|
The Belgian posted:Cythereal's post a higher up on this page give a nice idea of part of what the alternative would entail. In short: there were a number of options on hand for ending the Pacific War in the absence of a Japanese surrender that was not likely in the political and leadership climate of Japan at the time. All of those options were different scales and types of horrible. The atomic bomb, the massive use of chemical weapons, Operation Olympic, and Operation Starvation to name some of the biggest. All of them involved mass civilian death. The atomic bomb was used because it was the option President Truman chose. If you wish to discuss the morality or costs of the atomic bomb, in isolation or vis a vis one of the other options available to Truman, please take it to another thread. The MilHist threads have been bogged down many times before in these arguments which invariably lead nowhere.
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2016 23:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 20:28 |
|
|
so how about that bear
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2016 00:22
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:You're going to want some bartov on that list. He's really important to how thinking about war crimes out easy changed. At least do Eastern Front 1941 - 1945: German Troops and the barbarization of warfare. Pick up Hitlers Army: Soldiers Nazis and War in the Third Reich if you have time although it has a bit of s broader scope. Still a shitload of eastern front as that's where most of the Wehrmacht did most of the fighting. Thank you for the ideas. I haven't thought about the war crimes angle yet, and I'm sure that is worth looking into, if not in the scope of this paper (20 pages max), then later. Ensign Expendable posted:I have a bunch of primary documents translated here. They're mostly rivet-counter oriented, but you can probably get some good stuff from certain tags. Thank you for the resource! I'm still lacking here, which is why I'm trying to express ship Chuikov's memoirs. I don't know how I'd even begin getting to see the material available from the 1991 archive release other than as it appears in newer works. Yvonmukluk posted:Huh, I did a similar topic for my dissertation. Is 'I'm working on an analyses of the shifting historiography of the Eastern Front' a version of 'do you have stairs in your house' solely for history students/graduates? Great minds must think alike! I'm hoping there I hit on some interesting themes because I'd like to eventually do my thesis on the topic. I'm fascinated in how myths about the war have permeated into society, but don't know if there is a way for me to track why Combat Mission put "human wave" into the Russian move order or why Enemy at the Gates and Call of Duty One really had to show off the blocking detachments.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2016 00:29
|
|
|
Has there ever been a conclusive answer to "how much damage will make the enemy surrender?"
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2016 01:08
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:Has there ever been a conclusive answer to "how much damage will make the enemy surrender?" Less than you expect: "I took out a tank with a stick." As much as you'd expect: "Encirclement tactics are how we will secure ground." More than you'd expect: "loving COME ON ROME I BEAT THE LAST THREE ARMIES YOU RAISED JUST loving GIVE UP ALREADY CHRIST"
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2016 01:19
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:Has there ever been a conclusive answer to "how much damage will make the enemy surrender?" yes, the answer is 89.2 damage
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2016 01:20
|
|
|
Koramei posted:yes, the answer is 89.2 damage depends on their armor rating and magical resistance plus any saving throws
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2016 01:26
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:Has there ever been a conclusive answer to "how much damage will make the enemy surrender?" Sure, you just damage them until they surrender, and then you know.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2016 01:25
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
I mean there's cases where nations have barely been materially damaged at all and surrendered (Vietnam, for example), while there's also cases of nations getting beaten raw and sticking in the fight, sometimes even beyond their ability to actually continue fighting.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2016 01:27
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:Has there ever been a conclusive answer to "how much damage will make the enemy surrender?" Of course there has. If the enemy is dead then by default they have surrendered.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2016 01:29
|
|
|
Hunt11 posted:Of course there has. If the enemy is dead then by default they have surrendered. I think you will find that while you may take their lives, you will never take their freedom 
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2016 01:34
|
|
|
spectralent posted:I mean there's cases where nations have barely been materially damaged at all and surrendered (Vietnam, for example), while there's also cases of nations getting beaten raw and sticking in the fight, sometimes even beyond their ability to actually continue fighting. I guess the straight answer to the question is "depends on who it is getting their rear end kicked" I'd be interested to hear at what point of infrastructural damage/material depletion a side can no longer sustain a fight/has to hugely change how they're fighting
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2016 01:35
|
|
|
spectralent posted:I think you will find that while you may take their lives, you will never take their freedom They can be free to be corpses all they want.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2016 01:35
|
|
|
americong posted:I guess the straight answer to the question is "depends on who it is getting their rear end kicked" Again it depends who's getting their rear end kicked, yeah. Also how good the people doing the kicking are at hitting the right kinds of infrastructure. Rather infamously the allies hit one ball-bearing place that Germany made most of the ball bearings for tanks and stuff in, and consequently caused massive delays and re-designs to remove ball-bearing elements. Conversely the soviet union lost some massive proportion of it's train stock and had many factories virtually on the front lines but succeeded in dragging it's industry past the urals and efficiently condensed their production to the point where they were producing more tanks than Germany was going to for the entire war or something stupid like that less than a year later.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2016 01:40
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:More than you'd expect: "loving COME ON ROME I BEAT THE LAST THREE ARMIES YOU RAISED JUST loving GIVE UP ALREADY CHRIST" Literally Hannibal post-Cannae. Man, loving Rome. How they were able to absorb crushing defeat after crushing defeat and never sue for peace in so many wars is actually kind of mind-boggling.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2016 01:45
|
|
|
Elyv posted:Literally Hannibal post-Cannae. (proto) Nationalism is a hell of a drug.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2016 01:53
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:Has there ever been a conclusive answer to "how much damage will make the enemy surrender?" loving paraguay, brahs
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2016 02:04
|
|
|
spectralent posted:Again it depends who's getting their rear end kicked, yeah. Also how good the people doing the kicking are at hitting the right kinds of infrastructure. Rather infamously the allies hit one ball-bearing place that Germany made most of the ball bearings for tanks and stuff in, and consequently caused massive delays and re-designs to remove ball-bearing elements. Conversely the soviet union lost some massive proportion of it's train stock and had many factories virtually on the front lines but succeeded in dragging it's industry past the urals and efficiently condensed their production to the point where they were producing more tanks than Germany was going to for the entire war or something stupid like that less than a year later. I don't know if anyone in this thread has noticed before but, trying to prosecute a continental war from a region smaller than many american states is pretty tough
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2016 02:17
|
|
|
P-Mack posted:loving paraguay, brahs Two girls for every guy, man.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2016 02:18
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:Two girls for every guy, man. Explains why there are Lopez sympathizers still around.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2016 02:42
|
|
|
my dad posted:(proto) Nationalism is a hell of a drug. Not sure there was anything proto about Roman nationalism.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2016 02:58
|
|
|
Did the Japanese drive their tanks until they ran out of gas in the middle of a goddamn battle like the Germans had a habit of doing?
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2016 04:11
|
|
|
Chump Farts posted:Hey all, I'm going for a History MA and in the big leagues now. I'm doing a historiography on how perspectives of the two main armies in WWII changed as time went on and the Russian archives released. My bibliography so far is: https://www.amazon.com/Intelligence-Soviet-Military-Strategy-World/dp/0891413804 Paints a picture of how Soviet intelligence influenced their own army. The Soviet intelligence machine is a vastly underlooked monster of a system in the war.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2016 04:36
|
|
|
Chump Farts posted:I'm fascinated in how myths about the war have permeated into society, but don't know if there is a way for me to track why Combat Mission put "human wave" into the Russian move order or why Enemy at the Gates and Call of Duty One really had to show off the blocking detachments.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2016 05:25
|
|
|
Plan Z posted:https://www.amazon.com/Intelligence-Soviet-Military-Strategy-World/dp/0891413804 My favorite story is how the Soviets created a fictional Wehrmacht unit trapped behind enemy lines but heroically fighting on, a war story that all human beings find universally compelling, by making prisoners make false radio broadcasts. Reich authorities sent endless commandos to link up with and assist these people, airlifted them tons of supplies, and tried to send local agents to make contact with them. They came up with plan after plan to get their brave soldiers back but somehow something always got messed up. One air rescue operation was so daring the Soviets even staged a fake firefight to keep the planes from landing. The Soviets set up a fake camp to receive commandos who they then added to the cast of the play, forcing them to make false radio reports about their "successful" missions to headquarters. The Germans gave the supposed commander of this unit, who was an actual respected officer, promotions and a medal! The whole thing went on for almost a year even as the Soviet armies moved further and further west and was only terminated by the end of the war.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2016 05:28
|
|
|
cheerfullydrab posted:My favorite story is how the Soviets created a fictional Wehrmacht unit trapped behind enemy lines but heroically fighting on, a war story that all human beings find universally compelling, by making prisoners make false radio broadcasts. Reich authorities sent endless commandos to link up with and assist these people, airlifted them tons of supplies, and tried to send local agents to make contact with them. They came up with plan after plan to get their brave soldiers back but somehow something always got messed up. One air rescue operation was so daring the Soviets even staged a fake firefight to keep the planes from landing. The Soviets set up a fake camp to receive commandos who they then added to the cast of the play, forcing them to make false radio reports about their "successful" missions to headquarters. The Germans gave the supposed commander of this unit, who was an actual respected officer, promotions and a medal! The whole thing went on for almost a year even as the Soviet armies moved further and further west and was only terminated by the end of the war. oh my god
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2016 05:38
|
|
|
cheerfullydrab posted:My favorite story is how the Soviets created a fictional Wehrmacht unit trapped behind enemy lines but heroically fighting on, a war story that all human beings find universally compelling, by making prisoners make false radio broadcasts. Reich authorities sent endless commandos to link up with and assist these people, airlifted them tons of supplies, and tried to send local agents to make contact with them. They came up with plan after plan to get their brave soldiers back but somehow something always got messed up. One air rescue operation was so daring the Soviets even staged a fake firefight to keep the planes from landing. The Soviets set up a fake camp to receive commandos who they then added to the cast of the play, forcing them to make false radio reports about their "successful" missions to headquarters. The Germans gave the supposed commander of this unit, who was an actual respected officer, promotions and a medal! The whole thing went on for almost a year even as the Soviet armies moved further and further west and was only terminated by the end of the war. That is....incredibly clever People posting lots of books, any recommendations for introductory texts?
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2016 05:45
|
|
|
I mean, just think how many successful movies, TV shows, or whatever else, have come out, just in the last 20 years, that are about a valiant group of soldiers who find themselves cut off behind enemy lines in the maelstrom of war and need help to be rescued or fight their way back or complete an objective.
Teriyaki Hairpiece fucked around with this message at 05:51 on Sep 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2016 05:49
|
|
|
americong posted:I guess the straight answer to the question is "depends on who it is getting their rear end kicked" Another sorta thing is that instead of the nuke or "standard" incendiaries, there was an attack plan of just using chemical weapons until they were all dead. poo poo could have been a lot worse. (this does not excuse anything jesus christ war is horrible)
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2016 06:04
|
|
|
I asked mainly because that seems like it ends up as the lynchpin in any counterfactual. There are so many points in history where you can ask your what ifs and from a rational self interest perspective it would be better if somebody surrendered, but it just doesn't happen. Hell, with WWI, it probably would've been better for all parties involved if they all just called it quits after a year or two, but there had to be a winner.P-Mack posted:loving paraguay, brahs Huh, what does that mean? Wikipedia posted:Following the disastrous Paraguayan War (1864–1870), the country lost 60 to 70 percent of its population through war and disease, and about 140,000 square kilometers (54,054 sq mi), one quarter of its territory, to Argentina and Brazil.  ...christ.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2016 06:07
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:Has there ever been a conclusive answer to "how much damage will make the enemy surrender?" Not really, and indeed that question is one which preoccupies strategists. The classic notion is that you can get a surrender by taking out their capital, their army, or their leadership, or some combination thereof, but even the Great theorists have never settled the question of how true this is and which is more important and stuff. It depends on too many factors to really have a simple answer. There are questions about both/all belligerents, about who is fighting where, the causes of the war, what each side wants, what each side thinks the other side wants, what each side thinks the other will tolerate, what weapons both sides are using/have in reserve/expect the other to have/use, etc. etc.. e; and yeah lol Paraguay some countries really do decide death is preferable to defeat. e2; As to counterfactuals, the beauty of this whole murkiness is that it lets a decent writer come up with justifications for stuff. People are always going to say "That's not realistic" but real history has plenty of poo poo happening for reasons of stupidity, insanity, stubbornness, and just plain good or bad luck. Ms Adequate fucked around with this message at 06:10 on Sep 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2016 06:08
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:I asked mainly because that seems like it ends up as the lynchpin in any counterfactual. There are so many points in history where you can ask your what ifs and from a rational self interest perspective it would be better if somebody surrendered, but it just doesn't happen. Hell, with WWI, it probably would've been better for all parties involved if they all just called it quits after a year or two, but there had to be a winner. here's a question: how much of whether wars continue is due to individual leadership attitudes, how much is due to fundamental political appetite for more war, and can we assign moral value to the promotion and marketing of continued war, even if that war meets some arbitrary bar of justness
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2016 06:10
|
|
|
Mister Adequate posted:The classic notion is that you can get a surrender by taking out their capital, their army, or their leadership...
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2016 06:10
|
|
|
WW2 Data We've broken through to the 100mm and up projectiles. The 100/17mm field gun projectiles are used with the Austrian 10cm M14 Feldhaubitze, otherwise known as the Obice da 100/17 modello 14. The projectiles using the 105/14mm field gun appear to be referencing the Obice da 105/14 modello 18, which doesn't appear to have much information on it. In English, anyways. The 105 projectiles listed in use with the 105/14mm gun reference the French 105mm Schneider artillery gun. Interestingly, the 105/32mm gun is actually the Austrian 104mm "Feldkanone" M.15. Does anyone have the impression yet that the Italians had a lot of obsolete equipment?
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2016 07:07
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:I asked mainly because that seems like it ends up as the lynchpin in any counterfactual. There are so many points in history where you can ask your what ifs and from a rational self interest perspective it would be better if somebody surrendered, but it just doesn't happen. Hell, with WWI, it probably would've been better for all parties involved if they all just called it quits after a year or two, but there had to be a winner. gently caress just look at Syria today. In any sane world it would have either never come to open rebellion, been crushed in a week, Assad murdered by someone two years in, Assad "retired" to a villa outside Paris, or the country broken up. Instead we get multi year sieges of cities and the largest refugee tidal wave since ww2.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2016 07:33
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:In short: there were a number of options on hand for ending the Pacific War in the absence of a Japanese surrender that was not likely in the political and leadership climate of Japan at the time. All of those options were different scales and types of horrible. The atomic bomb, the massive use of chemical weapons, Operation Olympic, and Operation Starvation to name some of the biggest. All of them involved mass civilian death. This is wrong, if only for the fact that all of those options apart from the use of chemical weapons were progressed simultaneously. Nobody saw them as mutually exclusive choices. Indeed, Operation Olympic had mass use of nukes as an operational weapon as a core planning assumption. The best way to approach the question is to acknowledge that we're on the far end of the cold war and Mutually Assured Destruction but for Truman and the military establishment in 1945 a nuke is just a very convenient way of delivering 15,000 tons of bombs to an enemy city, something that's been happening every day for years. Indeed for strategic bombing advocates it was the natural conclusion of an argument they'd been making for over a decade about the war winning potential of bombers.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2016 08:18
|
|
|
I don't think you can quantify "level of damage required for surrender", because whatever forces that push that switch from fight to surrender - itself a fictional construct for the sake of an argument - is so embedded within the wider social and military context of a nation or belligerent group that it's impossible to separate from it. Does a nation surrender when it's lost a certain % of its people? Does it surrender entirely when it's lost near to all of its territories? Does it surrender when resistance is useless, despite not losing its military? The world wars have examples of countries surrendering and fighting on when those conditions are and aren't met. The aim of the enemy is probably of critical importance - when the destruction of your country or group is on the agenda, then perhaps you fight more (or perhaps don't). Even then what is a surrender? After the fall of France, the resistance fights on, some of the colonies fight on, de Gaulle consciously builds up the concept of Free France with more than one eye on his own legacy and self importance, but France has formally surrendered. If we say France surrendered, then we have to say that surrender isn't the end of military activities, merely the withdrawal of political support for violent resistance. That makes it a fundamentally political act, where "damage" is certainly a factor, but by no means the only one and perhaps not even an important one. With sufficient political will, a nation fights - on the beaches, in the fields etc etc.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2016 08:22
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:14.5mm anti-tank rifles could penetrate the sides of Panthers at the right range, so I wouldn't be surprised if a close range spray from a 20mm autocannon hosed up a tank. There's a reason why early German tanks had 20mm autocannons, and why 20mm autocannons were used throughout the war.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2016 08:35
|
|
|
Chump Farts posted:Thank you for the ideas. I haven't thought about the war crimes angle yet, and I'm sure that is worth looking into, if not in the scope of this paper (20 pages max), then later. Well, I recommend you pick up Smesler & Davies' the Myth of the Eastern Front, it's a very good overview of that sort of thing. I think that part of the reason it permeated is that, other than Lost Causers, the history of the Eastern Front was written by the losers. Do you have PMs? I could maybe track down a copy of my dissertation and send it to you if it might be helpful, but it's an undergrad one, so probably a bit remedial. Edit: HEY GAL posted:read the myth of the eastern front, too
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2016 08:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 20:28 |
|
|
cheerfullydrab posted:My favorite story is how the Soviets created a fictional Wehrmacht unit trapped behind enemy lines but heroically fighting on, a war story that all human beings find universally compelling, by making prisoners make false radio broadcasts. Reich authorities sent endless commandos to link up with and assist these people, airlifted them tons of supplies, and tried to send local agents to make contact with them. They came up with plan after plan to get their brave soldiers back but somehow something always got messed up. One air rescue operation was so daring the Soviets even staged a fake firefight to keep the planes from landing. The Soviets set up a fake camp to receive commandos who they then added to the cast of the play, forcing them to make false radio reports about their "successful" missions to headquarters. The Germans gave the supposed commander of this unit, who was an actual respected officer, promotions and a medal! The whole thing went on for almost a year even as the Soviet armies moved further and further west and was only terminated by the end of the war. This is a fantastic story that I'm going to steal as an interesting historical anecdote, but what was the point of this? Just to get the Germans to waste resources on rescue missions etc and also act as a trap for the local agents?
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2016 09:34
|
|