World War 2 General Discussion Thread

[The New Byzantine II]

I mean, to what extent and in what context?
1. I'm always leery of making comparisons like that myself. History gets pretty unique once you get right down to the details.


2. Repulsing a few poorly-planned and piecemeal Japanese attacks isn't much next to full-on invading Japanese China by land.

1. Well, as far as unwillingness to go to war with an entity hell bent on war against you, see the US and allies vs ISIS.

2. Plus, from a Soviet POV, they didn't want to be carrying the burden on two fronts.

I agree, plus, during the Border Wars between the Soviets and the Japanese. The Soviets also fought the Finns during the Winter War, both of this events are in the year of 1939 at the same time.

[L Ron Cupboard]

My post was about Joe Kennedy, your post ignores him entirely.

Yup. Because I'm British and know bugger all about US diplomats. British PMs and their post-war legacy/misconceptions on the other hand...

I'm British too. Joe Kennedy was the ambassador to Britain in the run up to the war.

[Goram]

Yup. Because I'm British and know bugger all about US diplomats. British PMs and their post-war legacy/misconceptions on the other hand...

I'm British too. Joe Kennedy was the ambassador to Britain in the run up to the war.

Yes, I know. I also know he was just a bit pro-German and expected Britain to be defeated/invaded what have you. But that hardly counts as being knowledgeable when it comes to US diplomats in the UK.

[Atelia]

Thank God, im not the only one that thinks this.

I disagree. What the appeasers were doing would be like signing a treaty legalizing Putin's territorial demands on Ukraine.

Absolutely not the same. I really dont like getting compared to a Nazi.

I mean, to what extent and in what context?
1. I'm always leery of making comparisons like that myself. History gets pretty unique once you get right down to the details.


2. Repulsing a few poorly-planned and piecemeal Japanese attacks isn't much next to full-on invading Japanese China by land.

1. Well, as far as unwillingness to go to war with an entity hell bent on war against you, see the US and allies vs ISIS.

2. Plus, from a Soviet POV, they didn't want to be carrying the burden on two fronts.

Absolutely absurd, a much better comparison is the Islamic State to the Early Soviet Union.

[Islamic Meritocratic Transoxiana]

I don't see that as comparable whatsoever.
First, the Western Allies weren't launching drones strikes and more-or-less perpetual air campaigns against Germany in 1938. That's functionally indistuinguishable from war, these days.
Second, ISIS is not a nation-state, however much it pretends to be one. It has no capacity or interest in governing, not really, and the same sorts of diplomatic/military analogues that were present with Germany back then do not apply here.
Third, the prospect of fighting a modern asymmetrical war is a fundamentally different decision than fighting a cleanly defined war was back then. Those wars seem to have died out with the Gulf War. You're not really making analogous sets of decisions. Their frame of reference for war back then was WW1; ours is Iraq - fundamentally different circumstances with fundamentally different impacts on society.

We ran whole units back in Poli Sci on the idea of the "syllogistic misperception" in international politics, which basically amounts to making bad decisions based on past situations that are perceived to be functionally similar. Vietnam is the big example of this "America has a bigger and more advanced military than Vietnam, America beat Japan in jungle fighting, America saved South Korea, so America MUST logically be able to hold South Vietnam against the North if we only try hard enough and apply the old tactics well enough".

For my final project, I specifically ran an analysis of this with regard to the Falklands War as to how the junta made the decision to invade - they did it from making the same kinds of deductive judgments regarding past British colonial policy (specifically the Suez Crisis of 1956), their perceived level of American support, and their perceived "toughness" in comparison to the British. all of these made sense in their heads, but the obsession with past parallels and precedents basically blinded them to the present realities. They were trying to use precedent and wishful thinking to argue their way out of reality, I suppose.
I guess that made me suspicious of the whole "history is cyclical and everything's the same as it always has been" school of thinking.

ANYWAYS THIS IS WW2


Which didn't really compare to the active efforts the US Navy and Air Force went to after the German declaration of war to actively hunt U-boats (although thattook forever to get working), nor did it compare to the intensification of Lend-Lease after the US was attacked.
The answer to the question of "was the US supplying the USSR/Britain?" being "yes, but in a limited way compared to what would come when war actually started" is still entirely correct.

IIRC from his books, Churchill said that the deal saved Britain from serious, WW1-level sub catastrophe for at least a few months.
I'll look up his exact words later.


This is a really interesting question. There's a fascinating book called Princes At War that explores the issue of where exactly the Duke of Windsor's sympathies were (and goes into a lot of interesting detail about the Dukes of Gloucester and Kent, Edward's youngest surviving brothers, who are more obscure in America).
My belief was that the GErmans would likely have attempted to use Edward if they had actually seriously tried their hand at taking control of Britain. Whether Edward would consent to have been used in such a way is up for debate. His sympathizing was absolutely not an act - and when coupled with his absolutely fearsome sense of entitlement when it came to family matters, King George decided that he really couldn't risk allowing Edward to ever come back to Britain.

I doubt we'll ever find a smoking gun - like some sworn document from Edward to Hitler saying he'd be happy to help an invasion and be the puppet King - but the Royal Family thought that that was a serious risk, and a lot of high-up Germans thought it was a smashing idea.

I wouldn't go that far on the destroyers. If I'm not mistaken weren't most of them derelict hulks that could basically thank this deal for saving them from the scrap yard.

They weren't the newest things, but ANY escorts helped. The British were building teeny corvettes and armed trawlers to try and fight the U-boats. In terms of protecting convoys, what really mattered was having at least ONE escort at most points around the convoy. SInking U-boats was important, but it was always secondary to driving them off/distracting them so the convoy could get through, which meant having something which could carry depth charges near where the U-boat was spotted. As for Churchill's veracity, you have a point, but he negotiated about all the British deals during the war.

Also: a random tidbit, (not a part of the debate, just a random fact), I believe one of those DD's was used in a commando raid on St. Nazire (or was it Brest?) to take out the only dock in the Atlantic that could hold the Tripitz. The idea was sail the DD in, disguised as a German one, ram it into the dock, and leave a delayed charge connected a a ton of explosives with her, while small boats w/commandos ran about causing chaos. The commandos took awful casualties, but got the job done. On that note, how effective were the commando raids? In my opinion, most were more useful to morale than anything else, except for the Dieppe fiasco (lessons learned for D-day), and that one to get an enigma. (Which the Brits disguised as a raid on a fish oil factory).

[The Two Jerseys]

On that note, how effective were the commando raids? In my opinion, most were more useful to morale than anything else, except for the Dieppe fiasco (lessons learned for D-day), and that one to get an enigma. (Which the Brits disguised as a raid on a fish oil factory).

The raids may not always have been effective in terms of achieving the operational objective, but on a strategic level they did force the Germans to divert troops from the front to garrison duty in France and Norway to defend against the raids.

[Grenartia]

I'm British too. Joe Kennedy was the ambassador to Britain in the run up to the war.

Yes, I know. I also know he was just a bit pro-German and expected Britain to be defeated/invaded what have you. But that hardly counts as being knowledgeable when it comes to US diplomats in the UK.

To be honest, that's more than most people in the US know about him. Mention his name and say he was in the government, and you'll just get asked "Oh, was he related to JFK?".

[The Two Jerseys]

Yes, I know. I also know he was just a bit pro-German and expected Britain to be defeated/invaded what have you. But that hardly counts as being knowledgeable when it comes to US diplomats in the UK.

To be honest, that's more than most people in the US know about him. Mention his name and say he was in the government, and you'll just get asked "Oh, was he related to JFK?".

Yeah, JFK, RFK, and Ted are the only Kennedys that matter over here.

[Islamic Meritocratic Transoxiana]

To be honest, that's more than most people in the US know about him. Mention his name and say he was in the government, and you'll just get asked "Oh, was he related to JFK?".

Yeah, JFK, RFK, and Ted are the only Kennedys that matter over here.

True. They had 13!!!! kids.

[Atelia]

Yeah, JFK, RFK, and Ted are the only Kennedys that matter over here.

True. They had 13!!!! kids.

Thats a lot of exclamation points for just thirteen children.

[The Tiger Kingdom]

True. They had 13!!!! kids.

Thats a lot of exclamation points for just thirteen children.

"Just"?
I mean, I'm not a guy of plural exclamation points, but that is a hell of a lot of kids. Apparently Joe Sr. intended to ensure there being a President in the family just by sheer process of attrition.

[Grenartia]

Thats a lot of exclamation points for just thirteen children.

"Just"?
I mean, I'm not a guy of plural exclamation points, but that is a hell of a lot of kids. Apparently Joe Sr. intended to ensure there being a President in the family just by sheer process of attrition.

Kennedy family confirmed for QFs.

[Goram]

"Just"?
I mean, I'm not a guy of plural exclamation points, but that is a hell of a lot of kids. Apparently Joe Sr. intended to ensure there being a President in the family just by sheer process of attrition.

Kennedy family confirmed for QFs.

I don't know if you're going for the British artillery term there, QF standing for Quick Firing, but it does seem like it applies in this case.

[Grenartia]

Kennedy family confirmed for QFs.

I don't know if you're going for the British artillery term there, QF standing for Quick Firing, but it does seem like it applies in this case.

Not far off. I was going for Quiverfull.

[Alaskan Democratic Federative Republic]

Thats a lot of exclamation points for just thirteen children.

"Just"?
I mean, I'm not a guy of plural exclamation points, but that is a hell of a lot of kids. Apparently Joe Sr. intended to ensure there being a President in the family just by sheer process of attrition.

The Kennedy was big of course Joe wanted someone to be president and the family.

[Laerod]

"Just"?
I mean, I'm not a guy of plural exclamation points, but that is a hell of a lot of kids. Apparently Joe Sr. intended to ensure there being a President in the family just by sheer process of attrition.

Kennedy family confirmed for QFs.

Catholics, really. Not terribly unheard of before the pill, either.

[Red Team]

Ahhhh.... the Big Dos. Fun times, fun times.

[Islamic Meritocratic Transoxiana]

But still, even in that era in Pakistan, that many kids wasn't all that common.

[Baltenstein]

Some nicely colourised WW 2 pictures:

https://www.warhistoryonline.com/world- ... -life.html

[Islamic Meritocratic Transoxiana]

Some nicely colourised WW 2 pictures:

https://www.warhistoryonline.com/world- ... -life.html

Too bad the Allies didn't have more colored film...

[Shamhnan Insir]

Some nicely colourised WW 2 pictures:

https://www.warhistoryonline.com/world- ... -life.html

Too bad the Allies didn't have more colored film...

I've got "The Eye of War" by Philip Knightley and some of the images are incredible. Stalingrad under shellfire, what was left of Dresden, cityfight really is the most brutal of combat theatres. Whole platoons lost for a gain of a single house.

[Alaskan Democratic Federative Republic]

Some nicely colourised WW 2 pictures:

https://www.warhistoryonline.com/world- ... -life.html

Too bad the Allies didn't have more colored film...

The history Channel shows WW2 in color.

[Islamic Meritocratic Transoxiana]

Too bad the Allies didn't have more colored film...

The history Channel shows WW2 in color.

If only History channel still did history.

[Islamic Meritocratic Transoxiana]

Too bad the Allies didn't have more colored film...

The history Channel shows WW2 in color.

I think the show was originally British. A really great show.

[Rio Cana]

Found this video in English on how the US before getting involved in WW II and after , prepared for the defense of its so called Gibraltar of the Caribbean. the US territory of Puerto Rico. Most documentaries on the war hardly go into much detail on how they prepared defenses back then,

Video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTSas-6X6Uo

Today most of those defense areas and bases on Puerto Rico have been closed and or abandoned by the US. Generally, they became obsolete in todays modern military.