Welcome to Historic-Battles where history is revisited online

3rd Historic-Battles Article Competition

The Corps Reborn

Van Lee "Mertox" - Winning Entry

For anyone who was in the United States Marine Corps or have a close friend or relative who was, this little ditty should ring a bell for them, “On November 10, 1775, my Marine Corps came alive…” Though I myself served proudly in the U.S. Army, my father and my wife were both “jarheads.” So despite the “sibling rivalry” that exists between the Marines and the Army, the Corps still holds a place close and dear to my heart.

Of course, November 10 isn’t the only “birthday” that has been celebrated by Marines. In fact, until 1921, the recognized birthday of the Marines Corps was July 11, 1798. Why the change of date? The first birth of the Marine Corps was indeed on November 10, 1776 by an act of the Second Continental Congress issued for the creation of two battalions of Continental Marines. After the American Revolution ended, in an act that would be echoed after all future wars the United States would come to participate in, the military was cut severely. The Continental Marines were disbanded completely.

On July 11, 1798, President John Adams approved a bill allowing for the creation of a new Marines Corps. This date became the logical birth date for the Corps. On October 21, 1921, Major Edwin McClellan sent a memorandum to Marine Corp Commandant Major General John LeJeune suggesting that the earlier date of November 10, 1775 be recognized as an official Marine Corps holiday. On November 1, 1921, General LeJeune issued Marine Corps Order No. 47, Series 1921, which gave the history of the Corps along with their mission and their traditions. This order was to be read to and by every command every year on November 10. This order is still carried out in the present day Corps. In effect, General LeJeune is responsible for a new recognition of the birth of the Corps. But this isn’t the only “rebirth” of the Corps that LeJeune can be associated with.

In World War One, General LeJeune was the commanding officer of the U.S. 2^nd Division consisting of both Army and Marine Corps troops, the Marines making up the division’s 4^th Brigade Infantry consisting of the 5^th and 6^th Marine Infantry Regiments and the 6^th Machine Gun Battalion. Using the 2^nd Division, primarily the Marine regiments, LeJeune stopped an advance of German forces at Belleau Wood. There has been numerous articles, papers, etc., written about the overall effect Belleau Wood had on the outcome of the war. They range from “it had little to no effect” to “the U.S. saved France from falling.” I am not going to get into the effects of the battle on the war; however, this battle is still a very significant and important battle for the Marine Corps.

The Marines fall under the Department of the Navy and as such has often been treated as a subordinate of the Navy. In fact, before the war, the Navy viewed the Marines primarily as ship and base security forces. In some locations they were used to hunt down bandits and the such. One thing that they were never viewed as being was a combat-ready infantry style unit.

Even with war looming in Europe, it seemed that the military leaders were still neglecting the potential of the Marine Corps. The 1916 Naval Personnel Bill allowed for the Marines to increase their size by 50% and recreated the rank of Brigadier General. By the time the U.S. entered the war, the Marines had grown to a scant 17,400 enlisted along with 693 officers. While this was the largest the Corps had been since their inception, the entire Corps would have difficulty making up a single division.

Once the U.S. entered the war, enlistment was allowed to increase, yet by the end of the war, only 46,000 Marines were recruited compared to nearly four-million men overall into the American Expeditionary Force. But this is how the Marines wanted it. They recognized that rapid expansion would result in problems in many area such as supplies, training, pay, etc. The leadership in the Marine Corps was happy to leave these headaches to the Army, but they still wanted recognition as a solid infantry force.

One of the ways to accomplish this was a good initial training course. Seeing that war was imminent, the Marines developed the idea of “boot camp” in 1915. Instead of tying officers down to train troops, they created non-commissioned officers specifically for training troops. It was designed to build discipline early on, train good marksmen, and weed out the weak ones. This institution alone would change the course of military training within the United States, especially within the Marines Corps and the Army, forever.

The Marines had used the phrase “First to Fight,” as their recruitment slogan. General John Pershing, commander of the American Expeditionary Forces didn’t see it that way. In fact, Pershing was perfectly happy to leave the Marines back home while the Army went to Europe to fight. At least part of this attitude has to be attributed to the idea that the Marines were subordinates of the Navy and the Navy didn’t fall under the umbrella of the AEF. But that didn’t discourage then Commandant Barnett.

Barnett repeatedly appealed to General Pershing and the War Department to use his men but he was always rebuffed with the excuse that their weapons and tactics were “incompatible” with the Army’s. As a last chance, Barnett went direct to President Wilson. Wilson agreed to allow the Marines to go to Europe as part of the first convoy. Not leaving anything to chance, General Barnett personally took charge of gathering the ships needed to transport his Marines. On June 14, 1917, the United States Marine Corps sailed for Europe landing in St. Nazaire, France less then two weeks later.

The initial Marines to land in France were the 5^th Marine Regiment. They would soon be followed by the 6^th Marine Regiment and together would form the 4^th Marine Brigade. But that still didn’t end the discrimination aimed towards the Marines. They were scattered throughout France in support of the Army performing tasks behind the lines. General Smedley Butler had this to say about his Marines being expected to, “to sit in the read and run this filthy mudhole. Although 97 percent of me men were expert riflemen or sharpshooters, troops that hardly knew which end of the gun to shoot were sent to the trenches. My crack regiment was broken up to do manual labor and guard duty.”

But this attitude was soon to change. The Marines were moved to the front in March 1918. Still being in their final stages of training, they were moved to Toulon south of Verdun, which was to be a quite sector. The Marines sat in those trenches for 53 days with no activity other then the regular bombardment of enemy artillery that accounted for 872 Marine casualties without them ever even seeing combat.

In May, German commander Ludendorff set forth a major offensive that created three salients, one of which was along the Marne River and threatened Paris. The French government was ready to flee the city and General Foch, commander of French forces, moved American troops into the area to halt the German advance. The 4^th Marine Brigade was perceived as being the most battle-ready of the AEF units and as such were moved into the sector at Belleau Wood.

As the Marines moved into the sector, they came upon a group of retreating French soldiers. When one of the French soldiers told the Marines they should turn around and go back, Captain Lloyd Williams uttered words that would become a staple of the Marine vocabulary. He said, “Retreat hell! We just got here!” The Marines continued forth.

The Marines arrived at the edge of Belleau Wood where 1200 German veterans of the 461^st Imperial German Infantry had set up defenses throughout one square-mile of the woods. Much to the surprise of the Germans, the Marines opened fire on them from 800 yards away. German doctrine at the time stated that rifle fire was only effective from 200 yards. Yet the Marines were hitting their targets and some Germans thought that the Marines must have had some machine guns. Though the battle hadn’t begun in earnest, the forces were in position and they were digging in for combat.

On June 6, the 1^st Battalion, 5^th Marine Regiment commenced an attack west of Belleau Wood. They were caught in a crossfire from machine guns and took 410 casualties in short order. A second attempt cost 1087 more casualties but the Marines managed to get a toehold in the woods. Another legend in the Marine vocabulary was born that day when Sergeant Dan Daly uttered, “Com on, you sons of bitches! Do you want to live forever?” On June 6, 1918, the Marines suffered their highest ever number of casualties on a single day. This record would not be broken until the Marines would land at Tarawa Atoll in 1943.

Men of the 5^th and 6^th Marine Regiments slowly pushed the Germans back until they were beyond their third line of defense. When victory appeared to be close, the Germans unleashed a counter-attack on June 13 that pushed through the woods to the edge of the town of Bouresche. The town was on the verge of falling, but the men of the 1^st Battalion, 6^th Marine Regiment refused to give up the town and defended it heavily, taking 450 casualties. The Germans gave up trying to capture the town.

From June 15 through June 22, an Army regiment relieved the Marines, but they made little progress. On June 22, the 5^th Marine Regiment returned to the line and the Army regiment pulled back. They commenced another assault on the evening of June 23, but had to stop the advance due to heavy resistance. The next day an Allied artillery bombardment hit the German positions. The 3^rd Battalion, 5^th Marine Regiment charged into the German positions and ran through them out the far side of the woods. Major Maurice Shearer send a telegraph to AEF headquarters, “Woods now US Marine Corps entirely.”

With those words the first true infantry operation of the U.S. Marine Corps was a success. LeJeune’s men had performed their duty and stopped the German advance through the woods. The Assistant Secretary of Navy Franklin D. Roosevelt, who would one day become President and lead the U.S. during another World War, cables Washington singing praises of the Marines’ performance. The French renamed Belleau Wood to Bois de la Brigade de Marine in their honor. But the best and most glowing report came from Germany. German intelligence stated, “The 2^nd American Division must be considered a very good one, and may perhaps even be reckoned as storm troops. The different attacks on Belleau Wood were carried out with bravery and dash. The moral effect of our gunfire cannot seriously impede the advance of the American riflemen.”

Another side effect of this battle was a “rebirth” of the Marine Corps. The Corps had traditionally been relegated to security details and small campaigns. It was this aspect that had caused Pershing to try and neglect the Marine Corps’ capabilities. But the Marines had proven themselves in combat. From that time forward the Marines would be viewed as a top-notch fighting force. In every war from that point the Marines would play a vital component.

The tactics used by the Marines would be adapted into U.S. tactics. One idea that came from Belleau Wood was foxholes, rifle pits dug into the ground. The men of the 4^th Marine Brigade had changed the face of the U.S. military. They, under the command of General LeJeune, gained respect for the AEF as a whole and forever altered the perception of the United States Marine Corps. The Germans called the Marines “Devil Dogs” during the battle. That is the enduring legacy of the Marine Corps. The Battle of Belleau Wood is arguable the single most important battle of Marine Corps history. In that battle the Marine Corps that had become associated with security details and small action died and the Marine Corps that has come to be both feared and respected was born.

General LeJeune participated in not one, but two “rebirths” of the United States Marine Corps. He recognized the original birth-date of November 10 and brought it back into Marine Corps tradition and he led the 2^nd Division when they forever altered the Marine Corps image, purpose, and destiny at Belleau Wood. It is no small wonder that General LeJeune’s name has become synonymous with the Marine Corps tradition and all that is great about it.

The Complete Idiot’s Guide to World War 1, Alan Axelrod, Alpha Books

History of the US Marine Corps, Jack Murphy, JG Press

History of the US Army, James Morris, JG Press

An Illustrated History of the First World War, John Keegan, Alfred Knopf Publishing

www.firstworldwar.com/battles/belleau.htm

www.wordlwar1.com/dbc/ct_bw.html

Book Review: A Bastard of a Place: The Australians in Papua.

Nick Dowling "Case"

Peter Brune’s A Bastard of a Place: The Australians in Papua is the culmination his four best-selling previous works on the fighting which took place in Papua during 1942-43. The book describes the three principle Australian campaigns in the theatre: The Kokoda Trail, Milne Bay and Gona-Buna-Sanananda. Fought across some of the most difficult terrain in the world, these campaigns marked end of both Japan’s southward expansion and the myth of Japanese invincibility in jungle terrain.

At the outset, it is important to note that Brune’s book is highly focused on the topic given by its title: Australians in Papua. The book is not a general history of the fighting in Papua, and the performance and experiences of American and Japanese personnel in the theatre are only briefly discussed. Brune’s focus is firmly on the experiences and performance of Australian officers and soldiers from brigade commanders down to individual riflemen.

Having interviewed many veterans of the campaigns and studied the surviving official records, Brune is an unquestioned expert on the war in Papua. He is clearly comfortable in this role, and the resulting confidence is reflected in every page of A Bastard of a Place. For instance, Brune doesn’t shy away from attempting to methodically describe the course of what were often hopelessly confused battles. Furthermore, Brune’s confidence in his own knowledge is shown by the fact that he doesn’t hesitate to pass sometimes severe judgement on the many famous individuals involved in the fighting.

Brune has a skill which is all too rare in historians: the ability to intertwine a highly readable narrative with genuinely critical assessment of the events described. By carefully dissecting the performance of the Australian soldiers, Brune is able to determine the factors behind these soldiers successes and failures. Brune’s conclusions confirm the old adage that ‘there is no such thing as bad soldiers: there are only bad officers’. Brune convincingly demonstrates that the performance of the Australian units in Papua was directly proportional to the quality of their officership. Units which had experienced officers performed dramatically better then those whose officers were as green as the men they lead. Units which had enjoyed the benefit of the Australian Army’s jungle training centre west of Brisbane are clearly shown as having profited from this, especially in comparison to units whose training time had been wasted. As well as enhancing the book’s narrative, Brune uses these findings to attack the enduring Australian myth that Australians are somehow born as fully capable warriors. As a result, he lifts his book well above the hagiography which often passes for military history.

As Brune’s assessments and criticisms are scrupulously fair to all involved, his most pointed attacks never fail to convince the reader. Brune is scathing of the performance of the Allied high command during the fighting in Papua, and clearly illustrates how the inexperience of General MacArthur and his staff and political infighting within the Australian Army’s leadership had direct, and tragic, results on the battlefield. It is hard to not be moved by Brune’s accounts of the politically motivated dismissals of the Australian officers who had stoped the Japanese advance, or to be angered by the waste of soldiers lives which resulted from the utterly unrealistic demands MacArthur made during the Gona-Buna fighting. Students of the First World War will doubtlessly note in this a repeat of the infamous ‘Chateau Generalship’ of that war, where brave mens' lives were wasted by officers who had either never ventured near the front or were too craven to stand up to their superior officers. The irony here is that the Australian and American officer corps prided themselves on not having suffered from such a command style during the First World War.

Despite the fairness of his attacks on the Allied leadership, Brune does at times over-state his points. As the success of his previous books have resulted in his views on the campaign becoming those which are generally accepted, his criticisms of the Allied leadership do at times seem unnecessary, at least to readers familiar with the campaigns. The book would also have benefited from greater discussion of the lessons which were learned from the fighting in Papua. For instance, while it is true that MacArthur never visited any of the active fronts in Papua, he notably didn’t repeat this mistake in his subsequent campaigns. Similarly, the later performance of the many of the Australian officers Brune (rightfully) criticises for being wasteful of their mens' lives at Gona-Buna-Sanananda suggests that they also learned from their mistakes.

For it’s both its clear narrative and critical assessments, A Bastard of a Place must rank as classic of Australian, and international, military history. Readers both familiar and unfamiliar with the fighting in Papua will doubtlessly learn much from Brune. Furthermore, the strength of his arguments will go a long way to bringing many of Australia’s forgotten heroes to new prominence while ensuring a more balanced view of the Allied high command in the Pacific Theatre of World War Two.

Full Publishing Details

Brune, Peter. A Bastard of a Place: the Australians in Papua. Allen & Unwin. Sydney, Australia. 2003.

ISBN: 1741140110. National Library of Australia Call Number: 940.5426

Further Reading:

Brune, Peter. Those Ragged Bloody Heroes: From the Kokoda Trail to Gona Beach

Brune, Peter. Gona’s Gone! The Battle for the Beach-head 1942

Brune, Peter. The Spell Broken: Exploding the Myth of Japanese Invincibility

Brune, Peter. We Band of Brothers: A Biography of Ralph Honner, soldier and statesman

Bergerud, Eric. Touched by Fire. The Land War in the South Pacific. (The American work most similar to A Bastard of a Place)

McCarthy, Dudley. South West Pacific Area - The First Year (Australian Army Official History – reservedly praised by Brune)

Milner, Samuel, Victory in Papua (US Army Official History – criticised by Brune)

Slim, William Joseph Slim, Viscount, Defeat into victory : Battling Japan in Burma and India, 1942-1945. (An honest personal account of the challenges Generals faced fighting the Japanese across rugged terrain and how a genuinely first-rate commander learned from his mistakes).

Gallic campaign: springboard for a career and an empire, Part I

Ben (Gonzalo)

Gaul was the key to unlocking the door to Roman expansion and long-lasting territorial security; only one man could accomplish that feat, Julius Caesar. Caesar took it upon himself to become the peacemaker of the Gallic territories. Unbeknownst to the tribal lords, Caesar’s design was one of total conquest. In the process of “seeking peace,” the whole of Gaul was consumed by Caesar’s voracious appetite for power and incorporated into the Roman Empire. However, in studying this colossal figure, it is also essential to examine the historical background and circumstances preceding him that had laid the foundation for Rome’s ascension to power. In this first of two parts, the origin and escalation of the Gallo-Roman conflict will be analyzed in the endeavor to enlighten readers on the situation in its entirety.

The history between the Gauls and the Romans goes back even before the conception of a unified Italy. In fact it was the Gauls who jeopardized the very existence of any Roman empire from the start. However the Romans, and indeed most Italians of the era, were a very resilient and ardent people, probably stemming from the militaristic influence of the Greeks, not to mention the social structure so crucial in organizing any sort of civilized society. This Greek influence would serve the Romans well in maintaining a successful civilization. This was one accommodation which many of Rome’s foes were not granted, and they (Romans) would reap the benefits.

The Gauls were a Celtic people populating an area of what now consists of France, Belgium, and parts of Germany. These peoples were in close proximity to the Romans. Especially the Cisalpine Gauls, who, in the process of seeking mercenaries in southern Italy or Sicily, sent a raiding party south, which in 390 B.C. “routed a Roman army on the banks of the River Allia outside Rome. The Gauls (then) sacked Rome, forcing the few defenders of the Capitol to buy their safety with a colossal bribe of gold.”(1) The attack was by no means devastating to the city-state, but it left the Romans a lasting impression of fear and hatred for the northern barbarians who had exploited their vulnerability. They would soon mend that weakness, and wait for the appointed time to exact vengeance.

That time finally came with the advent of Rome’s territorial expansion following the defeat of Carthage in the Punic Wars. The Iberian Peninsula was in the process of being absorbed into the growing empire, and the Senate was clamoring for it to be connected by land. The coastal area of present-day France, bordering the Mediterranean was eventually annexed, and by 80 b.c. the empire stretched from the Atlantic to the Black Sea. This territorial expansion once again brought the Romans and the Gauls to border confrontation.

The Celts were a very war-like people, relying on tribal victories in battle to sustain their population. Spoils of war were a major part of the economy for many Celtic communities. In that respect, the Romans and the Gauls were very similar, but where the Gauls failed to exploit many opportunities of that nature, the Romans took the initiative and used any such opportunities to their advantage, and implemented the art of conquest to its full potential. However, before Gaul could even be considered, Italy had to be unified, and the Samnite League greatly jeopardized Rome’s ability to do so. The Samnites were the last to resist Roman conquest of Italy, with the exception of a few Etruscan kings, and the Gauls south of the Po River. With the destruction of the Samnite confederation in 290 B.C., it was only a matter of time before the rest of the peninsula was devoured by the ever-hungry city-state that was Rome.

What set Rome apart from the other city-states? Why were they so successful in their endeavor to expand? There are many different theories about this, but they all come to a head at these key points: “the Romans always persevered and renewed the struggle until they achieved victory. Some land was confiscated from the defeated peoples and used to establish colonies of Roman and Latin citizens, which acted as garrisons in each area. However, in most cases the conquered states were absorbed into Rome’s network of allies and in their turn provided soldiers to fight in Rome’s next round of conquests.”(2) This was not a new concept by any means, but the effectiveness to which the Romans used it is nothing less than extraordinary. Generally speaking, the rest of the Italians were less keen to expand, or fight for that matter.

Rome’s success with expansion in her early days can best be described with another passage from Mr. Goldsworthy: “Roman warfare was capable of inflicting far more permanent damage on an enemy, but while it had become more destructive we should never ignore the constructive nature of Roman war making. Rome’s allies were tied to her by very strong bonds and if her rule was not entirely benevolent, nor was it entirely repressive, the allies also benefiting from future successful wars. Each was tied more to Rome than to each other. The cohesiveness of the network of allies constructed by Rome around herself was to be demonstrated by the succession of major conflicts fought against foreign powers in the third century B.C. Despite the many heavy losses suffered by Rome, very few of her allies responded to her opponents’ blandishments and defected.”(3)

The Gauls on the other hand, never formed a coalition formidable enough to stave off invasions of a great magnitude, of which the Romans could and did provide. The closest they ever came to uniting was when Vercingetorix led a rebellion against the Romans, and by that point, it was almost too late anyway. As a whole, the Gallic leaders were ambitious, unyielding, power-hungry warmongers. Though many of the Roman leaders mirrored these characteristics, seeking glory for themselves, most were also compelled to contribute to Rome’s glory. This unification and common goal, is essentially what many of Rome’s enemies lacked, particularly the Celts of Gaul. Caesar would use this against them with devastating perfection.

(The essay will conclude with an in-depth analysis of the conquest of Gaul in part II.)

Footnotes:

(1) On pg.36 of “Roman Warfare” by Adrian Goldsworthy

(2) On pg.39 of “Roman Warfare” by Adrian Goldsworthy

(3) On pg.39 of “Roman Warfare” by Adrian Goldsworthy

The Picture of Julius Caesar can be found through this link: http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/ROME/ANITAMAP.HTM

The map of ancient Italy can be found through this link: http://www.iol.ie/~coolmine/typ/romans/ceasar2.html

Recommended works on the subject:

The Conquest Of Gaul by Julius Caesar

Caesar’s Gallic Campaigns by S.G. Brady

Roman Warfare by Adrian Goldsworthy

Encounters Full of Revenge: The atrocities and crimes committed against German prisoners, German civilians, and ethnic Germans (Volksdeutsche) all across Eastern Europe following WWII.

Herb "T71herb"

Intro

The tragic events that I am about to document in this report have been skimmed over, neglected, and sometimes, outright denied by many of those in the Historical community. Indeed, those who study this subject are often looked upon as trying to deny, or put in a good light the murders perpetrated by the Nazi regime across Europe, especially against the Jewish community. I can assure you, that is not my goal. My only goal in this project is to let events be told that have been largely neglected for decades. Those events are about the revenge taken out upon German prisoners, civilians, and Volksdeutsche (Ethnic Germans) across Eastern Europe, by the Red Army, and Eastern Europeans in general. That history is one of horror upon horror.

The Brewing Storm

By late 1944, the Red Army was grinding its way to the German Fatherland, coming within miles of East Prussia. The battles were no longer going to be fought over Soviet territory, hundreds of miles away, but were coming to German cities, German towns, and German streets. This is where the Soviets intended to get their revenge for the countless mass graves, often filled with hundreds of women and children, they had uncovered sweeping across the USSR (1), for the death camps they had discovered, often being told of the horrible acts committed there, and the tens of millions of their brothers and sisters, both military and civilian (2), killed, be it from a German soldier or an SS officer. Ilya Ehrenburg, a hate-propagandist for the Red Army, wrote, "If you have killed one German, kill another. There is nothing jollier than German corpses (3)." Such statements of Ehrenburg continued well into 1945, with the Red Army deep into German territory. Handmade posters were often put up in German towns stating, "Red Army Soldier! You are now on German soil; the hour of revenge has struck!(4)" A SS foreign intelligence report to the Fremde Heere Ost (5) in February, 1945 summed up the Soviet acts on German soil as, "not due to the orders of their superiors but the consequence of the fanatical anti-German propaganda in the USSR. (6)

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, then a Soviet captain, wrote, "All of us knew very well that if the girls were German they could be raped and then shot.(7)" However, some Red Army soldiers stuck up for the German population, stopping their comrades from committing atrocities (8), and giving the German children food (9). A German soldier earlier on in the war predicted events right when he stated, "May God grant us victory because if they get their revenge, we're in for a hard time.(10)"

And so it begins

In October, 1944, the troops of the 3rd Belorussian Front captured parts of the farming land in northeastern East Prussia, including the towns of Goldap and Nemmersdorff. In these towns and local areas, unspeakable atrocities took place, all within 48 hours under Soviet rule, after which the Germans launched a successful counterattack. No one was spared. Many civilians were crucified to barn doors. Both old grandparents and young grandchildren were murdered, often in the most brutal of manners, such as by beatings with a shovel or an axe. Nearly all of the females, including eight to twelve year olds, as well as eighty year olds, were raped (often gang-raped), and then usually shot. So wild was the Red Army's cruelty and thirst for revenge, between forty and fifty French prisoners-of-war, forced to work as slaves on the farms for the Germans, were hanged by the Soviets (11). Looting took place upon the dead bodies. These acts played right into the hands of Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi propaganda minister, who was portraying the Red Army as nothing more than brutal Asiatic hordes.

Silesia, East Prussia and other parts of East Germany

In mid-January, 1945, the Red Army once again started another massive offensive. This time, it brought the Soviets from several bridgeheads over the Vistula river to the Oder, miles away from Berlin (12). This offensive brought the Soviets upon areas of Silesia and East Prussia, which had a history of German origin dating back hundreds of years (13). These two areas would bear witness to one of the greatest sacks in history, destroying hundreds of years of German history with it. The German population had some sense of what was going to happen, as well. After being told countless stories by retreating refugees about the brutality of the coming Red Army, and seeing and hearing Goebbels' propaganda (especially about Nemmersdorf), according to Wehrmacht (14) estimates, some three and a half million civilians (15) were on there way to Germany from the east by late January, 1945. However, the majority stayed behind, mostly due to poor evacuation plans by the local Nazi Gauleiter (16), who sometimes ordered the civilians to stay. Many who stayed killed themselves even before the Red Army arrived, out of pure fear of what would happen (17). These Germans often only had minutes to leave after seeing Soviet tanks on the horizon. Those same Soviet tanks would often chase down and run over the treks (18) the refugees were using, sending bodies and debris flying into the air. Other civilians stayed behind, hoping the propaganda was wrong.

Germans who fled met very harsh winter conditions. Those on treks often had to ride through blinding blizzards on icy roads, causing their horses to slip continuously (19). Treks which crossed ice-covered sections of the Baltic sometimes fell through and sunk (20). Railroads were the fastest way to get to Germany, however, few had any heat. Many Silesians were taken by rail to Dresden, the capital of Saxony, where many trekkers had also arrived. In mid-February, at a time when there was the maximum number of refugees in Dresden (21), the city was terribly fire-bombed by the Allies, causing massive innocent death (22). Those without a land route could be saved by the Kriegsmarine (23). Indeed, two million Germans were saved this way, even after the war ended (24), but many thousands drowned after their ship was torpedoed by Soviet submarines.

As the Red Army swept to the Oder, its armies proceeded to rape and loot on a grand scale (25). In many areas, the first Soviet wave came from the Tank Armies. Usually, Soviet tankists did not have a lot of time to stop and rape, but due to their carrying capacity, they were some of the most effective looters of the war, packing their tanks with the loot (26). The Soviet tankists still managed to get in their fair share of revenge, however, by firing on refugee trains (27), and crushing treks, as described above.

The second wave was made up of Soviet riflemen, who beared the brunt of the Soviet war effort. Due to their trauma, the riflemen often drank any possible alcoholic liquid nearby (28), many taking it too far. In their drunken rage, the riflemen would set of for women. All types of women were raped. German nuns, young children (who often were not aware what was happening to them), old grandmothers, pregnant women (29), and nurses (30). Many times, these acts took place in front of the eye's of their family, in some cases, children had to hold the flashlight while their mothers were raped. In one case, after an elderly woman died due to the endless rapes, her body was still repeatedly violated (31). Men, such as brothers or fathers, who defended the women from such horror were often shot (32).

In other cases, whole groups of women were brought into Red Army barracks and were raped, often gang-raped, for days (33). Even local Poles (34), and Soviet women, recently liberated from Nazi camps, were raped (35). Nearly one and a half million Germans were raped in the areas of East Prussia, Pomerania and Silesia (36). In Berlin, up to one hundred and thirty thousand were raped, with several thousand committing suicide soon after (37). Former Allied prisoners of war witnessed these actions as well (38).

With the idea of collective guilt, the Red Army both arrested and murdered thousands of former goverment officials, such as firemen and railway officials (39). In their rage, the Soviets often set fire to houses of those who had escaped their wrath, sometimes after herding refugees into the buildings beforehand (40). These fires were often poorly planned, and usually resulted in whole city blocks going up in flames (41). More damage was done to Eastern Germany by arson than by the fighting over such land (42). These acts angered both Soviet and Polish leaders (43), who had to cover the cost of rebuilding such areas.

Many orders were issued to stop the senseless destruction, restore discipline and halt the harassment of the German population (44). The fighting performance of the Red Army was greatly diminished. However, halting such acts was nearly impossible. If the officers were not involved themselves, which they often were, the task of stopping drunk and armed Soviet soldiers was hard to complete (45). Some order was restored to the areas designated to stay German by the end of summer (46), but brutality continued against Germans in the areas of Prussia and Silesia for years to come. (In East Prussia, the remaining German civilians were expelled from 1947 till 1948. This is because the Germans had become irrelevant as slave workers there (47).)

In the areas of Polish administration, German names for streets and towns were banned, with Polish names replacing them. The Poles arrested Germans and treated them similar to how the SS treated Jews (48). Sometimes, whole German village populations were put into concentration camps, some of which had a mortality rate of 50% (49). Polish civilians could wander through new Polish territory, such as east of the Oder-Neisse line, which had been given to Poland in accordance with the Potsdam agreement, and choose new houses for themselves. If Germans were living in the house they choose, they would be expelled, having only minutes to leave and take whatever belongings they could (50), which were often looted later. Nearly all Germans expelled were robbed, no matter what transportation route they took to Germany. This included those by rail, and those forced into large columns on their treks by the Poles (51).

Several weeks after "liberation", Soviet fronts began deporting thousands of able-bodied Germans back to areas within the USSR to work as slaves. Up to two hundred and eighteen thousand Germans were deported from Silesia, Pomerania and Prussia (52). Due to the horrible treatment the Germans suffered, over one hundred thousand of them died as a result of the deportation (53). The treatment was worse than that of the Nazis perpetrated on their slaves (54), for which Fritz Sauckel was hanged at Nuremburg (55).

Rumania, Yugoslavia and Hungary

By late 1944, with the Soviets in control of a substantial amount of the Balkans, thousands of Volksdeutsche from Rumania, Hungary and Yugoslavia were gathered together and deported to various areas of the USSR for slave labor (56). In Budapest, for instance, seventy-five thousand Hungarian civilians (more than likely Volksdeutsche) were sent to the Gulag almost immediately after the fall of Budapest (57). A few months later, expulsions began, with the Germans often being brutalized on there way out of the country. Those who did not leave had their citizenships revoked, their property confiscated, and were used as slave labor where they were needed, under horrible conditions. The German population dropped off dramatically due to such measures (58).

The prisoners of the German Army Group E who surrendered in Yugoslavia in May, 1945 were forced on a march spanning hundreds of miles throughout Yugoslavia, where local peasants could turn out and take revenge out upon the Germans freely. Less than one hundred and sixty thousand (40%) of the Army Group's troops made it back to Germany alive. This death march is over twenty times greater in scale than Bataan, but how many times have you heard about it (59)?

Czechoslovakia

The Sudeten Germans (all three and a half million of them), were the largest group outside of the 1937 European borders to be expelled (60), often in the most gruesome ways. The agreement to the surrender of Prague in May, 1945 let those Germans in the city who wished to leave, evacuate (61). However, Soviet troops decimated an exiting column, packed with soldiers and civilians. The Soviets poured petrol on the Germans, hung them by their feet on street poles, and set them on fire. Instead of suffocating, the victims were burned to death, making their agony last longer (62).

The Czech militia would surround German villages and go about bringing out the Germans by force into the city. Many would be beaten, shot or humiliated in other ways (63). In one case, after severe beatings, several German males were thrown into a large water tank. As the Germans came up for air, they were smacked at with sticks and poles by the Czechs. Bullets were also shot into the pool, turning the water red (64). In Schonpriesen in late July, 1945 after a suspicious explosion in a nearby ammunition dump, a wave of Czechs murdered over one thousand Germans (including children) by various hideous ways, despite the fact that there was no proof the Germans caused the explosion (65).

Following the immediate revenge suffered, German communities were forced to march to the German border, though some did go by train. Many male Germans were not expelled, but were used as slave labor in coal mines, industrial plants, and agriculture by the Czechs (66). If they were not allowed to cross the border, concentration camps were set up right by the border to keep the Germans in. US military personnel soon became aware of what the Czechs were doing, and they sometimes stepped in to protect German women and children (67). The Walter Commission delivered a report to the US House of Representatives, in which it stated the expulsions were neither humane, nor orderly, as the Czechs promised they would be (68).In the end, over a quarter of a million Germans lost their lives from the expulsions from Czechoslovakia (69).

Conclusion

In this report, I have written about the horrible sufferings millions of Germans went through due to the quest for revenge by some, and the idea of collective guilt. These crimes, and there is no question they are crimes, while understandable, cannot be justified by anyone. Thousands of years of Germanic history was destroyed during this ordeal, as well as over two million lives in the process (70). This project only scratches the surface of a history which has yet to be fully told. I hope this report contributes to the effort of fixing that problem.

Endnotes:

1. For more on Nazi occupation atrocities in the USSR, see Rhodes, Masters of Death, and Dallin, German Rule in Russia.

2. For the strongest critcism of G. F. Krivosheev's numbers and estimates, look into Boris Sokolov's writings in the Journal of Slavic Military Studies, vol.9, no.1., March 1996, p.152-93.

3. Werth, Alexander. Russia at War, p.388.

4. Ibid., p.871.

5. German intelligence branch for Eastern Front.

6. Zeidler, Manfred. Die Tötungs- und Vergewaltigungsverbrechen der Roten Armee auf deutschem Boden 1944/45.

7. Solzhenitsyn, Aleksandr. The Gulag Archipelago, p.21.

8. http://www.anthonybeevor.com/Berlin/cutsfour.htm.

9. http://www.anthonybeevor.com/Berlin/berlincutsone/htm.

10. McAteer, Sean. Reasons to Fight.

11. Zayas, Alfred M. de. Nemesis at Potsdam, p.61-65.

12. See Earl Ziemke, Stalingrad to Berlin, p. 421-433, and Christopher Duffy, Red Storm on the Reich, p. 67-124.

13. East Prussia and Silesia had a millenium of roots of both Germanic and Polish origin, but the majority of the population had been German for hundreds of years.

14. The German armed forces during WWII.

15. Duffy, p. 272.

16. Local district civilian leader.

17. McAteer, Sean. The Sack.

18. Cart or wagon pulled by horse.

19. Zayas, p.72.

20. Ibid., p.73.

21. Irving, David. Apocalypse 1945: The Destruction of Dresden, p.104.

22. Beck, Earl R. Under The Bombs: The German Home Front, 1942-1945, p.177-179.

23. German navy.

24. McAteer, Sean. Baltic Sea Action '45.

25. McAteer, Sean. The Sack.

26. Duffy, p.275.

27. Vol. 1, Documents On The Expulsion Of The Germans From Eastern-Central-Europe, p.27, Duffy, p.275.

28. Beevor, The Fall of Berlin, p.31.

29. Ibid, p.326.

30. Seaton, Albert. The Russo-German war, p.545.

31. Beck, p. 176.

32. Vol. 1, p.51.

33. Seaton, p.545.

34. Beevor, p.31.

35. Ibid., p.65, p.67.

36. Ibid., p.410.

37. Ibid.

38. Zayas, p.67-68.

39. Vol. 1, p.50.

40. Beck, p.176.

41. Ibid., p.53.

42. Ibid.

43. Zayas, p.66.

44. Zeidler, Manfred. Die Tötungs- und Vergewaltigungsverbrechen der Roten Armee auf deutschem Boden 1944/45.

45. Beevor, p.30.

46. McAteer, Sean. The Sack.

47. Vol. 1, p.74.

48. Ibid., p.85.

49. Ibid., p.86.

50. Ibid., p. 89.

51. Ibid., p. 108-109.

52. Ibid., p.65.

53. Ibid., p.68.

54. Zayas, p.70.

55. Ibid.

56. Vol. 1, p.62.

57. Applebaum, Anne. Gulag: A History, p.432.

58. Appendix 1.

59. "McAteer, Sean. May 1945.

60. Vol. IV, Documents On The Expulsion Of The Germans From Eastern-Central-Europe, p.3.

61. McAteer, Sean. Bohemia-Moravia, May 1945.

62. Duffy, p.282-283.

63. Vol. IV, p.66.

64. Hausner, Hennine. May 17, 1945: The Day I Will Never Forget.

65. Vol. IV, p.68.

66. Ibid., p.86.

67. Zayas, p.119.

68. Ibid., p.129.

69. Appendix 2.

70. Ibid.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Appendix 1:

German population in country, pre-war:

Rumania: 786,000

Hungary: 623,000

Yugoslavia: 536,700

War losses in country among German population:

Rumania: 136,000

Hungary: 89,000

Yugoslavia: 175,800

Germans population in country by 1950:

Rumania: 400,000

Hungary: 270,000

Yugoslavia: 82,000

Source: Overy, Richard. The Penguin Historical Atlas of the Third Reich, p.111. London: Penguin Books, 1996.

Help keep us going by making a donation to Historic Battles.