D-Day Discussion Thread

[Bear Stearns]

Hot take: the whole war was a mistake.

World War II could have very easily been prevented from escalating into a world war. Versailles was one of the most short-sighted decisions in human history.

The Pacific War could have also been avoided. Unlike the European front, the Allies couldn't even make the pretense of fighting for democracy. It was very much a colonial resource war with racial resentment on both sides.

[West Leas Oros 2]

We must never forget those who fought and died for our freedom.

Aye. And I say we have a duty to humanity to make sure a war like this never happens again.

[West Leas Oros 2]

Hot take: the whole war was a mistake.

World War II could have very easily been prevented from escalating into a world war.

Versailles was one of the most short-sighted decisions in human history.

Indeed. Also, appeasement certainly hurt more than it helped.

[Bear Stearns]

My grandfather got a Purple Heart in the Battle of the Atlantic, but was already out of the service by the time D-Day occurred.

[Nea Byzantia]

Hot take: the whole war was a mistake.

World War II could have very easily been prevented from escalating into a world war. Versailles was one of the most short-sighted decisions in human history.

The Pacific War could have also been avoided. Unlike the European front, the Allies couldn't even make the pretense of fighting for democracy. It was very much a colonial resource war with racial resentment on both sides.

The rise of Hitler in the first place was thanks to the overly harsh treatment of Germany at Versailles in 1919, and beyond. And I think the War would've still happened even if Hitler and the Nazis never came to power. The War was first and foremost about crushing a resurgent Germany.

[Heloin]

Hot take: the whole war was a mistake.

World War II could have very easily been prevented from escalating into a world war. Versailles was one of the most short-sighted decisions in human history.

The Pacific War could have also been avoided. Unlike the European front, the Allies couldn't even make the pretense of fighting for democracy. It was very much a colonial resource war with racial resentment on both sides.

Hot take. Germany should have been fully dismantled at the end of the Great War.

The War in the Pacific didn't need any pretence, Japan attacked everyone else first.

[Bear Stearns]

World War II could have very easily been prevented from escalating into a world war. Versailles was one of the most short-sighted decisions in human history.

The Pacific War could have also been avoided. Unlike the European front, the Allies couldn't even make the pretense of fighting for democracy. It was very much a colonial resource war with racial resentment on both sides.

The rise of Hitler in the first place was thanks to the overly harsh treatment of Germany at Versailles in 1919, and beyond. And I think the War would've still happened even if Hitler and the Nazis never came to power. The War was first and foremost about crushing a resurgent Germany.

At least in Europe.

In the Pacific, it was about oil and trade routes in Southeast Asia.

[Pax Nerdvana]

We must never forget those who fought and died for our freedom.

Aye. And I say we have a duty to humanity to make sure a war like this never happens again.

Agreed. MAD'll partly prevent that.

[Aeritai]

World War II could have very easily been prevented from escalating into a world war. Versailles was one of the most short-sighted decisions in human history.

The Pacific War could have also been avoided. Unlike the European front, the Allies couldn't even make the pretense of fighting for democracy. It was very much a colonial resource war with racial resentment on both sides.

The rise of Hitler in the first place was thanks to the overly harsh treatment of Germany at Versailles in 1919, and beyond. And I think the War would've still happened even if Hitler and the Nazis never came to power. The War was first and foremost about crushing a resurgent Germany.

Luckily the Allies learned from their mistakes in the past and helped Germany rebuild after the war.

[Bear Stearns]

World War II could have very easily been prevented from escalating into a world war. Versailles was one of the most short-sighted decisions in human history.

The Pacific War could have also been avoided. Unlike the European front, the Allies couldn't even make the pretense of fighting for democracy. It was very much a colonial resource war with racial resentment on both sides.

Hot take. Germany should have been fully dismantled at the end of the Great War.

The War in the Pacific didn't need any pretence, Japan attacked everyone else first.

Sure, but the reason why tensions existed in the first place is because Western colonial powers and the Japanese were pissy about who's state-backed oil monopoly got to run Indonesia and who had control of the Malaysian shipping routes.

[Heloin]

Hot take. Germany should have been fully dismantled at the end of the Great War.

The War in the Pacific didn't need any pretence, Japan attacked everyone else first.

Sure, but the reason why tensions existed in the first place is because Western colonial powers and the Japanese were pissy about who's state-backed oil monopoly got to run Indonesia and who had control of the Malaysian shipping routes.

To quote the old historian joke, "To know the cause of the First World one must look back to the fall of Babylon."

[Nazis in Space]

Hot take. Germany should have been fully dismantled at the end of the Great War.

How? Magic?

Germany was impossible to dismantle. It's not like it wasn't tried - the Rhenish Republic comes to mind - it's simply a matter of any attempt to split up Germany promptly failing as soon as the occupation forces withdraw. Or even before the withdrawl, as happened when the Berlin wall fell.

The Entente powers failed to enforce a permanent split of the country on Turkey, with - then - a fraction of the population. They ended up being fought by an enemy they'd already defeated, and being kicked out of the country in the process.

The French attempt at intervening in the Russian civil war managed to go even worse than that, and resulted in mass-mutinies and French soldiers actively fraternising with the reds they were supposed to fight.

The idea that they'd be able to do better in Germany - with the Ruhr occupation already demonstrating the opposite, to the point where the British and US pressured France and Belgium to fuck off because they were perceived as the bad guys - is laughably ignorant.

This isn't to say that a lighter Versailles would've prevented the next war (although an argument can be made that the NSDAP in particular would've been preventable by as little as France not throwing a hissy fit over the German-Austrian tariff union project in 1931, the failure of which helped demonstrate to the voters that the established parties weren't capable of actually getting anything done in terms of foreign and by extension, economic policy), since every Weimar government, whether social-democrat or conservative, maintained an irredentist stance on the eastern borders, and since the military restrictions softening up over time were an inevitability, aggression towards Czechoslovakia and Poland was a mid-term near-inevitability, Nazis or not.

But a harsher Versailles just flat-out isn't possible. Versailles was precisely as harsh as it could be. Any harsher, and

• the European economy essentially collapses, as it kind of relies on Germany in its centre
• there's a substantial risk of Germany going red, which absolutely nobody wanted
• France can pay through its nose for the occupation necessary to keep Germany split up, withdraws two years later, anyway, Germany reunifies about five minutes later, and knowing that the French don't have the stomach to pull through, proceeds to ignore the Versailles provisions altogether

Any Versailles+ scenario fundamentally relies on magic. You might as well ask why nobody looked at a shooting star in the sky and wished for Germany to simply disappear. It's be about as feasible as a harsher Versailles.

[Risottia]

It was Unthinkable because it was Undoable.

It was very doable. A few nuclear strikes could have near totally cut the Red Army off.

How many nuclear warheads did the USA have in 45-46? Also, Flying a B-29 into Japan is one thing, flying it to Moscow is another. Not to mention how the Communist partisans in France, Italy, Greece and Yugoslavia would have reacted to an Anglo-American Pearl-Harbour-style attack on the Soviets. Then, there's that small insignificant factor called "a couple of millions of rather angry Soviet troopers armed to the teeth and with better and more tanks than the Allies".

But hey, who am I to cramp your wet dreams.

[Washington Resistance Army]

It was very doable. A few nuclear strikes could have near totally cut the Red Army off.

How many nuclear warheads did the USA have in 45-46? Also, Flying a B-29 into Japan is one thing, flying it to Moscow is another. Not to mention how the Communist partisans in France, Italy, Greece and Yugoslavia would have reacted to an Anglo-American Pearl-Harbour-style attack on the Soviets. Then, there's that small insignificant factor called "a couple of millions of rather angry Soviet troopers armed to the teeth and with better and more tanks than the Allies".

But hey, who am I to cramp your wet dreams.

By the end of 45 we were capable of making 10 per month. There were only 3 primary rail junctions in Europe that led back to the USSR that supplied the Red Army in Europe, a bomb on each would isolate the Red Army and in a matter of days lead to sharp declines in combat effectiveness and after a week or two most units would not be capable of frontline operations anymore. The USSR was also going to fall into a famine without more aid from us and the most important parts of their military industry (tank production, aviation industry and fuel etc) would be crippled without Lend Lease.

It's one of those things that, with hindsight, I'm really comfortable saying the west could have won that war.

[Nazis in Space]

How many nuclear warheads did the USA have in 45-46?

Not many. Singledigits. This being said, this was largely the result of bomb production being drastically reduced. Fissile material to produce tripledigits worth of bombs was available, and would actually be used to produce more bombs in the event of a war.

Also, Flying a B-29 into Japan is one thing, flying it to Moscow is another.

Not that difficult. Soviet fighters tended to be comparatively underarmed and excelled primarily at low and medium altitude. Intercepting a B-29 at high altitude with one 23 mm cannon and a couple 12.7 mm machineguns would be... well, still perfectly doable during daytime, actually. That won't work.

The Soviet nightfighter force was aenemic, though.

Not to mention how the Communist partisans in France, Italy, Greece and Yugoslavia would have reacted to an Anglo-American Pearl-Harbour-style attack on the Soviets.

Who would care? Barring rather extensive foreign supplies - which the Soviets did manage within their own borders, but not really outside of them - partisans are an annoyance, not a threat.

For all that Greece and Serbia like to talk about how they drove out the Germans... they didn't. The Germans ran from the approaching red army, fearing that they'd be cut off.

Then, there's that small insignificant factor called "a couple of millions of rather angry Soviet troopers armed to the teeth and with better and more tanks than the Allies".

That'd indeed be a problem. This being said, without lend-lease (trucks and fuel in particular), that force would quickly lose mobility. I'd also like to note that Soviet tanks weren't that much better - the T-34 offers slightly superior firepower and armour for lower rate of fire and crew survivability when a hit is actually scored, and the IS series was... largely relegated to the far east post-war for good reason. Fearful reputation in the west, but the red army's own assessment differed somewhat from western estimates.

The Soviets did have perfectly adequate artillery pieces, but not quite in the numbers they'd have liked. Germany outshot them (as in, greater volume of grenades fired) in early 1945, which is crazy (and the primary reason for the still-heavy casualties the Soviets took at the time).

Still, it'd be a lot of soldiers and a lot of tanks. Head against concrete wall kind of deal for the attacking forces. Once American air superiority ashes Soviet supply lines, though, those numbers are largely just, well... sitting there.

This isn't to say that the Anglo-Americans could just push through a less mobile foe while using air superiority - they took six months to break the fraction of the Wehrmacht that stood against them, against whom they enjoyed a 2:1 - 4:1 numerical advantage on the ground, and now they're at a numerical disadvantage - but we'd essentially be looking at semi-static warfare. Not quite WW1, but loosely reminiscent.

While a handful Soviet cities enjoy mushroom clouds during the initial stage, with more to come as bomb production is ramped up again.

And that's before we get into the whole 'a healthy chunk of the USSR has been devastated by the war, while the United States are essentially untouched'.

Not a winning formula for the USSR.

Now, all of this obviously comes with a caveat - it assumes that the anglo-american governments could survive randomly declaring war on the USSR after the war's just over, everyone wants to go homey and several hundred thousand dead have already been stomached, only for another couple hundred thousand to be added that could be avoided by just .. not starting a war.

But if we're dealing with robots?

European front stays largely static while the Soviets lose a million people in the initial nuclear barrage and are then ground down over months.

[The New California Republic]

My Grandfather was a driver/bodyguard for one of the Generals during the Normandy campaign. He died when I was very young, and he didn't talk at all about his experiences. If I'd been a bit older when he was alive then I would have told him that he was going to tell me about his war experiences, and that I wouldn't take no for an answer. It's something that I really regret, that the WW2 chapter of the family history has more or less been completely lost.

[Heloin]

How many nuclear warheads did the USA have in 45-46? Also, Flying a B-29 into Japan is one thing, flying it to Moscow is another. Not to mention how the Communist partisans in France, Italy, Greece and Yugoslavia would have reacted to an Anglo-American Pearl-Harbour-style attack on the Soviets. Then, there's that small insignificant factor called "a couple of millions of rather angry Soviet troopers armed to the teeth and with better and more tanks than the Allies".

But hey, who am I to cramp your wet dreams.

By the end of 45 we were capable of making 10 per month. There were only 3 primary rail junctions in Europe that led back to the USSR that supplied the Red Army in Europe, a bomb on each would isolate the Red Army and in a matter of days lead to sharp declines in combat effectiveness and after a week or two most units would not be capable of frontline operations anymore. The USSR was also going to fall into a famine without more aid from us and the most important parts of their military industry (tank production, aviation industry and fuel etc) would be crippled without Lend Lease.

It's one of those things that, with hindsight, I'm really comfortable saying the west could have won that war.

The Soviet Air Force still existed. The Japanese Air Force didn't. And most transportation of supplies in 1945 was by horse and cart. Sure the lose of the Rail junctions would slow down the Red Army, but they still vastly outnumbered the other allied forces. The Soviets had no worry about full with the Caucuses, you know the whole reason Stalingrad happened. And Soviet manufacturing in 1945, while nowhere close to American levels, was capable of sustaining the Red Army for a longer war alone by then. I doubt Stalin cared about more Ukrainians dying to feed this new war on his former allies.

[West Leas Oros 2]

My Grandfather was a driver/bodyguard for one of the Generals during the Normandy campaign. He died when I was very young, and he didn't talk at all about his experiences. If I'd been a bit older when he was alive then I would have told him that he was going to tell me about his war experiences, and that I wouldn't take no for an answer. It's something that I really regret, that the WW2 chapter of the family history has more or less been completely lost.

I still have a living great grandfather who's 96 now. I don't think he served, but I hope that he tells me his life experiences while he's still alive. I know that feeling of regret, because I know that he could die at any time, and thus his memories lost. I hope to see him soon, because he is one of the few living connections to the world that was.

[The New California Republic]

My Grandfather was a driver/bodyguard for one of the Generals during the Normandy campaign. He died when I was very young, and he didn't talk at all about his experiences. If I'd been a bit older when he was alive then I would have told him that he was going to tell me about his war experiences, and that I wouldn't take no for an answer. It's something that I really regret, that the WW2 chapter of the family history has more or less been completely lost.

I still have a living great grandfather who's 96 now. I don't think he served, but I hope that he tells me his life experiences while he's still alive. I know that feeling of regret, because I know that he could die at any time, and thus his memories lost. I hope to see him soon, because he is one of the few living connections to the world that was.

I'd recommend doing it asap, otherwise you'll be regretting it decades later, like I am. I still regret it even though it wasn't an option for me at the time, on account of my age when he was alive.

[Washington Resistance Army]

By the end of 45 we were capable of making 10 per month. There were only 3 primary rail junctions in Europe that led back to the USSR that supplied the Red Army in Europe, a bomb on each would isolate the Red Army and in a matter of days lead to sharp declines in combat effectiveness and after a week or two most units would not be capable of frontline operations anymore. The USSR was also going to fall into a famine without more aid from us and the most important parts of their military industry (tank production, aviation industry and fuel etc) would be crippled without Lend Lease.

It's one of those things that, with hindsight, I'm really comfortable saying the west could have won that war.

The Soviet Air Force still existed. The Japanese Air Force didn't. And most transportation of supplies in 1945 was by horse and cart. Sure the lose of the Rail junctions would slow down the Red Army, but they still vastly outnumbered the other allied forces. The Soviets had no worry about full with the Caucuses, you know the whole reason Stalingrad happened. And Soviet manufacturing in 1945, while nowhere close to American levels, was capable of sustaining the Red Army for a longer war alone by then. I doubt Stalin cared about more Ukrainians dying to feed this new war on his former allies.

The Soviet Airforce was a meme that wouldn't have been able to stop B-29 raids tbh. Cutting off those lines ensures the Soviet army in Europe won't be an effective fighting force in a few weeks time. Soldiers would be starving, vehicles would have no fuel, everyone would be out of ammo etc etc. Also aviation fuel =/= normal fuel, if I'm not mistaken throughout the entire war the majority of Soviet aircraft fuel came from the US and Britain.

For sure the Soviets could keep building stuff, but tank production (particularly engines) would have been badly hit by the lack of Lend-Lease as would a few other crucial things. There's also that whole "scrapping the barrel and nearly out of manpower" thing the Soviets were dealing with by this point. The Allies would def have the advantage in this situation.

[The New California Republic]

The Soviet Airforce was a meme that wouldn't have been able to stop B-29 raids tbh..

It can even be argued that the USSR only really had a credible counter to the American bomber fleet starting with the introduction of the S-200VE in the 1960s...

[Heloin]

The Soviet Airforce was a meme that wouldn't have been able to stop B-29 raids tbh..

It can even be argued that the USSR only really had a credible counter to the American bomber fleet starting with the introduction of the S-200VE in the 1960s...

I'll be honest to everyone. I have no idea how I forgot that it was B-29's that were used for the Atomic bombings. No I don't know what the hell other plane I was thinking of.

[Novus America]

Hot take. Germany should have been fully dismantled at the end of the Great War.

The War in the Pacific didn't need any pretence, Japan attacked everyone else first.

Sure, but the reason why tensions existed in the first place is because Western colonial powers and the Japanese were pissy about who's state-backed oil monopoly got to run Indonesia and who had control of the Malaysian shipping routes.

Well Japan raping and pillaging China was a lot of it.
The Japanese Empire was completely messed up by that time, it was not going to stop its rampage until forcibly stopped.

The US was a net oil exporter up until the 50s, so we were not worried about the oil.

[Novus America]

By the end of 45 we were capable of making 10 per month. There were only 3 primary rail junctions in Europe that led back to the USSR that supplied the Red Army in Europe, a bomb on each would isolate the Red Army and in a matter of days lead to sharp declines in combat effectiveness and after a week or two most units would not be capable of frontline operations anymore. The USSR was also going to fall into a famine without more aid from us and the most important parts of their military industry (tank production, aviation industry and fuel etc) would be crippled without Lend Lease.

It's one of those things that, with hindsight, I'm really comfortable saying the west could have won that war.

The Soviet Air Force still existed. The Japanese Air Force didn't. And most transportation of supplies in 1945 was by horse and cart. Sure the lose of the Rail junctions would slow down the Red Army, but they still vastly outnumbered the other allied forces. The Soviets had no worry about full with the Caucuses, you know the whole reason Stalingrad happened. And Soviet manufacturing in 1945, while nowhere close to American levels, was capable of sustaining the Red Army for a longer war alone by then. I doubt Stalin cared about more Ukrainians dying to feed this new war on his former allies.

Soviet Aircraft were inferior to the US ones. The US was introducing jets, something the Soviets only brought in years later.

And the unstoppably huge Soviet military is not true.
https://warontherocks.com/2016/07/was-t ... -to-today/

Actually the Soviet military reached its largest size in 1943, and actually dropped after that.

The US military by 1945 was about the same size.
The US and allies would be able to outnumber the Soviets in both men and machines.

Plus technological superiority. And without US economic support from Lend Lease the Soviets would have collapsed (even Stalin admitted this).

[Novus America]

Churchill actually considered attacking the USSR with remobilized Wehrmacht Divisions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Unthinkable

It was Unthinkable because it was Undoable.

Politically? Yes.
Militarily? Not at all.