Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
Zorak of Michigan
Jun 10, 2006

Panzeh posted:

The French lost in 1940 because their operational plan was so thoroughly beaten by the German plan. It wasn't a horrible plan, but once it went into motion, the cream of the French army would be locked in Belgium, away from the main German thrust. Once the Germans were in behind them, they could have had Napoleon Bonaparte running the country and still lost it all. France was not at its most politically stable, but there was no premature political collapse. A critical change of command did affect the operations, stopping French operations for about two days.

When I read the histories of the battle of France, it seems like elements of the government and military high command just went through the motions without a lot of conviction. The sitzkrieg alone betrays a desire to avoid fighting much.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

GyverMac
Aug 3, 2006
My posting is like I Love Lucy without the funny bits. Basically, WAAAAAAAAAAAA
AAAAAAAAAAAHHH
HHHHHHHHHHHHHH

Burning Beard posted:

In WWII the French fought like hell. One misconception is that the army of 1940 was in bad shape... not really true.

Some historians argue that the French army could have successfully invaded germany and taken Berlin relatively easy if they had done it in 1939 when the majority of the german armed forces were busy invading poland.

Nenonen
Oct 22, 2009

Mulla on aina kolkyt donaa taskussa

GyverMac posted:

Some historians argue that the French army could have successfully invaded germany and taken Berlin relatively easy if they had done it in 1939 when the majority of the german armed forces were busy invading poland.

This would have required breaching the German Siegfried line, and let's just say that the French had some fresh memories about assaulting fortified lines. Maybe the fortifications weren't as strong or as strongly manned as German propaganda wanted to portray them, but French leaders had no way to know this for sure (I don't know how accurate information they had at the time). Meanwhile they, like others, were poorly prepared for the war so early. Poland was not going to stand for long and the French army might get mired in the Siegfried line, giving the Wehrmacht time to quickly redeploy the bulk of its divisions to west through railroads. Then the worst case scenario would have been the fate of Plan XVII in 1914.

Ograbme
Jul 26, 2003

D--n it, how he nicks 'em
Why was the French leadership in WW2 so lethargic? It sounds like they were getting reports via bicycle courier and sleeping on every decision.

HeroOfTheRevolution
Apr 26, 2008

EvanSchenck posted:

The potential lessons of the American Civil War for generals planning WWI shouldn't be exaggerated. You can look at the ACW as being the prototype of the industrial war, while WWI was when it was perfected. A lot changed in the 50 intervening years, and there were other wars fought in the meantime like the Boer Wars and Russo-Japanese War that were even better object lessons for how things would probably go.

The Balkan Wars involved multiple combatants of WWI, happened a scant few years before, and there were observers from just about every WWI belligerent on both sides. Much of it was fought in the same manner as WWI - in fact, the Bulgarians were the first to centralize artillery command and the first to utilize military aviation, and full frontal assaults against trenches led to atrocious casualties on both sides. Yet no one managed to learn anything from it... even the Balkan states and Ottomans.

KurdtLives
Dec 22, 2004

Ladies and She-Hulks can't resist Murdock's Big Hallway Energy

Ograbme posted:

Why was the French leadership in WW2 so lethargic? It sounds like they were getting reports via bicycle courier and sleeping on every decision.

I think it was posted ITT way, way back that the French HQ had no phone and no radios. :sigh:

Admiral Snackbar
Mar 13, 2006

OUR SNEEZE SHIELDS CANNOT REPEL A HUNGER OF THAT MAGNITUDE
Regarding the Spanish Civil War:

Both the Germans and the Soviets hoped to use the war as a testing ground for their concepts of mechanized warfare, but in practice the number of machines, both planes and tanks, never reached a point where it could give an accurate idea of what a larger war would look like. Also, while both German ond Soviet doctrine of the time stressed mass armor attacks against the enemy's rear areas, local commanders usually simply used tanks as mobile artillery or large infantry weapons, thus negating many of their strengths, particularly speed. While Soviet tanks proved to be far more capable than their German counterparts, they were still not seen to be effective enough to justify their cost. These circumstances, combined with the Red Army purges of the late 30's and the disastrous Winter War against Finland went a long way toward wrecking the organization and doctrine of the Soviet armored force just in time for Barbarossa in '41.

As for the French defeat in 1940, luck played a large role in addition to political weakness. The German breakthrough at Sedan is often seen as the crucial event in France's military collapse. Interestingly, the German High Command did not want to exploit this breakthrough immediately, because they wanted time for the infantry divisions to catch up to the armored forces. Had this policy been followed, a French counterattack might have destroyed the German beach head across the Meuse and halted their advance. In the actual event, the local German commander, Heinz Guderian, decided to ignore his orders and continue his advance. Had a less ambitious man been in command, things might have turned out very differently. (I realize this represents both Great Man history and borders on a What If scenario, but I like this story.)

Bagheera
Oct 30, 2003
Can anyone recommend a good book on the Irish War of Indepenence and Irish Civil War? Circa ~1910-~1930? I just finished watching Michael Collins, and now I'm very interested in the early Irish Republican Army.

Bagheera
Oct 30, 2003
Did we Americans "win" the Cuban Missile Crisis?

The popular opinion is that the Soviets placed missiles in Cuba to give them first strike advantage. We stood up to them, and they backed down.

My opinion is that the Soviets didn't want missile bases in Cuba. It was a risky gambit to remove American missiles from Turkey, and it succeeded?

Was there a clear winner to that episode? Or should I just be happy that the world wasn't vaporized before I was born?

Alchenar
Apr 9, 2008

Bagheera posted:

Did we Americans "win" the Cuban Missile Crisis?

The popular opinion is that the Soviets placed missiles in Cuba to give them first strike advantage. We stood up to them, and they backed down.

My opinion is that the Soviets didn't want missile bases in Cuba. It was a risky gambit to remove American missiles from Turkey, and it succeeded?

Was there a clear winner to that episode? Or should I just be happy that the world wasn't vaporized before I was born?

It wasn't immediately known that The US removed it's missiles from Turkey, so the original narrative was a win for Kennedy. The fact that both sides negotiated rather than adopting continuous brinkmanship was a win for everyone. In retrospect, Khrushchev got US missiles withdrawn from Turkey for nothing more than a return to the status quo ante in Cuba. He won.

e: the development of accurate long range missiles a few years later rendering the whole standoff pointless in any case.

Chamale
Jul 11, 2010

I'm helping!



Alchenar posted:

e: the development of accurate long range missiles a few years later rendering the whole standoff pointless in any case.

There's nothing pointless about installing missiles closer to your enemy's capital. If you want to initiate a nuclear first strike, hitting Washington from Cuba (or Moscow from Turkey) gives the target government much less time to respond.

Ghost of Mussolini
Jun 26, 2011

Ograbme posted:

Why was the French leadership in WW2 so lethargic? It sounds like they were getting reports via bicycle courier and sleeping on every decision.
Now, being fair to the 1940 French high command, they sent and received their dispatches via motorcycle courier.


Alchenar posted:

In retrospect, Khrushchev got US missiles withdrawn from Turkey for nothing more than a return to the status quo ante in Cuba. He won.
Khrushchev is undeniably the looser of the whole affair, given how it was a great blow to his internal credibility within the upper levels of Soviet policy. The withdrawal was a great public embarrassment for the USSR, whilst the missiles in Turkey and the Polaris-armed subs were removed quietly. It was a considerable public-international issue, which added to mounting internal concerns that weakened his position as leader.

coolatronic
Nov 28, 2007

Ghost of Mussolini posted:

Khrushchev is undeniably the loser of the whole affair, given how it was a great blow to his internal credibility within the upper levels of Soviet policy. The withdrawal was a great public embarrassment for the USSR, whilst the missiles in Turkey and the Polaris-armed subs were removed quietly. It was a considerable public-international issue, which added to mounting internal concerns that weakened his position as leader.

I would think that defending your country from nuclear attack is one of those areas where the reality trumps perception, though.

Nenonen
Oct 22, 2009

Mulla on aina kolkyt donaa taskussa

coolatronic posted:

I would think that defending your country from nuclear attack is one of those areas where the reality trumps perception, though.

Being forced to resign from the Soviet politburo was reality for Uncle Nick, though. It was very much a personal loss for him, whereas JFK was able to use the whole incident to back his leadership.

Lucky for Khrushschov, times had changed in Kremlin (and that was his great legacy). He got away with house arrest.

Bagheera
Oct 30, 2003
So it's safe to say that:

Kruschev defnitely lost in the crisis. Lost his job and his reputation, that is.

Kennedy won. He was more popular than ever, both nationally and world wide.

The United States lost. Lost its first-strike capability in Turkey.

The Soviet Union won. Gained real concessions from the United States.

Cuba and Fidel Castro were big winners. They showed that a third-world country could manipulate two superpowers. From Angola to Nicaragua, Cuba won the clout to export third-world Communism.


----------------------------


Two items I can add from Che: A Revolutionary Life and Fidel: A Critical Portrait

First is that after the missiles were removed, Castro organized a rally against the Soviet Union in Havana. They chanted, "Nikita, mariquita, lo que se da no se quita." (Nikita, you human being, what one gives one doesn't take away.)

The second was the Ernesto Guevara was quoted in a Havana newspaper saying that, if he had control of the missiles, he would have launhched them and started World War III. That guy was scary. Hs ideals were as admirable as his actions were brutal.

Nenonen
Oct 22, 2009

Mulla on aina kolkyt donaa taskussa

Bagheera posted:

Cuba and Fidel Castro were big winners. They showed that a third-world country could manipulate two superpowers.

Not really. Castro got REALLY pissed with Soviets for making the deal with USA without so much as informing them first. This meant that Soviets couldn't be trusted for support should the US invade Cuba. The Bay of the Pigs episode of 1961 was the primary reason for why the Cuban government thought having the Soviet missiles there was a good idea: USA couldn't attack the country again without triggering a nuclear war. Cuba was left seemingly defenseless again.

Ghost of Mussolini
Jun 26, 2011

Nenonen posted:

Not really. Castro got REALLY pissed with Soviets for making the deal with USA without so much as informing them first. This meant that Soviets couldn't be trusted for support should the US invade Cuba. The Bay of the Pigs episode of 1961 was the primary reason for why the Cuban government thought having the Soviet missiles there was a good idea: USA couldn't attack the country again without triggering a nuclear war. Cuba was left seemingly defenseless again.

Castro initially opposed the missiles too, and then wanted them to be installed publicly so the USA couldn't claim any sort of dirty business on their part. But then he agrees to the Soviet shipping plan anyways. Then when Fidel supports the missiles publicly once the crisis erupts, and wants the nuclear strike capability on the island, the Soviets start to backtrack. So from his point of view hes being led around as if it were some kind of joke.

Bagheera
Oct 30, 2003

Nenonen posted:

Not really. Castro got REALLY pissed with Soviets for making the deal with USA without so much as informing them first. This meant that Soviets couldn't be trusted for support should the US invade Cuba. The Bay of the Pigs episode of 1961 was the primary reason for why the Cuban government thought having the Soviet missiles there was a good idea: USA couldn't attack the country again without triggering a nuclear war. Cuba was left seemingly defenseless again.

Of course, Castro couldn't dictate to the Soviets what the USSR would do with its own missiles. But look at how he manipulated the Soviet Union and fended off the US.

The United States never attempted an invasion of Cuba after the Cuban Missile Crisis. Cuba felt sufficiently confident in its own security that it sent a large part of its military off to foreign adventures abroad (Angola, Bolivia, Venezuela, and much of Central America). Cuba also managed to get subsidized oil (bartered for sugar) from the Soviet Union for the rest of its existence. They also got a free flow of Soviet weapons and military training.

Now compare this to other countries under Soviet influence at the time. North Vietnam was in the second decade of a civil war that would end in a Phyrric victory. Syria was buying Soviet arms only to lose one war after another. And the Eastern European countries were just puppets. Cuba definitely punched above its weight, and the Cuban Missile Crisis had a lot to do with it.


EDIT: I should clarify that I don't think Cuba ever had the level of global influence that the USA or USSR had. But when compared to similar countries (third-world places that chose the Soviet side on the Cold War), they're influence was huge.

Volmarias
Dec 31, 2002

EMAIL... THE INTERNET... SEARCH ENGINES...
Repeating my request for any military history whatsoever about South America. Hell, I'll even take something involving the contras if we HAVE to discuss things with the US in them.

Count Ignatiev
Sep 20, 2007

Bagheera posted:

Of course, Castro couldn't dictate to the Soviets what the USSR would do with its own missiles. But look at how he manipulated the Soviet Union and fended off the US.

The United States never attempted an invasion of Cuba after the Cuban Missile Crisis. Cuba felt sufficiently confident in its own security that it sent a large part of its military off to foreign adventures abroad (Angola, Bolivia, Venezuela, and much of Central America). Cuba also managed to get subsidized oil (bartered for sugar) from the Soviet Union for the rest of its existence. They also got a free flow of Soviet weapons and military training.

Now compare this to other countries under Soviet influence at the time. North Vietnam was in the second decade of a civil war that would end in a Phyrric victory. Syria was buying Soviet arms only to lose one war after another. And the Eastern European countries were just puppets. Cuba definitely punched above its weight, and the Cuban Missile Crisis had a lot to do with it.


EDIT: I should clarify that I don't think Cuba ever had the level of global influence that the USA or USSR had. But when compared to similar countries (third-world places that chose the Soviet side on the Cold War), they're influence was huge.

I think you're underselling Vietnam here. Cuba's greatest gains were in low-political value Sub-Saharan Africa where they primarily fought against mercenaries with mixed-success, anti-Communist groups and later South Africa to a stalemate. Vietnam won the American war, defeated the Khmer Rouge and fought back China long enough for both sides to declare victory. I wouldn't rave about receiving economic and military assistance from the Soviet Union; as late as 1984 North Korea was receiving Mig29s from the Soviet Union despite happily bubbling along with its retarded Juche. I don't think Cuba punched above its weight but acted like hawkish Cold War nation with guaranteed territorial sovereignty much like Australia pre-1973. Certainly Cuba's sovereignty was protected from an invasion by the US as a result of the Crisis and their expeditionary escapades reflect their high confidence in their Soviet guarantee. When a nation isn't landlocked and they have a nuclear superpower supporting their actions they are much freer to act than those who could potentially have hundreds of tanks rolling through their streets within hours.

Bagheera
Oct 30, 2003
Good points. I probably have counted Vietnam a bit low, especially since they're now in a much better position than Cuba (economically, diplomatically, in just about every way).

I know a lot more about Latin American history than other parts of the world, especially after having lived in Honduras and Nicaragua a few years. It's amazing how many people (not a majority, but more than one would think) still view Cuba as a model for a modern nation. Their influence in that region certainly seems outsized. I guess I extrapolated that to the rest of the world.

BogDew
Jun 14, 2006

E:\FILES>quickfli clown.fli
http://www.theatlantic.com/infocus/ww2.html
This is a 20 week photo essay covering World War 2 from 1939 to 1945. It aims to cover some of the broader parts of the war, such as pre war Madrid, the home front, the global reaction and so forth. People forget there were Nazi Party offices in New York in 1932.

Herv
Mar 24, 2005

Soiled Meat

Volmarias posted:

Repeating my request for any military history whatsoever about South America. Hell, I'll even take something involving the contras if we HAVE to discuss things with the US in them.

Why don't you put a few hours into it and let us know what you find?


WebDog posted:

http://www.theatlantic.com/infocus/ww2.html
This is a 20 week photo essay covering World War 2 from 1939 to 1945. It aims to cover some of the broader parts of the war, such as pre war Madrid, the home front, the global reaction and so forth. People forget there were Nazi Party offices in New York in 1932.

Please, stop talking about the largest military action in history... in the military history thread! :downs:

I guess we have to wait for the rest of the pictures in your link as well, where's my immediate gratification?

Whenever trying to convey 'pissed off' in a picture, I usually refer to this one:


Thats about 6 million on the right, and about 2 million on the left no? Christ, I hope ww2 buys us another hundred years or so before the next one.

Wastrel_
Jun 3, 2004

Read it and weep.

Alchenar posted:

It wasn't immediately known that The US removed it's missiles from Turkey, so the original narrative was a win for Kennedy. The fact that both sides negotiated rather than adopting continuous brinkmanship was a win for everyone. In retrospect, Khrushchev got US missiles withdrawn from Turkey for nothing more than a return to the status quo ante in Cuba. He won.

e: the development of accurate long range missiles a few years later rendering the whole standoff pointless in any case.

It can be argued that the US lost little by removing its missiles in Turkey. The missiles were obsolete and the Polaris SLMBs were entering service by then. Polaris, being submarine-based, was an invincible nuclear deterrent due to the difficulty of locating and destroying submarines before they could launch their missiles in the event of wartime. So it can be argued that Kennedy actually sacrificed something of marginal use in exchange for negating the Soviet ability to hit the continental United States with nuclear missiles.

I don't see it that way though. I tend to think that the USSR still came up on top because they gained an ally that would be a constant thorn in the American side for several decades, and that also helped spread Communism in the Third World over that same period of time. But as has already been expressed, the winner was humanity, because the superpowers stepped back from the brink and instituted procedures that made nuclear war less of a risk at least until the renewed hostile relationship of the 1980s.

Ghost of Mussolini
Jun 26, 2011

Wastrel_ posted:

I don't see it that way though. I tend to think that the USSR still came up on top because they gained an ally that would be a constant thorn in the American side for several decades, and that also helped spread Communism in the Third World over that same period of time.
They were already allies though. Fidel was extremely angry at Khrushchev once the crisis started to sour and even after the crisis (until he eventually went to Moscow and smoothed things out). It wasn't possible for Fidel to walk into the US camp, but the Missile Crisis did a lot to hurt the Soviet-Cuban relationship initially. It was just as likely that Cuba would go off and do the whole "Still communist but not Soviet-sphere" Yugoslavia dance.

Jabarto
Apr 7, 2007

I could do with your...assistance.

Herv posted:

Please, stop talking about the largest military action in history... in the military history thread! :downs:

EDIT: This was a little harsher than I intended. The point stands, though; there are about 5,994 years of human civilization that weren't occupied by WW2 and there's no need to get snotty because people want to talk about them.

Jabarto fucked around with this message at 17:51 on Aug 15, 2011

Graviton v2
Mar 2, 2007

by angerbeet

Nenonen posted:

The battle for Berlin. Had the SS not betrayed Hitler, the whole outcome of the war would have been reversed!
Really? Do tell more if it wasnt a joke.

Mr. Sunshine
May 15, 2008

This is a scrunt that has been in space too long and become a Lunt (Long Scrunt)

Fun Shoe
It's a joke.

Nenonen
Oct 22, 2009

Mulla on aina kolkyt donaa taskussa

Graviton v2 posted:

Really? Do tell more if it wasnt a joke.

Basically this. Turn closed captions on.

Hitler kept dreaming of a strategic masterstroke until the last week of his life, and whenever his plans failed because they weren't rooted in reality, he blamed it on whoever was expected to do the impossible.

One of the most famous of these is Hitler's order in spring 1945 for the Waffen-SS Leibstandarte Adolf Hitler's (Adolf Hitler Bodyguard) division's men to remove the 'Adolf Hitler' cufftitles the division's men wore on their uniforms as a punishment for 'betraying' his expectations. The 6th SS Panzer Army commander Sepp Dietrich silently refused to relay the order to the division, knowing that it would break the morale in a decimated unit.

wdarkk
Oct 26, 2007

Friends: Protected
World: Saved
Crablettes: Eaten
:hitler: My men failed to kill 10x+ their number in Soviets! Clearly this is the result of treachery.

Nenonen
Oct 22, 2009

Mulla on aina kolkyt donaa taskussa
As for an ACTUAL ultimate case of 'snatching victory from the jaws of defeat', it must be Prussia in the Seven Years War. Frederick II (the Great) of Prussia was getting his rear end kicked in by Russia, when all of the sudden Empress Elizabeth died at age of 52 and was succeeded by her son Peter III, who coincidentally was extremely Prussian-minded. Since Frederick was his greatest idol, he withdrew Russian troops from Berlin and agreed to a peace treaty with no area demands at a time when Prussia was sure to fall. Frederick the Great became a celebrated hero, Peter III was assassinated only a few months later, succeeded by his wife Catherine II (the Great), who was German but displayed no signs of Prussophilia.

Guess who also admired Frederick the Great? That's right. That guy who expected the tide to turn at the last minute. :hitler:

Mr. Sunshine
May 15, 2008

This is a scrunt that has been in space too long and become a Lunt (Long Scrunt)

Fun Shoe
And Roosevelt had just died, just like Elizabeth! It was so obvious that the Allies would now turn on each other!

Many high ranking nazis, including Himmler and Goebbels, claimed to believe this towards the end.

Graviton v2
Mar 2, 2007

by angerbeet

Nenonen posted:

Basically this. Turn closed captions on.
Intense scene, the guy playing adolf is pretty good.

bewbies
Sep 23, 2003

Fun Shoe
I just noticed that "Downfall" is posted in its entirety here.

The scene right about ~1:57 is one of the best and creepiest movie scenes I can remember (everyone who has seen the movie talks about it), the guy talking to the children soldiers at ~:16 and the German general @ ~:28 are my favorite scenes.

wdarkk
Oct 26, 2007

Friends: Protected
World: Saved
Crablettes: Eaten
Yeah I found it and now my afternoon is wasted and I probably won't be able to sleep tonight thanks to Goebbels.

Herv
Mar 24, 2005

Soiled Meat

Jabarto posted:

EDIT: This was a little harsher than I intended. The point stands, though; there are about 5,994 years of human civilization that weren't occupied by WW2 and there's no need to get snotty because people want to talk about them.

I missed out on the 'harshness', but the sarcastic joke was on the folks that were surprised/angry/butthurt that the largest (and somewhat recent) military conflict in history got the most amount of attention.

Sorry to have engendered an emotional response with that!

So how about them Aztec Warriors?

Top Hats Monthly
Jun 22, 2011


People are people so why should it be, that you and I should get along so awfully blink blink recall STOP IT YOU POSH LITTLE SHIT
I know this is World War II, but could you inform me about the main Finn conflicts, (Finnish Civil War, Winter war) if you could fill me in, that'd be great.

Volmarias
Dec 31, 2002

EMAIL... THE INTERNET... SEARCH ENGINES...

Herv posted:

Why don't you put a few hours into it and let us know what you find?

It's an ask/tell thread, and I'm not the expert, but several other people in the thread clearly are and have already stepped up, since Admiral Snackbar seems to be gone.

Herv posted:

I missed out on the 'harshness', but the sarcastic joke was on the folks that were surprised/angry/butthurt that the largest (and somewhat recent) military conflict in history got the most amount of attention.

I'm acting all butthurt because the thread is "Ask me about Military History" not "Ask me about WWII and Tigers and Panthers and lets sperg about Barbarossa again even though we've done it like three times already but maybe if we rehash this again we'll see something new (we won't)"

Basically, I'm hoping to read something that I wouldn't see on the History Channel if I flipped it on at any given time (WWII documentaries). I would LOVE to hear about Aztec warriors.

bewbies
Sep 23, 2003

Fun Shoe

Top Hats Monthly posted:

I know this is World War II, but could you inform me about the main Finn conflicts, (Finnish Civil War, Winter war) if you could fill me in, that'd be great.

Like a year ago someone made a great couple of posts on it.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

vains
May 26, 2004

A Big Ten institution offering distance education catering to adult learners

Volmarias posted:


Basically, I'm hoping to read something that I wouldn't see on the History Channel if I flipped it on at any given time (WWII documentaries). I would LOVE to hear about Aztec warriors.

If you flipped to the history channel at any given time you could watch shows about truckers, ghosts, aliens or people going through abandoned storage units.

  • Locked thread