The Saga of Tanya the Evil - Vol. 19 Ch. 54 - The Intervention Which Was Too Late V

Dex-chan lover
Joined
Mar 25, 2019
Messages
490
@Kirin-kun

While your statement on WW1 is correct, I don't think it's the same with YS world.

Although we never see situation before the war began, from what stated about treaty on Linden (can't remember the name, land de jure shared between empire and ScandinavianAlter alliance but de facto empire's), it seems like world has reached its equilibrium and while there are tensions, forces are in direction to avoid open conflict.

It's directly opposite to before WW1, as you have stated and I agreed, which forces are ran with ambition in most places and war is nigh inevitable.

Sure, with all things considered, it seems very likely the world would enter that state sooner or later, but from everyone's opinion on ScandinavianAlter alliance's action (WTFtheyaredoing), I don't think it's.
 
Joined
Jun 4, 2020
Messages
3
Brest is like the north western tip of france facing the atlantic coast. If they are going to north africa, why dont they use mediterranian ports like marseille or toulon? Is it for deception purposes?
 
Power Uploader
Joined
Nov 4, 2018
Messages
2,046
@Hiyoko Almost all troops were in the North, on the Rhine Front.

What would be the point of making them travel all the way to the south to embark on boats ?

Moving troops to Brest was a lot faster and they were under cover of the Albion Kingdom. Whereas if they moved troops to the south (on foot? On train?), they would be vulnerable to aerial attacks and their moves would be obvious.

Albion keeps the Empire navy occupied, while the troops travel by boat to Africa. It's much safer that way.
 
Power Uploader
Joined
Nov 4, 2018
Messages
2,046
@Kalamel actually, we lack information about the pre-war situation.

From what I gathered, the Emperor, or at least the political parts of the Empire, are expansionists and were considered as "aggressive" by the neighboring countries, which led to the war.

We only ever see the military side of the War, with the strategic command, who only view things from the point of "'how to win the war militarily".

A good part of the novel is actually about how Tanya can foresee the problems that strings of military victories are actually worsening the situation, because while the strategic headquarter is full of rational and logical people who know how to win battles, they don't know that by doing so, they create more fear and anger, which progressively leads to the war expanding in scope. And here is the parallel with WWI: ultimately, the U.S. also entered the war, because they didn't want a "giant" in the middle of Europe.
 
Joined
Mar 18, 2019
Messages
27
@Kirin-kun
>while the strategic headquarter is full of rational and logical people who know how to win battles, they don't know that by doing so, they create more fear and anger, which progressively leads to the war expanding in scope.

As expected of a Japanese author, it's also reminiscent of Japan's WW2 pursuit of a decisive battle becoming an attrition problem instead.
 
Dex-chan lover
Joined
Feb 24, 2018
Messages
480
Guess next chapter is where the anime series ended before we get to the movie material
 
Dex-chan lover
Joined
May 10, 2020
Messages
626
First to the rest, actual objective reality is that real national militaries fail to learn from history and make mistakes all the freaking time, with way better intel and more modern warfare and professional institutions then they had at the start of WW1. Look at America and the Iraq war, or Afghanistan. No, there really wasn't any parallel to a modern military evacuating to colonies and continuing a modern war, because you need a huge industrial base and skilled workforce for that. And indeed it wouldn't have worked alone. If that's all that had happened Francois would lose. What the Empire missed wasn't precedent there, but geopolitics. They didn't see how it'd be a rallying point for other countries. That notRussia would get involved after the Empire had already won literally was crazy, and that all these countries that loathe the commies and their horrors would do so as well also made no sense to the rationalists who were running the Empire successfully. Russia and notUSA had no security interests threatened. It was an out of context problem that would be hard to anticipate without knowledge of how thing actually went in the future.

Even all the rest aside.
@rrolo1
the lack of any visible effort to capture or atleast limit the movements of the higher-ups of not-France is baffling. After all, capturing the higher-ups of the enemy is Strategy 101 :p
No, capturing the higher-ups of the enemy is almost never Strategy 101. And I honestly am not clear what you'd be expecting here. A handful of higher ups could be hiding anywhere across 150,000-200,000 square miles, or have already left by aircraft. What "effort to capture or limit the movements" would you do at that point? The Empire hasn't actually taken over the country yet, they're only just barely moving in. They don't have high resolution real time spy satellites or drones or whatever. They're directly applying the lessons they've been learning the previous years, actual Strategy 101: individuals aren't important vs strategic locations or human and industrial resources. No enemy commander no matter how brilliant can beat an overwhelming logistical disadvantage.

The Francois tried the same thing in fact, the UK saw it, and Empire High Command saw the same threat and bait potential: the Empire's own industrial region. The Francois weren't worried about capturing the Empire leadership as Step 1, they were focused on industrial output. If that had fallen, it'd have been over. The Empire made their big bet using that as bait, but it worked because it was indeed really important.

Basically the Empire would have had to get everything nearly perfect here to stop it. They'd have had to have the kind of perfect intelligence which almost never happens, and may not even be possible in a scenario like that when the enemy is making fast plans on the fly in their own territory with a very, very limited selection of their military/government. They'd have had to have been setting up diplomacy with the US and/or UK, which may have been impossible by that point anyway too. They'd have had to have had their navy or army at all the right places, but may well have lacked the resources by that stage to do that. If they ever had them at all, because the UK Navy is vastly superior and was actively interfering. They'd have had to have been immune to savoring even a bit of a stunning military victory and related public sentiment. It's not just a matter of "learning from the 1800s" (which had all sorts of "lessons" that would be actively harmful anyway too), it's what they could even manage to do after years of total war and through the fog of war.
 
Dex-chan lover
Joined
Mar 25, 2019
Messages
490
@Kirin-kun

Indeed we lack information. In my understanding, empire's perceived aggressiveness is due to its history and prewar empire know it can't really afford a large war, as it know it's too big to defend properly, and has to resort to internal mobilisation strategy. But again, it's my understanding and I would need to reread the novel if I have to ascertain them.

From reasons behind Londinum treaty (one that ScandinavianAlter breached), it is also my understanding that the empire, at least diplomatic branch, know that they're on the verge to be too big. But as you said, it seems like that at very least, imperial HQ don't know how to deescalate and withdraw from conflict it didn't start. Or, at worst, secret aimed for a casus beli, which was swiftly denied, and don't know how or just unwilling to turn back to status quo.

From discussion around UK of Albion, the Republic also seems to be in the same situation, except that they somehow decided to play around with the idea of "escalate to deescalate". There is no need to explain that it backfire badly.
 
Joined
Jun 4, 2020
Messages
3
@Kirin-kun
That makes total sense. They also mentioned UK's navy were "excercisesing" which obviously serve as a cover for french naval activities.

And of course the french can land on north african atlantic ports like casablanca, assuming they are part of french possesion just like irl.
 
Double-page supporter
Joined
Apr 6, 2020
Messages
164
We did it!! Frances is no more
f1f.jpg
 
Dex-chan lover
Joined
Dec 30, 2019
Messages
376
@mahtan

It's not about who is right and who is wrong. It made sense for not-France to attack not-Germany. Better strike before they get even more powerful, because if they don't, 10 years later they will be completely outrun. At the time of WW2, France's population was 42millions, compared to 70millions for Germany. And Germany is right at the doorstep of France, which is protected on every other sides by harsh mountains except on the north : it's fucking flat. Germans united are naturally way stronger than France. Invading not-Germany then dislocating it in protectorates/small kingdoms was the smarter move here. Not-UK was interested because they don't want neither not-France nor not-Germany to become too powerful.
 
Active member
Joined
Feb 5, 2018
Messages
643
@zanonyn

I have the clear impression you are misundertanding what I said about capturing the enemy higher-ups as Strategy 101. I did not meant you should gear everything to capture the king/PM/whatever . I mean that the ultimate goal of a war is to have someone considered legitimate by the other side willing to talk in favourable terms with you ( or no one to contest you , if you prefer total war ). All about war is about that , even nixing the enemy industrial capability ( better surrend now while you still can, because you can't cope with any loses you will have from now on ). The issue about that is that ... you need someone to come to the negotiating table and to aquiesce with your demands, otherwise you'll be left with a ungovernable piece of land filled with potential ( or not ) hostiles to deal with, that you can either abandon to its own fate or try to do something about , neither of them being something that we know the Empire is fond of regarding not-France.
And that is the flaw I point to the Empire High command: in spite of historical precedents ( that we could argue for days if they were valid or not, but they were there regardless ), they failed to ensure that someone that would be heard by the not-French would be there to surrender to them. For heavens sake, even that non-genius rulling RL life Germany in 1940 did all he could to cut the roads to Spain and Switzerland ASAP after Dunkirk ( sure he could not do much to cut the channel ferries ... that is why De Gaulle ended up in London ) ...

About you saying that you were unsure what I was asking about, let me just point that the Empire at two times during the last chapters had the 203th in position to strike at Parisi and deal some kind of devastating blow to the enemy leadership ( either by straight up killing some of them or making some overwhelming show of force against some people in charge or symbolic places ( or maybe a couple of strategic bridges and roads as well ) ... ) to convince them to negotiate before they actually got to Parisi in force and ... did not. That is jarring given the care they had to incapacitate the regional Rhine HQ not that long ago, a mission planned and sucessfully executed against a still coordinated and able not-France ... and after the 203th having shown to be quite able to operate by itself far beyond enemy lines and on it's own judgement ( like in Dacia, where they almost literally won the war by themselves ). Instead, they send them to Parisi ... as spotters for artilery. That is, no matter how you want to twist it, a bad call.
 
Dex-chan lover
Joined
Jan 26, 2018
Messages
4,654
@RandomnessOfTheMathWorld
I agree it is not about who is right and who is wrong and I said nothing about that. My problem is with the non-france acting like the war is the Empire's fault when they were the ones that attacked the Empire.
 
Dex-chan lover
Joined
May 10, 2020
Messages
626
@rrolo1
I don't agree with you though I'll have to consider more, but fwiw just wanted to say it is fun to have a good natured debate about it and that we can even contemplate it on this level is part of what makes this such a fun series. Thanks for arguing it with me regardless of how it ultimately turns out!
 
Dex-chan lover
Joined
Dec 30, 2019
Messages
376
@mahtan Yes, you play you lose. But on the other hand, the Empire acting like they are the Good Guys because they were cowardly stabbed by those republicans pigs is kinda fucked up to.
 
Fed-Kun's army
Joined
May 22, 2019
Messages
309
@mahtan The thing about war is that once enough blood is spilled, who or what started it is pretty much academic when it is actually going on. Everything is resentment and blood debts from friends and family killed in the bloodbath. Except when it comes to politicians, those guys are just fueling it for their own personal gain, as seen with the idiots who started the war and lost their country as a result.
 
Dex-chan lover
Joined
Jan 6, 2019
Messages
2,889
the french being little rats running away instead of having a spine and defending their homeland just like IRL
 
Joined
Apr 21, 2020
Messages
27
I mean does it matter if they run away or not just make peace with whatever government exists in not Paris and end the war.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top