AiryW
Full Member
Posts: 183
|
Post by AiryW on May 1, 2019 1:37:47 GMT -6
Just an interesting web page with a nice chart What the hell, dude, you are better then that.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on May 1, 2019 9:05:05 GMT -6
Just an interesting web page with a nice chart What the hell, dude, you are better then that. If you search for "The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers" with CIA added to the search you should get the full copy of the book as a PDF. It has a wealth of information and excellent conclusions.
|
|
|
Post by williammiller on May 1, 2019 9:09:21 GMT -6
Just an interesting web page with a nice chart What the hell, dude, you are better then that. ? ? ? I Don't follow...
|
|
|
Post by dorn on May 1, 2019 10:23:42 GMT -6
I think that it is linked with standard UK view on continental Europe as UK believe that there is need to balance power and thinks Germany as natural border from communismus from east. They completely miscalculated Hitler as a person. It is quite similar to Swiss envolvement in WW2 being Nazis main bank.
Another interesting "story" is that as Czechoslovakia was closed to clash with Germany, there was transfer of Czechoslovakian gold reserves to UK (Bank of International settlement account in Bank of England) to secure gold. After Czechoslovakia was taken over by Germany in March of 1939, Germany immediately went to Czechoslovakian national bank to order transfer of gold from Czechoslovakian account to Reichsbank account. And they did it for the first half of transfer, UK did not stop transfer helping Germany to finance the rearmament.
It was easy after WW2 and the death of Adolf Hitler to put all the blame on him and his Nazis party. However, that is a simplistic view relieving all the other nations from responsibility. Finally after maybe twenty years, in the '60's a new view, not revisionist, but just a plain examination of the actual events using documentation that was available, came to the forefront. It finally dawned on everyone, that what happened in WW2 was nothing more than a continuation of WW1. It was just a confirmation that WW1 was a war that reconfigured Europe and WW2 just confirmed that reconfiguration. Hitler moved eastward, because he believed, incorrectly, that the British would not interfere with his plans and he would stay at peace with the western nations. He did not want a repeat of WW1. Eastern Europe had natural resources and land that he could use. He also planned to move the native peoples out of the area and occupy it with native German's. Russia was included in this plan. I can only assume that the western nations throughout the interwar period gave him that impression that they would not fight for eastern Europe. Misimpressions can lead to wars. My view is that with the rise of globalism, and breakup of the major empires, all the nations of Europe, Asia and North America had a stake in how the geopolitical situation operated or should have operated. We cannot and should not have isolated ourselves, hoping that the Nazi's and Hitler would go away. They did not and a new war was required. Hopefully we have learned the lesson. The German people have a stake in the beginning of WW2. I agree with you. We can think when it starts when it was first thing. We can go quite back in time. But one of main reasons was that old colonial empires wants status qua after WW1. They was lost in time doing old politics but as world has chaning rapidly they did not adapt.
We can look on other side, looking what was done against humanity. It is difficult as even war itself is evil. But it was not only Germany, it was on allied side to. But on side of USA and UK it was mostly individual crime, on Soviet side it was quite large as Germany but nobody was blame after the war.
No matter how democratic is country, history is written by victors. And some things are not shown in whole picture.
|
|
AiryW
Full Member
Posts: 183
|
Post by AiryW on May 1, 2019 11:08:45 GMT -6
What the hell, dude, you are better then that. ? ? ? I Don't follow... That site loads of citations for entirely tangential matters while the core thesis is grounded on a basis of secondary historians reprinting the statements of german politicians at the time said so, politicians who we should hardly trust to be impartial. Supporting the thesis that the treaty of Versailles was responsible for hyperinflation by citing hardcore nationalist German politicians from the 20s who gained politically from denouncing the treaty is either ignorant as to the basics of interwar history or shockingly naive. There is of course plenty of rubbish on the internet but it's disappointing to see it being referenced by someone as well read as oldpop.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on May 1, 2019 11:20:53 GMT -6
That site loads of citations for entirely tangential matters while the core thesis is grounded on a basis of secondary historians reprinting the statements of german politicians at the time said so, politicians who we should hardly trust to be impartial. Supporting the thesis that the treaty of Versailles was responsible for hyperinflation by citing hardcore nationalist German politicians from the 20s who gained politically from denouncing the treaty is either ignorant as to the basics of interwar history or shockingly naive. There is of course plenty of rubbish on the internet but it's disappointing to see it being referenced by someone as well read as oldpop. To satisfy all, the post has been deleted. Let us hear no more of it. My final thoughts on this interesting subject. After most wars, the flood of memoirs, diaries and narratives is intense. It takes a few years, sometimes decades for the real truth to be explored and assessed. This was true of WW1 and WW2. Example is that Churchill claimed that he had completely supported Dowding's efforts to built a defense radar network, operational system for the processing of both the radar and optical information and the deployment of the fighters. This was a bald face lie and he knew it. There were many experts who had been in the government who knew that Churchill had fought Dowding tooth and nail. This has happened many times, nothing new. WW2 was a simple extension of WW1 and the results of the Versailles Treaty were and are, there for all to see. But everyone, as I and others have stated, is responsible including the German people. Hopefully, we have learned from the period and will not allow it to happen again. Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Thanks for allowing me to participate.
|
|
|
Post by williammiller on May 1, 2019 11:23:38 GMT -6
That site loads of citations for entirely tangential matters while the core thesis is grounded on a basis of secondary historians reprinting the statements of german politicians at the time said so, politicians who we should hardly trust to be impartial. Supporting the thesis that the treaty of Versailles was responsible for hyperinflation by citing hardcore nationalist German politicians from the 20s who gained politically from denouncing the treaty is either ignorant as to the basics of interwar history or shockingly naive. There is of course plenty of rubbish on the internet but it's disappointing to see it being referenced by someone as well read as oldpop. Ah, ok. So your opinion on the usefulness of said site is less than his... no problem. Might be more clear on that initially, I was afraid it might be a Neo-Nazi site or something from your initial reaction/post...which i am sure oldpop2000 would not be posting.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on May 1, 2019 11:59:16 GMT -6
It was easy after WW2 and the death of Adolf Hitler to put all the blame on him and his Nazis party. However, that is a simplistic view relieving all the other nations from responsibility. Finally after maybe twenty years, in the '60's a new view, not revisionist, but just a plain examination of the actual events using documentation that was available, came to the forefront. It finally dawned on everyone, that what happened in WW2 was nothing more than a continuation of WW1. It was just a confirmation that WW1 was a war that reconfigured Europe and WW2 just confirmed that reconfiguration. Hitler moved eastward, because he believed, incorrectly, that the British would not interfere with his plans and he would stay at peace with the western nations. He did not want a repeat of WW1. Eastern Europe had natural resources and land that he could use. He also planned to move the native peoples out of the area and occupy it with native German's. Russia was included in this plan. I can only assume that the western nations throughout the interwar period gave him that impression that they would not fight for eastern Europe. Misimpressions can lead to wars. My view is that with the rise of globalism, and breakup of the major empires, all the nations of Europe, Asia and North America had a stake in how the geopolitical situation operated or should have operated. We cannot and should not have isolated ourselves, hoping that the Nazi's and Hitler would go away. They did not and a new war was required. Hopefully we have learned the lesson. The German people have a stake in the beginning of WW2. I agree with you. We can think when it starts when it was first thing. We can go quite back in time. But one of main reasons was that old colonial empires wants status qua after WW1. They was lost in time doing old politics but as world has chaning rapidly they did not adapt.
We can look on other side, looking what was done against humanity. It is difficult as even war itself is evil. But it was not only Germany, it was on allied side to. But on side of USA and UK it was mostly individual crime, on Soviet side it was quite large as Germany but nobody was blame after the war.
No matter how democratic is country, history is written by victors. And some things are not shown in whole picture.
As William Sherman said in a round about way, All War is Hell. All sides did things that were not entirely necessary for the success of strategy or operations, but was done anyway. Nice post.
|
|
AiryW
Full Member
Posts: 183
|
Post by AiryW on May 1, 2019 13:05:50 GMT -6
It takes a few years, sometimes decades for the real truth to be explored and assessed. Yes this is quite true. I would even say that when it comes to WWI a proper historical accounting is just getting started. Ah, ok. So your opinion on the usefulness of said site is less than his... no problem. Well my initial reaction was perhaps overly the result of being in a bit of a grumpy mood on account of bout of stomach pain waking me up in the middle of the night. So apologies for being snippy. Thanks for allowing me to participate. Cheeky.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on May 1, 2019 13:16:38 GMT -6
It takes a few years, sometimes decades for the real truth to be explored and assessed. Yes this is quite true. I would even say that when it comes to WWI a proper historical accounting is just getting started. Ah, ok. So your opinion on the usefulness of said site is less than his... no problem. Well my initial reaction was perhaps overly the result of being in a bit of a grumpy mood on account of bout of stomach pain waking me up in the middle of the night. So apologies for being snippy. Thanks for allowing me to participate. Cheeky. The study and historical assessments of WW1, the interwar period and WW2 are still in progress as more documentation is digitized and provided by all nations. I can't wait to see what they say about Vietnam, that should give me a good laugh. Sorry about your stomach pain, I get it once in a while, so I have a cup of nice strong coffee and its gone. My lady says I am weird. I use my espresso or my French coffee maker, and about two others. Sometimes I get really insane and make Turkish coffee. Man you have got to be ready for that.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on May 6, 2019 0:31:36 GMT -6
What I find quite intriguing that in WW2 there were nations fighting in WW2 previous war (mainly France, UK which adapted later) and there where nations which seems that did not study WW1 at all as Germany. If you look at WW1 Germany lost war because of the lack of resources (blockade), lower economical power and offensive power (trench warfare) to use local advantages quickly. For WW2 Germany solved issue with offensive power in a way that they were years ahead of others but lack of resources were never overcome and there was no strategy to do it as even continental Europe does not have enough resources. Economical power was quite high if we do not consider USA but still Germany after conquering continental Europe has only economical power similar to British Empire. As this it is even more interesting that after fall of France Germany war industrial was not going in full power especially after debacle in Britain.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on May 6, 2019 11:13:15 GMT -6
What I find quite intriguing that in WW2 there were nations fighting in WW2 previous war (mainly France, UK which adapted later) and there where nations which seems that did not study WW1 at all as Germany. If you look at WW1 Germany lost war because of the lack of resources (blockade), lower economical power and offensive power (trench warfare) to use local advantages quickly. For WW2 Germany solved issue with offensive power in a way that they were years ahead of others but lack of resources were never overcome and there was no strategy to do it as even continental Europe does not have enough resources. Economical power was quite high if we do not consider USA but still Germany after conquering continental Europe has only economical power similar to British Empire. As this it is even more interesting that after fall of France Germany war industrial was not going in full power especially after debacle in Britain.
The question that is recurrent is whether the total war of WW2 inevitable and the answer is sadly, yes. With the personalities and circumstances involved in it, all the leaders became as one author puts, prisoners of events. They all were tempted to respond immediately to problems with actions that the consequences could never be planned for nor be foreseen. The war was just allowed to happen, it was not really planned to be total war. One event escalated to another. Example was the accidental bombing of London, which of course required an attack on a German city in reply. So, it escalated. There were many instances of it. The attempts at restraint, to make the war, a limited war, were either half-hearted or misdirected. One author states that the war started out as a "controlled limited war" and that both sides observed limitations on the violence and that it was just a gradual escalation that resulted in the war that we saw. I've always felt that the advent of the strategic bomber and the associated strategic bombing campaigns with the attitude that the bomber will always get through, probably had much to do with the escalation of the war. The U-boat war against the economic life of a nation also had much to do with the escalation to total war. At the end of the First World War and into the 1920's, the nations who were victorious were probably more concerned with disarmament than with any planning for the next war. Military planning probably was not realistic and any discussions over strategy were more akin to college discussions than actual military strategic discussions about where the next war would occur, when, and how it would proceed. In 1929, Chief of the Air Staff for Britain stated that "air power should be used for direct attack on the enemy's sources of power, instead of being frittered away in an effort to defeat the hostile armies and navies." . Essentially the strategy was to attack the enemy's will to resist by attacking strategic targets almost all of whom were in populated area and so without any real consideration, it would be the destruction of cities and large scale deaths of the population. This strategy would reduce the ability to resist and have moral effects.
|
|
|
Post by oaktree on May 7, 2019 1:40:23 GMT -6
Part of the air power doctrine was that there were expectations that strategic bombing would be accurate. And that the most efficient way to affect the enemy was to bomb the factory producing the rifles rather than the men at the front carrying the rifles once they were distributed. Which makes sense in an abstract sense.
RAF's Bomber Command hit some very serious walls once the war started. Bombing was not accurate and thus required a much much larger than expected bomb tonnage to be dropped to have any effect. Daylight raids suffered unacceptable casualties. Bomber Command's current aircraft were incapable of carrying out any sort of effective strategic bombing offense due to lack of numbers and inability to carry sufficient tonnage of bombs to the target.
---
That a second major European war of some sort was coming seemed to be inevitable. Sort of like the lead-in to WW1 there was one crisis after another (Ethiopia, Spanish Civil War, etc.) where at least two powers were having considerable friction with each other. Germany's re-militarization under Hitler added another player to the mix, and one that soon saw that aggressive action was not confronted in any serious way.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on May 7, 2019 10:02:03 GMT -6
Strategic bombing starts with three necessary requirements. A. The bombers have to be able to reach the target. This is a combination of range, penetration and navigation. B. The strikes must be effective and is a question of bombs that are adequate in quality and quantity along with accuracy of delivery. B. Ability of the force to return to base suffering a tolerable casualty rate.
The above is a tall order as all found out in WW2. The third is the difficult one to define. It is really based on the effectiveness of the destruction of each mission. If your effectiveness is high, then the casualty rate can be higher and tolerated as long as each mission is successful. It also depends on the sustainable morale of the crews. This last requirement is as most historians will agree, is psychological more than anything.
Strategic bombing began during the First World War with the Zeppelin raids but the commanders really did not have any idea where their targets were, so many times they just unloaded on anything they could see. Their actual effect was minimal. In 1917, the Gotha’s began their raids and they were more effective, but the British had plenty of fighters, but they were not very effective. It was the Zeppelin and Gotha raids that essentially the theory of Strategic Bombing sprang. Men like Billy Mitchell, Sir Hugh Trenchard and Giulio Douhet developed their believes in strategic bombing from these raids. The disarmament fever of the 1920’s reduced the funding necessary to really develop the doctrine but more importantly, the technology. The use of Duraluminum in the fuselage and wing structures was not approved in the US until 1922. Bigger, more powerful engines with better reliability and superchargers for altitude took time to develop. Better radios for communications between aircraft and the ground, homing beacons for better navigation and of course, better bomb sights to allow for more accuracy. Even better bombs, with better fusing, explosive fillers and structures were necessary. The idea is nice, but it does take research and money. By 1929, we had worldwide depression and funds were reduced even more. There were also agreements by all nations about who and what to bomb, leaving civilian areas off limits but that was impossible as cities grew around factories there was no way to bomb a factory without killing civilians. If the opponent used cottage building techniques, then trying to find each small assembly area was almost impossible as both sides found out. The most famous aspect of the theory was that the bomber would always get through. That idea was quickly destroyed in the Battle of Britain.
The real requirement to ensure accuracy was a smart bomb, a bomb that could be guided by radio to its target. The missiles developed by the German's during the war were the key to getting better accuracy. Our Norden bombsight was good, but not perfect and weather, especially in northern Europe was not really good for high level bombing.
The road to strategic bombing was long and hard and it is only in the 1960's that we began to develop smart bombs and missiles.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on May 7, 2019 13:56:51 GMT -6
Thanks for the information, always learn new things from you.
Did British make some analysis when changed to night bombing of Germany? I expect that as they losses decreases they can accept even less precision of bombing runs combined with dehousing bombing raids where precision is needed so much.
|
|