|
Does anyone know if this book is any good? http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/mussolinis-death-march-nuto-revelli/1113895852?ean=9780700619085 Is it too heavy on the technical side? I want something about the lives of the people, not about the Royal Hungarian Army 's tank destroyers model of steering.
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 16:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 07:33 |
|
|
DasReich posted:No. Britain would have found an excuse anyway since their whole foreign policy hinged on a balance of power on the Continent. Fun fact! France was going to violate Belgian neutrality but the Germans beat them to the punch! I thought a good portion of The Guns of August dealt with Britain's hemming and hawing over actually committing more than a minuscule force.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 18:33
|
|
|
The Entire Universe posted:I thought a good portion of The Guns of August dealt with Britain's hemming and hawing over actually committing more than a minuscule force. I got the impression as well that Britain wasn't going to join in on the war if Germany did not violate Belgian neutrality. They might have mustered up the gumption in the event of impending German victory and dominion, but eh, that's getting into alt-history. I also got the impression that France had plans (if not necessarily outright intent) to cross into Belgium and engage German forces prior to their crossing of the Franco-Belgian border, but definitely they weren't thinking about violating Belgian neutrality first, because they knew that'd make the Brits turn on them all too quickly. If anything, Germany was sending lies to the British that the French had crossed over first and the Kaiser was moving to defend Belgium from French perfidy as an attempt to sway the British to their side or at least keep them neutral
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 18:39
|
|
|
If Britain did join in the war, it would have been much later, anyway, and probably would not have escalated to the extent of getting the US involved. France would also have more of a get-out-clause, I think, if the Germans never encroach far upon their territory, so I think more likely Britain would have encouraged the two sides to seek a peace than wade in itself. With the defeat of Russia, Germany essentially would have attained its initial war goals.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 18:49
|
|
|
I honestly wonder where Britain drew that line between accepting the infringement of Belgian neutrality and going to war to defend it (actually to fight German expansion on the continent in order to retain some kind of balance of power), seeing as though there seemed to be a pretty solid question over whether the public would support entering a war on the continent. The more I mull it over the more Belgian neutrality seems like a convenient fig leaf the British hawks basically found in the couch cushions. Britain might have signed onto defending Belgium as a way to deter German ambitions after 1871, but it really seemed like the solemnity had given way to realpolitik by 1914 and Britain was questioning whether they really needed to give a poo poo about that piece of paper. Did they decide on engagement once they got news of how brutal the German occupation/anti-insurgency was? There was references to poo poo like entire villages having all adolescent and adult men brought out into a field and summarily shot because some rear end in a top hat took a potshot from a window somewhere. Or someone heard a car backfire. Or just to make an example. Was war simply conducted in that fashion then? Or did they develop the notion of the 'clean war' (as later codified in Geneva) beforehand and the actions against civilians were just too much to ignore?
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 19:16
|
|
|
German atrocities versus Belgian civilians did not start until days after occupation*, so the British decision to declare war on Germany was (at least on paper) based solely on the actual violation of Belgian neutrality. Popular opinion did turn on the Germans once they had started shooting priests and suspected franc-tireurs (coolest French term I learned from that book), but none of that had quite happened when government took a vote on intervention. * Guns of August taught me that these were deliberate acts designed to silence the population through some sort of doctrine of terror. What the hell, man 
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 19:32
|
|
|
The Entire Universe posted:Was war simply conducted in that fashion then? Or did they develop the notion of the 'clean war' (as later codified in Geneva) beforehand and the actions against civilians were just too much to ignore? I can answer this question. No. Case closed.  OK, jokes aside, the German troops were literally going apeshit in fear of "Franctireurs", as they called enemy Guerilla. As I understand it, during the last war against France, the revolution swooping France literally in the midst of war muddled everything up and the German army abhored the ensuing "dirty" war, even though it was pretty tame compared to what came after. The entire thing during WWI spiraled out of control fast, visiting soldiers back in Germany told everyone of the evil, cowardly enemies hiding behind every bush, which made new recruits nervous and fearful. Add a ludicrous overblown reaction on side of the officers and you have a public-relation (and humanitarian) disaster at your hands.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 19:37
|
|
|
Basically, peacefully occupying things is something Imperial Germany was not at all good at. Like my talents with music only with more horrifying bloodshed!
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 19:43
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:Basically, peacefully occupying things is something Imperial Germany was not at all good at. Like my talents with music only with more horrifying bloodshed! To be fair, it could have been worse. Imagine Imperial Germany trying to occupy a country like the USA, were everyone has a gun. Those poor, German officers would get nightmares from all those Franctireurs hiding in every canyon!
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 20:00
|
|
|
One of my favorite quotes from the Guns of August comes from I think the American ambassador to Belgium. He said something along the lines of "if German claims of franc-tireurs are to be believed, then the Belgians must have spent the last 20 years breeding a race of guerrilla soldiers from the sons of mayors."
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 20:23
|
|
|
Another amusing/horrible story I heard from the occupation was that German officers sometimes "heard" shots coming from wealthy houses, after the occupants were executed, they moved in and took their stuff. Dunno if this just happened a couple times or was a standard practice, but there's no reason to let a massive national struggle get in the way of lining a few pockets!
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 20:25
|
|
|
I'm a pretty big fan of "George, Nicholas, and Wilhelm" as a study in WWI politics. It does a really good job of going over the high level machinations in each country and it is also a pretty entertaining look at the monarchs as people.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 20:27
|
|
|
Libluini posted:To be fair, it could have been worse. Imagine Imperial Germany trying to occupy a country like the USA, were everyone has a gun. Those poor, German officers would get nightmares from all those Franctireurs hiding in every canyon! Everyone had a gun back then in Europe too. Gun control didn't become much of a thing til like the 30s at the earliest.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 20:29
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:Basically, peacefully occupying things is something Imperial Germany was not at all good at. Like my talents with music only with more horrifying bloodshed! Is anyone all that good at occupation? It seems like in the modern era it's more trouble than it's worth for a nation.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 20:32
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:Is anyone all that good at occupation? It seems like in the modern era it's more trouble than it's worth for a nation. Western Europe after WW2 went well because we actually did the occupation right and rebuilt what we blew up for the most part.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 20:35
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:Everyone had a gun back then in Europe too. Gun control didn't become much of a thing til like the 30s at the earliest. That sounds suspect. Everyone never had a gun on the whole continent, let alone one suitable for military operations. Eg. Finnish independence activists had pretty much no useful rifles at the time of Russo-Japanese war despite the country being a hunter's heaven. Japan wanted to support insurgence within the Russian empire so they acquired a boatload of rifles and ammo to be delivered to the insurgents, but the plan failed and the weapons ended up in Russian hands.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 20:48
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:That sounds suspect. Everyone never had a gun on the whole continent, let alone one suitable for military operations. Eg. Finnish independence activists had pretty much no useful rifles at the time of Russo-Japanese war despite the country being a hunter's heaven. Japan wanted to support insurgence within the Russian empire so they acquired a boatload of rifles and ammo to be delivered to the insurgents, but the plan failed and the weapons ended up in Russian hands. I meant it more like the guy I was responding to; its not like literally all Americans have guns now, but they're easy for most people to obtain and way more common than in modern Europe. Id say that was also true of 1914/1870 France.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 21:01
|
|
|
The Entire Universe posted:I honestly wonder where Britain drew that line between accepting the infringement of Belgian neutrality and going to war to defend it (actually to fight German expansion on the continent in order to retain some kind of balance of power), seeing as though there seemed to be a pretty solid question over whether the public would support entering a war on the continent. The more I mull it over the more Belgian neutrality seems like a convenient fig leaf the British hawks basically found in the couch cushions. Britain might have signed onto defending Belgium as a way to deter German ambitions after 1871, but it really seemed like the solemnity had given way to realpolitik by 1914 and Britain was questioning whether they really needed to give a poo poo about that piece of paper. Ironically a war on the continent was the best thing that could happen to the United Kingdom. In the absence of World War I there was a good chance that Britain may have descended into civil war before 1914 was over. Home rule for Ireland was such a contentious issue that there were plots to mutiny in both the army and navy with the regiments in Ireland planning defect to the protestant unionists and certain elements of the navy willing to do he same. Add in the wave of socialist inspired strikes that were building throughout the year cumulating in a Dockers strike that shut down the port of London in the summer of 1914 and the increasingly radicalised suffragette movement that had already began sending letter bombs and it was feared that they were plotting to assassinate government ministers and you have a country on the edge of chaos. Really the crisis and subsequent invasion of "Brave little Belgium" buried any animosity for the duration of the war and bought time for the British establishment to survive.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 21:08
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:Everyone had a gun back then in Europe too. Gun control didn't become much of a thing til like the 30s at the earliest. Sorry, next time I'll remember to add smilies to make the joke obvious.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 21:35
|
|
|
Ghost of Mussolini posted:Where did you read this? The political French leadership completely opposed to violating Belgian neutrality, as they believed that would cause the Belgians to side with the Germans and perhaps even tip Italy to join in. In 1911 Joffre stated before the Superior Council of Defense that "If we violate Belgian neutrality first, we will become the aggressors. England will not join our side; Italy will have the right to declare against us." The French military also probed the British just in case, and received the expected response. France would therefore enter Belgium in the case of war, but only if Germany violated Belgian neutrality first. That poster is literally a German revisionist. His username is after all that of the perpetrates the most infamous massacre in occupied France. Shimrra Jamaane fucked around with this message at 23:39 on Jan 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 23:21
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:His username is after all that of the perpetrates the most infamous massacre in occupied France.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 23:46
|
|
|
Ferrosol posted:Ironically a war on the continent was the best thing that could happen to the United Kingdom. In the absence of World War I there was a good chance that Britain may have descended into civil war before 1914 was over. Home rule for Ireland was such a contentious issue that there were plots to mutiny in both the army and navy with the regiments in Ireland planning defect to the protestant unionists and certain elements of the navy willing to do he same. Add in the wave of socialist inspired strikes that were building throughout the year cumulating in a Dockers strike that shut down the port of London in the summer of 1914 and the increasingly radicalised suffragette movement that had already began sending letter bombs and it was feared that they were plotting to assassinate government ministers and you have a country on the edge of chaos. Really the crisis and subsequent invasion of "Brave little Belgium" buried any animosity for the duration of the war and bought time for the British establishment to survive. Whoa, I had never known that. Could you or other posters flesh out the sociopolitical picture of Europe before World War I?
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 00:25
|
|
|
Ferrosol posted:Ironically a war on the continent was the best thing that could happen to the United Kingdom. In the absence of World War I there was a good chance that Britain may have descended into civil war before 1914 was over. Home rule for Ireland was such a contentious issue that there were plots to mutiny in both the army and navy with the regiments in Ireland planning defect to the protestant unionists and certain elements of the navy willing to do he same. Add in the wave of socialist inspired strikes that were building throughout the year cumulating in a Dockers strike that shut down the port of London in the summer of 1914 and the increasingly radicalised suffragette movement that had already began sending letter bombs and it was feared that they were plotting to assassinate government ministers and you have a country on the edge of chaos. Really the crisis and subsequent invasion of "Brave little Belgium" buried any animosity for the duration of the war and bought time for the British establishment to survive. This is...a touch overboard. They certainly would have continued to see significant uprisings in Ireland and maybe Wales, but a strong suffrage movement and labor unrest doesn't really imply that a "civil war" is imminent.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 00:29
|
|
|
To be fair, civil war did happen, because they shelved home rule for "the duration". It was limited to Ireland itself, but it kept going for quite some time.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 01:09
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:its not like literally all Americans have guns now If people who have multiple guns distributed them to those without you could literally put a gun into every adult pair of hands, though
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 03:00
|
|
|
LimburgLimbo posted:If people who have multiple guns distributed them to those without you could literally put a gun into every adult pair of hands, though But for a significant segment of those people with multiple guns the professed reason they have them is specifically to keep your redistribution scenario from happening.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 03:04
|
|
|
Hey guys im pretty sure americas greatest defense is that it is literally 1/3 of a whole contentent that has friendly neighbors on both sides and the most powerful navy on the planet, not the ability to hand guns to people whole have no desire to shoot people.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 03:09
|
|
|
Also the US navy is literally 5 times as large as the rest of the world combined. The single Chinese "super"-carrier wouldn't even make it out of port if the US had even an inkline of suspicion that it might have hostile intent.
Shimrra Jamaane fucked around with this message at 03:30 on Jan 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 03:28
|
|
|
How does the USMC's air force compare to china's air force?
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 03:33
|
|
|
Its not even a super carrier. Its dinky compared to the US carriers.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 03:34
|
|
|
I've heard that the Chinese are, ahem, small. In the pants.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 03:36
|
|
|
Agean90 posted:Hey guys im pretty sure americas greatest defense is that it is literally 1/3 of a whole contentent that has friendly neighbors on both sides and the most powerful navy on the planet, not the ability to hand guns to people whole have no desire to shoot people. The sheer material and geographic advantage makes the biggest threat a breakup of the union then? Or does Canada have a good chance if for some reason they wanted to pick a fight?
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 03:46
|
|
|
It didn't hurt that the US was the largest industrial power left unbombed at the end of WWII.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 03:51
|
|
|
veekie posted:The sheer material and geographic advantage makes the biggest threat a breakup of the union then? Or does Canada have a good chance if for some reason they wanted to pick a fight? Are we talking about during the Civil War with Canada and Britain coming in for the Confederates? If you mean in the modern day Canada spends something like 2% of the amount the US spends on their military.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 04:02
|
|
|
I was thinking that given the military spending gap, the biggest non-nuclear threat would be a modern day civil war where the military is split.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 04:12
|
|
|
uPen posted:Are we talking about during the Civil War with Canada and Britain coming in for the Confederates? If you mean in the modern day Canada spends something like 2% of the amount the US spends on their military. That first part would be interesting actually. What would've happened if Britain had decided to make a concerted effort to take back the colonies? Say right after the Napoleonic wars had ended.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 04:14
|
|
|
Jewcoon posted:That first part would be interesting actually. What would've happened if Britain had decided to make a concerted effort to take back the colonies? Say right after the Napoleonic wars had ended. You know the saying, why buy the cow when it's entered into an extremely profitable trading relationship with your industrialists? It's not a very common saying. But they didn't need to re-take the colonies because the Americans were more than willing to sell the Brits the cotton they needed, and deal with the whole "moral hazard" thing of how the cotton was grown. Sure, they had to split some of the profits with American merchants, but that was far cheaper than say, invading to seize control of the cotton trade directly. Especially since the Brits had just spent mad amounts on fighting Napoleon. By the time that the cotton trade from the South fell apart during the civil war, the Brits were able to start production in India and Egypt, thus ensuring their supply and reducing their dependence on foreign cotton. And sure, from a simple balance of power point of view, their elites were rooting for the South, but the slavery thing was really unpopular amongst the British voters. They probably wouldn't have even considered active intervention if it hadn't been for the diplomatic incident, which Lincoln managed to defuse.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 04:26
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:On that note, can I get a recommendation for a good book about the Russian Civil War? I feel like that'd be a good follow-up to my WW1 kick. Dude, good luck. Every book I've ever opened on the Russian Civil War (not many to be fair) has been mega-biased towards one side or the other. The Reds vs Whites thing got super politicized in the Cold War and people picked sides hard. I imagine there is some unbiased history coming out more recently but I have nothing to recommend except caution with your money.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 05:27
|
|
|
Well there's "Ten Days that Shook the World" by John Reed for a first hand account but it is definitely biased. "A People's Tragedy" by Figes is good and relatively unbiased (he dislikes everyone) but there was some scandal involving him and amazon reviews IIRC.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 05:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 07:33 |
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:Well there's "Ten Days that Shook the World" by John Reed for a first hand account but it is definitely biased. "A People's Tragedy" by Figes is good and relatively unbiased (he dislikes everyone) but there was some scandal involving him and amazon reviews IIRC.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 06:27
|
|