The Importance of Strategic Seaports

Well, it seems we've come to the end. What more is there to say about the relative and absolute superiority of the kriegsmarine over the adjacent branches of the wermacht in WWII, the two branches being, namely, the heer and the luftwaffe, two organizations whose contributions to the german effort pale in comparision to those made by the valiant kriegsmariners, hardy, stout, resilient men who would say nothing to a cut in their rations of grog and rum, men born from the salt of the earth, or, rather, the salt of the sea, men who are men, who were men, who will always be men, that hasn't already been said? And yet, my colleagues are still not content to bow down at my argumentative feet and shower them with praise. Perhaps I shall never convince them. Perhaps, that is the way is was always meant to be. In any case, I leave you, the loyal and faithful hypothetical reader, with this bit of advice: remember the importance of strategic seaports.

Join the Merchant Marine! It's...Aquatic!

Thus far, the kriegsmarine has been the veritable whipping boy for you jackanapes, but, Jonathan and Sam, you have both failed to take into account one major aspect of a nation's navy: the merchant marine. What does the merchant marine do? It transports stuff. To elaborate, stuff necessary to both the war effort and the well-being of a country's citizens/subjects/underlings. Now, here's just a few numbers that are sure to shock those smiles off your faces:

In the Second World War, German U-boats sank nearly 14.7 million tons of allied shipping, which amounts to 2,828 ships (around two thirds of the total allied tonnage lost). The United Kingdom alone suffered the loss of 11.7 million tons, which is 54% of the total Merchant Navy fleet at the outbreak of the Second World War. 30,000 merchant seamen were killed aboard convoy vessels during the war.

That's a lot of stuff, and people, that never got to their intended destinations. I have not been able to determine either the psychological or economic effect of this damage on the British and their allies, but I'm sure it was important enough to warrant some type of recognition from you two that the kriegsmarine wasn't just rum, the lash, etc. They did other stuff too.

Kriegsmarinely Courage

This may be a minor point, but I feel it is necessary to counter some of Sam's more felonious arguments. Sam uses the "statistics" of Iron Cross recipients to make the claim that the men of the heer had more courage and gumption than their naval equivalents. According to teh internets, "the Iron Cross was awarded for bravery in battle as well as other military contributions in a battlefield environment." Well, this is rather easy to accomplish (I assume) with the physical freedom afforded to infantry by the division of men in the heer and by the nature of a terrestial environment, but to bravely split an infinitive and go out, guns-a-blazing, in some attempt for personal glory is not only impractical in the metallic confines of a u-boat, but it would also be a danger to the other men. The operation of these submarines and battleships required a cohesive, less individual way of doing things. In order to win the battle, you had to be a cog in the machine; there was no room for heroic, one-man escapades. Notice that the only two kriegsmarine members mentioned on the above-linked wikipedia page were submarine captains. They were the only ones who could, and should, have been making significant decisions in those settings. In fact, one might say that the true courage required to be in the kriegsmarine made most ineligible for the Iron Cross, and, in fact, one just did say that.

I Could have Written about Transformers...

Though I had the most devastatingly erudite response to Mr. Sam's assertions that the rather Freudian landguns of the heer could, in his parlance, "pwn" the kriegsmarine (hint: my argument involved the u-boats becoming transformers), I have been convinced to change the very nature of my analysis. Instead of tearing at the proverbial throats of my colleagues over which branch of the wermacht would win, nay pwn, in an all-out-war between the three, I am shifting, oh shifting (ever so much!), the focus to which branch of the wermacht played a more important role in the German war effort. Such drastic decisions will require a change in my thesis, and, as of this moment, I am not up to the task, but, suffice to say, it will confirm the awesome superiority of the kriegsmarine!

Father Knows Best: A Missive on the Patriarchal Nature of Familial Relations and Societal Structures in Late 16th Century Protestant Germany

Having signed myself up to research that rather nebulous designation of human communal organization, the family, I found myself overwhelmed. Had I the temerity to venture within the dusty confines of my MEH textbook, a veritable deluge of facts would have rained down upon my person and flattened my frontal lobe. Thus, I was compelled to continue and complete my investigation on youtube. After much time spent researching (that is, watching Soulja Boy music videos with a mixture of amusement and awed horror), I came upon the introduction for a television show that occurred early in American broadcasting history, "Father Knows Best."

What has this to do with late 16th century Protestant Germany, the prospect of receiving which information you so titillatingly promised in your title, you ask of me (and in a rather stilted fashion, I might add). Well, if you hadn't realized this most obvious fact already, "Father Knows Best" was the case at that time, in that place, for those people. Though Luther believed in spiritual equality between the sexes, such was not so where politics and economics were involved. He considered women to be wanton harlots whose shortcomings could only be remedied by the "governance of a godly husband" (Coffin 488). Protestants also elevated the family, as well as the married couple to a position almost of godliness and holiness, and it was up to the father to make sure his little ones were well aware of the who-what and what-now of the finer points of religion. In short, it probably wouldn't have been that fun to be alive in late 16th century Protestant Germany.

The Sinatra Doctrine

When one hears the name Sinatra crooning past their aural lobe, a cascading stream of shimmering vocals comes to mind, or rather, for the less poetic/pretentious-minded, that dude who sang all those jazzy tunes that my grandmama still listens to. But, did you know that he was also the creator of a significant piece of Russian history? Of course you did not, for that previous statement was indubitably false.

Yet this in turn begs the question of why there is a Soviet doctrine named after lil' Frankie (as we referred to Sinatra back at school). Well, I feel I should let wikipedia explain:

"Sinatra Doctrine" was the name that the Soviet government of Mikhail Gorbachev used jokingly to describe its policy of allowing neighboring Warsaw Pact nations to determine their own internal affairs. The name alluded to the Frank Sinatra song "My Way"—the Soviet Union was allowing these nations to go their own way.

Ye gods, was this significant! The Sinatra Doctrine basically thumbed its nose (in the most Russian way possible) at the Brezhnev Doctrine and all it stood for - i.e. Soviet hegemony in Eastern Europe. My friends, this was the beginning of the end - no! - in fact, my friends, this was the end of the end, or maybe even the penultimate chapter of the end, for the Soviet Union. The year was 1989, Milli Vanilli was at the top of its game, Gorbachev was relatively hairless, and freedom was in the air (it smells a bit like fish and takes a while to get used to). Yes, soon after the proclamation of the Sinatra Doctrine, the majority of the Autumn Revolutions took place, and Eastern Europe never had any more problems.

Nuh-uh! The Kriegsmarine was so much cooler!

Ah, yes. Jonathan has found a glittering gem of an example, one with which he might attempt to destroy my argument in one fell swoop of his word-processing application. What is this horror I speak of - namely, the sinking of the Bismarck. Yet, what seems like a cut and dried case is nothing but a statistical discrepancy of the utmost degree. To begin, I say that the fabled British torpedo bombers that Jonathan so greatly adores simply got lucky that time. You disagree. Well, why not examine the wikipedia entry on torpedo bombers:

One crucial limitation of a torpedo bomber was that it had to fly a long, straight course at a constant ground level altitude of 30 metres (100 ft) toward the target ship before launching its torpedo. The torpedoes were very sophisticated weapons and were prone to damage when landing on water, especially on a wave; they were normally aimed at the bottom of a wave but, needless to say, this was rather difficult.

However, during a torpedo run, the attacking aircraft were easy targets for defending fighters from a combat air patrol. Furthermore, torpedo planes were also highly vulnerable to anti-aircraft fire, particularly the heavy anti-aircraft guns (such as the 5 inch DP) which fired into the water, creating water spouts to slap the torpedo planes.

As if that were not enough - it weren't - I have also discovered that the British relied primarily on the navy to sink the Bismarck:

The first phase consisted of air strikes by torpedo-bombers from the British aircraft carrier Ark Royal which disabled Bismarck by jamming her rudders. The second phase was the shadowing and harassment of Bismarck during the night by British destroyers, with no serious damage to any ship. The third phase was an attack by the British battleships King George V and Rodney, supported by cruisers, on the morning of the 27th.

In other words, the luftwaffe ain't got nothing on the kriegsmarine. I rest my case.