similar vision in having the the great multitude motorized,
and that Workers should be able to afford what they built,
but lacked Henry Ford's cutthroat business ethics and
crazy determination(plus crank beliefs)
**
mike
**
mtfe...@netmapsonscape.net
> > That would be no different than the way the armed forces performed in
> > the Russo-Japan war.
> I haven't read of Japanese soldiers of that era suiciding when
> ordered.
Hmm, perhaps a reading on the history of Japanese battles is in order.
> Maybe fatalism is as good a word for it, but they just
> > > kept on until it was just humanly impossible.
> >
> > True, but true of a lot of armies in that war.
> True, but the IJA took it to the extreme. Few armies suicide
> rather than surrender....even when they know surrender is pretty much
> a death sentence.
Well, suicide isn't really fighting to the bitter end...
> > I'd love to see a reference for those orders; certainly, the upper command
> > was suitably embarrassed, and wanted it stopped.
> Iwane Matsui, who was commander of the Central China
> Expeditionary Force (which took Nanking), ordered all Chinese men with
> calloused hands or evidence of "tight bands" on their hair to be
I can't find much about him, but the wikipedia article states
"Concerning atrocities in Nanking, Matsui noted in his war journal
about rapes (20 December) and looting (29 December) and wrote it was
very much regrettable that those behaviours destroyed the reputation of
the Imperial Army. He also mentioned "a number of abominable incidents
within the past 50 days" at the memorial service for the war-dead of
the SEF held on 7 February[2] and rebutted in tears the officers and
the soldiers in the place, saying that atrocities done by a part of the
soldiers had dropped down the reputation of the empire, such a thing
should not happen in the Imperial Army, they should keep the disciplines
strictly and should never persecute the innocent people, and so on.[3]
> rounded up and executed. After that, I guess it's when you define the
> "Rape" as having begun. The IJA entered the city on 12/13....the first
> rapes weren't reported until 12/16. The period of "official"
> atrocities lasted 10 days, but the rapings and killlings continued
> into January...which is when an embarrassed high command got the local
> commanders to control their troops.
Yes, nobody doubts the Nanjing massacre occured; the question was about
whether it was ordered. Now, what you stated above seems to indicate that
this was not ordered, and was in fact an embarrassment. The War Crimes
Tribunal wrote:
"The Tribunal is satisfied that Matsui knew what was happening. He did
nothing, or nothing effective to abate these horrors. He did issue orders
before the capture of the city enjoining propriety of conduct upon his
troops and later he issued further orders to the same purport. These
orders were of no effect as is now known, and as he must have known. It
was pleaded in his behalf that at this time he was ill. His illness
was not sufficient to prevent his conducting the military operations of
his command nor to prevent his visiting the City for days while these
atrocities were occurring. He was in command of the Army responsible
for these happenings. He knew of them. He had the power, as he had the
duty, to control his troops and to protect the unfortunate citizens
of Nanking. He must be held criminally responsible for his failure to
discharge this duty."
Again, this doesn't indicate orders; it indicates insubordination and
ineffectual command structure, neither of which is the mark of a well-
disciplined army.
Contrast this with the Wehrmacht; when the Einsatzgruppen began rounding
and killing Poles, the Wehrmacht arrested them, and Hitler had to order
the killing squads to be exempt from Wehrmacht jurisdiction.
> > > I'll have to dig for that. I've read that the Japanese military
> > > academies essentially starved the cadets when they were young
> > > teenagers.
> >
> > They weren't allowed into the academies as young teenagers.
> They entered at 14 (I've always thought 13 as becoming a teen)
> and left at 21. One report stated that the average cadet gained 3
They may have entered military school, but not the military academies.
There is a difference there, as there is in the US.
> pounds and 1/2 inch during their training. That's 14-21.....unless the
> Japanese are a lot different in their development than anyone else
> I've ever heard of, that's extremely stunted.
It is was noted by many that the Japanese were markedly shorter than their
US counterparts in general at the time.
> > Many of the recruits were from the poorer rural districts, and already
> > suffered from malnutrition, etc. Indeed, the poor conditions of the
> > rural areas (compared to, say, Tokyo) was one of the things fueling the
> > anger of junior officers, who sought to "purify" the nation.
> Over half of the officer cadets during the 30s were from urban
> areas.
Less than 50% of Japan's total population at the time was rural.
Mike
deem...@aol.com
> deemsb...@aol.com <deemsb...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > That would be no different than the way the armed forces performed in
> > > the Russo-Japan war.
> > I haven't read of Japanese soldiers of that era suiciding when
> > ordered.
>
> Hmm, perhaps a reading on the history of Japanese battles is in order.
I'm not talking about suicidal charges. I'm talking about the
wounded holding grenades to their chests or sticking their rifle
barrel in their mouth and pulling the trigger with their toe.
>
> > Maybe fatalism is as good a word for it, but they just
> > > > kept on until it was just humanly impossible.
>
> > > True, but true of a lot of armies in that war.
> > True, but the IJA took it to the extreme. Few armies suicide
> > rather than surrender....even when they know surrender is pretty much
> > a death sentence.
>
> Well, suicide isn't really fighting to the bitter end...
The suicides were mainly among wounded and diseased who couldn't
be evacuated....or those too weak to keep up....or officers who had
failed the Emperor.
The army was ordered to kill all men caught who had calloused
hands or hair patterns that indicated the wearing of helmets. That
wasn't spontaneous and it was too widespread to be different groups of
guys saying "Hey, I've got an idea...". The systematic looting was
also ordered.....this didn't only include food and supplies, but art,
furniture, silk, etc. These were official policies of the army.
Did Matsui order women to be repeatedly raped and then murdered?
No. Did he order wholesale pillaging of any building that had anything
of value? No. Did he order arson on a massive scale? No. What he
ordered was the beginning of the artrocities and then lost control
(didn't care to control?) of his men.
>
> They may have entered military school, but not the military academies.
>
> There is a difference there, as there is in the US.
Gee, pedantic much? The Japanese officer program was much more
tightly controlled starting at 14. I guess they weren't officially
"academies", but it was part of officer training...until the rapid
expansion after 1937, all officers had to go through it.
>
> > pounds and 1/2 inch during their training. That's 14-21.....unless the
> > Japanese are a lot different in their development than anyone else
> > I've ever heard of, that's extremely stunted.
>
> It is was noted by many that the Japanese were markedly shorter than their
> US counterparts in general at the time.
So, by 14 they were done growing? They normally put no weight on
as they became men? The reason this is remarked upon was it was
different than in the rest of the population. They are being compared
to other Japanese, not to Europeans or Americans.
There are accounts of units of Japanese soldiers being led by
officers who are markedly smaller than their men. They are referred to
as "bantam roosters" and other, more derogatory, names. This was a
frequent phenomenom, not just the occasional short guy.
>
> > > Many of the recruits were from the poorer rural districts, and already
> > > suffered from malnutrition, etc. Indeed, the poor conditions of the
> > > rural areas (compared to, say, Tokyo) was one of the things fueling the
> > > anger of junior officers, who sought to "purify" the nation.
> > Over half of the officer cadets during the 30s were from urban
> > areas.
>
> Less than 50% of Japan's total population at the time was rural.
Yes, but up until the 30s, almost all officers came from rural
areas. Besides, you are the one who stated "many of the recruits were
from poorer rural districts....." Make up your mind.
Robert
> According to a book I am reading, the best recruits tended to come from the
> farming community and the army preferred them to city people.
>
> Do you agree?
some obvious things, like experience with guns and the outdoors, have
been mentioned by others.
Mind you this is not just an army thing: most of the top air aces,
even if they weren't from farms, tended to at least have done a lot of
shooting as a hobby.
I also recall reading somewhere the Brits were horrified at the start
of World War II at how undernourished a lot of the young men who were
called up were. I suppose that wouldn't be a problem with farm boys,
growing up with all that fresh protein on hand.
the other thing I've heard about - I think in the biography of Charles
Upham (New Zealander who won the Victoria Cross twice) was farmers had
an eye for the lie of the land, which came in handy for things like
working out defensive positions, etc.
Also - as some have mentioned - mending broken equipment on the fly.
mtfe...@netmapsonscape.net
> On Mar 27, 6:14 pm, mtfes...@netMAPSONscape.net wrote:
> > deemsb...@aol.com <deemsb...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > > That would be no different than the way the armed forces performed in
> > > > the Russo-Japan war.
> > > I haven't read of Japanese soldiers of that era suiciding when
> > > ordered.
> > Hmm, perhaps a reading on the history of Japanese battles is in order.
> I'm not talking about suicidal charges. I'm talking about the
Nor am I.
Perhaps you could read about Japanese battles throughout history. How they
viewed surrender in general, often committed suicide rather that doing
so in many cases, etc.
Really, they are rather famous for it, as anyone who's watched a cheesey
samurai movie can tell you.
> wounded holding grenades to their chests or sticking their rifle
> barrel in their mouth and pulling the trigger with their toe.
When previously they would cut themselves open, whence the term "hara-
kiri".
Again, nothing instilled in the Army specific to that period in that
regard.
> > Well, suicide isn't really fighting to the bitter end...
> The suicides were mainly among wounded and diseased who couldn't
> be evacuated
No, the suicides, and sometimes "helping" their comrades (and civilians
under their "protection") onward were quite common when the battle was
lost and capture imminent, as events on Saipan, Iwo Jima, and especially
Okinawa indicated. Again, quite often able-bodied men, capable of fighting,
but choosing the "honorable" way out.
Indeed, if you follow some of current Japanese politics, you'll already
know that this phenomenon is greatly resented on Okinawa.
> > Again, this doesn't indicate orders; it indicates insubordination and
> > ineffectual command structure, neither of which is the mark of a well-
> > disciplined army.
> The army was ordered to kill all men caught who had calloused
> hands or hair patterns that indicated the wearing of helmets. That
You indicated this was by Matsui; it wasn't.
It seems to be the actions of some insubordinate underling, not the
"highers up".
There WERE orders to kill guerillas, which is certainly understandable
and not against any conventions I know of at the time. If your quote
is part of order, then yes, it's possible. However, simply having
calloused hands was not a giveaway.
> wasn't spontaneous and it was too widespread to be different groups of
> guys saying "Hey, I've got an idea...". The systematic looting was
> also ordered.....
Of Nanking? Doubtful. If the subject was changed, please indicate it.
>this didn't only include food and supplies, but art,
> furniture, silk, etc. These were official policies of the army.
And this differs from, say, most invading armies in what fashion?
The Germans and Russians both did it as policy. Others did it as
opportunity arose.
> Did Matsui order women to be repeatedly raped and then murdered?
Or at all?
No, there is no evidence that he did. Did he order it stopped? Yes, though
ineffectucally.
Again, no evidence that it was ordered by the higher ups.
Hence, this doesn't seem to support your contention of this being a highly
disciplined group.
> of value? No. Did he order arson on a massive scale? No. What he
> ordered was the beginning of the artrocities and then lost control
> (didn't care to control?) of his men.
You seem to have evidence not available to the Tribunal which had
him executed.
If you mean he wanted guerillas killed, again, yes, but that's not
considered an atrocity.
> > They may have entered military school, but not the military academies.
> > There is a difference there, as there is in the US.
> Gee, pedantic much?
No, simply accurate. It keeps discussions accurate, rather than
allowing them to drift into generalizations which are neither
informative nor accurate.
> tightly controlled starting at 14. I guess they weren't officially
> "academies", but it was part of officer training...until the rapid
> expansion after 1937, all officers had to go through it.
No, even after 1937, any student could apply for entry directly to the
academy.
> > It is was noted by many that the Japanese were markedly shorter than their
> > US counterparts in general at the time.
> So, by 14 they were done growing? They normally put no weight on
Not that uncommon at the time. Nor really all that uncommon even among
Western nations just a couple decades previous.
> There are accounts of units of Japanese soldiers being led by
> officers who are markedly smaller than their men. They are referred to
And there are accounts of them being led by other larger officers.
> as "bantam roosters" and other, more derogatory, names. This was a
Sorry, that's not derogatory in Japanese. No idea where you got that one.
> > > > Many of the recruits were from the poorer rural districts, and already
> > > > suffered from malnutrition, etc. Indeed, the poor conditions of the
> > > > rural areas (compared to, say, Tokyo) was one of the things fueling the
> > > > anger of junior officers, who sought to "purify" the nation.
> > > Over half of the officer cadets during the 30s were from urban
> > > areas.
> > Less than 50% of Japan's total population at the time was rural.
> Yes, but up until the 30s, almost all officers came from rural
> areas.
So, this refutes the statement that the junior officers of the time were
from poorer rural districts in which fashion, exactly? And if "almost
all" officers (and by this, you likely mean junior officers) came from
rural district pre-30s, how would this offer a contradicting view to the
statement I made about the poverty of the junior officers being a
catalyst to the actions they took against senior officials and officers
in the late 20s and the 30s?
> Besides, you are the one who stated "many of the recruits were
> from poorer rural districts....." Make up your mind.
Sorry, I'm going to plead "accurate" (or pedantic, if you wish) here; how
is the statement that "many recruits were from poorer rural districts" in
any way, shape, or form at odds with the observation that less than half
the total population was rural?
Mike
Jim
> Iwane Matsui, who was commander of the Central China
> Expeditionary Force (which took Nanking), ordered all Chinese men with
> calloused hands or evidence of "tight bands" on their hair to be
> rounded up and executed. After that, I guess it's when you define the
> "Rape" as having begun. The IJA entered the city on 12/13....the first
> rapes weren't reported until 12/16. The period of "official"
> atrocities lasted 10 days, but the rapings and killlings continued
> into January...which is when an embarrassed high command got the local
> commanders to control their troops.
>
Do you know the reasoning behind the selection process? I would think
that a they would want to get rid of the non-working class who might
have "dangerous ideas" rather than the people who were used to hard
labor and who took orders well. Stalin, for example, seemed to prefer
executing the officers and intellectuals vs. the working class. But
maybe it's different when it's your own people.
And, what does "tight bands" indicate?
deem...@aol.com
> Do you know the reasoning behind the selection process? I would think
> that a they would want to get rid of the non-working class who might
> have "dangerous ideas" rather than the people who were used to hard
> labor and who took orders well. Stalin, for example, seemed to prefer
> executing the officers and intellectuals vs. the working class. But
> maybe it's different when it's your own people.
>
> And, what does "tight bands" indicate?
When Nanking fell, the Chinese officers jumped on boats and
headed up the Yangtze. When the troops saw/heard about this they
broke....up until then they were beaten, but were retreating in fair
order.
Many drowned trying to rush the boats and more were slaughtered
in the water. Others took off their uniforms and tried to blend in
with the population. Those are the ones the Japanese were after. It
was assumed that any man with calloused hands was a soldier. Also, any
man whose hair showed signs of wearing a helmet...."tight bands" or
furrows.
Jim
city where it would be rare vs. in the country where it would be common.
deem...@aol.com
> Ah, that makes sense. Thanks! The difference between rough hands in a
To a point, but a lot of common laborers were swept up and killed.
The Japanese didn't care.....there were millions more Chinese where
the dead came from. They just wanted to make sure they got every
soldier possible.
Space Captain Kurt Kosmic
> Upham (New Zealander who won the Victoria Cross twice) was farmers had
> an eye for the lie of the land, which came in handy for things like
> working out defensive positions, etc.
Oddly, Upham was from the city of Christchurch and was a farm valuer
at the outbreak of war, so might not have been a 'farm boy' himself.
I took a look at some of the other NZ VC winners occupations (where
they were listed) and got...
1 school teacher
1 ex-whaler and general 'hard labourer'
1 'son of a dentist'
2 farmers
New Zealand at the time had a 70% rural population - so perhaps by the
VC measure they are even under represented?
Also FYI I know farmers were especially recruited into the LRDG, their
self reliance and experience with on the spot automative repairs was
seen as valuable.
Don Phillipson
news:13c62ffc-e8ac-4a0b...@k5g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> I also recall reading somewhere the Brits were horrified at the start
> of World War II at how undernourished a lot of the young men who were
> called up were. I suppose that wouldn't be a problem with farm boys,
> growing up with all that fresh protein on hand.
Not quite: the key name is John Boyd Orr, a food scientist
whose personal research institute completed about 1939
the first scientific survey of British diet and health during
the Depression 1930s. (Before then the knowledge base
was incomplete, e.g. vitamins were not discovered until
the 1920s.) His results were used to plan British food
rationing (which continued until the early 1950s) and
postwar work of the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation,
which brought him a Nobel Peace Prize in 1949, see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Boyd_Orr,_1st_Baron_Boyd-Orr
The unfitness of poor proletarians in Britain had been recognised
since 1915 (cf. recruiting for "Kitchener's Army" in WW1.) The
practical upshot of Boyd Orr's work was that Britons were
fitter and healthier in 1950 than in 1940, despite war and
rationing. But no anecdotal reports suggest his work had
any beneficial effect on British army cooking, notoriously bad.
narrl...@hotmail.com
wrote:
> Bill Baker wrote:
> > On 2010-03-25 10:54:46 -0700, William Black
>
> >> Have you any evidence to back that up?
>
> >> I very much doubt that 33% of British men had driven a motor vehicle
> >> in WWII unless the army had taught them to drive.
>
> >> I also doubt that 66% of US men had either...
>
> > Forgotten your Huxley, have you?
>
> > Every time the subject comes up, you state the same conceit, that the
> > motorization of American culture is historically overblown and that of
> > the UK forever underestimated.
>
> Eh?
I believe Bill Baker may be remembering the now-scarce, but once
frequently-seen, Mr. Andrew Clark.
This issue, or one very much like it, was thrashed out in the thread
"Blitzkrieg and Horses" of 2005, with contributions from AC and from
yours truly.
Narr
narrl...@hotmail.com
There's an utterly horrendous story by Malaparte (?), describing an
incident he says he witnessed in Russia as an Italian liaison to the
German forces, where a group of captured Soviet soldiers is sorted and
selected. Thinking that the Germans may spare those with enough
education to be useful as clerks and hilfer, the PoWs compete with one
another to show how literate they are. Only a few figure out that
it's precisely the ones with some education who are slated for
immediate murder.
Narr
deem...@aol.com
> it's precisely the ones with some education who are slated for
> immediate murder.
>
The Germans probably thought that was the best way to weed out the
commisars.
narrl...@hotmail.com
That strikes me as unnecessary. IIRC, commissars who didn't make
themselves known were often identified by other prisoners. I'm more
inclined to think it was 'weeding out' --any-- potential leaders.
Narr
Bill Baker
Yes and no. The memories of that glorious thrash do linger, but Mr.
Black has opined on this topic as well, both here and elsewhere. The
dogged, visceral anti-Amercanism of AC is in an entirely separate class
of historical revisionism.
I generally agree with Mr. Black's postings. And yes, the
stars-spangled propaganda that 'twas the pluck and handiness with a
wrench of the American farm boy that won the war single-handed...one
can see how tiresome that would become to Europeans with living
memories of how their fathers and mothers fought the Axis to a
standstill for three years before we lot truly lent a hand.
But...claiming that American and British soldiery came into the war
with even vaguely similar rates of driving skills is just silly.
deem...@aol.com
> themselves known were often identified by other prisoners. I'm more
> inclined to think it was 'weeding out' --any-- potential leaders.
>
> Narr
That makes sense, although that might've varied with time and unit.
Not all hated the commissars....or maybe not all commissars were
hated?
William Black
> But...claiming that American and British soldiery came into the war with
> even vaguely similar rates of driving skills is just silly.
>
I didn't.
At the time I thought both figures were high.
But on reflection I have come to the conclusion that the British army
trained a lot of its soldiers to drive, mainly because just about every
set of recollections I have come across mentions being taught to drive
at some point, and someone mentioned the incredible level of sales of
the US car market pre WWII
The inevitable conclusion is that an awful lot of the soldiers of the
Western Allies knew how to drive.
However the also almost inevitable conclusion of the US commentators
that British soldiers never improvised or used enemy equipment because
of 'reasons unknown but probably to do with feudalism' is probably wrong
as well.
Certainly all the armies in the Western Desert used each other's
transport and equipment (and uniforms) in a very promiscuous manner.
Bradipus
Apart how they were considered, you just need one traitor among
1000 trustful patriots.
--
o o
L
___
Bradipus
> Certainly all the armies in the Western Desert used each
> other's transport and equipment (and uniforms) in a very
> promiscuous manner.
Italian soldiers were stunned about British material wealth.
They used everything captured and useful, like did Germans.
William Black
> William Black, 17:33, mercoledě 31 marzo 2010:
>
>> Certainly all the armies in the Western Desert used each
>> other's transport and equipment (and uniforms) in a very
>> promiscuous manner.
>
>
> Italian soldiers were stunned about British material wealth.
The British loved Italian boots.
Bradipus
> Bradipus wrote:
>> William Black, 17:33, mercoledě 31 marzo 2010:
>>
>>> Certainly all the armies in the Western Desert used each
>>> other's transport and equipment (and uniforms) in a very
>>> promiscuous manner.
>>
>> Italian soldiers were stunned about British material wealth.
>
> The British loved Italian boots.
Really?
Well after all Italian shoemakers have a tradition.
However in Italy it's usual to say that our soldiers were sent
to the front wearing low quality shoes (scarpe di cartone,
paperboard shoes), due to corruption and bribery between makers
and generals.
Oh, I recall now that only officers wore boots, not the common
soldier that wore shoes.
William Black
I read an account somewhere that everyone liked Italian shoes, German
pants and British shirts.
There's a famous story of General Alexander standing before a huge
gathering of men to make some sort of speech and he read out a signal
from London where someone had mentioned that his men looked like
scarecrows and could he please make them appear more uniform.
He was wearing German pants, a British shirt, Italian boots, a beige
cardigan with his rank sewn onto it and carrying a pilots sheepskin
'Irvine' jacket over his shoulder. He was armed with the traditional
weapon of British officers above the rank of major, a walking stick.
narrl...@hotmail.com
Agreed.
> I generally agree with Mr. Black's postings. And yes, the
> stars-spangled propaganda that 'twas the pluck and handiness with a
> wrench of the American farm boy that won the war single-handed...one
> can see how tiresome that would become to Europeans with living
> memories of how their fathers and mothers fought the Axis to a
> standstill for three years before we lot truly lent a hand.
Same same.
> But...claiming that American and British soldiery came into the war
> with even vaguely similar rates of driving skills is just silly.- Hide quoted text -
That was a rather remarkable assertion, and one that I couldn't let go
unchallenged.
Others have mentioned their own family experiences, so I'll throw in
mine. My father's parents, the German immigrants, both were driving
in the 1930s (he was born in 1923). They were small business owners.
Of my mother's parents, only her father drove (her mother never
learned, if for no other reason than the memory of the car-truck
collision that injured them both very badly, and ended up killing my
grandfather after a few months in the hospital, in the early 30's).
But, of the six children the two couples had between them, every one,
boy or girl, learned to drive as soon as they were able. And this was
in the South.
Narr
Carey
....
> Yes and no. The memories of that glorious thrash do linger, but Mr.
> Black has opined on this topic as well, both here and elsewhere. The
> dogged, visceral anti-Amercanism of AC is in an entirely separate class
> of historical revisionism.
An aside: as one who tangled with Andrew Clark a number of times (among
many others I know) I wanted to add that I found his arguments very well
researched, honestly represented, and that it often required one to "up
one's game" to respond to his arguments.
deem...@aol.com
> in the South.
People in the South were just as likely to know how to drive....how
many had licenses is another story. I'd bet the % between north and
south was fairly close. A lot of people in the big cities didn't drive
because they didn't have to...they had buses, trolleys, trains, etc
that rural folk didn't. Even today, there are New Yorkers (well,
Manhattanites) who never learn to drive.
Roman Werpachowski
> Contrast this with the Wehrmacht; when the Einsatzgruppen began rounding
> and killing Poles, the Wehrmacht arrested them, and Hitler had to order
> the killing squads to be exempt from Wehrmacht jurisdiction.
Where did you read this? Wehrmacht was complicit in the mass murders
of the Poles and Jews from the start.
Roman
mtfe...@netmapsonscape.net
> On Mar 27, 11:14 pm, mtfes...@netMAPSONscape.net wrote:
> > Contrast this with the Wehrmacht; when the Einsatzgruppen began rounding
> > and killing Poles, the Wehrmacht arrested them, and Hitler had to order
> > the killing squads to be exempt from Wehrmacht jurisdiction.
> Where did you read this?
Gilbert, _The Second World War_
Mike
Roman Werpachowski
What, exactly, did he write? Even if Wehrmacht did not want to disturb
the Einsatzgruppen in their actions, it did not mean that they were
above shooting civilians.
Roman
Bill Baker
Absolutely concur. I loved his withering destructions of Holocaust
revisionists.
mtfe...@netmapsonscape.net
> On Apr 4, 6:03 pm, mtfes...@netMAPSONscape.net wrote:
> > Roman Werpachowski <roman.werpachow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Mar 27, 11:14 pm, mtfes...@netMAPSONscape.net wrote:
> > > > Contrast this with the Wehrmacht; when the Einsatzgruppen began rounding
> > > > and killing Poles, the Wehrmacht arrested them, and Hitler had to order
> > > > the killing squads to be exempt from Wehrmacht jurisdiction.
> > > Where did you read this?
> >
> > Gilbert, _The Second World War_
> What, exactly, did he write?
Among other things;
"On September 12, Canaris went to Hitler's headquarters train... to protest.
He first saw General Wilhelm Keitel... "
"Keitel urged Canaris to take the matter no further. 'If I were you', llhe said,
'I would not get mixed up in the business. This "thing" has been decided
by the Fuhrer himself.' ... from that moment on, every German Army Command
in Poland would have a civilian chief alongside its military head."
later
"...von Rundstedt immediately announced that von Woyrsch's SS Task Force
would no longer be tolerated in the war zone, and that the anti-Jewish
measures already under way in the Katowice area should cease."
and
"On October 4, in Berlin, Hitler signed a secret amnesty, releasing from
detention thos SS men who had been arrested by the Army authorities on
charges of brutality of against the civilian population."
There's more.
> Even if Wehrmacht did not want to disturb
> the Einsatzgruppen in their actions, it did not mean that they were
> above shooting civilians.
And yet there's a difference between that and rounding up large groups and
executing them, including children. Also remember the Wehrmacht wasn't too
impressed with the SS men "demonstrating their bravery against helpless
civilians.
Mike
Roman Werpachowski
> And yet there's a difference between that and rounding up large groups and
> executing them, including children.
Werhmacht was not above that, neither. Nor above forcing civilian
women to "work" in army-run brothels.
RW