For History Buffs

[phdhorn 6225]

One of the most interesting things about 

9 hours ago, NeverMarryAStripper said:

Visited the Arizona Memorial during 91 and I have a 50th anniversary shirt.  Thank for making me feel old(er)

One of the most interesting things about the Pearl Harbor Memorial is Elvis's part in getting it funded and built.  And it was a big part:

https://pearlharbor.org/faqs/did-elvis-presley-pay-for-the-arizona-memorial/
https://pearlharborwarbirds.com/the-story-of-elvis-presley-at-the-pearl-harbor-memorial/

Not only did the concert raise (for that time) a boatoad of $, but it informed the country of it, and the money rolled in even more.

[Ghost of LL 15705]

On 12/7/2020 at 11:35 AM, TwiceHorn said:

I suppose passage of time accounts for much of it.  WWI I suppose really wasn't that significant to American history, as opposed to world history with a significant, but sort of indirect, impact on the US.

Another thing is that since WWII, we have engaged in a series of much more morally ambiguous wars, so to today's youth and young, not only is it ancient history, but it's probably hard for them to conceive of as anything other than a corrupt thing on behalf of oil or other business interests or misguided anti-communist efforts.

If you can't find the moral ambiguity in World War II, you're not looking very hard.

Our alliance-of-convenience with the Soviet Union is very morally problematic.  We didn't just treat them as a co-belligerent that happened to be fighting against the same enemy (which is how they treated us).  We treated them as a genuine ally, which they were not.  We provided trillions of dollars in Lend-Lease aid that was used to subjugate the peoples of Eastern Europe.  And we acquiesced to the Soviet subjugation of those people and, bizarrely, to the Soviet conquest of Manchuria and North Korea (even the Soviet Union didn't do much to help in the fight against Japan).  There was no real geopolitical reason for us to do that, and our actions resulted in the deaths of millions.

And while we're at it, let's just acknowledge that we weren't wearing a completely white hat in the Pacific.  Yeah--Japan attacked us.  But we didn't leave them with any viable alternative.  And as you look at those negotiations during 1941, you really have to wonder whether the United States was negotiating in good faith.

[Macanudo 13339]

I've said it before (maybe even in this thread) but if you have never been to Pearl and you get to visit, you'll be shocked at how small the harbor really is.    When we went in 96 and the panoramic windows opened after the movie, you're staring out across to the Arizona and Ford Island.    It's unbelievable how small it all looks.   I'd love to see it now with the Missouri there.  

[atomheartbevo 90673]

5 hours ago, TexasGrunt said:

Speaking of age. I was in Desert Storm. I am now 55..... I do remember that my platoon sergeant's and drill sergeant's were in in Vietnam.

I'm younger than you but went through basic training in the early 90s and while our drill instructors were younger (came in during the late 70s or during the big buildup in the '80s) we had plenty of Vietnam vets who were senior enlisted.  We also had plenty of equipment left over from Vietnam, but that's TRADOC for you.

On a side note, the last active-duty soldier from Vietnam retired in 2015 and the last draftee retired in 2014.  After 40+ years of service.

https://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/vietnam-vet-active-duty-retire-42-years-article-1.2277477

 

[atomheartbevo 90673]

3 hours ago, Macanudo said:

I've said it before (maybe even in this thread) but if you have never been to Pearl and you get to visit, you'll be shocked at how small the harbor really is.    When we went in 96 and the panoramic windows opened after the movie, you're staring out across to the Arizona and Ford Island.    It's unbelievable how small it all looks.   I'd love to see it now with the Missouri there.  

That video I posted on the previous thread really drives it home - the guy even mentions that the Japanese could have easily nailed our fuel/repair facilities and just obliterated a huge chunk of the naval facilities because they were so close due to everything being packed together, but they were hyper-focused on the short-term.  

Prop-driven torpedo bombers had less than 6 seconds to drop their torpedoes on battleships other than the Oklahoma and West Virginia because there was so little room once you get away from the channel that pointed at the Oklahoma and WV.

If they had wrecked the fuel depot/etc. instead of the battleships, there's a good chance they get Midway and and have a lot longer to run wild.  Doubtful the Battle of Midway happens.  At least, not the way that it happened.  More like the Invasion of Midway.

Edited November 8, 2021 by atomheartbevo

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

3 hours ago, Ghost of LL said:

If you can't find the moral ambiguity in World War II, you're not looking very hard.

Our alliance-of-convenience with the Soviet Union is very morally problematic.  We didn't just treat them as a co-belligerent that happened to be fighting against the same enemy (which is how they treated us).  We treated them as a genuine ally, which they were not.  We provided trillions of dollars in Lend-Lease aid that was used to subjugate the peoples of Eastern Europe.  And we acquiesced to the Soviet subjugation of those people and, bizarrely, to the Soviet conquest of Manchuria and North Korea (even the Soviet Union didn't do much to help in the fight against Japan).  There was no real geopolitical reason for us to do that, and our actions resulted in the deaths of millions.

And while we're at it, let's just acknowledge that we weren't wearing a completely white hat in the Pacific.  Yeah--Japan attacked us.  But we didn't leave them with any viable alternative.  And as you look at those negotiations during 1941, you really have to wonder whether the United States was negotiating in good faith.

Well…. I guess we could all just be speaking German now.  20-20 hind sight is always easy to acquire.

I've often wondered how much we knew about how bad Stalin was before WWII. It’s a bit like when did we know about the concentration camps ?

The enemy of my enemy is my friend comes to mind as well. World war makes for strange bedfellows and winning the war at prettty much all Costs was the order of the day. 
 

What would you have done differently ?  We have a unique position looking back instead of acting on the heat and now.

[atomheartbevo 90673]

22 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

I've often wondered how much we knew about how bad Stalin was before WWII. It’s a bit like when did we know about the concentration camps ?

We knew that things were bad even before Stalin took control.  Hell, we had 13,000 American soldiers in Russia in 1918 or 1919 and the Bolsheviks were trying to kill every one of them that they could.  There was plenty of intelligence flowing out after Stalin took over - kind of hard to hide a lot of that stuff when his grip wasn't completely solidified and some of those cities still had open trade going on.  The British and French certainly knew how bad Stalin was, which meant we did as well.

For all of our focus on Europe in the run-up to WWII, we kept watch over Asia as well - we didn't pull our Marines out of China until November of 1941 and there was still a lot of stuff going over the Bering Strait.

[atomheartbevo 90673]

1 hour ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

What would you have done differently ?  We have a unique position looking back instead of acting on the heat and now.

I don't think there's a lot we could have done differently with Stalin.  He did what we needed, which was to tie up/demolish a lot of German forces and I'd argue that every tank, jeep, etc. that we sent over that was used by Stalin's forces against the Germans represented American troops that were freed up elsewhere.

And if Germany had not attacked the Soviets and the Soviet Union stayed somewhat neutral, I don't think that would have lasted - no way we bog down Germany on the Western Front and Stalin doesn't decided to take advantage and push a few million Soviet troops into Eastern Europe, except that Stalin would have fresh troops and could pick the time and place to favor the movement of those troops.

[MaybeACoordinator 8350]

Yeah Churchill and FDR sat it out for a year or so while Stalin and Hitler knocked the shit out of each other in the East and only then opened up the southern and western fronts. Stalin knew what was up, too, and that colored our "alliance" afterwards.

[956 Worldwide 35601]

6 hours ago, Ghost of LL said:

If you can't find the moral ambiguity in World War II, you're not looking very hard.

Our alliance-of-convenience with the Soviet Union is very morally problematic.  We didn't just treat them as a co-belligerent that happened to be fighting against the same enemy (which is how they treated us).  We treated them as a genuine ally, which they were not.  We provided trillions of dollars in Lend-Lease aid that was used to subjugate the peoples of Eastern Europe.  And we acquiesced to the Soviet subjugation of those people and, bizarrely, to the Soviet conquest of Manchuria and North Korea (even the Soviet Union didn't do much to help in the fight against Japan).  There was no real geopolitical reason for us to do that, and our actions resulted in the deaths of millions.

And while we're at it, let's just acknowledge that we weren't wearing a completely white hat in the Pacific.  Yeah--Japan attacked us.  But we didn't leave them with any viable alternative.  And as you look at those negotiations during 1941, you really have to wonder whether the United States was negotiating in good faith.

Acquiescing is a funny word here. The Soviet Union parked over 1,500,000 troops in the Far East front and on 8 May 1945 had over six million on the Eastern Front in Europe. What actions should we have taken to make sure they didn’t do that, other than asking nicely (and we had ourselves negotiated at Yalta that the USSR attack imperial Japan after the war in Europe ended).

[956 Worldwide 35601]

9 minutes ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

Yeah Churchill and FDR sat it out for a year or so while Stalin and Hitler knocked the shit out of each other in the East and only then opened up the southern and western fronts. Stalin knew what was up, too, and that colored our "alliance" afterwards.

This is history out of context of military realities. The invasion of Normandy was one of the most complex and challenging operations ever organized. U.S. army combat readiness in Europe was not where it needed to be and the plans people came up with before then crashed against the realities of either a lack of landing craft or the foolhardiness of trying to leave a small expeditionary force on the continent and hoe they could hold out till reinforcements arrived. 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

30 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

I don't think there's a lot we could have done differently with Stalin.  He did what we needed, which was to tie up/demolish a lot of German forces and I'd argue that every tank, jeep, etc. that we sent over that was used by Stalin's forces against the Germans represented American troops that were freed up elsewhere.

And if Germany had not attacked the Soviets and the Soviet Union stayed somewhat neutral, I don't think that would have lasted - no way we bog down Germany on the Western Front and Stalin doesn't decided to take advantage and push a few million Soviet troops into Eastern Europe, except that Stalin would have fresh troops and could pick the time and place to favor the movement of those troops.

We used the Soviet Union. It saved allied lives.  What alternatives did we have ?  

This topic eventually leads to the moral ramifications of the bombs being dropped in Japan.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

26 minutes ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

Yeah Churchill and FDR sat it out for a year or so while Stalin and Hitler knocked the shit out of each other in the East and only then opened up the southern and western fronts. Stalin knew what was up, too, and that colored our "alliance" afterwards.

Colored it ? Not that much in my opinion. We would have still ended up in a Cold War with Stalin.  He was a sociopath, who had long lost his trust in anyone, Russian or otherwise, and the US/west, and Soviet Russia were not going to be allies after the war regardless of when we entered it. 

I think it would have taken a potential German victory in Russia for us to have entered any sooner.

[Ghost of LL 15705]

3 hours ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Well…. I guess we could all just be speaking German now.  20-20 hind sight is always easy to acquire.

I've often wondered how much we knew about how bad Stalin was before WWII. It’s a bit like when did we know about the concentration camps ?

The enemy of my enemy is my friend comes to mind as well. World war makes for strange bedfellows and winning the war at prettty much all Costs was the order of the day. 
 

What would you have done differently ?  We have a unique position looking back instead of acting on the heat and now.

What do you mean "how much we knew about how bad Stalin was before WWII"?  The show trials and Great Terror weren't secrets.  They were literally show trials.  The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact wasn't a secret. 

Stalin's aggression against Finland and Romania was so overt and outrageous that it had France and Britain planning war against the Soviet Union.  They were in advanced planning of air raids on Baku and a possible invasion of Transcaucasia through Iran.  Only when that became known in Moscow did Stalin make peace with Finland, which kind of eliminated the casus belli (Germany's invasion of Norway helped take the focus off Finland, too).

1 hour ago, atomheartbevo said:

I don't think there's a lot we could have done differently with Stalin.  He did what we needed, which was to tie up/demolish a lot of German forces and I'd argue that every tank, jeep, etc. that we sent over that was used by Stalin's forces against the Germans represented American troops that were freed up elsewhere.

And if Germany had not attacked the Soviets and the Soviet Union stayed somewhat neutral, I don't think that would have lasted - no way we bog down Germany on the Western Front and Stalin doesn't decided to take advantage and push a few million Soviet troops into Eastern Europe, except that Stalin would have fresh troops and could pick the time and place to favor the movement of those troops.

We could've done a lot differently.  We didn't need to send nearly as much Lend-Lease material as we did.  And if we were going to send that much, we sure as shit didn't need to send it for free (we made the British pay for theirs--a debt they didn't finish paying until 2006).  And if we were going to send it for free, we sure as shit should've gotten something for it.

We could've cut off Lend-Lease supplies after Stalingrad on the theory that we and the British needed them more to open a second front and fight Japan (which wouldn't have been wrong, by the way).  The Russians still would've been able to repel the German invasion (probably).  But without the transport provided by Ford and General Motors, the air supremacy provided by Bell and Curtiss, their advance would've gone a lot slower.

That would mean that the Western Allies would've been able to advance a lot further east than they ended up doing.  We could've linked up with Soviet forces on the Vistula or even the Neman, rather than on the Elbe.

Or, if you want to get really extreme, we could've agreed to Adm. Canaris' 1943 proposal to aid in a coup d'etat by the Abwehr, whereupon Germany would surrender Hitler and senior Nazis to war-crimes trials and accept occupation by Anglo-American forces to the Vistula, leaving the Wehrmacht free to hold the Soviet Union to its pre-1939 borders.  OSS and MI6 both supported the proposal, but Roosevelt rejected it out-of-hand.

1 hour ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Acquiescing is a funny word here. The Soviet Union parked over 1,500,000 troops in the Far East front and on 8 May 1945 had over six million on the Eastern Front in Europe. What actions should we have taken to make sure they didn’t do that, other than asking nicely (and we had ourselves negotiated at Yalta that the USSR attack imperial Japan after the war in Europe ended).

But "acquiescing" is the exact right word.  We acquiesced to the installation of the Lublin government and to the extension of a Soviet "sphere of influence" over everything east of the Elbe.  We acquiesced to the installation of Tito over Mikhailovic in Yugoslavia.  We acquiesced even to giving the Soviets a third of the Italian merchant marine (even though the Soviets didn't do shit to defeat Italy).

When we laid down bright lines, the Soviets didn't cross them.  In the Pacific, Truman laid down the 38th Parallel as a bright line, and told the Soviets not to land on Hokkaido.  They had the troops to do so--the Soviets were in North Korea for two weeks before American forces landed at Incheon, and they easily could've hopped over to Hokkaido from Sakhalin.  But they didn't because Truman said "no."

Contrast that with Roosevelt at Yalta.  Roosevelt didn't say "no" to shit.  Whether that's because he was dying or because Harry Hopkins was an NKVD asset, who knows.  But the United States had serious leverage over Stalin--its Lend-Lease aid, its potential to take Berlin, its ability to make separate peace with parts of the German Army.  Roosevelt used none of that leverage.  He . . . acquiesced.

[Ghost of LL 15705]

2 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

I don't think there's a lot we could have done differently with Stalin.  He did what we needed, which was to tie up/demolish a lot of German forces and I'd argue that every tank, jeep, etc. that we sent over that was used by Stalin's forces against the Germans represented American troops that were freed up elsewhere.

And if Germany had not attacked the Soviets and the Soviet Union stayed somewhat neutral, I don't think that would have lasted - no way we bog down Germany on the Western Front and Stalin doesn't decided to take advantage and push a few million Soviet troops into Eastern Europe, except that Stalin would have fresh troops and could pick the time and place to favor the movement of those troops.

Oh, and for the record, Germany was never not going to attack the Soviet Union anymore than Japan wasn't going to attack the United States (and for similar reasons).  During the period of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, the Soviet Union provided about 2/3rds of Germany's petroleum and a huge percentage of its other war materiel--everything from aluminum to wheat. 

And Stalin was using that leverage to fuck with the Germans.  Stalin seized territory from Romania (the source of the other third of Germany's petroleum) and basically told the Germans "what are you going to do about it?".  And the answer was "nothing."

The Romanian episode showed that Germany faced the same question vis-a-vis the Soviet Union that Japan faced with respect to the United States--either change the status quo through military means or else become a permanent economic vassal state.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

30 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

What do you mean "how much we knew about how bad Stalin was before WWII"?  The show trials and Great Terror weren't secrets.  They were literally show trials.  The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact wasn't a secret. 

Stalin's aggression against Finland and Romania was so overt and outrageous that it had France and Britain planning war against the Soviet Union.  They were in advanced planning of air raids on Baku and a possible invasion of Transcaucasia through Iran.  Only when that became known in Moscow did Stalin make peace with Finland, which kind of eliminated the casus belli (Germany's invasion of Norway helped take the focus off Finland, too).

We could've done a lot differently.  We didn't need to send nearly as much Lend-Lease material as we did.  And if we were going to send that much, we sure as shit didn't need to send it for free (we made the British pay for theirs--a debt they didn't finish paying until 2006).  And if we were going to send it for free, we sure as shit should've gotten something for it.

We could've cut off Lend-Lease supplies after Stalingrad on the theory that we and the British needed them more to open a second front and fight Japan (which wouldn't have been wrong, by the way).  The Russians still would've been able to repel the German invasion (probably).  But without the transport provided by Ford and General Motors, the air supremacy provided by Bell and Curtiss, their advance would've gone a lot slower.

That would mean that the Western Allies would've been able to advance a lot further east than they ended up doing.  We could've linked up with Soviet forces on the Vistula or even the Neman, rather than on the Elbe.

Or, if you want to get really extreme, we could've agreed to Adm. Canaris' 1943 proposal to aid in a coup d'etat by the Abwehr, whereupon Germany would surrender Hitler and senior Nazis to war-crimes trials and accept occupation by Anglo-American forces to the Vistula, leaving the Wehrmacht free to hold the Soviet Union to its pre-1939 borders.  OSS and MI6 both supported the proposal, but Roosevelt rejected it out-of-hand.

But "acquiescing" is the exact right word.  We acquiesced to the installation of the Lublin government and to the extension of a Soviet "sphere of influence" over everything east of the Elbe.  We acquiesced to the installation of Tito over Mikhailovic in Yugoslavia.  We acquiesced even to giving the Soviets a third of the Italian merchant marine (even though the Soviets didn't do shit to defeat Italy).

When we laid down bright lines, the Soviets didn't cross them.  In the Pacific, Truman laid down the 38th Parallel as a bright line, and told the Soviets not to land on Hokkaido.  They had the troops to do so--the Soviets were in North Korea for two weeks before American forces landed at Incheon, and they easily could've hopped over to Hokkaido from Sakhalin.  But they didn't because Truman said "no."

Contrast that with Roosevelt at Yalta.  Roosevelt didn't say "no" to shit.  Whether that's because he was dying or because Harry Hopkins was an NKVD asset, who knows.  But the United States had serious leverage over Stalin--its Lend-Lease aid, its potential to take Berlin, its ability to make separate peace with parts of the German Army.  Roosevelt used none of that leverage.  He . . . acquiesced.

I bow to your deeper knowledge of the topic.

[atomheartbevo 90673]

2 hours ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

We used the Soviet Union. It saved allied lives.  What alternatives did we have ?  

This topic eventually leads to the moral ramifications of the bombs being dropped in Japan.

It also leads into a possible race against the Soviets to keep them out of mainland Japan.  If no atomic bombs, we continue on with our plans to land in November, that would give the Soviets plenty of time to shift resources from the European front, assuming the Soviets could come up with the shipping infrastructure.  And that is a big assumption that they would have the infrastructure and could convince MacArthur to let them land (I think he would still turn them down, Japan was too personal). I think it's probably like the Germans invading England - lots of talk but no actual infrastructure.

Plus, the Soviets were more focused on Europe, and they had plenty of territory in Asia to occupy (not to mention the civil war in China).

 

[atomheartbevo 90673]

47 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

We could've done a lot differently.  We didn't need to send nearly as much Lend-Lease material as we did.  And if we were going to send that much, we sure as shit didn't need to send it for free (we made the British pay for theirs--a debt they didn't finish paying until 2006).  And if we were going to send it for free, we sure as shit should've gotten something for it.

We could've cut off Lend-Lease supplies after Stalingrad on the theory that we and the British needed them more to open a second front and fight Japan (which wouldn't have been wrong, by the way).  The Russians still would've been able to repel the German invasion (probably).  But without the transport provided by Ford and General Motors, the air supremacy provided by Bell and Curtiss, their advance would've gone a lot slower.

Counterpoint: All of that lend-lease material production really helped force the creation of the infrastructure that we needed to just crank out anything and everything that we needed in a very quick manner.

And some thought all of that free stuff would give us more leverage over Stalin in the long run (it didn't).  We didn't need such leverage over the Brits, but it would have been handy with the Soviets had Stalin been more grateful towards us.

[atomheartbevo 90673]

43 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

Oh, and for the record, Germany was never not going to attack the Soviet Union anymore than Japan wasn't going to attack the United States (and for similar reasons).  During the period of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, the Soviet Union provided about 2/3rds of Germany's petroleum and a huge percentage of its other war materiel--everything from aluminum to wheat. 

....

The Romanian episode showed that Germany faced the same question vis-a-vis the Soviet Union that Japan faced with respect to the United States--either change the status quo through military means or else become a permanent economic vassal state.

Agreed, but I'd toss in that if Hitler had been slightly more...restrained, had worked to secure more resources elsewhere (North Africa/Middle East?) and not attacked the Soviets as early as he did, things are a lot different.  He still has that sword hanging over his head though, just like the Japanese did.  And yeah, Romania was huge, but it was also vulnerable to Allied (US/UK) bombing in the long run (unless the Germans can keep the Allies out of Italy).  And ultimately the Soviets still take out the Nazis - Hitler laying waste to the continental militaries of Europe (and stretching his own military thin in the process) provides too much of an enticing target for the Soviets. 

Hell, if the Nazis avoid attacking the Soviets and managed to secure much of the continent, and the Allies are unable to land in Italy in '43 and then France in '44, the Soviets might well mange to build up and push west fast enough that they reach France before the Allies can do much.

[Harrison Bergeron 1798]

On 12/7/2020 at 1:03 PM, Parliament said:

I have a friend who was a history major in college. He works in sales now, but is still a huge history buff. He says WW1 had a more significant impact on World history than WW2.

Leading into WW1, Europe was only global power. All of the wealth, trade, military, colonization scientific invention, EVERYTHING was eurocentric. Then the Great War happened and they poured all of their wealth, and an entire generation on men into it. Communism got its footing in Russia. Europe was doomed to never recover.

WW2 was nothing more than Europe's last gasp at hegemony. But by then, History has already passed them by. Interesting take.

Like most of us, my history classes spent maybe one day on WWI and a week on WWII. During the last 10 years, I've really become fascinated with The Great War.

I agree 100% - World War I had a much larger impact on on world history than World War II:

• I shifted the center of global economic power from London to New York
• The collapse of the Ottoman Empire removed the stabilizing force in much of Eastern Europe and the Middle East
• Catalyzed the Russian revolution and victory for the bolsheviks and led ultimately to the USSR, Cold War, etc. (Germans sent Lenin back to Russia in a train with the aim of destabilizing the empire)
• Cemented a Anglo-Franco alliance after centuries of war and rivalry
• Collapse or the Austro-Hungarian empire removed the stabilizing force in Eastern Europe and launched balkanization
• The re-drawing of the geographic maps in the Central Powers can be viewed as the start of both WWII and 9/11

And it is amazing that the war began on bicycles and horseback with soldiers dressed in 19th Century colorful uniforms and ended with massive slaughter in trenches from airplanes, machine guns, and long-range artillery.

[Captainant 28596]

16 minutes ago, Harrison Bergeron said:

Like most of us, my history classes spent maybe one day on WWI and a week on WWII. During the last 10 years, I've really become fascinated with The Great War.

I agree 100% - World War I had a much larger impact on on world history than World War II:

• I shifted the center of global economic power from London to New York
• The collapse of the Ottoman Empire removed the stabilizing force in much of Eastern Europe and the Middle East
• Catalyzed the Russian revolution and victory for the bolsheviks and led ultimately to the USSR, Cold War, etc. (Germans sent Lenin back to Russia in a train with the aim of destabilizing the empire)
• Cemented a Anglo-Franco alliance after centuries of war and rivalry
• Collapse or the Austro-Hungarian empire removed the stabilizing force in Eastern Europe and launched balkanization
• The re-drawing of the geographic maps in the Central Powers can be viewed as the start of both WWII and 9/11

And it is amazing that the war began on bicycles and horseback with soldiers dressed in 19th Century colorful uniforms and ended with massive slaughter in trenches from airplanes, machine guns, and long-range artillery.

if you want to burn 20 someodd hours, Blueprint for Armageddon is an excellent podcast series by Hardcore History/Dan Carlin that goes into every detail and intricacy of WWI from prelude to epilogue. Fascinating stuff.

[956 Worldwide 35601]

16 hours ago, Ghost of LL said:

What do you mean "how much we knew about how bad Stalin was before WWII"?  The show trials and Great Terror weren't secrets.  They were literally show trials.  The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact wasn't a secret. 

Stalin's aggression against Finland and Romania was so overt and outrageous that it had France and Britain planning war against the Soviet Union.  They were in advanced planning of air raids on Baku and a possible invasion of Transcaucasia through Iran.  Only when that became known in Moscow did Stalin make peace with Finland, which kind of eliminated the casus belli (Germany's invasion of Norway helped take the focus off Finland, too).

We could've done a lot differently.  We didn't need to send nearly as much Lend-Lease material as we did.  And if we were going to send that much, we sure as shit didn't need to send it for free (we made the British pay for theirs--a debt they didn't finish paying until 2006).  And if we were going to send it for free, we sure as shit should've gotten something for it.

We could've cut off Lend-Lease supplies after Stalingrad on the theory that we and the British needed them more to open a second front and fight Japan (which wouldn't have been wrong, by the way).  The Russians still would've been able to repel the German invasion (probably).  But without the transport provided by Ford and General Motors, the air supremacy provided by Bell and Curtiss, their advance would've gone a lot slower.

That would mean that the Western Allies would've been able to advance a lot further east than they ended up doing.  We could've linked up with Soviet forces on the Vistula or even the Neman, rather than on the Elbe.

Or, if you want to get really extreme, we could've agreed to Adm. Canaris' 1943 proposal to aid in a coup d'etat by the Abwehr, whereupon Germany would surrender Hitler and senior Nazis to war-crimes trials and accept occupation by Anglo-American forces to the Vistula, leaving the Wehrmacht free to hold the Soviet Union to its pre-1939 borders.  OSS and MI6 both supported the proposal, but Roosevelt rejected it out-of-hand.

But "acquiescing" is the exact right word.  We acquiesced to the installation of the Lublin government and to the extension of a Soviet "sphere of influence" over everything east of the Elbe.  We acquiesced to the installation of Tito over Mikhailovic in Yugoslavia.  We acquiesced even to giving the Soviets a third of the Italian merchant marine (even though the Soviets didn't do shit to defeat Italy).

When we laid down bright lines, the Soviets didn't cross them.  In the Pacific, Truman laid down the 38th Parallel as a bright line, and told the Soviets not to land on Hokkaido.  They had the troops to do so--the Soviets were in North Korea for two weeks before American forces landed at Incheon, and they easily could've hopped over to Hokkaido from Sakhalin.  But they didn't because Truman said "no."

Contrast that with Roosevelt at Yalta.  Roosevelt didn't say "no" to shit.  Whether that's because he was dying or because Harry Hopkins was an NKVD asset, who knows.  But the United States had serious leverage over Stalin--its Lend-Lease aid, its potential to take Berlin, its ability to make separate peace with parts of the German Army.  Roosevelt used none of that leverage.  He . . . acquiesced.

This is a lot of ignoring the political and battlefield realties at the time, and ignoring the way Stalin thought about the world.  On Lend-Lease, you're saying that the Soviet Union (an erstwhile Ally and soon to be enemy) should have behaved like Great Britain. The U.S did present the Soviets with a bill at the end of the war, which they refused to pay. The dispute dragged on into the 1970s, and is a good illustration of the limited power any U.S. leader had to coerce or prod the Soviets to do anything.

And all these counter-factuals either prolong the war, shift more of the burden and costs to the Western Allies, or add uncertainty to the outcome (or all three). They aren't cost free and they make continuing the fight more difficult for democratically governed nations. 

The example of the 38th parallel is a great example of how Stalin thought and behaved and a great example of why "acquiesce" isn't the proper word for what happened in Europe. Its was a far different thing to tell Stalin "don't cross this line or else there could be consequences" than to tell him "go back across a line you breached long ago."

For the examples of Lublin or Yugoslavia-- the Soviets controlled the facts on the ground.  In order to coerce different behavior from Stalin, you have to be able to credibly fill in the following sentence with something that is costly for Stalin: "Allow democratic elections and commit to withdrawing your troops from occupied Eastern Europe or else we will . . . ."

I really do challenge folks who engage in counterfactuals to fill in that blank, because it presents the stark reality of limited options. And as far as Yalta goes, it's important to remember that Stalin had negotiating cards to play, too. The tacit thread of concluding a separate peace with Germany was a card both sides held. And Stalin had far more latitude to make those sorts of ruthlessly self-interested decisions that democratically elected leaders. 

 

[Ghost of LL 15705]

15 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

And some thought all of that free stuff would give us more leverage over Stalin in the long run (it didn't).  We didn't need such leverage over the Brits, but it would have been handy with the Soviets had Stalin been more grateful towards us.

The Lend-Lease material did give us leverage over the Soviets.  The fact that Roosevelt didn't use that leverage doesn't mean that we didn't have it.  It just means that Roosevelt suffered a massive failure of statescraft.

Roosevelt could have laid down a diktat at Tehran and said "the Soviet Union is going to withdraw to its borders as of August 30, 1939, and allow free and fair elections in all liberated territories monitored by Western observers, or else all the Lend-Lease supply stops immediately."  Had he done that, Stalin wouldn't have had a choice.  He would've had to agree, because the Soviet Union was too dependent on Lend-Lease for its war effort.

1 minute ago, 956 Worldwide said:

This is a lot of ignoring the political and battlefield realties at the time, and ignoring the way Stalin thought about the world.  On Lend-Lease, you're saying that the Soviet Union (an erstwhile Ally and soon to be enemy) should have behaved like Great Britain. The U.S did present the Soviets with a bill at the end of the war, which they refused to pay. The dispute dragged on into the 1970s, and is a good illustration of the limited power any U.S. leader had to coerce or prod the Soviets to do anything.

And all these counter-factuals either prolong the war, shift more of the burden and costs to the Western Allies, or add uncertainty to the outcome (or all three). They aren't cost free and they make continuing the fight more difficult for democratically governed nations. 

The example of the 38th parallel is a great example of how Stalin thought and behaved and a great example of why "acquiesce" isn't the proper word for what happened in Europe. Its was a far different thing to tell Stalin "don't cross this line or else there could be consequences" than to tell him "go back across a line you breached long ago."

For the examples of Lublin or Yugoslavia-- the Soviets controlled the facts on the ground.  In order to coerce different behavior from Stalin, you have to be able to credibly fill in the following sentence with something that is costly for Stalin: "Allow democratic elections and commit to withdrawing your troops from occupied Eastern Europe or else we will . . . ."

I really do challenge folks who engage in counterfactuals to fill in that blank, because it presents the stark reality of limited options. And as far as Yalta goes, it's important to remember that Stalin had negotiating cards to play, too. The tacit thread of concluding a separate peace with Germany was a card both sides held. And Stalin had far more latitude to make those sorts of ruthlessly self-interested decisions that democratically elected leaders. 

For the reasons you state, I think that diktat does need to be made at Tehran, and not Yalta.  But if made at Tehran, the threat of cutting off Lend-Lease aid is a very real and meaningful threat that provides a lot of leverage.

If we had cut off Lend-Lease aid in 1943, you may be right that the war lasts longer and results in more Western casualties (though I'm not sure I would concede the point).  But it would've avoided the unsatisfactory outcome that we got.

Because let's be real clear about the outcome of World War II--it was unsatisfactory to the Western Allies.  We tell a fairy tale about how good triumphed over evil, but it's just that--a fairy tale.

The reality is that France and Britain went to war in 1939 to preserve Polish sovereignty and self-determination.  And when we were done, that goal was not achieved.  Instead, a third of Poland was gobbled up directly into the Soviet empire (along with bits of Romania and Czechoslovakia and the entirety of Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania).  And previously independent and democratic countries in Eastern Europe were lost to Soviet-dominated totalitarian regimes.

The Soviet conquest of those countries, moreover, allowed it to go from a still pre-industrial society to an economic global powerhouse.  That was done with the theft of more than a trillion dollars worth of booty--factories, locomotives, rails, etc. that were taken not just from Germany but also from Poland, Hungary, Romania, and Czechoslovakia as "reparations."  It was also done with the kidnapping of millions of the citizens of those countries to be used as slave labor across the Soviet Union.

When you view the European war in its totality, it's pretty clear that Germany lost and the Soviet Union won.  But as to the Western Allies--the outcome is far from a "win."

So even if I concede that cutting off Lend-Lease to the Soviet Union would've cost British and American lives and prolonged the war, I think it would've been worth it to get that "win."  Because if we're not trying to win the war, then what was the point of fighting it in the first place?

15 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

Agreed, but I'd toss in that if Hitler had been slightly more...restrained, had worked to secure more resources elsewhere (North Africa/Middle East?) and not attacked the Soviets as early as he did, things are a lot different.  He still has that sword hanging over his head though, just like the Japanese did.  And yeah, Romania was huge, but it was also vulnerable to Allied (US/UK) bombing in the long run (unless the Germans can keep the Allies out of Italy).  And ultimately the Soviets still take out the Nazis - Hitler laying waste to the continental militaries of Europe (and stretching his own military thin in the process) provides too much of an enticing target for the Soviets. 

Hell, if the Nazis avoid attacking the Soviets and managed to secure much of the continent, and the Allies are unable to land in Italy in '43 and then France in '44, the Soviets might well mange to build up and push west fast enough that they reach France before the Allies can do much.

But the point is that Hitler couldn't have been more restrained.  The Soviets weren't going to sit by and let Germany secure alternative resources elsewhere.  That was demonstrated in Romania. 

They had Germany by the balls, and they weren't going to let go.  The Soviet Union was building tanks and planes a lot faster than Germany, and was situating them very close to its western frontier.  In Spring 1941, the Soviet Union looked a lot like a country that was planning to attack Germany and its allies.  So it's really hard to see how Germany could've shown a lot of restraint and diverted military resources to other theaters (e.g., North Africa or the Middle East).

 

 

[Harrison Bergeron 1798]

1 hour ago, Captainant said:

if you want to burn 20 someodd hours, Blueprint for Armageddon is an excellent podcast series by Hardcore History/Dan Carlin that goes into every detail and intricacy of WWI from prelude to epilogue. Fascinating stuff.

That SOB is to blame for my rabbit hole of obsession with The Great War! I loved his podcasts ... he got a little to much TDS for my taste but still good work. I started Supernova in the East but too much competition these days. Now that it is done need to go back and re-start. I also loved his older episodes on the history of Rome.

[Texas Jeff 1999]

Short history interruption...

If you are close to DC, you can lay a flower at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier today and tomorrow only.

https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/tomb-of-the-unknown-soldier-allows-public-arlington-national-cemetery/2875543/
 

It's the first time in 96 years that they have let the public get this close.  They are unlikely to do this again in our lifetimes.
 

[atomheartbevo 90673]

For those wanting to go through YouTube for military stuff...if you come across the Mark Felton stuff (and you will)...give this a brief read.

And it's not just being lifted from other forums/authors, I've watched some of his stuff, hit up Wikipedia, and there are the photos (which, I know, are public domain) and the same stories.  Felton just has a production team behind him that can crank this stuff out quickly.  And he's British so that makes it authoritative.

 

Edited November 9, 2021 by atomheartbevo

[jdhorn92 1599]

On 11/8/2021 at 8:35 AM, TexasGrunt said:

Speaking of age. I was in Desert Storm. I am now 55..... I do remember that my platoon sergeant's and drill sergeant's were in in Vietnam.

TexasGrunt, i had a co-worker tell me on the day ya'll went over the burm, the word going up and down the line was "1 out of 2".   Meaning, first wave could lose 50%...of course we know now they left a trail of destruction as they cut tail from you guys and the air campaign softened em up, but did you hear that or was their talk of a big defense prior to that first wave?

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

On 11/9/2021 at 2:02 PM, atomheartbevo said:

For those wanting to go through YouTube for military stuff...if you come across the Mark Felton stuff (and you will)...give this a brief read.

And it's not just being lifted from other forums/authors, I've watched some of his stuff, hit up Wikipedia, and there are the photos (which, I know, are public domain) and the same stories.  Felton just has a production team behind him that can crank this stuff out quickly.  And he's British so that makes it authoritative.

 

If you can't trust someone with an English accent... who the hell can ya trust ??!

[atomheartbevo 90673]

22 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

If you can't trust someone with an English accent... who the hell can ya trust ??!

[ztejas 44282]

I knew this thread was floating around and came here to post this - because it's a great watch.

 

However now I'm catching up reading all the WWI and II shit on here and will have to further the discussion a bit below. 

[ztejas 44282]

On 11/8/2021 at 2:09 PM, Onboard 2.0 said:

Well…. I guess we could all just be speaking German now.  20-20 hind sight is always easy to acquire.

I've often wondered how much we knew about how bad Stalin was before WWII. It’s a bit like when did we know about the concentration camps ?

The enemy of my enemy is my friend comes to mind as well. World war makes for strange bedfellows and winning the war at prettty much all Costs was the order of the day. 
 

What would you have done differently ?  We have a unique position looking back instead of acting on the heat and now.

If we're talking moral ambiguity - the Pacific theater was absolutely disgusting and really blurred the lines of what it was and wasn't okay to do in warfare as long as it was a means to an end - culminating with maybe the most famous case study in wartime morality that was the dropping of the atomic bombs (which you recognize). Let alone a lot of the European stuff that has already been mentioned. 

Also - if you want to talk moral ambiguity - take a look at some of the war crime trials and their outcomes. Sure that wasn't during the war but it got pretty fucking ambiguous in the aftermath. Stuff like this - and the precedents that it set - is fascinating: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomoyuki_Yamashita#Trial

 

On 11/8/2021 at 7:00 PM, atomheartbevo said:

It also leads into a possible race against the Soviets to keep them out of mainland Japan.  If no atomic bombs, we continue on with our plans to land in November, that would give the Soviets plenty of time to shift resources from the European front, assuming the Soviets could come up with the shipping infrastructure.  And that is a big assumption that they would have the infrastructure and could convince MacArthur to let them land (I think he would still turn them down, Japan was too personal). I think it's probably like the Germans invading England - lots of talk but no actual infrastructure.

No way the Soviets had it in them to invade Japan anytime soon after the fall of Berlin (which I think you agree with). I feel like the US barely had it in them to attempt it (I think they were planning on having 250,000 body bags ready and it almost certainly would have been worse). Even after the bombs were dropped there were still Japanese holdouts and an attempted coup to keep from surrendering. 

 

On 11/8/2021 at 7:03 PM, atomheartbevo said:

Counterpoint: All of that lend-lease material production really helped force the creation of the infrastructure that we needed to just crank out anything and everything that we needed in a very quick manner.

 

This is a great point and I repped you for it (shit - I just repped a bunch of posts in here) - and it's going to tie in to my point below. 

 

On 11/9/2021 at 10:01 AM, Harrison Bergeron said:

Like most of us, my history classes spent maybe one day on WWI and a week on WWII. During the last 10 years, I've really become fascinated with The Great War.

I agree 100% - World War I had a much larger impact on on world history than World War II:

• I shifted the center of global economic power from London to New York
• The collapse of the Ottoman Empire removed the stabilizing force in much of Eastern Europe and the Middle East
• Catalyzed the Russian revolution and victory for the bolsheviks and led ultimately to the USSR, Cold War, etc. (Germans sent Lenin back to Russia in a train with the aim of destabilizing the empire)
• Cemented a Anglo-Franco alliance after centuries of war and rivalry
• Collapse or the Austro-Hungarian empire removed the stabilizing force in Eastern Europe and launched balkanization
• The re-drawing of the geographic maps in the Central Powers can be viewed as the start of both WWII and 9/11

And it is amazing that the war began on bicycles and horseback with soldiers dressed in 19th Century colorful uniforms and ended with massive slaughter in trenches from airplanes, machine guns, and long-range artillery.

@Parliament (because it's easier than going back and quoting what this was the reply to). I'm going to pick a serious bone (that sounds gay) with WW1 impacting world history more than WW2. Although I think it's a fun thought exercise.

(I'm going to touch on as many points as I can here while trying to remain cohesive but there are a lot of things that I'll miss. Feel free to chime in or correct me)

My main argument would be that the advancements in technology and resultant shifts in power that arose from WW2 are still unlike anything the world has ever seen. You talk about WW1 beginning on horseback and featuring line-infantry style combat and ending with machine-gun trench warfare but the difference between the conventional warfare seen at the end of WW1 and what happened during WW2 kind of pales in comparison to the difference between conventional warfare of any sort and dropping multiple thermonuclear ICBMs on key targets to wipe a nation state off the face of the planet. That is the reality that the world was faced with in the aftermath of WW2. 

Sure - economic power was shifted. Sure - powers fell and geopolitical relationships and boundaries shifted - but ultimately the fact that WW1 is referred to as WW1 should clue in that the changes that arose weren't all that lasting and needed further resolution. 

Europe was still a mess. All WW1 did was shuffle the teams a bit. The Ottoman Empire was in decline far before WW1 ever occurred so attributing what was probably an eventual dissolution to WW1 kicking off seems a bit misleading. To me - the actual causes of destabilization in the middle east that we still see today track much further back than WW1. 

The US benefitted plenty from its role in WW1 but wasn't yet the hegemonic superpower that it came to be following WW2. WW2 did a lot of things that WW1 did not in the states. WW2 allowed women to enter the workforce on the homefront. WW2 helped advance the rights of minorities. Like @atomheartbevo mentioned above - while the US lent a helping hand in WW1 that involvement didn't completely transform the productive capability and infrastructure of the nation the way that WW2 did. 

In addition to that - the US was virtually untouched by the damages and atrocities that transpired during WW2. Much of Europe was - for lack of a better term - bombed to shit. It took years to rebuild key economic zones of Western Europe following the war while the US enjoyed a phenomenal productive and economic advantage unabated (the USSR enjoyed some of this advantage as well). Due to the lack of mass aerial bombardment such things were hardly seen following WW1. It took Germany just 25 years to reup and get right back to completely dominating continental Europe following WW1. 

The complete desperation and horror and zeal to defeat one's enemies that WW2 provided led to phenomenal technological advancements. Development of jet engines arose. Development and use of radar became a reality (which led to subsequent development of civilian applications such as microwaves and meteorology). Exponential advancement of computer technology occurred. Mass production of antibiotics was put in to place and countless advancements in other areas of medicine were seen. And - what will ultimately tip the scales more than anything else - it resulted in the space race.

WW2 ushered in an era of geopolitical power that was completely foreign up to that point. Never before had two nations dominated such massive spheres of influence and wielded such unbelievable arsenals as to literally destroy the world multiple times over. They were forced to engage in a cold war - and the main proving ground wound up being a territory untouched by political boundaries. 

Sputnik 1 was launched and put into orbit just 12 years after the end of WW2. Humankind put its first man into space 4 years later. The United States put a man on the moon just 8 years after that. Suddenly - just 24 years after the close of the greatest human conflict that had ever occurred - we became a species that could transcend the bounds of our own atmosphere. We gazed upwards to imagine our ultimate potential. And at the same time we held in our hands the absolute, destructive power to destroy civilization as we knew it. 

Yet - we have yet to wield that power against ourselves. We have landed rovers on Mars and discovered countless truths about not just our solar system but the universe beyond that.  We are continuing to attempt to launch our species past barriers that were previously thought to be unbreakable. 

Since 1945 we have completely shattered the perception of what it means to be human and reimagined our universal calling - and if that isn't clear to anyone alive today it will be to students of history 500 years from now. The questions that have arisen and both been answered and not yet been answered since we aimed to put a human being into space and then succeeded are some of the most formative questions that our species will ever encounter. 

So yes - I think what occurred between 1939 and 1945 was a bit more impactful than what occurred between 1914 and 1918, and my above reasoning is why I'd refer to it as a thought exercise rather than a debate as the answer should seem pretty plain. But that's just me 🙂

Edited December 10, 2021 by ztejas

[Parliament 14618]

Kinda fits here.  Discusses a time of...diverse...conflict.  synopsis: people have always been aholes.  

 

[FartingMonk 3630]

The soft touch with the Soviet Union was all on FDR.  It is no known secret that him and Eleanor adored Stalin and treated him as such.  When Roosevelt died Truman took a much harder line with him.

[BabaYaga 15631]

On 11/8/2021 at 8:05 AM, Ghost of LL said:

If you can't find the moral ambiguity in World War II, you're not looking very hard.

Our alliance-of-convenience with the Soviet Union is very morally problematic.  We didn't just treat them as a co-belligerent that happened to be fighting against the same enemy (which is how they treated us).  We treated them as a genuine ally, which they were not.  We provided trillions of dollars in Lend-Lease aid that was used to subjugate the peoples of Eastern Europe.  And we acquiesced to the Soviet subjugation of those people and, bizarrely, to the Soviet conquest of Manchuria and North Korea (even the Soviet Union didn't do much to help in the fight against Japan).  There was no real geopolitical reason for us to do that, and our actions resulted in the deaths of millions.

And while we're at it, let's just acknowledge that we weren't wearing a completely white hat in the Pacific.  Yeah--Japan attacked us.  But we didn't leave them with any viable alternative.  And as you look at those negotiations during 1941, you really have to wonder whether the United States was negotiating in good faith.

Which is why Patton argued that stopping in Germany and not continuing East was a huge mistake.

I will say while we provided many things, the most coveted by the Reds were trucks and radio cable.  Logistics and communication issues were MASSIVE while the Soviets were reeling from blitz after blitz.  Tanks/guns, etc were generally looked down on and only used in emergencies (especially those shitty Lee/Grant tanks)

[BabaYaga 15631]

On 12/9/2021 at 11:58 PM, ztejas said:

the US was virtually untouched by the damages and atrocities that transpired during WW2. Much of Europe was - for lack of a better term - bombed to shit. It took years to rebuild key economic zones of Western Europe following the war while the US enjoyed a phenomenal productive and economic advantage unabated (the USSR enjoyed some of this advantage as well). Due to the lack of mass aerial bombardment such things were hardly seen following WW1. It took Germany just 25 years to reup and get right back to completely dominating continental Europe following WW1. 

Such a critical point.  Everyone likes to point to post war domestic economic prosperity but fails to mention that we were effectively the only production/manufacturing game in town.  

[Brisketexan 107011]

14 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Such a critical point.  Everyone likes to point to post war domestic economic prosperity but fails to mention that we were effectively the only production/manufacturing game in town.  

Yep.  And our "Great Prosperity" functionally ran from 1945-1975.....which coincidentally happens to be around when many industrialized nations fully caught up and were able to be competitive in manufacturing etc. across the board (Japan, Germany, and the like).

We had an open field for 30 years.  AND, on that open field, white males had a strong advantage for at least 20 of those years with respect to the highest-paying jobs, as minorities generally weren't allowed to take them (just calling it like it was).  That meant that the dominant class in American life had an incredible advantage, ahead of both the rest of the world and Americans who weren't of their group, that allowed for unprecedented prosperity.

And we -- collectively as a nation, and particularly that most dominant class that rose to the highest peak -- are having a hard time adjusting to the post-Great Prosperity world order.  And again, that's human nature - those who had the most, when they lose that lofty position, feel the worst about it.  As Texas football fans, we should understand.  UH fans don't feel such despair when they fail to compete for a MNC -- they're happy to get any incremental improvement and play in a real bowl game.  But we were at the top.  We expect to be at the top.  And when the order of things means we aren't at the top, and we don't see an easy path to getting back there.....we get pissed.

As always, history is the greatest architect of the present.  WWI created a world order, which in large part led to WWII, which created a world order, which led to our Great Prosperity (both our advantages and our would-be competitors' disadvantages (eg, I've seen estimates that the UK didn't economically recover from WWII until the early 1970s)).

And I'm not observing this with an accusatory finger in this context -- reality was what it was, and that's that.  It's an objective thing.  That reality had impacts at the time, and the changes to that reality have impacts now.  

Edited December 30, 2021 by Brisketexan

[FartingMonk 3630]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

Yep.  And our "Great Prosperity" functionally ran from 1945-1975.....which coincidentally happens to be around when many industrialized nations fully caught up and were able to be competitive in manufacturing etc. across the board (Japan, Germany, and the like).

We had an open field for 30 years.  AND, on that open field, white males had a strong advantage for at least 20 of those years with respect to the highest-paying jobs, as minorities generally weren't allowed to take them (just calling it like it was).  That meant that the dominant class in American life had an incredible advantage, ahead of both the rest of the world and Americans who weren't of their group, that allowed for unprecedented prosperity.

And we -- collectively as a nation, and particularly that most dominant class that rose to the highest peak -- are having a hard time adjusting to the post-Great Prosperity world order.  And again, that's human nature - those who had the most, when they lose that lofty position, feel the worst about it.  As Texas football fans, we should understand.  UH fans don't feel such despair when they fail to compete for a MNC -- they're happy to get any incremental improvement and play in a real bowl game.  But we were at the top.  We expect to be at the top.  And when the order of things means we aren't at the top, and we don't see an easy path to getting back there.....we get pissed.

As always, history is the greatest architect of the present.  WWI created a world order, which in large part led to WWII, which created a world order, which led to our Great Prosperity (both our advantages and our would-be competitors' disadvantages (eg, I've seen estimates that the UK didn't economically recover from WWII until the early 1970s)).

And I'm not observing this with an accusatory finger in this context -- reality was what it was, and that's that.  It's an objective thing.  That reality had impacts at the time, and the changes to that reality have impacts now.  

Some would argue that Germany and Japan getting bombed into Bolivia(thanks Mike) served as an advantage post WWII.  The rebuilding of infrastructure from scratch allowed everything to be state of the art with next gen tech being used which allowed for ultra efficiency and with the Marshall plan an unlimited budget.

[Armybrat 41437]

Here’s some interesting trivia...

A friend just inherited these 1936 Olympics pins from her dad, who collected them while he was stationed in Germany during the 1960s.

 

[FartingMonk 3630]

3 hours ago, BabaYaga said:

Which is why Patton argued that stopping in Germany and not continuing East was a huge mistake.

I will say while we provided many things, the most coveted by the Reds were trucks and radio cable.  Logistics and communication issues were MASSIVE while the Soviets were reeling from blitz after blitz.  Tanks/guns, etc were generally looked down on and only used in emergencies (especially those shitty Lee/Grant tanks)

There was a top secret document that was released back in the early 2000s that actually had the allies move to invade Russia.  It was never put into action because the Russians had moved their units and essentially outflanked every allied division and the element of surprise was gone.  Not really surprising since Russian intelligence had infiltrated the upper echelon of the allies.

[F250 29204]

1 hour ago, FartingMonk said:

There was a top secret document that was released back in the early 2000s that actually had the allies move to invade Russia.  It was never put into action because the Russians had moved their units and essentially outflanked every allied division and the element of surprise was gone.  Not really surprising since Russian intelligence had infiltrated the upper echelon of the allies.

I believe that was a British plan and was never taken seriously because the Brits were incapable of fighting the Soviets and the U.S. told the Brits no fucking way would the U.S. participate as the war effort was being directed to the Pacific.

 

 

[Ghost of LL 15705]

19 hours ago, BabaYaga said:

Which is why Patton argued that stopping in Germany and not continuing East was a huge mistake.

I will say while we provided many things, the most coveted by the Reds were trucks and radio cable.  Logistics and communication issues were MASSIVE while the Soviets were reeling from blitz after blitz.  Tanks/guns, etc were generally looked down on and only used in emergencies (especially those shitty Lee/Grant tanks)

That was the story the Soviets told in an effort to denigrate the American contribution to their victory and to boost their claim of primary responsibility for the German defeat.  But it's actually false.  The Sherman tank was comparable to the T-34 (and in some ways superior).  It was used extensively by Soviet forces as a first-line medium tank.

The M3 Grant/Lee tanks were inferior to the T-34, but the T-34 was of a later generation.  At the time the M3 was being shipped to the Soviets (1941-43), the Soviets used them because they didn't have any other tanks.  They'd all been destroyed in the early months of Barbarossa.  So it's misleading to say that they were "only used in emergencies"--all of 1941-42 was an "emergency."

There was no point during the time M3s were being shipped to the Soviet Union that the Soviets didn't use them in a front-line role.  That's just because in those years, the Soviets didn't have enough tanks to hold any tank back.  And so the M3 was used extensively in every Soviet battle from 1941 to 1943 (including at Kursk, by which time the M3 had been retired from service by the U.S. Army).

But let's also remember that the T-34 couldn't have been built without Lend-Lease materials.  It incorporated elements from American designers (e.g., the Christie suspension), typically was built on a chassis shipped directly from the United States, and was built with American steel.  So you can't compare "American" tanks to "Soviet" tanks--there was no such thing as a purely "Soviet" tank.  The comparison is between American tanks and American/Soviet tanks.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

The Patton call to continue east has always been a fascinating what if scenario. The Russians had massive amounts of troops, and material poised on the German border by '45 I believe.  What would the outcome be of a true east vs. west war ?  Do we give them a knock out punch with allied combined, conventional arms or does another nuke or the threat of a nuke drop occur ?

 What would the world be like in a post WWII era with only 1 super power, and no Cold War, and subsequent arms race ?

Do we have a post WWII country with an expensive military, and military industrial complex ?

Do we get to the moon if we don't have the Russians pushing us to that technology ?

[MaybeACoordinator 8350]

We tried invading Russia after World War I with a ridiculously tiny allied army of Brits, White Russians and Czechs and quickly realized the futility of attempting to conquer Russia and pulled out with the quickness.

Patton would have met the same fate as Napoleon and Hitler. 

[956 Worldwide 35601]

1 hour ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

We tried invading Russia after World War I with a ridiculously tiny allied army of Brits, White Russians and Czechs and quickly realized the futility of attempting to conquer Russia and pulled out with the quickness.

Patton would have met the same fate as Napoleon and Hitler. 

The Czechoslovak Legion is one of the most amazing stories of the 20th Century. 

[Parliament 14618]

19 hours ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

 

Patton would have met the same fate as Napoleon and Hitler. 

And as a student of history, he shoulda known that.

[Captainant 28596]

3 minutes ago, Parliament said:

And as a student of history, he shoulda known that.

Just give him enough barrels of gasoline and he'll conquer all of Asia! 

[BabaYaga 15631]

On 12/30/2021 at 6:38 PM, FartingMonk said:

There was a top secret document that was released back in the early 2000s that actually had the allies move to invade Russia.  It was never put into action because the Russians had moved their units and essentially outflanked every allied division and the element of surprise was gone.  Not really surprising since Russian intelligence had infiltrated the upper echelon of the allies.

The "Falda Gap"

 

[BabaYaga 15631]

20 minutes ago, Parliament said:

And as a student of history, he shoulda known that.

I think his main concern was Europe.  Not the wholesale invasion of Russia.  It was kicking Russia out of Europe as he knew their influence would last for decades.

[BabaYaga 15631]

On 12/31/2021 at 11:02 AM, Ghost of LL said:

That was the story the Soviets told in an effort to denigrate the American contribution to their victory and to boost their claim of primary responsibility for the German defeat.  But it's actually false.  The Sherman tank was comparable to the T-34 (and in some ways superior).  It was used extensively by Soviet forces as a first-line medium tank.

 

I can say the gun and sloped armor of the T-34 was superior.  The 76 on the later firefly finally gave the Sherman's something to add to a fight.  The Sherman was also a firetrap.  Called the "Tommy Cooker" as a less than affectionate moniker.  But it was also insanely reliable, easy to produce and easy to repair and fast (relatively).  I want to say there are still a few still in Israel that are operational today?  But we had a shit ton of them.  Something like 50K were produced. 

Everything else about design, etc is spot on.  

There were also so many variants on both sides outlining philosophical differences.  German and Russian leaders wanted tanks that could take out other tanks.  Bread from the type of fighting they were involved in.  American tanks were primarily used as part of a larger support effort.  For direct action, there were the standoff tank destroyers with the more effective main gun but paper thin armor.  Armor was only used alone for fast exploitation.  This was used perfectly in the Bocage region of France and those awful hedgerows that chewed up some many vehicles and men.  We also saw this in Italy and the South Pacific.  

[BabaYaga 15631]

Tanks are fricking cool.  My best friend was an Abrams driver.  Said those things were flipping amazing.  If you can see it, you call kill it.  That's basically how bad ass that 120mm main gun is.  He used to talk about all the stories stationed in KY and at Hood of the dumb shit the tankers would do.  But when it was cold, the infantry loved them.  That giant turbine engine was like a massive space heater for guys to huddle behind when it was cold.

Group buy for an weekend at the Ox ranch?