Thread
Destruction of cities or starvation
by Burkhard Schr�der 26.03.2003
Professor Dr. Manfred Messerschmidt, 76, Professor and until 1988 the head historian of the Military history research bureau, who has been retired since 1995, is still considered the doyen of German Military history research. Even his many scholarly and political opponents refer to this unconventional historian with respect.
Messerschmidt considers a military defeat for the Allied troops for probable, in the case that Saddam Husseins regime stays in power. A capture of Baghdad is impossible unless the allies plan on lay the Iraqi capital in tremors and ashes. The Second World War has shown, especially the 900 day siege of Leningrad, that a street fight leads to complete destruction and horrible human losses.
Even the German armed forces initially hesitated to try to conquer the Russian city until Hitler personally ordered either its complete destruction or that it be starved out. Although in concept did not work in Stalingrad or Leningrad. One cannot secure a Metropolitan city; invaders can at most control certain points.
"And even after a Bombardment lays the streets in tremors and ashes, the tanks can't get through anymore."
The "Arbeitsgemeinschaft Kriegsursachenforschung" (AKUF) at the institute of political science at the University of Hamburg runs a website and archive which informs broadly on world wide war events after the Second World War. According to them, if the Americans and Britons succeed in conquering the metropolitan city, it would be a first, as this has never been done by another army in a comparable situation.
Dr Gerd Krumeich Professor at the University of Duesseldorf and chairperson of the "Arbeitskreises Milit�rgeschichte" sees it similarly. Already in the 1870 German-French war, Paris only capitulated because the French Military along with its Emperor had already surrendered and the city's disastrous state of supplies. The Russian population in the sieged cities of Leningrad and Stalingrad had however hoped that they would be militarily massacred or freed. This is not to be expected in Iraq: "But belief moves mountains."
The Americans had apparently calculated with the fact that Saddam Hussein has a certain amount of support from the Iraqi population. Nobody knew how strong this would be. The overwhelming technical superiority of the Allied troops and their air superiority don't help a bit in street fights. One can't take a big city cleanly. And the bombardments only rally the population closer around the dictator. This is a curious phenomenon, but also observable by other criminal regimes in history.
The military historian Prof. Dr. Bernhard Kroener of the University of Potsdam has a clear opinion about the target of conquering Iraqi cities:
"If there is resistance, then a big city is unconquerable as a matter of principle."
There are historical examples for this, Paris 1940 and Rom 1944 were not defended, military occupation was possible for this reason alone. And the capital of South Vietnam at the time, Saigon, wasn't taken by foreign invaders, but Vietnamese.
The consciousness of Europeans has changed according to Kroener. A "war of the bomb" for example like the allied attacks on Hamburg which killed 30000 in two nights is nowadays unthinkable. A street fight for Baghdad is also unthinkable: "Anyone who can still take comfort would avoid that. It's unwinnable."
There are no alternatives. In case the Allies try to seal Baghdad off then they would have to bring more troops into Iraq, and would have to reckon with a sieges which would last months or years. The present advance on the Iraqi capital is still being done with the idea that the population would quickly abandon its regime. This is, according to Kroener, an error: Even if the population acts passively it's enough if the elite troops could still organise their resistance in order to defend the city. "If Saddams Regime isn't destabilized, and the top leaders aren't gotten rid of then a defeat is inevitable."
Prof. Dr. Bernhard Kroener advises the British and American militaries literature that's maybe a little old , but still gives a very good description of how the Iraqi commandos will act by the defence of Baghdad: The complete works of Mao Zedong. The guerrilla fighter moves under a sympathetic population like a fish in water.
The German military is no longer aloud to say anything about the Iraq war. This applies for the press offices of the armed forces as well as the Military history research bureau located in Potsdam. Former military men such as Brigade General a.D. Helmut Harff the first commander of the German troops in Kosovo and today chairman of the "Ausschusses Verteidigungswirtschaft im Bundesverband der Deutschen Industrie" are a lot more open. Hauff confirms what the German military historians have to say. "It is impossible to hold Baghdad with military means. It will come to a year long house to house battle, a downright small scale terrorist war."
We have already seen this in relatively small Mogadischu, Somalia. At that time the Americans pulled pack, because the mood in the US changed.
http://www.heise.de/tp/deutsch/spec...ak/14465/1.html
Professor Dr. Manfred Messerschmidt, 76, Professor and until 1988 the head historian of the Military history research bureau, who has been retired since 1995, is still considered the doyen of German Military history research. Even his many scholarly and political opponents refer to this unconventional historian with respect.
Messerschmidt considers a military defeat for the Allied troops for probable, in the case that Saddam Husseins regime stays in power. A capture of Baghdad is impossible unless the allies plan on lay the Iraqi capital in tremors and ashes. The Second World War has shown, especially the 900 day siege of Leningrad, that a street fight leads to complete destruction and horrible human losses.
Even the German armed forces initially hesitated to try to conquer the Russian city until Hitler personally ordered either its complete destruction or that it be starved out. Although in concept did not work in Stalingrad or Leningrad. One cannot secure a Metropolitan city; invaders can at most control certain points.
"And even after a Bombardment lays the streets in tremors and ashes, the tanks can't get through anymore."
The "Arbeitsgemeinschaft Kriegsursachenforschung" (AKUF) at the institute of political science at the University of Hamburg runs a website and archive which informs broadly on world wide war events after the Second World War. According to them, if the Americans and Britons succeed in conquering the metropolitan city, it would be a first, as this has never been done by another army in a comparable situation.
Dr Gerd Krumeich Professor at the University of Duesseldorf and chairperson of the "Arbeitskreises Milit�rgeschichte" sees it similarly. Already in the 1870 German-French war, Paris only capitulated because the French Military along with its Emperor had already surrendered and the city's disastrous state of supplies. The Russian population in the sieged cities of Leningrad and Stalingrad had however hoped that they would be militarily massacred or freed. This is not to be expected in Iraq: "But belief moves mountains."
The Americans had apparently calculated with the fact that Saddam Hussein has a certain amount of support from the Iraqi population. Nobody knew how strong this would be. The overwhelming technical superiority of the Allied troops and their air superiority don't help a bit in street fights. One can't take a big city cleanly. And the bombardments only rally the population closer around the dictator. This is a curious phenomenon, but also observable by other criminal regimes in history.
The military historian Prof. Dr. Bernhard Kroener of the University of Potsdam has a clear opinion about the target of conquering Iraqi cities:
"If there is resistance, then a big city is unconquerable as a matter of principle."
There are historical examples for this, Paris 1940 and Rom 1944 were not defended, military occupation was possible for this reason alone. And the capital of South Vietnam at the time, Saigon, wasn't taken by foreign invaders, but Vietnamese.
The consciousness of Europeans has changed according to Kroener. A "war of the bomb" for example like the allied attacks on Hamburg which killed 30000 in two nights is nowadays unthinkable. A street fight for Baghdad is also unthinkable: "Anyone who can still take comfort would avoid that. It's unwinnable."
There are no alternatives. In case the Allies try to seal Baghdad off then they would have to bring more troops into Iraq, and would have to reckon with a sieges which would last months or years. The present advance on the Iraqi capital is still being done with the idea that the population would quickly abandon its regime. This is, according to Kroener, an error: Even if the population acts passively it's enough if the elite troops could still organise their resistance in order to defend the city. "If Saddams Regime isn't destabilized, and the top leaders aren't gotten rid of then a defeat is inevitable."
Prof. Dr. Bernhard Kroener advises the British and American militaries literature that's maybe a little old , but still gives a very good description of how the Iraqi commandos will act by the defence of Baghdad: The complete works of Mao Zedong. The guerrilla fighter moves under a sympathetic population like a fish in water.
The German military is no longer aloud to say anything about the Iraq war. This applies for the press offices of the armed forces as well as the Military history research bureau located in Potsdam. Former military men such as Brigade General a.D. Helmut Harff the first commander of the German troops in Kosovo and today chairman of the "Ausschusses Verteidigungswirtschaft im Bundesverband der Deutschen Industrie" are a lot more open. Hauff confirms what the German military historians have to say. "It is impossible to hold Baghdad with military means. It will come to a year long house to house battle, a downright small scale terrorist war."
We have already seen this in relatively small Mogadischu, Somalia. At that time the Americans pulled pack, because the mood in the US changed.
http://www.heise.de/tp/deutsch/spec...ak/14465/1.html
Are you German? Berlin has been conquered and there was resistance.
Quote:
|
Originally posted by Developer: Are you German? Berlin has been conquered and there was resistance. |
No I'm not German.
Berlin was 'starved': people had endured a devastating winter; ever wondered why the trees in the Tiergarten are all young?