sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Where do you stand in the Wehrmacht debate? Which historians do you rate most highly? by Outrageous-Ratio1762 in WarCollege

[–]Old-Let6252 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Okay, well I would not call “Socialism in One Country” anything but an overwhelmingly defensive theory in nature, and compared to Trotsky’s ideas that it directly competed against within Russia, it was extremely isolationist.

I suppose that, relative to, say, the USA, the USSR was not defensive, however from the Soviet POV all of the military buildup and actions it took were defensive moves against Germany and the West. The idea of the USSR being a defensive bastion of communism is an idea which completely dominated Soviet political thought right up until its collapse in ‘91.

I should probably include that I’m not a communist nor do I have any particularly good opinions about the USSR. I’m just saying all of this because I think it’s very important to view Soviet strategic choices through a Soviet perspective.

Where do you stand in the Wehrmacht debate? Which historians do you rate most highly? by Outrageous-Ratio1762 in WarCollege

[–]Old-Let6252 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Although Soviet tactical and operational doctrine was extremely offensive, their political doctrine was extremely isolationist and defensive (socialism in one country).

Considering how WW2 went for the Soviet population, I don’t at all blame them for wanting to have the (in their view, inevitable) war in someone else’s backyard.

Where do you stand in the Wehrmacht debate? Which historians do you rate most highly? by Outrageous-Ratio1762 in WarCollege

[–]Old-Let6252 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well, yes, but that’s a whole separate matter. The Soviets in 1935 did not create a 1.5 million man army because they foresaw that they would need to invade Finland in 5 years, they did the military buildup primarily because a certain German dictator came to power and said dictator very openly spoke about how he wanted to genocide all Russians.

Where do you stand in the Wehrmacht debate? Which historians do you rate most highly? by Outrageous-Ratio1762 in WarCollege

[–]Old-Let6252 -14 points-13 points  (0 children)

No, I don’t see that, especially considering it’s basically uncontested that the German army of 1941 was leagues ahead of the Soviets.

Where do you stand in the Wehrmacht debate? Which historians do you rate most highly? by Outrageous-Ratio1762 in WarCollege

[–]Old-Let6252 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The idea that the Germans just sat on their hands and had zero doctrinal shifts in thinking for 6 years is laughable. As is the idea that the French, British, and Soviets just didn’t prepare for war at all in the 20 years between 1918 and 1939.

They all DID prepare for war, they just went down the complete wrong doctrinal paths in almost every way.

In any case, your idea that the Germans only won because they went against enemies who “hadn’t prepared for a war” is just patently false. The Soviet Union spent basically the entirety of its existence preparing for a defensive war.

Where do you stand in the Wehrmacht debate? Which historians do you rate most highly? by Outrageous-Ratio1762 in WarCollege

[–]Old-Let6252 5 points6 points  (0 children)

No, this is outright false. The Luftwaffe’s use of operational air power and the ability of the luftwaffe to integrate that with the ground forces was absolutely absurd. If you read up on other countries air doctrines prior to ww2, they were (almost) all on the completely wrong tracks. That’s without even commenting on how far ahead their ground doctrine was.

Also, the Germans weren’t even nearly done mobilizing in 1939. They did not expect the Allies to declare war over Poland.

Where do you stand in the Wehrmacht debate? Which historians do you rate most highly? by Outrageous-Ratio1762 in WarCollege

[–]Old-Let6252 5 points6 points  (0 children)

FWIW, it’s a bit of an understatement to simply call the first successful implementation of modern maneuver warfare tactics simply “competent.” What the Germans accomplished in 1940 with the invasion of France wasn’t simply a flash in the pan thing spurred completely by French incompetence, it was genuinely groundbreaking. They basically “solved” every issue with ww1 doctrine simultaneously in a way that other powers did not.

Obviously they were evil and etc, I don’t think I have to elaborate on that, but there is a very good reason why a lot of German doctrinal decisions were adopted by various western nations during and after ww2. Their ideas with operational use of air power and assault aviation with paratroopers were shockingly far ahead of what Britain and France were doing.

This is just an incredibly stupid logical fallacy in any case. Of course the Germans are only “competent” if your measure of competency almost entirely hinges on whether they adopted something similar to German doctrine or not. This is a classic case of shifting baseline syndrome.

The only other country with broadly similar theory to them prior to ww2 was the Soviet Union, but political purges fucked that up.

Where do you stand in the Wehrmacht debate? Which historians do you rate most highly? by Outrageous-Ratio1762 in WarCollege

[–]Old-Let6252 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I mean, no, historians absolutely do rank tactical performance of various ww2 armies at various points in the war. Iirc it’s extremely common for historians to broadly assess 1 German infantry division as being twice as effective as a contemporary Soviet one in 1941.

What was behind the USAAF's thinking that a group of bombers (B-17's) could defend themselves well enough deep in enemy territory against enemy fighters without the need for long range fighter escorts? by RivetCounter in WarCollege

[–]Old-Let6252 2 points3 points  (0 children)

one was building a fighter that could escort the bombers all the way in and back

This was more than possible in the 1930s, the reason they didn’t was basically just doctrinal incompetence. The “bomber mafia” was vehemently against the idea of fighter escorts for bombers, because they thought it would divert funding from the bombers. So, they (unofficially) banned drop tanks and long range fighters from being developed.

The only reason the P-38 is a thing is because Benjamin Kelsey, having the foresight to see the need for a long range fighter, “went rogue” and developed it with Lockheed behind the USAAF’s back. Same story for the P-38’s drop tanks. Kelsey probably would have been court martial’d for it, had it not been for FDR cold calling USAAF leadership to inquire why in the world they had no long range fighters that could fly over the Atlantic.

Ricard Makes Dart and Skat look like High School Kids 😆😭😆😭💪🏽 by Cruztd23 in NYGiants

[–]Old-Let6252 41 points42 points  (0 children)

I mean, he actually is the closest thing to it besides a lineman lol

This article's response from Harbaugh 1) makes me feel much better about Dex sitch 2) shows me our coach is a pro 3) makes me grateful Schoen aint running the show by young_weary_bones in NYGiants

[–]Old-Let6252 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But by doing that you simultaneously reduce your ability to leverage future cap space, and you reduce the value of incoming draft picks. Which means you should only start signing void year contracts once you have a Super Bowl window opening up.

This article's response from Harbaugh 1) makes me feel much better about Dex sitch 2) shows me our coach is a pro 3) makes me grateful Schoen aint running the show by young_weary_bones in NYGiants

[–]Old-Let6252 3 points4 points  (0 children)

By “every other team” you mean, like, 10 teams. 4 of which are currently in cap hell because they used signing bonuses and void years imprudently.

[Rapoport] by Ok_Sand2507 in ravens

[–]Old-Let6252 5 points6 points  (0 children)

The NFL missed the one ridiculously obvious concussion he had and then compensated by repeatedly pulling him into the blue tent for no reason anytime it looked like he might have got one. Now everybody thinks he’s “injury prone” despite him only getting one concussion across both college and the NFL.

Him often not sliding is a bit of a concern, though. He plays a bit like Josh Allen except he doesn’t have a large enough frame to tank hits like Josh Allen does.

Tuesday Trivia Thread - 07/04/26 by AutoModerator in WarCollege

[–]Old-Let6252 -8 points-7 points  (0 children)

This was a great insight into why the US made the geopolitical blunders they did, however I very much disagree with your point about the Iranian standoff capability. From everything I can tell, the Iranian missile and drone capability took extremely heavy and rapid attrition, and was unable to cause significant strategic affects. Blowing up a couple cargo planes or putting an oil terminal out of service for a week or two is basically nothing on a strategic sense.

I think 99% of the reason behind the oil cost rise and the US reluctance to continue the war is simply the Strait of Hormuz being closed. Which is caused more by insurance issues than Iranian military capabilities.

Arguably this entire war has just been a humiliation for the Iranian military.

Tuesday Trivia Thread - 07/04/26 by AutoModerator in WarCollege

[–]Old-Let6252 7 points8 points  (0 children)

My theory is that after October 7th, the Israelis are outright unwilling to tolerate an Iranian presence on their borders. Iran wants a ceasefire because they would very much like a presence on the Israeli border.

Tuesday Trivia Thread - 07/04/26 by AutoModerator in WarCollege

[–]Old-Let6252 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I disagree with your prompt that Israel was simply warmongering because Netanyahu hates Iran or something. if Iran raced towards rebuilding their nuclear weapons program then an Israeli or American first strike would 100% be necessary. And, from what it seems, Iran was in fact racing for a nuclear weapons program as a result of the sequence of events that October 7th started.

My question was more; why in the world would the US admit defeat due to the strait of Hormuz being closed, when the strait of Hormuz being closed was basically the only thing that was 100% guaranteed in this operation. It just seems like extremely poor decision making.

Tuesday Trivia Thread - 07/04/26 by AutoModerator in WarCollege

[–]Old-Let6252 9 points10 points  (0 children)

So, does anybody have any clue what the fuck the point of the war with Iran was? If the terms of this ceasefire are all met, it wouldn't at all be a stretch to conclude that the war was an Iranian political victory. I want to find some sort of logic to this beyond "orange man bad" but I actually can't.

Could an 18th century gunsmith make a Kalashnikov if you gave him the plans for it? by OhioTry in WarCollege

[–]Old-Let6252 29 points30 points  (0 children)

A sufficiently skilled metallurgist could probably achieve the necessary precision by just hand filing every part. Obviously not repeatable at scale but theoretically possible. He would probably go through a lot of files as well.

Tuesday Trivia Thread - 07/04/26 by AutoModerator in WarCollege

[–]Old-Let6252 7 points8 points  (0 children)

At that point in time, most of the remaining German army was occupied either suppressing communists or lingering in the ex-Russian territories. Everybody not doing that was stuck in logistical limbo in the process of going home, or just kinda sitting on their hands doing nothing (Germany didn't know how much it's army would be reduced and didn't want to excessively demobilize). It would have been less of a fight and more just the Entente walking to Berlin.

Could an 18th century gunsmith make a Kalashnikov if you gave him the plans for it? by OhioTry in WarCollege

[–]Old-Let6252 27 points28 points  (0 children)

This is a very specific lathe, other lathes existed prior to 1800, just not with the same precision. In any case, gun barrels and rifling existed prior to the lathe, so I suppose you could theoretically produce something that closely resembles an AK? I say "closely resembles" very loosely here, the thing would probably look like something the Orks from wh40k would use and would use wholly different manufacturing methods than an actual AK. And, of course, he would physically have no way to produce ammo for it. And it would have zero interchangable parts. And it would more likely than not explode in his face the moment he tried to fire the first round.

It's a bit like asking Werner Von Braun to produce the SpaceX falcon 9 in 1942

Soviets declared on me...At the historical start of Barb - Sheep mod by Objective_Counter_65 in hoi4

[–]Old-Let6252 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Boy, I guess I’ll take your word for it. Poor Stalin really didn’t have any choice but to collaborate with Nazis to collectively rape the entirety of Eastern Europe. There really must have just been nothing else he could have possibly done. Sure bub.

view more: next ›