0
Started By
Message
re: History Discussion Thread
Posted on 8/25/26 at 10:27 am to m2pro
Posted on 8/25/26 at 10:27 am to m2pro
quote:
I want to love history, but it's all a lie.
History is not a lie. The broad strokes of what happened in the past, at least since the invention of the printing press, are pretty well known and understood. Earlier than that things obviously become far murkier because written records become much more scarce. The "lie" of which you speak is simply the way in which history is interpreted and the particular slant with which it is presented to you. That's where your own reasoning and the ability to see through the veneer of presentation become important. A history of the French Revolution written by a Marxist is going to be quite different than a history of the same period written by a monarchist or a democratic republican, even though they are all talking about the same sequence of historical events.
Posted on 8/25/26 at 11:12 am to Diego Ricardo
quote:
It’s all connected somewhat if you look hard enough.
German Emporer Frederick III was pro-democratization and had a very close relationship with his British in-laws. However he died of throat cancer in his 50s a couple of months after taking over. Had he lived, Germany likely becomes a constitutional monarchy like the UK before the turn of the century. Instead, his inept assclown of a son takes over, fricks everything up, and stumbles his way into a global conflict without which Hitler and the Nazis never happen.
I would suggest that anyone really interested in the causes of much of the conflict of the first half of the 20th century read up about the Kaiser. Germany went from potentially being led by Teddy Roosevelt for 20 years to being led by the Elon Musk of his time.
This post was edited on 8/25/26 at 11:21 am
Posted on 8/25/26 at 4:52 pm to hwyman108
quote:
quote:
My thoughts: I think you're both half right. Amarillo, the "better weapons" part is iffy. The French and British had more tanks in May 1940, and the Char B1 and Somua S35 outgunned and out-armored most of what the Germans fielded. The real German edges were radios in every tank, a Luftwaffe built for close support, and concentrating their armor into panzer divisions instead of spreading it out in infantry support. The Maginot Line also did its job: it shut the direct route and pushed the Germans into Belgium, which is exactly what it was for. The failure was the Dyle plan sending the best French armies deep into Belgium, leaving the Ardennes hinge to reserve divisions, and keeping no strategic reserve at all. Once Guderian was over the Meuse at Sedan, a headquarters with no radio and a 1918 mindset just couldn't react at the speed required
Maurice Gamelin CinC and General Alphonse Georges commander of the northeast front got totally out played on strategy and deception. It was a master class on modern warfare by brilliant tactical planning by General Erich von Manstein. He engineered the concept of the plan knowing exactly what Gamelin would do.
Without going to deep in explaining this I’ll cut it short by saying it was probably the worst frick up a European General ever ordered. It only took those Kraut bastard’s 10 days to reach the channel.
The Allied armies in the north were now largely cut off from the rest of France.
It was over that fast and that quick, Europe was lost. The French had more than enough forces capable of repelling Jerry. What they didn’t have was generals that studied the art of war on a level Ole Fritz took it too.
I think ppl often forget how powerful a fighting force the third reich engineered. It’s pretty damn scary what they almost accomplished considering how beaten and destroyed Germany was after the first world war. 20yrs later they came damn close of conquering the world. And in return it showed us how to become the most lethal military force ever created known to mankind. Strange how things evolve sometimes and shapes the world
Agree with most of that. Manstein's plan was the right read of Gamelin, and Sichelschnitt is still the cleanest example of winning a campaign in the planning room. Two things I'd add though. First, it wasn't the German army's plan until very late. OKH rejected it repeatedly, Halder thought it reckless, and it only got adopted after the Mechelen incident in January 1940 put the original Schlieffen-style plan in Belgian hands and Hitler got a face-to-face with Manstein in February. So it was as much a gamble that happened to pay off as a masterclass, and it paid off partly because Guderian and Rommel ignored halt orders on the way to the coast. Gamelin's real sin wasn't being outfoxed, it was leaving nothing in reserve to punish the gamble when it was strung out along one road.
Second, I'd be a little careful with "came close to conquering the world." 1940 showed what the Wehrmacht could do in a short campaign against an opponent who fought the way they expected. It also masked everything they were bad at: logistics, intelligence, strategic air, naval power, and an economy that couldn't sustain a long war. The same army that reached the Channel in ten days was still mostly walking behind horses eighteen months later at the gates of Moscow. Where you're dead right is the last part. The US Army spent the postwar decades studying German mission command and combined arms, and AirLand Battle owes a lot to it. The losers ended up writing a good chunk of the winners' doctrine.
Posted on 8/25/26 at 6:57 pm to CrimsonBoz
The conquering the world part I should have explained a more detailed meaning.
If Germany would have avoided the two front war, Concentrated on the Mediterranean—Malta, North Africa, the Suez Canal, and possibly Middle Eastern oil.
Expanded the U-boat campaign to isolate Britain instead of attempting an impractical cross-Channel invasion.
Avoided declaring war on us after Pearl, Strengthened defenses and
Consolidated territory the Krauts already occupied.
As we know Hitler never had a very good understanding and knowledge on how to wage war. He thought it was so easy the way they conquered Europe that his military was invincible without understanding it was the brilliance of the military high command and the advanced military weapons the scientists engineered to wage war.
You know if he would have listened to his brightest military minds instead of listening to his pet monkeys things would be a lot different. They had conquered enough to be able to grow even more economically, politically and the biggest reason militarily.
The weapons that the scientists was developing was way ahead of its time. The ME262 alone was a game changer. The V1& V2 cruise and long range ballistic missiles, First operational jet bomber, guided surface to air missile and a lot of other shite that was in development.
Thank god he didn’t listen to his smartest minds. If they would have stopped and regrouped and rebuilt and developed what they had in a 3yr time frame I’m not sure anybody would have had the advanced technology to match them
If Germany would have avoided the two front war, Concentrated on the Mediterranean—Malta, North Africa, the Suez Canal, and possibly Middle Eastern oil.
Expanded the U-boat campaign to isolate Britain instead of attempting an impractical cross-Channel invasion.
Avoided declaring war on us after Pearl, Strengthened defenses and
Consolidated territory the Krauts already occupied.
As we know Hitler never had a very good understanding and knowledge on how to wage war. He thought it was so easy the way they conquered Europe that his military was invincible without understanding it was the brilliance of the military high command and the advanced military weapons the scientists engineered to wage war.
You know if he would have listened to his brightest military minds instead of listening to his pet monkeys things would be a lot different. They had conquered enough to be able to grow even more economically, politically and the biggest reason militarily.
The weapons that the scientists was developing was way ahead of its time. The ME262 alone was a game changer. The V1& V2 cruise and long range ballistic missiles, First operational jet bomber, guided surface to air missile and a lot of other shite that was in development.
Thank god he didn’t listen to his smartest minds. If they would have stopped and regrouped and rebuilt and developed what they had in a 3yr time frame I’m not sure anybody would have had the advanced technology to match them
Posted on 8/25/26 at 8:24 pm to Fells
quote:That and the fact that the French squandered a sizeable lead in the aviation arms race following WWI by not having a structured modernization effort. Could have done themselves a lot of favors even failing a successful ground defense. It worked out for the Brits for the most part.
So WW2 comes and they basically are thinking the same thing. They had beat Germany's western advance solidly before the treaty of Versailles and thought that was the best Germany was capable of. So they hunkered down with a bunch of defensive fortifications and then Germany just went around them.
Posted on 8/25/26 at 10:42 pm to Robot Santa
quote:
German Emporer Frederick III was pro-democratization and had a very close relationship with his British in-laws. However he died of throat cancer in his 50s a couple of months after taking over. Had he lived, Germany likely becomes a constitutional monarchy like the UK before the turn of the century. Instead, his inept assclown of a son takes over, fricks everything up, and stumbles his way into a global conflict without which Hitler and the Nazis never happen.
Maybe, but the Red Terror was more consequential than Wilhelm II being a jackass. The fricking Bolsheviks get the biggest pass in most of the history I see. They were assholes. Their actions drove people to war.
And Patton was assassinated.
Posted on 8/26/26 at 7:36 am to SECSolomonGrundy
Like, as a cause of WWII? The Red Terror happened after Russia was already knocked out of WWI. I was really just speaking more towards how so much of history is interconnected and a direct line can be drawn between one premature death and a conflict 50-60 years later. I just don't think WW1 happens in the first place if the role of Kaiser is largely relegated to a ceremonial position like the British monarchy in the late 19th century. The entire conflict was essentially the dying gasp of hereditary totalitarianism in Europe after all. None of the ill considered, belligerent nonsense that came out of Wilhelm's mouth matters if no one believes he has political influence domestically. Nor is there any power for the German military leadership to usurp from him. But he did have influence, and his actions and personality were one of the biggest factors in early 20th century Germany having a terrible diplomatic relationship with all of Europe other than the bloated, dying empires of the Austrians and Ottomans.
Posted on 8/26/26 at 7:57 am to Robot Santa
A Russo-German alliance, which came very close to happening in the late 19th century, instead of a Franco-Russian one makes for a very, very different 20th century than the one that we got. Perhaps not a less violent one, but certainly different. A Germany backed by Russia and fearless of a two-front war is probably more than a match for France, even if Britain did get involved, which they probably wouldn't have in that situation. In that world fascism probably grows and takes root in a defeated and humiliated France rather than in Germany.
Posted on 8/26/26 at 9:13 am to Robot Santa
quote:
Like, as a cause of WWII?
Yes, I believe you are saying Hitler doesn't happen without Wilhelm II. Im saying the bolsheviks are more responsible. German Christians feared the bolshevik takeover.
Posted on 8/26/26 at 9:45 am to hwyman108
quote:
The conquering the world part I should have explained a more detailed meaning.
If Germany would have avoided the two front war, Concentrated on the Mediterranean—Malta, North Africa, the Suez Canal, and possibly Middle Eastern oil.
Expanded the U-boat campaign to isolate Britain instead of attempting an impractical cross-Channel invasion.
Avoided declaring war on us after Pearl, Strengthened defenses and
Consolidated territory the Krauts already occupied.
As we know Hitler never had a very good understanding and knowledge on how to wage war. He thought it was so easy the way they conquered Europe that his military was invincible without understanding it was the brilliance of the military high command and the advanced military weapons the scientists engineered to wage war.
You know if he would have listened to his brightest military minds instead of listening to his pet monkeys things would be a lot different. They had conquered enough to be able to grow even more economically, politically and the biggest reason militarily.
The weapons that the scientists was developing was way ahead of its time. The ME262 alone was a game changer. The V1& V2 cruise and long range ballistic missiles, First operational jet bomber, guided surface to air missile and a lot of other shite that was in development.
Thank god he didn’t listen to his smartest minds. If they would have stopped and regrouped and rebuilt and developed what they had in a 3yr time frame I’m not sure anybody would have had the advanced technology to match them
I get the appeal of "if he'd just listened to the smart guys," but I think time was the one thing Germany didn't have. The whole war effort was basically a Ponzi scheme. Schacht funded rearmament with MEFO bills, off-the-books IOUs from a shell company that the Reichsbank quietly guaranteed, and by 1938 the bill was coming due. Austria's gold reserves paid it. Then Czech gold. Then France's occupation costs. Every conquest paid for the last one, and by 1940 the economy was running on plunder, forced labor, and Soviet oil and grain shipped in under the Molotov-Ribbentrop deal. Hitler attacked Russia in 1941 partly because he knew the math only got worse the longer he waited. "Stop and consolidate for three years" ends with Germany broke and the US holding the bomb, a fleet of B-29s, and factories building more planes in a year than Germany built in the whole war.
The Med and U-boat strategies sound better than they were. Rommel's problem wasn't Malta, it was that Tripoli and Benghazi could only unload so much a day and everything went up one road for a thousand miles. Even at their 1942 peak the U-boats never came close to starving Britain, and by 1943 radar, Huff-Duff, escort carriers, and code-breaking made the Atlantic a death trap no matter how many boats they had.
On the wonder weapons, the Me 262 was a great airframe strapped to engines that lasted about 20 hours because Germany had no nickel or chromium. The V-2 cost roughly as much as the Manhattan Project, delivered one ton of explosive per shot, and killed more people building it than it killed as a weapon. Meanwhile the Allies had jets, the proximity fuze, and centimetric radar in service by 1944, and the bomb the next summer. Germany built a dozen exquisite prototypes and lost to people who built one decent tank and made 50,000 of them.
And the "brilliant generals, dumb Hitler" story comes almost entirely from the generals' postwar memoirs, and they had every reason to pin it on the dead guy. They were all in on Barbarossa and underestimated the Soviets just as badly as he did. He was a terrible strategist, no argument. But the war he wanted was never winnable at Germany's size. Thank God is right, I'd just say the thanks go to arithmetic more than his ego.
Posted on 8/26/26 at 10:06 am to SECSolomonGrundy
Well, not quite. I'm saying that without a Wilhelm there is no WWI (or at least a very different looking one) and without a WWI there is no Hitler. Hitler's whole thing was a fanatical belief that Jews and leftists back in Berlin conspired to betray the German military and subject Germany to the humiliation of Versailles. There's no significant evidence that he had strong feelings about either group before the end of the war. So without that happening there is no Hitler. Maybe some other right wing authoritarian simply takes his place, but it would have been someone else with different motives.
Posted on 8/26/26 at 12:26 pm to Robot Santa
quote:
Hitler's whole thing was a fanatical belief that Jews and leftists back in Berlin conspired to betray the German military and subject Germany to the humiliation of Versailles. There's no significant evidence that he had strong feelings about either group before the end of the war. So without that happening there is no Hitler.
I agree with all that, and there was a large segment of the proud German army who felt the same way. But i think the german populace also needed evidence of the boogeyman he was telling them about. They pointed to the communist uprising happening in Russia. Old German soldiers will say they were fighting to keep that from coming to Germany.
I think the shitty economy of the Weimar Republic played a big part too. My grandmother grew up in occupied Holland. She didnt come over to America until the 50s. She said it was very confusing times for a little girl.
Posted on 8/26/26 at 12:30 pm to SECSolomonGrundy
The inflation numbers during the Weimar were staggering to read about. Can’t imagine the people during that time dealing with it
Posted on 8/26/26 at 12:35 pm to SECSolomonGrundy
Enjoying this thread . Hope it keeps going to other points in History later on . Lots of knowledgeable posters . Hell I majored in Social Studies Education so we didn’t go “in depth “ with a lot of Historical points/controversies so I enjoy the knowledge you guys are bringing to the thread … carry on 
Posted on 8/26/26 at 12:47 pm to Bear88
I loved history in high school and dabbled with the idea of pursuing it as academic career. I started college in computer science and stuck with it though. Why? First semester at UA, I take honors western civ I and my professor was great - quite knowledgeable and adept at assigning good primary source material adjacent to the curriculum - one problem: he was an adjunct working at every higher education institution in the county to make a living.
I liked fancy tech and fast cars too much to be a historian.
I liked fancy tech and fast cars too much to be a historian.
Posted on 8/26/26 at 1:13 pm to Diego Ricardo
Hell you could have gone “big time” like me and teach/coach 
Posted on 8/26/26 at 3:12 pm to SECSolomonGrundy
quote:
But i think the german populace also needed evidence of the boogeyman he was telling them about. They pointed to the communist uprising happening in Russia. Old German soldiers will say they were fighting to keep that from coming to Germany.
That wave had already crested in Germany with the failure of the Spartacist rebellion in the 1920s. The thing that truly propelled Hitler into power was not fear of Bolshevism but disillusionment with free-market capitalism caused by the Great Depression. Hitler and the Nazis were able to point that anger at the Weimar Republic itself and convince a German population that was still steeped in a tradition of strong authoritarianism that what they needed was a return to strong authoritarianism - basically he sold them a return to pre-WW1 Germany with himself taking the role of the Kaiser. The Communists served as useful fall guys for the Reichstag fire to allow the Nazis to fully entrench their seizure of power after Hitler had been made Chancellor, but they were never the main object of his vitriol.
Posted on 8/26/26 at 4:00 pm to Amarillo Tide
quote:
I still contend if the Allies (particularly the French) hadn’t insisted on humiliating and crippling Germany with reparations after WWI, the Weimar Republic might have made it thru the Great Depression and most likely, Nazism probably wouldn’t have taken root.
I agree.
It's one thing to excuse crimes based on desperate economic situations.
It's another to simply acknowledge that widespread economic stability across a country cures a lot more problems than every thing else combined.
Posted on 8/26/26 at 4:14 pm to wm72
The amount charged to Germany for "war reparations" in the Treaty of Versailles was the same amount, adjusted for inflation, as that charged to France by Germany after the Franco-Prussian War in 1871, which was the same amount, again adjusted for inflation, as that charged to Prussia by France after their defeat in 1807 by Napoleon in the War of the Fourth Coalition. That cycle of tit-for-tat only finally stopped when Germany destroyed France and was then itself destroyed during WW2.
Posted on 8/26/26 at 4:55 pm to TheTideMustRoll
quote:
quote:
But i think the german populace also needed evidence of the boogeyman he was telling them about. They pointed to the communist uprising happening in Russia. Old German soldiers will say they were fighting to keep that from coming to Germany.
That wave had already crested in Germany with the failure of the Spartacist rebellion in the 1920s. The thing that truly propelled Hitler into power was not fear of Bolshevism but disillusionment with free-market capitalism caused by the Great Depression. Hitler and the Nazis were able to point that anger at the Weimar Republic itself and convince a German population that was still steeped in a tradition of strong authoritarianism that what they needed was a return to strong authoritarianism - basically he sold them a return to pre-WW1 Germany with himself taking the role of the Kaiser. The Communists served as useful fall guys for the Reichstag fire to allow the Nazis to fully entrench their seizure of power after Hitler had been made Chancellor, but they were never the main object of his vitriol.
The chips fell in his lap with the fire, emergency powers etc, and on top of that, his gaining popularity made Hindenburg appoint him chacellor thinking he could control him. Quite the backfire.
Page 2 of 3
Latest Alabama News
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News