Assassination as a tool of war?

[Lord Baal]

I still think that the germans could have successfully invaded britain if they had negotiated different armistice terms with Petain's France (hell, let them even keep the damn Alsace-Lorraine). The UK had a defeated army, no heavy material and no defenses to speak off immediately after Dunkirk, but the english channel. If the germans had gotten the french and the italians to join their navies in an attack on the UK, the RN would be unable to keep them off the channel. As for troop transports, the british managed to scrap together a fleet of common ships to evacuate their soldiers from Dunkirk, under bombardment, so why couldn't the germans do the same thing for an attack?

The British were able to keep the French Fleet from falling into Germn hands on their own, by taking out a good portion of it at Mers el-Kebir. They rendered roughly half the Italian Fleet unusable at Taranto. Even if the Germans had taken the entire French Fleet intact and convinced the Italians to assist them in invading Britain, the British were doing a good job of eliminating the threat these two navies posed on their own. Then there's the small matter of Britain's aerial superiority and its coastal defences, which were pretty effective. They were even stockpiling poison gas to use in the event of a German invasion. Germany could never have successfully invaded Britain.

 

[Masada]

At the end of the day the Home Fleet could have been strengthened immeasurably if the British were willing to let the Japanese use the East Indies for oil. There wouldn't have been a Pacific War if that had happened.

 

[Lord Baal]

At the end of the day the Home Fleet could have been strengthened immeasurably if the British were willing to let the Japanese use the East Indies for oil. There wouldn't have been a Pacific War if that had happened.

Maybe, but Japan's expansionist policies were based in part upon opportunistically targeting the empires of Britain, France and the Dutch while they were occupied with Germany, then fortifying them against their imperial powers. There was fear - justifiably so - among the European powers that if they gave Japan a foothold in their colonies they'd never dislodge them.

 

[Masada]

That was a potential cost. Given a choice between losing the motherland and the choice however unlikely of losing colonies to some jumped up Nips. You can see how you would play that one.

 

[Lord Baal]

That was a potential cost. Given a choice between losing the motherland and the choice however unlikely of losing colonies to some jumped up Nips. You can see how you would play that one.

Deliberately provoking a war with Japan by withholding resources from them forced the US to join the war officially though. The benefit of this far outweighed the costs of the Pacific War from the viewpoints of all three of the Allied Powers involved; Free France, Britain and The Netherlands.

 

[Masada]

It took two to tango. The British were willing to seriously discount the effectiveness of the Japanese, which wasn't wholly unfair even it was predicated on their own fictive strength, but couldn't have afforded to do that if the homeland was under threat. Caving into the Japanese demands for oil would likely have contained their ambitions in SEA in preference to their on-going campaign in China. The army certainly favored just continuing the war in China. Besides, the British were only one of the players the Americans ramped up the costs significantly as well.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

you sure that eagle shouldnt be black-white-red, sill?

I see, I am fascist because I talk about WWII and dare to defend a German military strategy. You now what is the root of ideologies like fascism? Stereotyped thinking free of distinction and reason.
Really King, didn't think you could be such a goofy.

Even if the British had never cracked Enigma (unlikely in itself) the Germans were never even close to defeating the English Navy by means of Submarines.

Not the English Navy Jesus. The means of naval supply.

 

[holy king]

I see, I am fascist because I talk about WWII and dare to defend a German military strategy. You now what is the root of ideologies like fascism? Stereotyped thinking free of distinction and reason.
Really King, didn't think you could be such a goofy.

fascist? dont know about that, but you seem to get off on dreams of germany as a great power.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

fascist? dont know about that, but you seem to get off on dreams of germany as a great power.

By pointing out that Germany had put to use a better strategy than Seelöwe?
Less goofy, still goofy enough.

Or is it maybe the simple fact that I display some sort of patriotism by my avatar?

 

[aelf]

Might Clausewitz not be partly responsible for that? Maybe people preferred to win complete victories, especially with the understanding that competent opponents may still fight then or in the future even with the head severed?

 

[LightSpectra]

Might Clausewitz not be partly responsible for that? Maybe people preferred to win complete victories, especially with the understanding that competent opponents may still fight then or in the future even with the head severed?

This isn't a military matter so much as a political one; the idea comes from Machiavelli:

"Upon this, one has to remark that men ought either to be well treated or crushed, because they can avenge themselves of lighter injuries, of more serious ones they cannot; therefore the injury that is to be done to a man ought to be of such a kind that one does not stand in fear of revenge." (The Prince trans. W. K. Marriott, chp. III)

 

[Lord Baal]

This isn't a military matter so much as a political one; the idea comes from Machiavelli:

"Upon this, one has to remark that men ought either to be well treated or crushed, because they can avenge themselves of lighter injuries, of more serious ones they cannot; therefore the injury that is to be done to a man ought to be of such a kind that one does not stand in fear of revenge." (The Prince trans. W. K. Marriott, chp. III)

This. Machiavelli was hardly the originator of the idea - he developed his philosophies by looking at historical precedents - but he was the first I know of to put it in writing. He advocated destroying whole families through assassination to remove any possible rivals or avengers, or not using the tactic at all.

 

[aelf]

Perhaps. But I think the idea of a complete victory in war really gained popularity in the wake of the Napoleonic Wars and Clausewitz's writing, the latter which was inspired by the former.

 

[LightSpectra]

Perhaps. But I think the idea of a complete victory in war really gained popularity in the wake of the Napoleonic Wars and Clausewitz's writing, the latter which was inspired by the former.

It wasn't so much that total victory became "popular" so much as "possible." This is a testament to Napoleon's genius and his influence on warfare. Conflicts in the 18th century were often about a decade long and were generally confined to about a dozen square kilometers in Belgium, because save for the Duke of Marlborough, nobody ever won total victories; it usually boiled down to tricking the enemy commander by marching into a position that inconveniences him. Hence why you can imagine the world's shock when the Third Coalition began, and five months later, Napoleon was giving a toast on Franz' throne in the Schönbrunn.

There was also a matter of nationalism. Wars in the 18th century were fought at the behest of the respective nations' monarch; thus they made peace accordingly. With the rise of nationalism, nations were fighting qua nations, not personal armies of their kings. The French in 1871 refused to give up until Paris fell, even though there was no bloody hope they'd reverse the German advance, because they were waging a war of sentiments rather than finances.

 

[holy king]

Or is it maybe the simple fact that I display some sort of patriotism by my avatar?

well, few nationalisms are more disgusting than the german one.

 

[Dachs]

What the hell do you people mean by "complete" victories anyway

 

[aelf]

It wasn't so much that total victory became "popular" so much as "possible." This is a testament to Napoleon's genius and his influence on warfare. Conflicts in the 18th century were often about a decade long and were generally confined to about a dozen square kilometers in Belgium, because save for the Duke of Marlborough, nobody ever won total victories; it usually boiled down to tricking the enemy commander by marching into a position that inconveniences him. Hence why you can imagine the world's shock when the Third Coalition began, and five months later, Napoleon was giving a toast on Franz' throne in the Schönbrunn.

It caught the popular imagination, didn't it?

What the hell do you people mean by "complete" victories anyway

Like the complete destruction or surrender of the opposing armies, perhaps?

 

[Terxpahseyton]

well, few nationalisms are more disgusting than the german one.

You now what is the root of ideologies like fascism? Stereotyped thinking free of distinction and reason.

I was right with my evaluation after all.

 

[Dachs]

Like the complete destruction or surrender of the opposing armies, perhaps?

if you want to get a culture of "complete victory" in that vein you'd have to look really selectively at basically everything

not even the war of the third coalition was like that

mostly this sort of thing seems to be a matter of degree

 

[Lord Baal]

well, few nationalisms are more disgusting than the german one.

German != Nazi. Unless you think Bismarck, Frederick the Great, and a large number of your fellow Austrians in history are Nazis. Even most German nationalists in WWII weren't Nazis.