Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2017 March 3

= March 3 =

Did the Soviets have the strength to defeat Germany without the Western Front?
Curious whether Nazi Germany would've been defeated in a 1v1 with USSR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.102.185.215 (talk) 03:05, 3 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Please refer to the page header, which states, "We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions, or debate." This is a question that World War II historians have discussed extensively; there are plenty of books, courses, etc. to consult. --47.138.163.230 (talk) 04:22, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It would have been more helpful if you pointed towards the relevant books and articles (not sure what "courses" means in this context), rather than quote an irrelevant bit of the page header. --165.225.80.99 (talk) 10:03, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Considering how close Germany came to capturing Stalingrad and then Moscow, it seems they needed some help. In addition to the Western front, there was the African front, the Italian front (until it joined up with the rest of the Western Front), and the US supplying the Soviets, under the Arsenal of Democracy concept.  Note that Germany taking Stalingrad and Moscow wouldn't have knocked the Soviet Union completely out, but it might have made it impossible for them to defeat Germany alone.  StuRat (talk) 04:36, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Not just the US supplying the Soviets. Churchill diverted to Russia all the Hurricane fighters earmarked for Singapore; that didn't end well. Alansplodge (talk) 09:09, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * You would need to make some assumptions. For example, would the Allied supply of the Soviets have happened in this scenario or not? If the Britain Emrpie/Commonwealth and the US were not at war with Germany but were using their combined industrial might to supply the Soviets, the result would probably have been different. And what about Japan? If there was no Western front, France would have been around and able to defend Annam, while British forces might have successfully defended Hong Kong, Malaya and Singapore. If Japan was defeated early, or if Britain/the Commonwealth and the US were not at war with Japan at all, the result would probably have again been different. Or perhaps, seeing greater obstacles to a southern strategy, Japan would have tried harder to fight the Soviets, and thus opened up an Eastern front for the USSR. --165.225.80.99 (talk) 10:03, 3 March 2017 (UTC)


 * How much Allied strategic bombing and the Allied naval blockade contributed to the Axis downfall by degrading their industrial output is another factor.
 * On another tack, two interesting articles: Oversimplification: The Numbers Fallacy in WWII and Statistical confusion – whose troops actually did the fighting in World War Two. The conclusion of the first is that German high-grade divisions were diverted to the western theatres, leaving largely low-grade divisions to slog it out with the largely low-grade Soviet divisions in the east. The second is that comparisons of the number of divisions engaged on the eastern and western fronts are misleading because of the disparity in the size and equipment of those divisions. Alansplodge (talk) 11:45, 3 March 2017 (UTC)


 * What are "the Soviets"? Soviet Red Army land and air forces? Soviet Army, in a continuing pre-D-day situation? Soviet Army, with materiel supply from the West? Soviet Army with Western strategic bombing of German production facilities? Soviet Army against a Germany that has occupied the UK, Egypt and is not at war with the US? I think there's a sizable difference between each of these  - although I think that Stalin's "victory at all costs" meatgrinder would have got there eventually, even without. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:54, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Never mind a 1v1; I think there is a historical consensus that Hitler probably would have defeated the Russians if he did not change his mind from assaulting Moscow to go attack Stalingrad instead.--WaltCip (talk) 13:19, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The Germans could certainly have taken Moscow in 1941, but would that have won them the war? The Soviets had already relocated much of their war industry behind the Urals and the Germans were relying on immense and lengthening supply chains dependant largely horses and carts. So perhaps, as Napoleon found out in 1812, winning Moscow was not winning the war.  Alansplodge (talk) 16:54, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * What's the strategic value of Moscow? The Soviets, as a command economy, were the belligerent most easily capable of enduring the relocation of their capital city (which Napoleon had already burned).
 * What for that matter was the strategic value of Stalingrad? It was not the city that Hitler needed, it was a crossing of the Volga. He became fixated on the real estate of the city and forgot the real prize. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:34, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Point of order. Napoleon did not set the fire.  There are two different traditional narratives, and neither places the blame at Napoleon's feet.  They are 1) The Russians set the fire to fuck Napoleon and his army  and 2) It was an accident due to the abandonment of the city and no one left to put it out..  Either way, Napoleon certainly didn't set the fire.  -- Jayron 32 00:52, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * No, it was always burnin' since the world's been turnin'. --Trovatore (talk) 02:06, 4 March 2017 (UTC)


 * The general view of modern historians is that the German invasion of the USSR was doomed to defeat due to the superiority of the Soviet industrial base and basic competence of the Soviet military (which improved considerably over the war: by 1944/45 Soviet forces were routinely outfighting German forces). The decisive battles of 1941 and 1942 were fought before the arrival of significant amounts of Lend Lease supplies and other support from the Western Allies. By the time the Allies first began to divert sizeable German forces away from the Eastern Front and deliver large quantities of supplies in 1943 the Soviets clearly had the advantage. The general conclusion of historians seems to be that the two front war certainly significantly shortened the conflict, and may have ensured that it ended in the total defeat of Nazi Germany rather than a negotiated peace, but that Germany bit off far more than it could chew in 1941. Nick-D (talk) 03:53, 4 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Soviet competence wasn't all that great, as seen in their poor performance in the Continuation War, where refusal to retreat to a defensible position, when about to be surrounded, cost them many lives and much territory. German losses at Stalingrad may have been more about German incompetence, and particularly that of Hitler, than about Soviet competence.  StuRat (talk) 04:32, 4 March 2017 (UTC)


 * That did used to be the common thinking by historians on the war on the Eastern Front. More recently, the emphasis is on the underlying soundness of Soviet doctrine and equipment and how it was applied once the Army recovered from the purges. Hitler didn't defeat himself. Nick-D (talk) 08:00, 4 March 2017 (UTC)


 * If you look at the poor decisions by the Germans, many initiated by Hitler, it's quite a list. There's the decision to invade Poland, causing the war they would eventually lose.  There's the decisions to invade the Soviet Union and to not take Moscow first.  There's allowing the British evacuation of Dunkirk.  There's the decision to target London during the Battle of Britain, rather than airfields and radar stations, thus failing to establish total air superiority over the English Channel, which was required for invasion.  Then there were many resources spent on massive weapons that did nothing to bring about victory, like the V-1 and V-2 programs and a tank so big it couldn't go over bridges.  Then there's the decision to declare war on the US after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, bringing another combatant into the field against them, and many more poor decisions. StuRat (talk) 14:56, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * To a significant extent WWII was a war of attrition. The biggest countries with the most stuff eventually overwhelmed smaller countries with less stuff. User:Nick-D also makes a good point about Soviet doctrine and equipment -- most notably what German tank general Heinz Guderian described as "the vast superiority of the Russian T-34 to our tanks." Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:14, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Resource for finding locations of paintings by artist?
Is there an online resource that can show or list what museums house works by a certain artist? I've had a few too many trips to art museums only to find out later that a work by a favorite artist was there and I somehow missed it or never thought to look for it in the first place since I didn't know it was there. For instance, something specific like a list of North American museums with Jan van Eyck or Gustav Klimt paintings would be extremely useful. NIRVANA2764 (talk) 21:49, 3 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Note that you not only need to know which museum houses the works, but when they display it, or the work of art may be out on loan, being cleaned, etc., when you visit. I suggest you call before visiting, to confirm that the work you are interested in is currently displayed.  I would be skeptical that any third-party site would be kept up-to-date on when each item is actually displayed. StuRat (talk) 22:28, 3 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I haven't explored it too deeply, but ArtCyclopedia looks promising. -- Jayron 32 02:42, 4 March 2017 (UTC)


 * You probably want to know in advance what is in the museum you are visiting rather than where all of a given artist's works can be found, therefore you would want to scrutinize a museum's online description and if necessary inquire of the museum as to how you can ascertain what is on display on your planned date(s) of visitation. I think it is less likely that you want to know where every artwork by a given artist can be found. But if that is your question that too could be posed to a museum housing some of the artist's works. That might produce an answer or produce a lead as to who or where to ask about this. Museums take their responsibilities seriously as institutions housing and learning about objects of art and disseminating information to the public. Obviously the well-known artists are more likely to be tracked with a high degree of thoroughness. Bus stop (talk) 05:59, 4 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Another resource is Google Arts & Culture. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 14:01, 5 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Also see our article Catalogue raisonné and its "External links". Bus stop (talk) 18:41, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Source of "irrationality" argument
I'm trying to remember where I heard a certain argument. It may have been a work of fiction, but if so, it seemed like the kind of thing that the author thought was serious.

Note that I'm not soliciting opinions on whether the argument makes sense; I just want to figure out where I heard it.

The argument goes something like this:
 * There are no circumstances under which it would advantage the United States to use its strategic nuclear deterrent.
 * Therefore, if the United States is rational, its strategic nuclear deterrent will never be used.
 * The adversaries of the United States can figure this out, so if the United States is perceived as rational, then its strategic nuclear deterrent is of no value.
 * Therefore the United States went to war in Vietnam, to prove to its adversaries that it was not rational.

Does this ring a bell with anyone? It seems to be along the lines of drama theory and confrontation analysis.
 * It's not a fictional philosophy. It's a real one called brinksmanship, which means "prove to your enemies you're crazy enough to end the world, and they'll leave you alone".  John Foster Dulles used it as his primary philosophy of dealing with the Soviets during his time as U.S. Secretary of State. -- Jayron 32 23:29, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I recall something like this being discussed in a game theory class I took in college, regarding rational vs. irrational players. In the context of a grim trigger strategy, such as mutually assured destruction or a doomsday weapon, would any rational player actually follow his own strategy? The reason being that any rational person would prefer bullying by a foreign power, or some of his countrymen being killed, to the literal end of the world. Therefore a foreign power need not worry about retaliation in response to anything short of destroying the opponent utterly. This is apparently discussed at this source, which I cannot access. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:37, 3 March 2017 (UTC)


 * If the US were under an attack with nuclear bombs, why would they not throw nuclear bombs? That won't be the end of the world. Just the end of the attacker. If the war is US/Russia the world would be maybe at a certain risk. But even then, why not take your attacker down, if he wants to destroy you. All other nuclear powers too could be dead sure that they would be ripped off the map if they attacked the US with a nuclear bomb. Hofhof (talk) 23:48, 3 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm not making the argument, just trying to figure out where I heard it. But I think the position of the argument would be that the United States is doomed either way, and so there is no advantage to the United States in destroying the attacker.  I suppose that does depend on what constitutes an "advantage" according to one's value system. --Trovatore (talk) 00:05, 4 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Regardless of who makes the argument, it is still called brinksmanship. -- Jayron 32 00:45, 4 March 2017 (UTC)


 * That was a useful response, Jayron, and I neglected to thank you. So, thank you.  But I'm still trying to figure out where I heard it.  Maybe Dr. Strangelove?  Seems a bit too early for Vietnam. --Trovatore (talk) 01:01, 4 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Sorry not to be able to help you there. I'm afraid Dr. Strangelove would have been my best guess, it was a direct satire of brinksmanship.  As I said, it's not fictional, it's pretty much consensus that it was the foreign policy of the U.S. during the 1950s-1960s.  For the record with regard to Vietnam, the usual justification for that specific war was the domino theory, though rather than Dulles being responsible for that one, McGeorge Bundy and Robert McNamara are usually credited as major proponents of the domino theory as justification for escalation of the Vietnam war.  -- Jayron 32 01:24, 4 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Dr. Strangelove did refer to MAD (although perhaps not by name), but not to Vietnam. StuRat (talk) 01:22, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * At the time it was filmed, the USSR situation was much higher on the radar than Vietnam was. And EO traces the term "brinksmanship" to Dulles in 1956. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:33, 4 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Checking newspapers.com (a pay site, and not all-inclusive), the first occurrence of the word "brinksmanship" they show is in February 1945 - not about war as such, but about the subject of New York and other cities flirting with financial default. The next occurrences they show after that come in August 1956, about the Suez crisis, and referencing Dulles. Early on, it's often enclosed in quotes and given a definition. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:42, 4 March 2017 (UTC)


 * The OP forgot to sign, Trovatore. --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  18:39, 4 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you are referring to the Madman theory of the Nixon administration. 208.90.213.186 (talk) 00:46, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Also possible, thanks. --Trovatore (talk) 05:32, 7 March 2017 (UTC)