Operation Bodenplatte (the real story?)

[FalkeEins]

.. one point about Bodenplatte that I haven't seen made. The Luftwaffe fighter pilots had much more chance of destroying Allied aircraft on the ground than they did in the air...

[edwest2]

Originally Posted by Broncazonk

I COMPLETELY disagree. A smart historian is ALWAYS interested in examining alternatives, (why decisions were made and not made and why strategies were chosen and not chosen) to determine WHY history was made.

The study of history becomes sterile to the point of bean counting if a historian is uninterested in the latent, underlying conditions and thought processes of the participants.

Even worse, it is impossible to learn from history--to learn strategy and tactics from history--if all you are doing is counting beans.

Bronc

A very poor view. If the words were recorded at Luftwaffe planning sessions, that would be valid material to add. The same with comments by Hitler and Göring that were made in private meetings. I am not referring to propaganda comments.

General Patton kept a diary that recorded his impressions of the progress of the war.

No one, not even an expert, can guess their way to a correct answer.

I am sure the average person does not know what the words strategy and tactics mean.

Finally, in an effort to help their surrounded comrades, a panzer commander led his unit to an impossible rescue that was achieved by his quick thinking.

[John Vasco]

Originally Posted by edwest2
History in the "what if" category is not history. It should be avoided.

Broncazonk: 'I COMPLETELY disagree. A smart historian is ALWAYS interested in examining alternatives'.

Really? You disagree with what Ed posted? History is NOT 'what if'. Those who think it is are up their own arses. History is factual about what actually happened. Are you a 'smart historian?

[Broncazonk]

Originally Posted by FalkeEins

.. one point about Bodenplatte that I haven't seen made. The Luftwaffe fighter pilots had much more chance of destroying Allied aircraft on the ground than they did in the air...

Important insight, this, the above. (I've never even considered this point before, but it makes a lot of sense.)

Bronc

[Broncazonk]

Originally Posted by John Vasco

Originally Posted by edwest2
History in the "what if" category is not history. It should be avoided.

Broncazonk: 'I COMPLETELY disagree. A smart historian is ALWAYS interested in examining alternatives'. History is factual about what actually happened. Are you a 'smart historian?

I suppose it depends on what you are studying. If you are merely interested in reciting history, then the history is the history, and counting the beans of history is the only study.

If, however, you are trying to make history relevant to anything other than knowing or retelling the historic history, well, then you have to cast the net wider. If you study (are interested in) air strategy, grand strategy, war production, manpower allocation, logistics or tactics of any kind, well, then you have to start asking questions like, "why didn't they do this?" "What prevented them from doing that?"

Just depends on what you are interested in, I suppose.

Bronc

[John Vasco]

Originally Posted by Broncazonk

I suppose it depends on what you are studying. If you are merely interested in reciting history, then the history is the history, and counting the beans of history is the only study.

If, however, you are trying to make history relevant to anything other than knowing or retelling the historic history, well, then you have to cast the net wider. If you study (are interested in) air strategy, grand strategy, war production, manpower allocation, logistics or tactics of any kind, well, then you have to start asking questions like, "why didn't they do this?" "What prevented them from doing that?"

Just depends on what you are interested in, I suppose.

Bronc

Research is more than 'reciting history', as you blandly put it.

Perhaps you could explain in detail what you mean by 'counting the beans of history', as I have not seen any explanation from you of what that phrase actually means.

As for this: '...If, however, you are trying to make history relevant to anything other than knowing or retelling the historic history, well, then you have to cast the net wider...' Once again, a generalisation which says nothing. Researchers in recent decades have cast a wide net, and have produced fresh and new information that was not previously known about. Perhaps YOU have not cast your net wide at all...


And this: '...If you study (are interested in) air strategy, grand strategy, war production, manpower allocation, logistics or tactics of any kind, well, then you have to start asking questions like, "why didn't they do this?" "What prevented them from doing that?"...' Do you not think that researchers do that? Sheesh!

Sorry, but you last post reeks of 'academic blowing smoke up your own arse' without adding a single cogent thing. Perhaps you could tell us what research you have done over the decades, how you have gone about it, and what the fruits of that research have been...

[Juha]

Originally Posted by Broncazonk

... If you study (are interested in) air strategy, grand strategy, war production, manpower allocation, logistics or tactics of any kind, well, then you have to start asking questions like, "why didn't they do this?" "What prevented them from doing that?"

Just depends on what you are interested in, I suppose.

Bronc

These issues have been and are being studied. Sources include, for example, the planning documents of the headquarters of the period studied and their background materials, as well as war games and their accompanying materials. The problem is often that the source material is incomplete or non-existent. Up to a certain point, the situation can be patched up from other surviving materials, but even that is usually quite limited. The headquarters have usually gone through various options and the possibilities of implementing them considering the information they had at the time. Very few historians are top experts in even one sector of military art, let alone several. Many "armchair generals" had very limited knowledge of e.g. military topography and even less understanding of logistics.

[Broncazonk]

Originally Posted by John Vasco

And this: '...If you study (are interested in) air strategy, grand strategy, war production, manpower allocation, logistics or tactics of any kind, well, then you have to start asking questions like, "why didn't they do this?" "What prevented them from doing that?"...' Do you not think that researchers do that? Sheesh!

Well, I'm not so sure, because for the third or fourth time: What could have been done if Bodenplatte was such a bad idea? What alternatives did the Luftwaffe have on that day?

I'm all ears.

Because in the the absence of any historical *analysis* to the contrary, that is, after 85-years, (and after all the Bodenplatte beans have been relentlessly counted,) if not a single Luftwaffe expert historian can propose a better idea, or indeed, a list of alternative ideas, then maybe Operation Bodenplatte wasn't such a bad idea after all. Bodenplatte has been universally denigrated--an operation forced on the Luftwaffe by the Führer--but maybe the 'bad idea' is absolute nonsense.

Are we coming to the realization that the study of history might require a mental process commonly known as, ANALYSIS, and counting up the beans of Luftwaffe history is merely the first, and very, preliminary step in what a Luftwaffe historian should be doing?

Bodenplatte has been grossly mischaracterized for the last 85-years. Prove me wrong.

Bronc