|
mlmp08 posted:The attempted coup was such a shitshow. A bunch of guys trying to forge letters, getting physically lost in a dark bureaucracy, a leader committing suicide and apologizing, then in the morning being told to gently caress off by the rest of the military. The 2015 Japanese film The Emperor in August, itself a remake of an earlier film, is a fascinating insight into not only the coup but the imperial cabinet at the time and their deadlock over whether to surrender. The Emperor had to actually break the tie, which was practically unheard of.
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2023 10:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 17:05 |
|
|
psydude posted:There seems to be a resurgent revisionism that asserts Europe was liberated entirely by the USSR with little to no help from the allies, which has become more pronounced in online Tankie circles since Russia invaded Ukraine. It's always conveniently ignored the fact that the US and UK were fighting a second major war in the Indo-Pacific; this smells like an attempt to fix that narrative by conveniently overstating the degree to which the USSR was active in that theatre. Really? I don't think here in Germany anybody will forget what the Americans and Brits did for us. I would even say the US are absolutely attributed the primary role among the allies. I was born in the 80ies, so I can't speak for today's education in schools, but back then in school and today in exhibitions, museums, media etc, the Americans always play a major role.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2023 10:17
|
|
|
A.o.D. posted:I tend to regard the discourse around "Actually Japan surrendered because of Russia" as a solid bit of revisionism. The Russians did not have the means to conduct an opposed beach landing in the Pacific ocean, and didn't have the logistics to sustain an army even if they did. Japan's proposed terms didn't indicate that they were seriously looking for an end to hostilities with the Soviet Union, either. What territory the Russians did take was essentially an unopposed land grab after de facto hostilities had ended. Unless you think that the military that had completely annihilated Japan's Navy, Air Forces, and that was already occupying Japanese home territory wasn't a factor in the decision to surrender, I don't see much logic that supports that Stalin was the cause of Japanese surrender. I think this is a misunderstanding of the Japanese position: they were angling for a status-quo-ante peace keeping their imperial possessions in mainland Asia on the basis that: 1) they can make an invasion of the Japanese homeland prohibitively painful for the US; and 2) nobody is actually coming to dig them out of China and Manchuria so if they are sitting on that territory and can get a white peace with the US then they get to keep their empire by default. The A-bombs and the Soviet invasion are a simultaneous one-two punch to both planks of the argument that Japan should continue to fight. There's not going to be any costly invasion of the home territory because the US has the option to just keep dropping nukes on cities. And there's no advantage to trying to wait them out because the Russians are taking the continental empire away from you right now. So I don't think the two events are separable and I lean towards the view that the fact that they were time-coincident was probably actually quite significant in terms collapsing the entire 'keep fighting' argument at once rather than letting the war faction discard one argument and spend time fabricating a replacement before the other was lost.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2023 10:20
|
|
|
Hopper posted:Really? I don't think here in Germany anybody will forget what the Americans and Brits did for us. I would even say the US are absolutely attributed the primary role among the allies. I was born in the 80ies, so I can't speak for today's education in schools, but back then in school and today in exhibitions, museums, media etc, the Americans always play a major role. I don't think that psydude was talking about thoughts within average European or American discussion circles, more that in Russia and discussion groups favorable to the Russian POV, they wildly overstate how much Russia did, because Russian historians need to explain away why they lost so many tens of millions of Russians in WW2. It's easier to say you were the only group pulling weight in the Allies than to say that there were a lot of stupid and heinous decisions in Soviet command that led to way higher casualties than there needed to be. There were smart decisions of course but Soviet doctrine did not especially value the lives of the troops over the success of the operation, and Soviet military leaders were definitely more willing to accept a higher casualty level to secure an objective than the US or UK would have been. Then again, it's also understandable when you have invaders outside your capital city you're going to spend every troop you have into the breach to stop them before they get any further. orange juche fucked around with this message at 12:24 on Mar 11, 2023 |
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2023 12:20
|
|
|
Hopper posted:Really? I don't think here in Germany anybody will forget what the Americans and Brits did for us. I would even say the US are absolutely attributed the primary role among the allies. I was born in the 80ies, so I can't speak for today's education in schools, but back then in school and today in exhibitions, museums, media etc, the Americans always play a major role. I'm curious if this differs at all between East and West Germany. The older generation of East Germans probably had an education that emphasized Russia more and the US less, I imagine.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2023 12:22
|
|
|
Tomn posted:I'm curious if this differs at all between East and West Germany. The older generation of East Germans probably had an education that emphasized Russia more and the US less, I imagine. This is the sense that I've gotten, yeah. They're proposing to make English the second official language right now, which would require all administrative offices to provide English documentation and support (the driver behind this is that Germany struggles to attract skilled immigrants; most people looking to move internationally learn English). East Germany is complaining about it because most folks over 40 there (so the majority of the people in bureaucracy) learned Russian instead of English as a second language.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2023 13:24
|
|
|
psydude posted:There seems to be a resurgent revisionism that asserts Europe was liberated entirely by the USSR with little to no help from the allies, which has become more pronounced in online Tankie circles since Russia invaded Ukraine. It's always conveniently ignored the fact that the US and UK were fighting a second major war in the Indo-Pacific; this smells like an attempt to fix that narrative by conveniently overstating the degree to which the USSR was active in that theatre. I don’t know what the Eastern Front would have looked like if England called it quits and the US remained neutral but things would have been a lot harder there if Hitler had all the natural resources of North Africa and the Middle East along with his forces from those areas and potentially Mussolini’s army to aid him. It’s an interesting counterfactual which I wonder if anyone has modeled.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2023 13:34
|
|
|
Murgos posted:I don’t know what the Eastern Front would have looked like if England called it quits and the US remained neutral but things would have been a lot harder there if Hitler had all the natural resources of North Africa and the Middle East along with his forces from those areas and potentially Mussolini’s army to aid him. every neo fascist who fancies themselves the second coming of Rommel I imagine.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2023 13:42
|
|
|
I mean, what does "remaining neutral" mean? Is the US selling or lending equipment to the Soviet Union? Are they selling oil to Germany? What exactly does the UK "calling it quits" look like? How is the rest of the neutral world reacting? Keep in mind, one of the big things about the UK being in the fight isn't just "a plucky little defiant annoyance in the rear of the German Reich," it's "Yeah we're straight up instituting a naval blockade on an entire continent and preventing the colonial resources of the French overseas empire from getting to Europe as well as preventing any neutral trade from South America or anywhere else from happening in any significant quantity." Any hypothetical in which neither the US or the UK are at war with Germany means they suddenly have unfettered access to world markets and that's kinda huge in and of itself - unless the politics of any peace deal has shaken things out in a way that trade with Germany is still unattractive for some reason.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2023 13:56
|
|
|
orange juche posted:I don't think that psydude was talking about thoughts within average European or American discussion circles, more that in Russia and discussion groups favorable to the Russian POV, they wildly overstate how much Russia did, because Russian historians need to explain away why they lost so many tens of millions of Russians in WW2. It's easier to say you were the only group pulling weight in the Allies than to say that there were a lot of stupid and heinous decisions in Soviet command that led to way higher casualties than there needed to be. Also that they like to conveniently forget that the USSR was essentially part of the Axis for a full quarter of the entire war.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2023 14:36
|
|
|
OSU_Matthew posted:Thank you for all the extra context and details! This is all really helpful information I never knew much about. I've just been seeing the bit about the intercepted cables and attempts to surrender prior to the bombs pop up in various places over the past few years, but everything recently discussed really helps make a lot more sense of it. If there's one idea I'd like to stress to you about attempting to understand history, it is that people in the past did not have clear pictures of all the information. Historians write with the benefit of hindsight and can generally write with some degree of accuracy about what everyone involved was happening. But history itself isn't like that. To keep using the atomic bomb as an example, let's use Truman's decision to drop the bomb. What he knew was that the US military had a new type of bomb capable of inflicting vastly greater destruction than any weapon before it, he knew that the US military had identified targets for the bomb in accordance with the existing strategic bombing campaign (which was ostensibly about targeting Japanese military industry, not massacring civilians), and he knew that the Japanese government had been seeking peace terms through the Soviet Union that let them keep all of their 1930s conquests. Truman authorized the use of the bomb in hopes of leading the Japanese government to capitulate. What Truman did not know was anything about how atomic bombs worked, exactly what targets had been selected, or any details on the conflicts within the Japanese government or the possibility that Emperor Hirohito might intervene. Historians can and do say that Truman's decision to use the atomic bomb worked and had the desired effect leading to the end of the war. However, that is not to say that Truman authorized the bomb because he knew it would lead to the end of the war. He made a decision based on the information that had been made available to him, which was not a complete picture of what the bomb was, how it would be used, or how the Japanese government might react. Also, how all of this works hasn't changed. People in charge of world-altering decisions even today typically have a lot less information about what they're doing than you might think they do.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2023 14:40
|
|
|
The sheer amount of aid to the USSR via Lend-Lease was immense, and folks tend to forget about it. It really let the USSR focus their industrial capacity on other priorities.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2023 15:34
|
|
|
No commentary required https://twitter.com/SamRamani2/status/1634353615681748995
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2023 15:34
|
|
|
"buy the bones of the soviet union for rubles on the dollar"
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2023 15:38
|
|
|
Jimmy Smuts posted:The sheer amount of aid to the USSR via Lend-Lease was immense, and folks tend to forget about it. It really let the USSR focus their industrial capacity on other priorities. Btw, can you recommend a book on this? I've only heard bits of this, like 90% of all copper being shipped in from the US or nearly all the aviation fuel supplied by lend-lease. Or that the big "tractor" factories in Charkiw were built Detroit-style by the US before the war, with them fully being convertible to tank production from the start.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2023 15:44
|
|
|
There's a video of a Lancet hitting a Stormer HVM, both from the Lancet and a spotter drone. As is often the case, the video doesn't show the aftermath so it's hard to know how much damage was done, but it's a loss given they won't have that many ("at least six"). Also the first damage to any of the CVR(T) platforms donated that I've seen.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2023 15:51
|
|
|
Power Khan posted:Btw, can you recommend a book on this? I've only heard bits of this, like 90% of all copper being shipped in from the US or nearly all the aviation fuel supplied by lend-lease. I have no specific books to recommend, it's all just things I've read throughout my life from many sources, but it's very eye-opening and has made me question whether the USSR would have won at a later date without Lend-Lease.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2023 15:59
|
|
|
Tomn posted:It’s worth noting that yes, American public history education, like public history education in many countries, can be pretty jingoistic. However, many people who grew up on that fall into the opposite trap where they learn that the US was sometimes pretty drat evil and then go on to assume that the US is a unique fountainhead of all that is bad in the world, incapable of doing anything positive and only ever possessing wholly malevolent motivations, because if you can’t trust the propaganda the complete opposite must be true, right? Can we post this at the beginning of each new month's CE thread, please?
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2023 16:49
|
|
|
Jimmy Smuts posted:That's another thing, the USSR made contracts with US companies for them to create US-style factories in the USSR in the 20s and 30s. And not just vehicle ones, factories such as watches too, which ended up being important in war when you're trying to synchronize an attack. A lot of those WW2 pictures you see of Soviet factories were built under supervision by a US company. I remember someone on the military history thread did a fascinating effort post about the colossal size of those factories and the US companies involvement. Reminder if anyone didn’t know, we have a fantastic Military History thread, https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3950461. Excellent nice folk who have answered a lot of my questions like “why did General Sherman go this way and not that way?” or “France is so close to England, why didn’t the nazis put artillery on the coast?” prompting in depth responses with photos of how they were doing that. Also appreciate how they’re quick to ridicule any hints of folks thinking Germany may have had good ideas, which is rare in online discussion of WWII.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2023 16:59
|
|
|
Jimmy Smuts posted:That's another thing, the USSR made contracts with US companies for them to create US-style factories in the USSR in the 20s and 30s. And not just vehicle ones, factories such as watches too, which ended up being important in war when you're trying to synchronize an attack. A lot of those WW2 pictures you see of Soviet factories were built under supervision by a US company. Kamil Galeev wrote what I thought was a thoughtful and detailed post about how US companies designed and supervised the construction of USSR factories: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1505247886908424195.html
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2023 17:06
|
|
|
jimmy mnemonic posted:Kamil Galeev wrote what I thought was a thoughtful and detailed post about how US companies designed and supervised the construction of USSR factories: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1505247886908424195.html I wouldn't trust anything Kamil says. He writes about areas where he has no expertise and then preemptively blocks actual experts so they don't have a chance to correct him.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2023 17:13
|
|
|
Flappy Bert posted:Also that they like to conveniently forget that the USSR was essentially part of the Axis for a full quarter of the entire war. That's the interesting counterfactual to me. You don't even have to go all the way to "What if Stalin hadn't agreed to go splitsies on eastern Europe with Hitler" you can ask "What if he hadn't trusted the Nazis so much that the inevitable betrayal caught the Soviets completely off guard?" Either of those might make a really dramatic effect on Soviet deaths. I'm not sure if anyone hosed up his own country's interests more than Stalin in the leadup to WWII and actually survived the war, much less stayed in power.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2023 17:50
|
|
|
Pine Cone Jones posted:https://twitter.com/TheStudyofWar/status/1634382326439329792?t=A7rYqGSD_eioithsj2FO4Q&s=19 Putin must be loving this. a) They get to 'make gains'. b) The wagner group gets depleted and isn't a threat to his regime any more.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2023 19:52
|
|
|
Cimber posted:Putin must be loving this. They were never a real threat. Putin allowed them to exist since they were a useful proxy in Africa, Syria, and in Ukraine since their casualties were hidden from public view. All power derives from Putin and what he will allow, at least currently. Theres no indication of a competing power anywhere.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2023 19:57
|
|
|
lightpole posted:They were never a real threat. Putin allowed them to exist since they were a useful proxy in Africa, Syria, and in Ukraine since their casualties were hidden from public view. All power derives from Putin and what he will allow, at least currently. Theres no indication of a competing power anywhere. They’re more like a feudal warband. Too small to actually threaten the state, sure. But big enough to cause problems if they went rogue.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2023 20:00
|
|
|
They have nowhere to go. Everything they have is derived from the state. The outside world regards them as war criminals. They can't hide assets, their equipment comes from the state, they can't really hide in Russia. Edit: They compete with the state for their people. They were cut off from prisons because of this and now have to try and buy recruits. lightpole fucked around with this message at 20:05 on Mar 11, 2023 |
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2023 20:03
|
|
|
Cimber posted:Putin must be loving this. Why would Wagner do this, though? Do they not know it’s a bad idea? 12th dimensional Russian power chess?
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2023 20:04
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:Why would Wagner do this, though? Do they not know it’s a bad idea? 12th dimensional Russian power chess? Well, I don't think they knew this going into the fight a few months back. I suspect they thought they would be the glorious tip of the spear and would gain lots of power and prestege. IIRC they actually did fairly well at first, then their boss starte talking smack and I suspect Putin said "ut oh, we better but the boot on these guys. Last thing I want is them getting to big for their britches and being the armed force that is lead by my friends to depose me and put a friend in my place"
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2023 20:08
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:Why would Wagner do this, though? Do they not know it’s a bad idea? 12th dimensional Russian power chess? Prigozhin was angling for power in the Kremlin, trying to show that his Wagner group could accomplish what the regular Russian military could not. Thus Bakhmut became hugely important to him personally, as all of his political plans hinged on it. I don't know if Putin deliberately cut his legs out from under him or just laughed when he did it to himself, but it's significant that the Russian military is stepping in to finish the job that Wagner couldn't.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2023 20:13
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Prigozhin was angling for power in the Kremlin, trying to show that his Wagner group could accomplish what the regular Russian military could not. Thus Bakhmut became hugely important to him personally, as all of his political plans hinged on it. Well, considering that reportedly the ammo supply was cut, I would imagine that either Putin ordered it, or jealous generals did it and Putin went along with it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2023 20:35
|
|
|
lightpole posted:They have nowhere to go. Everything they have is derived from the state. The outside world regards them as war criminals. They can't hide assets, their equipment comes from the state, they can't really hide in Russia. They’ve carved out a significant powerbase in the CAR. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/24/...ce=articleShare
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2023 23:11
|
|
|
Cimber posted:Well, I don't think they knew this going into the fight a few months back. I suspect they thought they would be the glorious tip of the spear and would gain lots of power and prestege. IIRC they actually did fairly well at first, then their boss starte talking smack and I suspect Putin said "ut oh, we better but the boot on these guys. Last thing I want is them getting to big for their britches and being the armed force that is lead by my friends to depose me and put a friend in my place" I thought Wagner had enough autonomy to say “no thanks” to an assault like this now, but maybe they’re committed to…smashing themselves against Azol.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2023 23:27
|
|
|
Borscht posted:https://twitter.com/AlexandruC4/status/1634296480101015553 If you've snuck into a military airbase and torched a jet, why would you stick around to film it rather than getting the gently caress out immediately?
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2023 23:46
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/TheStudyofWar/status/1634680800523300865?t=82F4hBKkK3342_yMB0TKaA&s=19 Also, I don't know how many others here subscribe to war on the rocks, but the russia contingency podcast has been excellent. Especially with a number of the war on the rocks staff actually going into Ukraine and Bakhmut over the past few weeks.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2023 23:47
|
|
|
Hyperlynx posted:If you've snuck into a military airbase and torched a jet, why would you stick around to film it rather than getting the gently caress out immediately? Propaganda value. Russia can easily cover up an incident like this. With video evidence not so much.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2023 23:53
|
|
|
Hyperlynx posted:If you've snuck into a military airbase and torched a jet, why would you stick around to film it rather than getting the gently caress out immediately? The value of the thing is the propaganda, not the loss of one airframe. e;fb
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2023 23:54
|
|
|
spankmeister posted:With video evidence not so much. That's why the video would be more convincing if there was any evidence whatsoever of it taking place where they said it did and against a target that was functional pre-fire.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2023 23:55
|
|
|
Eh, we're talking about it now aren't we?
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2023 23:56
|
|
|
spankmeister posted:Eh, we're talking about it now aren't we? In the sense that I am talking about how the video does nothing to convince me that partisans attacked Vladivsotok, yes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2023 00:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 17:05 |
|
|
It would have been helpful if they'd have at least gotten a shot of the tail number or some other identifying mark.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2023 01:40
|
|