Right Wing Discussion Thread VI: Still Doin' The Reactionary

[Yoshida (Ancient)]

Nonsense, A march into Russia earlier without the Greek delay, or a more focused push on Moscow was all that was necessary.

Germany wasn't prepared to launch the invasion by the time that the Greek campaign happened, and going on the offensive against Moscow would have revealed the German rear to a hundred thousand Red Army troops in the Ukraine.

[Germanic Templars]

-Fahrong- makes a point though.

That fails to recognize why they started the war and why they pursued it the way they did. If Germany had made it a defensive war, if they had avoided Belgium altogether, if their mantra wasn't "For the glory of the Fatherland and Kaiser" but "For the protection of the Fatherland and Kaiser", do you think the Entente would've had the slightest chance at 'victory'?

True so.

[The United Colonies of Earth]

Nonsense, A march into Russia earlier without the Greek delay, or a more focused push on Moscow was all that was necessary.

Germany wasn't prepared to launch the invasion by the time that the Greek campaign happened, and going on the offensive against Moscow would have revealed the German rear to a hundred thousand Red Army troops in the Ukraine.

But hey apparently they were all worthless so it's not like I could just say that that sort of barbarossa isn't Napoleon 1812 with Panzers.

[Conserative Morality]

Battle of Teutoberg Forest 1917 anyone?

Reverse Verdun. Sie sind nicht durchgekommen.

[Pandeeria]

The nation had undergone a fundamental change due to the Enlightenment, and is completely different from what could be considered a nation pre-Enlightenment.

A nation-state is also purely a liberal ideal, concepted due to the Enlightenment.

Eh, even though the terminology came from the Enlightenment, one could argue that some civilizations like Rome (particularly the Late Republic and beyond) fit the definition of a nation-state.

Antiquity is kind of an interesting situation. I'd say the nations from antiquity were more like today's modern states than the feudal realms of the middle ages. It seemed with the advent of feudalism, "countries", if we can call them that, became more decentralized, less sharply defined, and more ruled by aristocratic bloodlines than anything.

However, even ancient Rome I don't think fits the complexities that a modern nation is existent.

[Sanctissima]

Holy shit you said it.

We will all be fogey old conservatives who tend to our lawns and threaten those who tread on it one day.

Why are you surprised? Im basically a Black Hundreds member who time traveled to the current day.

That fails to recognize why they started the war and why they pursued it the way they did. If Germany had made it a defensive war, if they had avoided Belgium altogether, if their mantra wasn't "For the glory of the Fatherland and Kaiser" but "For the protection of the Fatherland and Kaiser", do you think the Entente would've had the slightest chance at 'victory'?

This falls into the false logic that Germany stood no chance of winning the way they did approach things.

Frankly, Germany was fucked form the get-go.

Austria-Hungary and the Ottomans were shit allies, and no matter how well Germany fared on the battlefield, they were going to lose by attrition alone no matter what. Britain wasn't going to let France fall, and even if Germany didn't invade Belgium, chances are Britain would have looked for an excuse to help France anyway. The German Empire was outmanned, and nothing could have changed that.

The only way it could have won was by not getting involved at all.

[Conserative Morality]

Frankly, Germany was fucked form the get-go.

Austria-Hungary and the Ottomans were shit allies, and no matter how well Germany fared on the battlefield, they were going to lose by attrition alone no matter what. Britain wasn't going to let France fall, and even if Germany didn't invade Belgium, chances are Britain would have looked for an excuse to help France anyway. The German Empire was outmanned, and nothing could have changed that.

The only way it could have won was by not getting involved at all.

Or fighting a defensive war. If their imperialist ethos wasn't so obsessed with glory, they could've made the French and Russians seem like the aggressors and kept Britain and the US out of the war.

[Even Less of Mackonia]

Looks like a soldier of the French Foreign legion to me.

Why do you think it was ideology which won the war?

Because the Germans and Japanese and Italians chose to fight a war in which they were outnumbered, outproduced and outgunned because they thought their enemies would fold to them in 2 Planck times and would offer less resistance than the least resistant resistor at the same time.

I'm not anything resembling an expert on that period. But that seems to be taking the Axis' own propaganda at face value. I don't see how Hitler and the other German commanders could've thought 'lol they'll not put up any resistance and just surrender'. I can't see why they would've shown such caution in reversing the Versailles treaties on the road to war. The whole reason they drew up Fall Gelbe and the offensive through the Ardennes was to try to avoid a long term war. Ditto for the Japanese, the impression seems to be they adopted first strike and tropic blitzkrieg precisely because they knew America would win in a long war.

The Axis had continental Europe, the Japanese home islands and occupied Asian territories with a moderate to little amount of industry. The allies had the whole of the unbombed, unharmed USA, the Soviet planned economy and British Empire oil fields in the middle east. There's the whole wages of destruction theses that Hitler invaded the USSR to get the resources which fed the war machine which was needed etc etc.

[-Fahrong-]

Nonsense, A march into Russia earlier without the Greek delay, or a more focused push on Moscow was all that was necessary.

Germany wasn't prepared to launch the invasion by the time that the Greek campaign happened, and going on the offensive against Moscow would have revealed the German rear to a hundred thousand Red Army troops in the Ukraine.

The entire southern army group need not assist in Moscow.

This falls into the false logic that Germany stood no chance of winning the way they did approach things.

They didn't. They weren't ruthless enough to properly perform the Schlieffen Plan, and they weren't moral enough to stop Belgium from being a bleeding ulcer in their side. They were too aggressive to preserve their men, and not aggressive enough to make the middle years of the war fluid rather than static. It goes on and on.

And they werent Ruthless enough because of their ideology?

[The United Colonies of Earth]

Battle of Teutoberg Forest 1917 anyone?

Reverse Verdun. Sie sind nicht durchgekommen.

Even more gloriously a failure for the attackers!

[Conserative Morality]

And they werent Ruthless enough because of their ideology?

Yes. The peculiar imperialist ethos of Germany had a strange sense of honor and propriety to them.

[Venerable Bede]

Ideas gradually change: 'Today's Liberals are tomorrow's Conservatives.

Indeed. The day will come when I will be a fogey old conservative.

I'll be waiting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noetoc2W4Pc

In spirit, anyway. I'll probably be a monastic by then and I don't think you can post here from there.

[Aelex]

]
That fails to recognize why they started the war and why they pursued it the way they did. If Germany had made it a defensive war, if they had avoided Belgium altogether, if their mantra wasn't "For the glory of the Fatherland and Kaiser" but "For the protection of the Fatherland and Kaiser", do you think the Entente would've had the slightest chance at 'victory'?

Actually, yes, even more so. The clock was ticking in the Entente favor as we controlled the sea and were thus able to blockade the Germans completely and to starve off their population and soldiers alike in a war of attrition.
Either the Germans managed to crush the Entente in the first months of the war by singling out and destroying France (which is what they tried and failed to) and ended swiftly the war or they were bound to lose eventually by shortage of food and raw materials caused by the embargo.
If anything, a defensive war would have probably been way deadlier as it would have lasted longer.

[Pandeeria]

Frankly, Germany was fucked form the get-go.

Austria-Hungary and the Ottomans were shit allies, and no matter how well Germany fared on the battlefield, they were going to lose by attrition alone no matter what. Britain wasn't going to let France fall, and even if Germany didn't invade Belgium, chances are Britain would have looked for an excuse to help France anyway. The German Empire was outmanned, and nothing could have changed that.

The only way it could have won was by not getting involved at all.

Or fighting a defensive war. If their imperialist ethos wasn't so obsessed with glory, they could've made the French and Russians seem like the aggressors and kept Britain and the US out of the war.

Britain with her close ties to Russia and France was going to join the conflict inevitably. It was a better idea to simply try to beat Belgium and get Paris to quickly knock France down a peg or two rather than to wait defensively.

[Sanctissima]

Eh, even though the terminology came from the Enlightenment, one could argue that some civilizations like Rome (particularly the Late Republic and beyond) fit the definition of a nation-state.

Antiquity is kind of an interesting situation. I'd say the nations from antiquity were more like today's modern states than the feudal realms of the middle ages. It seemed with the advent of feudalism, "countries", if we can call them that, became more decentralized, less sharply defined, and more ruled by aristocratic bloodlines than anything.

However, even ancient Rome I don't think fits the complexities that a modern nation is existent.

Eh, there was an overly national identity, and particularly towards the empire's zenith whether you were living in Oxyrinchus or far-away Eboracum, people generally identified as Romans. Of course, there were always nuances, but as a rule of thumb there was an overarching culture, codified laws (even though they were messy as all hell until Justinian), a centralized political structure, and many things that people typically use to classify a nation-state.

But yeah, in the case of Europe, things did go to shit very quickly and didn't get better for quite some time thereafter. If I recall correctly, most major cities didn't really reach their pre-Medieval demographic and infrastructural levels until a good 1000 years after Rome's fall. London in particular didn't fully recover until just a few decades before the Industrial Revolution.

[Conserative Morality]

Britain with her close ties to Russia and France was going to join the conflict inevitably. It was a better idea to simply try to beat Belgium and get Paris to quickly knock France down a peg or two rather than to wait defensively.

Britain was always going to join the conflict. Denying them that strong sense of purpose and opposition could've landed the Germans a separate peace as the British public tired of a pointless war over political nuances they didn't care to comprehend. But "THE HUN INVADES BELGIUM AND FRANCE!" that, that everyone can understand.

[The United Colonies of Earth]

Because the Germans and Japanese and Italians chose to fight a war in which they were outnumbered, outproduced and outgunned because they thought their enemies would fold to them in 2 Planck times and would offer less resistance than the least resistant resistor at the same time.

I'm not anything resembling an expert on that period. But that seems to be taking the Axis' own propaganda at face value. I don't see how Hitler and the other German commanders could've thought 'lol they'll not put up any resistance and just surrender'. I can't see why they would've shown such caution in reversing the Versailles treaties on the road to war. The whole reason they drew up Fall Gelbe and the offensive through the Ardennes was to try to avoid a long term war. Ditto for the Japanese, the impression seems to be they adopted first strike and tropic blitzkrieg precisely because they knew America would win in a long war.

The Axis had continental Europe, the Japanese home islands and occupied Asian territories with a moderate to little amount of industry. The allies had the whole of the unbombed, unharmed USA, the Soviet planned economy and British Empire oil fields in the middle east. There's the whole wages of destruction theses that Hitler invaded the USSR to get the resources which fed the war machine which was needed etc etc.

Fair enough I guess. They weren't totally stupid. But in the end they were materially overwhelmed.

[Germanic Templars]

Who wants a laugh? Try Huffington Post.

[Sanctissima]

Or fighting a defensive war. If their imperialist ethos wasn't so obsessed with glory, they could've made the French and Russians seem like the aggressors and kept Britain and the US out of the war.

Britain with her close ties to Russia and France was going to join the conflict inevitably. It was a better idea to simply try to beat Belgium and get Paris to quickly knock France down a peg or two rather than to wait defensively.

Yeah, even though it didn't work out, the Schlieffen Plan was strategically sound.

Personally, I think Germany would have been better off just joining in the inevitable gang-rape of Austria-Hungary. Sure, there would be a massive diplomatic crisis, but shit was going to hit the fan anyway, and better to take part in a Balkans War than a World War, all the while getting a slice of the pie.

[Minzerland II]

Who wants a laugh? Try Huffington Post.

[Conserative Morality]

Who wants a laugh? Try Huffington Post.

That seems actually unusually reasonable for HuffPo.

[The Grene Knyght]

Who wants a laugh? Try Huffington Post.

I didn't click the link, but regardless, I feel you may appreciate this: https://www.change.org/p/huffington-post-shut-the-fuck-up

[Aelex]

Britain with her close ties to Russia and France was going to join the conflict inevitably. It was a better idea to simply try to beat Belgium and get Paris to quickly knock France down a peg or two rather than to wait defensively.

Britain was always going to join the conflict. Denying them that strong sense of purpose and opposition could've landed the Germans a separate peace as the British public tired of a pointless war over political nuances they didn't care to comprehend. But "THE HUN INVADES BELGIUM AND FRANCE!" that, that everyone can understand.

Britain wanted to avoid the rise of a super-power in the continent whether it was a French or German one so it's more likely that she wouldn't have settled for a separate peace that would have made official a German hegemony in Europe.
Even a general white peace was, after the firsts months of the war, simply out of question for both sides.

[Pandeeria]

Britain with her close ties to Russia and France was going to join the conflict inevitably. It was a better idea to simply try to beat Belgium and get Paris to quickly knock France down a peg or two rather than to wait defensively.

Yeah, even though it didn't work out, the Schlieffen Plan was strategically sound.

Personally, I think Germany would have been better off just joining in the inevitable gang-rape of Austria-Hungary. Sure, there would be a massive diplomatic crisis, but shit was going to hit the fan anyway, and better to take part in a Balkans War than a World War, all the while getting a slice of the pie.

That made me laugh.

The thing was that Germany was already pretty isolated. If they turned on the one other major power that was their friend in Europe, the Austro-Hungarians, they would have lost a valuable ally. Getting a slice of the pie would've been beneficial in the short term, but in the long term it would've screwed Germany into a tighter, worse position.

[BB-61 Iowa]

Who wants a laugh? Try Huffington Post.

I didn't click the link, but regardless, I feel you may appreciate this: https://www.change.org/p/huffington-post-shut-the-fuck-up

This petition should have 100 million signatures tbh