|
Concerning the D-day landing, I've recently listened to the latest Hardcore History episode about WWI. In it Dan Carlin talked about the Gallipoli landing disaster and how the people who fought there would later then be in position to prepare the D-day landing. Could the memory of Gallipoli and the sharp contrast between that clusterfuck and the relately smooth D-day landing also have been a factor in the perception of D-day as unprecedented success?
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2014 00:53
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 20, 2024 13:22 |
|
|
So as I understand it, Japan could have drawn out the war in the Pacific by winning some of the battles they didn't but ultimately still would have lost. My question is, if Japan had succeeded in doing this, would the Soviet entry in the war have a greater impact, maybe even have reached Japan before the US did? Historically they pretty much rolled over Manchuria but I'm not sure how their naval capabilities looked like at the time.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2014 23:18
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:The only way for Japan to win a war against the USA was to convince America that a prolonged fight wasn't worth it- it would be easier to negotiate, cut a deal, agree to neutralize the Philippines and help resolve the Sino-Japanese War as a neutral arbitrator in exchange for the Japanese retreating from their colonial conquests, etc. than to fight. The high command had the well-known decisive battle approach, Yamamoto believed that he could achieve this via doing enough damage to the Pacific Fleet, etc. but nobody on the Japanese side was under any illusions about what a prolonged war meant (and a substantial number of civilians figured that they were doomed as soon as they got over the rush from finally fighting a colonial power instead of murdering fellow Asians). So from this perspective, all it would do, at best, is delay the amount of time before a few dozen carriers and battleships steamrollered the Combined Fleet. In that case, wouldn't a surprise attack like Pearl Harbor or a terrorist attack like that Panama Canal plan Nenonen proposed really be the worst possible thing to do? I.e. if you want to wage a 'traditional' war, which is what the decisive battle followed by treaty negotiations really is, shouldn't you try to adhere to the customs like the timely declaration of war as much as possible? Do we know if anyone e.g. Yamamoto considered this angle?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2015 17:21
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:That doesn't mean the US military is right. Sure, hardened targets would probably be something only a dedicated team could get into but wouldn't the greater danger be to civilian infrastructure? A combined attack like Stuxnet could do enormous amounts of damage, especially due to the greater interconnectedness typical these days. E.g. mucking with Wallstreet or Comcast or whatever could be a perfect terror attack and thus also tie up government resources. I'm sure there's plenty of low hanging fruit that don't require access to sensitive places.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2015 19:56
|
|
They're as sensitive to hype as any other organisation.