(Thread IKs:
weg, Toxic Mental)
|
https://www.politico.eu/article/france-poland-eu-plan-buy-ukraine-ammunition-war/ Joined EU scheme to buy artillery shells for Ukraine delayed, as France insists on only buying from EU suppliers. Poland (rightly) arguing this will add unwanted delays to the deliveries. Just gently caress off already France.
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2023 14:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 22:10 |
|
|
EasilyConfused posted:Have you read anything published since Chamberlain's diaries were released decades ago? They completely disproved the idea of Chamberlain just buying time, he genuinely thought he could avoid war. News to me, thanks.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2023 15:03
|
|
|
I will grant Chamberlain one thing : hindsight is 20-20. From our point of view it was clear stopping Hitler early was the best move, but the people at the time had first hand experience what great power politics, mutual alliances, and a willingness to use force could very easily lead to. In 1938, Chamberlain was hailed as a hero upon his return from Munich, because he managed to avoid war. I just hope we're not making the same mistake as Chamberlain did, he for remembering WW1, us for fearing WW3.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2023 15:08
|
|
|
Philonius posted:I think any negotiated settlement with Russia is a fool's errand, but I could see an agreement where Russia fucks off out of Ukraine completely, and Ukraine formally cedes Crimea. That way there's no territorial dispute. I doubt Russia would agree to such terms unless Ukraine wins decisively on the battlefield, though. Zelensky only adopted a hardline "Crimea is Ukraine" stance after the original negotiations broke down a year ago and showed a lot more flexibility on the issue before then, so I think this is pretty much the plan: recover whatever can be recovered militarily and get in some kind of position to at least threaten Crimea, then use Crimea's status as a bargaining chip at the peace table. Russia's not going to cede territory in exchange for recognizing their prior conquest of Crimea, but if Ukraine can start shelling the Kerch Bridge with impunity then a deal over Crimea's status would have some real teeth.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2023 16:02
|
|
|
I do wonder just how capable Russia will be of rearming and readying for a round 3. They were already experiencing a trend towards demographic and economic decline before the war. This can only be worse now, given sanctions and the complete depletion of Russia's hardware stockpiles. Even if loving Macron trips over himself to welcome Putin back as a trading partner or the international community balks at rebuilding Ukraine, time doesn't seem on Russia's side. Ukraine keeping up its self-defense will further undermine Putin's position, so they'd best keep at it, so long as they're willing. Philonius posted:
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2023 16:11
|
|
|
Philonius posted:https://www.politico.eu/article/france-poland-eu-plan-buy-ukraine-ammunition-war/ So whats the angle? France suggesting they buy from Switzerland who tells the rest of Europe to gently caress themselves and then France throws up their hands and says "welp no more ammo"?
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2023 16:12
|
|
|
Arc Hammer posted:So whats the angle? France suggesting they buy from Switzerland who tells the rest of Europe to gently caress themselves and then France throws up their hands and says "welp no more ammo"? The angle is probably fat contracts for French defense contractors.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2023 16:13
|
|
|
Cugel the Clever posted:
Not sure I want to trust the word 'might' there when the potential consequence is nuclear war. The gloves definitely need to come off when it comes to arms supplies though - no messing around with donating a dozen tanks, delivery scheduled for Q3 24. Give Ukraine what it needs, give it now.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2023 16:17
|
|
|
Philonius posted:I will grant Chamberlain one thing : hindsight is 20-20. Yep. The single biggest reason why he was wrong to delay was not something he could reasonably have expected: Who the gently caress would have though that Stalin was stupid enough to do M-R pact, and then sell Germany enough oil not just to maintain their war effort, but to also stockpile for the invasion of the Soviet Union? After the Polish campaign, Germany only had ~3 months of usage of oil remaining (including production). If Germany would not have gotten supplies from the Soviets, it's questionable if they could have even taken France before literally running dry. A war that starts in Munich ends in two to three years, in the total economic collapse of Germany.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2023 16:51
|
|
|
If my understanding is correct, WW1 started mainly because the nations in Europe had made a bunch of treaties and alliances with each other, so when a minor conflict did break out, everyone involved was basically pushed into (what they thought would be a short) war with varying motivation. I don't think Chamberlein expected Germany's leader, a veteran of WW1 at that, to be so irrational and to go out of his way to pursue that kind of carnage.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2023 17:24
|
|
|
I keep hearing the counter offensive has begun. I posted about some proving attacks last week. I hear about it again today in the zapo direction. A mrch to the sea of azov would spell a deathknell for the Russian supply lines to melitopol. Aswell as essentially giving Ukraine a massive sum of materials to be captured in melitopol. Also keep hearing about the absolute dread and near begging for peace that Russia is doing due to the counter attack. Putin and the Reich know that the game is up if Ukraine can punch a hole in the front. The Russians can't do anything about it of the attacks are far enough from each other. They will have to abandon efforts at Bakhmut very quickly if they want to stabilize the front. 4/20 blazeot Ukraine let's see some big dabs on Russia 🤞
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2023 17:24
|
|
|
WAR CRIME GIGOLO posted:I hear about it again today in the zapo direction. Are you quoting somebody else or have you adopted this weird slavic phrasing?
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2023 17:27
|
|
|
WAR CRIME GIGOLO posted:I keep hearing the counter offensive has begun. I posted about some proving attacks last week. I wonder if this southern counteroffensive is just a partial goal. It's similar to last year where everyone kept screaming WE'RE DOING A COUNTEROFFENSIVE IN KHERSON ANY DAY NOW for months, and then they hit Kharkiv oblast shortly after their Kherson offensive started. Maybe they're trying to pull troops out of Luhansk or something. Or blitz to Murmansk.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2023 17:36
|
|
|
I don’t understand why people think reclaiming Crimea is not achievable by Ukraine. I understand it might be difficult, but it seems like logistics connections could be cut (possibly via the upcoming offensive and another attack on the bridge), and I have trouble seeing how RuAF would support the defense of the peninsula via naval supply. It seems like there are some perceptions I’m not understanding, but I think to not think it’s possible after all that has happened in the last few years, seems odd.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2023 17:43
|
|
|
Tuna-Fish posted:Yep. The single biggest reason why he was wrong to delay was not something he could reasonably have expected: Who the gently caress would have though that Stalin was stupid enough to do M-R pact, and then sell Germany enough oil not just to maintain their war effort, but to also stockpile for the invasion of the Soviet Union? I tend to agree. And on a final note - a different, earlier war would have been a different roll of the dice on the battlefield. The invasion of France tends to be seen as brilliant German tactical innovations decisively trouncing the outdated French army, but it should be realized that their little shortcut through the Ardennes was a very risky move. It could have easily gone very badly for Germany.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2023 17:46
|
|
|
Tiny Timbs posted:Are you quoting somebody else or have you adopted this weird slavic phrasing? That was accidental but gently caress I can't even say that sentence as I wrote it without sounding Slavic
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2023 17:53
|
|
|
Bone Crimes posted:I don’t understand why people think reclaiming Crimea is not achievable by Ukraine. I understand it might be difficult, but it seems like logistics connections could be cut (possibly via the upcoming offensive and another attack on the bridge), and I have trouble seeing how RuAF would support the defense of the peninsula via naval supply. It seems like there are some perceptions I’m not understanding, but I think to not think it’s possible after all that has happened in the last few years, seems odd. Bad geography, very entrenched positions due to being under occupation for almost a decade, hostile population. US analysts have already said multiple times that Ukraine has enough forces for one big offensive and preparing operation to take Crimea by force would take years of enduring war economy. fatherboxx fucked around with this message at 18:04 on Apr 20, 2023 |
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2023 18:01
|
|
|
fatherboxx posted:Bad geography, very entrenched positions due to being under occupation for almost a decade, hostile population. I think it's the last part I don't buy, if Crimea is denied rail lines and is essentially 'under siege' for 6 months +, I don't know if these assumptions hold true. Will the russia-phile population stay through that? Will the Russian Navy risk bringing their ships closer to shore to support? Are the supply depots that much better dug in in Crimea that they are not hittable by drones? While there are dug in spots and tougher geography, I just don't think Crimea after 6-12 months of that type of situation is the same difficulty of problem as it would be right now. And yes, it might not be possible by Ukraine, to say that it is not possible reeks of saying that it's not possible for Ukraine to hold back the RuAF for a year.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2023 18:34
|
|
|
US analysts said Kyiv would fall in 3 days.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2023 18:41
|
|
|
Storkrasch posted:I wonder if this southern counteroffensive is just a partial goal. It's similar to last year where everyone kept screaming WE'RE DOING A COUNTEROFFENSIVE IN KHERSON ANY DAY NOW for months, and then they hit Kharkiv oblast shortly after their Kherson offensive started. All the southern activity is just a ploy to ensure Kaliningrad remains totally undefended
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2023 18:46
|
|
|
Cartoon Man posted:US analysts said Kyiv would fall in 3 days. If you have a more credible read at hand, go on
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2023 18:51
|
|
|
Crimea is going to suck because the approach to it is extremely narrow, Ukraine doesn't have a navy, and Russia has far, far more reason to defend it than the fake separatist republics. Not saying they can't do it, but it'd be extremely hard short of Russian morale just flattening and everyone fleeing to the border.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2023 18:55
|
|
|
Deki posted:Crimea is going to suck because the approach to it is extremely narrow, Ukraine doesn't have a navy, and Russia has far, far more reason to defend it than the fake separatist republics. I seriously doubt Ukraine is going to have to invade Crimea. Once it is besieged, it's only a matter of time before the Russians abandon it voluntarily. The isthmus works both ways. Russians aren't going to be able to attack readily out of Crimea, either. A fairly small force can plug the bottle while the rest of the Ukrainian forces focus on Donbass.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2023 18:58
|
|
|
Ukraine doesn't have to take Crimea to make Crimea an untenable situation. Unlike Nazi Germany versus the USSR HIMARS are a thing. The entire island can have it's shipping traffic and bridge traffic reduced to zero. They cannot farm without the water taps being turned on in the mainland. It's a lovely island to defend without having black Sea dominance and vectors for reinforcements to come in. If Crimea is completely blockaded then Russia can either let it's citizens starve or order a retreat. They aren't going to order a retreat. In a hypothetical collapse of the Russian military, I could see Crimea being a bloodless surrender by local commanders wanting to get themselves and their families out without reprisal from Russia for "cowardice"
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2023 19:02
|
|
|
Deki posted:Crimea is going to suck because the approach to it is extremely narrow, Ukraine doesn't have a navy, and Russia has far, far more reason to defend it than the fake separatist republics. I doubt Russia's gonna suddenly HAVE forces to defend with if they lose mainland Ukraine. They took a lot of units out of Crimea and shifted them into the blood bath on the mainland. Ukraine practically just has to cut off Crimea and it will fall.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2023 19:06
|
|
|
Yeah I doubt Ukraine plans to "yolo" into Crimea or do a "leroy jenkins" type attack. Ukraine retakes southern Ukraine, which is back to basically pre-current invasion borders. Putin's successor make a deal for a 99 year lease on a warm-water port in exchange for russian forces leaving Crimea/Donbas etc. Russia claims victory in securing warm water access for the next century.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2023 19:09
|
|
|
fatherboxx posted:https://twitter.com/kirlant/status/1648748484055425033 Ukraine's response: https://twitter.com/irgarner/status/1649095623730163714?s=20
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2023 19:11
|
|
|
GABA ghoul posted:I would still count that as "territorial dispute" and, honestly, I feel extremely uneasy letting Ukraine into NATO under these circumstances. Nothing stops a newly elected revanchist Ukrainian government from reopening the issue at some point and trying to pull off a Falklands and then we are potentially in a direct standoff between nuclear armed power blocks. The Turkey/Greece/Cyprus situation is already a huge headache for NATO. I think most member states think the same way. This is as unlikely as a Ukrainian invasion of Russian territory (I don't consider the Free Russian dudes that keep making raids into Belgorod to qualify for this, I mean an actual invasion like Russia did to Ukraine). For one, Ukraine's formal position is and has been that they will not cede territory, period. They have no changed from this and there is no reason to expect that they will. Ukraine won't stop fighting just because the West says to, or says to negotiate. Ceding Crimea to Russia is just rewarding them for the invasion and they'll be back. For there to be a lasting piece, Russia must get nothing but cargo 200s until they leave.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2023 19:32
|
|
|
Minorkos posted:If my understanding is correct, WW1 started mainly because the nations in Europe had made a bunch of treaties and alliances with each other, so when a minor conflict did break out, everyone involved was basically pushed into (what they thought would be a short) war with varying motivation. Kinda, with the addendum that Europe also hosted too many great powers and wannabe great powers, who all wanted more resources, more land, the chance to settle old scores, reclaim lost territories etc. France and Russia both kinda wanted a war with Germany real bad due to poo poo the Prussians had done. The Germans wanted a war with Russia and France, and also wanted to get the kind of colonial holdings and prestige France, Great Britain etc had. Austria-Hungary wanted to stomp out Serbia once and for all. The general line of thinking was (for various reasons, depending on which great power you asked) that this was the best time for war. In a decade or two our enemies would be stronger, they'd have completed army reforms, built more railroads, gained an even bigger advantage in manpower. So if there's to be a war, let it come now. Pacts and a web of alliances definitely played a part, because they meant that once the Austro-Hungarians decided to go stomp on Serbia, Russia stepped in as the protector of slavs. When that happened, Germany was drawn in to fight them. Because France and Russia were allied, France was also drawn in. But they all wanted to fight each other anyway and just treated the situation as an excuse. War was something European powers were used to, and they hadn't been THAT big a deal in the past, so the powers that be weren't that scared of having another dust-up. This time technology and the industrialisation of nations meant that it was going to be an extremely big deal, though. The fun thing is that if people had been paying attention, they 100% would have known, because the Russo-Japanese war (and other smaller conflicts) had already shown what modern technology would mean in a war, but the racists ignored it because it was just a bunch of backwards barbarians / lesser people from faraway countries. Isn't gonna happen to us, we're smart European powers. We can handle it. Cue 19,7 million deaths. I would wholeheartedly recommend Barbara Tuchman's book "The Guns of August", which basically introduces the the background for the war, and then starts from Arch Duke Franz Ferdinand's funeral to lay out step by step how the world slid to war, ultimately because even though a lot of people didn't want it, enough right people did. Shaman Tank Spec fucked around with this message at 19:43 on Apr 20, 2023 |
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2023 19:37
|
|
|
Shaman Tank Spec posted:Kinda, with the addendum that Europe also hosted too many great powers and wannabe great powers, who all wanted more resources, more land, the chance to settle old scores, reclaim lost territories etc. France and Russia both kinda wanted a war with Germany real bad due to poo poo the Prussians had done. The Germans wanted a war with Russia and France, and also wanted to get the kind of colonial holdings and prestige France, Great Britain etc had. Austria-Hungary wanted to stomp out Serbia once and for all. I was about to make pretty much this exact post, right down to the Guns of August plug  One thing I'll add is that mobilizing your armies at that time took about a month, and until your army was fully mobilized your military strength was severely reduced, so there was also this idea that if you waited to start mobilizing until war was unavoidable, you risked your enemy starting their mobilization a week or two earlier and getting the jump on you before you were ready. It's kinda similar to the game theory ideas about nuclear weapons during the cold war: you had to be ready to commit to a total war before ever confirming that your opponent was even attacking you, because otherwise you might lose the ability to even fight back.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2023 19:43
|
|
|
People called Russianes they go the house
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2023 19:46
|
|
|
Lord Harbor posted:One thing I'll add is that mobilizing your armies at that time took about a month, and until your army was fully mobilized your military strength was severely reduced, so there was also this idea that if you waited to start mobilizing until war was unavoidable, you risked your enemy starting their mobilization a week or two earlier and getting the jump on you before you were ready. Yes, that's a good addition and clarification.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2023 19:49
|
|
|
Shaman Tank Spec posted:I would wholeheartedly recommend Barbara Tuchman's book "The Guns of August", which basically introduces the the background for the war, and then starts from Arch Duke Franz Ferdinand's funeral to lay out step by step how the world slid to war, ultimately because even though a lot of people didn't want it, enough right people did. While The Guns of August is a great narrative work and a classic in a literary sense, by modern historiography it is not considered to be very accurate. For example: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/aug/03/guns-of-august-barbara-tuchman
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2023 20:02
|
|
|
bad_fmr posted:While The Guns of August is a great narrative work and a classic in a literary sense, by modern historiography it is not considered to be very accurate. A bit sad but not surprising, considering it is 60 years old. What would you recommend as a good modern equivalent? I'm currently wrapping up Peter Hart's Voices from the Front: An Oral History of the Great War so I'm in the market.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2023 20:07
|
|
|
bad_fmr posted:While The Guns of August is a great narrative work and a classic in a literary sense, by modern historiography it is not considered to be very accurate. So, uh, good on you Barbara Tuchman.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2023 20:08
|
|
|
Good sources that aren't The Guns of August (I've lifted the summaries elsewhere because I don't have time to summarize them all myself but I can vouch for these sources being great because I've used them before as references myself when writing historiographies of mobilization) The First World War by John Keegan - Keegan's book has become a modern-day classic, representing the most popular view of the Great War: a bloody and futile conflict, fought in chaos, causing the unnecessary death of millions. Three concentrations of black and white photographs and a selection of quality maps accompany a superbly written narrative that expertly guides the reader through a complex period. 1914-1918: The History of the First World War by David Stevenson - Stevenson tackles vital elements of the war missing from more military accounts, and is a good addition to Keegan. If you only read one breakdown of the financial situation affecting Britain and France (and how the US helped before they declared war), make it the relevant chapter here. The FIrst World War by Gerard De Groot - Recommended by several university lecturers as the best single-volume introduction for students, this is a relatively small, and thus more easily digested volume which should be affordable. A superb overall account of events, with enough bite to keep Great War experts interested. The Sleepwalkers: How Europe Went to War in 1914 by Christopher Clark - Clark has won awards for his work on German history, and here he tackles, in great detail, the start of the First World War. His volume debates how the war began, and by refusing to blame Germany--and instead blaming all of Europe--has been accused of bias. [TB Note: This one ruffled some feathers among academics but it's worth a read anyway because I've always felt blaming Germany solely was a bunch of horse poo poo from the start] HonorableTB fucked around with this message at 20:34 on Apr 20, 2023 |
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2023 20:29
|
|
|
Blueprint for Armageddon Dan carlin. Unbelievable audio story of WW1. Downright depressing and very comprehensive.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2023 20:39
|
|
|
I'm a fan of the line from Blackadder: "The reason for the war is that it became too much of a bother not to have a war."
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2023 20:44
|
|
|
WAR CRIME GIGOLO posted:Blueprint for Armageddon Dan carlin. I'm not sure if all the episodes are available anymore, he has a habit of deleting them. Anyone getting into Hardcore History also needs to be prepared for each episode to be about six hours long, and it may take 5 years to actually complete the series. He's monumentally slow and ponderous when it comes to that show
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2023 20:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 22:10 |
|
|
HonorableTB posted:I'm not sure if all the episodes are available anymore, he has a habit of deleting them. Anyone getting into Hardcore History also needs to be prepared for each episode to be about six hours long, and it may take 5 years to actually complete the series. He's monumentally slow and ponderous when it comes to that show It's 14.99 US. But it's 25 hours long or so so it's a books worth of time.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2023 20:57
|
|