site banner
PaperclipPerfector  4mo ago (text post)   1920 thread views

Friday Fun Thread for January 5, 2024

Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.

1
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

It's always irresponsible and silly, but does anyone have a link to a good counterfactual analysis of the WWII decisions of the Axis powers circa Pearl Harbor?

I'm working my way through The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, and I was fascinated by the diplomatic dance between Germany and Japan around the entry of America into the war. Germany wanted Japan to attack the Soviets, while the the Japanese wanted the Germans to declare war on the Americans if Japan did. Ultimately, the Japanese got what they wanted and the Germans didn't, and they both got it good and hard from America (while the Soviets and their clients contributed nothing to their putative allies).

I'm curious to read a well reasoned hypothetical of what would have happened in the alternate cases, if Japan had declared war on Russia as well as or instead of declaring war on the United States. What would the balance of forces have looked like? Would Japanese forces have been capable of inflicting significant damage on Russia, or was nothing particularly useful coming out of the Russian far east anyway?

Or if Hitler had refrained from declaring war on the United States, which he was never obligated by treaty to do (and it isn't like Hitler ever cared about treaties anyway), how would the rest of the war have played out? Would FDR and his internationalist clique ultimately have succeeded in pushing the US into open war with the Nazis anyway? Would that have taken long enough, say until 1943, that it would have altered the outcome of important events on the European Continent?

Would Japanese forces have been capable of inflicting significant damage on Russia, or was nothing particularly useful coming out of the Russian far east anyway?

Well known the troops that won the battle of Moscow were experienced divisions from Siberia sent west. Japan's largest army was there, 700k men. Due to Richard Sorge's intelligence, Soviets were able to lower the troop strength there because Japan wasn't likely to attack unless Soviet army there was comparatively very weak.

Had Japan decided to attack Soviets there in late '41 or '42 it might have led to serious problems for Soviets, who did not have a comfortable superiority at the time..

Not sure how well Japanese industry would've been able to cope with the strain of supplying both the naval and the land theater though.

Well known the troops that won the battle of Moscow were experienced divisions from Siberia sent west. Japan's largest army was there, 700k men.

Not quite. The German offensive was ground to a halt by European troops and whatever local reserves everyone could scramble, Asian troops were used to reinforce the counteroffensive that pushed the Germans away from Moscow. Without them the battle would still have been won, but the USSR would've spent 1942 in deep defense, mobilizing additional divisions instead of planning any counteroffensives.

Without them the battle would still have been won,

You mean the war. Probably, but there's way more factors. USSR got a lot of supplies through Vladivostok. Japan could've cut that.

Germans weren't a spent force in 1942 yet. Maybe they'd have fared better had they not been forced to retreat in winter.. However, it doesn't seem that many divisions were transferred, only like ~22 or so in total.

https://www.operationbarbarossa.net/the-siberian-divisions-and-the-battle-for-moscow-in-1941-42/#top2

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats