|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:i am also significantly doubting the account and it was certainly put together to make the iranians look bad but: Plus you also have to account for idiotic fuckups by officers appointed more for their ideological correctness than competence.
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2019 20:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 11:41 |
|
|
Nenonen posted:It doesn't have to be an objective matter of literal existence to be existential. All that matters is if the nation perceives the threat as existential and responds to it as such. WW2 wasn't existential even to Soviet Union if we take it literally because Germans could never have conquered Russia, not any more than the Chechnyan wars were existential struggles for Russia. Right. Did decision makers in WW2 America seriously and for real think defeat would be literally The Man in the High Castle? Because I'm not buying it. Whereas Sealion was at least credible at the time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2019 20:49
|
|
|
Squalid posted:The biggest red flag in this quote is that the events described are third hand. The author didn’t witness this charge himself, but rather is instead relying something witnessed by an unnamed eastern European. When journalists play this kind of game of telephone I would put approximately zero stock into them as a source, regardless of the publication. Exactly. This is why primary sources are so important, without them we would still write histories like the ancient Greeks and Romans did.  "Wot! Ye cursed Persian, with her Kin on her Back; soon they will be sent to harvest in ye Minefields, as is Customary among Musulmen. This account was delivered unto us by a highly trusted oil merchant from ye Arabia."
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2019 20:50
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Had to see how the US could possibly "lose" WWII without some sort of invasion scenario though. Well quite. Japan was hoping for Tsushima 2.0 as an analogy (note the lack of Japanese soldiers marching through St Petersburg) but the US wasn't Tsarist Russia. feedmegin fucked around with this message at 20:55 on Oct 10, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2019 20:52
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:Right. Did decision makers in WW2 America seriously and for real think defeat would be literally The Man in the High Castle? Because I'm not buying it. Whereas Sealion was at least credible at the time. Set aside the brass, what did the average American at home think about the question of existentiality w/r/t WWII, that seems more relevant to the exact question. I remember trying to explain to my WWII vet grandpa who served in the Navy at the end of the war that the Japanese never really posed a threat to the US mainland and their doctrine was about shocking us out of the war blah blah blah and he hit the loving roof. I don't know if that was a contemporary view or one that he'd developed and mythologized over the 60ish years since
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2019 21:01
|
|
|
US leadership certainly recognized that a loss would put the country in an untenable position going forward. All of Europe controlled by a hostile power, the USSR crippled and not able to form a counterweight, and much of Asia controlled by Japan. God only knows what is happening at that point with Africa, India, and the Middle East.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2019 21:10
|
|
|
zoux posted:Set aside the brass, what did the average American at home think about the question of existentiality w/r/t WWII, that seems more relevant to the exact question. I guess I just don't agree that 'Joe Schmoe has been successfully propagandised into thinking this is an existential war' and 'this is actually an existential war' are equivalent statements.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2019 21:24
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:I guess I just don't agree that 'Joe Schmoe has been successfully propagandised into thinking this is an existential war' and 'this is actually an existential war' are equivalent statements. As originally used the term describes the threat to Israel by Hezbollah. What people think is the only reason to even talk about “existential war.” Edgar Allen Ho fucked around with this message at 21:39 on Oct 10, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2019 21:37
|
|
|
So I’m sitting around day dreaming about gay black hitler and I’m curious. What if Hitler had died very early in the war but once Stalin got his military mobilized? Would whoever controlled the German military machine have a chance of convincing the Allies that Russia was the bigger threat? I’m not trying to argue anything I’m just curious if it’s already been written about.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2019 21:52
|
|
|
BalloonFish posted:The Enemy Below, Sink the Bismarck!, Battle of the River Plate, Run Silent, Run Deep, The Cruel Sea, Away All Boats, The Gift Horse, The Sand Pebbles, The Bounty, The Ship That Died Of Shame, In Which We Serve, Morning Departure and the Gregory Peck Hornblower adaptation are the ones that come off the top of my head. And the PBR scenes of Apocalypse Now, which I always thought deserved a movie of its own. Midway! Has a great John Williams score. https://youtu.be/iorhVYOoKoA
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2019 01:49
|
|
|
My take was that North Americans in WW2 saw the world going absolutely nuts, and had no idea what could happen. Lots of talk and prep went into protecting the eastern Seaboard, Canada and the US, from air attack, even though the military could have told them this was at best a remote risk. Hindsight's 20/20 of course, but it was more a statement of how weird the world had gotten. If you look through Life Magazine just after Pearl Harbor, some of the speculative stories are just lovely. One of them speculates on the interior of Australia becoming a crucible for tank warfare between the Japanese and the Allies; another has plans for guerrilla warfare in Oregon if the Japanese invaded Alaska, then pushed down through BC into the US.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2019 02:53
|
|
|
I love the hot take that random American guy in 1941 should have known that the Japanese actually didn't have the logistical backbone to support an invasion of the West coast that of course begs the question why did the Japanese start the war in the first place when the end was going to be them getting nuked? idiots
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2019 02:58
|
|
|
This was incredible. I'm sending this to some CBRN soldiers who are going to eat this up.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2019 03:03
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:My take was that North Americans in WW2 saw the world going absolutely nuts, and had no idea what could happen. Lots of talk and prep went into protecting the eastern Seaboard, Canada and the US, from air attack, even though the military could have told them this was at best a remote risk. Hindsight's 20/20 of course, but it was more a statement of how weird the world had gotten. If you look through Life Magazine just after Pearl Harbor, some of the speculative stories are just lovely. One of them speculates on the interior of Australia becoming a crucible for tank warfare between the Japanese and the Allies; another has plans for guerrilla warfare in Oregon if the Japanese invaded Alaska, then pushed down through BC into the US. Jerry's driving up the mississippi valley is another magazine hypothetical
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2019 03:08
|
|
|
I have a friend who's interested in learning more about the Toyota War (tail end of the Chad/Lybia conflict in 1987). He's grown frustrated with what he's been able to find online, though. I don't suppose any of y'all would have any source recommendations I could pass on to him?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2019 03:48
|
|
|
We know in hindsight that the Nazis and Japanese were never ever going to pull off an invasion of North America. But I agree with Nebakanezzer, Americans in 1940-41 saw a world that was on fire and anything was possible. Especially after France fell, I think. And you get your news from newspaper headlines, a newsreel that runs before the movie, and every once in a while the President comes on the radio. Imagine how that must have felt. You're Joe Average in the midweat, what do you know about France? You know people go sit in cafes by the Eiffel Tower. You know the women are pretty and they have a sexy accent. And you know they held the loving line for four and half bloody years the last time Germany invaded. If you got your news from the newsreels, you might have seen "France invaded!" and "France falls!" back to back. Or at least it must have felt that way. Then the British Prime Minister is giving speeches that sound like he expects they'll be invaded any minute now. Every week there's news and for a year or so, every week that news was bad. Even if you're across the ocean from that news, that's still traumatic. And then, one day, you wake up and the US Pacific fleet has been annihilated. FuturePastNow fucked around with this message at 04:59 on Oct 11, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2019 04:56
|
|
|
bewbies posted:that of course begs the question why did the Japanese start the war in the first place when the end was going to be them getting nuked? idiots They thought that they could: - Pull off a surprise attack that sinks half of the US Navy, then... - Sink the other half when it shows up in the Pacific after a long voyage across the world. - After which the USA decides that the war isn't worthwhile. This is what they did to Russia in 1904-05, so why not try it again?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2019 05:31
|
|
|
Cessna posted:They thought that they could: But objectively, they couldn't, so why talk about what they thought?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2019 05:54
|
|
|
Cessna posted:They thought that they could: Iirc they believed that war was necessary, as well.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2019 06:30
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:But objectively, they couldn't, so why talk about what they thought? Because in history what people thought matters just as much as what actually happened. Sometimes more, if you're trying to describe why things happened the way they did.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2019 06:40
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:But objectively, they couldn't, so why talk about what they thought? bewbies was first of all joking, however if you, like him, have a practical interest in decision making, it's important to understand the real uncertainty under which actors make decisions. The Japan leaders could not realistically have been expected to predict the development of the nuclear bomb as in 1939 or 1941 nobody in any leadership position was capable of predicting nuclear weapons could be deployed by 1945. Similarly, the average American could not realistically be expected to have a solid enough grasp of the strategic circumstances to be confident that America actually was safe from invasion. Understanding what people thought in the past, why they thought what they did, and how that effected their decision making is important when we make decisions in the present, since we also must make decisions despite our confusion and uncertainty.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2019 06:44
|
|
|
none of you get my shitposting style gently caress you moms and dads
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2019 06:49
|
|
|
The Japanese leaders could not have foreseen the atomic bomb They could have foreseen cities levelled by firebombing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2019 06:51
|
|
|
There's people in America who felt like ISIS was an existential threat, despite the fact that ISIS could not and did not destroy the fundamental American way of life. 9/11 on the other hand, did kinda wind up destroying and recreating a lot about the America in a way where things were very different afterwards, even if there was still a lot of continuity. You could say that glasnost was an existential threat to the Soviet Union, seeing as how it put them on the path to...not existing. It's not always about physical destruction. It kinda depends what you want to study. Abstract entities, physical objects, or the people involved with them all.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2019 06:55
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:But objectively, they couldn't, so why talk about what they thought?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2019 11:38
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:none of you get my shitposting style well derp
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2019 11:39
|
|
|
HEY GUNS posted:objectively my dudes are starving. Subjectively they are the equals of nobles. the contrast between these drives the plot of my future (!!!???????) book My original thought was basically that the only reason to care about whether a given war was "existential" at all is to discuss the people involved. The potential real outcomes are irrelevant unless you want to up the stakes for reasons and claim that X war was REALLY existential while Y was propaganda poo poo for babies. But then I got drunk and now I'm day drunk, I love all you historical moms and dads.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2019 12:19
|
|
|
Dance Officer posted:Iirc they believed that war was necessary, as well. Specifically, they felt that war with the US was probably inevitable and time was not on Japan's side. The Philippines were a huge American territory right next to the heart of the intended Japanese Empire, and that was a threat the Japanese absolutely could not stand to exist. There were serious (and probably realistic) concerns that if Japan kicked off its military expansion but left the Philippines alone, the Philippines would probably reverse course on their move towards independence in the face of a militarily expansionist Japan, further compounding the problem.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2019 12:32
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:Specifically, they felt that war with the US was probably inevitable and time was not on Japan's side. This kind of fatalism seems pretty common in countries where the civilian authorities have little to no direct authority over the military or are unable to properly exercize it. It was pretty prevalent in Germany in the years leading up to WW1 as well in the figure of "Germany is being surrounded by hostile powers who are banding together" and "in a decade Russia will have completed her strategic railways and further industrialized, in a war they will overwhelm us with numbers at the same time we fight the French" which then gets internalized to the point of "if war is inevitable, better for Germany that it happens sooner rather than later". These kinds of countries never really seem to be able to imagine any kind of resolution to a crisis or conflict other than a military one and they rarely stop to ask themselves why other countries are banding together against them. With Germany at least this kind of attitude contributed tremenodusly to WWI breaking out because it essentially led the German leadership to go "sure, why not, whatever you want, Germany is with you" when the Austro-Hungarians wanted to go to war with Serbia when they and everybody else knew that they wouldn't dare to act without Germany's approval. Randarkman fucked around with this message at 12:56 on Oct 11, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2019 12:54
|
|
|
bewbies posted:I love the hot take that random American guy in 1941 should have known that the Japanese actually didn't have the logistical backbone to support an invasion of the West coast fair Life Magazine story: so in the buildup to Barbarossa, the experts were trying to predict the German's next move now that they were not invading Britain. All the smart money was on an invasion of Turkey, so the Germans could capture Iraq, Syria, and the rest of the mideast, so they could secure enough oil. FuturePastNow posted:Every week there's news and for a year or so, every week that news was bad. Even if you're across the ocean from that news, that's still traumatic. And then, one day, you wake up and the US Pacific fleet has been annihilated. Another Life Magazine story: in the runup to Pearl Harbor, the magazine was really hyping up the Philippines, and its mega general MacArthur. The stories freely predict that if the Philippines fell, the war would last at least a decade and then it falls
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2019 13:11
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:The Japanese leaders could not have foreseen the atomic bomb I'm not sure that's true. Destructive bombing was certainly forseeable, but the ranges in the Pacific are a lot longer. Hitting England from N. France and the Low Countries is a couple hundred miles. Hitting Rotterdam from the Ruhr valley is a hundred miles. In order to properly kick off the firebombing campaign, the US had to take the Northern Marianas, which still makes the trip a 1,500 mile round trip. The B-17 had a max combat range of about 1,500 miles, and planners tended to use a radius number around 800-900 miles because that allowed for significant sub-optimal performance (due to mechanical issues, evasive action, weather, etc). The requirements for the US to execute the firebombing campaign were 1) a longer ranged, heavier aircraft than any currently in service in 1941 2) the capture of forward staging bases in the Western Pacific The 2nd is a great opportunity for the Japanese to fight the decisive battle, and fits in to the Japanese war plan. Either the invasions allow for a decisive engagement, or the war ends before they can occur. Similarly, the Japanese are planning on a 12-18mo war, max - so how are you going to bring a brand new aircraft of those capabilities in to service in that time frame? Granted, it's all optimistic thinking and sort of the power of positive thought - but that was all Japanese war planning.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2019 13:46
|
|
|
I think the Japanese assumed that the US would negotiate a peace quickly like in the case of the Russo-Japanese war. EDIT: Did the Japanese actually expect the Germans to declare on the US? Their treaty with the Germans did not demand it, and I think if they anticipated the Japan-US war as an entirely separate affair and a distraction from what was happening in Europe, a separate limited peace might have seemed more likely. Fangz fucked around with this message at 14:33 on Oct 11, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2019 14:28
|
|
|
Wasn't US politics almost as crazy as ours in the present and they had a growing Isolationist gently caress THIS EUROPE WAR 2.0 thing going on at the time? I mean I can see some Japanese politicians and militarists naively assuming one decisive victory and sudden expansion would tip that stuff in their favor even for a short term goal. How much did the Japanese know about the US Navy slowly moving towards Aircraft Carriers?
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2019 14:34
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:It doesn't have to be an objective matter of literal existence to be existential. All that matters is if the nation perceives the threat as existential and responds to it as such. WW2 wasn't existential even to Soviet Union if we take it literally because Germans could never have conquered Russia, not any more than the Chechnyan wars were existential struggles for Russia. Ehhh... Conquered all of Russia? No, certainly not. Cause an economic and political collapse that radically changes what Russia is going forward? It did happen a few decades before and it becomes more of a question of how close did the Soviet Union get to the brink of disaster in late 1941.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2019 14:43
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:The 2nd is a great opportunity for the Japanese to fight the decisive battle, and fits in to the Japanese war plan. Either the invasions allow for a decisive engagement, or the war ends before they can occur. Similarly, the Japanese are planning on a 12-18mo war, max - so how are you going to bring a brand new aircraft of those capabilities in to service in that time frame? Granted, it's all optimistic thinking and sort of the power of positive thought - but that was all Japanese war planning. The point is that if the U.S. doesn’t get war weary, they will eventually overwhelm Japan. Whether or not Japanese leaders can imagine the U.S. not giving up, the results of a continuing war are foreseeable. If I jump out of an æroplane, I expect my parachute will work. Failing that, the reserve chute ought to. Even so, hitting the ground is a foreseeable result.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2019 14:44
|
|
|
"What Americans view as an existential threat" has kind of been the driving force between international relations for 100 years
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2019 14:44
|
|
|
zoux posted:"What Americans view as an existential threat" has kind of been the driving force between international relations for 100 years It is kind of ironic that the big existential threat of the last couple decades has been authoritarian religious zealotry....
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2019 14:51
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:The point is that if the U.S. doesn’t get war weary, they will eventually overwhelm Japan. i don't understand what your point is
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2019 15:00
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:i don't understand what your point is I think he’s saying Japan must have surely known they were hosed long term? Or that it was definitely a option at least.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2019 15:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 11:41 |
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:i don't understand what your point is Squalid, treating Bewbies’ advanced sarcasm as sincerity, said: Squalid posted:The Japan leaders could not realistically have been expected to predict the development of the nuclear bomb as in 1939 or 1941 nobody in any leadership position was capable of predicting nuclear weapons could be deployed by 1945. This is true, but it’s inconsequential because the end state for Japan is at least as bad without the bomb.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2019 15:10
|
|