xthetenth posted:A weaker Russia could have made things much worse, for values of worse including generalplan ost and the Ruhrplex being one giant nuclear target. That's to change one variable but leave the others intact.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 20:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 23:26 |
|
|
Disinterested posted:Would it actually have been worse than what we got, though. you can't possibly be serious
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 20:21
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:you can't possibly be serious Oh?
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 20:29
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:That's to change one variable but leave the others intact. Which is totally viable for looking for a worst case scenario? Versailles isn't dependent on the outcome of the Russian Civil War.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 20:29
|
|
xthetenth posted:Which is totally viable for looking for a worst case scenario? Versailles isn't dependent on the outcome of the Russian Civil War. But you still admit the possibility of things that, with a rapid and decisive German victory, almost certainly would have not happened: generalplan ost.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 20:34
|
|
|
The European Union is "worse" than Nazi Germany winning WWII?
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 20:34
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:The European Union is "worse" than Nazi Germany winning WWII? What? No, I'm saying that a long and drawn out WW1 is directly connected to the violent excesses that follow it in the next several decades, so that, regardless of the politics, it's conceivable that a swift and decisive outcome to WW1 by any party would have been better.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 20:36
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:What? No, I'm saying that a long and drawn out WW1 is directly connected to the violent excesses that follow it in the next several decades, so that, regardless of the politics, it's conceivable that a swift and decisive outcome to WW1 by any party would have been better. This is fair enough, and not what I was getting from what you said. Disinterested posted:But you still admit the possibility of things that, with a rapid and decisive German victory, almost certainly would have not happened: generalplan ost. I really don't think that anybody would be able to pull off a rapid and decisive victory against Russia in the 40s barring Russia being pacifist or something similarly unlikely.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 20:39
|
|
xthetenth posted:I really don't think that anybody would be able to pull off a rapid and decisive victory against Russia in the 40s barring Russia being pacifist or something similarly unlikely. But...we're talking about WW1? Man did these posts ever get tangled.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 20:41
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:Would it actually have been worse than what we got, though. Maybe it could have been better (better here probably being extremely dependent on your point of view), maybe it could have been worse. There's no possible way you can invent a century of alt-history and pretend that its likely or even plausible. Disinterested posted:What? No, I'm saying that a long and drawn out WW1 is directly connected to the violent excesses that follow it in the next several decades, so that, regardless of the politics, it's conceivable that a swift and decisive outcome to WW1 by any party would have been better. WW1 is directly connected to the violence of the later 20th century, but it didn't singlehandedly cause them. Arguably the rise of the NSDAP and the events of WW2 have a lot more to do with the market crash of '29 than it does Versailles.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 20:42
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
Disinterested posted:But...we're talking about WW1? Man did these posts ever get tangled. Yeah, thought you were treating WW2 as part of the worst case consequences, and horrifyingly enough that could have been worse.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 20:45
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:What? No, I'm saying that a long and drawn out WW1 is directly connected to the violent excesses that follow it in the next several decades, so that, regardless of the politics, it's conceivable that a swift and decisive outcome to WW1 by any party would have been better. I picked up Salazar's read, too. Anyway, it's a big leap from "we got the worst possible outcome" to what you said here (which I don't necessarily prima facie disagree with).
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 20:45
|
|
PittTheElder posted:WW1 is directly connected to the violence of the later 20th century, but it didn't singlehandedly cause them. Arguably the rise of the NSDAP and the events of WW2 have a lot more to do with the market crash of '29 than it does Versailles. That's true, but both the left and conventional elites in Germany were catastrophically damaged by the first world war, and the first world war created a lot of the conditions that lead in to fascism, particularly highly radicalised right wing veteran soldiery in the form of the freikorps and the necessary propaganda to propel them toward an irridentist and chauvinist vision. The 29 collapse, if it happened, would have been striking against much stronger and richer states with less of a groundswell of radicalism. Also consider: quote:Yet modern historical scholarship says nothing of the kind. Hastings, Sheffield and their allies rely on the work of Fritz Fischer, a German historian who in 1961 published a justly celebrated book, based on painstaking research in the German archives, about Germany's aims in the first world war. Fischer showed that official German policy in September 1914 did indeed aim at subjugating a large part of Europe to the political and economic domination of the Reich. But nobody has ever been able to demonstrate convincingly that the German government went to war in August 1914 with these aims in mind. Though I guess the war, however it ends, has to have a 'loser' who's going to be in a toxic situation.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 20:48
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:I've heard people unironically state EU 1950 edition as a silver lining for the Nazis winning WW2. You knew Alan Clark?
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 20:49
|
|
|
And this by the way is why counterfactuals and virtual history is stupid as hell.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 20:54
|
|
|
Decolonization probably wouldn't have happened if the European colonial powers weren't crippled by two world wars would it?
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 20:56
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:Far from being a ruthless dictator, the Kaiser, who changed his mind on an almost hourly basis in the runup to the war, was a flighty, indecisive leader who was quickly pushed aside by the generals once the war began.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 20:57
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:And this by the way is why counterfactuals and virtual history is stupid as hell.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 20:58
|
|
HEY GAL posted:excuse me, my virtual history owns. it's my happy place. i'm waiting for the series of novels, thanks in advance
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 20:58
|
|
Koramei posted:Decolonization probably wouldn't have happened if the European colonial powers weren't crippled by two world wars would it? Eh, It would have happened at a slower place. The native educated civil servants would still have been been around to start asking the questions and starting the grass roots independence movements.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 21:05
|
|
|
Isn't Moscow a giant railway hub in 1941? What does capturing Moscow do to Russian railway lines? e;fb Is there a map of the railway system in 1940's Russia? Closest I can find is something from 1910 or so and I'm curious about the logistics they were working with. Jobbo_Fett fucked around with this message at 21:13 on Aug 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 21:06
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:Lakirovanniy Grob Garantirovan (Lacquered Coffin is Guaranteed). That's not a wartime nickname though, much like "Ronson" it became popularized a long time after the war. Whatever the Russian nickname for the M3 Lee/Grant will always be funny in a morbid way, to me.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 21:08
|
|
|
ArchangeI posted:Mahan and his The Influence of Seapower was hugely influential on early 20th century naval thinking. Mahan is fascinating in terms of his influence on naval thinking and how things bore out in history. He studied the use of sea power in the 17th and 18th centuries (this book was written at the end of the 19th), particularly focusing on the rise and reign of the British Empire. His analysis boiled down to the key to the British Empire in its global superpower and economic juggernaut was the Royal Navy and its control of the seas. His central idea, which was hugely impactful on Europe and North America, was that for a nation with a large coastline, prosperity could be attained by colonialism and kept by a powerful navy, particularly a navy focusing on large capital ships. It's hard to understate just how much 20th century naval thinking and colonial geopolitics were influenced by Mahan. Everyone knew that Britain's colonies made the Empire rich beyond measure and that Britain's fleet was essential to creating and preserving that empire. One of the most significant factors for the British in the War of 1812, for example, was the prospect of growing American naval power and mercantile expansion, that the Americans might become a dire threat to British prosperity and security. Everyone who was everyone in the early 20th century read Mahan and his theories, and this had a lot of influence on the last gasp of colonialism that erupted around that time. Mahan's work coincided with a technological revolution in naval technology as well, the death knell of the age of sail and the birth of the modern all-steel warship as exemplified by HMS Dreadnought. Mahan argued that whoever had the biggest and best capital ship fleet would have the best guarantee of its empire and the prosperity it brought - or the tool to build such an empire. These simultaneous revolutions in naval and geopolitical thinking, and naval technology, lead more or less directly to every naval arms race you've ever read about in the early to mid 20th century. Two especially salient examples would be Germany and Japan, which did not at the time possess much of a fleet or many overseas possessions, but both wanted the prosperity promised by Mahan's thinking and began building fleets to get it. Of course, the British Empire didn't take kindly to any notion of being unseated from its position of naval - and therefore economic - primacy. However, anyone familiar with WW2 naval history knows that the big-gun warship ultimately proved something of a while elephant. Battleships were important tools of geopolitics, but as far as military use went they were somewhat inconclusive in WW1 and outright of marginal use in WW2. Mahan failed to anticipate the development and maturation of the submarine and aircraft carrier during the 20th century, ships and capabilities that dramatically altered the calculus of geopolitics in general and colonialism in general. That said, I wouldn't disregard Mahan and his theories as completely wrong. He absolutely was right about the geopolitical power of naval power projection, but that power projection has found its true incarnation in the 20th and 21st centuries in the aircraft carrier.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 21:09
|
|
|
Koramei posted:Decolonization probably wouldn't have happened if the European colonial powers weren't crippled by two world wars would it? Depends who's in charge. Dudes like Churchill would have been loving stoked to put a bunch of upstart natives back in their place.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 21:12
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:However, anyone familiar with WW2 naval history knows that the big-gun warship ultimately proved something of a while elephant. Battleships were important tools of geopolitics, but as far as military use went they were somewhat inconclusive in WW1 and outright of marginal use in WW2. Mahan failed to anticipate the development and maturation of the submarine and aircraft carrier during the 20th century, ships and capabilities that dramatically altered the calculus of geopolitics in general and colonialism in general. Bit of a tough sell on the carrier comment considering he wrote The Influence of Seapower Upon History in 1890, a decade before heavier than air flight was achieved. It's a bit of a tough sell on the submarine, too as they were highly experimental. Peral and Gymnote represented the state of the art at the time, and both were non-viable as war fighting weapons.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 21:36
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:Bit of a tough sell on the carrier comment considering he wrote The Influence of Seapower Upon History in 1890, a decade before heavier than air flight was achieved. It's a bit of a tough sell on the submarine, too as they were highly experimental. Peral and Gymnote represented the state of the art at the time, and both were non-viable as war fighting weapons. That would be my point, yes. Mahan failed to anticipate their development (in the case of the carrier) or the maturation of the submarine. Mahan wrote his theories in a naval world ruled by the battleship and did not anticipate the rise of two new types of warship that completely up-ended things once the technologies and doctrines involved matured.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 21:48
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:Isn't Moscow a giant railway hub in 1941? What does capturing Moscow do to Russian railway lines? Here you go. Moscow is a hub, but losing it isn't the end. Jobbo_Fett posted:Whatever the Russian nickname for the M3 Lee/Grant will always be funny in a morbid way, to me. Mass Grave for Seven?
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 21:51
|
|
|
e: drat YOU TANKMANJobbo_Fett posted:Isn't Moscow a giant railway hub in 1941? What does capturing Moscow do to Russian railway lines? This is not perfect by any means, but it's reasonably accurate: 
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 21:54
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:Whatever the Russian nickname for the M3 Lee/Grant will always be funny in a morbid way, to me. I could have sworn I saw an anecdote about some Russian unit that actually liked it, since it broke down a lot less than whatever they were using before.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 21:59
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:That would be my point, yes. Mahan failed to anticipate their development (in the case of the carrier) or the maturation of the submarine. Mahan wrote his theories in a naval world ruled by the battleship and did not anticipate the rise of two new types of warship that completely up-ended things once the technologies and doctrines involved matured. So Clausewitz and Jomeni are irrelevant because neither predicted COIN warfare?
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 22:01
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:That said, I wouldn't disregard Mahan and his theories as completely wrong. I'll keep that in mind when I come to it. In general with more dated works you're looking less at its finer details, which could be very period specific, and more at the underlying thinking and the rationales presented. Thanks.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 22:03
|
|
|
ArchangeI posted:So Clausewitz and Jomeni are irrelevant because neither predicted COIN warfare? That isn't my point. My point is that Mahan's theories, while hugely influential on early to mid 20th century military naval thinking, were ultimately flawed. There were two major, worldwide wars during the era of Mahanian naval thinking, and the validity of that thinking was proven to be at best questionable. The big gun battleship was not the decisive arm of war except in a few instances, and the 20th century ultimately heralded the end of traditional colonialism. I think it's important to understand Mahan and his work if you're interested in 20th century naval history or to a lesser extent 20th century geopolitics in general, but my read of history is that Mahanian naval doctrines proved deeply flawed at best and were not vindicated by history. The maturation of the submarine and the development and maturation of the aircraft carrier are two particularly striking examples of how Mahan's theories ultimately were limited. hard counter posted:I'll keep that in mind when I come to it. In general with more dated works you're looking less at its finer details, which could be very period specific, and more at the underlying thinking and the rationales presented. Thanks. Essentially, I think Mahan's book was a very good work of history and absolutely shouldn't be discounted for its historical significance and influence on naval thinking and worldwide geopolitics. But as a guidebook for the future, as many naval thinkers used it, it was a very flawed document that failed to anticipate major world events and technological developments that lay just decades down the road. Whether Mahan intended his book to be anything more than a work of history, is beyond my ability to say. Cythereal fucked around with this message at 22:10 on Aug 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 22:08
|
|
|
hard counter posted:finer details, which could be very period specific
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 22:10
|
|
|
P-Mack posted:I could have sworn I saw an anecdote about some Russian unit that actually liked it, since it broke down a lot less than whatever they were using before. Maybe that was the Stuart? The Lee was very negatively received by pretty much everyone I read about.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 22:12
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:Here you go. Moscow is a hub, but losing it isn't the end. Wasn't it "Coffin for Seven Brothers"? RE Moscow: I'm not saying it would be the end, but combining it with the loss of other major railway lines seems like it would seriously affect transportation capabilities. And thanks, I gotta remember to save this somewhere.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 22:16
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:i posted in the rome thread about an article which mentions that 17th century military theorists were convinced that if soldiers ate grapes, they would die grapes killed specifically soldiers, not farmers or wholesalers...?
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 22:17
|
|
|
The term was "братская могила", literally " a grave for brothers ", but can also be translated as a mass grave.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 22:18
|
|
|
hard counter posted:grapes killed specifically soldiers, not farmers or wholesalers...? all your soldiers, killed https://www.jstor.org/stable/42555013
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 22:30
|
|
|
Koramei posted:Decolonization probably wouldn't have happened if the European colonial powers weren't crippled by two world wars would it? If I recall, India, jewel of the Empire, was already due for at least semi independence before World War 2. Axe the first one as well and maybe not, though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 22:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 23:26 |
|
|
Surely alternative rail lines would've been laid down if the Germans were getting near Moscow?
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 22:45
|
|