Tag Info

New answers tagged

2

No. The attack at Mers-el-Kebir was done by Britain to France, an ALLY. The breaching of the Henan dykes was done by the Chinese to themselves. It was a "scorched earth" policy like that practiced by the Russians against Napoleon (and Hitler). And the goal was to "sacrifice the plum tree to save the peach tree," to save (unsuccessfully) industrialized ...


0

The us factories alone produced 28 billion bullets enough to kill the world's population 14 times over


6

Plausible Quotations and Reverse Credibility in Online Vernacular Communities by Quentin Schultze and Randall Bytwerk (professors in the Department of Communication Arts and Sciences at Calvin College) traces the origin and spread of this misattributed quotation. Quoting: The above quotation appears on a rapidly growing number of Internet pages. In 2002, ...


6

The Kriegsmarine had no direct effect on the invasion, but did have an indirect one: they laid a lot of mines. The coastline was protected by large numbers of naval mines, and more would be laid by U-Boats and E-Boats. In addition to dozens of landing and patrol craft, mines took the largest toll on major naval assets. The cruiser HMS Scylla and ...


9

Yes, Nazi Germany did deploy naval assets. However, what little they could get into the area proved essentially futile. This did include U-boats. As part of the counter-invasion measures the Germany Navy had formed a group of 36 U-boats known as the Landwirte Group, the task of which was to attack Allied shipping supporting the invasion. - ...


0

Why did America not know about Soviet espionage in manhattan project A lend lease expediter stationed in Montana named Major Jordan ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Racey_Jordan ) kept a journal documenting much of the material that was shipped to the USSR. It seems obvious that at the direction of the executive office the plans and material to make ...


0

Adding two things to some good points from the other answers: 1) While the Nazis as an organization did horrible things they did not at all encourage individual cruelty as they understood it (i.e. as a Nazi you were supposed to kill Jews as a "necessity" but not supposed to have fun with it). There was a certain fear that exposing the general population to ...


0

I'm fairly surprised nobody mention the main purpose of concentration camps wasn't the execution. If was, the prisoners would go to showers as they arrive in the camp. The camps where useful economically, as the prisoners works every day, as slaves, with production quotas et all. So they are moved to camps not for extermination, but for slavery, then ...


0

Germany did in fact attempt to stir up unrest in Ireland, as seen by this BBC article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3264257.stm Unfortunately, the first Irishman they approached (whom they hoped would lead them to the IRA) handed them over to the police instead. They also had plans of using the IRA as proxies/allies to invade Northern Ireland, but ...


2

Death is part of your daily life At least for the soviet army in WW2, unless you saw the death yourself, you would not be officially informed of the fate of your comrades. Once somebody is out of action, you don't get info on if they die in hospital, or if they're MIA or KIA. Even for official purposes, the records we have complain of 'inadequate accounting ...


0

The problem with shooting people on the fly is that word gets around very quickly that you are doing that and it becomes much more difficult to capture victims in the future. Cost is not really a factor, because it is relatively cheap to kill people compared to say, fielding a military division. The means of execution is also relatively unimportant. For ...


3

In addition to the other excellent answer, let me note that the Axis fought two very different and separate wars which required little coordination. E.g., German raiders operating around Australia were a minor thing: they could get logistical support without additional communication (yes, I know that Kormoran sunk before the Pearl Harbor attack). Wiki: ...


15

The communications between national leaders are normally conducted through the embassies. I.e., Churchill would send a Typex-encrypted telegram to the British Embassy in Washington, DC, it is decrypted there, and delivered in person to the White House. Similarly, Roosevelt would send a SIGABA-encrypted message to the US Embassy in London, it is decrypted ...


6

This source, a review of War for Oil by Dietrich Eichholtz suggests the Germans did get close enough, at least as far as bombing in and around Baku was concerned. It suggests that the Luftwaffe were ... ordered ... to begin bombing Soviet oil storage depots at Astrakhan, Saratov, and Kamyshin as well as the fields around Baku To find out whether this ...


2

Many questions of the form "could Germany have done X in early WWII?" can be answered with some variation of "yes, if Hitler wasn't so obsessed with invading the Soviet Union". The other answer is "yes, if the Italian military didn't suck so bad". Mussolini was like Hitler's incompetent kid brother trying to imitate everything his big brother did and then ...


4

The map below shows the situation. The maximum range for bombing is about 200 miles assuming you have a airbase with fuel, oil, aircraft, munitions, and mechanical supplies. The Volga is a very wide river with no bridge across it in 1942. The terrain in the area is marshy. The Germans never succeeded in completely interrupting traffic on the Volga because ...


1

The Americans were on Luzon, and the Japanese had air and naval superiority, so reaching Mindanao was out of the question. The initial landings of the Japanese cut off the US troops, deployed near the capital of Manila, from what hills there are on that island. The main requirement of a guerrilla campaign is to either be able to escape the occupying army ...


6

To build on T.E.D's excellent answer, it is important to understand the backdrop under which Wallace was nominated for Vice-President in 1940, and not nominated in 1944. The first thing to note, was that as late as the 1930s and 1940s, the Republican party was the "centrist" and "Establishment" (but pro-business party), while the Democrats were an unlikely ...


1

Wallace was the last holdout from New Deal era. Over the years, both congress and the American public became disillusioned with the social progressivism of the Democratic party and their economic policies. In the 1942 elections the Democrats almost lost control of the House and many of the losers were New Dealers. The war also caused many politicians to lose ...


9

Diving a bit deeper into this, it looks like Wallace had three big strikes against him: He was a progressive liberal, at a time when a very large and influential part of the party (the Solid South) was very conservative. So was FDR of course, but as the holder of the White House they couldn't really attack him. He was a Theosophist (sort of the era's ...



Top 50 recent answers are included