Earlier quoted context omitted.
After Germany had taken Austria, Sudetenland and Poland, isn't it. With a username like that, you should be careful to comment on WW2.
Can you explain the username comment - I am assuming there is some kind of "dog whistle" involved but for the life of me I cannot get it?
1938 vs. 1940 (2018)
41–50 of 75 posts
Re: 1938 vs. 1940 (2018)
#42If 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…
As far as logistics go, I'd easily believe military planners in the early 1930s were not accounting for a Blitz into france, because they probably had been planning on the last-war assumption that germany would field a coal-powered, not a synfuel-powered army.
An emphasis on energy sources also puts the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Stalingrad as the crux of WW2, because the mechanisation of warfare in the 20th century meant that failure to get to caucasian (let alone middle-eastern?) oil foretold failure of the Nazi project.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23612474
Similarly, I believe the current US position is that it globally controls the waves, but the navy with which it does so is still largely oil-fueled. Does shale change that catch-22?
Re: 1938 vs. 1940 (2018)
#43Earlier 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.
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.
Except they executed most of their experienced generals. So technically they had better equipment but used pure brute force because of lack of trained staff.
Re: 1938 vs. 1940 (2018)
#44Earlier 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…
As far as logistics go, I'd easily believe military planners in the early 1930s were not accounting for a Blitz into france, because they probably had been planning on the last-war assumption that germany would field a coal-powered, not a synfuel-powered army. An emphasis on energy sources also puts the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Stalingrad as the crux of WW2, because the mechanisation of warfare in the…
Well, both sides were extremely surprised that the invasion of France worked ot the way it did. The French, The British and the Germans as well. Becaue by all acounts, it shouldn't have worked.
IMHO, Germany lost the war in late 1941 when they failed to knock out the USSR. The same way the lost WW 1 already in 1915 when they failed to knock out France on the continent. After 1941, Germany had no clear path to victory anymore in a global, industrial war of attrition. And the fate was sealed with the US entering the war. And sill, millions more of people had to die until it was over.
Re: 1938 vs. 1940 (2018)
#45i 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 maginot line worked rather well, at the end the fortresses were surrounded, and yet most them surrendered after the armistice and were not conquered.
I seems a little bit like a combination of surperiour command and control and luck on the German side, and bad luck combined with bad and lacking C&C on the allies side. I always wondered how thins would have played out, if the western allies would have invaded the western part of Germany when the Wehrmacht was still busy in Poland. Same way I wonder how the Pacific war would have developed had the Japanese destroyed the oil depots in Pearl Harbour or even launched an invasion. I guess it would just have prolonged the war and killed even more people, in case of Pearl Harbour.
Re: 1938 vs. 1940 (2018)
#46Earlier 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…
Proof, please. The US started Lend&Lease in, what, 1940? That was geared exclusivley against Germany. And all US actions were geared against Germany as well, the war against Japan being, strategically, a second priority. As agreed upon between Roosevelt and Churchill.
Re: 1938 vs. 1940 (2018)
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 t…
>Hitler compounded the situation by declaring war on the US after pearl harbor freeing Roosevelt to open supply and support the allies, Except that's not how that went down at all. The Lend-Lease[0] policy was in place long before Pearl Harbor or the German declaration. What's more, Roosevelt strongly supported the Allies even before that. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease
You are both right. After Germany declared war on the US, the US full transformed into a war economy. Something they wouldn't have done without that declaration. And Germany never switched to a full war economy, not that it would have changed a lot, so, if they did.
Re: 1938 vs. 1940 (2018)
#48“The end of the beginning” was certainly not El Alamein but some event on the Eastern Front (I personally vote for the winter campaign of 1941-42).
Agree. And it is important to note, that Russia did no recieve a lot of lend-lease stuff at that point in time. After that, sure they did get a lot.
Re: 1938 vs. 1940 (2018)
#49This takes a too limited a view of the situation. These decisions were likely made on far more more factors than one of purely material. Geopolitically Germany had the the advantage of singular national focus, it had no allies to coordinate with either strategically or tactically (at this stage). The UK and France were two very separate and independent states, who were not necessarily strongly aligned, there would ha…
> Geopolitically Germany had the the advantage of singular national focus, it had no allies to coordinate with either strategically or tactically (at this stage). I’d argue this was an advantage to Britain, not a disadvantage. Many of Britain’s ‘allies’ did as they were told and while theoretically had control of their troops destiny, actually did not. Having supplies and manpower that could be built up and trained w…
Which allies are you referring to? those that made up the dominion of the empire such as Canada and Australia? then yes. But they can only really supply some troops and resources.
The UK needed France and they were not nearly as cooperative with each other as you might think, and France had little to no interest in an offensive war.
Re: 1938 vs. 1940 (2018)
#50[flagged]
After Germany declared war and invaded Poland. Poland was an ally of both Britain and France. No question who started WW2, and who wanted it from the get go. It was the Germans.