|
On December 29 2011 05:23 arb wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2011 04:57 Sabin010 wrote:
1.) Japan's biggest mistake was giving FDR the excuse he needed to enter the war. Had Japan focused more on controling SE Asia (conscripting soldiers and building infastructure) with the primary goal after having a strong footing in Vietnam and Cambodia to take the Indian coastline and the natural resource abundant regions of the Himalayas. From there Japan would have a strong hold over most of Asia.
2.) Italy needed control the entire mediteranian by invading France with Germany marching around the southern end of the Maginot line, and once France was completely controlled by the Axis they would be in a supreme position to pressure Spain into controling the strategic point of Gibraltar.
3.) Germany needed to keep good relations with Russia until the area's of Turkey, India, Iraq, Iran, Egypt could be taken via invasions from Germany via Persia, and Italy via Libia. With Gibralta controlled the only way for England to defend her colonies would be to a. Counter attack and invade France/Germany, or B. Go all the way around Africa and come in through the Suez canal. With the Suez canal controled by the axis they would have had the Russians surrounded on all sides. With all of the major water ways controlled for resuppling.
4.) Had the Axis powers been able to control the mainland of Europe, Africa, and the parts of Asia that were not controlled by the Soviets, before trying to go and bring Russia and America into the war there's a good chance we'd all be living in a facist world today. They wouldnt have really had to pressure Spain would they? Despite the fact they stayed neutral, iirc Francisco Franco or whatever (the fascist leader) had Germany help them in the Civil War before WW2? So they were on somewhat good terms werent they?
Both Spain and Portugal were fascist dictatorships at the time. They weren't allies of Germany, but they never stood in their way either.
|
Never have I read so much bullshit collected in one thread.
Lets just take an example:
Both Spain and Portugal were fascist dictatorships at the time. They weren't allies of Germany, but they never stood in their way either.
To call both Francoist Spain and Estado Novo fascist dictatorships, show that this guy doesn't know at least five different things;
i)What a fascist dictatorship is.
ii) What the composition of the Nationalist side was during the Spanish Civil War and thus the winning side and how the country was run after the end of the war.
iii) What the Estado Novo was.
iV) Who the oldest English ally is and what that means.
v) What Lajes Field is.
Most of the posts in this thread show similar mis-conceptions, lack of understanding or down right lies.
This thread is a travesty.
|
On December 29 2011 06:37 kobrakai wrote:Never have I read so much bullshit collected in one thread. Lets just take an example: Show nested quote +Both Spain and Portugal were fascist dictatorships at the time. They weren't allies of Germany, but they never stood in their way either. To call both Francoist Spain and Estado Novo fascist dictatorships, show that this guy doesn't know at least five different things; i)What a fascist dictatorship is. ii) What the composition of the Nationalist side was during the Spanish Civil War and thus the winning side and how the country was run after the end of the war. iii) What the Estado Novo was. iV) Who the oldest English ally is and what that means. v) What Lajes Field is. Most of the posts in this thread show similar mis-conceptions, lack of understanding or down right lies. This thread is a travesty.
Franco and Mussolini are to fascism what Hitler is to nazism. Spain was clearly fascist.
Portugal was ruled by a fascist dictator, but remained neutral and in good political standing with England.
|
On December 29 2011 06:37 kobrakai wrote:Never have I read so much bullshit collected in one thread. Lets just take an example: Show nested quote +Both Spain and Portugal were fascist dictatorships at the time. They weren't allies of Germany, but they never stood in their way either. To call both Francoist Spain and Estado Novo fascist dictatorships, show that this guy doesn't know at least five different things; i)What a fascist dictatorship is. ii) What the composition of the Nationalist side was during the Spanish Civil War and thus the winning side and how the country was run after the end of the war. iii) What the Estado Novo was. iV) Who the oldest English ally is and what that means. v) What Lajes Field is. Most of the posts in this thread show similar mis-conceptions, lack of understanding or down right lies. This thread is a travesty.
Then explain, instead of acting all haughty on your high-horse, after all, that's the whole point of this history thread.
On December 29 2011 04:47 Euronyme wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2011 03:20 Jebusrocks wrote:
Just wanted to say some stuff after reading the posts in this thread.
1) To anyone who thought the German high command (including its nocs, officers,) were somehow incompetent, that is blatantly not true. Since the Napoleonic and Civil Wars, two countries far exceeded strategic command than the rest of the world, and that is Germany and the US. This is seen truly evident in WWI and even moreso in WWII (look at German generals... Rommel, Guderian, Gerd von Runstedt, Manstein, etc. etc for Germans and Pershing's man in the States including Omar, Patton, etc. etc.). The Germans, for the longest time in the 20th century, had the only dedicated training of cadres, officers, and NOCs and thus were more effective on the battlefield (though this would change a little bit after the end of the Great War, where Allied forces copied either German or American counterparts). Had Hitler listened to any of these people (which, halfway through Barbarossa, he completely ignored)
2) Russia had no resources to actually push or defeat the Germans in their own ground. Given this, Russia had competent 'young' commanders (Ivan Konev and Zhkuov) who matched Germany's competence of command. Regardless, Russia had suffered great defeats in Eastern Europe and though production output in the Ural mountains/caucasus were attempting to keep up with the war effort, it was only because America mechanized (one of the greatest advancements coming into WWII, other than improvements with the air force) its transports and the entire army. It is ignorant to say that Russia did all the work, any1 who says this is either a Russian or extremely unacknowledged in WWII history. It is true that the Soviet Union, with France out of the war, had to withstand and survive as the only real allied power in continental Europe, and played a huge role in the war, but they weren't the only ones.
3) As for Africa... the only reason Rommel had to intervene in Africa was because the Italians were losing against the British, which as ppl had said, were somewhat undermanned. Most people forget that India, Britain's greatest manpower source in these colonies during WWI, did not participate in the war fully (Gandhi), and the only real force for the British in these regions (though irregular Free French forces played a vital role) was the Eight Army. Not only did Italy fail to take Egypt and Greece, they were pushed out of both of these regions and pushed further back into Libya and Albania, forcing Germany to intervene and ending British/Greek dominance in these regions.
4) The majority of Germany's oil production came from Romania and Venezuela, not the states, and when they lost Romania, they built synthesized oil factories, so Germany wasn't doing that bad in resources (at least compared to the Japanese) So.. Just to go wildly off topic for a second: wern't Americans considered having worthless command during ww1, when they stormed through the trenches through machine gun crossfire? That's atleast what I learned in my history classes. The Americans didn't really understand what trench warfare was all about, and basically charged through with massive losses, ignoring the French and British with experience. Granted this was like the first war where cavalry and swords wern't effective, so you can cut them some slack, but calling their commands superior is stretching it a bit far I'd say.
By quality command, the poster seems to be commenting on the organizational strength of the office corps - ie that there was a dedicated training system for providing an organized and consistent source of officers, not necessarily the organizational culture that dominated their outlook on military tactics.
|
On December 29 2011 05:36 ggofthejungle wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2011 05:27 Elegy wrote:
WW2 history "debates" are terrible affairs unless done by professionals in the field...amateur attempts at counterfactual historiography are quite laughable overall, and tend to assume a continuity of thought and achievement that far exceeds realistic expectations. Best quote in the thread so far (by page 3). It is exemplified by
I agree with this. We can talk about WW2, but actually debating it proves to be a Wikipedia fest of random facts randomly thrown at random directions.
|
Ok, I'm going to start by saying I am not by any means a history buff.
That being said, I am very interested in the allied bombing campaigns during WW2...for some reason. I've read a couple books on various aspects of it, and just posting here to see if anyone has any good book recommendations about it. Anything well written about them would suffice, but if you are looking for specifics, I'm interested in 3 specific things the most.
1. The making of the atomic bombs. (really easy to find books on it, but some advice on which ones are good would be appreciated.)
2. The fire-bombing of Dresden. (So damn hard to find books on it that aren't in German.  )
3. Memoirs of people that were on the ground during the bombings and what they went through. (Also hard to find in English.)
So...anybody got any recommendations? 
|
On December 29 2011 07:10 Kukaracha wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2011 05:36 ggofthejungle wrote:On December 28 2011 05:27 Elegy wrote:
WW2 history "debates" are terrible affairs unless done by professionals in the field...amateur attempts at counterfactual historiography are quite laughable overall, and tend to assume a continuity of thought and achievement that far exceeds realistic expectations. Best quote in the thread so far (by page 3). It is exemplified by I agree with this. We can talk about WW2, but actually debating it proves to be a Wikipedia fest of random facts randomly thrown at random directions.
1) If you talk about the alternate history discussions, of course they are senseless, but all in good fun. No one is taking them seriously. It is an interesting lesson about how the future is unpredictable, even if you know the outcome for slightly different preconditions.
2) This thread is meant to keep this topic out of other threads, and WW2 discussions did indeed derail some threads lately. It might achieve that.
3) There were some nice personal accounts in between, surely worth a read. And some facts, of course easily accessible, but still often neglected.
All in all I deem this thread a success 
|
On December 28 2011 04:15 Fruscainte wrote: Under the hand of an actually no mentally handicapped leader, Germany would have and, under every category, SHOULD have won World War 2. They had better technology, a better fighting spirit, and all that jazz. It's just...ugh, Hitler made some pretty stupid fucking decisions.
Except by the end America had nukes. An absolute trump card IMO.
|
On December 29 2011 07:01 LlamaNamedOsama wrote:
Then explain, instead of acting all haughty on your high-horse, after all, that's the whole point of this history thread.
Spain and Portugal shared some similarities with Mussolini's regime ( Dictatorship, strong nationalism ) but many historians think that they were not stricly facist countries.
Salazar and Franco have a completly different social and ideological background. They were educated, profoundly catholic and conservative and that's why the Church also played a way more important role in Portugal and Spain than in Italy or Germany.
Mussolini on the other hand was influenced by the anarchist ideologies before WW1. His conception of the State was also different since he pretty much created the concept of totalitarism whereas Salazar was ideologically opposed to this idea.
[...]we must put aside the inclination to form what might be called a totalitarian state. The state which in its laws, ethics, politics, and economy subordinates everything without exception to national or racial interests would appear to be an omnipotent being, the principle and end in itself, to which all individual or collective activities would be subject; it might even bring about an absolutism. Worse than that which preceded the liberal regimes, because the former, at any rate, did not sever itself from human destiny. Such a state would be essentially pagan, incompatible by its nature with the character of our Christian civilisation, and leading, sooner or later, to revolutions like those which infected the old historical systems of government, and, who knows, perhaps to new religious wars more terrible than those of old.[...]
http://www.cphrc.org/index.php/documents/docnesta/84-1934-05-26-salazars-speech-to-the-first-congress-of-the-uniao-nacional
Salazar's regime is ideologicaly closer to the old monarchy of Carlos I.
|
On December 29 2011 07:24 Lemonwalrus wrote:Ok, I'm going to start by saying I am not by any means a history buff. That being said, I am very interested in the allied bombing campaigns during WW2...for some reason. I've read a couple books on various aspects of it, and just posting here to see if anyone has any good book recommendations about it. Anything well written about them would suffice, but if you are looking for specifics, I'm interested in 3 specific things the most. 1. The making of the atomic bombs. (really easy to find books on it, but some advice on which ones are good would be appreciated.) 2. The fire-bombing of Dresden. (So damn hard to find books on it that aren't in German. ) 3. Memoirs of people that were on the ground during the bombings and what they went through. (Also hard to find in English.) So...anybody got any recommendations?
Regarding points 2 and 3, maybe this book will be to your liking:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0375504842/theatlanticmonthA/
Although I found myself disagreeing with some of Sebald's opinions, it's still a good read.
Now that I think about it, you are probably looking for something more along the lines of
Der Brand
I read only half of it though, so take my recommendation with a grain of salt.
|
On December 29 2011 07:24 Lemonwalrus wrote:1. The making of the atomic bombs. (really easy to find books on it, but some advice on which ones are good would be appreciated.) 2. The fire-bombing of Dresden. (So damn hard to find books on it that aren't in German. ) 3. Memoirs of people that were on the ground during the bombings and what they went through. (Also hard to find in English.)
1) The FBI will knock on your door soon.
2) No idea.
3) There is a museum in London dedicated to civilian life during the war.
Other than that, what I meant with random facts is that why considering a question, the balance will randomly tip to one side or the other depending on what anecdotical facts we know. We don't have the big picture.
Plus, there rarely is any research beyond checking numbers on Wikipedia. But what do these numbers mean?
For example, did anyone here sincerely tried to imagine what 6 million dead Jews meant, or what 14 millions of dead Soviet soldiers represented? How we could conclude of such numbers? I doubt so.
|
On December 28 2011 06:00 GreEny K wrote:
I disagree with some of the things in this OP. I'm not supporting Nazi Germany, but they definitely could have taken control of Britain. I don't think that's up for debate.
The German plan was to land one regiment from each of nine divisions on three seperate beaches seperated by miles from one and other with the invasion fleet leaving Bolougne, Calais and, Ostend / Antwerp. The initial wave was to take approxmately 96 hours to completely cross and another 72 to get ashore. That equates to ONE WEEK just to land the first wave! This puts the equivalent of just one weak infantry division ashore on each beach. The one available parachute division was to land behind one of the beaches over a period of about 2 days (the Luftwaffe could only lift about half the division at a time). With no opposition the Germans could realistically expect to lose 30 to 50% of the landing barges just through beaching them. The invasion force had little more than a motely collection of motor minesweepers, armed trawlers, and small gunboats for escort with virtually nothing bigger than a 3.7cm AA gun for armament. Many of the barges would have mounted 2 or 3.7cm AA guns. The majority of the crews operating the barges had little or no sailing experiance.
The Royal Navy had 36 destroyers, and about 400 small craft committed to immediately countering an invasion crossing. There were 26 1/2 divisions in England of which about 13 were fully equipped and manned. One was a fully equipped armored division. There were also 6 tank brigades and a number of independent infantry brigades and battalions in existance. The Home Guard numbered about 250,000 men and most had at least basic small arms and a bit of training.
The air situation was that both sides were roughly even in strength and capacity. The British early warning system (eg., radar like CH, CHL, CD and other sets) would have given plenty of warning of the approaching invasion among other systems. Surprise was going to be virtually impossible for the Germans to achieve.
The Germans had nothing beyond a vague plan to return the invasion ships back to France, reload them, and send a second wave across about 10 days after the first wave landed. Of the ports the first wave was obstensively to capture none was capable of supporting much more than a division or two in size.
Basically, from these very bare facts one can see the absurdity of the German plan. They would have tried and it would have been a catastrophic disaster. Germany was in no position to conduct Sea-Lion.
They had no history of amphibious warfare (unlike the British who had been conducting amphibious/coastal landings for well over a century), they had no specialist landing craft, nor the ability or skills needed to even design them. They also had poor recce of the British coast and a lack of suitable maps or any intel. They also had no available Fallschirmjager having worn both them and the transport fleet out during Weserbung and Fall Gelb.
The Luftwaffe was in no position to dominate the RAF, and would never be. The Kriegsmarine could not challenge the RN in the English Channel and any attempt to cross in converted barges would have been at grave danger from the weather, let alone the RN.
Then, if they did land, you have a force, unable to be re-supplied, fighting a force far larger on it home territory.
I would suggest you look at the Sandhurst wargame in the 1970's that played out Operation Sea-Lion. It ended in a complete defeat for the Germans. Indeed any serious effort at wargaming the operation has ended in the Germans losing badly.
Simply put, the reason Hitler aborted the operation is that he knew it would never succeed given the lack of skills, equipment and doctrine in the German forces with regards to amphibious warfare and faced with a strong RAF & RN.
|
Netherlands6273 Posts
On December 29 2011 07:46 FecalFrown wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2011 04:15 Fruscainte wrote: Under the hand of an actually no mentally handicapped leader, Germany would have and, under every category, SHOULD have won World War 2. They had better technology, a better fighting spirit, and all that jazz. It's just...ugh, Hitler made some pretty stupid fucking decisions. Except by the end America had nukes. An absolute trump card IMO.
Better technology was only partly true and by the end of the war the allied had the better technlogy. Take for example the spitfire, it was as good if not better than the German planes.
|
On December 29 2011 20:54 Kukaracha wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2011 07:24 Lemonwalrus wrote:1. The making of the atomic bombs. (really easy to find books on it, but some advice on which ones are good would be appreciated.) 2. The fire-bombing of Dresden. (So damn hard to find books on it that aren't in German. ) 3. Memoirs of people that were on the ground during the bombings and what they went through. (Also hard to find in English.) 1) The FBI will knock on your door soon.
Not HOW to make them, something more along the lines of a narrative of the scientists working towards it.
|
On December 30 2011 02:21 Lemonwalrus wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2011 20:54 Kukaracha wrote:On December 29 2011 07:24 Lemonwalrus wrote:1. The making of the atomic bombs. (really easy to find books on it, but some advice on which ones are good would be appreciated.) 2. The fire-bombing of Dresden. (So damn hard to find books on it that aren't in German. ) 3. Memoirs of people that were on the ground during the bombings and what they went through. (Also hard to find in English.) 1) The FBI will knock on your door soon. Not HOW to make them, something more along the lines of a narrative of the scientists working towards it.
Sure. Iran said the same thing.
|
On December 29 2011 04:47 Euronyme wrote:
That's atleast what I learned in my history classes. The Americans didn't really understand what trench warfare was all about, and basically charged through with massive losses, ignoring the French and British with experience.
Granted this was like the first war where cavalry and swords wern't effective, so you can cut them some slack, but calling their commands superior is stretching it a bit far I'd say.
The American's invented trench warfare and modern war in the Civil War (War Between the States).
So your claim seems shaky to me...
|
On December 30 2011 05:42 MasterBlasterCaster wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2011 04:47 Euronyme wrote:
That's atleast what I learned in my history classes. The Americans didn't really understand what trench warfare was all about, and basically charged through with massive losses, ignoring the French and British with experience.
Granted this was like the first war where cavalry and swords wern't effective, so you can cut them some slack, but calling their commands superior is stretching it a bit far I'd say. The American's invented trench warfare and modern war in the Civil War (War Between the States). So your claim seems shaky to me...
I'd really like a source on that.
Because I don't remember much trench warfare in the style of the first orld war in the american civil war.
|
|
|
On December 29 2011 07:46 FecalFrown wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2011 04:15 Fruscainte wrote: Under the hand of an actually no mentally handicapped leader, Germany would have and, under every category, SHOULD have won World War 2. They had better technology, a better fighting spirit, and all that jazz. It's just...ugh, Hitler made some pretty stupid fucking decisions. Except by the end America had nukes. An absolute trump card IMO.
Assuming Fruscainte's point, a competent German leader could have easily vanquished or at least crippled Russia by 1942, maybe early 1943. We didn't have the bomb till the 1945s. And Germany was working on their own "atomic" bombs well by the time we were.
|
On December 30 2011 02:14 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2011 07:46 FecalFrown wrote:On December 28 2011 04:15 Fruscainte wrote: Under the hand of an actually no mentally handicapped leader, Germany would have and, under every category, SHOULD have won World War 2. They had better technology, a better fighting spirit, and all that jazz. It's just...ugh, Hitler made some pretty stupid fucking decisions. Except by the end America had nukes. An absolute trump card IMO. Better technology was only partly true and by the end of the war the allied had the better technlogy. Take for example the spitfire, it was as good if not better than the German planes.
You cannot possibly argue that the spitfire was better than Germany's first generation jet aircraft, despite their many drawbacks.
Also the Panther cost only 1.5-2x what a Sherman costs and typically 1 Panther = 5 Shermans in combat
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
