|
Inventing the nuclear bomb at an earlier date likely would have done it, so yes. If they kept their scientists more pacified and happy they likely would have been the first to discover it anyway, though probably not in time to use it as anything but a defensive weapon against the Russians.
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2010 06:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 12:00 |
|
|
HeroOfTheRevolution posted:Germany's goals in the first World War weren't really to acquire vast amounts of living space from Russia; that was Hitler and the Nazis. In fact, their goals were very limited. If anything, the only thing that interested them in Europe were the Baltics and Russian Poland. Remember that the war was an Eastern war at first; it began because of an incident between the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the Serbs and their Russian allies. The French and Germans only got involved because of the complex ties of alliances, though it wasn't unexpected. If anything, Germany's WWI strategic goal was to maintain the status quo of a rising continental Germany. The Germans didn't really have a plan in the East beyond getting some territorial concessions from Russia. It's why Brest-Litovsk was so disappointing for Germany, in that for all the troops they transferred to other fronts for their late war offensives, they still didn't really relieve any of the crunch of the blockade that was causing mutinies in not just their army, but in the navy and civilian sectors as well. They never really had much of a political plan or even thought that far ahead. Otherwise the Germans really wouldn't have sought to escalate the conflict.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2010 06:12
|
|
|
Vagon posted:Inventing the nuclear bomb at an earlier date likely would have done it, so yes. If they kept their scientists more pacified and happy they likely would have been the first to discover it anyway, though probably not in time to use it as anything but a defensive weapon against the Russians. Why do you think the Germans would have likely been the first to invent the atomic bomb? The Germans had something like 3 atom bomb programs, all of them with variable amounts of funding, thanks to the disorganized fief-like nature of the Nazi state. None of them ever had a serious amount of funding, because in 1941, the Nazi government decided that an atomic bomb would not be ready by the end of the war -- and they were right, the Russians took Berlin before the Americans tested the first bomb. The Nazis weren't even trying to make an atom bomb, they didn't have the resources to make a proper atom bomb, Heisenberg was way off on how much material he'd need, and the Russians would have taken them first.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2010 12:53
|
|
|
Are there any good books about strategic bombing in WWII? Hopefully something centered around personal accounts. It just amazes me how bizarre the job must have been to be a crew member of a heavy bomber. For the majority of the time you are living in England, enjoying yourself in a place that's almost like home. You are far removed from the war. But for a couple of nights a week you go out for a several hours of pure terror bombing the poo poo out of Germany, desperately praying you are not one of the people shot down. Then you get back to base and it's back to living a "normal" life. Repeat until you earn your way out or death. Can someone go into more detail about the lives of those crew members?
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2010 08:34
|
|
|
So, What did Germany do right technically when it came to World War II? Obviously, or it at least it appears they were probably hosed from the beginning - small country, small population, low resources. And even then many of the technological choices weren't the greatest either. The Panzer II, III weren't up to snuff against the T-34 and even the P IV wasn't that great either. The Panther was a great tank but the use of King Tigers, Elephant and other strange designs removed the benefit.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2010 12:38
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:What did Germany do right technically when it came to World War II? The Stukas were good at dive bombing enemies, and caused great havoc in the East until they could not be supported by proper air superiority fighters. And German tanks had plenty of success against US and UK forces. Soviet having better and most importantly more tanks doesn't mean that German tanks were lovely. lilljonas fucked around with this message at 12:49 on Jul 18, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2010 12:43
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:Are there any good books about strategic bombing in WWII? Hopefully something centered around personal accounts. I can't tell you about WW II, but I can personally verify it was pretty terrifying being in a bomber during Desert Storm in the early 90's. I know this because I was an officer in the USAF during this time. I didn't fly, but a lot of my friends did. One B-52 pilot that rarely attended my church before going to Iraq came back to the USA and was at every service, loudly praising God, and really involved. I asked him what happened. He said when you're flying a bomber over a city with flak around you and SAM's coming at you, you quickly learn to rely on God for safety. I could tell he'd been terrified most of the time he was piloting his bomber. I serioudly doubt there are all that many atheists on the front lines....
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2010 14:39
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:So, Germany had a lot of potential as an industrialized country. But I tend to think that the individual tanks were simply not of tremendous importance in the grand scheme of operations beyond a certain point. Most of the time, tanks engaged infantry or positions, which necessitated high explosive rounds, and in post-war studies, the most important factor in combat between tanks was not who had the better gun or armor, but who was able to engage first. The surprising fact is how, despite strategic bombing, the Germans produced massive amounts of aircraft. In fact, the Germans were never short of aircraft late in the war, but pilots who wouldn't do suicidal types of attacks on heavy bombers and pilots who could actually land their planes. If the USA was the Arsenal of Democracy, Germany would be the Arsenal of Fascism. Every axis country in Europe became dependent on German arms as the war went on, from Hungary to the RSI. I don't know if you could call it a technological achievement, but Speer's ability to squeeze out the kind of war material production the Germans did in 1944 was nothing short of amazing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2010 15:02
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:So, Germany is not a small country by any stretch of the imagination, it is the biggest European country. Dan7el posted:I serioudly doubt there are all that many atheists on the front lines.... Oh dear, 
Shorter Than Some fucked around with this message at 15:11 on Jul 18, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2010 15:09
|
|
|
Dan7el posted:I serioudly doubt there are all that many atheists on the front lines.... Really? I mean, really?
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2010 15:12
|
|
|
You mentioned on the second page that Alexander the Great would probably show up on a top 10 list of greatest military strategists/tacticians most consistently, but what about someone like Zhuge Liang? There's been a lot of dramatizations done of his strategies and I'm wondering if he really was the poo poo. How would he compare to someone like Alexander then? Why has there been so much recreation of the Three Kingdoms era in TV, movies, and video game? Was it really that awesome? It's as if there's no other significant period of warring in Chinese history. Or does the story just translate well to recreation for a modern day audience?
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2010 15:22
|
|
TO UNDERAGE GYMNASTS
|
Dudebro posted:You mentioned on the second page that Alexander the Great would probably show up on a top 10 list of greatest military strategists/tacticians most consistently, but what about someone like Zhuge Liang? There's been a lot of dramatizations done of his strategies and I'm wondering if he really was the poo poo. How would he compare to someone like Alexander then? He was a character in an epic novel. Unlike, say, Arthur, there's no doubt he existed historically but there's also no way to tell if his historical accomplishments match up to those in the novel. Remember that the novel was written over one thousand years after the events. Think about it as an adaptation of the era in the same way that A Knight's Tale was an adaptation of an era. Um, or maybe The Once and Future King is a better analogy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2010 16:38
|
|
|
HeroOfTheRevolution posted:He was a character in an epic novel. Unlike, say, Arthur, there's no doubt he existed historically but there's also no way to tell if his historical accomplishments match up to those in the novel. In the historical records, not the novel, he isn't all that. Anyway, Chinese history loves its exaggerated bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2010 17:19
|
|
|
Barto posted:In the historical records, not the novel, he isn't all that. Anyway, Chinese history loves its exaggerated bullshit. Everyone's history loves its exaggerated bullshit. As for why there's so much recreation of the Three Kingdoms period (which, and I don't know much about Chinese history so don't quote me, I do not think was a particularly crucial era), I would assume it's because the novel is considered a staple of Chinese literature in the same way the Iliad and Odyssey are staples of Western literature and thus you see a lot of portrayals of the Trojan War.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2010 17:24
|
|
|
HeroOfTheRevolution posted:Everyone's history loves its exaggerated bullshit. The novel is actually not a novel. It's the compilation of thousands of historical documents, records, legends, and etc. written about a thousand years later. It's written in the style used by Chinese story tellers of the oral tradition, like all the "novels" written in China before they pushed the reset button on their literature in the Republican Period. If you want to look at the real historical records for it, look at the San Guo Zhi, ie Records of the 3 Kingdoms written not too long after the three kingdoms era. However, be warned it's a terrible historical narrative, and its the point at which the historical tradition, which like everything in China peaked at its inception with the Shiji, is considered to start going downhill. In any case, that poo poo has been popular in China ever since then, they even made some of those dudes gods. But anyway dude, compared with western histories, the Chinese love to rewrite and twist things around. I wouldn't trust anything a Chinese historian of the early periods put to paper...(mostly because when you catch on to what they're doing when they write, you'll realize accuracy isn't their goal at all, the expression of morality as they see it is) Also, they love making up poo poo when things don't fit together. In fact, the first book of the Shiji is just poo poo they made up, and which has, of course, been taken deadly seriously ever since. Barto fucked around with this message at 18:20 on Jul 18, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2010 18:18
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:So, Germany was not really a "small" country. They were the most populous country in Europe, and they were far more industrialized than most of Europe. For the most part their planes weren't horrible. In a lot of cases they were somewhat misused (such as tactical bombers being used as strategic bombers). Later on, they stopped letting new pilots train so they could save fuel. Plus, although they may have had more pilots than aircraft, the Allies still vastly outnumbered their total number of aircraft. In general it wasn't like there was a lot of really lovely German equipment. Compared to US/UK and USSR it was usually of similar quality or better. The problem was that they were vastly outnumbered and had extreme supply problems. Shimrra Jamaane posted:Are there any good books about strategic bombing in WWII? Hopefully something centered around personal accounts. I haven't read this myself, but it seems to have pretty good reviews and is also exactly what you're looking for: http://www.amazon.com/Savage-Sky-Germany-Stackpole-Military/dp/0811733882/ref=pd_sim_b_13 I'm waiting until I finish my current book, then I was thinking of picking up a couple books from this series. Freeze fucked around with this message at 19:01 on Jul 18, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2010 18:54
|
|
|
Barto posted:But anyway dude, compared with western histories, the Chinese love to rewrite and twist things around. Your description could be applied almost word-for-word to the most widely read and important pseudo-history in the Western world. I'll leave it up to your imagination what I'm talking about because if I name it directly I'll be opening a can of worms that doesn't belong in this thread, but the point is that Chinese historians certainly don't have a monopoly on that kind of thing. We're pretty much in agreement about the inability to place the historical figure of a 2nd century Chinese statesman on an imagined list of 'the 10 greatest strategists' though. Wasn't the Romance blatantly biased towards Zhuge Liang's faction anyways? HeroOfTheRevolution fucked around with this message at 19:05 on Jul 18, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2010 19:03
|
|
|
HeroOfTheRevolution posted:Your description could be applied almost word-for-word to the most widely read and important pseudo-history in the Western world. I'll leave it up to your imagination what I'm talking about because if I name it directly I'll be opening a can of worms that doesn't belong in this thread, but the point is that Chinese historians certainly don't have a monopoly on that kind of thing. Ya, Cao Cao wasn't actually that bad a guy, probably a military figure with a lot more actual reality to go with his reputation. Zhuge Liang's faction looking so nice in the book has a lot to do with Ming politics at the time (iirc) And, ya that's true about the book which we shan't name, point taken.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2010 19:18
|
|
|
HeroOfTheRevolution posted:Your description could be applied almost word-for-word to the most widely read and important pseudo-history in the Western world. I'll leave it up to your imagination what I'm talking about. Barto posted:And, ya that's true about the book which we shan't name, point taken. Is it the Da Vinci Code?
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2010 22:30
|
|
|
quote:Germany was not really a "small" country. They were the most populous country in Europe, and they were far more industrialized than most of Europe. Yea, but is it possible for a country Germany or the size of to invade both Europe and the Soviet Union? It seems that it's impossible. As for there technology, I've never really studied their aircraft intently. Though, they lacked large bombers such as an equivalent to the B-52.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2010 01:46
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:Yea, but is it possible for a country Germany or the size of to invade both Europe and the Soviet Union? It seems that it's impossible. The B-52 wasn't introduced until well...the year 1952. However, you are correct that Germany had nothing to match the great strategic bombers the allies had like the B-17 and 24. They tried to make a few prototypes but, as far as I know, they sucked so they abandoned them to give priority toward other stuff.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2010 03:00
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:Are there any good books about strategic bombing in WWII? Hopefully something centered around personal accounts. With the caveat that I haven't actually read it yet - Patrick Bishop's Bomber Boys should be exactly what you're looking for. I read his Fighter Boys not long ago and it was very much about the personal experiences of Spitfire/Hurricane pilots, including getting loaded at the pub and having to go up on a sortie still half in the bag. Great read.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2010 04:25
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:Yea, but is it possible for a country Germany or the size of to invade both Europe and the Soviet Union? It seems that it's impossible. Russia completely caved in to internal struggles in WW1, and was knocked out while Germany was putting most of their resources into fighting in the west. In WW2, Soviet was riddled with internal strife, political purges and other nasty after-effects of a huge revolution. At the same time, Germany was posed to attack with one of the largest armies ever seen, as the western front was mostly under control. Looking back at it from 2010 it's easy to say that it was never enough, but given what they knew at the time, it was far from unthinkable that the Soviet Union would fold just as easily as Russia had in WW1.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2010 05:05
|
|
|
Good things the Germans had: MP-44 MG-34/42 Panther Panzerfaust Type VII U-Boat Horses
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2010 05:07
|
|
|
billion dollar bitch posted:Good things the Germans had: The MP-44 was really revolutionary, but wasn't widely deployed and not until '43. The MG-34/42 were both revolutionary, widely deployed and used quite effectively. As for the Panther, it was a incredible design unfortunately Germany still put more resources into experimental tank production such as the Jagdtiger, Jagdpanther. The panzerfaust was pretty cool, though once shot left a huge report and trail and wasn't effective against anything other than armored targets. As for horses, heh, we all know how well that went in cold Russian winters.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2010 06:46
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:Are there any good books about strategic bombing in WWII? Hopefully something centered around personal accounts. "The Mighty Eighth". Read it myself. Highly recommend it. http://www.amazon.com/Mighty-Eighth-Europe-Told-Fought/dp/0440226481/ref=pd_sim_b_1 Edit: To add to the list of good things the Germans had... FW-190: A big engine, two machine guns, and FOUR automatic cannons == one serious can of whoop-rear end. V2: okay it didn't do that much to win the war, but designing the world's first ballistic missile while having to deal with war shortages, constant bombings, and the SS breathing down your neck, is not exactly easy) INTJ Mastermind fucked around with this message at 07:50 on Jul 19, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2010 07:40
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:Are there any good books about strategic bombing in WWII? Hopefully something centered around personal accounts. I don't really think that the experience for the bomber crews was much different than other combat arms. Most of war is sitting around waiting for stuff to happen. You also shouldn't confuse wartime England with "back home"; there was rationing for everything, most of them lived on an airbase and interacted mostly with other military personnel, etc. It's not like modern day drone pilots. Go read Catch-22 if you want a personal narrative of American bomber crews.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2010 13:11
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:The MP-44 was really revolutionary, but wasn't widely deployed and not until '43. The MG-34/42 were both revolutionary, widely deployed and used quite effectively. As for the Panther, it was a incredible design unfortunately Germany still put more resources into experimental tank production such as the Jagdtiger, Jagdpanther. The panzerfaust was pretty cool, though once shot left a huge report and trail and wasn't effective against anything other than armored targets. As for horses, heh, we all know how well that went in cold Russian winters. Yeah. billion dollar bitch fucked around with this message at 13:21 on Jul 19, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2010 13:14
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:The B-52 wasn't introduced until well...the year 1952. However, you are correct that Germany had nothing to match the great strategic bombers the allies had like the B-17 and 24. They tried to make a few prototypes but, as far as I know, they sucked so they abandoned them to give priority toward other stuff. I think a part reason for this was because if the pretty great success of the Ju-87 Stuka. After that, it was basically a requirement for all new bomber-prototypes to be able to dive-bomb, like with the Ar-234.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2010 14:54
|
|
|
Does France deserve the modern reputation it has for being surrender-happy? I know the French took a massive amount of punishment in WWI before their forces started to mutiny but it seems like they had the most to fight for considering they were on French soil. Compared to the Australians, as an example, it seems that the French lacked some military backbone. If true, why was this the case?
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2010 15:12
|
|
|
coolatronic posted:Does France deserve the modern reputation it has for being surrender-happy? It's just a stupid joke that idiots use to laugh at the French. They sure didn't surrender easily in Algeria.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2010 15:23
|
|
|
coolatronic posted:Does France deserve the modern reputation it has for being surrender-happy? Absolutely not. The French have a huge military history and were considered a major powerplayer for most of history. Even in WWII, which was partly responsible for this reputation, they still put up an admirable resistance (  ) while occupied.
Perestroika fucked around with this message at 16:39 on Jul 19, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2010 16:29
|
|
|
They get that reputation more because of the collaborating Vichy government than anything else. It's just a joke though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2010 16:32
|
|
|
coolatronic posted:Does France deserve the modern reputation it has for being surrender-happy? As for WWII, yeah, they got steamrolled - but so did everyone else. The only reason the Russians were able to mount an effective counter-offensive was because Russia is so god drat big, so they were able to soak up the losses in land, industry and manpower. E: I personally never encountered the "surrender monkeys" meme before the French refused to join in on the Iraq invasion, and the pro-war lobby had a hissyfit over it. Mr. Sunshine fucked around with this message at 16:44 on Jul 19, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2010 16:39
|
|
|
On the other hand, France rarely outright wins wars that it fights. On the other other hand, we don't have a good track record either.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2010 17:08
|
|
|
billion dollar bitch posted:On the other hand, France rarely outright wins wars that it fights. Uh quote:On the other other hand, we don't have a good track record either. If 'we' is the United States, uh
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2010 17:24
|
|
|
Of their major conflicts that I learned about as an average American student (the French and Indian/Seven Years War, Napoleonic Wars, Franco-Prussian War, That War With Cinco de Mayo, World War I, and World War II), I could only say France won one of them. Plus they lost WWII twice if you count Vichy. They for sure were a major power, but from an uneducated perspective they sure did lose a lot. esquilax fucked around with this message at 18:14 on Jul 19, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2010 18:09
|
|
|
esquilax posted:Of their major conflicts that I learned about as an average American student (the French and Indian/Seven Years War, Napoleonic Wars, Franco-Prussian War, That War With Cinqo de Mayo, World War I, and World War II), I could only say France won one of them. Plus they lost WWII twice if you count Vichy. How about the conquests that led to the Napoleonic wars in the first place. Plus no you couldn't really say they lost WWII twice, that's ridiculous on so many levels.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2010 18:15
|
|
|
Shorter Than Some posted:How about the conquests that led to the Napoleonic wars in the first place. I was talking about what is usually taught, and where the perception comes from. All students usually learn about it is that 'Napoleon conquered a bunch of stuff then lost at Waterloo.' France even won that Mexican-French war too, but mostly we just learned about cinco de mayo. vvv I agree. esquilax fucked around with this message at 18:21 on Jul 19, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2010 18:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 12:00 |
|
|
In the Napoleonic Wars, the French conquered more of Europe than any other power until the Nazis. And almost got away with doing it a second time. Until Prussia's rise, from the early Middle Ages to the late 18th century, France was the preeminent military power in Europe along with the Habsburgs and the Ottomans. France was the true winner of the 30YW, the most important conflict in the Early Modern period.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2010 18:19
|
|