New answers tagged ww2
1
Fordism is widely accepted outside France and isn't restricted to regulation theory. It pops up, independently in marxist industrial sociology (Johnson-Forest / Braverman) as the concrete results of research. It appears as a concrete research object, a theoretical category, and a transcended political and theoretical moment in Autonomism (Cleaver, Reading ...
10
Hiroshima, the first city, was "an important army depot and port of embarkation in the middle of an urban industrial area. It is a good radar target and it is such a size that a large part of the city could be extensively damaged. There are adjacent hills which are likely to produce a focussing[sic] effect which would considerably increase the blast damage. ...
10
The U.S. likely did not target Tokyo for the atomic bomb strikes as it was the seat of the Emperor and the location of much of the high ranking military officers. These are precisely the people you do not want to kill if you want to negotiate a surrender, as they are the people you would be negotiating with.
The U.S. decided to drop the bombs onto military ...
1
The term: "man for man" is that they achieved a better result on a per capita basis. However there is an interesting study mentioned in the book: "Blizkreig" by Len Deighton, of fighting in North Africa. Which showned that the Germans improvised better than their opposition and fought better when they lost their leadership and NCO's.
From Depuy's book:
...
3
I'm not sure that deaths decrease the active population
Historically speaking there are periods when war is conducted only by professional military (in which case there is no effect on the labor force), and periods where war is conducted by citizen/soldier/militia. Different sides in the same war may have different participation rates. Military service in ...
4
I'm afraid that I must disagree with @Samuel Russell. Yes, war spending is a case of the broken window fallacy, and I'm inclined to believe that Bastiat is both clearer and more correct than Mr. Russell gives credit. I suspect that I'd like to sit down with Mr. Russell and puzzle out our disagreement over beer, but this is not the place for that ...
3
Bastiat is wrong. Utilitarianism, the idea of subjective valorisations of utility as opposed to price, has been rejected because it is fundamentally incoherent: subjective utilities are incommensurable and thus unvalorisable. The reason for this is that the subjective process of desire is incommensurable between individuals. Even if we both price ...
1
How about the Punic Wars? The first war was 264 to 241 BC. The second was 218 to 201 and the third 149 to 146. There were 23 years between the first two and 52 between the last two.
1
There are enough mentionings of Mozart e.g. in the Wikipedia article on Frédéric Chopin (1810–1849), another child prodigy, classical music composer, and pianist who died young, to convince me that Mozart was studied and taken seriously for one by the French musical elite in the (early) 19th century, i.e. well before WW II.
Seven-year-old "little Chopin" ...
1
In the U.S., the French and Indian War, 1754-1763 was about one generation ahead of the American Revolution 1776-1783. If you take the Texas Revolution of 1836 as the "start" of the Mexican-American War, the 1836 start was 25 years ahead the Civil War (1861-65).
The argument is that the earlier wars "incubated" the later wars, as some historians believe was ...
0
What about three generations in a row?
From the series of Polish-Teutonic Wars that took place between 14th and 16th century, I would refer to three periods of time. 1409-11 (with the Battle of Grunwald, which was one of the largest military engagements of medieval Europe) during the rules of Władysław II Jogaila, then a generation later, 1431-35, at the ...
2
There were plenty: E.g. the Austro-Prussian War (1866) and the Franco-Prussian War (1870–1871) form such a pair. Obviously Prussia (soon to become center of the German Empire as proclaimed by Wilhelm I in 1871) participated in both.
As a European who has been born in the 1960s I rather often comment to my friends that it has been extraordinary good fortune ...
-1
The United States could produce enough nuclear material for one atomic bomb every six months. In August, 1945, it had the two bombs and at least "part" of a third. If Japan hadn't surrendered by then, a third bomb would have been available no later than early 1946.
14
Simply because Switzerland was a worse alternative plan strategically than Netherlands and Belgium.
Hitler had a plan to attack Switzerland, named Operation Tannenbaum but the Maginot line could be breached through Belgium and Netherland. So it became needless conflict with no gain.
It is a less known fact that Switzerland (German part namely) was part of ...
6
Switzerland isn't much of a "prize." It has about 16,000 square miles, and about 4.5 million people in 1940 making it twice the size of New Jersey, with about as many people. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland On both counts, it is one of the smaller countries in Europe, and less worth having.
On the other hand, Switzerland maintains a policy of armed ...
4
http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/BigL/BigL-5.html lists Lend Lease provisions by the US to the USSR only for 1941 through 1943, not for '44 and '45 (if any), as the data was taken from a 1944 congressional report. It does show a steady increase for those 3 consecutive years though, not a decline or flattening out for 1943.
From the total deliveries also ...
2
Well, turns out that there is a wikipedia article about this. It is not clear from the article how valuable in reality was the help the US got from Lucky Luciano. It certainly was valuable for him, procuring him an eventual release from prison...
2
Nick,
In an effort to ensure your post doesn't become fodder for Nationalists and Neo-Nazis, don't confuse Dupuy's conclusions. He did not conclude that the Germans were "man for man" better but rather that their leadership was better, particularly at the NCO level right up to the General Staff level. This is the primary reason, he concludes, that the ...
3
Who ever wrote this is wrong:
"In 1941, the Germans had the advantages of surprise, preparedness, superior tactical doctrine. In 1942, the Germans had lost the first two advantages, but their superior doctrine made the difference. By 1943, the Soviet forces had caught up, in some cases overtaken the Germans in quality of equipment, and doctrine. Only the ...
1
Blaskowitz was indicted for involvement in preparing and waging an ‘illegal’ aggressive war against Poland, which led to war with the UK and France. His Affidavit [No. 5 in Volume I of the document book Exhibit Number USA-537.] was used as evidence against the High Command for involvement in aggressive war. The defence got him to add another affidavit ...
-1
Erwin Rommel - The Devil's General
The SPIEGEL has released a good up to date point of view about NAZI Rommel (01. November 2012):
Gentleman warrior, military genius. The legend of Erwin Rommel, the
German Field Marshal who outfoxed the British in North Africa, lives
on. But a new TV documentary seeks to correct that image by arguing
that his ...
2
First, a correction on Deuterium; it is a hydrogen atom with a neutron as well as a proton in its nucleus, giving it an atomic mass of ~2 instead of ~1. Heavy water is a molecule with one hydrogen and one deuterium atom bonding to the oxygen, instead of two regular hydrogen bonding to the oxygen. It's chemical formula is DHO, (or sometimes colloquially but ...
7
Rommel's men were not accused of war crimes and he regularly ignored orders to execute captured Jewish soldiers and civilians. Wikipedia also states: "Nazi party officials in France reported that Rommel extensively and scornfully criticised Nazi incompetence and crimes." Also, the strongest evidence that Rommel disagreed with the Nazi party was the fact ...
6
Okay, based on some more reading, the answer to the question "was Blaskowitz indicted just for being a senior German general?" seems to be "yes, but that was not necessarily wrong".
I'll try to explain what I mean. Blaskowitz was indicted as part of the Generals' Trial, together with 13 other senior commanders. The legal philosophy behind this case was the ...
1
The loss of those oil fields would have been crippling and severly reduced Russia's ability to operate. Do not forget that, at the same time, it would boost Germany's abilities and resources massively.
Even if you import oil that is going to take time, resources, planning, negotiation - those well fueled German tanks etc that are driving at your infantry ...
5
If you look at ace sinking by year you'll find that aces could only develop their sink counts during "happy times," when a technical and doctrinal superiority favoured mass sinkings. These times often involved unimpeded surface running, surface attacks on individual ships, an absence of convoy systems and loosely protected convoys.
While it may be ...
6
"Hitler had a big point though. In 1940 Baku was producing 22.2 million metric tons of oil, comprising 72% of total Soviet oil production. In 1941, it produced 25.4 Mt"
Source: http://karbuz.blogspot.com/2006/10/oil-logistics-lesson-from-wwii-3.html, which sources in turn from "The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money & Power" by Daniel Yergin
I'll ...
1
By 1940 for the allies the national GDP figures were approximately (in dollars):
27.51 billion of UK
18.28 billion for france
10 billion for the low countries
41.97 billion of Germany
8.68 billion for italy
84.7 billion of the US
Source:
http://historum.com/blogs/guaporense/994-economics-world-war-two.html
-1
Hitler's campaign to SSCB is not a blunder but its is a bet. He know that he have to remove some enemies from the game to win. He know that if it would be too late, all enemies will attack him together in the end like WW1. Usa would attack in 1-2 year to Germany when he feels ready and USA will not work hard to find a cause to attack Germany. Hitler could ...
4
Did Heisenberg undermine the German atomic bomb by deliberately hiding his expertise from the Nazis?
J. Robert Oppenheimer's biographer Ray Monk thinks that Heisenberg played no such role (perhaps he "did" in convenient-to-some retrospect). See also here.
2
Did Heisenberg undermine the German atomic bomb by deliberately hiding his expertise from the Nazis?
We know several things about him. First, Heisenberg was notoriously "incompetent," insofar as there were major gaps in his understanding of atomic physics. Second, he recognized this fact, and went to his old professor, Niels Bohr, to ask questions to clear up things that he was unsure of in his own mind. (This visit was the subject of a play.) Third, we ...
4
Did Heisenberg undermine the German atomic bomb by deliberately hiding his expertise from the Nazis?
No, he did not.
He very much wanted Germany to win the war. For example he was very excited about the offensive in Ardennes. He met with Neils Bohr in attempt to gain more information about his work, which was described by Bohr himself.
The source of this information is the Neils Bohr's biography by Daniel Danin
http://reeed.ru/lib/books/nils_bor/
2
I believe the "Tooth-to-tail ratio", the ratio of combat personnel to support personnel, is a useful guide for how many troops would have been involved in fighting. This is a slightly dodger proposition today in wars without a front-line (where logistics personal have a very real prospect of being engaged), but seems reasonable for WW2. I happen to be ...
0
Here is some info:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f1/World_War_II_Casualties2.svg
Also here:
enter link description here
But note that it varies from source to source , and maybe a book could give better information's.
Top 50 recent answers are included
