The "Wars of the Past" Thread

[Thundercrack85]

Though World War III may very well end in the total extinction of the human species, it will still probably be less malicious than World War II. People truly were *******s in that era, and many didn't see the error of their ways until the rights movements of the fifties and sixties, if they ever did.

World War II really led people to rethink their values. And the Cold War made the species face its own mortality.

 

[8wid]

World in Conflict - Unreleased Washington Cinematic Trailer

World in Conflict - The Invasion of New York

World In Conflict Game - Seattle Invasion Trailer


If you've never seen this before I hope it shows how much scarier terrorism would have been with a Spetnaz during World War III.

 

[Spidey-Bat]

I love military history. I have a book on the greatest battles of the past five thousand years, including famous battles, causes, technology at the time and strategies, soldier statistics and casualties and how the aftermath changed the countries involved.

World War 2 was epic, but it's focused on so much that other conflicts get overlooked. I've been on a real World War One kick the last year or so. Read some great history books on it and some good novels like 'All Quiet on the Western Front', 'A Long, Long Way' and Birdsong' and some of Wilfred Owen's and Sassoon's poetry. The stuff about the Christmas truce, conditions in the trenches, the madness resulting from using 20th century killing machines in tandem with dated 19th century strategies, the gas attacks, the primitive dog-fights, Battle of the Somme, some fascinating stuff.

I highly recommend checking out The First World War. It's a documentary from a UK channel that aired in 2005. 10 episodes about the war. Unlike most documentaries or books, it doesn't just focus on the Western Front. They mention the campaigns in Africa, China, Japan, the Middle East, even South America. It's a very pure documentary, too. There are no muted reenactments or talking heads with historians like you get with History Channel. They show photographs, archival footage, modern day footage of places, and voice overs of first-hand accounts. Most of it from common people, the only historical figures were Churchill, Kaiser Wilhelm, and Archduke Franz-Ferdinand. It's on Amazon but for some reason at the insane price of $165, before it was never more than $40 and often $20. It is on Netflix as well and if you have the Military Channel, they often air it.

Kenneth Branagh also did a World War I in Color documentary back in 2003 I believe. I haven't finished watching it but it was very good because they had talking heads with actual veterans which is always great to see.

 

[chamber-music]

I've always wondered if England's best play was to ally with Hitler and Germany. Although they would've played second fiddle to the Reich,their Empire would've remained powerful and their cities intact. Adolf Hitler respected the British and wanted no conflict with them. England may have won the war,but they were no longer a world power and their country was in ruins. Plus,despite their effort to defeat Nazism and "save" Europe,once the war ended most of Europe was under a Stalinist dictatorship any how. So,they help save the continent from one tyranny,only to have it ruled by another.

Britian couldn't trust Hitler and the Nazis. Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain signed the 1938 Munich agreement which was to appease the Nazis and allow them to keep the regions of the then Czechoslavakia they invaded as long as they didn't advance anymore and Hitler broke that by invading Poland.

Hitler turned on the Soviets too. I don't think it would of been a smart idea to just sit back and hope Hitlers like of Britain would spare them. Also this was Britain during the empire days with alot of the guys in power from the victorian era their ego was huge they wouldn't sit back and allow Germany to control their own backyard.

British Empire would not of lasted anyway as people in colonial countries were already rebelling and public attitudes in Britain were changing. Stalinism didn't last and would not of lasted anyway. You can only subjugate people for so long until they rise up like we are seeing in the middle east right now.

 

[The Morningstar]

I love reading about military history. I've got a few interesting books. My favourite is probably "Surviving the Sword" about British and Aussie POWs of Japan. It's got the story of the Bridge over the River Kwai and all that. Really fascinating.

Also one of my favourites is Tiger Force, about Vietnam. That's some nasty **** though, about atrocities committed by some special forces unit that was out in the "boonies" too long.

I like the stuff that examines the psychology of soldiers during war, rather than books about tactics etc.

 

[Thundercrack85]

One major factor to consider is France. When the war started, no one could have imagined that France would perform so poorly. The French's reputation for military incompetence stems almost entirely from this conflict. Presumably, everyone would have considerably altered their plans if they knew that France would have fallen so easily and quickly. Especially the British.

 

[JJJ's Ulcer]

World in Conflict - Unreleased Washington Cinematic Trailer

World in Conflict - The Invasion of New York

World In Conflict Game - Seattle Invasion Trailer

Reminds me of this classic, yet underplayed and underrated game. Same general story... Russkies invading NYC.

 

[The Morningstar]

You sell America short. People were saying that during Vietnam, which was much deadlier. America has a few tricks up its sleeve, including the most advanced military technology in the world. Japan will never outperform America economically. They have an aging population. China may eventually outpace America, but it is fundamentally an unstable country. Brazil is a more interesting case. Hard to say how that will develop.

Though I think the people of Tibet would disagree with your views of China not being an unprovoked invader. As will many other neighboring countries in the near future. The fact that Vietnam is flirting with the US is a good indication. As China's might grows, it will get bolder.

The most advanced military technology in the world doesn't mean **** if the leaders/commanders don't know what to do with it.

Just look at Korea, Vietnam and all the wars in the Middle East.

 

[chamber-music]

One major factor to consider is France. When the war started, no one could have imagined that France would perform so poorly. The French's reputation for military incompetence stems almost entirely from this conflict. Presumably, everyone would have considerably altered their plans if they knew that France would have fallen so easily and quickly. Especially the British.

Yep thats true.

Republic of Ireland, Sweden, Spain, Switerland and Portugal were neutral. Denmark was officially neutral but was occupied by Germany throughout the war.

Some Swedes, Irish, Argentinians collaborated with the Nazis.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

One major factor to consider is France. When the war started, no one could have imagined that France would perform so poorly. The French's reputation for military incompetence stems almost entirely from this conflict. Presumably, everyone would have considerably altered their plans if they knew that France would have fallen so easily and quickly. Especially the British.

There is also the Franco-Prussian War. That did a lot to damage France's reputation. That's one of the reasons they were so eager to get another shot at the Germans in World War I.

 

[Dr. Evil]

This year is the 200th anniversary of the War of 1812.....a war which at the start the young United States had to rely on old veterans of the American Revolution who were in their 60's or 70's and then changed to younger officers like Andrew Jackson, Winfield Scott and William Henry Harrison.

 

[Axl Van Sixx]

So, in a reaction to our experience from WWII, the newly emboldened world superpower of the US intervened in Korea on the side of the south and democracy.

The regime of South Korean president Syngman Rhee, a right-wing nationalist, was highly authoritarian and certainly no better than the Stalinist dictatorship in the North.

From Wikipedia:

Soon after taking office, Rhee enacted laws that severely curtailed political dissent. Many leftist opponents were arrested, and in some cases killed. It soon became apparent that Rhee's governing style was going to be authoritarian.[10] He allowed the internal security force (headed by his right-hand man, Kim Chang-ryong) to detain and torture suspected Communists and North Korean agents. His government also oversaw several massacres, the most notable one being on Jeju island, where over 30,000 protesters were killed by police.[11]


10. Tirman, John (2011). The Deaths of Others: The Fate of Civilians in America's Wars. Oxford University Press. pp. 93–95.
11. Müller, Anders Riel (19 April). "One Island Village's Struggle for Life, Land, and Peace". Korea Policy Institute.

 

[Spidey-Bat]

There is also the Franco-Prussian War. That did a lot to damage France's reputation. That's one of the reasons they were so eager to get another shot at the Germans in World War I.

The Franco-Prussian War is one of the most important in world history and deserves a lot more attention than it receives. It resulted in a united German state, the first time since the height of the Holy Roman Empire. The German Empire was then trying to play catch-up with imperialistic ambitions in Africa and Asia.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

The Franco-Prussian War is one of the most important in world history and deserves a lot more attention than it receives. It resulted in a united German state, the first time since the height of the Holy Roman Empire. The German Empire was then trying to play catch-up with imperialistic ambitions in Africa and Asia.

Absolutely. I would argue that the Battle of Sedan is one of the ten most important battles in history.

For the record, I don't believe that the French are poor fighters. The exact opposite in fact. But Germans marching in Paris twice within a 70 year period after short campaigns is what created the stereotype.

 

[Spidey-Bat]

Absolutely. I would argue that the Battle of Sedan is one of the ten most important battles in history.

For the record, I don't believe that the French are poor fighters. The exact opposite in fact. But Germans marching in Paris twice within a 70 year period after short campaigns is what created the stereotype.

I've never read up much about France's military competence, but I always got the impression that the Germans were always the best military strategists and had the best trained soldiers in Europe up until the 20th century. If Germany weren't in the middle of Europe, they would have been a much more powerful nation.

In one of my history classes sophomore year, we read a book about how the Germans were defined by their military culture. The German General Staff became immensely powerful in the mid-19th century. Neither the government nor law were willing to limit them. The constitution prohibited criticism of the military by the people, they coordinated little with the political system, and there was never any foreign policy for them to follow. Generals taught soldiers that any action they did would be justified by military necessity which included harsh treatment of civilians that ignored international laws. Their main military principle emphasized focusing your entire force on a single point and defined victory as the complete destruction of the enemy.

 

[The Morningstar]

Kinda reminds me of what Kurtz said to Willard in Apocalypse Now in his "horror" monologue.

 

[The Morningstar]

Kinda reminds me of what Kurtz said to Willard in Apocalypse Now in his "horror" monologue.

 

[Thundercrack85]

The French were incredibly incompetent in World War II. It's rather astounding how poorly they did. The Germans didn't know what to make of it. They expected an epic battle against their archenemy. But instead France went out with a whimper. Made all the more incredible by the fact that the French had a sizable, modernized military. They even had a technological edge in some areas (tanks, battleships).

The British actually had to destroy the French Navy so it wouldn't be captured by the Germans.

 

[Schlosser85]

The French were incredibly incompetent in World War II. It's rather astounding how poorly they did. The Germans didn't know what to make of it. They expected an epic battle against their archenemy. But instead France went out with a whimper. Made all the more incredible by the fact that the French had a sizable, modernized military. They even had a technological edge in some areas (tanks, battleships).

The British actually had to destroy the French Navy so it wouldn't be captured by the Germans.

I'm sure it also inflated the egos of Hitler and his Generals and contributed to their overconfidence regarding Russia.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

The French were incredibly incompetent in World War II. It's rather astounding how poorly they did. The Germans didn't know what to make of it. They expected an epic battle against their archenemy. But instead France went out with a whimper. Made all the more incredible by the fact that the French had a sizable, modernized military. They even had a technological edge in some areas (tanks, battleships).

The British actually had to destroy the French Navy so it wouldn't be captured by the Germans.

At least they were better than the Italians.

 

[Schlosser85]

That's not saying much.

 

[Thundercrack85]

At least they were better than the Italians.

I dunno. That's debatable. Least the Italians contributed gasoline to the Axis war effort.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

I dunno. That's debatable. Least the Italians contributed gasoline to the Axis war effort.

The Italians tried to invade France while the country was falling apart thanks to the German invasion in the north and actually lost, despite outnumbering the French 2 to 1.

That's not saying much.

True.

 

[Thundercrack85]

True, but France nearly lost the Allies the entire war. If it hadn't been for Dunkirk. France fell over backwards, and collaborated with the Germans, and actually fought against the Allies in several battles. That's worse than useless. If it wasn't for the Free French Forces and the resistance, France would have probably been occupied by the US and Britain like Germany.

 

[Venom75]

People never give the Germans credit though. They completely re-organized the way wars are fought,esp. now using tanks and mobile infantry. The French had alot of help from England,and still got their butts kicked. The Italians,however...well,I don't think their hearts were even in it.