World War II.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-06-2016, 09:44 AM
RE: World War II.
I suppose the reason I put Stalingrad first was because the plan, given the fact that we had no foothold on the western front from which to launch a successful invasion, was to let Russia absorb as much of the damage as possible before committing resources to a risky invasion form the sea. This plan had the added secondary objective of leaving Russia in a weakened state after the war, but it was also essential they not fall because the opposite (in regards to the shifting of Germany's resources) was also true. If Russia fell, those resources could be sent to the west. It was a dangerous balancing game we were playing in trying to both defeat Germany while simultaneously making sure Russia didn't just pick up where they left off once the war was over and two fronts converged. In that regards, the Battle of Stalingrad was a dual success. The German war machine was essentially crippled and Russia also suffered devastating losses in the process.

'Murican Canadian
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes yakherder's post
08-06-2016, 10:14 AM
RE: World War II.
The decisive operation of WWII was Operation Barbarossa. It meant the end of the Nazi regime.

Arguments for "Operation Mincemeat" and "Operation Canned Goods" can be made, but only by WWII nerds. Smartass
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Gawdzilla's post
08-06-2016, 11:20 AM
RE: World War II.
In Europe, I think the German defeat in front of Moscow was the most decisive. It meant that the Eastern war would be a war of attrition, something Germany couldn't afford very well and which was entirely counter to their doctrine and force structure.

In the Pacific, for discrete battles, I'm torn between Midway and Guadalcanal. Victory at the 'Canal meant that the threat to Australia was flanked, and meant the loss of the Solomons to the Japanese -- which in turn affected the operation of both Rabaul and Truk. But I'm of the mind that the submarine offensive was the most decisive matter, once the torpedo problems got fixed.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-06-2016, 11:20 AM
RE: World War II.
A far more decisive battle in the Pacific was the Guadalcanal campaign. A six-month struggle with more or less equal forces operating in awful terrain at the extreme ends of the supply lines for both sides. While the Marines suffered under the conditions they had the easier mission of defending the airfield while the Japanese had to land forces piecemeal and launch attacks on heavily fortified positions. IJN ship losses were severe and largely irreplaceable whereas ours were totally replaceable by better quality ships. The IJN's carrier and land-based air arms were devastated and even worse than the aircraft losses were the losses of trained air crews which the Japanese could not replace.

Many of the soldiers landed died of starvation or disease before getting in position to attack Henderson field and those who did survive the march were thrown away in headlong charges into fortified positions.

The Japanese were a spent force after Guadalcanal.

Atheism is NOT a Religion. It's A Personal Relationship With Reality!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Minimalist's post
08-06-2016, 12:07 PM
RE: World War II.
I'd argue that one of the most important battles in the war was the Battle of Kohima (and the defensive campaign leading up to it), where the Japanese attempts to invade India through Burma were stopped and mauled by British and Indian troops who had been rushed into hasty positions. Some very bitter fighting in some very rough terrain, and an amazing counteroffensive by the Brits, given their sparse numbers.

The amazing part about the battle was that the majority of casualties among the Japanese (and reason for their ineffectiveness at the end of the campaign) were from starvation and lack of supplies, while the British were supplied entirely and successfully by US and British air drops, showing the future of combat in which air-supplied rapid forces would be key to many military successes in rough terrain such as found in Asia... places like Chosin and Khe Sanh come to mind.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
08-06-2016, 12:34 PM
RE: World War II.
(07-06-2016 09:04 PM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  I am not an expert by any means, but:

I would blame the rise of fascism, but I don't know if I'm knowledgeable enough to defend that statement.

It's a good guess I would say.

Quote: I think the way the countries were divided after WWI caused a great many problems and hard feelings. The harsh financial reparations against Germany added fuel to Hitler's agenda and gave him a scapegoat.


No matter how division would look like problems and hard feelings would exist. It's reality of waking nationalism and often changing borders coupled with historical claims to land.

As for treaty, it was harsh but look at Brest Litovsk and German ultimatum to Russia. Also as R. Evans in "Coming of the Third Reich" claims Germans werent planing on being lenient after victory.

[quote ] The problems of the Fascists all over Europe seem pretty evident. Are Soviet Russia and Imperial Japan considered fascist? Not sure.[/quote]

Don't know about Japan but SU was dictatorial not fascist, though fascism seem to be equaled with dictatorships in common parlance.



Wysłane z mojego 6045K przy użyciu Tapatalka

The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-06-2016, 04:41 AM
RE: World War II.
Sociologically, WW1 saw the rise of a stronger capitalist system that only fueled the civil divide between rich and poor to such a state that during the reconstruction era, many different countries all saw fascist like leaders rise up on the waves of the raging people who'd been beaten down by the ventures we all see as a poison today.
Woodrow Wilson really succeeded in making sure America's fate in future WW2 was sealed with such blunders as the Federal Reserve, clinging to a presidency when detrimentally ill at a time when the League of Nations was already showing weakness by 1920-1921 and by hastily demobilizing the US armed forced post WW1 that saw something of the factor of 4 million troops sent up with piss poor pay and savings, a bursting land market bubble and the general signs of an impending economic shut down due to rising inflation. All factors showing the constant drift between the low and upper class divide like we see today.
It's a something of a shock that America itself did not become an embroiled fascist nation, too.

The fact that FDR was being strong armed by a coalition of Socialist, Communist and Labor Union movements in response to the depression was likely what kept the USA from falling into the same zealot fundamentalist fascist regime that Germany, Italy, Japan and others did. If it had been any other leader that was a channel for the anger expressed by the working class at that time; any individual who saw that they could use this emotional upheaval to rationalize some massive fascist take over? The USA could've been another regime of tyranny as well.

The things that triggered WW1 and WW2 are still in existence today and you can see the same build ups happening again. A desperate, massive, lower class oppressed heavily by the elite upper class. This class warfare is a bed rock in which - when left to scab and infect; fascist like leaders can rise up and whip up the emotional frenzy of the oppressed for their own gain. I mean, many people might not realize just how much boths sides wanted to keep warring; even post WW2. Churchill was fine with waging WW3 at the WW2s close.

The Treaties and the weakness of the League be damned; WW2 would've likely of happened with or without these entities. Hitler expressed it quite clearly himself in his book; Mein Kampf, it was a matter of revolution. It was a matter of taking back what was theirs. He truly saw the Jews as the class that was oppressing the commonwealth of a nation and all nations and wanted to represent the challenging underclass to topple them. This is why we've got to watch ourselves now, for this election itself is showing the signs of extreme discontent among the population that, if left unchecked, could easily bring to power a leader as vile as Hitler himself.

So in my personal opinion from everything I've read on my spare time - what lead to WW2? Ultimately - the Social Economic divide caused by oppressive Capitalism is what lead to it. With out that; you'd have no working class that would've supported Hitler or any fascist that rose during that time.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-06-2016, 06:04 AM
RE: World War II.
Beware of monocausality.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-06-2016, 09:27 AM
RE: World War II.
(10-06-2016 04:41 AM)Einharjar Wrote:  The things that triggered WW1 and WW2 are still in existence today and you can see the same build ups happening again. A desperate, massive, lower class oppressed heavily by the elite upper class. This class warfare is a bed rock in which..
Please define who these "massive, lower class" and "elite upper class" are. Please give criteria by which i can sort people according to.
Please define and demonstrate how this "class warfare" is being conducted today.

(10-06-2016 04:41 AM)Einharjar Wrote:  He truly saw the Jews as the class that was oppressing the commonwealth of a nation and all nations and wanted to represent the challenging underclass to topple them.
I dont think Adolf sorted people by class like a communist. As far as i know jews were a race to him. I remember his words from his speeches about "Jüdische RRRRRasse" not about "jüdische Klasse" (no pun possible here, cuz no *R*s, sorry).
He also didnt want to represent a class, he wanted to represent a race, a germanic-ish one he and others before him had made up.
He didnt want to "topple" them, he wanted to kill them, exterminate them, wipe them from the face of the earth, all of them.

(10-06-2016 04:41 AM)Einharjar Wrote:  So in my personal opinion from everything I've read on my spare time - what lead to WW2? Ultimately - the Social Economic divide caused by oppressive Capitalism is what lead to it.
Please elaborate on "oppressive capitalism", i dont know that term, yet.

(10-06-2016 04:41 AM)Einharjar Wrote:  With out that; you'd have no working class that would've supported Hitler or any fascist that rose during that time.
One of the many ironies of the NSDAP ("working class party") was that its rise in the 20 was due to its success in the lower middle class, not in the working class.

A little suggestion at the end: Try reading stuff that was not written by guys from Trier. It may broaden your views.

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Deesse23's post
11-06-2016, 01:59 AM
RE: World War II.
(10-06-2016 09:27 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  Please define who these "massive, lower class" and "elite upper class" are. Please give criteria by which i can sort people according to.
Please define and demonstrate how this "class warfare" is being conducted today.

Social Economic rankings typically recognized today. There are, if I remember, a few standards:
Lower Class - Insecure financially, likely no home ownership, no college education, large ethnic population
Working Class - Insecure financially, up to BA in education, no asset ownership, large ethnic population
Lower Middle Class - Financially more secure, up to BA in education, no asset ownership, large ethnic population / predominately white
Professional Middle Class - Financially secure (though this is eroding), 4 year degree and beyond, minor asset ownership; wages typically salaried, predominately white
Owning Class - Financially secure, can pay costs of living without a working wage due to asset ownership, large inheritances, predominately white

Owning Class is roughly 3% of the US population. Of that 3%, 1% is labeled as the "Ruling Class".

Class Warfare:
Definition from Wikipedia - Class conflict, frequently referred to as class warfare or class struggle, is the tension or antagonism which exists in society due to competing socioeconomic interests and desires between people of different classes.

By definition, this is unavoidable as it's the nature of a capitalistic society. In order to have Rich, you need to have Poor. This immediately requires that there's a obvious socioeconomic class divide between those two groups just on finances alone. The two class will compete as the logic for reward is "Rich is better" due to a materialistic or consumer ideology. Consumerism reinforces the idea that the merit of society is to gain more wealth. The Poor will constantly struggle to achieve that goal, while the Rich struggle to retain their goal. Current examples of class warfare include the current Welfare system and it's massive short comings, Occupy Wallstreet movement, Bernie's "Bernie or Bust / Revolution Movement", America's Homeless epidemic and the legal system that in comparison to more Socialistic societies, is extremely abusive to such individuals. So on and so forth.

I tried to answer this logically, as I'm sure that's what you wanted. While in my head I'm thinking "isn't this obvious to you, though? All the constant data, that you can look up yourself viewing IRS stats that the wealth disparity in the USA currently is mimicking (worse than, now) the wealth disparity during the period pre-Depression?". I'm just saying.

(10-06-2016 09:27 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  I dont think Adolf sorted people by class like a communist. As far as i know jews were a race to him. I remember his words from his speeches about "Jüdische RRRRRasse" not about "jüdische Klasse" (no pun possible here, cuz no *R*s, sorry).
He also didnt want to represent a class, he wanted to represent a race, a germanic-ish one he and others before him had made up.
He didnt want to "topple" them, he wanted to kill them, exterminate them, wipe them from the face of the earth, all of them.

Class warfare is extremely broad, and today we're seemingly blinded by believing it's definition is limited to a Financial requirement only when in the past it's been used as racial or hereditary systems too. Hell, as statistics show now, there is a racial divide when looking at socioeconomic classes. The White population dominates the upper and ruling classes, while the minorities dominate the poverty level and lower classes. There's even a correlation in religious beliefs, with the most religious populace typically being on the lower end of the class, with religion becoming less and less the higher you go as education becomes more pronounced.

It's no mystery that Hitler would use the race card; because for hundreds of years previous Germans HAD use the race card. Anti-semantics is strong in that country's past. The idea of "Aryan" race vs "Jew" is an old idea from the 1500s. However, Hitler threw this rivalry a new bone, the socioeconomic one. Many of Hitler's speeches, letters and excerpts from Mein Kampf call out the Jews for causing the Treaty of Versailles and later, predicts a Economic Depression will be caused by them. When the Depression happens, he gains credibility and continues to blame the Jews for causing it. The over all logic was stupefying but to a group of people at the time, it made sense since the Jews were the largest minority and there was notable houses of known Jews whom were wealthy and now home to UK or USA, such as the Rothschilds.

The question of race vs race has been an ongoing affair since the 1500s I believe, even Martin Luther getting in on the action calling for the Aryans to eliminate the Jews. Hitler is the one who added the social economic Class spin on it by spreading deceitful logic that since the Jews were "mostly bankers" and were sitting on the counsels when the Treaty was signed, that they were solely responsible for Germany's fall and the Depression. Of course later, he lumped in any other minority too but... still.
The easiest way to a mans heart is through his stomach, and what better way to paint an enemy when you're starving than to blame a group of people by saying "these bastards are the rich ones who doomed our country and made you poor! You can't afford bread because of them!". Truly, without the market crash and the resulting the Depression, Hilter would've never became what we saw. His political career was in major decline just before the Crash. The Crash validated to many, his claims that the "rich Jews" caused the fall of Germany.

This is why I'm sure that the social economic situation developed by capitalistic society at the time create the soup that would become WW2. Hitler would've gotten no traction just saying "Jew are less pure race!". In fact, he wasn't and didn't. The only traction he really got with blaming the Jews was when he labeled them as targets for causing the economic collapse and acting as rich conspirators in league with the USA, France and UK. The collapse of capitalism (the Great Depression) is what made Hitler. Without it, he would've never saved his failing political career at the time and stolen power. The race card was a real reason, but after 400 years? It wasn't budging. It took Hitler declaring a economic class warfare claim to finally push it over the edge, and even then his highest native German approval rating once he took full power in was in 1938, and it was only 33%. With out that economic collapse and his claims that the Jews were causing it for their own gains, he would've never of succeeded. At least that's how I see it. It's still very debatable, but the information seems to elude to this heavily.

(10-06-2016 09:27 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  Please elaborate on "oppressive capitalism", i dont know that term, yet.

I've self defined this; but it's a common idea mentioned by critics of capitalism. It's typically tossed around to define capitalistic systems that are "survival of the fittest" styled systems; which, such a system is generally described as inhumane.

For my own definition I try to be more specific, oppressive capitalism is one that wishes to be unregulated so that it can utilize methods and practices that modern society for the past 150 years would consider immoral; such as Child Labor.

(10-06-2016 09:27 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  One of the many ironies of the NSDAP ("working class party") was that its rise in the 20 was due to its success in the lower middle class, not in the working class.

By definition, the "Lower Middle Class" is barely any different from the "Working Class" with the only real defining factor being slightly higher income which tends to equate to just enough to secure home ownership. Lower Middle Class have the same educational standards, do not own or control professional assets and if they do own a business, hands on work is still required. The Working Class is much broader than "minimum wage" types. These days, the definition for BOTH include on up to BA degrees, though typically less.

(10-06-2016 09:27 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  A little suggestion at the end: Try reading stuff that was not written by guys from Trier. It may broaden your views.

I do not believe I have but I understand what you're getting at, and agree. I'm not about to stop reading on subjects that fascinate me such as this so certinaly choosing a variety of sources is my ambition. For me, I adhere to the rule that "History is written by the Victor" which inspires me to try and find as many "Loser" POVs as much as possible as well.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: