As usual, a fascinating piece filled with stuff I hadn't thought about before. In those videos of Tokyo and Hiroshima, I was reminded of a family myth that may be truer than I realized (I need to talk to one of my cousins who lives in N.I. but regularly travels Europe; he's a history teacher): my great grandfather was rescued by the French underground and smuggled back to Britain. He went to his sister's home (they had evacuated) and fell into a deep sleep. When he woke up, the house he was in was the only one left standing on the street.
I'm reading a massive biography of Churchill now who is more thought about by the general population for WWII then WWI.
He participated in the last major cavalry charge at the Battle of Omdurman in 1898. When he was head of the Navy, he initiated balloons off ships at the beginning of WWI so sort of created aircraft carriers. And found the $$ for tank development. And then, of course the bomb in 1945. Reading his letters and essays about planning for war and contracts for oil and how he thought of the people he sent to Antwerp and the Dardanelles is a more focused look at your grand sweep.
This is incredibly well researched so, naturally, I have nitpick one minor point I disagree with. The Maginot line worked. It's goal was to force the German invasion through Belgium. This allowed the French army to send it's best soldiers North and leave the less well-equipped and trained ones at the Maginot line. It also put them close to their allies in Britain and Netherland, while forcing the otherwise neutral Belgium to join their side.
Strange Defeat, a French officer's contemporary account of the battle, doesn't mention the Maginot Line. He considers the main failure to be poor communication. No one in the French army knew what was going on, while the Germans were able to use radio effectively. The French were also shocked by the speed of the German tank and plane attacks, since the French saw tanks and planes as defensive weaponry.
Basically, the Maginot line worked as intended. They just messed up the "fighting the war" part
Maybe this is wishful thinking, but I think the Ukraine war has showed us a new way of waging war. Rather than stepping in to fight, we crashed Russia’s stock market.
I could definitely see a future in which war is waged, not by death count, but by globalization (a powerful thing we all need to be part of to be successful). If a country gets cut off from the world, how can they succeed?
I learned so much from this -- thanks! Also those last two videos are sinister. Is anyone else disturbed by the up-beat techno music in "First live firing from the Type-X Robotic Combat vehicle"? Or the narrator's excitement in "Ausa 2021: Military Exhibition"? Feels like watching an ad for a new video game, rather than legitimate killing machines.
As usual, a fascinating piece filled with stuff I hadn't thought about before. In those videos of Tokyo and Hiroshima, I was reminded of a family myth that may be truer than I realized (I need to talk to one of my cousins who lives in N.I. but regularly travels Europe; he's a history teacher): my great grandfather was rescued by the French underground and smuggled back to Britain. He went to his sister's home (they had evacuated) and fell into a deep sleep. When he woke up, the house he was in was the only one left standing on the street.
A Tour de Force.
I'm reading a massive biography of Churchill now who is more thought about by the general population for WWII then WWI.
He participated in the last major cavalry charge at the Battle of Omdurman in 1898. When he was head of the Navy, he initiated balloons off ships at the beginning of WWI so sort of created aircraft carriers. And found the $$ for tank development. And then, of course the bomb in 1945. Reading his letters and essays about planning for war and contracts for oil and how he thought of the people he sent to Antwerp and the Dardanelles is a more focused look at your grand sweep.
This is incredibly well researched so, naturally, I have nitpick one minor point I disagree with. The Maginot line worked. It's goal was to force the German invasion through Belgium. This allowed the French army to send it's best soldiers North and leave the less well-equipped and trained ones at the Maginot line. It also put them close to their allies in Britain and Netherland, while forcing the otherwise neutral Belgium to join their side.
Strange Defeat, a French officer's contemporary account of the battle, doesn't mention the Maginot Line. He considers the main failure to be poor communication. No one in the French army knew what was going on, while the Germans were able to use radio effectively. The French were also shocked by the speed of the German tank and plane attacks, since the French saw tanks and planes as defensive weaponry.
Basically, the Maginot line worked as intended. They just messed up the "fighting the war" part
a minor detail!
Maybe this is wishful thinking, but I think the Ukraine war has showed us a new way of waging war. Rather than stepping in to fight, we crashed Russia’s stock market.
I could definitely see a future in which war is waged, not by death count, but by globalization (a powerful thing we all need to be part of to be successful). If a country gets cut off from the world, how can they succeed?
I learned so much from this -- thanks! Also those last two videos are sinister. Is anyone else disturbed by the up-beat techno music in "First live firing from the Type-X Robotic Combat vehicle"? Or the narrator's excitement in "Ausa 2021: Military Exhibition"? Feels like watching an ad for a new video game, rather than legitimate killing machines.