|
If you've seen the original cut version of the final scene you know exactly how seriously they were taking it. God-damned heartbreaking.
|
# ? Jan 30, 2014 16:33 |
|
|
# ? May 27, 2024 03:23 |
Arquinsiel posted:If you've seen the original cut version of the final scene you know exactly how seriously they were taking it. God-damned heartbreaking. Is it in the making of in the DVD box set? I've seen it. I can understand why Tony Robinson is biting back at Gove bless him.
|
|
# ? Jan 30, 2014 16:51 |
|
SeanBeansShako posted:Is it in the making of in the DVD box set? I've seen it. I can understand why Tony Robinson is biting back at Gove bless him.
|
# ? Jan 30, 2014 17:02 |
|
There was a version with some sort of scandinavian subtitles on youtube like a month ago.
|
# ? Jan 30, 2014 18:16 |
|
For the curious, here's a little youtube video on gunbreaking a horse: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhWCymdwlHE
|
# ? Jan 31, 2014 00:38 |
|
Ghost of Mussolini posted:In actual military history news (how often does that happen!) Ferguson continues to add to the pile of evidence that makes his naming to Harvard inexplicable. A man who does not understand the difference between "entering the war" and "sending troops" shouldn't comment on military history. Especially someone who should understand the role the Royal Navy played in British strategy. I read that yesterday and was completely flabbergasted. Has that man ever even read a book on WWI?
|
# ? Jan 31, 2014 01:16 |
|
ArchangeI posted:A man who does not understand the difference between "entering the war" and "sending troops" shouldn't comment on military history. Especially someone who should understand the role the Royal Navy played in British strategy. I read that yesterday and was completely flabbergasted. Has that man ever even read a book on WWI? Yeah, he wrote one. I like that his main point is that if Britain didn't join in WWI, they would've kept the old empire? That's a solid, bias-free and inoffensive stance.
|
# ? Jan 31, 2014 01:40 |
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:Yeah, he wrote one.
|
# ? Jan 31, 2014 02:59 |
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:I like that his main point is that if Britain didn't join in WWI, they would've kept the old empire? It is? Where are you seeing this? I mean, honestly, I'm not seeing what is so extraordinary and/or offensive about anything that guy says, at least based on the posted article.
|
# ? Jan 31, 2014 03:06 |
|
bewbies posted:It is? Where are you seeing this? "We should have waited until the Germans beat their main adversaries on land so they can pour their resources, and the ones they have captured, into their fleet. This will allow us to fight on our terms, just like we did against noted proponent of industrialized warfare Napoleon Bonaparte. Also we had no Army in 1914. None. Nada. We had to build one from scratch and send it to France in just a few weeks. We also had to send in the troops the moment we went to war instead of pursuing a blockade. Also all our colonies left because of THE DEBT." I mean, you can argue that British decision making during WWI was flawed, and that it wasn't a noble effort by the otherwise pacifist Brits against the warlike Hun, but arguing that Britain should have stayed out of the war to improve their chances against Germany in a later war is insane. I can not come up with a scenario where a quick German victory against France means that the continental balance of power shifts to a more favorable arrangement for Britain. His main argument was that sending an army in France wasn't a good idea (debatable) and that Britain should have used its naval supremacy better (probably true). Except somehow that means that Britain should stayed out of the war entirely, instead of declaring war and blockading.
|
# ? Jan 31, 2014 03:37 |
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:Yeah, he wrote one. It's also wrong in every important respect. WARNING: BIG WALL OF TEXT I can't give a blow by blow Fisking of Ferguson's idiotic swill because my library is currently boxed up in my garage and I haven't actually read The Pity of War, but I'm familiar enough with the main thrust of it all that I can safely describe it as garbage. OK, first of all he totally ignores the naval rivalry between Britain and Germany before the First World War. If a student turned in a paper to me on the origins of the First World War and omitted this, I would fail them immediately. German sailors drank regular toasts lustily hoping for Der Tag when the High Seas Fleet would sortie and defeat the British battle fleet in a reverse Trafalgar in the North Sea. The Kaiser was obsessed with sea power. Admiral Tirpitz was one of the key men who shaped German history as a whole in the two decades before August 1914. The German Army Command and the other hawks during the July Crisis went through quite a bit of trouble to give crucial mobilizing orders and such like when the Wilhelm and the fleet were on a cruise in Norwegian waters, because they thought Tirpitz and the Kaiser would want to hold off on military action out of fear of the superior strength of the Royal Navy (irony or ironies, the service which had done the most to damage Anglo-German relations had a better understanding of British feelings than anyone else). Second of all, Ferguson pins the whole of the collapse of Anglo-German relations on Sir Edward Grey, the Liberal Foreign Secretary, claiming he led a cabal to bring Britain around into opposition to Germany because Reasons (and because he was from a political party that Ferguson hates). This is preposterous. When he first took over as Foreign Secretary, he was interested in better relations with Germany, or at least trying to find common ground. Want proof, here's an excerpt from a January 1906 letter from Grey to the Prime Minister, Henry Campbell-Bannerman, discussing British actions during the recent Algeciras Crisis: Sir Edward Grey to Henry Campbell-Bannerman, 9 January 1906, Add MS 41218, f. 49-50, Campbell-Bannerman MSS, British Library posted:In more than one part of the world I find ... that Germany is feeling after a coaling station in a port. Everywhere we block this. I am not an expert in naval strategy, but I doubt whether it is vy important ... to prevent Germany getting ports at a distance from her base; and the moment may come when timely admission, that it is not a cardinal object of British policy to prevent her having such a port, may have great pacific effect. That sure sounds like a man doing all he can to poison the Anglo-German diplomatic well, doesn't it? Never mind that in the fallout from Wilhelm's congratulatory telegram to Paul Kruger after the Boers defeated the Jameson Raid had led to such a crisis between Germany and Britain that a "Flying Squadron" of warships had been assembled in case the balloon went up. Never mind that since at least 1903 the Admiralty had been drawing up potential operational plans for a war with the German Navy. Never mind that Tirpitz mentioned the Royal Navy by name in his own memoranda leading up to the devising of the German Navy Laws in 1898. Never mind all that, Sir Edward Grey is obviously the villain of the story. I mean, he had to be, he was a Liberal. Third of all, Ferguson (I believe) interprets a meeting of the Committee of Imperial Defence in August 1911 (amidst another Moroccan Crisis, the Agadir Incident) as being the point where the sinister cabal of evil Liberal politicians decided they would throw in with France in a continental war and destroy the Empire in the process. Bull loving poo poo. I've read the minutes of that conference and nothing of the sort happened. Hell, here's my own description of events taken direct from my own loving Ph.D thesis. Footnotes are missing, sorry. Me posted:Agadir OK, so that's how the conference went down. It's important to note that at no point did the C.I.D. make a firm decision on committing the B.E.F. to the continent. In fact Asquith and his Cabinet wouldn't make a final decision until after the First World War had begun. However, the real significance of this conference is that the Admiralty presented what looked like a suicidal proposal (whether it was or not can be argued) while the Army's plan as presented had a professional polish and was expounded on expertly by General Wilson. The Navy in effect ceded their previous primacy in terms of war strategy. From this moment on the British Army had established that they would pursue a strategic policy completely separate from what the Royal Navy had planned. Anyone who says otherwise hasn't actually read the loving conference minutes at the National Archives in Kew. Which is a shame as there's only 14 or 15 pages of them to read. There's a lot more, including how his fingering Sir Edward Grey as the villain is basically just filing the serial numbers off a similar condemnation of Winston Churchill for not negotiating peace with Hitler in late 1940, which would somehow magically have saved the empire because, essentially, Hitler would've killed off the Soviet Union and then Germany and Britain could've fended off the monster that destroyed the Empire: the United States. So yeah, Niall Ferguson is a flatulent, pinheaded, morally bankrupt imbecile and HEGEL has a friend's sister who dated him (while he was married!) and ended up throwing his clothes [amongst other things] into the street from Vincent Van Goatse fucked around with this message at 05:05 on Jan 31, 2014 |
# ? Jan 31, 2014 04:55 |
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:So yeah, Niall Ferguson is a flatulent, pinheaded, morally bankrupt imbecile and HEGEL has a friend who dated him (while he was married!) and ended up throwing his clothes into the street from her window. Edit: And it was all of his things, from his apartment window. She found out he was married. HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 05:03 on Jan 31, 2014 |
# ? Jan 31, 2014 04:58 |
|
a travelling HEGEL posted:That was her sister, but yes. I want to shake that lady's hand and buy her a drink.
|
# ? Jan 31, 2014 05:06 |
|
The War of the World is so loving dumb it's one of the only history books I've had to throw out because I couldn't give it away.
Dreylad fucked around with this message at 05:54 on Jan 31, 2014 |
# ? Jan 31, 2014 05:27 |
|
There is a Japanese history thread if you guys want to talk about things that have to do with samurais and ninjas and stuff! http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3605918
|
# ? Jan 31, 2014 05:52 |
|
bewbies posted:It is? Where are you seeing this? Ferguson seems genuinely wistful whenever he speaks of the empire and its offputting. I've read The Pity of War by him, and in one section covering the casualties sustained Commonwealth and colonial forces, he beams with patriarchal pride when he talks about how many Australians died in proportion to their population. It seems very inappropriate to take that attitude, when discussing thousands dead out of state obligation. He also claimed that the Brits and Germans in the trenches hated the poo poo out of each other. He dismisses letters and accounts of mercy and humanity as freak occurrences that happened to get logged. But his proof that the trench war was a frenzy of bile and rage... is a bunch of letters and personal accounts. According to his book, the highest proportional losses suffered by any state in WWI was by Serbia, with 24% of 17-45 year old men dead. Here's a thing from earlier in the thread? Or the last? It's about the problematic tactics of Austria-Hungary in the Serbian campaign. https://archive.org/stream/howaustriahungar00reis#page/n0/mode/1up
|
# ? Jan 31, 2014 06:33 |
|
Don't say "problematic" when you mean "criminal."
|
# ? Jan 31, 2014 14:52 |
|
I'm Crap posted:Don't say "problematic" when you mean "criminal." Absolutely. "problematic tactics" is not the same as "repeated atrocities" or "frequent war crimes" if you want to moderate your tone a bit.
|
# ? Jan 31, 2014 15:07 |
|
How is Ronald Asch's 'The Thirty Years War: The Holy Roman Empire and Europa 1618-48'. Please tell me it's good.
|
# ? Jan 31, 2014 15:50 |
Dreylad posted:The War of the World is so loving dumb it's one of the only history books I've had to throw out because I couldn't give it away. I heard it makes decent paper for the toilet.
|
|
# ? Jan 31, 2014 16:08 |
|
ArchangeI posted:"We should have waited until the Germans beat their main adversaries on land so they can pour their resources, and the ones they have captured, into their fleet. This will allow us to fight on our terms, just like we did against noted proponent of industrialized warfare Napoleon Bonaparte. Also we had no Army in 1914. None. Nada. We had to build one from scratch and send it to France in just a few weeks. We also had to send in the troops the moment we went to war instead of pursuing a blockade. Also all our colonies left because of THE DEBT." I suppose I simply disagree (and, in turn, agree with that guy). WWI was absolutely devastating to Britain, both economically and socially, and they really gained very little in exchange for that sacrifice. The easiest scenario wherein they'd wind up with a "favorable arrangement" that I can come up with is them behaving basically like the US did through the first half of the war: sell unholy amounts of war stuff to the participants, grow fat on the profits while expanding your industrial base continue expanding your fleet, work out a useful peace with the German Empire once the war is over. edit - I should add that I've never heard of this guy nor anything else he's written, I'm commenting only on that linked interview.
|
# ? Jan 31, 2014 16:25 |
|
WW1 was really the moment when the citizens of all nations involved should have risen up and hanged their leaders. No one really gained anything from the whole ordeal.
|
# ? Jan 31, 2014 16:35 |
|
We did, and we did. Sort of.... Also America made out like bandits.
|
# ? Jan 31, 2014 16:41 |
|
Kemper Boyd posted:WW1 was really the moment when the citizens of all nations involved should have risen up and hanged their leaders. No one really gained anything from the whole ordeal. OUR monarch was deposed and executed as a consequence. I don't know if that really improved anything militarism-wise, though...
|
# ? Jan 31, 2014 16:46 |
|
Arquinsiel posted:Also America made out like bandits. 20th century.txt
|
# ? Jan 31, 2014 17:37 |
|
Kemper Boyd posted:WW1 was really the moment when the citizens of all nations involved should have risen up and hanged their leaders. No one really gained anything from the whole ordeal. Lenin? Is that you???? Also the French kinda tried their hand at it.
|
# ? Jan 31, 2014 18:00 |
|
Arquinsiel posted:We did, and we did. Sort of....
|
# ? Jan 31, 2014 18:11 |
|
Were there really any seriously influential pacifist voices in the whole thing? From what I gather, as much as everyone hated being in the trenches, nobody really wanted to not wage the war and it enjoyed an overwhelming popular support throughout most of the involved nations (one big exception being Russia) until the later stages. Is this correct?
|
# ? Jan 31, 2014 19:22 |
|
Britain did not want to enter the war and it took the violation of Belgian neutrality for them to do so. The thread has had a conversation before on whether or not they still would have joined on the side of the Entente once France was on the verge of / past the point of defeat as a "balance of power" measure, but that's ultimately alt-history talk. === Airplane questions because I've been hooked on War Thunder for a straight week now: 1. Was the Bf-109 an example of Germany coming up with a good standard design and mass producing it, the way alt-history always wished they did with Panzer IVs, or was it a case of sticking around with a design for longer than they should have because the FW-190 took so long to develop? 2. Did the RAF perform markedly different during Case Yellow compared to the Battle of Britain? If so, was it just a case of inexperience or was there a particular other reason? I'm thinking maybe the different battlefield (e.g. no English Channel) had to have mattered. I'm wondering because IIRC it was a thing in The Gathering Storm and Churchill's War that the BEF and GQG kept begging for more fighters to be sent to the continent. 3. Armee de l'air: Boom-and-zoom or turn fighters?
|
# ? Jan 31, 2014 19:41 |
|
gradenko_2000 posted:2. Did the RAF perform markedly different during Case Yellow compared to the Battle of Britain? If so, was it just a case of inexperience or was there a particular other reason? I'm thinking maybe the different battlefield (e.g. no English Channel) had to have mattered. I'm wondering because IIRC it was a thing in The Gathering Storm and Churchill's War that the BEF and GQG kept begging for more fighters to be sent to the continent.
|
# ? Jan 31, 2014 20:07 |
|
The Entire Universe posted:Embarrassed to say the first place I heard this line was in Civ 5. Bringing this thing from two pages ago,but whatever. Germany really wasn't an economic powerhouse in those times.It was a powerful country with leading technological sectors (chemical engineering for example) but had a incredible inefficient agricultural sector employing 9 million workers incapable of feeding the country,no petroleum and no raw materials.This prevented a concentration of capital and human resources needed to have a market the size required for huge Ford style factories.German automobile sector was really small and fragmented,with almost artisan shops making very small runs of cars for a very small segment of the population.In the 30's germans were kind of poor compared to english or french,something that fueled a bitter resentment (The master race has no indoor plumbing and only eats potatoes) In peace time Hitler actually tried to set up a huge factory for cars,using whatever spare capital they could find (German economy was spending at a massive rate in weapons) but it was never enough and there wasn't a market for it. Mentioning that not only there was a shortage of demand and capital,but also raw materials to sustain that industry.In 30's you have the massive rearmament programs of the Wehrmacht,Lufftwaffe and Kriegsmarine bleeding the country dry of any kind steel.The needs were so great that production of ammunition had to be stopped for periods of time to save steel for other projects.Aluminium was completely hoarded by the Luftwaffe,the same with high-performance alloys. This obsession with gigantic ford style factories was a very nazi trait that in a 90% of the times backfired badly,they were obsessed with economies of scale (the more you produce,the cheaper it gets)but never achieved the concentration of manpower and capital required to put forward these projects .Very few of these new projects came online for the war.The only one I can remember was the BMW air engine factory but it was a small affair capable of producing a 1000 engines a month (I think) and the chemical plant close to Auschwitz (still working today) quote:1. Was the Bf-109 an example of Germany coming up with a good standard design and mass producing it, the way alt-history always wished they did with Panzer IVs, or was it a case of sticking around with a design for longer than they should have because the FW-190 took so long to develop? A may be wrong ,but the problem was that the Bf-109 was that they were capable of producing a ton of planes thanks to the economies of scale and were a really refined designs with lot of experienced workers working on them,changing that infrastructure to produce a new airframe,rework the lines and wait for the workers to gain experience would have been a disaster with the increasing needs of airframes. They needed numbers and only were capable of getting them producing an old plane. hump day bitches! fucked around with this message at 20:46 on Jan 31, 2014 |
# ? Jan 31, 2014 20:38 |
|
gradenko_2000 posted:1. Was the Bf-109 an example of Germany coming up with a good standard design and mass producing it, the way alt-history always wished they did with Panzer IVs, or was it a case of sticking around with a design for longer than they should have because the FW-190 took so long to develop? The 109 was a magnificent aircraft and a real piece of genius design (as were its engines, which were pretty critical to its success). It faced off against an extremely wide variation of tasks: in the west, intercepting bombers and fighting fast long range escort fighters at extreme altitudes, in the east fighting flying tanks and super-dogfighters at low level. Really, it did fairly well in both roles. The E variant was one of the best (maybe the best) air superiority fighters in the world in 1940, the K variants could hold their own simultaneously against P-51s and Yak-3s (two vastly different and very specialized designs) in 1945. That being said it had some pretty big limitations, its poor range being the biggest. It was hard to fly and wasn't made for a mass of average pilots like the USAAF planes generally were, and it didn't have much of a multi-role capability. The 190 might be more of what you're thinking (a "jack of all trades" type of thing), but the 109 certainly had a role to play throughout the war. quote:2. Did the RAF perform markedly different during Case Yellow compared to the Battle of Britain? If so, was it just a case of inexperience or was there a particular other reason? Dowding very controversially held back much of his fighter force for the upcoming battle he knew was coming, and rightfully so...had he sent more fighters to France, the UK very well might have lost control of the air over southern England during the Battle. That said, it is pretty difficult to assess their performance in France...they had some terrible equipment (Fairey Battle lol), outdated tactics, inexperienced personnel, and they were facing off against what was at that time the world's best air force. I'm not sure that anyone could have done "well" in that scenario (maybe the Japanese for alt-history sake).
|
# ? Jan 31, 2014 21:02 |
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:Absolutely. "problematic tactics" is not the same as "repeated atrocities" or "frequent war crimes" if you want to moderate your tone a bit. I'm not a Habsburg apologist. They are indeed war crimes.
|
# ? Jan 31, 2014 22:09 |
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:I'm not a Habsburg apologist. They are indeed war crimes. I never implied you were. I just said you should use appropriate terms for the subject, and suggested some alternatives. If I thought you were writing apologia I would've told you to get the gently caress out.
|
# ? Jan 31, 2014 23:40 |
|
bewbies posted:It faced off against an extremely wide variation of tasks: in the west, intercepting bombers and fighting fast long range escort fighters at extreme altitudes, in the east fighting flying tanks and super-dogfighters at low level. What do you mean by flying tanks in this context? Surely not one of these? Seems like it'd be easy pickings for any fighter worth its salt.
|
# ? Feb 1, 2014 00:08 |
|
Airborne tanks are not, in any way, prepared for air combat. I'm pretty sure he meant heavily armoured aircraft.
|
# ? Feb 1, 2014 00:10 |
|
gradenko_2000 posted:
They did not mass produce it, at least while it might have mattered. German aircraft production was stagnant until well into 1943. Manufacture remained mostly in the hands of the pre-war aircraft industry which was inefficient and corrupt and tried to keep the big industrial works like Volkswagen and Opel out. A 50% increase in workers only saw production rise 15%. Metals lost in production of engines rose to over half a tonne per unit (twice that of British engines), some of it going into Willy Messerschmitt’s side line of making aluminium ladders and frameworks for grape growers, which he pursued while receiving furious letters from commanders losing pilots to frequent wing and undercarriage failures. The millions of francs worth of new American machine tools seized in France had been stockpiled and forgotten about. The 60+ sub variants of the 109s E,F,G models cost 20% of production capacity and chaos for field workshops. Massive resources were invested in the He 177, Me 210, Me 209(2) and Ju 288 for little return.
|
# ? Feb 1, 2014 00:16 |
Frostwerks posted:What do you mean by flying tanks in this context? Surely not one of these? Seems like it'd be easy pickings for any fighter worth its salt. I think he is talking about the IL-2 series of ground attack fighters.
|
|
# ? Feb 1, 2014 00:35 |
|
Frostwerks posted:What do you mean by flying tanks in this context? Surely not one of these? Seems like it'd be easy pickings for any fighter worth its salt.
|
# ? Feb 1, 2014 00:35 |
|
|
# ? May 27, 2024 03:23 |
bewbies posted:The 109 was a magnificent aircraft and a real piece of genius design (as were its engines, which were pretty critical to its success). It faced off against an extremely wide variation of tasks: in the west, intercepting bombers and fighting fast long range escort fighters at extreme altitudes, in the east fighting flying tanks and super-dogfighters at low level. Really, it did fairly well in both roles. The E variant was one of the best (maybe the best) air superiority fighters in the world in 1940, the K variants could hold their own simultaneously against P-51s and Yak-3s (two vastly different and very specialized designs) in 1945. Also the intake tract on a late-war 109 went something like supercharger -> intercooler -> 2nd supercharger -> methanol injection. Which is just and I don't give a poo poo how obsolete it was by that point.
|
|
# ? Feb 1, 2014 02:57 |