Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Poll

Can we make a nice gaussian-looking curve?

A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A

Pages: 1 ... 546 547 [548] 549 550 ... 1393

Author Topic: Sheb's European Megathread: Remove Feta!  (Read 1770715 times)

Sergarr

  • Bay Watcher
  • (9) airheaded baka (9)
    • View Profile
Re: Sheb's European Politics Megathread
« Reply #8205 on: July 25, 2014, 06:08:32 pm »

Japan was beaten pretty hard at the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battles_of_Khalkhin_Gol and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Lake_Khasan

I think after that they decided that waging war against USSR was unfeasible.
Logged
._.

GreatJustice

  • Bay Watcher
  • ☭The adventure continues (refresh)☭
    • View Profile
Re: Sheb's European Politics Megathread
« Reply #8206 on: July 25, 2014, 06:30:39 pm »

On the other hand, if not for American/English involvement wouldn't there have been a good chance Russia would have been fighting a multi-front war? Sure, Russia could have taken Germany - could they have taken Germany AND Italy AND Japen if all three of them were focused on fighting Russia alone?

At the very least I think things would have gone on a lot longer and theres a very real chance Russia would have gotten beat.

Italy, along with Germany's Eastern allies (Romania, Hungary, Finland, etc), were not well used by the OKH, which is not to say they didn't make a difference. But generally, the Germans treated them as free reserve troops and put them in vital positions where they could be used better elsewhere, leading to the Soviets exploiting their weaknesses (the prime example being Operation Uranus, in which the Soviets completely wiped out the German allies surrounding Stalingrad and turned it into the disaster it was known for). Plus, they had a lot of internal problems, and switched sides pretty quickly when the pressure started to increase. It's unlikely they would be able to significantly turn the tide, though.

Japan is, well, complicated, especially since we didn't establish whether our hypothetical US is fighting a Pacific War or not. But with relation to the USSR, the Japanese had been having internal struggles with whether to head north into the Soviet Union (the preferred strategy of the IJA) or to head south to European colonies (the plan of the IJN). In 1939, both sides were about equally influential, when a border skirmish between the Red Army and the Kwatung Army turned into a full battle at Khalkin Gol. The Soviet commander was the famous Georgy Zhukov, who utilized the comparative Soviet advantage in armour to decisively defeat the Japanese forces there. This proved evidence enough to the Japanese that war with the Soviets would be unproductive, leading to the primacy of the IJN in determining policy and ultimately to the attacks on Pearl Harbour.

Now hypothetically our Japanese could decide to attack the Soviets anyway, but up until Barbarossa the Soviets had the Far East well defended with elite Siberian units that would have been more than capable of defeating pretty much anything the Japanese could throw their way (indeed, at the end of the war they conquered all of Manchuria in about a month and killed or captured well over 600,000 IJA troops). Now, it's worth mentioning that the transfer of these troops to the West was instrumental in the defense of Moscow and in turning the tide against the Germans, so a Japanese attack would significantly damage the USSR's ability to fight against the Wehrmacht, but they would basically be suicidally sacrificing themselves for the benefit of an ally of convenience halfway across the world. The Germans and Japanese were not close enough allies for even the irrational IJA to justify such an action, so chances are the IJN would still maintain control.

So to go on a little tangent, the IJN could hypothetically have continued from here in two ways; they could have avoided the American supported Philippines entirely and went through French Indochina to attack European colonies, or they could have attacked the Philippines, but tried to limit the war so as to avoid a total war with the industrial might of the USA. In the first case, Japanese supply lines would be hampered, but they could have probably managed to beat the European colonial forces in most of Southeast Asia on their own and used the oil from the Dutch East Indies to fuel further expansion. Roosevelt, while very much in favour of war, would have a tricky time justifying American intervention to rescue European colonialism, and even if he brought the US to war anyway it wouldn't be the largely unified US that was willing to fight bloody battle after bloody battle to get unconditional surrender from Japan. That likely wouldn't even be the case if the Philippines were attacked so long as the Japanese were very cautious, kept the war fairly limited, and treated American prisoners well. Under those circumstances, Roosevelt would have a very hard time convincing the American public to support the kind of war needed to fully reign in the Japanese Empire, and even without Pearl Harbour the USN wouldn't be really capable of projecting into East Asia against the Japanese until late 1942 at the earliest, so he wouldn't even have much to show for sticking in the war as opposed to accepting a more even handed peace agreement.
Logged
The person supporting regenerating health, when asked why you can see when shot in the eye justified it as 'you put on an eyepatch'. When asked what happens when you are then shot in the other eye, he said that you put an eyepatch on that eye. When asked how you'd be able to see, he said that your first eye would have healed by then.

Professional Bridge Toll Collector?

Reelya

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Sheb's European Politics Megathread
« Reply #8207 on: July 25, 2014, 07:36:47 pm »

Quote
It's not hard to imagine the Nazis winning without the Soviets having (western) Allied support.

^ You wrote this. Which implies that the western support tipped the balance. My reply was: it wasn't that close. The Russians mobilized twice the manpower as the German did on the Eastern Front. It was 3 million to 5 million at the start of Stalingrad, and 3 million to 6 million by the end.

about 2/3rds of the German forces were on the Eastern Front, so even with no Western powers to guard against, Russia still had more dudes.
Oh, jeez, the Russians had more soldiers? These radical new facts really change how I view history. Would have never have guessed that.

Don't get so snarky. I already covered Soviet industrial production in other posts. It's stupid to expect someone to itemize a full list of soviet 1942 military production in every single post. They churned out 12000 T34 tanks in the year leading up to Stalingrad, and another 12000 the next year while the battle was ongoing. And that's only a single model of tank amongst many types of vehicle they produced.

Let's go back to the start:

Quote from: Dutchling
Still, wasn't Stalingrad pretty damn close? It's not hard to imagine the Nazis winning without the Soviets having (western) Allied support.

Ah, okay. Recently saw some Russian mini-documentary about the Eastern front and it never really depicted the Russians as being in an advantageous position prior to that.

I think you might be overestimating the amount of Western support the Soviets were getting in 1942.
Because I specifically stated Western support would only have been meaningful if the situation was very close o.O?

The entire question was would Stalingrad have gone to the Germans if the Soviets lacked western support. Now, in relation to this question Western support would have only been "meaningful" if the battle was close enough. That's not to say that Western support didn't save Russian lives, but the question wasn't whether the west helped the soviets, it's whether the specific aid in 1942 changed the outcome of the battle in question.

So, of course aid would "only be meaningful" in relation to this particular to the answer to this question, if it was close enough for the aid to change the answer to the question. Because that's the question you asked.

Remember, specific discussion: would the Soviets have held Stalingrad without western support.. Support in military history almost entire refers to direct military aid. Nobody ever states that the Soviets gave the West "support" for the D-Day landings, because that's not how we word it.

Things like whether the soviets would have won at Stalingrad if there was no Western front in the first place, that's an entirely different scenario to asking whether the Soviets would have won Stalingrad without aid. If there was no Western front, there entire course of the war would have been different and Battle of Stalingrad almost certainly wouldn't have been a thing.
« Last Edit: July 25, 2014, 08:21:21 pm by Reelya »
Logged

Dutchling

  • Bay Watcher
  • Ridin' with Biden
    • View Profile
Re: Sheb's European Politics Megathread
« Reply #8208 on: July 25, 2014, 07:50:07 pm »

I'm not trying to debate anything with you here, just got annoyed at your lack of reading comprehension.
Still, wasn't Stalingrad pretty damn close? It's not hard to imagine (...)
You could have just said it apparently wasn't (which you did, which makes it even more confusing to me), instead of talking nonsense, like:
I think you might be overestimating the amount of Western support the Soviets were getting in 1942.
How can I be overestimating Western Support if the only situation in which I can imagine it mattering is a very close one?
« Last Edit: July 25, 2014, 07:52:06 pm by Dutchling »
Logged

Funk

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Sheb's European Politics Megathread
« Reply #8209 on: July 25, 2014, 08:07:14 pm »

The second advantage of being on the defensive is that you dom't have to move as far to attack.
A Germen tanks where far more reliable, and better made than Russian tanks, for the Germans 200km was nothing just a few fuel stops, but for the Russians 200km meant replacement parts, something would break, the pins that held on the tracks would wear out.

But did it matter, yes and no, when the Russians need tanks the most it didn't there back was to a wall, later when the wear did matter they had so many tanks that the loss of a was minor, by then it was case of we Have reserves, they just one number the Germans so much that the loss of few tanks can be ignored.
Logged
Agree, plus that's about the LAST thing *I* want to see from this kind of game - author spending valuable development time on useless graphics.

Unofficial slogan of Bay 12 Games.  

Death to the false emperor a warhammer40k SG

Reelya

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Sheb's European Politics Megathread
« Reply #8210 on: July 25, 2014, 08:42:10 pm »

I'm not trying to debate anything with you here, just got annoyed at your lack of reading comprehension.
Still, wasn't Stalingrad pretty damn close? It's not hard to imagine (...)
You could have just said it apparently wasn't (which you did, which makes it even more confusing to me), instead of talking nonsense, like:
I think you might be overestimating the amount of Western support the Soviets were getting in 1942.
How can I be overestimating Western Support if the only situation in which I can imagine it mattering is a very close one?

If someone says "Factor X changed the outcome of event Y" and Factor X in fact didn't change the outcome, they are in fact overestimating the importance or value of factor X (in relation to event Y).

But this is really not that interesting as a meta-discussion so let's drop it.
« Last Edit: July 25, 2014, 08:48:25 pm by Reelya »
Logged

Descan

  • Bay Watcher
  • [HEADING INTENSIFIES]
    • View Profile
Re: Sheb's European Politics Megathread
« Reply #8211 on: July 25, 2014, 08:53:33 pm »

"Factor X could affect event Y if Z"

"Z isn't true/didn't happen"

"Oh then X didn't affect Y"

Ftfy.
Logged
Quote from: SalmonGod
Your innocent viking escapades for canadian social justice and immortality make my flagellum wiggle, too.
Quote from: Myroc
Descan confirmed for antichrist.
Quote from: LeoLeonardoIII
I wonder if any of us don't love Descan.

mainiac

  • Bay Watcher
  • Na vazeal kwah-kai
    • View Profile
Re: Sheb's European Politics Megathread
« Reply #8212 on: July 25, 2014, 08:58:35 pm »

Come on now, you know full well that that's basically nitpicking, but if you insist

No it's not nitpicking, it's tit for tat.  You are judging the Soviets as producing more based on selected items.  I did tit for tat and pointed out the selected items where the German production were higher.

You think the Soviets produced more then the Germans.  I think the Germans produced more then the Soviets.  It's all very subjective because there were different items they focused on.
Logged
Ancient Babylonian god of RAEG
--------------
[CAN_INTERNET]
[PREFSTRING:google]
"Don't tell me what you value. Show me your budget and I will tell you what you value"
« Last Edit: February 10, 1988, 03:27:23 pm by UR MOM »
mainiac is always a little sarcastic, at least.

Reelya

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Sheb's European Politics Megathread
« Reply #8213 on: July 25, 2014, 09:03:00 pm »

"Factor X could affect event Y if Z"

"Z isn't true/didn't happen"

"Oh then X didn't affect Y"

Ftfy.

I took "Stalingrad was pretty close" to mean the outcome after aid was factored in. In fact, it's a pretty ambiguous statement. Does this mean the outcome was close post-aid, or pre-aid. Normally a statement of "Battle X was close" implies that the actual outcome was close - after all factors are accounted for. You cannot infer from that, that the battle would still be close after removing stuff from one side, at all.

There was nothing in that statement saying it would have necessarily been close before aid was added in hence no "if Z".

"The Germans could have won Stalingrad if Allied aid was removed" = "the value of allied aid was greater than the margin the Soviets won by".

In that formulation, if the "value of allied aid" (X) was less than " the margin the Soviets won by" (Y) you have in fact overestimated X relative to Y.
« Last Edit: July 25, 2014, 09:12:03 pm by Reelya »
Logged

MarcAFK

  • Bay Watcher
  • [INSANITY INTENSIFIES]
    • View Profile
Re: Sheb's European Politics Megathread
« Reply #8214 on: July 26, 2014, 12:20:44 am »

I mostly agree with what great justice said about the pacific front, I seriously doubt the US would have mobilized even 20% of what it did if pearl harbour hadn't occured, the only reason the US became a global superpower was that the threat of war was taken seriously enough to convince the people in charge and the population that complete and total mobilization was necessary. Only with the 100% dedication of the economy that was applied, the severe taxation, conscription, massive factory retooling and large scale munitions production was the US capable of entering the war as strong as it was. I believe that if the US had been delayed in it's start, say if pearl harbour hadn't occurred or if maybe it happened 2 years later, by the time the US had been able to catch up the tide in europe might have change significantly, Russia would minimum still be an equal match for the axis, but if England had been knocked out due to reduced US support the eastern front would be even bloodier.
God forbid that after the fall of Britain the axis might have managed to turn India onto their side and convince them to enter the war against China. But this is all theoretical anyway.
Logged
They're nearly as bad as badgers. Build a couple of anti-buzzard SAM sites marksdwarf towers and your fortress will look like Baghdad in 2003 from all the aerial bolt spam. You waste a lot of ammo and everything is covered in unslightly exploded buzzard bits and broken bolts.

mainiac

  • Bay Watcher
  • Na vazeal kwah-kai
    • View Profile
Re: Sheb's European Politics Megathread
« Reply #8215 on: July 26, 2014, 01:47:40 am »

I mostly agree with what great justice said about the pacific front, I seriously doubt the US would have mobilized even 20% of what it did if pearl harbour hadn't occured

You seriously doubt the US would mobilize a force even half the size of the WWI mobilization?
Logged
Ancient Babylonian god of RAEG
--------------
[CAN_INTERNET]
[PREFSTRING:google]
"Don't tell me what you value. Show me your budget and I will tell you what you value"
« Last Edit: February 10, 1988, 03:27:23 pm by UR MOM »
mainiac is always a little sarcastic, at least.

MarcAFK

  • Bay Watcher
  • [INSANITY INTENSIFIES]
    • View Profile
Re: Sheb's European Politics Megathread
« Reply #8216 on: July 26, 2014, 07:03:43 am »

I'm not certain on my numbers, but I'm sure the circumstances need to be rather extreme in order to force a western democratic republic into the kind of commitment that total war entails, while the government could have easily mobilized whatever was available and even funded the ships and aircraft that were planned before the war, the fact is that after pearl harbor us military production skyrocketed towards the extreme, and public opinion was easily swayed towards helping the allies.
EDIT: I'm not too familiar with the circumstances that got the US involved with WW1, I assume the Lusitania had something to do with it but surely there was a gradual slide towards public support as news coverage of the events and anti german propaganda filtered through....
« Last Edit: July 26, 2014, 07:06:28 am by MarcAFK »
Logged
They're nearly as bad as badgers. Build a couple of anti-buzzard SAM sites marksdwarf towers and your fortress will look like Baghdad in 2003 from all the aerial bolt spam. You waste a lot of ammo and everything is covered in unslightly exploded buzzard bits and broken bolts.

mainiac

  • Bay Watcher
  • Na vazeal kwah-kai
    • View Profile
Re: Sheb's European Politics Megathread
« Reply #8217 on: July 26, 2014, 08:27:47 am »

EDIT: I'm not too familiar with the circumstances that got the US involved with WW1, I assume the Lusitania had something to do with it but surely there was a gradual slide towards public support as news coverage of the events and anti german propaganda filtered through....

Which is a pretty apt description of the US public opinion before WWII.  The public was probably more eager for war in fact.  You have more sinkings at sea, you have the Panay incident.  You have the brutality in China.  You have the repeated betrayals of Hitler.  Pearl Harbor made it so there was a nearly unanimous vote but it's not like people weren't willing to fight at that point.
Logged
Ancient Babylonian god of RAEG
--------------
[CAN_INTERNET]
[PREFSTRING:google]
"Don't tell me what you value. Show me your budget and I will tell you what you value"
« Last Edit: February 10, 1988, 03:27:23 pm by UR MOM »
mainiac is always a little sarcastic, at least.

GreatJustice

  • Bay Watcher
  • ☭The adventure continues (refresh)☭
    • View Profile
Re: Sheb's European Politics Megathread
« Reply #8218 on: July 26, 2014, 08:34:25 am »

Come on now, you know full well that that's basically nitpicking, but if you insist

No it's not nitpicking, it's tit for tat.  You are judging the Soviets as producing more based on selected items.  I did tit for tat and pointed out the selected items where the German production were higher.

You think the Soviets produced more then the Germans.  I think the Germans produced more then the Soviets.  It's all very subjective because there were different items they focused on.

No, you listed items that the Soviets didn't really need to outproduce the Germans in. Did the Soviets ever have raw material shortages? Can you drive a ship through the plains of eastern Ukraine?
Logged
The person supporting regenerating health, when asked why you can see when shot in the eye justified it as 'you put on an eyepatch'. When asked what happens when you are then shot in the other eye, he said that you put an eyepatch on that eye. When asked how you'd be able to see, he said that your first eye would have healed by then.

Professional Bridge Toll Collector?

Guardian G.I.

  • Bay Watcher
  • "And it ducks, and it covers!"
    • View Profile
Re: Sheb's European Politics Megathread
« Reply #8219 on: July 26, 2014, 09:05:04 am »

« Last Edit: July 26, 2014, 09:07:51 am by Guardian G.I. »
Logged
this means that a donation of 30 dollars to a developer that did not deliver would equal 4.769*10^-14 hitlers stolen from you
that's like half a femtohitler
and that is terrible
Sigtext
Pages: 1 ... 546 547 [548] 549 550 ... 1393