A Summary History of the 10th Mountain Division

 View the Index of Unit Histories

"Climb to Glory"
(Original article written 5/9/08 by Jim Broumley)

The 10th Mountain Division (Light Infantry) is a non-mechanized, light infantry division that is currently part of the XVIII Airborne Corps. Like the rest of the 18th Corps, the 10th Mountain is designed to be rapidly deployed anywhere in the world. The 10th Mountain Division is currently home based at Fort Drum, in upstate New York.

The specialty of the 10th Mountain Division (LI) is to fight on harsh terrain. This comes from their origins as a unit designed for winter warfare. In November of 1939, the Soviet Union invaded Finland. Finnish soldiers on skis humiliated the Russians depending on armor in the harsh winter conditions. Forward-thinking Americans watched these developments. They assumed that the United States would be soon drawn into the escalating World War. Charles Minot (Minnie) Dole, the president of the National Ski Patrol, knew that the U.S. Army would need mountain troops in the upcoming war. He lobbied the War Department to train troops in mountain and winter warfare. In September of 1940, Dole made a presentation to the Army Chief of Staff, General George C. Marshall, and convinced him to act on Dole's proposals for ski units.

On December 8, 1941, the 87th Mountain Infantry Battalion was activated at Fort Lewis, Washington. The 87th was the Army's first mountain unit and would later be expanded to a regiment. The Battalion was nicknamed "Minnie's Ski Troops" in honor of Minnie Dole. The National Ski Patrol took on the role of the recruiter for the 87th Infantry Regiment and later the Division. The 87th trained on Mount Rainier near Fort Lewis and participated in the Kiska Campaign in the Aleutian Islands. After returning home the 87th formed the core of the new 10th Mountain Division.

The Division was activated on July 15, 1943, at Camp Hale, Colorado as the 10th Light Division (Alpine). The maneuver brigades of the Division were contained in the 85th, 86th, and 87th Infantry Regiments. The Division's year of training at the 9,200-foot-high Camp Hale provided the skills necessary to fight and survive in mountain terrain and winter conditions.

On June 22, 1944, the Division moved to Camp Swift, Texas to prepare for the Louisiana maneuvers of 1944. Although those maneuvers were canceled, a period of acclimation to low altitude and hot climate was necessary to prepare for the maneuvers. On November 6, 1944, the Division was re-designated as the 10th Mountain Division and that same month the blue and white "Mountain" tab was added to the Division's shoulder patch.

The 10th Mountain Division started to arrive in Italy in late December 1944. It was one of the last Divisions to enter combat during World War II. However, after a brief training period, the 10th Mountain entered combat on January 8, 1945, near Cutigliano and Orsigna. The initial defensive actions were followed by Operation Encore which kicked off on February 18, 1945. The Division conducted attacks on the Monte Della Torraccia ridge and Monte Belvedere which constituted an approximately five-mile front. Other divisions had attempted to assault this sector three previous times, but none had any lasting success. The 10th Mountain Division cleared the sector in a few days of heavy fighting. The Germans had made seven counterattacks to retake the ground but never succeeded.

In early March the Division fought to a line north of Canolle and moved to within 15 miles of Bologna. The 10th Mountain Division maintained defensive positions for the next three weeks before starting another offensive. The Division captured Mongiorgio on April 20th, and then entered the Po Valley. The 10th Mountain Division crossed the Po River on April 23rd and reached Verona by April 25th. Here the Division met heavy resistance at Torbole and Nago. After an amphibious crossing of Lake Garda, the 10th Mountain Division secured Gargnano and Porto di Tremosine on April 30th as German resistance in Italy ended. The Germans in Italy surrendered on May 2, 1945. After serving some time on security duty and receiving the surrender of various German units, the soldiers of the 10th Mountain Division returned to the United States. The Division was deactivated on November 30, 1945.

Veterans of the 10th Mountain Division were in a large part responsible for the development of skiing into a big-name sport, national pastime, and vacation industry in the years after World War II. Former soldiers from the 10th laid out ski hills, built ski lodges, designed ski lifts, and improved ski equipment. They started ski magazines and opened ski schools. Winter resort towns of Vail, Aspen, Sugarbush, Crystal Mountain, and Whiteface Mountain are but a few of the ski areas built by 10th Mountain Division Veterans.

The Division was reactivated as the 10th Infantry Division to operate as a training division in 1948. It was deactivated again in 1958 with no service in the Korean War. It was not until Reagan's buildup of the military in the 1980s that the 10th Mountain Division was brought back to the active army. On September 11, 1984, the Army announced that Fort Drum, New York would be the new home of the 10th Light Infantry Division. The unit was officially activated on February 13, 1985, with the designation changed to 10th Mountain Division (Light Infantry). The 10th was the first division of any kind formed by the Army since 1975 and the first based in the Northeast United States since WWII. The Division was designed to meet a wide range of worldwide infantry-intensive contingency missions. Equipment design was oriented toward reduced size and weight for reasons of both strategic and tactical mobility.

The modern 10th Mountain Division's first deployment came in 1990 when some Division units were deployed to support Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm. Although the Division didn't deploy to Southwest Asia as a unit, about 1,200 10th Mountain Division soldiers did go. The largest unit to deploy was the 548th Supply and Services Battalion with almost 1,000 soldiers. The 548th supported the 24th Infantry Division (Mech) as it drove into Iraq.

After Hurricane Andrew hit Florida in August of 1992, an estimated 250,000 people were left homeless and damages were in excess of 20 billion dollars. The 10th Mountain Division deployed to assist in the recovery effort. Soldiers of the Division set up relief camps, distributed food, clothing, medical necessities, and building supplies as well as helped to rebuild homes and clear debris.

In 1993, the 10th Mountain Division was deployed to Somalia as part of Operation Restore Hope. When Task Force Ranger and the SAR team were pinned down during a raid in what later became known as the Battle of Mogadishu, 10th Mountain Division units provided infantry for the UN quick reaction force sent to rescue them. The Division had two soldiers KIA during the fighting.

The 10th Mountain Division was also deployed to Haiti and Bosnia in the 1990s. Due to the number of deployments, the 10th Mountain Division gained a reputation as the most deployed division in the army. During the 2000 presidential campaign, the readiness of the 10th Mountain Division became a political issue when then candidate George W. Bush asserted that the division was "not ready for duty". The division's low readiness was attributed to the recent redeployment of division units which had not had the time to refit for future missions.

Since the September 11, 2001 attacks, 10th Mountain units have deployed at an even greater frequency. Division units have played significant roles in Afghanistan and Iraq. Among these has been the rescue of downed Navy SEALs during "Operation Anaconda" in Afghanistan in 2001, and the successful maintenance of security of Western Baghdad during the first democratic Iraqi elections of 2004. They returned from that duty in November of 2004. The 10th Mountain Division's 2nd Brigade Combat Team returned to Iraq in 2007.

 View the Index of Unit Histories

The Brazilian Expeditionary Force During WWII

Brazil’s Contribution to the Allies in World War II

I read an article recently in Military History Magazine about the Brazilian Expeditionary Force in World War II. Realizing that I am rather “America-centric” in my reading, this opened my eyes to the contribution of Allied nations other than “The Big Three” Allied countries of the Soviet Union, Great Britain, and the United States.

Brazilian troops, newly arrived at Naples, Italy from

Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. July 16, 1944. National Archives

Since the war began in 1939, the United States made ever-increasing overtures to Latin American nations to ally themselves with the countries fighting fascism. However, Brazil would become the only South American country to send troops into combat. Of course, this alignment was in Brazil’s best interest. The Atlantic is at its narrowest point between the coasts of Brazil and Africa. Brazil’s government knew that the United States would require air and naval bases for a safer and shorter route to get troops and supplies to Europe. A military alliance would also turn into a trading partnership that would give Brazil an advantage over its South American neighbors.

Initially, Brazil tried to maintain a neutral status. But after contracting for American bases to be built in Brazil, they severed diplomatic relations with Germany, Japan, and Italy on January 28, 1942. As a result Axis submarines began to target Brazilian merchant shipping. U-boats sunk 13 Brazilian merchant ships by July, killing 600. Brazil declared war on Germany and Italy on August 22, 1942.

The Brazilian Navy participated in the Battle of the Atlantic, escorting a total of 614 convoys. They sank a total of twelve submarines (11 German and 1 Italian) along their coast. Brazil lost a total of 36 ships, including merchant vessels, and losing approximately 1600 crewmen, both navy and civilian.

Shoulder sleeve insignia of 1st EID

By Government of Brazil - Wikipedia

Once war was declared, Brazil began to organize an expeditionary force to send to the European Theater. The country was woefully unprepared for war and the United States contributed to their training. However, political disagreements over the size, use, and command of the force delayed their deployment for two years. The first troops of the Brazilian 1st Expeditionary Infantry Division (1st EID) departed for Italy in July 1944. Before the end of the war, over 25,000 Brazilian soldiers would serve in Italy.

The 1st EID was assigned to the US IV Corps of General Mark Clark’s US Fifth Army. They fought alongside African American soldiers of the 92nd Infantry Division and Japanese Americans of the 442nd Regimental Combat Team. Although under American command, one could argue that the Fifth Army was a multi-national force. British units consisted of commonwealth and colonial forces from New Zealand, Canada, India, Nepal, Palestine, South Africa, Rhodesia, and various African colonies. Free French forces were comprised of Senegalese, Moroccans, and Algerians. Soldiers from occupied countries such as Poland, Greece, and Czechoslovakia were also part of the Fifth Army, as well as anti-fascist Italians.

The 1st EID wore a shoulder patch that has a caricature of a snake smoking a pipe. It was inspired by a saying in Brazil during their training that, translated from Portuguese meant “it’s more likely that a snake will smoke a pipe before the Brazilian Expeditionary Force would go to the front and fight.” The soldiers embraced this put down and came up with the motto “The snake will smoke.” The patch is the result of that and it gave them their nickname: “The Smoking Snakes.”

The 1st EID fought as part of the Fifth Army in northern Italy until the end of the war in May 1945. During their time in combat, the Brazilians took over 20,500 prisoners. They lost 948 men killed in action. For a rundown of their combat operations, read the article “The Boys from Brazil” by Jerome A. Long in the Winter 2023 issue of Military History magazine.

2nd Lt. Jorge E.P. Taborda, from Rio de Janeiro, a pilot

with the First Brazilian Fighter Squadron serving in Italy.

National Archives Photo. 

The Brazilian Air Force also made a significant contribution to the war effort. The 1st Squadron of the Brazilian 1st Fighter Aviation Group trained at US bases in Panama and was designated operational in May 1944. They participated in the defense of the Canal Zone until they deployed to Italy in September 1944. They flew the P-47 Thunderbolt, attached as a squadron of the US Air Force 350th Fighter Group. Most of their missions were supporting ground units. Unlike the ground element of the BEF, the aviators were not going to get any replacement pilots. Out of the 48 operational pilots that deployed with the squadron, 22 were lost: five were killed by anti-aircraft fire, eight others were shot down over enemy territory, six were medically grounded and three more were killed in accidents. In their cumulative 5,465 combat flight hours, the 1st Fighter Squadron amassed an impressive record of damage to the enemy.

Of course we are drawn to the history of our own country. But I think the takeaway here is that we need to acknowledge that the Second World War was definitely a world war. By my count, there were 21 combatant nations joining the Americans, the British, and the Soviets on the Allied side of the war. Not to mention the four former Axis nations that swapped sides and joined the Allies later in the war (Italy, Romania, Bulgaria, and Finland.) Who knows? Maybe knowing the contribution of a WWII ally will change how we view our foreign relations today.

The 1st Armored Division "Old Ironsides"

View the Index of Unit Histories

A Short History of the 1st Armored Division
"Old Ironsides"

The 1st Armored Division, nicknamed "Old Ironsides," is the oldest and most recognizable armor division in the United States Army. It was the first armored division to see combat in World War II. The Division is currently home-based at Fort Bliss, Texas, and is part of the US III Corps.

As part of the mechanization of the U.S. Army and the buildup for WWII, cavalry and reconnaissance units were brought together to form the 1st Armored Division at Fort Knox, Kentucky on July 15, 1940. Major General Bruce R. Magruder was the Division's first commander, serving in that capacity from July 1940 until March 1942. General Magruder is also responsible for the Division's famous nickname. In 1941, General George S. Patton Jr. had just named his 2nd Armored Division "Hell on Wheels." The 1st Armored Division needed a nickname too, so General Magruder held a contest to find a suitable name. Approximately two hundred names were submitted including "Fire and Brimstone" and "Kentucky Wonders." The General chose to study them over the weekend but none of the suggestions appealed to him. It happened that General Magruder had just bought a painting of the U.S.S. Constitution during a drive for funds for the preservation of that famous fighting ship, which is nicknamed "Old Ironsides." General Magruder was impressed with the parallel between the development of the tank and the Navy's "Old Ironsides" spirit of daring and durability. He decided the 1st Armored Division should also be named "Old Ironsides."

The 1st Armored Division boarded the Queen Mary at the New York Port of Embarkation, Brooklyn Army Terminal on May 11, 1942. Five days later the soldiers of the Division landed in Northern Ireland and trained on the moors. On October 29, 1942, Old Ironsides moved to England to depart for North Africa.

The 1st Armored Division's first contact with an enemy was as part of the Allied invasion of North Africa, Operation Torch on November 8, 1942. The Allies did receive unexpected, and heavy, resistance from Vichy-French units; however, the invasion forces suppressed all resistance in the beachhead area within three days. Old Ironsides then advanced toward Tunisia. The soldiers of the Division learned hard lessons about armored warfare and the harsh conditions of North Africa.

In January of 1943 Old Ironsides was part of II Corps and received the mission of defending central Tunisia against an Axis counterattack. In February the 1st Armored Division met with a superior German armored force at Kasserine Pass. The Division sustained heavy losses in personnel and equipment and was forced to withdraw. Old Ironsides was battered but kept in mind its lessons learned. The Germans outran their supply lines and faced determined Allied resistance. After three more months of hard fighting, the Allies could finally claim victory in North Africa. Old Ironsides was reorganized in French Morocco and then moved to Naples, Italy on October 28, 1943, to support the Allied effort there.

As part of General Mark Clark's U.S. Fifth Army, the 1st Armored Division took part in the attack on the infamous Winter Line in November of 1943. Old Ironsides then flanked the Axis forces in the landings at Anzio and moved on to participate in the liberation of Rome on June 4, 1944. The 1st Armored Division continued to serve in the Italian Campaign until German forces in Italy surrendered on May 2, 1945. In June of 1945, Old Ironsides was moved to Germany as part of the U.S. Army occupation forces.

In the drawdown of forces after WWII, the 1st Armored Division was deactivated on April 25, 1946. With the success of the Russian-made T-34 tank by the enemy at the outset of the Korean War in 1950, there was a renewed enthusiasm for armored forces in the U.S. Army. As part of the new buildup of forces, Old Ironsides was re-activated on March 7, 1951, at Fort Hood, Texas, and was the first U.S. Army unit to field the new M48 Patton tank.

Although the 1st Armored Division did not participate as a division in the Vietnam War, two of their subordinate units did. Company A, 501st Aviation and 1st Squadron, 1st Cavalry served with distinction. Both units earned Presidential Unit Citations and 1-1 Cavalry received two Valorous Unit Awards and three Vietnamese Crosses of Gallantry. Neither unit was officially detached from the 1st Armored Division. Veterans of both units may wear the Old Ironsides as a combat patch. Also, in 1967 three Old Ironsides infantry battalions were formed into the 198th Infantry Brigade and deployed to Vietnam. Two of those battalions, 1-6th Infantry and 1-52nd Infantry, were returned to the 1st Armored Division.

As Vietnam wound down, the United States turned its attention back to the Cold War in Europe. The 1st Armored Division was moved to Germany in 1971, home-based in the West German city of Ansbach. The Division remained in Germany for the next twenty years as part of the American forces committed to a NATO defense of Europe.

In November of 1990, Old Ironsides was alerted for deployment to the Middle East in response to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. In less than two months the Division moved 17,400 soldiers and 7.050 pieces of equipment by rail, sea, and air to Saudi Arabia in support of Operation Desert Shield. On February 24, 1991, the 1st Armored Division crossed into Iraq to begin Operation Desert Storm as the leading unit in VII Corps' main flanking attack. Its mission was to destroy the elite Iraqi Republican Guards Divisions. In an 89-hour blitz across the desert, Old Ironsides traveled through 250 kilometers of enemy territory. They destroyed 768 tanks, armored personnel carriers, and artillery pieces. The 1st Armored Division also captured 1,064 prisoners of war. Old Ironsides returned to Ansbach, Germany on May 8, 1991. Their triumph was celebrated by a visit from the Vice President of the United States and participation in victory parades in Washington D.C. and New York City.

The 1st Armored Division was called to serve once again, this time in the Balkans. Old Ironsides was ordered to Bosnia-Herzegovina and part of Operation Joint Endeavor on December 14, 1995. The 1st Armored Division was relieved by the 1st Infantry Division and returned to Germany in November of 1996.

In 1999, Old Ironsides was deployed again. This time 1st Armored Division was supporting Operations Allied Force and Joint Guardian. Operation Allied Force took Old Ironsides soldiers to Albania in response to the ethnic cleansing and fighting there. Operation Joint Guardian was to uphold the United Nations Security Council resolution to bring peace back to the Kosovo region.

The 1st Armored Division began its participation in the global war on terrorism when it received deployment orders to the U.S. Central Command on March 4, 2003. By April 15th Old Ironsides was moving out to participate in Operation Iraqi Freedom. During their 15-month deployment, Task Force 1st Armored Division was the largest division-based task force in U.S. Army history. Units serving with the Task Force included brigade-sized elements from the 82nd Airborne Division, the 3rd Infantry Division, the 1st Cavalry Division, the 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment, the 124th Infantry Battalion, the 18th and 89th Military Police Brigades and the 168th MP Battalion. At its height, more than 39,000 soldiers were part of Task Force 1st Armored Division. The Division took responsibility for Baghdad in April of 2003. Old Ironsides was scheduled to return to Germany in April of 2004, but their tour was extended by three months to defeat a Shia militia led by Moqtada Al Sadr.

The Division's 3rd Brigade was deployed to Iraq once again for Operation Iraqi Freedom III in January of 2005, this after only eight months at home. They were attached to the 3rd Infantry Division as part of Task Force Baghdad. The 2nd Brigade Combat Team (BCT) deployed to Kuwait in November 2005 in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom IV. Old Ironsides' 1st Brigade deployed again to Iraq in January 2006.

In 2005, the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) commission determined that the 1st Armored Division should leave its home bases in Germany and move to Fort Bliss, Texas. While it took several years to accomplish the movement, Old Ironsides' division headquarters uncased its colors in May 2011.

Like their naval namesake, the 1st Armored Division carries with it the traditions and military values for which Old Ironsides has been known for over half a century. They also are the standing armor division of the United States Army, on the cutting edge of technology and tactics, and remain relentlessly strong today. Both active soldiers and veterans are proud to wear the 1st Armored Division patch and say, "I was with Old Ironsides."

View the Index of Unit Histories

The National Guard's Birthday: The First Muster

"The First Muster," a National Guard Heritage
Painting by Don Troiani, courtesy of the
National Guard Bureau.

For many Marines, the celebration of the Marine Corps Birthday is the social event of the year. The Corps was first established on November 10, 1775, by an act of the Second Continental Congress. That means this year the Marines will turn two hundred and forty-seven years old. The Navy beats them though, also established by an act of Congress on October 13, 1775, making that service just short of a month older. How about the Army you say? The United States Army claims June 14, 1775, as its birthday. On that date, the Continental Congress authorized the enlistment of expert riflemen to serve the United Colonies for one year. This was only two months after the Battle of Lexington and Concord, the event that kicked off the American Revolution.

However, the National Guard has them all beat by well over a hundred years. The roots of the modern National Guard are the colonial militias. The first formal militia was born on December 13, 1636, when the General Court of the Massachusetts Bay Colony ordered the organization of the Colony's militia companies into three regiments. The regiments were simply named the North, South, and East Regiments. Simple enough naming convention since the perceived threat was to the west, namely the Pequot tribe of Native Americans. All males between the ages of 16 and 60 were required to maintain arms and participate in the defense of the Colony. They drilled once a week and guards were posted in the event of an attack. The threat manifested itself in the Pequot War that took place from 1636 to 1638.

Although the order to organize the militia was given in December, the birthday of the National Guard is considered to be the date of the first unit to muster. You have to consider those New England winters, the colonists had to wait until the following spring to formally gather. The exact date has been lost, but we do know that the first regiment to muster was the East Regiment in Salem, Massachusetts. This year will mark the 385th year since that first muster, making the National Guard the oldest component of our military. On Saturday, April 9, 2022, a ceremony and reenactment will be held commemorating the event on Salem Common.

The Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal

 I don’t know how these things come up on my radar. But they do. I keep lists of things to look up and usually that just leads to more things to look up. Not complaining, but curiosity can be a harsh taskmaster.

(I thought) I knew that the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal was awarded to all services for participation in military operations against enemy forces, like Grenada (Operation URGENT FURY) and Panama (Operation JUST CAUSE). It was for the short-term deployments that weren’t considered a war or a campaign. So I thought to myself, what other operations received the AFEM? Turns out, quite a few.

The medal was created by executive order in 1965 to recognize the deployment of military personnel to Southeast Asia (specifically think Vietnam) prior to that time. Over the years it has been authorized for twenty deployments around the world during the Cold War and after. By definition: “The Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal can be earned through U.S. military operations, operations in direct support of the United Nations and U.S. operations of assistance to friendly foreign nations.”

The list of operations begins with Lebanon, Vietnam, and the Taiwan Straits in 1958. It concludes with Operation JOINT GUARDIAN in Kosovo after 1 Jan 2014 and continues. In between are several deployments to Haiti, the Berlin Crisis, two deployments to the Congo. Stuff I wasn’t even familiar with. If you want to see the whole list, here’s a link to a pdf provided by the Department of Defense Personnel and Readiness website.

I’m glad I looked this up. It was a little exercise in reminding myself that everyone’s service is important. We should not forget the men and women who earned this service ribbon any more than we should fail to recognize the sacrifices of veterans of any declared war. And you can bet I'll be looking up some of the items on this list. ;-)

Fort Humboldt State Historic Park

We decided to vacation in northern California a bit while on the way to Oregon this summer. While very scenic and awe inspiring (think big redwood trees), I was still able to fit in a little history tourism. I had just started the book on Ulysses Grant so we couldn't pass through Eureka without stopping off to visit Fort Humboldt, where Grant was stationed early in his army career.

Fort Humboldt State Historic Park is the site of the fort that was occupied from 1853 to 1870. The fort was built overlooking

Humboldt Bay to provide protection to gold seekers and arriving settlers from the local Native Americans. Captain Ulysses Grant was stationed here for a few months in 1854. At its peak, the fort had 14 buildings arranged around a parade field. For the troops stationed here, the duty was dull and boring.

We visited the park in early June and the weather was still very cool compared to the Central Valley of California where we had just come from. Being the "morning people" that we are, we arrived just before they opened the gate. Actually, it's a good thing we had Google Maps giving us the step-by-step directions, as the signage directing you to the site was not obvious. The gates opened at eight o'clock. The visitors center and the two buildings of the fort that remain were not scheduled to open until nine. We spent an hour and a half walking around the park, starting with a display of logging machinery that is co-located with the fort. The park is certainly well tended, but not well visited by all appearances. We pretty much had the park to ourselves with the exception of a local walking her dog and some high school kids on bicycles that I'm pretty sure were ditching the last day or two of school.

The buildings at the fort are the original hospital and a reconstructed surgeon's quarters. The hospital building has some displays on the history of the fort, but unfortunately they were not open during the time we were there. I guess that the park is staffed by volunteers and they were having a late morning. It was disappointing, but the main thing to see when you visit a historic site is actually the location and the lay of the land. The fort is on a bluff and today the city of Eureka has grown around the bay that the fort overlooks. It is obvious that the fort is defensible with a small number of soldiers (I believe that less than 50 were typically at the fort), and the view allows for easily spotting arriving ships.

Probably the best part of visiting Fort Humboldt State Historic Park is knowing that you are walking on the same ground as U.S. Grant, George Crook, and other noteworthy soldiers from the Civil War period. You also gain a glimpse into what their living conditions were while serving in what was then still a far off place, well removed from the civilization in the East that these soldiers were used to.

Next stop in this little "Grant Pilgrimage" I've got going on will be

a visit to Fort Vancouver, another frontier outpost where Grant served before his civilian hiatus from the army.

Book R & R: Verdun

This Book Review and Recommendation is on "Verdun: The Longest Battle of the Great War" by Paul Jankowski.

We are quickly approaching the 100th anniversary of the beginning of the First World War. I think that, apart from military history aficionados, this benchmark will pass with little examination, even though veterans of WWI lived until just a few years ago. I'm afraid also that even less attention will be paid to the significant events of the "Great War" that occurred prior to the United States' entry into the war in April, 1917.

With the recent release of "Verdun: The Longest Battle of the Great War," American historian and writer Paul Jankowski has turned his focus to one of these key battles of the war that took place prior to American involvement. Verdun is in northeast France, where the battle between the French and Germans began on February 21, 1918. The ten month battle lasted until December 18, 1916. The battle kicked off with the German Fifth Army launching an offensive against the French Second Army in fixed defenses near the Meuse River. The stubbornness of French commander Marshal Joseph Joffre and German commander General Erich von Falkenhayn turned the extended battle into a war of attrition. One village in the area of operations changed hands sixteen times during the course of the battle. Verdun is noteworthy mostly for the number of casualties compared to the lack of results for either side. Estimates for combined casualties range from over 714,000 to 976,000. The French lost more men, but held their terrain. Verdun became known as one of the longest, and most costly battles in history.

Paul Jankowski is a professor of history at Brandeis University in Massachusetts. Appropriately, he has devoted more attention in his book to the cultural and political ramifications of Verdun, rather than the nuances of combat operations. His writing is clear on concise, helping both the military historian and the lay reader to understand the battle, the results, and the influence (or lack there of) on the war as a whole.

Although the French are able to claim victory at Verdun, for the number of casualties and lack of net gains for either side the battle had little influence on the outcome of the First World War as a whole. However, Verdun is a good battle to study in that it speaks to the futility of the war and way it was fought with modern technology and outdated tactics. As Jankowski writes, "Verdun remains the epitome of senseless industrial warfare."

Book R & R: Giap

This Book Review and Recommendation is on "Giap: The General Who Defeated America in Vietnam" by James A. Warren.

Vietnamese General Vo Nguyen Giap recently passed away on October 4, 2013 at the age of 102. From the time he was born in 1911 until the communist victory over South Vietnam in 1975, his country was either occupied by a foreign power, or at war. Next to Ho Chi Minh, Giap is probably the most revered Vietnamese "founding father." Certainly the most well known in the United States. He is the mastermind behind the French defeat at Dien Bin Phu, the Tet Offensive, the Easter Offensive, and the 1975 Spring Offensive (which finally defeated South Vietnam and united the country under the communist government).

The publication of Warren's book is timely, but that's not the reason to read a biography of this man. Vo Nguyen Giap's life is a history of Vietnam in the Twentieth Century and the United States was one of the key players. His leadership and military decisions were instrumental in ending the American involvement in Southeast Asia. James Warren conveys this without pounding the reader over the head with it. The book is not lengthy (at just over 200 pages) but it is thorough enough so that the reader gets a clear picture of not only the life of a self-taught military genius (too much?) but also a summary history of the French and American involvement in Vietnam.

Giap was in fact a self-taught military strategist. While studying in Hue before WWII, he was a voracious reader of military history and politics (p. 7). He also spent time as a history teacher (p. 10). However, his greatest insight (with a little help from his political mentor Ho Chi Minh) and implementation of the concept, was that "the army and the people are one."(p. 25) This set the stage for building a guerrilla army whose key to victory was outlasting their opponent. Although it took thirty years, Giap served as commander-in-chief of an army that defeated both France and the United States.

Warren's writing style is straightforward and readable. His conclusions are also clear and in my view inarguable. When I was an army officer, I read quite a few biographies of military figures. It was part of how you learned your trade. I would have added this book to my reading list. If you would read a book about Rommel or Robert E. Lee, then you might want to read a book about Vo Nguyen Giap. James Warren's book is a great choice.

Palgrave Macmillan provided a review copy of "Giap: The General Who Defeated America in Vietnam."

Book R & R: The True German

This Book Review and Recommendation is on "The True German: The Diary of a World War II Military Judge" by Werner Otto Muller-Hill, introduction by Benjamin Carter Hett.

Werner Otto Muller-Hill was an upper-middle class German from Frieburg. He served as a military judge in the First World War before he went home to pursue a legal career. He was recalled to active duty in the German Wehrmacht, again to serve as a military judge in 1940. He was very pro-German, and very anti-Nazi. He started keeping a journal in March 1944 as a record for his young son, in the event he did not survive the war. Defeatism and criticizing the Fuhrer were crimes in Hitler's Germany, so if the things Muller-Hill wrote in his diary were ever found out, it could mean his death. But he survived the war, closing his journal two weeks after the German surrender to the Allies. He was sixty years old at the end of the war. Muller-Hill died in 1977.

German military justice was draconian during WWII. For example, the introduction provides the statistic that during WWI, German military courts sentenced 48 soldiers to death. However, under Nazi rule from 1933 to 1945 at least 20,000 and maybe as many as 33,000 or more soldiers, civilians, and POWs subject to military justice were put to death. (p. xvi) As Benjamin Carter Hett says, "Nazi military law...specified both harsh penalties and a speedy procedure, with few rights for defendants." (p. xix) Werner Otto Muller-Hill was one of the "good" judges though, who obviously thought a soldier would perform better back in his unit rather than hanging on the end of a rope.

What makes Muller-Hill's diary so interesting, and so valuable as a historical tool, is the amount of information he had, or moreover, what he knew. On April 5, 1944 Muller-Hill wrote that "We are rushing head-long into the worst kind of defeat...In a year we'll know more!!!" He almost predicted the outcome of the war and the date of Germany's defeat. Filtered through propaganda, briefings through his chain of command, newspaper and radio, this rear echelon officer knew quite a bit about things that previously we thought the average German did not. Along with his insight, he was often sarcastic and sometimes humorous. He talks of missiles being fired at London as "retribution" for the landings in Normandy (pp. 49-52) and also predicts the futility of the Battle of the Bulge (p. 131). He praises the attempt on Hitler's life (p. 59) and is upset about the use of 14-year old boys being put into defensive positions toward the end of the war (p. 92).

Most startling is Muller-Hill's rant about a speech given by Minister of Propaganda Joseph Goebbels, where he writes "What nerve this man has! How dare he talk about gruesome maltreatment of women and children, when we've summarily murdered hundreds of thousands of Jewish women and children in Poland and Russia!" (p. 155). For me this helps to dispel the myth that the general populace of Germany, particularly the Wehrmacht, had no knowledge of the Holocaust before the end of the war.

"The True German" is a quick read, and in the real voice of an astute observer of what was going on around him. Reading this book provides the opportunity to hear what a very knowledgeable German officer was thinking at the time the events unfolded around him. His words are not filtered by a historian or other writer. The book is, in fact, a primary source document, both enlightening and entertaining. A nice addition to your WWII library.

The publisher, Palgrave Macmillan, provided a review copy of "The True German."

Book R & R: Operation Barbarossa

This Book Review and Recommendation is on "Operation Barbarossa: Nazi Germany's War in the East, 1941-1945" by Christian Hartmann.

Regular readers know that recently I have advocated viewing WWII through different perspectives, for example reading about some myth-breaking facets of the war like sex crimes committed by Allied Forces, or how we treated deserters, or the experiences of soldiers from different nationalities. Operation Barbarossa was the German invasion of the Soviet Union, what we commonly refer to as "the Russian Front." Because there were no U.S. forces fighting in that Theater, the typical American knows as much about it as they do say, the British fight for Singapore. "Operation Barbarossa: Nazi Germany's War in the East, 1941-1945" can remedy that. It is a quick read (208 pages including back matter) and a palatable history of the major theater of World War II.

In June of 1941, Nazi Germany invaded the Soviet Union along an 1800 mile front with over four million Axis soldiers. By the fall of 1941, the German offensive pushed into Russia to within twenty miles of Moscow. The Russians held and later pushed the Germans back, with the help of war material sent from the United States under the Lend-Lease program. The fighting on the Eastern Front involved the largest battles of the war, some of which are know to use in the west, like the siege of Leningrad, Stalingrad, Kiev, and the Battle of Kursk. The latter being the largest tank battle in history. By the end of the war in 1945, Operation Barbarossa would account for an estimated 26.6 million Soviet casualties, 13 million of which were civilians. These numbers represent as much as sixty-five percent of all Allied casualties incurred during the war, including the war with Japan. The German Army lost 2,743,000 soldiers on the Eastern Front (pp. 157-158). That's about half of Germany's military casualties during the Second World War.

Christian Hartmann is a military historian at the Institut Fur Zeitgeschichte in Munich and is a senior lecturer at the Staff College of the German Armed Forces in Hamburg. In his book, Operation Barbarossa: Nazi Germany's War in the East, 1941-1945, Hartmann has given us a succinct, yet very readable history. I found his concluding chapter on the aftermath of the war particularly insightful. Hartmann points out that Operation Barbarossa was the clash between the two largest totalitarian systems existing prior to WWII. The war between the Nazis and Stalinist Russia laid waste to both countries. While this condition gave rise to the Cold War, it also allowed for a new Germany to be built from scratch. And because of the Cold War standoff with the Soviet Union, the western Allies were forced to take a chance on creating a new, industrialized and autonomous Germany from the beginning, rather than focusing on punishment and reparations. Hartmann also posits that a factor in the Cold War staying cold was the memory of the destruction wrought during the German-Soviet war. I agree.

Why do we study military history? When I was an army officer, I thought it was to learn how to better fight the next war. I'll allow that's probably still true. But as a much older and wiser civilian I'd have to say that one reason we study a past war is so we'll learn the lesson of how terrible war is. I recommend being familiar with the shocking scale of Operation Barbarossa, especially in relation to our operations on the Western Front. Christian Hartmann's book is an excellent resource for that.

Comanche Code Talkers

Photograph from the article "Charles Chibitty: Comanche Code Talker"

posted on the U.S. Army website.

It never ceases to amaze me how much I don't know. I'm working as hard as I can to fix that, the not knowing part, but I'm afraid I'm going to run out of time. Whenever I run across some factoid that I'm not familiar with or I don't think was explained well enough, I have to run down some more information on it. Here's a perfect example from this morning: I ran across a newspaper article that caught my eye while doing an Internet search for something completely different (yep, that still happens). This article in the Lawton Constitution informed me (before I hit information cutoff and they demanded a subscription to read the rest of the article) that the annual Comanche Fair this year would be honoring the Comanche Code Talkers from World War II. In fact, if you can't make it to the fair, there is a museum exhibit dedicated to the Code Talkers that you can visit year-round at the Comanche National Museum and Cultural Center, in Lawton, Oklahoma.

I know what you're thinking, Comanche Code Talkers? I thought the Code Talkers were Navajo, like the movie, right? I had to do some quick research on this. Turns out, members of several tribes served as Code Talkers during both WWI and WWII. Code Talkers are soldiers who can use their native language in radio and telephone communications like a code, since to the enemy the language is so obscure they have virtually no hope of translating it. During WWI the Army started the practice using Native American soldiers of the Cherokee, Choctaw, and Comanche tribes. They proved to be very effective. So much so that during the inter-war years, Adolf Hitler sent about thirty anthropologists to Oklahoma to try to learn Native American languages. They failed. The languages were too difficult and there were too many dialects.

During WWII the United States Marine Corps accelerated the program and recruited more than 400 Navajo Code Talkers. (The USMC also experimented with the Basque language, utilizing about 60 native speakers of that language.) The size of the Marines' Code Talker program and exposure in popular culture has resulted in most of us associating "Code Talkers" with the Navajo tribe. Because of Germany's attempt to learn Native American languages, the U.S. Army was hesitant to use Code Talkers in the European Theater. However, on a limited scale, the U.S. Army employed some Native American speakers against the Germans. That included recruiting from 27 Meskwaki (Fox) men from Iowa who joined the Army as a group. Eight of them eventually became Code Talkers and served in combat against the Germans in North Africa.

The United States Army also recruited seventeen Comanche Indians to serve as Code Talkers. As a further safety measure they developed a "code within a code" by coming up with over 100 code words within their own language. Fourteen of these men were assigned to the 4th Infantry Division and landed on Utah Beach on D-Day. Two of the Code Talkers were assigned to each regiment in the division and the rest were assigned to division headquarters. Their unique skills were put to work on their first day in Normandy. Although several were wounded, all of the Comanche Code Talkers survived the war.

The last Comanche Code Talker passed away in 2005. However, a grateful nation does not stop honoring these men who through their special skill and service saved untold numbers of their fellow American soldiers.

Book R & R: The Deserters

This Book Review and Recommendation is for "The Deserters: A Hidden History of World War II" by Charles Glass.

The United States put approximately sixteen million men and women in uniform during WWII. Only about ten percent of them actually saw combat as front line soldiers, marines, and sailors. If you have ever read even one book on the combat history of a unit, you will come to realize that most combat units during the Second World War, once initial training was complete and sent to a theater of operations, saw combat over and over, for weeks at a time. Units would participate in a campaign, then be sent to a rear area to receive and train replacements, before heading into combat again for the next campaign. It was not uncommon, like in the case of the 509th Parachute Infantry Battalion, to see at the end of the war only a handful of men still remaining who had been with the unit from the start.

Of course we all now know about Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and the affect it has on military personnel in every echelon. However, during WWII, "combat fatigue" was commonly believed to be something you could more or less cure in a few days with a little rest, recreation, and a hot meal. About 50,000 men deserted from the battlefields of Europe during the war. (There were negligible desertions in the Pacific, as the soldiers and marines really had no place to desert to.) According to author Charles Glass, many of these soldiers left the line as a result of "shell shock" or "battle fatigue," or what we now call PTSD. Others became disillusioned with the war, wondering what they were going to die for. Over seventy percent of deserters were from front line units, and they were judged harshly and treated quite unfairly by their rear echelon peers and commanders.

Charles Glass is the former Chief Middle East Correspondent for ABC News, and has authored other highly praised narrative histories with a World War II theme like "Americans in Paris." In "The Deserters: A Hidden History of World War II" he examines the reality of what it cost in terms of human sacrifice to win the Second World War. To accomplish this Glass tells us the stories of three soldiers, one British and two American, who ran afoul of the system's treatment of those soldiers who deserted as a reaction to "battle fatigue" (PTSD). It is well researched and engagingly written. Along the way you will learn about the incompetence of the medical evaluation of these men and the cruelty of the military justice system. You will read how the military handled executions, (for crimes other than desertion, Private Eddie Slovak was the only soldier executed during WWII for that offense), and learn about criminal gangs of deserters in Paris and London who were actually slowing the war effort because of their theft of Allied military supplies for sale on the black market. If you are like me, "The Deserters" will expose a facet of the war in Europe that you have never considered.

Here's an anecdote for you: During my masters program, I took a class on the Civil War. On the first night of class the professor stated clearly that "in this class we will never read or discuss anything having to do with anyone pointing a gun at another person." He meant that the class was about the results and reactions to the war, not the tactics and strategy of it. We read and discussed books about the literature of the war, the medical and burial systems during the war, the home front during the war, and so on. We read, wrote a paper on, and passionately discussed (some might say argued) thirteen books in thirteen weeks and it was one of the best classes on military history I've ever had, a real eye-opener.

If you wish to have a well informed, thorough understanding of war, and particularly WWII, then I cannot urge you strongly enough to read this book. 

Book R & R: The Last Battle

This Book Review and Recommendation is on "The Last Battle: When U.S. and German Soldiers Joined Forces in the Waning Hours of World War II in Europe" by Stephen Harding.

"The Last Battle" is the story of the Battle for Schloss Itter in Austria that took place on May 5, 1945. This was five days after Adolf Hitler committed suicide and just two days before the end of WWII in Europe. The castle outside the village of Itter, Austria was used by the Nazis as a VIP prison for (mostly French) political prisoners during the war. It was under the administration of the Dachau concentration camp, less than a hundred miles to the north in the suburbs of Munich. As the war was winding down and American forces were advancing, the castle's guards deserted and left the prisoners to their own devises. The French diplomats correctly assumed that retreating SS units would arrive at the castle and execute them. They sent runners to find American forces to come to their aid, while also contacting the local Wehrmacht (German Army) commander who had let the local resistance forces know that he was anti-Nazi and wished a peaceful surrender.

An American rescue mission comes in the form of a platoon-sized task force from the 12th Armored Division commanded by CPT Jack Lee. Unfortunately because of various problems on the road during this behind the lines mission, Lee arrives with only one Sherman tank and about fourteen American soldiers. The Wehrmacht contingent who voluntarily chose to join the Americans and help defend the castle against the approaching SS forces consisted of two officers and about ten soldiers. This small force of Americans and Germans, along with a few of the French prisoners, defend Schloss Itter against an attack by the Waffen-SS from the early morning hours of May 5th until a relief column from the American 142nd Infantry Regiment arrives late in day.

This story is a perfect example of the legitimacy behind the cliche that "sometimes truth is stranger than fiction." Stephen Harding tells a good story and is to be congratulated for bringing it to us. Unfortunately it is a short story, although that is not the fault of the author. The Battle for Schloss Itter is too long a tale to be abridged into a magazine article, but too short for a 300-page monograph. "The Last Battle" comes in at about 173 pages not counting the back matter. That includes a thorough history of the castle and the biography of each of the French prisoners, which slows the story down for those who are anxious to hear of this unique situation where "regular" German soldiers joined with their American and French enemies to fight the SS. Other than that, once the Americans come into the area of operations, the story becomes a "page turner." What I found most interesting (as I usually do) is the epilogue where the reader learns what the players in this story did with the rest of their lives.

"The Last Battle" is a good story well told of an improbable episode in WWII history.

Book R & R: The Sword of St. Michael

This Book Review and Recommendation is on "The Sword of St. Michael: The 82nd Airborne Division in World War II" by Guy LoFaro.

There are books that cover all airborne operations in WWII like "Paratrooper!" by Gerard Devlin. There are books that cover airborne operations in the European Theater of the Second World War like "Ridgway's Paratroopers" by Clay Blair. Additionally there are multiple unit histories of the parachute infantry regiments and battalions that were part of the 82nd Airborne. But until "The Sword of St. Michael" was released in 2011 (practically on the same day that we published "The Boldest Plan"), there was a real scarcity of books that were devoted strictly to the All American Division's WWII combat history. (Contrary to what the book description for "The Sword of St. Michael" claims, it is not the only history of the 82nd Airborne in WWII. Most notably, Phil Nordyke's "All American, All the Way" from 2005 comes to mind, also with very positive reviews.)

Author Guy LoFaro is a West Point graduate with a Ph.D. who served several tours with the 82nd Airborne Division. He has written a comprehensive (and I do mean comprehensive, coming in at 784 pages) history in an engaging style that will hold the reader's attention.  I found it interesting how LoFaro treats the points where the history the 509th Parachute Infantry Battalion intersect with that of the 82nd Airborne Division. Since there is not much more that I can add to the twenty 5-star reviews (at the time of this writing) of the book on Amazon.com, I thought I might share those points with you here.

Of course LoFaro covers the history of airborne from da Vinci to the Test Platoon. That's pretty much obligatory for a book on the early days of the airborne. Though I was disappointed that the author did not mention the deployments of the 509th PIB (then as the 2/503rd PIR), or the 503rd Parachute Infantry Regiment as preceding that of the All-American Division. However, the book is about the 82nd Airborne Division, so I have to concede that in the long view that information was not germane to the unit's history.

The first mention of the 509th Parachute Infantry Battalion is when the units came together in Oudja (p.70). LoFaro talks about the attachment of the Geronimos and is very forthright in explaining General Matthew Ridgway's dislike of Edson Raff. He also explains the tiff between Ridgway and British General Browning. The author confesses that because of these situations, for the 509th PIB, "it meant banishment to Ridgway's doghouse."

"The Sword of St. Michael" discusses the Geronimos' Avellino jump in conjunction with the 82nd Airborne's jump on the Salerno beachhead (pp. 142-144). In my opinion, the author took the view that the 509th PIB's Avellino operation had no affect on the battle for Salerno. In fact, he says that the drop was "a disaster," which is not untrue. However, he further submits that the Geronimos' operations behind the lines were only "a minor nuisance" to the Germans. LoFaro quotes General James Gavin when he said that "it is doubtful that it had any decisive bearing on the outcome of the Battle of Salerno." But the author chose not to include any quotes of those who felt the Avellino jump was necessary and paid dividends. Like General Mark Clark, the Fifth Army commander, for example.

The only other point where the Gingerbread Men appear in "The Sword of St. Michael" is when the author mentions that the 82nd received replacements from the 509th and the 551st PIBs (p. 526). He states simply that those units were disbanded because of such heavy combat losses.

Overall "The Sword of St. Michael" is an outstanding history of the All American Division. It is, however, a very pro-82nd Airborne book and my only other criticism is that I would have liked to hear more from the veterans of the Division describing their experiences in their own voices. Nevertheless, if you are only going to read one book about the 82nd Airborne Division during WWII, "The Sword of St. Michael" would be a good choice.

Book R & R: The Last of the Doughboys

Today's Book Review and Recommendation is "The Last of the Doughboys: The Forgotten Generation and Their Forgotten World War" by Richard Rubin.

The Doughboys are what we called the soldiers and marines who fought in WWI, like calling the soldiers of the WWII era "G.I.s." The 100th anniversary of the First World War is going to be upon us very soon. I don't know as much as I'd like to about that conflict, so I thought I'd pick up a couple of titles to rectify that situation. One that caught my eye was Richard Rubin's "The Last of the Doughboys" that was just recently released (May 2013). The book's back cover said that Rubin had interviewed some of the last surviving World War I veterans. Being into applied history and oral history interviews, I thought this book would be a great place to start. Well, every once in a while I make a brilliant decision without even knowing that I'm doing it. "Last of the Doughboys" was a great book on so many levels.

I really enjoy Richard Rubin's writing style. His voice is very conversational and his pacing in this book keeps the reader engaged. I suspect that comes from Rubin's experience in writing feature articles for magazines like the Atlantic, The New Yorker, Smithsonian, and others. He has one other book out, but it is not a work of military history. You see, what I like about Richard Rubin is that not only is he an outstanding writer, but he follows through on his natural curiosity. And as a result he accomplished something that I think the rest of us who are "doin' history," whether it's academic or popular, should be a little chagrined that we didn't think of it first and then act on it.

So one day around 2003, Richard Rubin the writer hears the declaration that many of us have heard in one form or another: "We're losing up to 1,000 WWII veterans every day! We have to hurry and collect their stories while we still can!" But Rubin took the thought process one step further and asked himself if there were any veterans of WWI still alive, and was anyone scrambling to get their stories. Rubin then went about finding out. Initially, no one knew the answer. The Department of Veterans Affairs didn't have a list, they only estimated (based apparently on actuarial tables) that there were as many as fifteen hundred still living. After repeated inquiries from Rubin, the VA then reduced that estimate to "fewer than two hundred."

Rubin did find dozens of WWI veterans to interview: men and women, American and Canadian, Army, Marine, and Navy, all between the ages of 101 to 113. His best and main source for locating these veterans was the French government, who maintained a list of recipients of the Legion d'Honneur. The French awarded this medal during the late 1990s to American veterans who had served on French soil during the "Great War." Others he found through media research. It turns out that this forgotten war from our distant past wasn't so distant after all. Rubin traveled the country, conducting his interviews from 2003 to 2010. Some of his subjects had vivid memories of the events that had occurred eighty-five years or more in their past and were interviewed on more than one occasion. Others, let's just say they proved to be less than successful. His last interview subject was the last surviving American veteran of WWI, Frank Buckles, who passed away in February 2011.

I'm amazed at what Rubin did as far as thinking up this project, and then unrelentingly following up until the last veteran of WWI had passed away. In addition, I am more than impressed with what he did with the information. If the veteran was a combat veteran of say, Belleau Wood, then Rubin explains the circumstances, events, and effects of that battle to the reader. You'll also hear about what conditions were like on the home front, how we treated the immigrant population, the military's handling of "shell-shocked" soldiers, how we suppressed free speech with the Sedition Act of 1918, and how we deployed cavalry (yes, still using horses) to guard the Mexican border. You'll even learn about media coverage of the war and popular culture as expressed in song lyrics of the day. Every aspect of the war is covered, and accompanied by the voice of the young person who lived through it and experienced it. This book is a "page turner." The history is accurate and provided in a voice that is entertaining and engaging.

If you are looking for a book that covers only the military actions, strategy, etc., of the First World War placed on a timeline, then "The Last of the Doughboys" is probably not the book for you. If instead you are looking gain an insight on the whole of the war and its effect on regular people whose lives were forever changed by it, then I cannot urge you strongly enough to read this book. It will have a prominent place on my bookshelf, ready for a re-read in the near future.

Will the Army retire the "Band of Brothers"?

The wars are winding down and the budget is shrinking. The United States Army, as it has done after every period of conflict, will go through a cycle of downsizing. The goal this time around is to reduce active army forces by about 80,000 soldiers. This move will be accomplished in the deactivation of 12 combat brigades. One of those on the chopping block is the 4th Brigade Combat Team of the 101st Airborne Division at Fort Campbell, Kentucky. Part of this BCT is the first and second battalions of the 506th Infantry Regiment (1/506 and 2/506), therefore making this brigade the modern manifestation of the "Band of Brothers."

As expected, there is a collective howl coming from those veterans and others with an affinity toward the lineage of the 506th Parachute Infantry Regiment. To their credit, The Huffington Post published a well done article on this, explaining that the 506th PIR of WWII fame earned that moniker of "Band of Brothers" for the title of the Stephen Ambrose book and the HBO miniseries of the same name. I can't do better than the Huff article for explaining the situation and what it means to keep storied units like this in an active status. The article also has a nice summary history of the 506th Infantry from its birth during WWII, through Vietnam and their recent participation in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, I will say that from the beginning of this blog a recurring theme I write about is the importance of a military unit's history to the esprit of its soldiers and veterans.

Courtesy www.MilitaryVetShop.com.

Unfortunately I've come to the conclusion that the Department of the Army just doesn't get it. When the Army went from organizing by regiment to divisions, that was okay from a lineage standpoint because soldiers have always taken pride in the shoulder patch of their parent unit and regiments were the building
blocks of the Army that could move from one division to another. However when the Army began to create brigade combat teams that would deploy separately, without their division headquarters like some kind of "plug and play" component, the shoulder sleeve insignia lost a lot of its meaning. The Army's plan was to provide the battalions within these BCTs a regimental affiliation so that the soldiers would have an anchor of unit history and tradition, that - with a few exceptions like the 173rd Airborne Brigade and the Armored Cavalry Regiments - really had nothing to do with the BCT or the division the battalion was assigned to. And now that disregard for lineage, tradition, and unit history has come full circle because apparently decisions on which brigades to deactivate are being made with a total disregard for the regimental affiliations of the battalions within that brigade.

Why bother with unit crests or shoulder sleeve insignia at all? Maybe soldiers could just wear bar codes?

Book Review – Death in the Baltic

Death in the Baltic: The World War II Sinking of the Wilhelm Gustloff by Cathryn J.Prince

If you ask any given person what the worst maritime disaster was in history, (of those who could bring one to mind) you would probably hear about the Titanic, or even the Lusitania. However, I’d say it’s a safe bet that the odds are astronomical that you’ll find someone who knows about the sinking of the Wilhelm Gustloff. Now author Cathryn J. Prince has brought this story to our attention.

The province of East Prussia is located on the Baltic Sea, between Latvia and a small sliver of Polish territory that allows that country access to the Baltic. Historically, the area was a Polish duchy, but when Poland was divided between Germany and the Soviet Union in their Non-Aggression Treaty of 1939, the territory went to the Nazis. Where before East Prussia was an area of mixed ethnicity, now began a period of "Germanification." The Nazis and the Soviets relocated the civilian population by the hundreds of thousands. Ethnic Germans were expelled from Soviet states and relocated to East Prussia.

East Prussia, having been separated from the rest of Germany during the interwar years, had not been overly influenced by the Nazi rise to power. They were also relatively unaffected by the war until late 1944 when the Red Army started closing in. That all changed when the Soviets began to retake their former territory. Retribution for Germans was terrifying. The anticipated rape and murder by Russian soldiers created a panic to flee the area. However, Hitler would not allow any evacuation of civilians from East Prussia until Russian tanks were literally breaking through the German defensive line. Almost too late, the head of the German Navy, Admiral Karl Donitz, launched Operation Hannibal, the evacuation of both military and civilians across the Baltic to the German port of Kiel.

The goal of Operation Hannibal was to move one million military personnel and two million civilian refugees by ship and/or train from the eastern provinces to northern Germany beginning on January 23, 1945. Over 800 ships, both military and merchant marine, would participate. One of those ships was the Wilhelm Gustloff, a luxury cruise ship launched in 1938. The ship had been previously used as a troop transport, hospital ship, and floating barracks for the German navy. It was designed to carry only 2000 passengers and crew when it operated as an ocean liner.

On the night of January 30, 1945 the Wilhelm Gustloff departed Gotenhafen enroute to Kiel. It was estimated, since no records survived if any were available, that the ship carried over 9,000 souls. The majority were civilian refugees, women and children, and a number of wounded military personnel on board. A short time later, the Wilhelm Gustloff was struck by three torpedoes fired by a Soviet submarine S-13. The ocean liner sunk within an hour. Since there were lifeboats for only a fraction of those on board,  many drowned in the freezing Baltic. There were approximately 1200 survivors. Some estimate the death toll as high as 9,400. For perspective, the sinking of the Lusitania took under 1200 and the Titanic claimed just over 1500 lives.

The sinking was not deliberately kept secret over the years, but it wasn’t exactly publicized either. In post WWII America, not many people cared about what had happened to our former enemies. The ensuing Cold War with the Soviets further obscured the tragedy in the world’s collective memory. Author Cathryn Prince heard about it one day and was driven to find out more. She found a survivor who had since immigrated to Canada. Prince went there to interview him. That’s all it took to compel Prince to find more survivors to interview, and finally tell their story.

Prince articulates an observation that Americans have a tendency to not acknowledge the suffering of the German people during the war, not wanting to view them as having the right to be “victims” of the Nazis like other nationalities in Europe (p. 181). But if we are able to put those prejudices aside, there is a lot to learn in the details of the closing days of WWII in the European Theater. Moreover, as a reader and writer of military history, I think it’s a good thing that we periodically put strategy and tactics aside and examine the experiences of civilians during war.

The book is well written and reads at a good pace. There is no fluff, coming in at 236 pages including back matter, but it is a thorough history. The reader will learn about what happened on the Eastern Front in the closing days of WWII, and be caught up in several of the survivor stories. Photographs of the survivors as children help us see them as real people who went through extraordinary events. In the interest of full disclosure, Palgrave Macmillan provided a review copy of this book. I’m glad they did, as at first glance it was not a subject I would have chosen. However, I highly recommend Death in the Baltic. It is an interesting, well told story that brings a little known event from WWII to light.