4 ms·

The last major war between peer great powers was in the 1940s. It wasn't fast or easy, but it was in part propelled by theories that new technology (aircraft, t

The last major war between peer great powers was in the 1940s. It wasn't fast or easy, but it was in part propelled by theories that new technology (aircraft, tanks, submachine guns) allowed new tactics that could allow wars to be won cheaply. This is in addition to the reality that the whole thing was arguably inevitable after the botched peace of WW1, which was also in part propelled by new technology (railroads, monstrously big artillery, machine guns) and hopes of a short war.

more_corn 3y ago
I beg to differ. In WWII Germany conquered quickly and easily. If you were on the receiving side of blitzkreig it seemed like your military just folded like paper cutouts. To Germany it seemed like they could do anything they wanted so that’s what they did.
- ElevenLathe 3y ago
  That was the miscalculation. Conquering territory fast isn't good enough to achieve victory in war. In fact the opposite is probably true: being able to steamroll your immediate neighbors can cause you to overextend and ultimately lead to defeat.
graymatters 3y ago
That’s simply a wrong set of assumptions that have no historical substantiation. Tolerance for casualties was at a different level during both WWs. It is only after the horrors of WW2 that the western world became fearful of casualties. And the Russians as well, who suffered the largest amount of casualties. That’s why the Cuban missile crisis did not turn into a nuclear war. This is why nuclear mutual deterrence worked.
- ffgjgf1 3y ago
  > It is only after the horrors of WW2 that the western world became fearful of casualties That’s arguably not true at all. At the beginning of the war the allies were very reluctant to engage in major offensive operations (in hindsight it’s not inconceivable that the French could have won in 1939 while Hitler’s army was busy in Poland had they been more risk tolerant). The French especially were very fearful of casualties (in WW1 it lost a larger proportion of its male population than even Germany and France had relatively very low birth rates historically making them much harder to replace) That makes sense considering that most of the people in charge were field officers in WW1 and knew the cost their decisions might have. Of course that changed over the next few years since it turned out that there were no other options.

more_corn 3y ago

I beg to differ. In WWII Germany conquered quickly and easily. If you were on the receiving side of blitzkreig it seemed like your military just folded like paper cutouts. To Germany it seemed like they could do anything they wanted so that’s what they did.

ElevenLathe 3y ago
That was the miscalculation. Conquering territory fast isn't good enough to achieve victory in war. In fact the opposite is probably true: being able to steamroll your immediate neighbors can cause you to overextend and ultimately lead to defeat.

graymatters 3y ago

That’s simply a wrong set of assumptions that have no historical substantiation. Tolerance for casualties was at a different level during both WWs. It is only after the horrors of WW2 that the western world became fearful of casualties. And the Russians as well, who suffered the largest amount of casualties. That’s why the Cuban missile crisis did not turn into a nuclear war. This is why nuclear mutual deterrence worked.

ffgjgf1 3y ago
> It is only after the horrors of WW2 that the western world became fearful of casualties That’s arguably not true at all. At the beginning of the war the allies were very reluctant to engage in major offensive operations (in hindsight it’s not inconceivable that the French could have won in 1939 while Hitler’s army was busy in Poland had they been more risk tolerant). The French especially were very fearful of casualties (in WW1 it lost a larger proportion of its male population than even Germany and France had relatively very low birth rates historically making them much harder to replace) That makes sense considering that most of the people in charge were field officers in WW1 and knew the cost their decisions might have. Of course that changed over the next few years since it turned out that there were no other options.