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

21–30 of 75 posts

Re: 1938 vs. 1940 (2018)

#21

Post by rurban »

anticodon wrote: post #19
sien wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Not that secretly. The major US players, press, finance, industry were all open NAZI supporters. They financed Hitler and the industry to start the war against communism. Eg they gave them free oil patents, took over IG Farben, the chemical industry to produce the needed oil for the tanks to invade Russia. They gave them huge credit lines to overcome the desastrous WW1 reparation payments. They financed the military buildup.

All played well for western fascists until Japan sided with Germany to take over China, South East Asia and esp. Singapore. When Singapore was threatened, US changed sides. The US certainly never thought Russia will win over Germany. That was their nightmare scenario. Workers rights, socialism. This would have killed their idea of freedom of private contracts over civil rights. Workers would demand 10 hours workdays. Or even less. Workers demanding their rights couldn't just be shot down, as in the Coal wars. Smaller companies threatening the big ones could not just be eliminated by the national guard and army, as in the Texas oil war, and the Railroad commission. The German NAZi system was the big goal of the US industry. A fancy "democracy", well liked all over the world, with a bright film industry, and a beloved charismatic leader.

Re: 1938 vs. 1940 (2018)

#22

Post by MichaelMoser123 »

i wonder what would have happened if strategic planning in France would not have been centered on the Maginot line. It may be that they were too much focused on defensive fortifications and didn't use the tanks they had effectively.

https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/france/ww2_French_Tanks.p...

"The failure of French tanks was owed to obsolete tactical concepts, compromises which led to undermanned tanks and busy commanders, lack of air support and very poor communication aggravated by a rigid, scattered chain of command. In short, French armor could have had prevailed if better commanded and with better coordination and supplies. The ensuing losses were an incredible waste of military might, reproduced almost to the letter by the USSR in the summer of 1941."

More arms here and there would not have made a big difference in the battle of France, given that the system failed as a whole.

Re: 1938 vs. 1940 (2018)

#23

Post by watwut »

etrabroline wrote: post #15

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…

Isn't the quest for living space that supposedly hidden ambition? Germany was not seeking pre Versailles borders. They were seeking collonies.

That was pretty significant part of Hitlers ideology.

Re: 1938 vs. 1940 (2018)

#25

Post by paganel »

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.

The Soviet Union in the very early 1920s was a very different military beast compared to the Soviet Union of the early 1940s. Industrialization had taken place in the meantime and I dare say that the Soviets’ military school was better compared to the Tsarist’s regime.

Re: 1938 vs. 1940 (2018)

#26

Post by azernik »

MichaelMoser123 wrote: post #22

i wonder what would have happened if strategic planning in France would not have been centered on the Maginot line. It may be that they were too much focused on defensive fortifications and didn't use the tanks they had effectively. https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/france/ww2_French_Tanks.p... "The failure of French tanks was owed to obsolete tactical concepts, compromises which led to undermanned tanks and busy co…

The issue wasn't so much the emphasis on the Maginot Line; it was diplomatic failure of appeasement. tl;dr French security strategy relied heavily on a strong alliance with Belgium, and they threw that away in 1936-8

Since the First World War, when Belgium's territory had been used by Germany as a route into France, Belgium had been in an alliance with France. This meant that while they built up fortifications on the German border, they expected to use the Belgian fortifications (places like Fort Eben-Emael) on its border with Germany as a northern extension of Maginot.

When France and Britain failed to oppose the remilitarisation of the Rheinland in 1936, however, Belgium lost confidence that France would actually honor its security guarantees and declared neutrality again. They extended the Maginot fortifications along the Franco-Belgian border, but not didn't have the time or money to build it up to the standard of the rest of the line. Meanwhile, in 1940, instead of being manned by a fully-mobilized wartime army and probably elements of the French and British armies, the Belgian fortifications were held by skeleton crews of an only-moderately-alert neutral army.

Re: 1938 vs. 1940 (2018)

#28

Post by cheschire »

watwut wrote: post #23
etrabroline wrote: post #15

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…

Isn't the quest for living space that supposedly hidden ambition? Germany was not seeking pre Versailles borders. They were seeking collonies. That was pretty significant part of Hitlers ideology.

Some general reading on the topic for others: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebensraum

Re: 1938 vs. 1940 (2018)

#29

Post by MichaelMoser123 »

azernik wrote: post #26
MichaelMoser123 wrote: post #22

i wonder what would have happened if strategic planning in France would not have been centered on the Maginot line. It may be that they were too much focused on defensive fortifications and didn't use the tanks they had effectively. https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/france/ww2_French_Tanks.p... "The failure of French tanks was owed to obsolete tactical concepts, compromises which led to undermanned tanks and busy co…

The issue wasn't so much the emphasis on the Maginot Line; it was diplomatic failure of appeasement. tl;dr French security strategy relied heavily on a strong alliance with Belgium, and they threw that away in 1936-8 Since the First World War, when Belgium's territory had been used by Germany as a route into France, Belgium had been in an alliance with France. This meant that while they built up fortifications on the…

just like in software: when a system fails entirely everyone is blaming someone else.

Re: 1938 vs. 1940 (2018)

#30

Post by blabitty »

rurban wrote: post #21
anticodon wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Not that secretly. The major US players, press, finance, industry were all open NAZI supporters. They financed Hitler and the industry to start the war against communism. Eg they gave them free oil patents, took over IG Farben, the chemical industry to produce the needed oil for the tanks to invade Russia. They gave them huge credit lines to overcome the desastrous WW1 reparation payments. They financed the military…

Japan and Germany were barely allies; Japan signed a non-aggression pact with the USSR and the Germans were happy about it because they didn't want any competition for the spoils they thought they would have. This is one of the pivotal things that led to German defeat because it freed Siberian troops to reinforce Moscow and reverse the German advance in winter 41. Hitler compounded the situation by declaring war on the US after pearl harbor freeing Roosevelt to open supply and support the allies, I think this is one of his biggest mistake. I think you exaggerate the amount of support the Nazis had in the US but there was certainly a strong neutrality movement. If anything the Nazis admired America and manifest destiny and tried to emulate it with lebensraum.
Post reply on HN