5 ms·

That's very simplistic view on military. Think of a corporations that make all decisions at top level vs corporations that at the top level mostly worry about

That's very simplistic view on military. Think of a corporations that make all decisions at top level vs corporations that at the top level mostly worry about creating correct environment for the individual contributors and low level managers to be able to make right decisions, individually. US military won the IIWW war because it created that right environment. Mobilizing people (people who are not interested in achieving goal are almost useless), keeping spirit (for example US military will always do what's necessary to save individual solders vs Japanese that treated soldiers mostly as expendable), ensuring that people are promoted on merit and not birth, ensuring people are trained and are given right tools. All those things are so that soldiers can make the right decisions, on the spot. It is naive to think that a general can say whatever he wants and make it happen. It will only happen if all those people want to make it happen and are prepared to make it happen.

mrmonkeyman 6y ago
Generals don't decide shit, politicians do.
ncmncm 6y ago
The US military did not win the war, at least in Europe. They pottered around in Africa, Italy, and Belgium while the Soviet army won the war. Ten of the ten biggest battles were on the eastern front, while a tiny fraction of axis assets held off the West for years. Western bombing (despite huge losses) had negligible effect on German industrial production, which increased right up to 1945. (US industrial imports to Russia through Iran were important, though.) The US did win the Pacific war, despite that its torpedoes were wholly almost wholly non-functional until 1944. It won at monstrous cost in wasted Marine Corps lives, apparently because blockade work was not dramatic for home audiences.
- lmilcin 6y ago
  Hey, wars are messy business. Usually if there is so much disparity in power that the outcome is known beforehand it does not come to war. US had declared Axis powers to be the enemy and then the enemy was defeated. Nobody questions that US was key to winning WWII. It seems impossible that soviets would hold if Nazi Germany was able to send all their resources to eastern front. Even with the help on the western front, soviets held JUST BARELY. And at key moment US troops landed in Italy forcing Hitler to divert his forces that were necessary to win battle of Kursk. I don't see how you can question that US won the war, it is a fact documented by representatives of states involved in the war signing their capitulation to US.
  - bluGill 6y ago
    It was a joint effort. To claim any single entity won alone is wrong. There are alternate history questions, but they will never be conclusive.
    - lmilcin 6y ago
      Well, every one of those entities won. Do you want to say nobody actually won the war? In a sense it is true, but not in the sense we are talking about.
      - ncmncm 6y ago
        What we are after is who, if anybody, was responsible for a clear majority of the total effective engagement of Axis forces. On that question, it is dead clear that the Soviets were, and by a huge margin. Did US and British troops contribute? Yes. Did P-51s and P-38s help clear the skies of effective German air power? Sure. Would the outcome have been notably different without them? Probably not. The biggest single setback for Germany, driving deep into original German territory, happened while the US and Britain were pinned down in Belgium and Southern France by a tiny fraction of German assets. Without, the war might have gone on for up to another year, and the Soviets would have ended up owning all of Europe and, probably, Africa. We must be satisfied that that did not happen.
  - mbrodersen 6y ago
    The US did almost nothing for 4 years, except selling materials to Europe in return for gold. It only joined the war after Europeans had already killed more than 23 million Germans, and destroyed most of its military. Claiming that the US won the war is BS. The US was part of a large group of countries that won the war, all contributing to defeat the Nazis.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
- thehappypm 6y ago
  The same Soviets who started the war -- sorry if history hasn't smiled brightly on the Soviet war effort, they were gladly in the Axis when the conflict began.
  - bennysonething 6y ago
    Yeah I had never been talk that in school. Recently kasporov pointed it out in a pod cast I was listening too. It's so obvious but I'd never thought of it that way because of the narrative that we are taught.
    - lmilcin 6y ago
      Just out of curiosity, where are you from? Here in Poland this is very well known fact and nobody is going to forget this, for a very long time. Soviets attacked Poland on September 17th, 1939 in accordance with plans they made with Nazis before the war. They made plans which part of Poland belonged to Soviets and which to Nazis and then were all too happy to occupy until Nazis turned on them.
      - bennysonething 6y ago
        UK, northern Ireland.
- barry-cotter 6y ago
  The Soviet Union could not have won without US support of arms and materiel. It might have been able to survive in some form by completely abandoning everything east of the Urals. US industrial production was crucial to Soviet survival, not a nice to have. Costly business, dividing up Eastern Europe in the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.
  - mbrodersen 6y ago
    Russia stopped the Germans by building more than 34000 tanks and sacrificing millions of lives. The US only really entered the war after 4 years of sitting on the side lines. Yes US support of materials to Europe was important but don’t overplay it’s significance. Also, remember that Europe paid for the US materials in gold. The US was basically acting as an arms dealer, with the 2nd world war being a huge business opportunity for US manufacturing, and the direct reason for the US moving ahead of Europe.
  - ncmncm 6y ago
    "West of", perhaps? But it had beaten back most if the invasion before US materiel showed up in substantial quantity, and its industrial output (also) grew dramatically throughout the war. Whether it could have secured enough food to sustain that output, without US SPAM, is unclear; the Soviets openly acknowledged the importance of the SPAM. The hundreds of thousands of trucks, millions of tires, millions of tons of steel, and corresponding amount of refined petrolem the US delivered probably mattered too, when it finally got there. Soviet pilots liked the P-39s, sort of proto-A10s. The Soviet materiel placement in 1941, immediately before Germany invaded, was consistent with immediate plans to invade Germany.
- AnimalMuppet 6y ago
  What were you going to use to enforce the blockade? Torpedoes?
  - barry-cotter 6y ago
    Mines, lots and lots of mines.

mrmonkeyman 6y ago

Generals don't decide shit, politicians do.

ncmncm 6y ago

The US military did not win the war, at least in Europe. They pottered around in Africa, Italy, and Belgium while the Soviet army won the war. Ten of the ten biggest battles were on the eastern front, while a tiny fraction of axis assets held off the West for years. Western bombing (despite huge losses) had negligible effect on German industrial production, which increased right up to 1945. (US industrial imports to Russia through Iran were important, though.) The US did win the Pacific war, despite that its torpedoes were wholly almost wholly non-functional until 1944. It won at monstrous cost in wasted Marine Corps lives, apparently because blockade work was not dramatic for home audiences.

lmilcin 6y ago
Hey, wars are messy business. Usually if there is so much disparity in power that the outcome is known beforehand it does not come to war. US had declared Axis powers to be the enemy and then the enemy was defeated. Nobody questions that US was key to winning WWII. It seems impossible that soviets would hold if Nazi Germany was able to send all their resources to eastern front. Even with the help on the western front, soviets held JUST BARELY. And at key moment US troops landed in Italy forcing Hitler to divert his forces that were necessary to win battle of Kursk. I don't see how you can question that US won the war, it is a fact documented by representatives of states involved in the war signing their capitulation to US.
- bluGill 6y ago
  It was a joint effort. To claim any single entity won alone is wrong. There are alternate history questions, but they will never be conclusive.
  - lmilcin 6y ago
    Well, every one of those entities won. Do you want to say nobody actually won the war? In a sense it is true, but not in the sense we are talking about.
    - ncmncm 6y ago
      What we are after is who, if anybody, was responsible for a clear majority of the total effective engagement of Axis forces. On that question, it is dead clear that the Soviets were, and by a huge margin. Did US and British troops contribute? Yes. Did P-51s and P-38s help clear the skies of effective German air power? Sure. Would the outcome have been notably different without them? Probably not. The biggest single setback for Germany, driving deep into original German territory, happened while the US and Britain were pinned down in Belgium and Southern France by a tiny fraction of German assets. Without, the war might have gone on for up to another year, and the Soviets would have ended up owning all of Europe and, probably, Africa. We must be satisfied that that did not happen.
- mbrodersen 6y ago
  The US did almost nothing for 4 years, except selling materials to Europe in return for gold. It only joined the war after Europeans had already killed more than 23 million Germans, and destroyed most of its military. Claiming that the US won the war is BS. The US was part of a large group of countries that won the war, all contributing to defeat the Nazis.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
thehappypm 6y ago
The same Soviets who started the war -- sorry if history hasn't smiled brightly on the Soviet war effort, they were gladly in the Axis when the conflict began.
- bennysonething 6y ago
  Yeah I had never been talk that in school. Recently kasporov pointed it out in a pod cast I was listening too. It's so obvious but I'd never thought of it that way because of the narrative that we are taught.
  - lmilcin 6y ago
    Just out of curiosity, where are you from? Here in Poland this is very well known fact and nobody is going to forget this, for a very long time. Soviets attacked Poland on September 17th, 1939 in accordance with plans they made with Nazis before the war. They made plans which part of Poland belonged to Soviets and which to Nazis and then were all too happy to occupy until Nazis turned on them.
    - bennysonething 6y ago
      UK, northern Ireland.
barry-cotter 6y ago
The Soviet Union could not have won without US support of arms and materiel. It might have been able to survive in some form by completely abandoning everything east of the Urals. US industrial production was crucial to Soviet survival, not a nice to have. Costly business, dividing up Eastern Europe in the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.
- mbrodersen 6y ago
  Russia stopped the Germans by building more than 34000 tanks and sacrificing millions of lives. The US only really entered the war after 4 years of sitting on the side lines. Yes US support of materials to Europe was important but don’t overplay it’s significance. Also, remember that Europe paid for the US materials in gold. The US was basically acting as an arms dealer, with the 2nd world war being a huge business opportunity for US manufacturing, and the direct reason for the US moving ahead of Europe.
- ncmncm 6y ago
  "West of", perhaps? But it had beaten back most if the invasion before US materiel showed up in substantial quantity, and its industrial output (also) grew dramatically throughout the war. Whether it could have secured enough food to sustain that output, without US SPAM, is unclear; the Soviets openly acknowledged the importance of the SPAM. The hundreds of thousands of trucks, millions of tires, millions of tons of steel, and corresponding amount of refined petrolem the US delivered probably mattered too, when it finally got there. Soviet pilots liked the P-39s, sort of proto-A10s. The Soviet materiel placement in 1941, immediately before Germany invaded, was consistent with immediate plans to invade Germany.
AnimalMuppet 6y ago
What were you going to use to enforce the blockade? Torpedoes?
- barry-cotter 6y ago
  Mines, lots and lots of mines.