POTF 6 - Vote!
Sukiyama - Deteriorating Situation in Venezuela
Post 1 Originally Posted by Vanoi
America didn't kick off the crisis. This was a crisis in the making that climaxed when Guaido decided to just declare himself Interim President. You can honestly blame the opposition for actually starting this whole thing. But like i said this was a crisis in the making.
I disagree. I think indefinitely helping South America with the refugee crisis is the first and the very least, that United States can do. I don't know how much you know about the history of South America, but we've essentially strong armed the majority of that continent into toeing a certain line. If we want real allies, instead of sycophants, than we need to start repairing the damage we've caused over the last century. Mexico, a country we have very good relations with, is our ally out of fear of necessity. Compare that relationship to our relationship with Canada, a country that genuinely sees us as an ally and friend.Helping refugees is only a temporary solution. China and Russia would not abandon Venezuela nor the Cubans no matter how bad the Americans made them look. And those countries are all Maduro needs.
Our stance on Venezuela and Cuba makes us look like the world's biggesting hypocrites. We should've approached the situation carefully and with grace. Instead, we engage in these hardline antics like it's the Cold War. What's next? We start preparing for a low-scale intervention if the Guaido opposition starts an open rebellion? And believe me, I think it could really come down to that. While Maduro enjoys a lot of support in the military and still has a sizable loyalist chunk among the people, there are many people who are sick and tired of his regime and will likely fight for a better life if they think it's the only option they have left. What then? Are we going to bomb Maduro? Are we going to supply arms? Are we going to demand Maduro steps down?
America has never been shy about supporting authoritarians and military governments in the past. If our mandate is avoiding violence, we need to drastically change our policy regarding South America. My suggesting, is to negotiate Russian and Chinese debts in order to broker a power-sharing agreement with Maduro. As in, we will help with Russian and Chinese debts, in exchange for Maduro enacting reforms in the country, and agreeing to step down after his current term. There are a lot of things America can do in order to get the result we want. And if we really want to dominate South America, we have to win their "hearts and minds".
Of course this'll never happen. This is the same kind of foreign policy that hails Plan Colombia as a resounding success.
It is incredibly irresponsible and ineffective. This is the opposite of Monroe Doctrine.Though my views on this differ i do agree that aggravating the situation isn't a good idea.
Ἀπολλόδοτος Α΄ ὁ Σωτήρ - The Size of Ancient Armies
Post 2
While I'm not aware of any powerful nomadic confederations poised to assault the Achaemenids in the East and capable of capturing cities such as Baktra, we do know of various nomadic tribes launching raids in the Upper Satrapies, and perfectly capable looting villages and small towns. In addition to those external threats, up until 19th Century, hill-dwelling tribes would sometimes descend to the valleys to loot and pillage across many parts of Afro-Eurasia, and the Achamenid Empire was full of such tribes.Was their some other invasion on tap I missed?
For instance I suggest reading about one such tribe, the Uxians, whom Alexander fought, not on the behalf of the Achaemenids, but because they tried to extort Alexander in a similar manner they did the Persians, despite living deep in nominal Achaemenid territory.
Most of the Achaemenid subjects were neither Iranian nor Zoroastrian and those who were and were in high positions weren't all selfless and loyal people, Mazaeus, a Persian, simply allowed Alexander to take heavily fortified city of Babylon, while Bessus did what he did. Various tribal kings living in difficultly accessible areas weren't impressed enough with Achaemenid power to even pay them taxes, sometimes they preferred to actually tax them. And by taxing I mean robbing.Maybe true maybe not really depends on which boss they thought would be better and how bad the pillaging would be. But Darius did have the cash on had to fill palms and belay worry for the moment over the prospect of gain.
Speaking of Darius' regard or understanding of Alexander's true intentions, I think it would be good to mention that he didn't lend much support to his Satraps in Anatolia, and in relation to that how numbers Alexander faced began to increase after he'd already conquer most of Anatolia.The think is Alexander was the near and clear present danger and he had yet to show his supposed cultural clemency. He started the war based on a nominal revenge crusade.
Mustering a Million men, if its true, is a quite an achievement, one that even the great Roman Empire didn't manage.Again I not arguing the fantastic numbers. Just the range of possibly should not be constrained by the minimal normal possibility give the dire state Darius faced and the resources he had.
Which is why it's interesting to compare the numbers, as well as few other factors, between the Roman and Achaemenid Empires.
- Roman Army at its peak had 450K troops, according to Cassius Dio in the Battle of Lugdunum in 197, 300K were deployed, modern estimates range from 110K to 150K. This battle was a part of a civil war between Severus and Albinus and thus all the troops were Roman.
-Size of Achaemenid Army at its peak is unknown, however according to Herodotus they were capable deploying up to 2.65M during the Second Invasion of Greece, modern estimates range from 200K to 500K. we don't know if Persian had mobilized all of their available troops for this endeavor, however I personally suspect they haven't left their satrapies under-garrisoned and in my opinion they would have to do so in order to muster such massive numbers. In addition to that it took them several years to bring troops to Sardis and from there continue towards Greece.
After glorious days of Darius I and Xerxes I, the Achaemenid troops seems to have dwindled to "mere" 1M according to ancient sources, still better than the pathetic Romans with "puny" 450K and this is a relatively certain number.
When discussing the plausibility of numbers, one needs to talk of population.
The Roman Empire usually had 50-60 Million people, under Trajan around 70M Million, Achaemenid Empire 17-35 Million people. From this every 4th is an adult male. I can't stress enough that I'm being quite generous here because until the 19th Century couples usually had more than two children.
Romans had 450K troops out of, 50M, I'll use the lower estimate here which brings us to 12.5M adult males, that means that nearly every 28th adult male was a soldier, if we take that the Achaemenids had 1M troops out of, I'll use the highest population estimate of 35M which brings us to 8.75M adult males, that means that nearly every 9th adult male was a soldier.
Even when skewing the numbers in favor of the Achaemenids, by several factors, such as population number and breakdown, deployment - 1M were at a single battle, while Roman 450K never were, which would mean that the Achaemenids would need to extract an even greater number than 1M because, as I've said previously, someone needs to man the garrisons, such ability to mobilize every 9th male not withstanding serious economic and political consequences, would require a tremendous logistical and organizational effort and their deployment would be severely hampered by the state of Achaemenid geographic constraints.
Now onto actual battles.
Until Granicus in 334 it appears that Darius didn't consider Alexander as a massive threat that would require the maximum mobilization of his troops which can be seen from the fact that Alexander's numbers at Granicus were merely matched, a single year later 600K troops are at Issus and 2 years after 400K more. In short, by ancient sources at Granicus Alexander faces 40K, at Issus 600K, at Gaugamela 1M, by modern estimates it's Granicus 40K, Issus 108K, Gaugamela 120K.
Maybe modern estimates are two low and losing battles when having 2.7:1 and 2.5:1 advantage against a not just superior, but brilliant tactician, isn't that much of failure when you're a decent commander, however losing when having 15:1 and 21:1 advantage is beyond spectacular failure, even if one's an inferior commander. If we halve the numbers and get 7.5:1 and 10.6:1 advantage the failure is still spectacular.
Why did Darius even fight at Gaugamela when seeing how bad he was at Issus, when defeated at Gaugamela why did he even flee eastwards, at that time the Iranian Plateau was still far less populated and poorer than Mesopotamia and he lost a 1M troops, it's highly unlikely he'd be able to find another 1M, and let's face it how bad he is he'd need at least 2M, to get that decent 42:1 advantage.
It all boils down to whether or not Alexander's victories were impressive enough unless he was outnumbered at least 4:1, personally I'd say yes. If the numbers are true, Darius was either mentally impaired, or it was true what so many ancients believed, Alexander was divine. Lastly, ther's something special about the Achaemenids because no other state deployed such numbers on the battlefield apart from the Chinese during the Warring States, if we are to believe their ancient sources, and If I'm not mistaken, even they didn't have a 1M on the battlefield.
ep1c_fail - Morality of abortion
Post 3
My reference to "schisms" was intended to be applied institutionally rather than to popular interpretations. When I claimed that Catholics, Anglicans, Mormons etc. were opposed to abortion, I was referring to the official churches of those faiths.Did you see that poll? A ton of Christians are ok with abortion by choice. Your response seems to accuse them of not sticking with the faith.
How people choose to label themselves is their business, but it doesn't affect my position or that of the majority of relevant churches.
We were discussing religious reasoning and its relation to state policy. You commented that:Hold up now, we were discussing the moral motivation here, not governments.
"If you want the choice of abortion made illegal by the government, and citing the Bible as reasoning, you are trying to supplant a secular law with a religious one."
to which I replied:
a) "The secular world can legislate on the basis of any moral reasoning it chooses (including Christian reasoning) and still be secular. We don't say that the United States is theocratic because many (if not most) of its voters and legislators are influenced by religious reasoning in their decision making. What undermines secularism is when the institution of the church adopts a direct legislative role in government" and;
b) "The separation of church and state (ie. secularism) precludes the church from exerting direct authority in government: it does not imply the presumption of atheist rationale in policy making."
We haven't much discussed the rationale behind pro-life positions. So far the debate seems to have centred on the difference between institutional and popular Christianity, the definition of secularism and IVF.You aren't using a secular moral framework, you depend on a religious one. See Divine Command Theory. It isn't very productive to argue moral quandaries with such people.
I don't see how this is related to segment to which it is responding. The point of my comment was to highly that just as others wish you to accept their ethical views so do you wish for others to accept yours.What? Yes, moral standards produced in religious scripture are not secular.
Some clarification on this:Sure didn't seem that way.
I stated that "Many months ago I offered you an argument which was not grounded in religious reasoning and you rejected it on the basis that an unborn human is not a person". You responded by saying "You presented a secular argument as to why a fertilized embryo is a person? I don't recall that at all."
The discussion I was referring to took place in this thread.
I answered this point many pages ago:No it's not, IVF is a procedure we have control over and can regulate. We are literally killing babies, by your definition, to do it. Not "potential babies" literal human beings, again, by your definitions. You are ok with that but not ok with abortion by choice, it makes me think your motives aren't really about reducing unborn fatalities.
"The purpose of IVF is to create life not destroy it. Embryos are not being arbitrarily discarded: they are necessarily lost as part of the procedure. No woman, let alone one with reproductive complications, could birth the 10-15 children which the egg yield produces. Attempting to take fewer eggs for fertilization - with a mind to birthing them all - would ultimately make the service itself untenable due to collapsing success rates. Keeping all unused embryos frozen until surrogate mothers could be found would, likewise, make the service itself untenable.
It would be philosophically and spiritually incoherent to argue that all IVF life should be denied to prevent the loss of some IVF lives. Our view is that the creation and continuation of human life (particularly innocent life) should be facilitated wherever possible. Therefore, the encouragement of nonexistence (which would be the net result of the closure of IVF clinics) cannot be consistent with Christian principles."
No more than you can impose your will on them.If they are US citizens, they can very much impose their will on me through voting. Institutions are there to protect me, and others, from that, but recent years showed us institutions are weak.
The existence of illicit markets isn't an argument for the removal of illicit practices or products.Nationally? Maybe, depends on how hard conservative Christians can stack the supreme court, and they are trying. Individual States are in much more jeopardy. I kinda treat the political issue much like I treat gun control: the cats out of the bag and people who oppose it really need to give up trying to remove it. It won't happen. The literal most conservatives can do to get rid of abortion is to push it underground, which there is
very much a black market waiting to cater to those needs. You know, like the good old days.
My claim wasn't that the Founding Fathers were Christians (though I believe Washington was). My claim was that religion played a more prominent role in American politics and society historically than it does currently.Well no, the founding fathers were not really what you could consider modern conservative Christians to be. Nor was moral reasoning that stunted by that point (this was post enlightenment, after all), they knew murder was wrong outside of it being commanded so by God. They were aware of secular reasoning, and indeed seemed to prefer for political affairs. See, that is the appeal with secular moral reasoning: it can apply broadly across people with different religious persuasions.
Commenting that abortion has been traditionally viewed by institutional Christianity as sinful is a simple statement of fact. It doesn't need to be argumentatively "impressive" to hold value, just true.If it is trying to be used as an argument, it should be impressive. Otherwise, you aren't going to convince anybody not of your particular religious background. And if you are doing the same exact thing as every other religiously motivated person out there, it will be hard to notice your argument. You are just another Christian saying we should understand Christianity the way you do.
The tradition is younger: the revealed truth is not.Yes, and much younger than Christianity.
No.So if we get to the point where a woman can self-abort at home safely, effectively, and cheaply, you think that should be allowed under law?
I don't see how this is relevant to the segment of the conversation to which it is responding.Please, the sanctity of life is central to many religions, Christianity isn't special in that regard. Jews place sanctity on life but are far more lax on abortion regulations than Christians, on average. Secular ethical frameworks also put value on life, you don't need Jesus for that.
My claim that the sanctity of life is a central tenant of Christianity did not include a passage which claimed a Christian monopoly over the concept.
The sanctity of life refers to the sanctity (that is sacredness) of human life. The point of conception is the most medically objective point at which human life begins (hence the term conception). I value human life not just sentience or interpretations of "personhood" - the latter typically appearing in abortion debates to dehumanize underdeveloped lives so as to justify their destruction.Not to mention, you have to very specifically define "life", because you don't mean life in general, you are referring to either persons or humans or something but have a shaky basis to those definitions.
Please don't ascribe conspiratorial motives to me: I haven't done so to you.Yes, religion and culture both inform each other, that is why Christians everywhere across the world know to pray to Jesus but disagree on what the teachings of Christ mean for them. And the Christian practices are almost always rolled into the previous religious practices (*cough cough* winter solstice *cough cough*) and so on. How does that disprove what I am saying? Christians still disagree on abortion, with the more conservative being against. That is what I am saying the deciding factor is. Any random Christian may be pro-life or pro-choice, but a conservative minded person is much more likely to come down on the side of pro-life. Ergo, it isn't being "Christian" that matters there, it is being conservative. Conservatives, in what I am guessing is not a coincidence, also tend to view liberal female sexuality much more negatively than non-conservatives. That is what I view as being the main motivation for limiting abortion as much as possible: whores deserve consequences. Hence the lack of concern given to fertilized embryos (professed to be fully humans and people) that are destroyed for IVF procedures; no female sexuality (whores) was involved.
Taking the life of another human being for your own convenience (where convenience doesn't include your own right to live) I believe to be wicked. As I mentioned in my previous message, I would believe this irrespective of Christ, but all the more so for Him.Without scripture, or really, American Christian culture, how would you identify "wanton destruction of human life" with abortion?
State investment in child development and care, particularly for those who come from disadvantaged backgrounds, would absolutely be a spending priority for me. I wish everyone had access to good education,But if you are worried about childhood potential, does that also mean you are pro social programs focused on feeding, educating, and otherwise investing in children who are not so well off? Big fan of public education, are you?
irrespective of their finances - and that includes higher education.
I'm not actually the dogmatic archconservative you seem to imagine that I am.
I would sacrifice fifteen lives for one if the alternative was that none of the sixteen lives would ever exist. That's the reality of the IVF procedure: it isn't the reality of orphanages.But, again from the perspective that all the fertilized embryos are equally deserving of life, the selecting of an embryo to implant is essentially a death panel. These aren't "potential people" here, you already admitted to them being living humans that are being discarded. It would be like the IVF service presenting a dozen babies to the family, they pick one, and 'liquidate' the rest. Really, this whole notion seems pathetic: either fertilized embryos are ethically the same as a born baby, or they aren't. We don't typically liquidate babies that were not chosen. If you are ok with a procedure that kills 15 babies so that 1 will be born, you should also be ok with an orphanage that kills 15 unwanted babies to get 1 adopted.
The process was not deliberately designed to liquidate human life: it was designed to facilitate it. We've discussed the necessity of egg yields in the IVF process previously. IVF specialists aren't arbitrarily, needlessly or maliciously destroying human life - they simply lack the medical knowledge to construct a viable procedure which doesn't require the loss of some embryos to facilitate the growth of others.It isn't inadvertent, it was by design. When harvesting and fertilizing the eggs, everyone involved knows only one will get implanted. It wasn't an accident, it was purposeful. Abortion due to a life-threatening issue arising was not purposeful or planned.
If you have evidence of reasonably preventable or avoidable deaths occurring during or as a result of the IVF process then naturally I would object to that (the deaths, that is, not the evidence), but that alone.
For the reasons I've highlighted, The IVF position you've made isn't very strong. It is easy for a Christian person (really any person) to see the moral supremacy of a view which allows some life to exist rather than non - which is the sum total of the IVF process.But really, it is the fact that you, and the Religious Right in general, don't often bring up IVF in the first place is what is telling, as you would imagine their goal would be to stop as many unborn deaths as possible since what they value is "unborn life". But that isn't the goal because that isn't the concern.
It's regrettable that you insist on accusing me of harbouring conspiratorial motives of an authoritarian nature, but I can assure you that I don't.
I_Damian - I thought Britain was under sharia law?
Post 4
I did some very in-depth studies into the Belzec death camp (I even visited it). I became fascinated with the Commandant of that camp - a man named Christian Wirth. He's probably one of the most evil and psychotic men to have ever existed, though you'll never know he exists because other evil men like Mengele get all the attention. Wirth was the right man in the right job. I found that even among the SS who worked at Belzec, many disagreed with what was happening there. Some committed suicide, some desperately tried to be transferred to frontline combat (which they preferred to working in a death camp, even though frontline combat carried an infinitely higher risk to their own lives), and some were executed on the orders of Wirth. Ultimately they all did their job of supervising the industrialized mass murder of innocent civilians at a rate of 6,000-10,000 per day. In this case they did it out of pure fear of Wirth, the ruthless commandant.
In Russia during the 20s and 30s tens of millions of citizens of the USSR were shot, worked to death in gulags or starved to death. The men orchestrating this terror... some of them would have been psychopaths who enjoyed it, some of them would have been ideological Communist fanatics who saw it as a duty... I'm willing to bet the vast majority of them disagreed with it but did it anyway out of fear of Stalin. The culture of pure terror and fear that Stalin created in the USSR is absolutely incomprehensible to us comfortable westerners who were born and have lived in modern times. It is absolutely impossible for us to understand how bad it was. In those days, if you were conscripted into the army and your orders were to drive to a certain town, round up 50 specific people and shoot them for being "unreliable to the regime", you did it... even if your own parents were among the 50 names on the list. You did it because if you didn't do it you'd be number 51 on the list.
Same goes for China after the Communist revolution, Cambodia and other places at other times. All throughout history we've seen atrocious things like this occur, and every single time the regimes doing the atrocious things have never needed the support of a majority of their people. All they've needed is a handful of the right people in the right positions and a culture of fear and terror. That's all it takes.
So don't argue that we have nothing to fear because it's only a "handful" of Muslims who drive buses into crowds and rape tens of thousands of underage infidel girls, because thousands of years of history consistently renders your argument invalid.
Same goes for the far right, which is growing in popularity all over the western world because our governments are allowing these terrorists and religious zealots to grow and grow in number, and covering up mass, decades-long rapes of young girls and other atrocious things. These far right types are never going to be a majority in the west, not after what happened in the 30's and 40's - people know that it will lead to bad things. But guess what? They're never going to need that majority. All they're ever going to need is a handful of the right people in the right position and Europe will be set back 100 years.
Aexodus - If you’re a White Man the Democratic Party of America doesn’t want you
Post 5
Florida was 141-73 in favor of Clinton, Georgia 73-29 Clinton, Alabama 44-9 Clinton. However, Missouri 36-35 Clinton, New Mexico 18-16 Clinton, Arizona 42-33 Clinton, Kansas 10-23 Sanders, Oklahoma 17-21 Sanders, Indiana 39-44 Sanders. I'm not saying Sanders won a lot, but I wouldn't right off radicals completely.
Is it though? Right now people are spamming Internationalist, Globalist, and Neoliberal around. Not Socialist.
The question is, will they vote as long as it's a D. I'm pretty sure many people will vote D just to prevent Trump from getting re-elected.
GND is better than the massive Trump tax cut. I'm pretty sure it'll never get past it. The good thing about GND is that even if some sections are passed, that's already a good thing. Well, depending on which sections. Some GND policies are simply pipe dreams with no grounding in reality. Cutting out fossil fuels is impossible for starters.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/245462/democrats-favor-moderate-party-gop-conservative.aspx
Right now most Democrats want their party to become more moderate, and most Republicans want their party to become more Conservative. Gallup and Pew both found similar results showing around 54% of Dems want more moderate candidates, while 58% of Republicans want more Conservative candidates. This tells me for over a decade, voters have wanted a rightward shift in politics. Why? My guess is because things have moved so left in the past decade, especially on social issues.
Far-left candidates did poorly in the Democratic primaries
The Democrats shift left can be seen here, this is what is motivating the desire for moderate policies. If you have radical leftists as candidates, a number of center left moderates will feel alienated, and will in fact likely feel that a Conservative is closer to them, such as Trump. The blue collar vote for Trump exemplifies this best.
The Democrats are undoubtedly moving further and further left and extreme, especially with regards to racial identitarianism. I am much more worried about left wingers (socialists mostly) imposing racist policies than I am about right wingers (fascists mostly). It’s going to backfire.
The backing of the GND for example, by high profile Democrats is a gift to the Right. In addition the recent abortion stances and Acts around abortion validate the worst far right conspiracies about the Dems and late term abortion. America doesn’t seem to want these policies and attitudes.
The centre can hold
https://news.gallup.com/poll/247016/...ls-states.aspx
Take this gallup poll that showed there are far more Red states than blue ones. This is going to be of massive importance in 2020. With Dem candidates embracing far left rhetoric and identitarianism, many many moderates and others will feel better represented by Trump and Republicans. There are even Occupy Wall Street supporters who are now MAGA Trump supporters. Moving left is a huge mistake by the Democrats and they’re going to suffer for it.
There is no doubt that LBJ passed the 1964 Act as a political ploy, among other affirmative policies.Maybe you should read a history book rather than spout political propaganda?
Son, when I appoint a n****r to the court, I want everyone to know he’s a n****r
Lord Oda Nobunaga - Did Hitler know better than his generals?
Post 6 About Dunkirk:
On May 23 Rundstedt gave the order for his tank units which were advancing on Dunkirk to halt, against the desires of the Division commanders and the OKH. Halder and Brauchitsch really didn't want to deviate from the original Case Yellow, ironic since they both initially opposed the so called Sickle Cut. This disagreement prompted Hitler to visit Rundstedt's headquarters and agreed with the assessment that the infantry should attack east of Arras. Whereas the panzers to deploy along the axis of Gravelines, Aire, Bethune, Lens and St. Omer. The idea being that if the tanks could deploy there, instead of taking high casualties on a frontal assault towards Dunkirk, then they could double back and close the encirclement on the Allied forces being push towards them by Army Group B in Belgium and cut off their retreat. Since the tanks were deployed on the hills there it also made for a defensive perimeter to keep the BEF from pushing out. The greater change to the plan (which I mentioned above) was that the encirclement would be completed in north-eastern France rather than in Belgium. However Hitler also brought up the need to to conserve the panzers in order to begin Case Red and give the death blow to France rather than focusing on the BEF.
Then Halder and Brauchitsh went to the OKW to ask Hitler to change the tank deployments carried out by Rundstedt. Hitler of course refused and gave them a lecture on the need to allow the panzer units to recover from their losses and to resupply. However Hitler ultimately left the decision to Rundstedt and his staff. Hitler then made these orders one of his Fuhrer Directives so that Halder and Brauchitsh would not attempt to override his orders and pressure Rundstedt. Halder of course opposed all of this because it deviated from Case Yellow; Army Group A was to hit the Allies from behind but after the halt near Calais it was Army Group A to keep the Allies from retreating and Army Group B to hammer them. According to Hitler and the OKW this was because the tank force would struggle to carry out attacks in Belgium due to the various canals which the Allies could use as defensive obstacles, as well as the delay in these tanks to cross them. In this way the original Sickle Cut had been derailed. Well sort of... the drafted plan Aufmarschanweisung No 4 had changed Manstein's proposal significantly but the gist of it was the same.
While the tank forces of Army Group A were under orders to halt, the infantry and air force were still attempting to chip away the defenses around Dunkirk and Calais. In the meantime the Allies began to build defenses and evacuated the 199,000 strong BEF at Dunkirk (along with some 139,000 French forces). Calais was surrounded on May 22 and surrendered on May 27. By May 26 Hitler actually ordered the panzer forces to continue the push towards Dunkirk from their defended positions. The French attempted to counterattack towards the north and Kleist was simultaneously forced to divert some of his panzers to support the German line. Regardless the French counterattack in the north halted on May 23. The BEF successfully evacuated from Dunkirk and the city fell to the Germans after heavy fighting on June 5. On that same day Hitler ordered redeployment to the south and the beginning of Case Red, now that the Allies had been completely defeated and surrounded in Belgium and northern France. The subsequent thrust to the south-west led to the capture of Paris on June 14 and the armistice on June 22.
About Barbarossa and Moscow:
German planning did take the onset of winter AND Rasputitsa into account (as they could draw on the experience of Napoleon). Which is why their operational schedules were between June and September. In other words they invaded June 22 (Napoleon on June 24, not a coincidence) and wanted to end their campaign by September. This was in part to avoid the spring and autumn mud and to end the campaign before the winter. The Germans had accounted for winter clothing, but due to the incompatibility of German rail with Russian rail could not send it forward on schedule. Walther von Brauchitsch and Franz Halder mismanaged these logistical organizations and did not send this equipment prior to the first snows. Though it is fair to say that the German generals ignored logistical considerations in favor of operational field battles, and continually over stretched themselves in order to carry out maneuvers and achieve encirclement. However it was Hitler and Keitel who wanted to wait in order to consolidate and improve the logistical situation. By the time of Smolensk and Kiev, in July and August, Hitler wanted to abandon the original time table as in fact Operation Barbarossa had failed to achieve victory prior to September. It was the generals who wanted to keep the plan going, but shift entirely to a thrust on Moscow as was consistent with the 1940 Marcks Plan... but horribly outdated.
The Germans were not looking for negotiation. They wanted capitulation. This was not France 1940, it was not a war of maneuver whereby taking Moscow the Soviets would merely negotiate a peace. The USSR simply would not have given up from the loss of Moscow. Operation Barbarossa required the removal of the Red Army as an existential threat, taking Moscow and negotiating would not have solved this issue. The Soviets would have needed to be pushed back all across the front to a safe distance, as far as Archangelsk and the Volga. However Hitler also makes it clear in Directive 21 that the encirclement and destruction of Red Army formations is the priority, not simply the occupation of territory.
Which then begs the question why these generals were so obsessed with Moscow anyway. They were not even following the general idea of Operation Barbarossa, the plan did not call for a single attack, it required for all three Army Groups to advance in the same direction, which was ambitious but necessary. Plus looking at Operation Typhoon, they didn't even have the means to attack or reduce Moscow. Their units were in need of equipment, in need of rest and lacking in reinforcements and organizational cohesion, insufficient rail lines to carry out the operations, and somehow they expected to outflank larger Soviet formations and then siege out Moscow and hold it? Besieging Moscow would have been as costly if not more so than Leningrad and Stalingrad and a Soviet counter offensive in mid-winter would have been imminent. The Soviets still had like 100 divisions forming up and 58 divisions at their disposal near Moscow (which still was more than the 50 or so German divisions in Operation Typhoon), where as the Wehrmacht was overstretched and frozen. The front line just for this operation was massive, it stretched all the way from Kalinin to Kursk.
But OKH and OKW had already predicted this, which is why their entire plan was to destroy Soviet divisions west of Vyazma and Bryansk in order to even outflank and attack Moscow. This was not feasible at the time for all of the aforementioned reasons, in addition to the fact that the Soviets didn't risk all of their divisions west of Vyazma and Bryansk where they could be outmaneuvered and ripped apart by the Germans. After clearing 4 armies from this area (with difficulty, due to resistance and Soviet withdrawals), the advancing Germans were met with the unpleasant surprise that the Soviets still had a considerable number of divisions directly in front of Moscow from Kalinin in the north to Kursk in the south and so the German double flanking maneuver required to encircle Moscow (which was required to go through Kalinin and Tula) was slowed at the Mozhaisk Line and stopped dead in its tracks at the lines just behind that one. Except this wasn't that surprising because the German staff officers at OKH and OKW already knew this would happen, this late into Operation Barbarossa. Despite knowing this these Prussian geniuses said to Hitler "nah we'll just wing it bruh", everyone from subordinates like Guderian to Army Group commanders like von Rundstedt and von Bock and the heads of the OKW von Brauchitsch and Halder advocated and conspired to have their way, just to attack Moscow. They deviated from every plan, came up with their own foolish operational battle and gambled on the unlikely chance of accomplishing tactical success at Moscow, really to no end as the strategy behind this decision was nonsensical.
This is really where Case Blue comes in and the experiences of 1941 informed the events of 1942. The loss of 80% of Soviet oil AND oil production, the inability to directly transport supplies to Soviet troops and industry, the Red armies being pushed behind the Volga which would create a large gap between those formations and Moscow (thus severely weakening the line and Moscow's southern flank), the imminent collapse of Soviet production/war economy and domestic economy, cutting off Lend Lease through the Caspian-Caucasus-Volga corridor, the ability to supply the Wehrmacht with oil via Rostov and the Black Sea and a huge positional advantage with which to outflank Moscow if that was ever meant to be an aim (as Soviet concentration would necessarily be higher in the center rather than far south across the Volga).
The capture of Moscow was not a foregone conclusion. Usually one gets this impression from people like Guderian et all. But in actuality Moscow was not going to fall in 1941, without securing the flanks in Kalinin and Tula there was no way to actually attack Moscow or encircle Soviet forces there. So really these guys were gambling on a frontal assault. Where as all these generals were commanding Operation Typhoon, it was Hitler who then took command of his own campaign in the south in order to achieve strategic gains. Notice that in these memoirs and accounts of Operation Typhoon Hitler's direct actions are rarely mentioned. That is because Hitler left them to their own devices and personally took command of the effort in the south, overseeing the push across the Dneipr towards the Don and ordering the invasion of Crimea. Crimea was a major strategic position because it gave the Soviets a position from which to carry out aerial attacks against Ploesti as well as naval bases to raid German logistics. Not only did Hitler succeed for the most part, but these generals who were given free reign utterly failed to accomplish their aims. Neither the Rasputitsa nor General Winter were the main culprit for German defeat as much as fierce Soviet resistance and a more defensible position which the Germans were unable to overcome through encirclement.
Both southward campaigns in 1941 and 1942 actually made strategic sense. The Germans had not secured their positions in the south by the time of Operation Typhoon, it made sense to secure the Dneipr and the Don Rivers. Especially if the goal was a push into the Caucasus the next year. Part of the reason Case Blue was postponed was because Sevastopol was still holding out in 1942 (which threatened Ploesti via Soviet aerial range in Crimea and the Black Sea Fleet). By contrast defending Moscow was considered secondary to defending the Caucasus. Which explains why Stalin desperately tried to defend Kiev early on, but also the Don at the same time as Operation Typhoon. As has been admitted by Soviet generals, losing Moscow would not be as serious to the Soviet Union's strategic efforts. Also taking into account that the main Soviet counter attacks in 1943 and 1944 started in the south rather than the north, in spite of operational concerns which would give precedence to the northern sector. But either way the Germans had no way to take Moscow in 1941, it just wasn't feasible and Operation Typhoon was wasted effort which resulted in crippling casualties for the Germans. Even if they did take Moscow it wouldn't have seriously hurt Soviet efforts anyway, the Germans had no way to actually capitalize on that. The focus really should have been on destroying the 58 Soviet divisions defending against Operation Typhoon, but that wasn't possible as the Soviets did not expose all of those division west of Vyazma.
Hanny - Did Hitler know better than his generals?
Post 7 Was Napoleon also starving russians? He did so as well.
Napoleon moved more men over a sparsely populated region, which was unable to support that number of extra people, thats why he failed. Outcome was never in doubt.
http://www.indiana.edu/~psource/PDF/...ettArticle.pdf
living of the land and moving on to supplies rather than being proppelled forward by supplies, its how armies had always operated before supply from base had to be adopted due to the level of munitions expended when armies became firearm equipped, and munition in weight became the dominate feature of logistics.
Punic wars 2, Hanny has 90k foot 10k horses, and 4k mules mules to carry his supplies, he is in Spain and wants to arrive in italy.
What his army consumes per day.
Food/lbs per day3lbs per man, 10lbs per horse/mule)
90,000*3=270000 a day.
14000*10=140000 a day.
Day requirement 410000
Whjat his Army can carry per day.
Forward lift per day
Mules 2040*250=510000
90,000 (foot)*10=900000
10,000 (horse)*20=200000
forward lift per day:
1610000
This gives 4 days carried by the Army. How does it sustain itself as it marches to Italy.
How many people live in a sqaure mile?, using a 2 crops per year: lets start with 45 per sq mile, thats 180*3*45=24300 lbs of grain per sq mile the army moves through that exist to keep them alive till next harvest.
So after marching for 10 days, Hanny consumed 4100000, and passed through 243000 per sq mile as he manovered to draw replenishment from.
How much ground has Hanny covered in 10 days?, and how far on either side of his main column, has his manover elements gathered into supply for him?.
Primary sourc es give us "90 miles in 10 days" when slowly manovering across southern Gaul.
So that 90 miles forwards, if the forgers go no more than 5 miles either side of the column, a very conservative number, we get Hanny`s army moving through 90*10=900*24300=21870000lbs of grain, of which he needs 4104000 to maintain his stock, leaving 21459960 still to feed the pop he moved through, he has required roughly 20% of the food supply of the region.And still has 4 days with the army.
Is 45 per sq mile too large a number?, lets try 4 ( a single family) a sq mile:180*3*4=2160*900=1944000, which is a deficit of 2160000, and his start stock of 3210000 has been reduced to 1050000lbs and he has removed 100% of the supply from the region he manoeuvred over.
Lets try 1 person a sq mile: 180*3*1*900=486000 and 3210000 carried, and 4104000 consumed= -408000.
So at 1 a sq mile, to feed iself the foragers have to cover a greater distnce either side of the main column, lets try 10 miles each side, meaning the army covers a 20 mile frontage as it advances, 90*20=1800 sq miles covered instead of 900. 180*3*1=540*1800=927000 plus 3210000 minus 4104000 =376956 in hand. Hannys moved 102k men and moved forward 90 miles,on a frontage of 20 miles, meet 1800 Gallic people and removed all there food, to keep his Army close to its start supply.
What if he moves faster?, at the more usual 15 miles a day? over 1 person per sq mile.
150*20=3000 sq miles covered, 1620000 plus 3210000 minus 410000=441860 surplus, and Hannys left some behind and still carrying all he can carry.
Polybios gives us the distance Hanny moved to get to the Rhone,c700 miles, which is 14000 sq miles, so we have 180*3*1*14000=7560000 and 3210000 carried, which is a total of 10770000 and 4100000 consumed every 10 days, means that on day 26 Hanny has consumed all supplies he has moved over and carried. He has met 14000 people, and taken all there food.
A good reason why Armies move at different speeds is the pop density of the ground they move over, lower density the army has to extend to the flanks to increase the sq miles covered to bring in the required supplies, if its a higher density, this is not required and a faster pace forward can be used.
Nappy went over ground in Russia with 5 times the amount of people that could live on it, and came back the same way, the outcome was never in doubt.
