Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Two years later, on the other side of the globe, the same thing happened when Germany invaded Poland.
True, the Soviets were certainly involved.I do find it interesting that we often miss the fact that the USSR also invaded Poland. Yes, it was a couple of weeks after the German invasion but it wasn't a case of the USSR being "drawn in". The USSR was a co-belligerent with Nazi Germany, based on the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, signed on 23 August 1939. which carved Poland into respective German/USSR "spheres of influence".
True, the Soviets were certainly involved.
However, the Germans had been aiming at Poland for several years before the invasion and the Pact, made a month prior to the invasion.
I did like it when I saw it in the early 2000s. In my opinion, it was one of the best Western movies about the Eastern Front.Dimlee, speaking of sniper stories, what is your opinion of the American-made Enemy at the Gates (2001)?
I think there is a tendency to simplify the politics of the Second World War to a reductive Germany/Italy/Japan against everyone else. In truth, its much messier and complicated. Prior to the agreement with Nazi Germany, the USSR had reached out to establish treaties with the UK and France. When these failed the USSR then pursued relations with Germany. Russia was less interested in an alliance with the Third Reich and more interested in recovering lands lost after WW1 and improving economic conditions. While we often consider Germany and Italy as THE European Axis Powers, there were several other signatories including Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Slovakia, and sympathetic supporters such as Finland. In the Pacific, Thailand was a signatory and ally of the Japanese. A good overview can be found on wikipedia here:I do find it interesting that we often miss the fact that the USSR also invaded Poland. Yes, it was a couple of weeks after the German invasion but it wasn't a case of the USSR being "drawn in". The USSR was a co-belligerent with Nazi Germany, based on the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, signed on 23 August 1939. which carved Poland into respective German/USSR "spheres of influence".
Then I suppose we can say that WWII *technically* started when the Roman Empire started consuming Europe...
However, a more realistic approach, would be to examine the borders established after WWI and the relative order that lasted through mid-1930.
By 1937, Germany started making demands on Poland, putting that nation in an uncomfortable position.
By 1939, the writing was on the wall and it was not a matter of *if* Germany would invade, but when.
I only wrote that it "could justly be described as. . ." but that was only to emphasize that the Soviets bore the largest share of the actual fighting, in contrast to what seems to be the common American view that Great Britain, with massive American help, won the war against Hitler.The east-west division of post-war Europe begins to make some sense in the context of which countries declared war against the Soviet Union or supported the war. It also lends weight to the argument that this was a global war and not a war between Germany and the USSR as originally posted.
I only wrote that it "could justly be described as. . ." but that was only to emphasize that the Soviets bore the largest share of the actual fighting, in contrast to what seems to be the common American view that Great Britain, with massive American help, won the war against Hitler.
No disagreement with that at all. Again, it was all about correcting the false impression that the Eastern Front was some unimportant little sideshow that was happening while the American and British bombers fought the war, and where Colonel Klink might get sent if he didn't do his job well.All depends on how you measure "fighting". Yes, the USSR absolutely did the bulk of the fighting against German ground forces within Russia and during the advance on Berlin. However, the situation was more complex than that. British Empire forces largely defeated German and Italian forces in North Africa and then, with greater American involvement, knocked Italy out of the war. The Royal Navy and Royal Air Force bore the brunt of interdicting German shipping in Europe and the Mediterranean which had a tremendous impact on the ability of Germany to move forces and supplies. Then there's the Allied strategic bombing campaign which the USAAF and RAF inflicted. These actions may not have involved direct engagement with German ground forces but they certainly had a negative impact on Germany's ability to wage war....which certainly affected operations on the Eastern Front.
Having had the opportunity to directly experience how other countries/cultures depict the Second World War, I think what you are trying to "correct' is endemic to all cultures. Some examples:No disagreement with that at all. Again, it was all about correcting the false impression that the Eastern Front was some unimportant little sideshow that was happening while the American and British bombers fought the war, and where Colonel Klink might get sent if he didn't do his job well.
They remainded confined geographically speaking but had political consequences that, as N NevadaK said, were interconnected and go beyond the geography of the conflictHowever, note that the conflicts you listed, remained confined?
When Japan invaded China, it started to draw in nations from outside of the conflict, unlike foreign nationals who volunteered for one side or the other.
Two years later, on the other side of the globe, the same thing happened when Germany invaded Poland. Up to that point, local armed conflicts had remained isolated affairs, but the September invasion resulted in declarations of war from nations outside of the conflict's borders and we know the rest.
Just to note that the USSR kept very close relations with Germany until 1933. The interruption caused by the Nazi's victory was rather short. Attempts to restore relations began in early 1939. The rapprochement began not later than April (according to the documents), it did not depend on the negotiations with other countries. There was a clear and consistent policy.Prior to the agreement with Nazi Germany, the USSR had reached out to establish treaties with the UK and France. When these failed the USSR then pursued relations with Germany.
There are probably books in English about U-2/Po-2. But since Google Translate is getting better and better, you could try this article from the popular Russian source:As a sidebar, I wanted to discuss the contribution of airplanes that I had never heard of when I was learning about P-40s and P-51s and Bf-109s and Zeroes and Dauntlesses. Airplanes like the Polikarpov Po-2 that harrassed the Germans by flying so slow and so close to the ground that the Luftwaffe pilots could hardly reach them.
Found The Battle for Sevastopol on YouTube, and finished watching it today. It can be compared to the American-made Enemy at the Gates but the differences are major. The American film was driven by the duel between the Russian sniper and the German expert sent to kill him. The Russian film included a similar duel, but that was only a brief side plot rather than the main story. My general impression is that the American film is a classic martial duel story--hero vs. villain--while the Russian film deals much more with the fundamental horror of war, and the psychological damage it does to an ordinary person. Rather than thinking that the acting or the material was weak, I found myself thinking that this was almost a documentary of real people in real combat, back when PTSD was called "shell shock" or "combat fatigue." Lyudmila came across as neither a fragile delicate female nor a heroic Amazon warrior, but was simply an ordinary human being faced with more than she could bear.I can't say that the more recent Russian war movies are high cinema, but in the last few months we've watched:
1. T-34 - The opening tank battle scene is pretty good. It gets a little wonky after and the plot is not terribly realistic. Nicely shot and visually worthwhile. Notable for being the third highest grossing Russian film all time.
2. The Battle for Sevastopol - This is an "inspired" by true events story about a female sniper. The lead actress is Yulia Peresild who is a better actress than the material she has to work with. As a side note, she is the actress who recently went to the ISS to film a new movie.
3. Panfilov's 28 Men - Pretty good movie about an event that may or may not have happened. Excellent cinematography and scripted battle scenes.
4. Stalingrad - This is a big movie that is a bit of a hot mess to watch.
There are a few more on our list to watch in the next few months. Older movies that are worth watching are:
1. Only Old Men Are Going Into Battle - 1973, Probably a must for this forum. Depicts the daily lives of Soviet fighter pilots.
2. They Fought For Their Country - 1975, This is a classic war epic. Big Cast with lots of Russian stars. Think the Longest Day in scale.
3. Hot Snow - 1972, focuses on a historic battle in Stalingrad.
and Lastly
4. Come and See - This is a moving film about the toll of the Soviet people in the war. Can be difficult to watch. Frequently referenced as the best/most important Russian film of the war.
There are also some great documents-dramas that are worth watching as well.
Reconciliation of sources is part of learning.The Imperial Japanese Navy had Kawasaki built fleet tankers in five classes:
Akatsuki Maru
Kuroshio Maru
Nissho Maru
Tatakawa Maru
Toa Maru
They were diesel powered, capable of 20 knots and armed with weapons that ranged from naval guns to depth-charges, all having AA defenses. Of course there were other tankers, but the IJN needed tankers that could be an integral part of fleet operations - these were it.
How big an issue where these non-fuel items? Especially for a fleet out for one strike and not a sustained campaign? I mean, my understanding is, that fuel is both bulky and gets substantially depleted on the move, while ammunition is only used in battle. As for foo stuffs, how many cub-meters per crewman and month have to be assumed?Replenishment includes things like food and ammunition.
Sure, you have forward depots to supply your fleet from I would assume? Though currently, we were discussing at-sea replenishment capabilities I believe?The US "strikes" of early 1942 took place over a number of days (only one raid per Island?) but they didn't run back to Pearl after every raid.
If they used the astern fuelling, they could definitely use any other method: bow or alongside. You just need hoses of sufficient length (including spares), couplings and good mooring equipment. Additional manifolds are nice to have. Crew can be trained in a week or so. Actually, the astern (or bow) method has just one advantage over the alongside one - it can be used in a rougher sea condition.The Japanese tankers used the astern fuelling method.