Current Events > "History is my passion"

(+) Yeah! (+)

"Now sit there and listen while I recite every tank that the Germans built in World War II and tell you why they should have beaten the Allies."

She's not much of a history buff if she doesn't know that Tank production was never Germany's problem.

Their problem was oil and fuel supplies.

Making tanks you can't use effectively would have been nothing but lovely target pratice for the British

Germany of WWII was a world class sprinter running in a marathon.

Congrats, you get off to really good starts, but whoops. You dont have the capacity for the long haul.

their scope was definitely too big for their pace

UnfairRepresent posted...

She's not much of a history buff if she doesn't know that Tank production was never Germany's problem.

Their problem was oil and fuel supplies.

Making tanks you can't use effectively would have been nothing but lovely target pratice for the British

But, you see, it's just not fair that the Americans were able to produce so many tanks that they could send a platoon of Shermans every time they spotted a Panther or Tiger. Why couldn't they play fair?

K181 posted...

Germany of WWII was a world class sprinter running in a marathon.

Congrats, you get off to really good starts, but whoops. You dont have the capacity for the long haul.

To be fair to the Nazis....

Boy that didn't sound right.

To be fair to the Germans. They kind of didn't have a choice.

WW1 had already shown that them that winning a war of attrition was impossible. They had to take France quickly. They had to invade Russia before Russia invaded them or just became too powerful to defeat.

It might be easy to say so in hindsight but the fact is, once the Germans lost the Battle of Britain. They lost the war. It was over at that point.

The Germans had to go fast and have dramatic quick victories. Their 2 options were "Attack aggressively and maybe win quickly" or "Don't attack aggressively and lose a war of attrition again."

Really Japan is a better example of a nation that attacked too aggressively for short-term victories with 0 long term strategic planning that bit them in the ass.

"Boy what happens if we take over half the Pacific and have no capacity to actually control it? ... Oh we just pissed everyone in the world off.... Good job fellas!"

They were literally planning to invade Australia and build prefectures in the middle of the Outback (during war)

It never happened but ask any Australian and they'll tell you how fucking idiotic that idea was.

Australia actually knew this and the official plan of the nation of if Japan invaded was "Fuck it. let them have it. We'll retreat to Brisbane and have all the water and infastructure. They can fucking have fun out there."

Japan's entire China/WW2 strategy was monumentally stupid.

German and Japanese strategy both basically depended on the idea that a swift kick would bring the opposition tumbling. Both strategies failed due to vastly underestimating the ability and depth of their opponents while overestimating their own. Not to mention that they both essentially assumed a war game mentality and figured that once they acquired resource-rich territories that theyd immediately be fed into their war machine, never accounting for enemy sabotage and battle damage, difficulty in getting enemy infrastructure up and running, and critically transporting resources to where they were needed. And Germans made that error twice versus the Soviets, both in 1941 and again without correcting it in 1942.

Both started marathon campaigns (in Japans case while simultaneously running another marathon in China) and not at all being prepared for it, or with realistic plans in place to transition to marathon campaigns even after their initial successes.

^ Again though. I would argue Germany had no choice. (other than to not invade at all obviously(

Japan did. That's why Japan's tactics were more foolish.

Hell remember that Japan was still fighting when Germany was soundly defeated and we only droped nukes on them at all because we knew Russia was going to take it over.

I don't think Germany underestimated France, The US or UK or Russia (definately not Russia and the UK. I guess you could make a case for the US since it took so much to get them into the war) They just did what seemed like the only strategy at the time that wasn't doomed from the start.

Don't forget these were largely people who lived through and fought in WW1. They knew what the supply issues were like. They knew bogged down trench warfare was a death sentence. They knew the US was happy to sell boatloads of supplies to the UK and they couldn't stop that from happening.

UnfairRepresent posted...

Hell remember that Japan was still fighting when Germany was soundly defeated and we only droped nukes on them at all because we knew Russia was going to take it over.

The Soviets had agreed at Yalta not to invade the Home Islands. They also very likely weren't capable of launching amphibious operations in the first place without months of training and construction or purchase of the necessary equipment. Their limited operations against Sakhalin and the Kurils were much smaller in scale, and those still gave them a lot of trouble.

UnfairRepresent posted...

She's not much of a history buff if she doesn't know that Tank production was never Germany's problem.

Their problem was oil and fuel supplies.

Making tanks you can't use effectively would have been nothing but lovely target pratice for the British

And other allied forces.

UnholyMudcrab posted...

The Soviets had agreed at Yalta not to invade the Home Islands. They also very likely weren't capable of launching amphibious operations in the first place without months of training and construction or purchase of the necessary equipment. Their limited operations against Sakhalin and the Kurils were much smaller in scale, and those still gave them a lot of trouble.

Russia was literally planning/preparing for the invasion of Hokkaido when we dropped the nukes.

They were flat out going to invade literally a couple of weeks after the bombs dropped. The US was aware of this and was terrified of it. They knew what we know call the Cold War was coming and both the US and Russia were collecting scientists, land and resources like they were pokemon cards.

I like the fact you're using "It gave them a lot of trouble." as if that was a concern for Joseph Stalin

You forget Manchuria and that Japan had already put out feelers to Russia about a negociated surrender.

You really can't just re-write history. One of the primary goals of the Nukes was to intimidate Russia and attempt to curb their expansions in Europe and Asia.

When Japan surrendered to the US, the concept of Russian influence in Japan pretty much died.

And here we are in 2022 and that's still the case.

UnfairRepresent posted...

Russia was literally planning/preparing for the invasion of Hokkaido when we dropped the nukes.

Where's your proof of that? As far as I'm aware, the potential invasion of Hokkaido was an idea that Stalin may have briefly entertained, but that his generals and advisors all advocated against.

UnfairRepresent posted...

They were flat out going to invade literally a couple of weeks after the bombs dropped. The US was aware of this and was terrified of it. They knew what we know call the Cold War was coming and both the US and Russia were collecting scientists, land and resources like they were pokemon cards.

They were invading Manchuria, which had already been agreed to at Yalta. The Soviets had agreed to enter the war against Japan 3 months after the defeat of Germany, and August 9 was three months to the day after Germany's surrender.

UnfairRepresent posted...

I like the fact you're using "It gave them a lot of trouble." as if that was a concern for Joseph Stalin

I'm not even talking about casualties. At Shumshu, the Soviets lost 5 of the 16 naval invasion craft that they had leased from the Americans. That level of attrition couldn't be sustained. They just did not have the experience or equipment to launch a larger scale invasion of Hokkaido.

Anyway, back to the original topic.

Can you believe how easy it would have been if Hitler had just listened to Rommel, the greatest genius and also cleanest Wehrmacht officer ever to grace a battlefield? The war would have been over by 1940.

UnholyMudcrab posted...

Anyway, back to the original topic.

Can you believe how easy it would have been if Hitler had just listened to Rommel, the greatest genius and also cleanest Wehrmacht officer ever to grace a battlefield? The war would have been over by 1940.

On the other hand if Einstein erased Hitler from the timeline leading to Stalin realizing his dream of unobstructed westward expansion I don't think Rommel's tactics would have been effective

"I'm a history enthusiast"
>only ever views content related to and discusses Nazi Germany

Ruvan22 posted...

On the other hand if Einstein erased Hitler from the timeline leading to Stalin realizing his dream of unobstructed westward expansion I don't think Rommel's tactics would have been effective

Rommel, you magnificent , I read your book!

I feel like we're implying some pro-nazi sympathies in amateur history buffs here, but really I think amateur history buffs in general are just terrible at understanding history in any way beyond reciting a bunch of numbers and factoids.

Yeah I study HISTORY

Hwhite
Ieuropean
Superior
Tmilitary
Ohistory
R
Y

DeadBankerDream posted...

I feel like we're implying some pro-nazi sympathies in amateur history buffs here, but really I think amateur history buffs in general are just terrible at understanding history in any way beyond reciting a bunch of numbers and factoids.

Oh, to be clear, I'm not trying to imply that an interest in history is a red flag. I'm just poking at the specific people who claim to be interested, but their interest mysteriously doesn't extend past the Wehrmacht.

They'll be quick to tell you that a specific Tiger crew killed so-and-so many T-34s at Kursk, but you ask them why the German tactical and strategic goals went unfulfilled at Kursk and they clam up or start muttering something about hordes with more men than ammo.

UnholyMudcrab posted...

Rommel, you magnificent , I read your book!

Wait was he actually referenced in Red Alert?

Oh, I have no idea. I've never been a C&C player.

There are History Buffs.

And then there are 'History Buffs', as TC describes them.

UnholyMudcrab posted...

Oh, to be clear, I'm not trying to imply that an interest in history is a red flag. I'm just poking at the specific people who claim to be interested, but their interest mysteriously doesn't extend past the Wehrmacht.

They'll be quick to tell you that a specific Tiger crew killed so-and-so many T-34s at Kursk, but you ask them why the German tactical and strategic goals went unfulfilled at Kursk and they clam up.

To be fair here though I would like to point out that there are far more sources and books from the German perspective which is why people's views get skewed in this direction. There are several reasons for this, not the least of which is the Allies perpetuation of the clean Wehrmacht myth after the war.
There is also the fact that Russian isn't an easy language to translate, the books that did get translated saw smaller print runs and are thus harder to find, and the cold war left people in the west with little interest in the trials and tribulations of the people who were now their enemy.

This is a problem in most military history really. There are so many interesting conflicts in Africa and Asia that people never get to learn about because none of the primary sources ever get translated and thus very few books ever get translated.

AngelicRadiance posted...

"I'm a history enthusiast"
>only ever views content related to and discusses Nazi Germany

what about ancient Rome

UnholyMudcrab posted...

Oh, I have no idea. I've never been a C&C player.

I don't know how you can claim to know anything about World War 2 then :P

History is my passion, though.

*starts six-hour conversation about the American Civil War*

Did I mention that I'm a dad?

WorsCaseOntario posted...

what about ancient Rome

don't forget vikings and the crusades

or as i call it, the stormfront trifecta

Ww2 buff here.

Did you know that the Nazis were part of the axis powers?

Now you do

ScazarMeltex posted...

To be fair here though I would like to point out that there are far more sources and books from the German perspective which is why people's views get skewed in this direction. There are several reasons for this, not the least of which is the Allies perpetuation of the clean Wehrmacht myth after the war.
There is also the fact that Russian isn't an easy language to translate, the books that did get translated saw smaller print runs and are thus harder to find, and the cold war left people in the west with little interest in the trials and tribulations of the people who were now their enemy.

This is a problem in most military history really. There are so many interesting conflicts in Africa and Asia that people never get to learn about because none of the primary sources ever get translated and thus very few books ever get translated.

David Glantz has written extensively about the Eastern Front, with information taken from the Soviet archives. It does a lot to challenge and dispel the myths that were spread by the Germans during and after the war.

This is also the reason why Parshall and Tully's Shattered Sword is probably my favorite work of military history, because they went directly to the Japanese war histories and found that a good deal of the stuff we knew about the Battle of Midway was bunk based on the accounts of someone who was notorious for, shall we say, creatively interpreting his experiences. They found that western understanding of Midway had basically been stuck in place for 50 years because no one had bothered to consult the Japanese, and they turned the whole thing on its head.

tag

I think it's good policy to instantly distrust most "history buffs" on the internet who aren't credentialed historians. Far too many SPQR fascists and neo-nazis out there

UnholyMudcrab posted...

David Glantz has written extensively about the Eastern Front, with information taken from the Soviet archives. It does a lot to challenge and dispel the myths that were spread by the Germans during and after the war.

This is also the reason why Parshall and Tully's Shattered Sword is probably my favorite work of military history, because they went directly to the Japanese war histories and found that a good deal of the stuff we knew about the Battle of Midway was bunk based on the accounts of someone who was notorious for, shall we say, creatively interpreting his experiences. They found that western understanding of Midway had basically been stuck in place for 50 years because no one had bothered to consult the Japanese, and they turned the whole thing on its head.

Yeah, I've read quite a few of David Glantz books. I was mostly just speaking in general terms for people who might not have realized why the discrepancy exists.

I'm glad someone else here has read Shattered Sword, it's wild how much of historians views on Midway were warped till that book came out.

It's more modern than the the stuff we are talking about here but if you haven't read Zinky Boys by Svetlana Alexievich on the Soviet-Afghan war I'd highly recommend it though it's what you might call a bit fucking grim.

K181 posted...

History is my passion, though.

*starts six-hour conversation about the American Civil War*

Did I mention that I'm a dad?

Revolutionary War America is so much more interesting.

Esrac posted...

Revolutionary War America is so much more interesting.

Than WW1 and 2?

I can't agree

Hell I'd say the civil war is way more interesting than the Revolutionary war

Oh I love history! The proof is that I have a crusader profile picture, play lots of HOI4 and collect nazi memorabilia!

I love history, but really couldnt care less about all the military bullshit that so many people obsess over.

Hate those folks who clog up history subreddits with uninteresting crap about the minutiae of WW2 or the Civil War, asking about battle strategies and tanks or some bullshit like that.

"I'm a history buff!"
*only talks about WWII and thinks Germany could have won if they just did so and so*

I just described history topics on Reddit.

I'm history buff.

It's the Hanging Gardens of Abylon up in this bitch.

Abylon

we have a name for these people. Wehraboos

There was a kid at my job like that. Said he had "nice Aryan features."

Verdekal posted...

There was a kid at my job like that. Said he had "nice Aryan features."

He described himself that way?

DrizztLink posted...

I'm history buff.

It's the Hanging Gardens of Abylon up in this bitch.

Out of hunger, the flesh of their sons they ate. Afterwards, I tore out the tongues of those officers whose mouths had blasphemed against Asshur, my master, and slaughtered them on Sennacheribs tomb. Any men left still alive were brought before the winged bulls built by Sennacherib, my grandfather, and whipped. I tossed their quivering flesh for the jackals, the birds, and the fish to eat. In this way, I placated the wrath of the gods who had become incensed by their ignominious deeds.

DespondentDeity posted...

Out of hunger, the flesh of their sons they ate. Afterwards, I tore out the tongues of those officers whose mouths had blasphemed against Asshur, my master, and slaughtered them on Sennacheribs tomb. Any men left still alive were brought before the winged bulls built by Sennacherib, my grandfather, and whipped. I tossed their quivering flesh for the jackals, the birds, and the fish to eat. In this way, I placated the wrath of the gods who had become incensed by their ignominious deeds.

The Assyrians were Rome before Rome, but also possibly even more vicious and brutal. The Medes and Babylonians very intentionally and painstakingly razed Nineveh to the ground so thoroughly everyone forgot where it was.
Thankfully Ashurbanipal opened that library that mostly survived.

ThyCorndog posted...

Oh I love history! The proof is that I have a crusader profile picture, play lots of HOI4 and collect nazi memorabilia!

lmao

I forgot, crusader imagery is the other big red flag

DespondentDeity posted...

Out of hunger, the flesh of their sons they ate. Afterwards, I tore out the tongues of those officers whose mouths had blasphemed against Asshur, my master, and slaughtered them on Sennacheribs tomb. Any men left still alive were brought before the winged bulls built by Sennacherib, my grandfather, and whipped. I tossed their quivering flesh for the jackals, the birds, and the fish to eat. In this way, I placated the wrath of the gods who had become incensed by their ignominious deeds.

I do love the way the Assyrians wrote.

Ruvan22 posted...

He described himself that way?

Yup. Word for word.

Came across a guy trying to argue that the Soviets were "one of the most underequipped and incompetent forces in the world"

Which is, I'm sure, why the war in Europe ended in Berlin and not Kuybyshev. It's only logical.

UnholyMudcrab posted...

Came across a guy trying to argue that the Soviets were "one of the most underequipped and incompetent forces in the world"

Which is, I'm sure, why the war in Europe ended in Berlin and not Kuybyshev. It's only logical.

They were exceptionally underequipped and incompetent at the beginning. They were literally more focused on adhering to revolutionary thought than maximizing strategic and tactical effectiveness. It took several months of losing land and men in gross measure, plus the return of the young gulag'd officers that were proponents of Deep Battle, plus an unprecedented industrialization effort.

I think it really depends. Some people just read Wikipedia and use history to promote supremacist or nationalist ideals. Personally Iike it because it gives an insight into the past and while I do like military history it's also tied to culture. I mostly follow modern day historians on Twitter and read what they recommend, Dr. Roel Konijnendijk really sparked my interest in classical Greek history, not only for writing really detail responses but also trying to frame it within the context of classical Greek culture as well as tear down some of the myths surrounding Greek warfare and the whole aura of western exeptionalism tied to it. I really enjoyed his book on classical Greek warfare precisely because it was as much about Greek culture as it was about warfare.

A perfect example is how the Ancient Greeks had a disdain for authority. This is a something that is told to us by Xenophon and other writers of the 4th century, Xenophon himself was put on trial by his men for beating a disobedient man under his command and he had to fight for his life. Military authority was not inherently valid, and we even hear of men taking pride in being defiant to their commanders. All this stems from the ancient Greek fear of tyrants and the like. It's also why most Greek militias couldn't go further than being poorly organized militias who could only perform the most basic of commands and what made the Spartans stand out with the capability of performing feats such as being able to stay in formation while on the move something only performed by spartan led mercenaries or armies finding themselves in desperate conditions like the Sicilian expedition or the Greco-Thracian mercenary army stuck in the Persian heartland following the death of Kyros the Younger.