History questions not worth their own thread III

Status
Not open for further replies.
Random question: was the Battle of Madagascar the only operation in World War II where the
Japanese co-operated (with a substantial military force) with the western Axis powers?

IDK, but my immediate thought was U-boats. Google gave me this:
http://www.uboataces.com/articles-fareast-boats2.shtml

Looking at the photo captions, apparently both Japanese and Germans had token U-boat blockade runs to visit each other. And the Germans set up some U-boat operations in Malaysia.

Barely a month later, on March 28 1943, U-178 departed from France and en route to the Indian Ocean, BdU sent a message that she was to sail to Malaya and set up a U-boat base there. After having replenished from a surface tanker in the Indian Ocean, the U-178 arrived in Penang at the Malayan Peninsula on August 1943. KK Wilhelm Dommes became the first commander of the German U-boat base in Asia.

Penang, situated on the west coast of Peninsula Malaya was under Japanese occupation and was selected as the main U-boat base. A second base was established at Kobe, Japan, and a small repair base was located at Singapore, Jakarta and Surabaya.


On the next page, apparently the Italians were trusted with German U-boats to ferry supplies to Asia. Apparently it was close to the surrender of Italy (1943) and somehow none of the boats managed a return trip. Some of it was do to British/S. Africa action and other causes.


Most interesting:
The other Type XB, the U-234 had a very unique career. Loaded with 260 tons of cargo, among it blueprints for advanced German weapons and equipment disassembled into crates, but the most unusual item was 0.55 tons (560 kg) of Uranium Oxide. The U-234 sailed from Norway on April 16 1945, when Germany was on the verge of defeat and on May 4, received the order to surrender. She sailed into Portsmouth, New Hampshire and to this date, the purpose and use of the Uranium Oxide have remained one of the mysteries of World War Two.
 
Why did Hitler decided to occupy Vichy France in 42 then?
Because of Operation: Torch. Rommel's defeat in Egypt forced him to fall all the way back to Tunisia at almost the same time as the Americans landed in Algeria and Morocco. With only Tunisia and a strip of Western Algeria still under Axis control in Africa there was a very serious threat of an Allied invasion of Southern France. Considering the fact that resistance to the Americans was very inconsistent in North Africa, the Germans felt, correctly, that they needed to take command of the defences in Southern France themselves. This was doubly important since the Nazis knew of FDR's correspondence with Petain, and Petain's third-in-command, Admiral Darlan, switched camps to the Allies when the Americans took Algiers (Darlan was assassinated in short order by the Gaullists in Algiers, in an operation that De Gaulle never admitted to being behind, but likely was aware of through his staff in French Equatorial Africa. Eboue allegedly abandoned his policy of temperance to get quite hammered when he heard of Darlan's death) meaning that Petain's loyalties were in question.

I remember during the pre-World War I period, de Castelnau was skipped over for a lot of promotions in the French General Staff because he was a conservative and devout Catholic. Was there just a resurgence of conservatism after the war, or was Castlenau an aberration?
There was a definite resurgence in conservatism amongst the army leadership after WWI, though oddly enough this was in contrast to the liberalism prevalent among the lower ranks. De Gaulle, as you know, was himself highly authoritarian, not much less so than Petain. He also happened to be a democrat though, unlike a lot of the General Staff, many of whom - including Weygand - thought seriously about a Bourbon Restoration. A few individuals even toyed with the Bonapartes instead of a continuation of the Third Republic, and this is before the outbreak of WWII. This conservatism was likely a reaction to the increase in the political and military threat of socialism after WWI.

Castlenau was an aberration in the more liberal pre-WWI period, but he was not much worse than the norm afterwards. Of the members of the Vichy Cabinet, only Laval was really far outside of the typical conservative of the time, and even Darlan found him contemptible. He was only allowed in the inner circle by Petain for two reasons; he needed him for his excellent relations with the Germans, and he didn't constitute a threat to Petain, unlike Weygand and Darlan, both of whom were possible successors. Laval would likely have been lynched if he'd tried to oust Petain, he was that hated.

It's because he needed German troops on the southern border of France in case an invasion came from North Africa, since the Allies had reasonably secured Algeria and Morocco after Operation Torch (which started on November 8, 1942, three days before German troops moved into Vichy). This actually happened, too; in August, 1944, Operation Dragoon landed two armies in southern France, though it's less well-known than Overlord because it happened a bit later.
It was also only as successful as it was because of the massive infiltration of Vichy by the late Jean Moulin's resistance contacts by that point. I won't even go into what the Gestapo did to Moulin to make him talk when he was captured - it was that gruesome - but he still didn't give them half of what he knew, and the members of the French Resistance who'd infiltrated Vichy's bureaucracy - which the Germans had to keep in place even after they occupied Southern France - were invaluable to Dragoon. Then there was the assistance of the Unione Corse (French Mafia), which was rabidly Gaullist for some reason I've never really understood.

Random question: was the Battle of Madagascar the only operation in World War II where the Japanese co-operated (with a substantial military force) with the western Axis powers?
While there were U-boat supply runs and a few minor details of that nature, as GoodGame stated above, the Battle of Madagascar was the only case of large-scale military cooperation between Japan and the Western Axis powers. There was a plan by some Japanese militants to invade India in force, push through Iran and into the Caucasus to link up with the Germans, but the army predictably balked. This was offered as an alternative to the IJN's plan to invade Australia, and prompted some of the IJA to threaten mutiny if either plan were adopted.
 
Speaking of De Gaulle, I was wondering hwat his reputation is today around the world, but to lay people and historians.

In Canada, he is disliked by most of English and some French Canadians for his involvement in the Quebec independence movement, which garnered him a lot of fans in French Canada. But after WWII, Algeria, and his years in power, what is the common view of him in France, or Britain, or elsewhere?
 
Speaking of De Gaulle, I was wondering hwat his reputation is today around the world, but to lay people and historians.

In Canada, he is disliked by most of English and some French Canadians for his involvement in the Quebec independence movement, which garnered him a lot of fans in French Canada. But after WWII, Algeria, and his years in power, what is the common view of him in France, or Britain, or elsewhere?
He's still highly respected in France, albeit not to the orgasmic levels of the early post-war period. I couldn't tell you about the popular view of him, but among most modern historians who write about the period he's highly respected. Moreso than Churchill and FDR, actually.
 
What was the main factor in preventing the entity known as the Holy Roman Empire to expand?

That probably is worth its own thread.

I'd guess it was due to a weakening of dynastic power due to inheritance, trends towards political decentralization, and later fundamental changes in medieval culture and religious splitting (anti-popes, reformation) cribbing from Wikipedia. And not interested in conquest of its culturally similiar neighbors (Franks who were of common descent, and Byzantines). Maybe Dachs knows why they took to the crusades to raid Byzantium? Military weakness?
 
What was the main factor in preventing the entity known as the Holy Roman Empire to expand?
You'll have to pinpoint a time period, there, chief. The HRE did expand, quite dramatically at times.
 
Well I'm thinking in an EU3 context. So in 1399 the HRE stopped in the middle of Burgundy, northern Italy, Austria, Bohemia, and northeastern Poland. Why didn't it move into France? further south in Italy? Hungary? Scandinavia?
Mmm.

By that point, the HRE's borders were more or less fixed; after the Golden Bull, the Empire relied on an increasingly codified federal system and a tied-in community of rulers for governance. So adding something into the HRE - which, incidentally, would not have been useful for resource aggregation purposes, since the Empire was not an instrument of resource/power aggregation - would have required the acquiescence of extant members. This basically means that nobody saw a good reason for making the HRE bigger.

So if southern Italy, for instance, were to be incorporated into the Imperial federal system, it would entail bringing the entirety of the Kingdom of Naples in; were this militarily possible (and few Emperors could muster the ability to campaign that far south for any extended period of time), it would be politically undesirable, because it would add a large and unified state into the Imperial community with radically divergent policy goals and defense priorities. It was rather the same in Poland - which would have necessitated bringing the Kingdom of Poland in - or in France. France was perhaps the most tenable option, if the Valois kingdom collapsed in the Armagnac-Burgundian civil war, and northern France somehow broke apart into several smaller states; Imperial jurisdiction could have, if anybody in the Empire had given enough of a damn (and it's not clear that they did, so this is a rather large sticking point), been extended to some of these.

Take a look at the Kingdom of Hungary as it was under Habsburg control, too. Even though the Habsburg princes controlled both Hungary and the Imperial throne, none of them made any serious attempts to incorporate Hungary into the Imperial structure. It was politically desirable to have part of the Habsburg empire outside of the Imperial system, especially since that Imperial system was not even remotely fully controlled by the Habsburgs themselves.

It wasn't simply an EU3 matter of "add province, acquire prestige", at any rate.
 
X-Post.

Well I'm thinking in an EU3 context. So in 1399 the HRE stopped in the middle of Burgundy, northern Italy, Austria, Bohemia, and northeastern Poland. Why didn't it move into France? further south in Italy? Hungary? Scandinavia?

I've also heard that the HRE wanted the whole of Italy pretty badly.
 
So if southern Italy, for instance, were to be incorporated into the Imperial federal system, it would entail bringing the entirety of the Kingdom of Naples in; were this militarily possible (and few Emperors could muster the ability to campaign that far south for any extended period of time), it would be politically undesirable, because it would add a large and unified state into the Imperial community with radically divergent policy goals and defense priorities. It was rather the same in Poland - which would have necessitated bringing the Kingdom of Poland in - or in France. France was perhaps the most tenable option, if the Valois kingdom collapsed in the Armagnac-Burgundian civil war, and northern France somehow broke apart into several smaller states; Imperial jurisdiction could have, if anybody in the Empire had given enough of a damn (and it's not clear that they did, so this is a rather large sticking point), been extended to some of these.

But in the HRE by this point, you had a few largish states (e.g. Austria, Bavaria, Brandenburg), so how is adding the large and unified state so undesirable? Would this give a nation such as Naples too much authority within the HRE? Or would Naples have no interest in being included and run away the first chance it had?

Take a look at the Kingdom of Hungary as it was under Habsburg control, too. Even though the Habsburg princes controlled both Hungary and the Imperial throne, none of them made any serious attempts to incorporate Hungary into the Imperial structure. It was politically desirable to have part of the Habsburg empire outside of the Imperial system, especially since that Imperial system was not even remotely fully controlled by the Habsburgs themselves.

Understandable. But what about Denmark? Are the reasons much the same as Naples? (a large fringe nation?)

It wasn't simply an EU3 matter of "add province, acquire prestige", at any rate.

I understand. That's why I'm asking. :p
 
Were there any Iberian philosophers of note? I don't think Spinoza really counts, as he was born and raised in The Netherlands.
 
How is the Treaty of Tilsit between Napoleonic France and Russia perceived in Western historiography? Russian textbooks usually present it as a moderate defeat for Russia.
 
How is the Treaty of Tilsit between Napoleonic France and Russia perceived in Western historiography? Russian textbooks usually present it as a moderate defeat for Russia.

The beginning of the end for Boney.
 
Thanks for your great posts, Lord Baal. I would've never expected such a detailed answer :goodjob:

It wasn't simply an EU3 matter of "add province, acquire prestige", at any rate.
I always hated that mechanic as well. It had none of the drawbacks you would expect from such a move. Although I think EU3 handled the HRE rather well, considering it still has to keep up some level of balance and playability.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom