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

51–60 of 75 posts

Re: 1938 vs. 1940 (2018)

#51

Post by hef19898 »

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…

Saying germany did not aim for continental domination once the Nazis took over is just wrong. Hitler wanted, and alsways has, Lebensraum in the East. The attack on the USSR was his plan all along. As was a revanche in the West. As was an invasion of Britain once the war has started.

Re: 1938 vs. 1940 (2018)

#52

Post by ifdefdebug »

timonoko wrote: post #40
timonoko wrote: post #35

If you listen Hitler-Mannerheim birthday party recording in 1942, you understand that Hitler had realized already he had fucked up totally. Hitler complains bitterly: "Russians had moved Panzer factories to the Urals and making 100 new ones every day, what can I do?". That is why Hitler even made the hazardous trip to Finland. There was no other sane person anywhere near him to ask advice. It was decided there and th…

Yes. Original plan was to extend Finland to Urals as this happy song so vividly describes: https://youtu.be/n9I88CXlmh4

Forgot to switch accounts?

Re: 1938 vs. 1940 (2018)

#53

Post by csunbird »

tgv wrote: post #27
stosto88 wrote: post #16

[flagged]

After Germany had taken Austria, Sudetenland and Poland, isn't it. With a username like that, you should be careful to comment on WW2.

or maybe he was born in 1988. Although his comment history is, I am not sure how to say it in PC way, unpleasant.

Re: 1938 vs. 1940 (2018)

#54

Post by wcarey »

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,…

It's a daft idea that we would have been forced to sue for peace had we lost Hawaii.

Japan certainly did not have the logistical capability to take and hold Hawaii (Morison and Toll agree on this point) at any point in the war, so I'm suspicious of the argument that Midway was decisive. It represented one instance in a chain of many of Japan's fixation on the decisive battle. Guadalcanal, on the other hand, represents the American strategic fixation on continuous pressure and attrition. When the United States fought the battles Japan wanted to fight, we won (repeatedly; Midway, Philippine Sea, and Leyte). When Japan fought the battles the United States wanted to fight, they lost repeatedly. That suggests that none of the battles themselves were decisive, rather the strategic concepts of the respective nations.

Anthony Tully does a nice job demonstrating how absolutely screwed the Japanese were whatever the outcome of Midway: http://www.combinedfleet.com/economic.htm

Re: 1938 vs. 1940 (2018)

#55

Post by iguy »

ajuc wrote: post #31

Piłsudski proposed to do preventive invasion of nazi Germany in 1935. At the time it would have been a walk in the partk. France and Great Britain declined because they played "balance of power" and wanted Germany to be a counterbalance to soviet Russia. WW2 and Holocaust were only possible because of all the egoistic diplomatic games all the powers played at the time.

What happens in the alternative universe where the west crushes Germany in 1935? It seems really hard to guess these things.

Do they have the attention span to keep it divided for another half-century until things cool down, or do the hawks get voted out as crazy people, and they walk away after a few years leaving simmering hatred?

Does the USSR get its act together and finish what they failed to do in 1920? Perhaps on the same side as Japan since war in the pacific was also brewing... then we get WWII with different teams. Does the US still get the bomb first? Probably. Does the communism end up occupying the space nazism has in our culture, as the great evil, or does it still sound too tempting afterwards?

Re: 1938 vs. 1940 (2018)

#56

Post by QuesnayJr »

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…

  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.
If they made a movie like that, it would be so boring. Just endless meetings, with the highest drama being some argument about the supply chain. And yet I would love it, and watch it over and over.

Re: 1938 vs. 1940 (2018)

#57

Post by paganel »

krzyk wrote: post #43
paganel wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I know that, but maybe that was for the best, it gave them guys like Zhukov.

Re: 1938 vs. 1940 (2018)

#58

Post by timonoko »

ifdefdebug wrote: post #52
timonoko wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. Original plan was to extend Finland to Urals as this happy song so vividly describes: https://youtu.be/n9I88CXlmh4

Forgot to switch accounts?

Dont be offended Ivan. This song was a parody and joke at the time of its creation for most people.

Re: 1938 vs. 1940 (2018)

#59

Post by ifdefdebug »

timonoko wrote: post #58
ifdefdebug wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Forgot to switch accounts?

Dont be offended Ivan. This song was a parody and joke at the time of its creation for most people.

I was referring to the somewhat strange impression that you seem to be agreeing to yourself in your second post ("Yes.") but maybe you just wanted to add something and did not notice because you're not a native English speaker (neither I am).

Re: 1938 vs. 1940 (2018)

#60

Post by MichaelMoser123 »

hef19898 wrote: post #45
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 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…

I don't know, if the French army would have done better during the failed Saar offensive of 1939 then it would also have done better in 1940. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saar_Offensive
Post reply on HN