#91
|
||||
|
||||
Aspqrz, I can't tell if you're just trolling us here or if you really believe what you're asserting. If this is a troll, bravo- you suckered me right in. However, assuming that you are being sincere...
Quote:
You also conveniently ignore the fact that UK had lost almost all of its East Asian empire by 1942 and did not have the means to both get it back and hold off the Germans at the same time. Without the Americans, could the British have defeated the Axis in the ETO and recovered its East Asian real estate? As for your second point, past success does not guarantee future results. If so, every invasion of GB after the Norman Conquest would have succeeded. I've read extensively on WWII, as I suspect you have too. I have never come across a single analysis of the war that even attempted to assert that the British Commonwealth could have won WWII on its own. Even noted British WWII historians like John Keegan, Max Hastings, and Antony Beevor concede that the UK could not have won the war without direct American intervention. If your point is that the Commonwealth could have prevented its defeat without American help, then I concede the possibility. If you are arguing that the Commonwealth could have defeated the Axis Powers without American help... I suppose we will have to agree to disagree.
__________________
Author of Twilight 2000 adventure modules, Rook's Gambit and The Poisoned Chalice, the campaign sourcebook, Korean Peninsula, the gear-book, Baltic Boats, and the co-author of Tara Romaneasca, a campaign sourcebook for Romania, all available for purchase on DriveThruRPG: https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...--Rooks-Gambit https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...ula-Sourcebook https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...nia-Sourcebook https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...liate_id=61048 https://preview.drivethrurpg.com/en/...-waters-module Last edited by Raellus; 11-23-2015 at 05:47 PM. |
#92
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Middle of Australia, Woomera to be exact. Quote:
With the constant threat of German aerial attack it's likely much of the UKs industrial production would be shifted to safer colonies (such as South Africa) with finished products shipped in via convoys. Eygpt and the suez canal would likely have become even more important with Commonwealth efforts against the Axis forces concentrated there while the UK itself carried out only holding actions to prevent invasion. Instead of D-Day landings being in France, the main thrust (when it finally came, likely several years later) may have been up through the middle east in an attempt to link up with the Soviets. All in all though it's really impossible to say what might have happened, but it is foolish to say the UK would definitely have been defeated without the US. Quote:
It would be a radically different world that which we live in today, one I imagine would somewhat resemble that shown in the George Orwell book, 1984 with war a constant background and the people generally living in poverty.
__________________
If it moves, shoot it, if not push it, if it still doesn't move, use explosives. Nothing happens in isolation - it's called "the butterfly effect" Mors ante pudorem |
#93
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
And, of course, many Historians, even respected ones, don't actually do a lot of (and, in some cases, any at all) original research ... they simply rehash what is available in secondary sources and seldom check to see whether those secondary sources are based on reliable primary sources. This is one of the reasons why our understanding of the war in the East has so radically changed in the last quarter century ... decades of Soviet lies and misinformation is gradually being chipped away at by people like Glantz (good researcher, terrible writer btw). But even before that by people such as Barber and Harrison in books such as "The Soviet Home Front, 1941-5: a Social and Economic History of the USSR in World War II" and in others of their extensive writings on the Soviet economy. Unfortunately, this material has yet to make its way into the wider historical context, especially in generalist histories and histories aimed at a non-specialist audience. Similar material is increasingly available in specialist economic and historical circles that debunks many of the more ludicrous claims about such things as the U Boat campaign bringing the UK to its knees or that it could have defeated her single handedly. As for the Japanese - well, as I noted elsewhere, the US and Japanese were on a path to conflict without the UK anywhere. If the Japs decided to steal all the resources they needed because of the US embargoes, they will, indeed, almost certainly go to war with the UK etc. Unfortunately, military reality, and their own unique and not entirely crazy (but always consistent within its own crazy logic) take on reality meant that, to take and secure the resources of Malaya, Borneo, the DEI and elsewhere they needed to take out the US forces in the PI. Which meant war with the US. Now, if the US decides to ignore Europe and simply fight the Japs, the Japs are not a major problem for the Commonwealth for more than a year, maybe a year and a bit ... after all, as we all know, the US put 80% of its war effort into Europe and only 20% into the Pacific. If they had put 100% into the Pacific they would have swamped the Japs at least a year, and more likely 1.5-2 years, earlier ... though without the A-Bomb, of course. And the A-Bomb. Tubealloys provided a lot of the theoretical and engineering underpinning for the US program on the, mistaken, understanding that the US would share the fruits of such ... so the UK didn't expend resources on it. If the US was not involved, then the program would have continued ... granted, much less quickly than the Manhattan Engineering District did, but I never suggested it would. And, of course, I note you completely ignore the historical stick-to-it-ivity of the British Empire at war over the last several centuries and her ability to fund and pay off such wars within extremely short periods of time. I just get annoyed at people trotting out 'facts' that are now known to not be such in specialist circles and pooh-poohing anyone who disagrees with those disproven assertions. Not trolling at all. Phil |
#94
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
And, as we know from German experiences with the Bombing Campaign, factory buildings are easy(ish) to destroy, but the machine tools in them ... not so much. It was common for 'destroyed' factories to be back in production in days or weeks with, at best, only temporary shelter above the workers heads (if any at all) ... the Russians found much the same with the factories they relocated east of the Urals, they were back in production as soon as the machines were on firm footings, even in winter, and way before anything more than temporary shelter was erected over them. If the Germans and Russians could manage it, no reason why the Brits couldn't. Phil |
#95
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
If GB was so potent, why did it lose most of its empire after WWII? GB was in bad shape after winning WWII (with American help). It did NOT fund and pay off its defense spending from WWII (having received billions of dollars in Cash and Carry and Lend Lease aid from the U.S.) in an extremely "short period of time". In fact, it received Marshall Plan monies from the U.S. after the war. Its economy took decades to recover. If it was strong enough to defeat the Axis on its own, why wasn't strong enough to hold on to its colonies? Why did it struggle with years of post-war economic recession? Perhaps this is a post hoc, ergo propter hoc argument on my part, but I think it's a valid question, considering how capable, militarily and financially, you argue that the Commonwealth was 1939-1952. I guess I don't have access to the font of "specialist" knowledge that you apparently do. And I get annoyed at "special pleading" arguments. Somehow, mainstream historians have all gotten it wrong for a half-century and you and a few cutting edge historians in "specialist circles" (most of whom you neglect to name) have the [secret] knowledge that disproves years of careful scholarship? What "facts" that I've trotted out have been "disproven"? Perhaps I overstated the efficacy of the German U-Boat blockade, but what else? Where do your "facts" come from? Don't tell me they're classified or I'll know you're trolling.
__________________
Author of Twilight 2000 adventure modules, Rook's Gambit and The Poisoned Chalice, the campaign sourcebook, Korean Peninsula, the gear-book, Baltic Boats, and the co-author of Tara Romaneasca, a campaign sourcebook for Romania, all available for purchase on DriveThruRPG: https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...--Rooks-Gambit https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...ula-Sourcebook https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...nia-Sourcebook https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...liate_id=61048 https://preview.drivethrurpg.com/en/...-waters-module Last edited by Raellus; 11-23-2015 at 09:50 PM. |
#96
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
I mentioned one book previously, by Harrison and Barber, but any of their books are worth reading. Harrison's books ... http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/ec...rrison/public/ ... many of which he co-authored with John Barber (King's College, Cambridge, not London) You can see a sample of his/their work at - http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/ec...rrison/public/ ... which has interesting tables from their other works, including those on the WW2 economies of the Great Powers, which is in and of itself especially interesting. I have also mentioned Glantz's work which is more specifically on the Eastern Front but, unfortunately, not widely enough read because, as I indicated, he is a horrible writer. It is only in the last 5-10 years that more readable accounts of the Eastern Front and Soviet era misinformation and lies have become more mainstream in the hands of historians with greater communications skills than Glantz (one of my colleagues refers to Glantz's writing style as 'mere typing'). His works done with Jonathan House are the most readable ("When Titans Clashed" etc.) For Bombing, Overy's 'The Bombing War' is showing more recent scholarship, and his 'Why the Allies Won' is getting somewhat dated, but basic still good (and readable). Kershaw's 'Fateful Choices' is interesting, as it is about as close to a realistic assessment of 'alternate history' as a real specialist goes. Blair's two volume work on the U-Boat War places a spotlight on the shortcomings of the German U-Boat campaign, supplement figures that can be found in Tarrant's "The U-Boat Offensive 1914-1945". For overall logistics, look at Van Creveld's 'Supplying War', especially the last three chapters which are relevant to WW2 (East Front, Med, Western Europe). To understand the political and economic realities faced by all major powers involved, and why the Allies (and Russians) had so much difficulty in matching initial German production, you couldn't go far wrong with Maiolo's 'Cry Havoc' For the Strategic Bombing Campaign, reading the USAAF's 'Strategic Bombing Survey' with a critical eye, and looking at the actual figures presented which often belie some of the conclusions made then, and later, is always valuable. I haven't found a single source that breaks down the various national contributions to Lend Lease and Reverse Lend Lease, or breakdowns of actual composition of Lend Lease shipments by specific type (most sources have only general categories and don't always even attempt to break it down by nation of origin), but if you dig around in a lot of the better Economic histories, you can find a lot (Harrison and Barber do deal with it in some places, for example). As for Britain's stick-to-it-ivity, I haven't mentioned the books on the Napoleonic Wars, well, Knight's 'Britain Against Napoleon: The Organisation of Victory, 1793-1815' explains it in more detail than you'd probably care for, but any book about the invention of the National Debt/Creation of the Bank of England is also valuable (aka France lost because she couldn't organise herself efficiently to pay for the wars). And that's just the stuff I can see from my Office, without going into my Lounge, which is lined, floor to ceiling on one long wall and a third of the other with bookshelves ... and without consulting the sheafs of notes I have taken over the years. Phil |
#97
|
||||
|
||||
Actually the British had done initial research in an atomic bomb in 1940 under the MAUD Committee and much of this research was given to the USA to help convince the US to develop atomic weapons. It was a joint British-American team that worked on the Manhattan Project.
The two nations had an agreement to collaborate on nuclear weapons after the war but the US was deliberately reluctant (justifiably given the circumstances) to share the information gained, mostly due to the discovery that one of the British researchers, Klaus Fuchs (a Jewish German who fled when the Nazis took power) was also a communist. British scientists then built up their atomic weapons programme with little outside assistance to the point where they were able to test their first weapon in the 1950s. If the British had continued their own programme instead of halting it to give their information and their researchers to the US, they likely would have had a bomb available to them around the same time as the Manhattan Project delivered its first weapon and possibly before. For more information on how the US atomic bomb was just as much a British weapon and how the US froze out the British, refer to pages 24 to 30 of Between Heaven and Hell by Alan Rimmer The specific pages can be read here courtesy of Google Books https://books.google.com.au/books?id...page&q&f=false |
#98
|
||||
|
||||
It's also worth noting the British had an aircraft more than capable to carrying an atomic bomb several years before the US - the Avro Lancaster.
With a payload of 22,000lbs, it was also capable of carrying nearly a ton more than the US B-29.
__________________
If it moves, shoot it, if not push it, if it still doesn't move, use explosives. Nothing happens in isolation - it's called "the butterfly effect" Mors ante pudorem |
#99
|
||||
|
||||
ASPQRZ, you are clearly widely and well-read. I respect that. I too have a fairly respectable library of WWII scholarship. I have a degree in history and have taught it for nearly a decade now.
I've read some of the books and authors that you mentioned*. I will look into the ones that I have not. AFAIK, none of the works we have common experience with assert that the UK/Commonwealth didn't need U.S. assistance or speculate that they could defeated all of the Axis Powers without it. Apparently, we are drawing different conclusions from much the same information. Fair play there. I am just not seeing direct academic support- raw data, analysis, or synthesis- that supports your interpretations. I see a lot of picking and choosing of evidence to support your position. However, in my professional opinion, the preponderance of the evidence does not. In other words, I think that you are missing the forest for the trees. But, at this point, I think that we are both beating a horse that is well and truly dead. I don't think either of us are prepared to change our respective points of view on the matter either. I am fine with agreeing to disagree. That said, I'm interested in reading your response to my counterarguments to your allegations that GB had a track record of spanking larger continental powers (you implied that they did so on their own) and then quickly and easily paying off the financial burdens incurred during those wars. I cited two widely known examples refuting those assertions. I also mentioned GB's economic struggles during and after WWII- a historical reality despite substantial American material and financial aid, both during and after the war. Neither precedence nor the events of WWII support your argument that GB and the Commonwealth were ever in a position, militarily or financially, to defeat the Axis on their own. I like speculative fiction and alternate histories as much as the next guy, but that's really all that this is. *I am not sure why you keep citing Glantz. I've read several works by Glantz and, IIRC, if anything, he stresses the critical importance of Lend-Lease aid (from the USA and UK) in the Soviet Union both weathering the early storm and making possible its successes of 1943-'45.
__________________
Author of Twilight 2000 adventure modules, Rook's Gambit and The Poisoned Chalice, the campaign sourcebook, Korean Peninsula, the gear-book, Baltic Boats, and the co-author of Tara Romaneasca, a campaign sourcebook for Romania, all available for purchase on DriveThruRPG: https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...--Rooks-Gambit https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...ula-Sourcebook https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...nia-Sourcebook https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...liate_id=61048 https://preview.drivethrurpg.com/en/...-waters-module Last edited by Raellus; 11-24-2015 at 04:57 PM. |
#100
|
|||
|
|||
without the Lend Lease the Brits and Soviets lose the war - thats pretty much a fact -
however there is losing a war where you end up totally occupied and under enemy domination - and losing a war where you lose territory and resources and population but still stay independent If you read what Hitler's goals were he never had the occupation of the entire UK and British Empire as one of those goals or the occupation of all of the Soviet Union what he wanted was basically the European areas of the Soviet Union and the old German colonies in Africa if that is what the UK and the Soviet Union would be trying to prevent then yes they could "win" a war against Germany and Italy and Japan without direct US participation as a combatant - however if what you mean by winning is that they defeat the Axis and they surrender that isnt possible - at best they fight them to a draw and short of actually going to war itself there is no way the US ever would have switched its industrial production enough to give the Allies what they needed to win and actually beat the Axis to a surrender however they would have given them enough to take the Axis to the negotiation table eventually for an armistice (probably like the one in Korea where the borders are armed camps full of mines and machine gun nests) in that way the UK and Russians could have "won" the war without us - winning meaning frustrating Hitler's aims and surviving |
#101
|
|||||
|
|||||
Quote:
Quote:
However, they also deal in facts ... and, as I could point out (and as you undoubtedly understand), interpretation of facts changes over time, especially as new research brings new facts to light, or shines a different light on things that 'everyone knows' ... responsibility for WW1, for example. When I started Uni, pretty much entirely Germany's fault with a tinge of automaticity (train timetables) ... these days? Everyone's fault, with a rising tide of 'blame the idiot pollies who didn't grasp the seriousness of a potential war' ... which is, of course, grossly simplifying things to give a generalised trend. The facts have, by and large, not changed ... and relatively few new facts have come to light, but reinterpretation of existing facts has brought forward several generations of revisionism. ISTR some historian (forget who) making the lucid observation that the definitive histories of WW1/WW2 wouldn't (indeed, couldn't) be written for at least a couple of centuries ... and we can see the process occurring as I type this, almost. Quote:
And, of course, you seem to be ignoring, or not grasping, that I have repeatedly pointed out it would not have been an easy Commonwealth victory ... but a slow, grinding, attritional one (at least until the Atomic Bombs start dropping from the Lancaster follow-ons in the early to mid-50's), and that the world resulting would be a very different one to the one that actually occurred. I also feel that you are cherry picking your objections ... indeed, creating them where they simply cannot stand, as in the matter of Japan in the Far East, ignoring the reality that if they attacked the Commonwealth and her allies they had to attack the US. I am not aware of any mainstream historian who supports that line of thought ... unless they're conspiracy theorists. Quote:
Quote:
And your reading of the 7 Years War and its outcome is ... unusual ... as pretty much every historian I have read on the subject makes the point that it led to British pre-eminence and France being reduced to a second rate power (or, really, finally recognised as such) ... For example, British defence spending as a percentage of government revenue averaged ~70% or so (min. 62%, max. 89%) during the entirety of the 18th Century, while France managed only a max. of 41% ... reflecting, of course, the capital intensive nature of naval warfare ... and, yes, the Brits eventually lost the American colonies. So what? They won the 7 Years War. They defeated Napoleon. They gained effective control of more territory than they lost in both conflicts. And they paid down the debt incurred in fighting those wars effectively ... as, as I indicated, any study of the National Debt plainly shows. They emerged as the pre-eminent world and european power and retained that status right through to WW1 (though, yes, WW1 showed that things had been changing ...). Aka, they 'won' despite the short term costs ... hell, despite even the medium term costs! As far as a non-US WW2 goes, could the Commonwealth have won? Obviously, based on economics, the answer is yes. As I have repeatedly pointed out, and which you still don't seem to have fully understood, such a victory would have been neither fast nor cheap. Would it have caused economic stresses that could have had similar consequences to the American Revolution ... hell yes. Would that change the fact that the Commonwealth could/would have defeated Germany (aka 'won the war') ... IMO, no. This is obviously where our main point of difference is. Phil |
#102
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Phil |
#103
|
|||
|
|||
the facts on the ground are that without US participation in the war the UK and the Soviets in the end could have outlasted the Germans and Italians and Japanese but only if their populations were ready to basically face a very very very long war - and while that was possible in the Soviet Union it was not in the UK
dictatorships can harness people in ways that democracy's cannot - look at what happened to Churchill when he said we are done in Europe now we have to finish the job in Asia as an example if it had become clear that Hitler was ready to leave the UK alone and sue for a seperate peace with the UK and you had the right political climate then its just Hitler versus the Soviets - and Germany's industrial base with no bombing to slow it down, especially of its oil production and the Soviets would not have been able to win - survive yes, win no especially imagine how much difference it would have made in 1942 after Tobruk without the US ready and willing to pour in planes and tanks to save their position in Africa - something Roosevelt could not have done if he wasnt commander in chief of a nation at war |
#104
|
||||
|
||||
You make a big assumption.
The British public would not have automatically said no to a prolonged war in Europe like they did for the war in Asia. The war in Europe had an immediacy for the British public that the war in Asia did not, the war in Europe was on their doorstep and it's highly unlikely that any population under those circumstances would have "just given up" the fight because it was going to last a few years longer than they liked. |
#105
|
||||
|
||||
OK, Aspqrz, now you're getting nasty. I am well aware of historiography. You don't have to explain to me how historical interpretations change. You may have more teaching experience than I do (kudos to you sir) but you needn't talk down to me.
Since we're now cataloguing what our opposite is choosing to ignore, or "not grasping", let's list a few major points that you are ignoring or not grasping.
Also, why did Japan have to attack U.S. possessions in the Asia and Pacific (i.e. the Philippines) in order to complete its conquest of French, Dutch, and British possessions in the region? You treat this as an inevitability but I don't see it as such. Would you care to explain your reasoning?
__________________
Author of Twilight 2000 adventure modules, Rook's Gambit and The Poisoned Chalice, the campaign sourcebook, Korean Peninsula, the gear-book, Baltic Boats, and the co-author of Tara Romaneasca, a campaign sourcebook for Romania, all available for purchase on DriveThruRPG: https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...--Rooks-Gambit https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...ula-Sourcebook https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...nia-Sourcebook https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...liate_id=61048 https://preview.drivethrurpg.com/en/...-waters-module Last edited by Raellus; 11-24-2015 at 09:08 PM. |
#106
|
||||
|
||||
Doesn't look that way to me. Perhaps a bit of a break from the keyboard is in order for all those intimately involved with the discussion?
__________________
If it moves, shoot it, if not push it, if it still doesn't move, use explosives. Nothing happens in isolation - it's called "the butterfly effect" Mors ante pudorem |
#107
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Phil |
#108
|
||||||
|
||||||
Quote:
Quote:
In fact, it was known and understood well before WW1. Indeed, it was known and understood, but trumped by immediate jingoistic politics, as far back as the 1830s and pretty much definitively by the late 19th century. It may, or may not, on a case by case basis, have been accellerated by WW1 and WW2, but it was a process underway even before them. Quote:
Quote:
1) The US was seen by the Japanese as a threat regardless of what was going on in Europe (you could argue that this was a complete misreading of the US and her intentions, though many historians would hem and haw about such an interpretation ... but that is what we know the Japanese believed). 2) Japan didn't have the merchant fleet, especially tankers, to do anything but the most direct route from the Home islands to the British and Dutch possessions ... which meant they had to sail close to the PI, which the US were seen to be militarising, and which militarisation was seen to be directed at Japan by the Japanese (again, you could argue they were wrong in that belief, with the same hemming and hawing by historians as mentioned previously but, again, we know this is what the Japanese believed). 3) Ergo, there was an imminent military threat against their plans on the part of what they believed to be a hostile power ... so, given the military domination of Japanese politics and the world view, correct or incorrect, that the military had, to protect their supply lines for the invasions and, then, more importantly, prevent interference with their shipping bringing the spoils home, they believed that the only option they had was to attack the US, take out the Pacific Fleet, take the PI etc. etc. Was this based on crazy reasoning and false assumptions? At least partly. But, within their craziness, they were reasoning consistently ... ergo, unless you assume a US run by political and economic forces that are completely different to what actually existed then and there and also assume a sane, rational and logical (not to mention conciliatory) Japanese leadership, then a Japanese attack = the perceived necessity of attacking the US. Easy peasy, as I said. Phil |
#109
|
||||
|
||||
I'm finding this debate rather frustrating. You're clearly an intelligent and well-read fellow. I bear you no ill will. This shouldn't be so painful, but it is. I was enjoying intellectual the tete-a-tete, but now I am not.
First off, I don't like arguing against GB. I consider myself an Anglophile. I graduated from a British secondary in Montevideo, Uruguay. I enjoy watching football (come on, Arsenal!), the Mighty Boosh, and Doctor Who (Tom Baker is the Doctor, for my money). I've been to England twice in the last four years. Also, I'm one of the most reasonable and least jingoistic Americans on this board. I'll be the first to call out my country on foreign policy stumbles (I was opposed to the invasion of Iraq from the get-go) and regularly find myself as the sole American apologist for our biggest military rivals, Russia and China. I'm not trying to give the U.S.A. undue credit here. That's just part of it, though. The other part of it is that it's almost impossible to debate someone who resorts to "yeah, so what?" as a response to legitimate arguments. I could just as easily respond "yeah, so what?" to your entire thesis! So, I'll let you have the last word. This will be my last post in this thread. When your doctoral dissertation, How the British Commonwealth and the Soviet Union Could/Would have defeated the Axis Powers in Europe and Asia without any direct American Assistance* is vetted and accepted by the senior history faculty of a reputable university, then I will concede defeat. Until that time, "so what?" *Although I am sure you will qualify your position again before then.
__________________
Author of Twilight 2000 adventure modules, Rook's Gambit and The Poisoned Chalice, the campaign sourcebook, Korean Peninsula, the gear-book, Baltic Boats, and the co-author of Tara Romaneasca, a campaign sourcebook for Romania, all available for purchase on DriveThruRPG: https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...--Rooks-Gambit https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...ula-Sourcebook https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...nia-Sourcebook https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...liate_id=61048 https://preview.drivethrurpg.com/en/...-waters-module Last edited by Raellus; 11-24-2015 at 10:06 PM. |
#110
|
|||
|
|||
Just as, indeed, I find it disconcerting to have someone tell me that I am arguing a position I patently am not now, nor ever have.
Likewise I await the chance to read your doctoral thesis as well. YMMV. Phil |
#111
|
||||
|
||||
I think this is rather telling. http://www.g2mil.com/thompson.htm
Quote:
A few paragraphs earlier it mentioned the Japanese never really bothered sending their subs to attack US shipping in the Pacific (even though the Germans constantly urged them to) and if they'd done so right from the beginning (December 1941), the US would have been extremely hard pressed to achieve anything there as well. As I read more and more of this, which was written by an American using primarily American sources, the more it shows the US did not contribute as much to the survival of the Commonwealth as it claimed. I find one particular paragraph of great interest: Quote:
__________________
If it moves, shoot it, if not push it, if it still doesn't move, use explosives. Nothing happens in isolation - it's called "the butterfly effect" Mors ante pudorem |
#112
|
||||
|
||||
I'd say that what this really shows us, is that the reality is often a complex beast that few historians have managed to capture in its entirety. That is to say, there's a lot of events that have escaped general attention and even for historians and researchers, people don't often have a 100% full picture of the event.
For example, I've found in my own research on Cold War era military vehicles that many well known and credible authors have made some simple errors that should not have happened and the reason for this is that many, under a deadline, don't research the topic as well as they should and they fall back on earlier authors and the body of work they produced as the primary source material. As an illustration of this, I have a book by Greenhill, a company just as reputable as Jane's Information Group. The book claims to list "Over 800 vehicles from 1915 to the present, every armoured fighting vehicle that has ever existed". Ignoring the bit about "to the present" as the book was published in 2000 but within 10 minutes reading I found at least five vehicles that were not even referenced let alone included and I don't mean such things as obscure one-offs from some design group in Nazi German. They failed to list significant vehicles like the Canadian Bobcat APC, the Swiss MOWAG Typhoon or the US airportable T92 light tank. The point being, they didn't dig deep enough and they instead used earlier sources that were themselves incomplete. They were then unable to present a full picture but they themselves were also apparently unaware of this lack of knowledge. Last edited by StainlessSteelCynic; 11-25-2015 at 09:57 PM. Reason: correcting spelling |
#113
|
||||
|
||||
So far I've spent about 5-6 hours reading through the thesis mentioned above and I'm still only about 70% of the way through. It's big and absolutely comprehensive covering just about every detail.
The more I read, the more I believe the T2K timeline wasn't just possible, but likely (with regard to naval operations). In fact it would seem the US navy would have been hard pressed to even achieve a result as good as they did off the coast of Norway in 1996 (virtual destruction) given the wide ranging failures of the navy command structure and absolute resistance to either change or acknowledging any problems. Anyone who raised/raises an issue it would seem is very quickly shut down an censured, their careers stalled. That is if they're not turned into a scapegoat and dismissed from service at the first opportunity. The US Navy appears to have a culture of cover up. Lessons learned through experience are ignored to protect the careers of those at the top. I STRONGLY encourage everyone to read it if they can (I know it's a big job, but well worth the effort).
__________________
If it moves, shoot it, if not push it, if it still doesn't move, use explosives. Nothing happens in isolation - it's called "the butterfly effect" Mors ante pudorem Last edited by Legbreaker; 11-26-2015 at 01:06 AM. |
#114
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
So more people lost their life on the Eastern Front alone between 1941 and 1945 than the whole of Asia between 1937 and 1945, but we should ignore that fact and not call the war in Asia a sideshow compared to events in Europe as some in Asian might find that insulting. How insulted would the Russians be? |
#115
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
In 1941-45 who was Japan's opposition in Asia? China, the British and Dutch colonies and dominions and America across the Pacific Ocean. In 1939-45 who was Germany's opposition, and were the forces assembled in the Far East against Japan comparable to those assembled against Germany. Did Japan compare favourably in industrial and technological terms to Germany? Was the Japanese Army as well equipped or as large as the German Army? Did Japan engage in the industrial scale murder of millions of civilians in Asia? Did Japan field jet fighters and ballistic missiles in 1944? |
#116
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
So if I understand correctly you are saying that the USSR was only able to build so many tanks, artillery, munitions, aircraft etc in WW2 because Allied Lend Lease supplied them with everything else. Also unlike Britain for example the Soviets didn't have the specialised industrial expertise, machinery and tools to mass produce material that they would have needed to support themselves. Well if that is the case how come the Soviet Union was supplied with 10,982 millions dollars worth of Lend Lease and the British Empire was supplied with 31,387 million dollars worth of Lend Lease (3 times as much as the USSR)? Also can you compare the difference between the material that the United States supplied to the Soviet Union and the British Empire for comparison to support that statement? |
#117
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Outside of small arms and munitions which almost every country in WW2 produced how much of Australia's war production was sent outside of Australia and the South West Pacific Area theatre? I stated that Australia produced 16 escorts in WW2. I included the Tribal Class Destroyers as escorts as that is the type of warship they are; escorts to larger fleet warships such as cruisers, capitol ships and aircraft carriers; But on closer examination I overstated that figure. Between 1939 and the end of the war Australia only produced 11 escorts (2 Grimsby Class Sloops, 6 River Class Frigates and 3 Tribal Class destroyers, and one of the Tribal Class was commissioned in May 1945). I didn't include the Bathurst Class as escorts as they were originally classed as minesweepers, later re-designated corvettes and then classed again as minesweepers depending on their deployment. Incidentally 4 ships in the class were involved in mutinous activity due to the poor working and living conditions aboard these vessels, a record for a single class I think. The Bristol Beaufort and Beaufighter were British designs. The 700 Beaufort's license built in Australia used American engines. The 365 Beaufighters were only built from 1944, and the Wirraway and Boomerang used American engines. |
#118
|
|||
|
|||
Although some of the Beaufort's and Boomerang's engines were built under license in Lidcombe NSW by General Motor's Holden subsidiary.
|
#119
|
||||
|
||||
GODZILLA WON!
Can we now lock this thread?
__________________
************************************* Each day I encounter stupid people I keep wondering... is today when I get my first assault charge?? |
#120
|
||||
|
||||
I have a suggestion for you. Stop reading this thread.
Is it argumentative? Yes it is, (in the proper sense of arguing a point). Is it polarizing? Yes it is. Is it combatative? Yeah we've seen that too. Is it divisive? No it isn't, not to the point of hostility. I will agree that it has the potential to get heated and hostile but then so do many other threads were people argue from opposite sides. |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 15 (0 members and 15 guests) | |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|