The Armourer Magazine for Militaria Collectors — Apprently our tradition is to fail at intelligence gathering and analysis…Read this entire article. It’s quite interesting. It tells of a German fort with telephone poles acting as guns to fool the Allies. But the French underground had discovered this ruse. Still, nobody paid any attention and attacked where there were real guns. Sound familiar? Remember the cardboard Scud launchers? Or the “there is no yellowcake here!”
In fact, it seems as if our incompetence with intelligence gathering (how many times have the police raided the wrong house?) and relative overall success rate has to have the world scratching its head.
On the morning of the 9th of June 1944 Maisy Battery was attacked by units of the US 2nd and 5th Rangers, soldiers from the 116th Infantry Division and 83rd Chemical Weapons Battalion (Heavy Mortars) and was supported by a barrage from a US field gun battery. In another of Ryans interviews with Staff Sgt. Donald Chance of A company 5th Rangers, Chance wrote that “we were the lead company in the behind the lines action to attack the complex at Maisy”. The firefight lasted all morning until the Germans eventually surrendered. The scars of the battle can be seen so vividly at the site today – in the tunnel walls and building fronts and are a testament to the ferrocity of the encounter.
When it was eventually captured by the Rangers the site was well stocked with food and over 180 tons of ammunition and could have continued to fire at Omaha Beach. So why has it been ignored by historians after the war? Could it be that somone didn’t want to admit they picked the wrong initial target on D-day? These are questions which are sure to cause controversy amongst WW2 historians.
Dvorak,
Your incessant railings against the US Intelligence Community are unfaltering. I must say that you are extremely acute in your perceptions, some 60+ years after the fact. Armchair Generals and Backseat Drivers always have better analysis in hindsight. Thanks for the great analysis 62 years late.
By the way, are you still using OS2? Didn’t it take over the computing world?
Chris Vaughn
http://chrisvaughn.org
Steve Said:
“how dare you bring up interesting historical facts and relate them to our modern society”
Um, didn’t we win WWII.
And didn’t we played a simular trick on the Germans? Making them think that our invasion of Europe would be at Calais instead of Normandy? And didn’t they fall for it hook, line, and sinker?
Goes to show you it can work both ways.
I believe I heard or read somewhere that military intelligence is the ultimate oxymoron.
From what I know of both WW2 it was British and American intelligence that helped win the war. Code breaking,espionage and the underground in occupied countries helped give the Allies an advantage.
I guess you win some and lose some.
Steve,
I love historical facts, especially WWII related.
I don’t love erroneous assumptions that are made well after the fact, especially those that are made to justify someone’s liberal leanings.
In fact I found this blog to see and hear Dvorak’s comments on tech issues. What I’ve found is consistent left leanings against all things, and very little commentary about tech.
At this point I enjoy it for the absurdity and the humor.
Chris Vaughn
http://chrisvaughn.org
AFAIK Dvorak and most of his readers aren’t left leaning, just skeptical about politics (and hardware/software of course) that promises the moon and doesn’t deliver. On the average, we’re centrists.
“What I’ve found is consistent left leanings against all things,”
That’s because of the way the floor here is tilted Chris.
Is this Bush’s fault too?
Actually, John, it goes to show you that intelligence gathering is an inexact science almost to the point of being an artform in some cases. In fact, I would say that this is a perfect illustration of why accusations about “we knew this” or “we had evidence of that” are misleading. Sometimes it discovered after the fact that the information we had was actionable but because of hunchs or other competing information we conservatively decide not to act on it. Sometimes it is decided it is simpler to assume the information is valid and actionable and to act on it rather than expending more resources in verification.
All in all… I love the comments.
I’m actually a Libertarian in most beliefs politic. I love the discourse.
Having done talk radio in the 90’s, I miss the battle of debate.
I do grow rather weary of the convoluted conclusions and ascertations that are made to prove the inability of those in government. Most people in government, civil service, analyists, etc. (and I know some), are doing their best amid controvery and criticism. These are not the politicians.
I do love Leno’s definition of politician. The word politician comes from the latin words, “poly” meaning many; and “tic” meaning blood suckers.
Thanks for the comments guys.
Chris Vaughn
http://chrisvaughn.org
See tho, the problem here, is that you HEAR about the failures, the successes won’t be unearthed for years upon years. Statistically the failures could not even rate, but the one airplane crash dominates over the millions and millions of safe landings.
Christopher
Good point but misguided. We notice the plane that crashed because:
1)Planes aren’t supposed to crash
2)With most plane crashes a lot of people die at one time.
3) Most plane crashes are pretty spetacular.