The USS William D. Porter: The Unluckiest Ship in WWII • Hacker News Board

Re: The USS William D. Porter: The Unluckiest Ship in WWII

#41

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Dec 26, 2021, 6:27 AM UTC

ren_engineer wrote: post #39

nopenopenopeno wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>it could have had untold effect on the outcome of the war Unlikely. The Soviets defeated the Nazis and nobody outside the Anglosphere questions this fact. FDR was a decent president at home, but the collaborationism of the British and U.S. leadership (see Churchill’s prioritizing of international trade relations via gold standard) meant their offense was very late to the table and more focused on claiming victory th…

>The Soviets defeated the Nazis and nobody outside the Anglosphere questions this fact Stalin and the Soviet's top general admit they would have lost badly without lend lease. Stalin was publicly begging for the US to open up a second front. You unironically fell for post WWII Soviet propaganda that they did everything themselves, plenty of communist sympathizers were happy to help spread that message as well Stalin-…

[deleted]

Re: The USS William D. Porter: The Unluckiest Ship in WWII

#42

Post by penguin_booze » Sun, Dec 26, 2021, 9:04 AM UTC

KarlKemp wrote: post #31

ezequiel-garzon wrote: post #11

Does anybody know why reader mode on Safari shows only two divs towards the end of the article? For all the cool features the iPhone brings, I wish they focused more on getting this right.

This is the xpath for the last paragraph. I don't know Safari's reader mode fails here, but find it more remarkable that its normal mode works: /html/body/div/div/div/div/div/div/div/div/div/div/div/div/div/div/div/div/div/div/div/div/div/div/div/div/div/div/div/div/div/div/div/div/div/div/div/div/div/div/div/div/div/div/div/font[1]

I, too, happened to notice that the later divs are all nested within the previous ones. Seems to me like there's a bug in page generation; but admittedly, there's a no visible ill effects, so may have escaped capture.

Re: The USS William D. Porter: The Unluckiest Ship in WWII

#43

Post by pasabagi » Sun, Dec 26, 2021, 9:16 AM UTC

graeme wrote: post #35

nopenopenopeno wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>it could have had untold effect on the outcome of the war Unlikely. The Soviets defeated the Nazis and nobody outside the Anglosphere questions this fact. FDR was a decent president at home, but the collaborationism of the British and U.S. leadership (see Churchill’s prioritizing of international trade relations via gold standard) meant their offense was very late to the table and more focused on claiming victory th…

The Soviets didn’t defeat the Japanese though, and they benefitted substantially from American supplies. As did the British, which kept the Nazis occupied in North Africa, in the air, and elsewhere. Anglosphere people underrate the Soviet contribution but it’s not clear the Soviets could have done it alone. Though in fairness, by November 1943 when the torpedo attack happened perhaps they could have.

The Soviets actually had an entente(?) with the japanese right up until the end of the war. Presumably, if the US hadn't asked them to break the entente, they could have just continued that indefinitely (although it's pretty likely some war would have occurred at some point). The Germany-Japan alliance was very thin (for instance, the Germans did not notify the japanese they were planning on invading russia). I think it's arguable that the eastern and western theaters of the war are essentially two separate wars that just happened at roughly (if you squint) the same time.

For what it's worth, the japanese were absolutely terrified of the USSR, for good reason - and when the russians invaded manchuria they basically threw in the towel.

Re: The USS William D. Porter: The Unluckiest Ship in WWII

#44

Post by cafard » Sun, Dec 26, 2021, 3:22 PM UTC

nopenopenopeno wrote: post #32

hubraumhugo wrote: post #2

From Roosevelt’s personal log: “Had that torpedo hit the Iowa in the right spot with her passenger list of distinguished statesmen, military, naval, and aerial strategists and planners, it could have had untold effect on the outcome of the war and the destiny of the country.”

>it could have had untold effect on the outcome of the war Unlikely. The Soviets defeated the Nazis and nobody outside the Anglosphere questions this fact. FDR was a decent president at home, but the collaborationism of the British and U.S. leadership (see Churchill’s prioritizing of international trade relations via gold standard) meant their offense was very late to the table and more focused on claiming victory th…

Late to the table? Yes, the Soviets started fighting in 1939, but it wasn't against the Nazis.

Re: The USS William D. Porter: The Unluckiest Ship in WWII

#45

Post by graeme » Tue, Jan 04, 2022, 4:47 PM UTC

pasabagi wrote: post #43

graeme wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Soviets didn’t defeat the Japanese though, and they benefitted substantially from American supplies. As did the British, which kept the Nazis occupied in North Africa, in the air, and elsewhere. Anglosphere people underrate the Soviet contribution but it’s not clear the Soviets could have done it alone. Though in fairness, by November 1943 when the torpedo attack happened perhaps they could have.

The Soviets actually had an entente(?) with the japanese right up until the end of the war. Presumably, if the US hadn't asked them to break the entente, they could have just continued that indefinitely (although it's pretty likely some war would have occurred at some point). The Germany-Japan alliance was very thin (for instance, the Germans did not notify the japanese they were planning on invading russia). I think…

That’s true, but the Japanese had transferred their best units and equipment out of Manchuria to fight in the Pacific, and the Soviets did not want a two front war.

If there had been no chance of American entry Japan probably would have attacked the eastern ussr and the soviets would have faced real difficulties.

But indeed the massively successful Soviet invasion of Manchuria was decisive in Japan’s swift unconditional surrender.

Re: The USS William D. Porter: The Unluckiest Ship in WWII

#46

Post by pasabagi » Wed, Jan 05, 2022, 12:31 PM UTC

graeme wrote: post #45

pasabagi wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Soviets actually had an entente(?) with the japanese right up until the end of the war. Presumably, if the US hadn't asked them to break the entente, they could have just continued that indefinitely (although it's pretty likely some war would have occurred at some point). The Germany-Japan alliance was very thin (for instance, the Germans did not notify the japanese they were planning on invading russia). I think…

That’s true, but the Japanese had transferred their best units and equipment out of Manchuria to fight in the Pacific, and the Soviets did not want a two front war. If there had been no chance of American entry Japan probably would have attacked the eastern ussr and the soviets would have faced real difficulties. But indeed the massively successful Soviet invasion of Manchuria was decisive in Japan’s swift unconditio…

My guess is that Japan would not have done particularly well had they fought the USSR instead of the USA. The USA still blocking japanese oil imports would mean they would have horrible logistical problems. Presumably, the USA would still be supporting the Soviets through the lend-lease program, so although the USSR would be fighting on two fronts, it's totally plausible they would be winning on both fronts. At least, Stalin seemed to think so - after the battle of Stalingrad, he started making public condemnations of IJ, etc.

Even if the Japanese did do really well and pushed the soviets back, they'd just end up in the same situation they were in the 20's, where they controlled large swathes of eastern russia which were basically totally worthless, while also being extremely volatile.

If the Japanese had attacked the USSR at the same time as Germany did, and the USA had not intervened, I guess maybe the USSR would have lost? It's really hard to say: I always have the sense that the Nazis were far more fragile than they look on maps, and engulfing a huge amount of extremely rebellious territory might have just ended up like China ended up for the Japanese.