Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

1938 vs. 1940 (2018)

pecaquet.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 75 posts

Re: 1938 vs. 1940 (2018)

#11

Post by nostrademons »

sillysaurusx wrote: post #6

If you like military history (and this style of writing) I highly recommend 100 Decisive Battles From Ancient Times To Present . It gives an overview of 100 engagements that changed the world: the strengths of each army, the expected outcome, and usually some "twist" that turned the tables. Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/100-Decisive-Battles-Ancient-Present/... It looks like there's a PDF here, but you'll be waiting…

Is there a list of indecisive battles that changed the world? Battles like Jutland, Guadalcanal, the Atlantic, the North Russia Convoys, Stalingrad, Siege of Malta, along with all the knock-down guerilla warfare in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, the Syrian Civil War, etc. These are almost more informative, because

a.) they seem more representative of what most war is like

b.) the turning points of most wars actually fall during them, eg. Guadalcanal rather than Midway was the turning point of the WW2 Pacific Theater, the Battle of the Atlantic rather than Dunkirk or Normandy was the turning point of the European theater.

c.) oftentimes, the long, brutal experience of these types of battles is what led to the logistic and technical improvements that actually wins the war

Similarly, it'd be interesting to read war histories that focus on logistics and technological development. D-Day has had zillions of movies made about it; codebreaking has had one or two; and the logistics of assembling an army of millions and shipping them across the Atlantic in secrecy to land on hostile territory has had none that I know of.

Re: 1938 vs. 1940 (2018)

#12

Post by georgeecollins »

nostrademons wrote: post #11
sillysaurusx wrote: post #6

If you like military history (and this style of writing) I highly recommend 100 Decisive Battles From Ancient Times To Present . It gives an overview of 100 engagements that changed the world: the strengths of each army, the expected outcome, and usually some "twist" that turned the tables. Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/100-Decisive-Battles-Ancient-Present/... It looks like there's a PDF here, but you'll be waiting…

Is there a list of indecisive battles that changed the world? Battles like Jutland, Guadalcanal, the Atlantic, the North Russia Convoys, Stalingrad, Siege of Malta, along with all the knock-down guerilla warfare in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, the Syrian Civil War, etc. These are almost more informative, because a.) they seem more representative of what most war is like b.) the turning points of most wars actually…

That is a fascinated concept and a real insight into the kinds of conflicts that really do shape the world.

Re: 1938 vs. 1940 (2018)

#13

Post by simonh »

Synaesthesia wrote: post #10

Or maybe the plan was to have Germany attack the Soviet Union from the beginning. They could have easily defeated Germany prior to the war, had they tried.

Part of the point of the article is we don't need to guess, the people involved explained why they did what they did. We also have their correspondences and memoirs, and those of their confidantes and associates to back that up. We can also examine whether their actual actions match up with such speculation.

Re: 1938 vs. 1940 (2018)

#14

Post by sillysaurusx »

nostrademons wrote: post #11
sillysaurusx wrote: post #6

If you like military history (and this style of writing) I highly recommend 100 Decisive Battles From Ancient Times To Present . It gives an overview of 100 engagements that changed the world: the strengths of each army, the expected outcome, and usually some "twist" that turned the tables. Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/100-Decisive-Battles-Ancient-Present/... It looks like there's a PDF here, but you'll be waiting…

Is there a list of indecisive battles that changed the world? Battles like Jutland, Guadalcanal, the Atlantic, the North Russia Convoys, Stalingrad, Siege of Malta, along with all the knock-down guerilla warfare in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, the Syrian Civil War, etc. These are almost more informative, because a.) they seem more representative of what most war is like b.) the turning points of most wars actually…

Regarding Guadalcanal: from page 402,

Retention of Midway was important, but, more importantly, the Japanese were unable to accomplish any of their desired goals: to gain a necessary bastion to protect their Far Eastern frontier or to destroy the remaining U.S. fleet in a massive surface engagement. The U.S. loss of Midway could have spelled the loss of Pearl Harbor and the Hawaiian Islands. If Japan had taken them, the United States may well have been forced to sue for peace. Even without a Japanese invasion, the key position that Midway represented could well have slowed or stopped U.S. offensive moves for some time to come. It is for this reason that Midway, and not Guadalcanal (launched 7 August 1942, the first offensive of the United States against the Japanese), is included in this work. A U.S. loss at Guadalcanal in late 1942 to early 1943 would have forced a longer war and attacks at other locations. A U.S. loss at Midway, however, may have precluded any U.S. offensive into the Pacific.

> a.) they seem more representative of what most war is like

Yes, that's true. I'd highly recommend With The Old Breed. It's sort of the inverse of 100 Decisive Battles: a single soldier put his pen to paper and recorded everything he remembered about the Okinawa conflict, from start to finish.

Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/Old-Breed-At-Peleliu-Okinawa/dp/08914...

epub: https://the-eye.eu/public/Books/Bibliotik/W/With%20the%20Old...

> Similarly, it'd be interesting to read war histories that focus on logistics and technological development.

I agree! Does anyone know of something like this?

Re: 1938 vs. 1940 (2018)

#15

Post by etrabroline »

This author takes the perspective of Great Britain's war planners. This is not an unreasonable starting point for an understanding of the military readiness of the nations that would eventually go on to fight in the war, but a full understanding mustn't stop there. War planners always assume war will break out because that is their job, and given that Britain and France did ultimately decide to declare war on Germany, the war can appear like an inevitability after the fact. In truth, no one at the time saw it as inevitable and indeed it wasn't. The case P. E. Caquet should be making (and isn't) would be that Germany's ambitions extended beyond the pre-Versailles central European boundaries of Germany and Austria.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-Prussian_War#/media/Fil...

Those boarders were surely larger, but had existed just 19 years prior and did not threaten the existence of France or Britain in all the years between German Unification and the Versailles treaty. Nothing in Germany's public proclamations nor the documents uncovered after the war suggest this hidden larger ambition, despite it being central to Churchill's case for granting the war guarantee to Poland (and his ultimate declaration of war against Germany)

The underlying reality is that England has always been the weakest of the European powers due to its small population. It built its empire with trade, espionage and its navy not large armies. England made itself more relatively powerful by playing the larger continental players against each other and against non-Europeans, always taking the side of the weaker countries against the strongest. England aided the Prussians to defeat Napoleon, and the Ottoman Turks against Russia in Crimea. The public arguments made at the time to morally justify England's geopolitical stratagems should not be uncritically assumed to be true and do not constitute a sound starting point for a correct historical understanding of World War II.

Re: 1938 vs. 1940 (2018)

#17

Post by sien »

Synaesthesia wrote: post #10

Or maybe the plan was to have Germany attack the Soviet Union from the beginning. They could have easily defeated Germany prior to the war, had they tried.

The Poles beat the Soviets between the wars :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish%E2%80%93Soviet_War

The Germans rolled the Poles in weeks at the start of WWII.

It's far from clear that without US help the Soviets could have defeated the Germans.

Re: 1938 vs. 1940 (2018)

#18

Post by blabitty »

sillysaurusx wrote: post #14
nostrademons wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there a list of indecisive battles that changed the world? Battles like Jutland, Guadalcanal, the Atlantic, the North Russia Convoys, Stalingrad, Siege of Malta, along with all the knock-down guerilla warfare in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, the Syrian Civil War, etc. These are almost more informative, because a.) they seem more representative of what most war is like b.) the turning points of most wars actually…

Regarding Guadalcanal: from page 402, Retention of Midway was important, but, more importantly, the Japanese were unable to accomplish any of their desired goals: to gain a necessary bastion to protect their Far Eastern frontier or to destroy the remaining U.S. fleet in a massive surface engagement. The U.S. loss of Midway could have spelled the loss of Pearl Harbor and the Hawaiian Islands. If Japan had taken them,…

There are some great video interviews with Eugene Sledge out there too. He had such a great ability to convey the view from the boots on the ground.

Re: 1938 vs. 1940 (2018)

#19

Post by anticodon »

sien wrote: post #17
Synaesthesia wrote: post #10

Or maybe the plan was to have Germany attack the Soviet Union from the beginning. They could have easily defeated Germany prior to the war, had they tried.

The Poles beat the Soviets between the wars : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish%E2%80%93Soviet_War The Germans rolled the Poles in weeks at the start of WWII. It's far from clear that without US help the Soviets could have defeated the Germans.

All countries wanted Germany to attack Soviet Union: UK, France, USA. It's not a secret. It was almost openly said that the best outcome is for Germany and USSR to weaken each other so much, that USA can join later and kill off the significantly weakened party. It didn't really matter whether Germany or USSR will win because it was assumed that the winner would be too weakened to fight one more war.

USA even secretly helped Germany until 1943.

Re: 1938 vs. 1940 (2018)

#20

Post by georgeecollins »

On the other hand, Germany would have been far more ready to face England and France in 1942 or 1943. In particular the Kriegsmarine was completely unready to threaten the UK, which it was much more able to do in 1914. More submarines, cruisers, battleships to complement a superior Luftwaffe. Another few years to prepare and Germany might have been able to knock the UK out of the war.

So the allies may have been unwise to not confront Germany in 1938, but the fascists were probably unwise to force the issue in 1939.

Post reply on HN