|
Would you say though that America considered invading Italy on the notion that the people would welcome them with open arms? Also, wouldn't that count more as one nation invading another nation to expel a third nation? I'm thinking more like group A attacks group B on the notion that most of the people themselves in group B would welcome them. I'm probably splitting hairs because I'm being dismissive of cases of "group A attacks B on the notion that subgroup Bc would welcome them." I suspect there are plenty of situations like that. Hell, I'm following along with The History Of Rome podcasts and it seems like that's how the Romans liked to do things in the Barbaric North. Grenada I suppose counts.
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 22:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 16:34 |
|
|
Lawrence had a pretty good run as an outside liberator. It's sort of funny because the Italians landed in Libya hoping to pull the same stunt (using latent Arab nationalism against the Turks), but within hours of landing in Tripoli rumors spread of Italian sailors taking liberty with local women and the various tribes stopped squabbling long enough to throw a welcome party. The Italians did keep trying to line up local alliances with various tribal leaders/power brokers, which sort of worked but they'd get stabbed in the back by the very people they'd just armed pretty regularity.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 23:03
|
|
|
Rocko Bonaparte posted:Would you say though that America considered invading Italy on the notion that the people would welcome them with open arms? I don't think so. As I understand it, the invasion of Italy was more "They're an Axis belligerent causing problems in the Mediterranean, and they need to be taken out of the war."
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 23:12
|
|
|
Athenians were told that the Sicilians would hail them as liberators, right?
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 23:34
|
|
|
Ainsley McTree posted:I feel like I remember reading somewhere about how Italian soldiers would go out of their way to surrender to Americans because life in an allied POW camp was better than life in the Italian army. Or something like that. I have a tough time imagining this ever wasn't true for someone fighting for the Axis. Or the Central Powers in WWI too probably.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 23:44
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
I don't know if it's just the effects of post-war propaganda but POWs held by the Western Allies had it good.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 23:47
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:I have a tough time imagining this ever wasn't true for someone fighting for the Axis. Or the Central Powers in WWI too probably. It was true towards the end of World War II, but not early on. In 1945 there was an exodus of German soldiers fleeing from the Eastern Front to the Western Front because they knew it was a choice between starving in a Soviet labour camp or eating more than their usual rations in an American camp.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 23:51
|
|
|
But even early in the war, if you were captured by the Brits or Yanks, wasn't the go-to move to ship them to POW camps in Canada and the continental US, where escape back to Germany was nearly impossible? You're away from the war, conditions are good, rations are plentiful, and a lot fewer people are trying to shoot at you. Sure there's the whole "not defending the fatherland" thing or whatever, but for the average soldier your marginal contribution is extremely low anyway. Apparently the POWs in North America must have felt similarly, given that hundreds of thousands of them were shipped to North America and only 2800 of them even tried to escape. There is the risk that the ship carrying you over the Atlantic gets torpedoed, or that the British or French use you as slave labour for a few years after the war's conclusion, but that's probably still better than being in post-war Germany itself.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 00:03
|
|
|
My grandfather actually ended up as a guard at an Italian POW camp in the western US (after getting shot by a friendly machine gun in the Aleutians  ) and he talked about how many of them considered it a reasonable outcome all things considered. They ate well and often enough the guards were Italian Americans who treated them well.Mazz fucked around with this message at 05:37 on Mar 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 05:31
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:you say that as if it has firm conclusions to give. It is delivered in the form of a dialectic, so in many ways it is up to the reader to interpret. Perhaps I did not express myself competently. I'm aware that the text is prone to some measure of misinterpretation since folks like Keegan are/were broadly criticised for being profoundly mistaken on even its most basic points. This hurdle is completely the result of how Clausewitz constructs his ideas. I'm almost wondering if I should cheat my first reading and look up a reputable analysis first. brozozo posted:I haven't finished it yet, but I would track down a good translation (assuming you're reading it in English). That's what has helped me the most. I made one previous attempt at On War and couldn't get past the introduction because of the ancient translation. The edition edited and translated by Paret and Howard seems to be pretty good in my opinion. Much easier to read than one of the other translations from the late nineteenth or early twentieth centuries. I've got a couple translations on hand that I'll be working from, it'll include Paret and Howard now. Thanks.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 06:56
|
|
|
BurningStone posted:The problem (or one of them) with all the "Germany beats the Soviet Union" speculations is what does a German victory look like? Panzers drive all the way to the Pacific? Stalin is overthrown and replaced by a pro-Nazi government, which signs a peace treaty? Germany stops somewhere in the middle and holds that line, indefinately? It's really hard to come up with a reasonable result that Germany likes. The Germans and Japanese came up with an agreement whereby Eurasia would be divided based on the Yenisey River down to the 1911 borders of China. I'm not sure what they would do further south but I assume Persia/Afghanistan in the German sphere and all of British India in the Japanese. Pacifying the area from Posen to the Yenisey would have probably taken the Germans quite a while.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 07:06
|
|
|
cheerfullydrab posted:Pacifying the area from Posen to the Yenisey would have probably taken the Germans quite a while. You don't think that Japan controlling both China and India, the two largest populations in Asia and the world in general, would have been impossible?
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 07:11
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:You don't think that Japan controlling both China and India, the two largest populations in Asia and the world in general, would have been impossible? I imagine they didn't intend them to stay that way.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 07:18
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:You don't think that Japan controlling both China and India, the two largest populations in Asia and the world in general, would have been impossible? I never said it was possible. The post I was responding to was asking where would German/Nazi adventurism in the East stop, and I was responding by telling them that there had been specific negotiations between the Japanese Empire and that regime deciding where the line was.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 07:20
|
|
|
Well, arguably the Japanese could have thought they could do it British style. After all, their position off Asia was roughly analogous to Britain's off Europe. The problem was that the Japanese attempt to do so, the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere, was a sick joke. The Japanese raped, looted, and murdered wherever they took over, which in turn made a British style "rule through the local leaders" style of Empire building impossible. Which in turn made the idea of controlling the coast of China, much less all of China and India, pretty much doomed from the start since there were never going to be enough Japanese soldiers around to enforce their will on most of Asia.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 08:05
|
|
|
Could I get a recommendation for an academic text addressing popular misconceptions about the Western and Eastern European fronts in World War Two? The text wouldn't need necessarily be based on that principle, only include such details. Books, articles, documentary, whatever works as long as it's peer-reviewed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 08:23
|
|
|
Verr posted:Could I get a recommendation for an academic text addressing popular misconceptions about the Western and Eastern European fronts in World War Two? The text wouldn't need necessarily be based on that principle, only include such details. Books, articles, documentary, whatever works as long as it's peer-reviewed. For Eastern: http://www.amazon.com/The-Myth-Eastern-Front-Nazi-Soviet/dp/0521712319
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 08:33
|
|
|
Verr posted:Could I get a recommendation for an academic text addressing popular misconceptions about the Western and Eastern European fronts in World War Two? The text wouldn't need necessarily be based on that principle, only include such details. Books, articles, documentary, whatever works as long as it's peer-reviewed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 08:53
|
|
|
Thanks for the quick response guys! My university has Hegel's recommendation in stock and I'm watching the lecture as I type! Turns out I was already citing Glantz, but only via hacked out quotes and references! Anything for the Western front? My thinking is along the lines of American/British exceptionalism and the myth of German technological superiority. Been reading these SA Milhist threads for... almost five years now!? Got the gist of the historicity, but gotta pony up them citations. drat graduate studies! 
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 09:23
|
|
|
jng2058 posted:Well, arguably the Japanese could have thought they could do it British style. After all, their position off Asia was roughly analogous to Britain's off Europe. The Co-Prosperity Sphere was basically a sham by then. There were those who truly desired a unified Asian against European/American imperialism but they had long been drowned out by those who saw the rest of Asia as just places to be exploited. It didn't help that the Kwantung Army was basically out of control and filled with the worst sort of ambitious ultra-nationalist officers (It had been a dumping ground for troublesome officers but only served put them with like-minded individuals). Like the shishi of the late Edo period, they basically took it upon themselves to advance Japan's interests when the government could not, like faking a bombing so they could justify invading China. On top of this, the IJA brutalized their own soldiers in training so it's no surprise that when the campaign in China didn't pan out as expected, they'd take their frustration out on the locals.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 10:05
|
|
|
I know that the Great Purge really threw a lot of sand in the works and the Soviets would have put up a better fight if Barbarossa came in 1942, but what if it was earlier? Would the Red Army have put up a better fight if it was in 1940? 1939 (however that happens)?
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 12:28
|
|
|
100 Years Ago Sir Ian Hamilton arrives at the Dardanelles for a conference, just in time for tomorrow's big show. When he tells the naval Brains Trust what his orders are (or, indeed, what they aren't), there's some considerable shock around the table. Also, the BEF is finally almost ready to take the Ypres salient back from the French army, and the newspaper's recruiting adverts switch from cajoling to terrifying.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 12:29
|
|
|
hard counter posted:Perhaps I did not express myself competently. I'm aware that the text is prone to some measure of misinterpretation since folks like Keegan are/were broadly criticised for being profoundly mistaken on even its most basic points. This hurdle is completely the result of how Clausewitz constructs his ideas. I'm almost wondering if I should cheat my first reading and look up a reputable analysis first. Ah ok I getcha. Honestly it's not cheating to understand context and purpose when reading a work. This book is what you're looking for Edit: fixed the link Rodrigo Diaz fucked around with this message at 13:07 on Mar 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 13:02
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:I know that the Great Purge really threw a lot of sand in the works and the Soviets would have put up a better fight if Barbarossa came in 1942, but what if it was earlier? Would the Red Army have put up a better fight if it was in 1940? 1939 (however that happens)? Axis army would have been massively smaller and less experienced force, so Red Army would have an advantage compared to 1941. I'm not sure postponing Barbarossa for a year would give Soviets that much of an advantage - even if their force had more of top quality toys their logistics and organization would still suck.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 13:09
|
|
|
This seems like the thread to ask this in: I was thinking recently about the League of Nations and how what I learned about it in school was a brief general footnote on "it was weak and ineffective and not taken seriously, mostly because the US stayed out, now on to Hitler!" What were some notable successes of the League, if any? How was it seen at the time by member governments? Was any of the negotiation leading up to WW2 done through League channels, and if so when did it stop being a factor?
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 13:18
|
|
|
alex314 posted:Axis army would have been massively smaller and less experienced force, so Red Army would have an advantage compared to 1941. I'm not sure postponing Barbarossa for a year would give Soviets that much of an advantage - even if their force had more of top quality toys their logistics and organization would still suck. they were also in the middle of a massive reorganisation following the brutal lessons of the Winter War, though
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 13:21
|
|
|
I think a year of build-up would do the Soviets a huge favor. Check out that video linked by T__A. The Soviets mobilize a staggering amount of men and materials even while fighting off a massive attack.gradenko_2000 posted:I know that the Great Purge really threw a lot of sand in the works and the Soviets would have put up a better fight if Barbarossa came in 1942, but what if it was earlier? Would the Red Army have put up a better fight if it was in 1940? 1939 (however that happens)? The purges would be even more fresh and the Soviets caught off guard as Nazi Germany somehow manages a relatively-simultaneous invasion of France, Poland, Denmark, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, AND the Soviet Union, occupying most of continental Europe, all the while still being harassed by American economic efforts and the English doing their thing. Note that the front of Barbarossa is roughly seventeen-hundred miles wide and takes 3.8 million Axis troops to force the Russians into their positions in the Winter of 1941. Plus as alex notes, the German forces would have less time to build-up and less experience. Pretty far into counterfactual territory. Anyhow, Hitler's still hoping the Russians see the light and join the axis in 1940. Why kill Ivan when he might die for you? tokenbrownguy fucked around with this message at 13:25 on Mar 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 13:22
|
|
|
A Soviet attack in 1940 or even 1941 would have failed disastrously if Soviet experiences with Poles and Finns are any indication. Not Barbarossa disastrously probably, but it wouldn't have been anything like Bagration either. Luftwaffe is still at its prime height, Wehrmacht is not spread across a front from Norway to Romania and Germany still has plenty of able bodied young men available to fulfill Hitler's ambitions.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 15:53
|
|
|
A Soviet attack at a time when Stalin was doing all he could to appease the Germans and not provoke a war makes no sense at all.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 16:04
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:Ah ok I getcha. Honestly it's not cheating to understand context and purpose when reading a work. This book is what you're looking for Thanks. Kellsterik posted:What were some notable successes of the League, if any? How was it seen at the time by member governments? Was any of the negotiation leading up to WW2 done through League channels, and if so when did it stop being a factor? The resolution of the Åland crisis was considered an early success, for one.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 18:28
|
|
|
Completely handwaving away the political factors: 1939 is completely off the table, since the Germans then were still relatively unprepared for war, and the Polish campaign highlighted whatever lacks they had (not that it stopped them, mind). Besides, they need to invade Poland to be able to fight against the Soviets, and once they do that, they kind of have to invade France as well. This means they're effectively occupied until the Fall of France - so, end of June 1940. If they want to start precisely a year before the historical Barbarossa, they have roughly a month to shift most of their forces East (and, of course, completely forgo the Balkans campaign). I'm not a logistics expert, but it seems impossible to me. Supposing they would somehow do that (early French surrender, maybe?), they would have a number of advantages and disadvantages compared to history: + The Red Army would be nigh-completely incapable of fighting a serious war. The purges, the modernization, retooling of factories, introducing new equipment and TOEs, all that goes right on top of all their historical 1941 problems (poor tactics, ineffective communication, lack of experience etc. etc.) + They probably would have been able to tell Mussolini to get a grip and not start a mess in North Africa while they're preoccupied with the Soviets. + They wouldn't have to garrison so much of the Balkans. + I'm not exactly sure here, but IIRC the 1940/41 winter was far less severe than 41/42. + The Luftwaffe wouldn't have suffered comparable losses from the Battle of Britain and the British bombing campaign. - They wouldn't be able to project that air power as effectively, especially in the early stages of the campaign. - Their force would be less saturated with tanks and mechanized equipment, leaving them less mobile and less capable of exploiting their advantages. - Such hasty preparations would most definitely take their toll on their combat ability. - They'd miss out on whatever useful resources they could extract from the Balkans, while at the same time having to safeguard that flank somehow from British penetration.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 18:57
|
|
|
Kellsterik posted:This seems like the thread to ask this in: I was thinking recently about the League of Nations and how what I learned about it in school was a brief general footnote on "it was weak and ineffective and not taken seriously, mostly because the US stayed out, now on to Hitler!" Notable successes of the League: Notable failures: Well, everything they ever did. They couldn't even prevent Mussolini from invading Ethiopia. Or preventing him from using poison gas after the Italian army got dick-punched by the Ethiopians.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 19:07
|
|
|
Libluini posted:Notable successes of the League: The League is more important for what it represented than what it actually did - a recognition that the international community is a thing and that diplomacy works better as a continuous process rather than a frantic rush to resolve crises. It would also be a mistake to judge it purely in terms of failure to stop wars - the League laid a lot of groundwork in terms of pushing forward the concept of international law, that multilateral treaties on trade and resource use could be a thing people want.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 19:58
|
|
|
Libluini posted:Notable successes of the League: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%85land_crisis Least that one stuck  Edit: beaten. I am shamed. feedmegin fucked around with this message at 21:01 on Mar 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 20:58
|
|
|
Thank you for the responses. I don't know where I got the idea that the Red Army was in better shape in 39-40 than it was in 41 and the Germans just lucked into an especially vulnerable moment for them. In other news I listened to The History Network's podcast episode on gas warfare in WW1 and that was a bit difficult to get through. I know 100k deaths is just a drop in the bucket from the total of the war but that's still a lot of people that died what must have been very painful deaths. The description of what phosgene and mustard gas does to people was disturbing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 21:04
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:and the newspaper's recruiting adverts switch from cajoling to terrifying. And London-centric. If the German Army were in Manchester and I also were in Manchester I would hardly be in a position to enlist (at least, not in the British Army  ), now would I? 
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 21:16
|
|
|
What do you think this is, the Manchester Guardian? There's about six people who take the Telegraph north of Watford Gap, and they're all related to Lord Burnham.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 22:49
|
|
|
The league fought the international slave trade and issued passports to stateless refugees. It's not exciting bang bang war success but it's worth remembering!
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 00:20
|
|
|
And thats one of the reasons Italy got to invade Ethiopia, which was still a slave owning society.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 01:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 16:34 |
|
|
Animal posted:And thats one of the reasons Italy got to invade Ethiopia, which was still a slave owning society. Huge success!
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 01:23
|
|