Ukraine

[davidmc1158]

The American were so arrogant that they did not think it was possible for the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbour

The reality was a bit more complex than just arrogance, though there was plenty of that still in the mix. The American high command DID believe the Japanese were going to attack, and they DID send reinforcements to the locations they thought the Japanese would hit. However, they became fixated on what they thought was the most logical target and believed Pearl Harbor wasn't on the hit list. They REALLY believed that the Panama Canal was the real target because if you shut that down with heavy bombing, it would take years to fix and would effectively cut the American fleet in half by preventing and reinforcements from being sent from the Atlantic easily. The American military there was reinforced with extra troops, lots of anti-aircraft guns and placed on high alert.

Ironically, of all the locations the American thought would be attacked (the Philippines, Guam, and the Dutch East Indies) were attacked EXCAPT the Panama Canal. The general idea was that Pearl Harbor wasn't on the list because it was too large and heavily defended a target to be risked by an attack force so far away from the attacker's home waters.

EDIT: What the Americans feared at Pearl was sabotage, either by local Japanese immigrants still loyal to the homeland or by commando teams smuggled in via Japanese submarines. The former turned out to be just a racist pipe-dream the the latter appeared possible because the American navy had intercepted a couple of Japanese subs about a month earlier.

The grand irony that played out was the reason the Japanese had such an easy time of bombing the planes and ships at Pearl Harbor was that they had been set up in formations to help patrols spot potential saboteurs by putting each ship in a double line where the patrols on each ship could keep an eye on 3 other vessels while they walked their own ship and the planes were lined up to allow sentry patrols to easily see if anyone was trying to sneak around the airfield. Tat was all well and good for preventing sabotage, but made for absolutely excellent targets for bombers.

 

[Thaluikhain]

WW1 is kinda fascinating because it started out trying to a regular big European type war and it wasn't long until new tech(like machine guns and quick loading artillery) showed that traditional tactics were extremely costly. And then somebody though it would be hilarious to start using poison gas just because things weren't interesting bloody enough.

Oh sure, it certainly is interesting.

One might argue that it started out trying to be a regular European war against people who weren't Europeans, who didn't have large modern armies of their own. Not sure if that is entirely true, but then most of their military experience since the Franco-Prussian war was against people with a much lower tech base.

It's also pointed out that the terrible atrocities the Germans committed in Belgium were mild compared to what colonial powers (such as, incidentally, Belgium) had been doing in Africa. Whether they'd taken that colonising mindset and applied it to fellow Europeans or it's a coincidence, I can't say, though.

Even more interesting is a number of things that WW1 is known for was prototyped in the American Civil War(Ironclad naval combat, Submarine Warfare, Trench Warfare, Aerial Recon) and apparently the European Powers either didn't pay attention or didn't care. I know the US wasn't a world power in 1861, but damn if doesn't feel like there was a little bit of arrogance there of the UK and France and Germany watching the US civil war chew through like 1.5 million soldiers on both sides in 4 years and apparently thinking "Well the Yankees aren't fighting war the proper European way" or something.

Yeah, they dropped the ball on that one. Mind you (and without meaning to dig at Americans too much), the US had plenty of time before they entered the war to see what was going on, and weren't really prepared when they did. After that, people took the Spanish Civil War very seriously.

The reality was a bit more complex than just arrogance, though there was plenty of that still in the mix. The American high command DID believe the Japanese were going to attack, and they DID send reinforcements to the locations they thought the Japanese would hit. However, they became fixated on what they thought was the most logical target and believed Pearl Harbor wasn't on the hit list. They REALLY believed that the Panama Canal was the real target because if you shut that down with heavy bombing, it would take years to fix and would effectively cut the American fleet in half by preventing and reinforcements from being sent from the Atlantic easily. The American military there was reinforced with extra troops, lots of anti-aircraft guns and placed on high alert.

In my totally not expert opinion, the problem was that when the US sent reinforcements to threatened areas, they thought it'd be enough to scare the Japanese away and so they didn't have to worry about it.

A mistake that was repeated in Korea with Task Force Smith, and Vietnam as well.

 

[davidmc1158]

In my totally not expert opinion, the problem was that when the US sent reinforcements to threatened areas, they thought it'd be enough to scare the Japanese away and so they didn't have to worry about it.

A mistake that was repeated in Korea with Task Force Smith, and Vietnam as well.

To a degree, I see the point. However, the real reason the U.S. didn't send sufficient reinforcements was that the American public was a combination of us being arrogant enough to think the Japanese wouldn't dare attack us and the fact there was no material/monetary/social support for increasing the size of the military enough have enough troops to really do the job. American isolationism was bad enough that it really took the Pearl harbor attack to get us to really move. If the Nazis hadn't declared war on the U.S. in support of the Japanese, it is very likely the U.S. would actually have stayed out of the European conflict and kept ourselves confined to fighting in the Pacific, only sending some material and financial aid to Europe. We might have eventually gotten involved in Europe, but not before 1943 at the earliest, imo. The likely outcome would have been Germany's eventual defeat, but with the iron curtain on the western border of Belgium and Italy with Switzerland's "neutrality" effectively being like Finland's in our timeline. I also suspect a liberated France would either have a massive communist rioting/protesting problem if not a communist party being a major player in the French parliament at Soviet insistence.

All speculation, to be sure, but when you're a historian an read a lot of fiction as well, you tend to think about this sort of stuff.

 

[Ag3ma]

Even more interesting is a number of things that WW1 is known for was prototyped in the American Civil War(Ironclad naval combat, Submarine Warfare, Trench Warfare, Aerial Recon) and apparently the European Powers either didn't pay attention or didn't care. I know the US wasn't a world power in 1861, but damn if doesn't feel like there was a little bit of arrogance there of the UK and France and Germany watching the US civil war chew through like 1.5 million soldiers on both sides in 4 years and apparently thinking "Well the Yankees aren't fighting war the proper European way" or something.

Yes, the Europeans of the time certainly did look down on the USA as quite backward - but I think you're underestimating how much attention they paid to military developments during the US Civil War. However, seeing the advent of things like trench warfare still does not mean one can expect the extremes of WWI. Never mind that Europe fought several major wars in the latter half of the 19th century (Franco-Austrian, German-Austrian, Franco-German) so had its own experiences to draw on and inform, all of which suggested mobile warfare was still very much the big thing.

One might also note US military leaders have been arrogant and slow in their time, too. After all, when the US joined the WWI, French and British military liaisons tried to explain tactics that might help with trench warfare. Apparently one US general said something along the lines of "Well, you guys clearly don't know how to do it so who cares what you think" and then promptly ordered his men off to charge machine guns just like it was 1915.

The reality is that all militaries tend to be patriotic and conservative: near-xenophobic arrogance and slowness to embrace novelty can be common in any country's military.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

The reality is that all militaries tend to be patriotic and conservative: near-xenophobic arrogance and slowness to embrace novelty can be common in any country's military.

"The military is always fighting the last war" is a truism.

 

[Thaluikhain]

To a degree, I see the point. However, the real reason the U.S. didn't send sufficient reinforcements was that the American public was a combination of us being arrogant enough to think the Japanese wouldn't dare attack us and the fact there was no material/monetary/social support for increasing the size of the military enough have enough troops to really do the job. American isolationism was bad enough that it really took the Pearl harbor attack to get us to really move. If the Nazis hadn't declared war on the U.S. in support of the Japanese, it is very likely the U.S. would actually have stayed out of the European conflict and kept ourselves confined to fighting in the Pacific, only sending some material and financial aid to Europe. We might have eventually gotten involved in Europe, but not before 1943 at the earliest, imo. The likely outcome would have been Germany's eventual defeat, but with the iron curtain on the western border of Belgium and Italy with Switzerland's "neutrality" effectively being like Finland's in our timeline. I also suspect a liberated France would either have a massive communist rioting/protesting problem if not a communist party being a major player in the French parliament at Soviet insistence.

All speculation, to be sure, but when you're a historian an read a lot of fiction as well, you tend to think about this sort of stuff.

I believe that public support have shifted drastically against the Germans a little before Pearl Harbour, but yeah, with the Japanese to fight, one wonders if the US would have declared war of Germany if Germany hadn't declared war on the US first.

Random bit of trivia, IIRC, Roosevelt received a letter about the feasibility of building a nuclear device on Friday, 5th December, 1941, but didn't read it that day. He happened to work the following day, Saturday 6, read the letter and ordered the beginning of what we now know as the Manhattan Project. If he didn't work that weekend, he'd not have been able to read the letter until the following Monday, the 8th of December. Pearl Harbour happened on the 7th, so he'd not have cared about anything else and the letter would have been overlooked.

"The military is always fighting the last war" is a truism.

Yes, but then again, after the nuclear age began, people thought conventional wars would be a thing of the past. When the Korean War began, they were fighting the last war again because they thought the next war would be completely different and had planned for that instead. Trying to predict what the next war will be like is hard, that's why people do it so badly.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

On another vaguely related note, sabres were still useful during WW1

They saw a fair bit of use in the Palestine campaign/theatre...

 

[Silvanus]

Yes, the Europeans of the time certainly did look down on the USA as quite backward

"Of the time"? "Did"?

 

[Thaluikhain]

"Of the time"? "Did"?

More than one European nation nowday seems to admire the US's health system and level of dignity of government.

 

[Gordon_4]

Yes, the Europeans of the time certainly did look down on the USA as quite backward - but I think you're underestimating how much attention they paid to military developments during the US Civil War. However, seeing the advent of things like trench warfare still does not mean one can expect the extremes of WWI. Never mind that Europe fought several major wars in the latter half of the 19th century (Franco-Austrian, German-Austrian, Franco-German) so had its own experiences to draw on and inform, all of which suggested mobile warfare was still very much the big thing.

One might also note US military leaders have been arrogant and slow in their time, too. After all, when the US joined the WWI, French and British military liaisons tried to explain tactics that might help with trench warfare. Apparently one US general said something along the lines of "Well, you guys clearly don't know how to do it so who cares what you think" and then promptly ordered his men off to charge machine guns just like it was 1915.

The reality is that all militaries tend to be patriotic and conservative: near-xenophobic arrogance and slowness to embrace novelty can be common in any country's military.

To be fair, the US did bring one very important game changer to trench warfare: pump action shotguns. They made relatively quick work of clearing an enemy trench compared to a rifle and allegedly the Germans found this to be terribly unsporting to the point of making official protests and threatening punishment of any US soldier captured with a shotgun. The US countered with a similar threat about German soldiers captured with flamethrowers or serrated bayonets, after which the matter was dropped.

I have a more than sneaking suspicion that its reputation as a trench clearing weapon par excellence is the patient zero example for video games treating them as short range and close quarter battle weapons.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

I have a more than sneaking suspicion that its reputation as a trench clearing weapon par excellence

The term 'trench broom' exists for a reason.

 

[Silvanus]

Russia has reportedly taken the town of Soledar. The town itself is just small, but features access to underground salt and gypsum mines which can provide cover. It's also only 6 miles from Bakhmut, which Russia has been unsuccessfully trying to take for months now.

Yevgeny Prigozhin has stated that only personnel from his neo-fascist Wagner PMC were involved in taking Soledar, and not regular Russian servicemen. Wagner is currently manned by thousands of convicted felons who were offered sentence commutement if they signed up for war.

 

[Thaluikhain]

To be fair, the US did bring one very important game changer to trench warfare: pump action shotguns. They made relatively quick work of clearing an enemy trench compared to a rifle and allegedly the Germans found this to be terribly unsporting to the point of making official protests and threatening punishment of any US soldier captured with a shotgun. The US countered with a similar threat about German soldiers captured with flamethrowers or serrated bayonets, after which the matter was dropped.

Er, while they were portrayed as wonder weapons, (to the extent that they said that soldiers could shoot German stick grenades back at their throwers with them) their actually effectiveness was limited. They used cardboard cartridges that had problems when wet, and they had reliability issues when the weapons were in mud, which was a problem.

While the Germans did make official protest, not seeing anything special about the weapon itself. It was not particularly impressive, not issued in large numbers, and notably the other allies made no attempt to procure some for themselves. The treaty of Versailles didn't ban Germany from having them either unlike German SMGs.

As an aside, the PotUS had legal experts look into the claim in was cruel before denying it, and the threat to kill captured Germans wasn't limited to ones with specific weapons, just on a one for one basis. Apparently, though, there was a rumour amongst the Germans that Germans captured with serrated bayonets would be executed (long before the US entered the war), and notably the UK engineers also had serrated bayonets.

The term 'trench broom' exists for a reason.

It was initially used of SMGs, not shotguns.

 

[Dalisclock]

Yeah, they dropped the ball on that one. Mind you (and without meaning to dig at Americans too much), the US had plenty of time before they entered the war to see what was going on, and weren't really prepared when they did. After that, people took the Spanish Civil War very seriously.

Yes, the Europeans of the time certainly did look down on the USA as quite backward - but I think you're underestimating how much attention they paid to military developments during the US Civil War. However, seeing the advent of things like trench warfare still does not mean one can expect the extremes of WWI. Never mind that Europe fought several major wars in the latter half of the 19th century (Franco-Austrian, German-Austrian, Franco-German) so had its own experiences to draw on and inform, all of which suggested mobile warfare was still very much the big thing.

One might also note US military leaders have been arrogant and slow in their time, too. After all, when the US joined the WWI, French and British military liaisons tried to explain tactics that might help with trench warfare. Apparently one US general said something along the lines of "Well, you guys clearly don't know how to do it so who cares what you think" and then promptly ordered his men off to charge machine guns just like it was 1915.

The reality is that all militaries tend to be patriotic and conservative: near-xenophobic arrogance and slowness to embrace novelty can be common in any country's military.

True. The US has made plenty of it's own mistakes in that regard and after posting that I realized I had overlooked certain wars of the late 19th century in Europe and I apologize if that sounded like i was trying to make it sound like "USA smart, Europe Stupid".

As others have pointed out, the US made a bunch of blunders in the lead up to pearl harbor, notably they took some very smart moves to defend against sabotage, which unfortunately made it extremely easy for an air raid to hit for massive damage. It was the right move for the wrong situation and the fact US intelligence apparently wasn't putting the pieces together correctly didn't help this at all.

 

[Thaluikhain]

As others have pointed out, the US made a bunch of blunders in the lead up to pearl harbor, notably they took some very smart moves to defend against sabotage, which unfortunately made it extremely easy for an air raid to hit for massive damage.

That's a tricky one, though, sabotage was a serious threat in WW2 (both sides came up with fancy methods of doing that*), and increased defence against one method of attack could lessen other capabilities. The US also protected mainland US cities with anti-aircraft guns that were useless (or worse**) there that were desperately needed elsewhere, which is a mistake, but certainly understandable.

*The Germans would give saboteurs in North Africa explosives and altitude sensitive firing mechanisms. Stick one inside an aircraft somewhere, nothing happens until the aircraft reaches a certain height and then there's an explosion and nobody ever knows for sure what happened. The US came us with a light sensitive detonator to use with explosives planted on trains. During daytime, it absorbs sunlight and doesn't do anything until it suddenly goes dark...which happens if the train goes into a tunnel, were you really don't want a derailing explosion blocking everything. Lots of other examples, but I like those two.

**In LA, the air defences got spooked one night and started firing because they thought they were under attack by Japanese planes. What goes up must come down, caused some damage and the panic killed someone via heart attack.

 

[Trunkage]

The reality was a bit more complex than just arrogance, though there was plenty of that still in the mix. The American high command DID believe the Japanese were going to attack, and they DID send reinforcements to the locations they thought the Japanese would hit. However, they became fixated on what they thought was the most logical target and believed Pearl Harbor wasn't on the hit list. They REALLY believed that the Panama Canal was the real target because if you shut that down with heavy bombing, it would take years to fix and would effectively cut the American fleet in half by preventing and reinforcements from being sent from the Atlantic easily. The American military there was reinforced with extra troops, lots of anti-aircraft guns and placed on high alert.

Ironically, of all the locations the American thought would be attacked (the Philippines, Guam, and the Dutch East Indies) were attacked EXCAPT the Panama Canal. The general idea was that Pearl Harbor wasn't on the list because it was too large and heavily defended a target to be risked by an attack force so far away from the attacker's home waters.

EDIT: What the Americans feared at Pearl was sabotage, either by local Japanese immigrants still loyal to the homeland or by commando teams smuggled in via Japanese submarines. The former turned out to be just a racist pipe-dream the the latter appeared possible because the American navy had intercepted a couple of Japanese subs about a month earlier.

The grand irony that played out was the reason the Japanese had such an easy time of bombing the planes and ships at Pearl Harbor was that they had been set up in formations to help patrols spot potential saboteurs by putting each ship in a double line where the patrols on each ship could keep an eye on 3 other vessels while they walked their own ship and the planes were lined up to allow sentry patrols to easily see if anyone was trying to sneak around the airfield. Tat was all well and good for preventing sabotage, but made for absolutely excellent targets for bombers.

Sorry, I did mean attack Pearl Harbour solely here not further out bases, as you are right, they thought something like the Philippines and Panama were more likely targets

 

[davidmc1158]

Sorry, I did mean attack Pearl Harbour solely here not further out bases, as you are right, they thought something like the Philippines and Panama were more likely targets

No worries. I'm a historian AND an academic. The itch to get behind a podium, check my lecture notes and teach some history is my version of heroin.

Much like Donkey in Shrek, it's not getting me to talk that 's the problem, it's getting me to shut up.

 

[Silvanus]

So, there's one ignoble respect in which Russia has now outpaced even the United States: forced labour/ penal slavery.

The US, as we know, has the largest prison population, and also the highest rate of incarceration among the major powers. This is fuelled by a for-profit prison industry that incentivises imprisonment. And a large number of inmates work for pittance: approximately 800,000 according to the ACLU, working for less than $2 an hour, and often less than 30 cents. In short: state-sponsored slavery in all but name.

Russia's total prison population and rate of incarceration are obscene, but do not approach those of the US. However, what exceeds the US-- and particularly now, during wartime, when the act of voicing opposition to the invasion can have people arrested-- is the rate of penal slavery, even as a proportion of the overall population. In Russia, approximately two thirds of inmates are interred in penal colonies, working for nothing at all (>580,000).

The rate of conviction in the US hovers around 70% depending on offence. In Russia the figure is above 99%.

 

[Ag3ma]

Russia's total prison population and rate of incarceration are obscene, but do not approach those of the US.

Especially considering they've managed to decrease their prisoner numbers substantially by sending a load of them to get shot by Ukrainians.

I also have massive concerns about what a bunch of criminals are likely to do against the population whose territory they are occupying, especially under the command of a PMC with notoriously lax human rights standards.

Wagner appears to be deeply embedded in the Russian regime. Wagner's main function to date has been allowing Russia to militarily intervene in foreign nations with plausible deniability, but I also suspect they may be intended as a private force so the Russian regime can sideline the army if the regime needs to keep their own population in line. After all, history tells us that national militaries are often not reliable supporters of the regime when things go downhill, hence I suspect why some regimes have had their own military forces: one might consider the Waffen-SS in Nazi Germany, Iranian Revolutionary Guard, or further back forms of royal/imperial household units such as the Roman Praetorians.

 

[Silvanus]

Especially considering they've managed to decrease their prisoner numbers substantially by sending a load of them to get shot by Ukrainians.

Approximately >20,000, according to a recent estimate, precipitating the steepest fall in Russian prison population since 2010.

I also have massive concerns about what a bunch of criminals are likely to do against the population whose territory they are occupying, especially under the command of a PMC with notoriously lax human rights standards.

Yep. The recruitment effort has included violent criminals such as murderers and rapists, brought into the ranks of a PMC with a severe neo-fascist streak and zero real oversight. Hence why Prigozhin's latest claim-- that only Wagner personnel are involved in the battle for Soledar, no regular Russian military personnel-- is so disturbing.