I got through about 8 minutes of that podcast before turning it off because he never talked about the topic at hand, he just talked about talking about it. If I ever started my lectures with that much rambling bullshit, I couldn't blame my students for walking out.
Now what would have been interesting: if the Japanese acquiesced to Hitler's request to attack the eastern USSR instead of Pearl Harbor. This would have kept the US neutral. It would have prevented the Siberian reinforcements at Moscow 1941.
Pity Khalkhin Gol permanently scared the Japs from ever taking on Russia again.
The US’s entry into WW2 was inevitable. The Japanese had always planned to attack the Philippines (which was under US rule at this point) as they needed it’s resources and it’s air bases. That’s a big part of why Pearl Harbor was attacked, the Japanese wanted to take out the US’ best chance of protecting their overseas possessions in the area.
Also the US was already fighting German U-boats in the Atlantic. The Reuben James was sunk while on convoy duty in October and US destroyers had engaged German U-boats. It was only a matter of time until the US joined officially as it was clear FDR wanted to fight.
Sure winners win and loser lose. But still....it's not like the USA circa 1941- 45 could have defeated Germany mano y mano. Same with 1917 USA vs Germany. In either instance, other countries killed far more Germans than we did.
We would have beaten them alone if need be. Only Russia killed more but they wouldn't have if we weren't supplying them and the Brits and France etc. We were the engine of that war and defeated the Japanese at the same damn time!
Doubtful; the cost if lives would have been far more than a democracy such as ours could bear. If you took all the divisions that Germany had in the East and lined them up along the Atlantic Coast, they could have repelled a US invasion of any size rather easily.
It’s tough to tell. Prior to WWI nobody would say that the US was a military power, but they had many successes against Mexico, Spain, and Filipino revolutionaries, and some quality wins in those fun “Banana Wars” . Plus the Navy had made some gains in moderation at that point. So we had the recruits/troops, newer facilities/weapons, and coaches/military leadership, we just hadn’t really played anybody yet. You could say we were the Boise State of the time.
In the ramp up to WWII in addition to the American people wanting nothing to do with European wars again, much of the US military budget had been slashed to help fund economic recovery/ FDR’s New Deal (interesting as he made one of his early career claims to fame in the Navy department).
So yes, if the US had to play the Germans at the start of the wars ala UW/Auburn on a non-neutral field, they would’ve gotten their asses handed to them, BUT they didn’t and if there’s one thing the US has smoked many other nations in militarily (besides technology) is resources - manpower, raw materials, sheer land mass (oh, and speed, speed, SPEED!). Even with fighting on multiple fronts, we would have eventually worn out Germany.
I wish my wife would offer tuff military history hot takes.
In your lovely bride’s defense military history isn’t exactly a subject offered to many women. I only got into it because Grandpa_de_Jour was a history nut and would take my brother and I to all these famous battlefields growing up. It was how we bonded.
Now what would have been interesting: if the Japanese acquiesced to Hitler's request to attack the eastern USSR instead of Pearl Harbor. This would have kept the US neutral. It would have prevented the Siberian reinforcements at Moscow 1941.
Pity Khalkhin Gol permanently scared the Japs from ever taking on Russia again.
The US’s entry into WW2 was inevitable. The Japanese had always planned to attack the Philippines (which was under US rule at this point) as they needed it’s resources and it’s air bases. That’s a big part of why Pearl Harbor was attacked, the Japanese wanted to take out the US’ best chance of protecting their overseas possessions in the area.
Also the US was already fighting German U-boats in the Atlantic. The Reuben James was sunk while on convoy duty in October and US destroyers had engaged German U-boats. It was only a matter of time until the US joined officially as it was clear FDR wanted to fight.
he had to wait for the japs because he didn't have a leg to stand on.
I got through about 8 minutes of that podcast before turning it off because he never talked about the topic at hand, he just talked about talking about it. If I ever started my lectures with that much rambling bullshit, I couldn't blame my students for walking out.
It's been a while since I listened to this particular pod. It was necessary, however, to cite Carlin since he was the inspiration for this pole. He has a few of these "addendum" pods which are for Dan to go off on random tangents and perhaps not be as focused as his usual stuff. That said, his pod is more geared toward the layman and may be a bit too rudimentry for someone like yourself with a lot of post grad study in these areas.
Yeah, I wasn't expecting WW1 Germany to win with the voters here. Third Reich will always be the sexier, trendy pick with all the sizzle. That said, I remain steadfast in my opinion that they were somewhat overrated and feasted on a weak schedule. France in WW1 was legit and willing to bleed to death to keep the Germans from Paris.
I’m taking WWII in this one. For me it boils down to innovation. No Navy? No problem. They can terrorize the Atlantic crossing with U-boats.
Tanks were top notch. Artillery was super effective. Infantry was professional and motivated. And the blitz changed the game. If Hitler wasn’t such a dipshit strategically, his scientists would have developed nukes and then its game over. Instead he wasted half his army in Russia, and wasted resources on the V-2.
I’d argue not finishing off England was their biggest mistake though. Without England as a staging ground, retaking Europe would have been really fucking hard. We didn’t exactly roll through Italy like we had hoped...
Except wars are not usually won by technology and innovation alone. In other words these things don't mean shit if your political leadership sucks and you have poor strategy. Again, in WWI Germany's strategy came within a C-hair of winning twice- i.e., Aug of 1914 and Spring of 1918. Germany in WWII never got that close to winning.
The ball bearing, the aircraft carrier, and the atomic bomb respectfully disagree with your anti technology campaign w/r/t WWII.
Sure there are examples of underpowered insurgents/revolutionary movements beating global powers with superior tech, but those were almost always political defeats. In large scale conventional conflicts, tech plays a massive role. I’d argue that German industry and science gave them the edge to do what they did. It wasn’t manpower. It wasn’t genius strategic leadership (obviously). And it wasn’t really natural resources or economic advantages. They had to seize those.
Tech MATTERS. I hope this post made you THINK and CARE.
Tech matters a lot, but maybe industrial base matters more. It's staggering how much shit we! built in four years.
Consider, of those bad ass Tiger I and Tiger II tanks, the Germans built 1,839 of them. We? built over 49,000 Sherman tanks. The Soviets built over 34,000 T-34's which was probably the most important tank of WWII.
Tiger I was a mediocre tank, too many straight flat surfaces to catch incoming rounds. Tiger II was much better, but it was a heavy tank, not a medium one.
Panthers were much better, more angled sloping lines to the chassis and turret, and they made about 6,000 of them. They also made 8,500 Panzer IV variants. So between the IV/Tiger/Panthers, there's 16,000 tanks.
The US went to full war footing/production almost immediately. Germany resisted doing that until around 1943. Even so, per capita, they made a comparable number of tanks to the US/USSR
And the atomic bomb had a lot less to do with the end of the war than the Soviet declaration of war on August 8
Still total USSR and USA tank production dwarfed that of Germany of all types.
I’m taking WWII in this one. For me it boils down to innovation. No Navy? No problem. They can terrorize the Atlantic crossing with U-boats.
Tanks were top notch. Artillery was super effective. Infantry was professional and motivated. And the blitz changed the game. If Hitler wasn’t such a dipshit strategically, his scientists would have developed nukes and then its game over. Instead he wasted half his army in Russia, and wasted resources on the V-2.
I’d argue not finishing off England was their biggest mistake though. Without England as a staging ground, retaking Europe would have been really fucking hard. We didn’t exactly roll through Italy like we had hoped...
Except wars are not usually won by technology and innovation alone. In other words these things don't mean shit if your political leadership sucks and you have poor strategy. Again, in WWI Germany's strategy came within a C-hair of winning twice- i.e., Aug of 1914 and Spring of 1918. Germany in WWII never got that close to winning.
The ball bearing, the aircraft carrier, and the atomic bomb respectfully disagree with your anti technology campaign w/r/t WWII.
Sure there are examples of underpowered insurgents/revolutionary movements beating global powers with superior tech, but those were almost always political defeats. In large scale conventional conflicts, tech plays a massive role. I’d argue that German industry and science gave them the edge to do what they did. It wasn’t manpower. It wasn’t genius strategic leadership (obviously). And it wasn’t really natural resources or economic advantages. They had to seize those.
Tech MATTERS. I hope this post made you THINK and CARE.
Tech matters a lot, but maybe industrial base matters more. It's staggering how much shit we! built in four years.
Consider, of those bad ass Tiger I and Tiger II tanks, the Germans built 1,839 of them. We? built over 49,000 Sherman tanks. The Soviets built over 34,000 T-34's which was probably the most important tank of WWII.
Tiger I was a mediocre tank, too many straight flat surfaces to catch incoming rounds. Tiger II was much better, but it was a heavy tank, not a medium one.
Panthers were much better, more angled sloping lines to the chassis and turret, and they made about 6,000 of them. They also made 8,500 Panzer IV variants. So between the IV/Tiger/Panthers, there's 16,000 tanks.
The US went to full war footing/production almost immediately. Germany resisted doing that until around 1943. Even so, per capita, they made a comparable number of tanks to the US/USSR
And the atomic bomb had a lot less to do with the end of the war than the Soviet declaration of war on August 8
Still total USSR and USA tank production dwarfed that of Germany of all types.
And that's just Shermans. We had better but could pound those things out.
The WWII Krauts relied on horses and carts. Same as they did in WWI
The Germans had an average of over a million horses used for troop movement. The US used less than 100,000, a good chunk of which were mules in the Pacific Theater.
The WWII Krauts relied on horses and carts. Same as they did in WWI
The Germans had an average of over a million horses used for troop movement. The US used less than 100,000, a good chunk of which were mules in the Pacific Theater.
Comments
Now, let me tell you about the ship that delivered the bomb, the USS Indianapolis.....
The Germans had an average of over a million horses used for troop movement. The US used less than 100,000, a good chunk of which were mules in the Pacific Theater.