Follow TV Tropes
If your studying of history has failed to give you an appreciation of the importance of politics and economics to war being far greater than that of simple logistics than I’d suggest you have words with the people who educated you.
Politics and Economics keep war from happening in the first place, they don't do much once it actually breaks out.... Which is not something you can rely on forever.... and once war does break out? Its all logistics and numbers.. how much force can you deploy and for how long, with the Politics and Economics being distilled to "who will help me and where can I move without creating another enemy" and "How much supplies can I keep up without my domestic morale breaking and forcing this to stop".
You can build your infrastructure to be disaster proof, but you also still have to build it to fix it if it DOES break. Relying on every thing to be perfect forever is nothing but creating your own disaster.
Edited by Imca on Jul 10th 2018 at 7:20:58 AM
Yeah I think I’ll stand by my statement.
Alright then, so how about those politics that managed to stop Germany? Killing millions sure must have been a popular decision given that politics are apparently what determines how a war goes.
Or the economics that let Japan continue fighting even after we burned through all our domestic reserves of steel and oil, man we must have had some great trade partners to keep going even once the navy was forced to switch to burning unrefined crude, and the rations became rice balls.
Edited by Imca on Jul 10th 2018 at 7:29:54 AM
The politics that stoped them invading Switzerland worked out pretty well for the Swiss, the politics that kept the Soviets in the fight despite massive initial setbacks sure placed a huge role, the politics that kept the UK in the fight even after the fall of France mattered a hell of a lot, the politics that eventually drew the US into the fight. The politics of the allies not letting it happen when Poland was invaded in how the European part of the war started.
Or on the flip side for Germany there was the politics that lead to Germany not being challenged when it remilitarised, the politics that lead the abandonment of Czechoslovakia, the politics that lead to France surrendering quickly after German forces broke into France proper.
Edited by Silasw on Jul 10th 2018 at 2:28:22 PM
Switzerland didn't remain nuetral due to politics, that is one of the bigest myths of WWII.... Both the Allies and the Nazis had plans to invade it, and every one kept "accidently" bombing them.
No they remained neutral because there country was 30%note this one is made up for effect, because it was a lot explosives by volume, with demo-charges on every bridge, bunkers carved into every mountain, stocked with food, ammo, and medicine... as well as a populace almost entirely trained with guns.
It wasn't that no one WANTED the Swiss, or that politics kept people away, every one wanted them.... the problem was that taking the Swiss would have resulted them in clawing out the face of whoever tried.
Also I am not sure the US would have ever stopped with lend lease and actually sent troops to help if we hadn't bombed them, they were very isolationist at the time.
Edited by Imca on Jul 10th 2018 at 7:35:05 AM
I never said the politics of neutrality, I said the politics, in this case the politics of being such a pain in the arse to invade that the Axis made the political desicion that it wasn’t worth it. The Swiss gambled on the Axis making that political desicion based on the facts on the ground, it worked out well for them.
@Imca: Germany's economic collapse in WWII is a major reason why it lost WWII. It couldn't afford properly-armed soldiers.
Or, on the reverse, the Japanese made the mistake of not realizing that the US's industrial capacity could be easily-militarized. When Pearl Harbor was bombed the US military appeared quite beatable to them, but then the US took the gloves off and its military exploded in size.
The same goes for Germany and the Soviet Union, actually. Hitler didn't realize that the Soviets had an industrial capacity that would allow them to become a gargantuan Nazi-killing army.
Then the problem here is varying definitions of force vs politics.
Because to me that is a mater of "force" the Swiss had a big enough stick that no one wanted to poke them because they knew if they tried they would loose an eye, not "Politics" in that the Swiss had agreements with any one that would have made invading them not worth it for reasons other then you are going to loose thousands of men, and untold amounts of equipment.
And that is when it becomes logistics, when you cant supply your own side, it is now a logistical issue. Regardless of if its because "I cant afford bullets" or "I cant get the bullets to you" the simple fact is you have no bullets, and your supply lines failed, and you have now lost the war.
What keeps it from being economics is that Germany could have got more oil by successful invading Russia for instance, they didn't need to buy it, or trade for it... but thankfully for history they failed.
Edited by Imca on Jul 10th 2018 at 7:38:34 AM
At this point I'm going to have to second taking this discussion to the Military Thread. It stopped relating to U.S. politics awhile ago.
Hees the thing, the losses that would be suffered are a military and strategic matter, that’s about numbers, training, moral, ect...
If it’s worth it or not? That’s a purely political decision, it’s actully a very specific one, after all Nazi Germany was politically willing to loose thousands of men, but not for the political gain of taking Switzerland, a nation that was not engaged in active hostilities to the rest of Nazi Germany’s agenda.
At this point I would have to agree yes.
Moved over here since we are now covering well beyond NATO obligations
Edited by Imca on Jul 10th 2018 at 7:53:44 AM
The Soviets also benefited tremendously from the fact:
1. Stalin moved a massive amount of equipment away from the front lines.
2. The United States military-industrial capacity was enough that it could supply not only its own military but able to give its excess to the Soviets.
Still, to bring it back to Today's politics, I think it is worth repeating that Russia is not the once mighty Soviet Union. Their country has a GDP the size of Italy's and is mostly driven by Oil. Their two biggest assets are the rusting Soviet Military, and the legacy intelligence apparatus and playbook.
Don't get me wrong, Putin is a former KGB operative, hardline cold warrior, with a deep seated hatred of the west, but Russia is an objectively declining power. The only way for them to regain power is by knocking everyone else down. What all the old Cold War tactics of Disinformation, bribes, Kompromat, expanding economic and montary influence, etc, have in common, is that they are relatively low cost ways of spreading chaos and exerting Russian influence, and protecting Putin's interests.
Edited by megaeliz on Jul 10th 2018 at 12:02:18 PM
Bluntly, Russia was in a much much worse place off before Putin. I.e. the Yeltsin years.
It's just Putin has run their improvements into the ground by focusing on trying to modernize the military and getting a shit ton of sanctions on his nation versus building up the economy like China.
I definitely get the feeling that many of the YT skeptics targeted creationism and religion in general before they started aggressively targeting and mocking feminism and "SJ Ws", and a lot of their fanbases went along with it when they switched targets.
The Orange House is preparing for hundreds of billions in tariffs on more Chinese goods. Beijing will likely be forced to resort to non-tariff counters to match this dollar for dollar.
Why is the Trump administration so bad at targeting the tariffs? Like, 90% of them have been on things made in other countries that are necessary for American products. If he sticks a huge tariff on the Ontario automotive industry, he's going to cripple the American automotive industry. Because American parts go to Windsor and other cities in Southern Ontario to get put together, then they're shipped back. He might slap a tariff on *American* cars.
Because Trump lacks the foresight to consider such things and only sees that things are coming from another country, and thus must somehow be hurting America?
Actually, it's because there's no such thing as a tariff that won't hurt the American economy. If things are being shipped into America, it's because somebody in America is buying them. It's not so much that Trump's bad at aiming them as much as it that a Trade War is fundamentally bad idea.
He thinks that, by making those goods more expensive to import, some enterprising company will start producing those goods themselves. This would create jobs and make money for Americans.
He seems to underestimate just how much cheaper those foreign goods are, and how much those new factories would have to charge for their goods in order to recoup their losses before the next president undoes it all.
Edited by Kayeka on Jul 10th 2018 at 7:59:36 PM
Looking at the last few pages, I have to wonder when the Russian military become this good. The Russians that I've a chat with don't even think their military is this good.
Trade war is always a bad idea. Trump might as well throw all the money in America's national depository on the street of DC. I'm sure that it's far more productive and beneficial to the American people. Heck, someone that pick that money might even use it to build an all-American factory that he want so bad. If he really want a genuine American factory, he really should consider just fixing the problem with low-interest loan program for small business owners.
People cant count. Russia would loose a conventional war with western europe decisively and quickly, for one very simple reason:
Air-superiority. Europe has a whole lot more death-in-the-sky, and it is all better trained, newer, better maintained, and carrying very, very shiny missiles. There is a technical term for people who prosecute a land war against a peer foe in the face of total enemy control of the air. It is "Corpse".
The ground forces are also enormous, well trained and equipped. Sure, the heavy lift capability is lacking but the rail-road and road infrastructure is not, and you cant bomb it, because europe owns the sky, so attacking european soil - meaning soil the EU has laid tracks and pawed asphalt on, is just a good way to die.
Looks like Trump's tariffs are killing coal even faster: https://thefederalist.com/2018/07/10/trumps-trade-war-digging-coal-industry-hole/
BMW to shift some SUV production overseas in response to tariffs
The German-based automobile manufacturer signed an agreement with its Chinese partner, Brilliance Automotive Group Holdings, to increase the number of vehicles produced in the country, according to the Charleston newspaper, with the total reaching 520,000 by 2019.
“Our agreement sets a long-term framework for our future in China — a future involving continued investment, further growth and a clear commitment to the development and production of electric vehicles,” said BMW CEO Harald Krueger said.
The company also said that it will raise prices for U.S.-produced SU Vs sold in China because it is "not in a position to completely absorb the tariff increases” after China slapped a 40 percent tariff on U.S. car imports, according to the newspaper. The action was in response to tariffs on Chinese goods imposed by President Trump.
BMW is the largest U.S. auto exporter and employs 10,000 people at a plant in Spartanburg, S.C. The brand’s X3, X4, X5 and X6 SUV models and their variants are produced there.
Trump hit China last week with steep tariffs on about $34 billion worth of products.
China responded with retaliatory tariffs on American imports, including SU Vs, soybeans and seafood.
Beijing accused Trump of launching “the biggest trade war in economic history” and of using tariffs as “typical trade bullying.”
Community Showcase More