(06-06-19, 01:16 PM)Hedgetrimmer link Wrote: Cannon fodder...I don't like that phrase, especially when applied to our troops in that war. They were fighting for a real, just cause. Even Montgomery, say what you will about him, was very conscious of the dwindling British manpower reserves throughout the ETO, and did all he could to keep British casualties to a minimum, such that the Germans complained about our massive use of material resources, especially when it came to artillery, and our American allies complained about his reluctance to commit.
The Russians otoh did often treat their soldiers as cannon fodder with frontal assaults on well defended positions, where pure numbers were used to overwhelm their enemy.
Russians fought desperately with what they had. And it was them (and the Yugoslav rebellion prolonging the invasion of Russia, buying them time - and the winter) who played a decisive role in defeating the nazis.
Had D-Day been done in 1942, it would have been a great (though most probably futile) attempt to relieve the Russians and help them with their fight. But in 1944, it could be considered a strategically unnecessary risk (which in no way diminishes the courage and the effort by the soldiers, quite the contrary).
Cannon fodder? When you put on a uniform and go to war, you can expect to be sent to die without a good strategic, or tactical reason. You can be certain that at least some people you know will die such deaths. War brings out the best in some, the worst in others. Some of those are commanding officers. I believe the "problematic" term was coined when reflecting upon the effect of artillery (and machine guns) to a frontal infantry assault. In my language, similar term is used that in literal translation means "meat for the cannons".
Most things done in a hurry need to be done again - patiently.