|
LimburgLimbo posted:In that period many people referred to any SMG as a Tommy Gun. Keep in mind the Thompson was one of the first successful SMGs, especially in the US where it entered public consciousness more than just about any single firearm ever. It's the same as how people say Kleenex instead of facial tissue. Though it does make me wonder how the Tommy gun would have entered Soviet consciousness since a lot of its fame was tied to being a gun used by gangsters. Did the Soviets make much propaganda hay out of mafia-related crime and violence? It seems like it'd be pretty easy, "look whats happening in the capitalist world, they have all these gangs running around killing people left and right, isn't it so nice we have Comrade Stalin in charge keeping you safe from this gangsterism that's taken hold in the west?"
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 14:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 08:11 |
|
|
They did it all the time. I've seen a 1950s Polish newsreel that touches on the subject, I can grab it and provide translation later. EDIT: wasn't Tommy Gun's main appeal the fact that most Americans of the period would have probably held one in their own hands either during the war or in a boot camp?
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 14:29
|
|
|
Pornographic Memory posted:Though it does make me wonder how the Tommy gun would have entered Soviet consciousness since a lot of its fame was tied to being a gun used by gangsters. Did the Soviets make much propaganda hay out of mafia-related crime and violence? It seems like it'd be pretty easy, "look whats happening in the capitalist world, they have all these gangs running around killing people left and right, isn't it so nice we have Comrade Stalin in charge keeping you safe from this gangsterism that's taken hold in the west?" Remember: Crime in a capitalist country happens because the realities of economic exploitation force people to break the (blatantly rigged in favor of the ruling class) law. Crime in a Communist country happens because of personal defects, poor class-consciousness and problematic upbringing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 14:32
|
|
|
It could be also a translation thing, going for accessibility or just being mistaken since they both look similar. If you give me an instance when tommy gun is mentioned, I can try to check how it's called in the original. I ain't searching for it myself, because gently caress Solzhenitsyn.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 14:38
|
|
|
Yeah I don't have an original Russian version of Ivan Denisovich handy but that could easily just be a translation of some Russian term for a submachine gun, rather than referring specifically to a Thompson.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 14:39
|
|
|
Tevery Best posted:They did it all the time. I've seen a 1950s Polish newsreel that touches on the subject, I can grab it and provide translation later. Maybe after the war but it definitely had some notoriety predating the war for its association with Prohibition-era gang violence, most notably in the St. Valentine's Day Massacre. The Thompson was not manufactured until 1921, precluding any chance of WWI service, and the number of Americans serving in the interwar period would have been a very small.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 14:42
|
|
|
cheerfullydrab posted:That day in the life of mercenaries post made me want to rewatch The Last Valley for the millionth time. drat, I love that movie. Is that from that point in movie history where everything is really slowly paced and nothing makes sense?
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 15:23
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:Is that from that point in movie history where everything is really slowly paced and nothing makes sense?
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 15:50
|
|
|
The review on wikipedia is nice: George MacDonald Fraser wrote in 1988, "The plot left me bewildered - in fact the whole bloody business is probably an excellent microcosm of the Thirty Years' War, with no clear picture of what is happening and half the cast ending up dead to no purpose. To that extent, it must be rated a successful film. ... As a drama, The Last Valley is not remarkable; as a reminder of what happened in Central Europe, 1618-48, and shaped the future of Germany, it reads an interesting lesson."
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 16:30
|
|
|
My brother just gifted me 1914-1918, by David Stevenson. How is it? I have been looking for a comprehensive overview of WWI so if it is good, that would be great.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 17:46
|
|
|
Pornographic Memory posted:Maybe after the war but it definitely had some notoriety predating the war for its association with Prohibition-era gang violence, most notably in the St. Valentine's Day Massacre. The Thompson was not manufactured until 1921, precluding any chance of WWI service, and the number of Americans serving in the interwar period would have been a very small. In Ireland during the interwar period it had a strong IRA connotation, and a lot of them were vaguely lefty, right? The way I heard tell was that some of its first use was in street fighting in Ireland.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 17:49
|
|
|
Azran posted:My brother just gifted me 1914-1918, by David Stevenson. How is it? I have been looking for a comprehensive overview of WWI so if it is good, that would be great. I haven't read that but A World Undone by G.J. Meyer is absolutely fantastic if you're looking for a single volume history.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 18:56
|
|
|
I learned from @RealTimeWWII that today is also the anniversary of the end of the (second) Siege of Sevastopol in 1942 This would just be one week into the launch of Fall Blau with German forces reaching the city of Voronezh.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 19:14
|
|
|
This'd also be the anniversary of the surrender of the Confederate garrison at Vicksburg, Mississippi, to American forces under Grant. This secured total American control of the Mississippi river and is basically the "other shoe" (the first being Lee's defeat at Gettysburg yesterday) in what's often considered the turning point of the ACW.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 19:21
|
|
|
Hey guys, what happened to the Ottoman Empire? The way I understand it is that they fought in WWI, got invaded at Gallipoli, held that really convincingly and pushed the allies back into the sea - and then ??? and the Ottoman Empire gets carved up into ten different pieces. What actually happened there? I've legitimately got no idea. And why did the Ottomans lose so much territory and have their nation basically annihilated when Germany got off with just some payments?
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 02:11
|
|
|
The Ottomans sort of won at the Gallipoli; then the successful commanders got their hands full trying to hold back the Russians, and at the same time the British decisively won (with some setbacks in Iraq) the Mesopotamian and Palestinian fronts. Also the military cadres of the Ottoman army were largely in favor of overthrowing the current regime. The WWI followed a period of several decades long rebellions against the Turkish rule, so reducing the Empire to a smaller Turkish state made a lot of sense. Turkey simply wasn't able to keep its periphery in line any longer. Just prior to the WWI, Turkey lost control over parts of the Balkans and the Italian Africa. Ultimately the Sultanate agreed upon territorial restructuring of the former empire, and when Atatürk established a republican insurgency in Ankara to fight against Greece and the Allies, he subscribed to wholly liberal and modern-European ideas that made regaining of the Ottoman Empire a foolish goal at best. steinrokkan fucked around with this message at 02:26 on Jul 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 02:22
|
|
|
Thanqol posted:What actually happened there? I've legitimately got no idea. And why did the Ottomans lose so much territory and have their nation basically annihilated when Germany got off with just some payments? Germany did lose areas to France, Belgium, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Lithuania and (gasp) Denmark.  But Germany was largely a monoculture, and some Bavarian Soviet Republic wasn't going to get sympathies in Versailles the same way that Polish nationalists did. Austria-Hungary is a closer comparison to the multi-ethnic jigsaw puzzle that the Ottoman empire was, anyway. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 03:25
|
|
|
In case you didn't see it in the news, Louis Zamperini died. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Zamperini
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 03:45
|
|
|
A friend of mine claimed that not only did blacks fight for the south in the Civil War, but were allowed to become officers while the US prevented them. On a scale of 1 to Calhoun, how full of poo poo is that?
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 05:19
|
|
|
Potato
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 05:36
|
|
|
Thanqol posted:Hey guys, what happened to the Ottoman Empire?  Basically this happened. There was a whole post-WWI war that Turkey won to keep its modern borders. Basically the OE was barely holding together, and had significant bits fall off mid-war either due to uprisings (ala Arabia) or, you know, the genocide thing. The OE signed the treaty above, but the Young Turks were able to reset to modern borders along surprisingly reasonable ethnic lines for the ME, Kurdish minority aside.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 05:50
|
|
|
StashAugustine posted:A friend of mine claimed that not only did blacks fight for the south in the Civil War, but were allowed to become officers while the US prevented them. On a scale of 1 to Calhoun, how full of poo poo is that? Mostly poo poo. While there likely were small numbers of blacks fighting for the confederacy by the end of the war, popular opinion was overwhelmingly against the idea of letting blacks fight, lest they feel they were entitled to any rights in the nation secessionists were trying to build, and because nobody wanted the slaves armed. But there were many thousands of blacks who served in various auxiliary and camp staff/servant roles in the Confederate military, but never officially until the last two or three months of the war. And there apparently was a black artillery battalion at 1st Bull Run on the confederate side.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 06:10
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
My missus called me while I was at work to tell me that she got me 'a hitler book'. I expected it to be something really lame and lovely but instead I got John Toland's biography of Hitler. It seems pretty legit, worth reading?
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 07:18
|
|
|
StashAugustine posted:A friend of mine claimed that not only did blacks fight for the south in the Civil War, but were allowed to become officers while the US prevented them. On a scale of 1 to Calhoun, how full of poo poo is that? HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 09:55 on Jul 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 09:51
|
|
|
the JJ posted:
I'm not sure the young Turk bigwigs like Enver Pasha were the most important in founding the Turkish Republic(a lot of them were assassinated by vengeful Armenians it seems), and the creation of the new state along 'surprisingly reasonable ethnic lines' involved the coining of the phrase 'ethnic cleansing'. edit: Gah, got mixed up with the Balkans troubles where the term actually originated. khwarezm fucked around with this message at 13:34 on Jul 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 12:33
|
|
|
There was a free people of color militia formed in Louisiana http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1st_Louisiana_Native_Guard_%28CSA%29 Never saw action and was forced to disband. The confederacy also tried to organize some black units in the last month of the war, all of whom enlisted, received clothing and blankets, and immediately deserted. Patrick Cleburne suggested enlisting blacks and saw his career advancement grind to a halt. The Confederacy was founded to fight for racism and slavery, more importantly than independence.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 13:33
|
|
|
StashAugustine posted:A friend of mine claimed that not only did blacks fight for the south in the Civil War, but were allowed to become officers while the US prevented them. On a scale of 1 to Calhoun, how full of poo poo is that? The last time this came up I found an article from the Harvard Gazette. quote:Though no one knows for sure, the number of slaves who fought and labored for the South was modest, estimated Stauffer. Blacks who shouldered arms for the Confederacy numbered more than 3,000 but fewer than 10,000, [John Stauffer] said, among the hundreds of thousands of whites who served. Black laborers for the cause numbered from 20,000 to 50,000. and so on Schenck v. U.S. fucked around with this message at 14:08 on Jul 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 14:05
|
|
|
P-Mack posted:There was a free people of color militia formed in Louisiana
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 16:21
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:I'm not sure the young Turk bigwigs like Enver Pasha were the most important in founding the Turkish Republic(a lot of them were assassinated by vengeful Armenians it seems), and the creation of the new state along 'surprisingly reasonable ethnic lines' involved the coining of the phrase 'ethnic cleansing'. Well, I did mention the whole genocide thing. A lot of that was going on mid-WWI though, not necessarily as a response to drawing lines in the sand.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 16:24
|
|
|
This might be the wrong place to request this, but I'm desperate for a (relatively) even-handed book about the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, something sweeping and not too polemical. Any ideas?
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 19:12
|
|
|
Radio Talmudist posted:This might be the wrong place to request this, but I'm desperate for a (relatively) even-handed book about the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, something sweeping and not too polemical. Any ideas? It's kind of sandwiched between some fairly eye-rolling personal tales from two families, one Arab and one Jewish, that are intended to convey this "why can't we all just get along together" message that kinda falls on its rear end, but the book The Lemon Tree has a lot of solid, plainly stated background on that. I've never quite been able to figure out if it's a good textbook with some unfortunate story sandwiched in to try and make it interesting, or a wishy-washy journalistic piece with some shockingly good but over-written back ground. Really it should have been two books. The book itself kinda sucks, but just to get the events straight in your head it's pretty good. Just feel free to skip any parts that aren't doing it for you.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 22:13
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:It's kind of sandwiched between some fairly eye-rolling personal tales from two families, one Arab and one Jewish, that are intended to convey this "why can't we all just get along together" message that kinda falls on its rear end, but the book The Lemon Tree has a lot of solid, plainly stated background on that. I've never quite been able to figure out if it's a good textbook with some unfortunate story sandwiched in to try and make it interesting, or a wishy-washy journalistic piece with some shockingly good but over-written back ground. Really it should have been two books. Perfect! Thanks for the recommendation.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 22:22
|
|
|
Hi, I like tanks, especially the tanks of WWII, is there a nice overview book about tank use in WWII? I'm looking for a book with specs, production details, use in battle, etc.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 04:11
|
|
|
Smoking Crow posted:Hi, I like tanks, especially the tanks of WWII, is there a nice overview book about tank use in WWII? I'm looking for a book with specs, production details, use in battle, etc. This is focused on German tanks specifically and might not have a lot on statistics and raw numbers, but Dennis Showalter's Hitler's Panzers has a good overview on tank development, doctrinal development and the evolution and use of Panzers as WWII went on. I still remember a passage from the book about how the vast number of different German tank models was great for model hobbyists decades later, but wasn't so great for the actual soldiers fighting the war.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 04:29
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:This is focused on German tanks specifically and might not have a lot on statistics and raw numbers, but Dennis Showalter's Hitler's Panzers has a good overview on tank development, doctrinal development and the evolution and use of Panzers as WWII went on. Thanks for the reply. I will look into it, but I was wondering if there was another book that focuses on other tanks, especially the Soviet ones?
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 04:46
|
|
|
Fellow goon Ensign Expendable runs a tank archive blog with a focus on soviet tanks that'd be right up your alley.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 04:55
|
|
|
As long as we're talking about books, is there anything good about the military R&D/buildup of the interwar years? I mean, nobody wanted to repeat the slaughter on the Marne and a lot of theorists kinda figured that they had the technological/logistical abilities to avoid a repeat, but the only big European conflicts I can think of were the Polish-Soviet War of the early 20s (which was a real grab-bag technologically), the Irish War of Independence (which was largely irregular) and the Spanish Civil War.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 08:36
|
|
|
Radio Talmudist posted:This might be the wrong place to request this, but I'm desperate for a (relatively) even-handed book about the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, something sweeping and not too polemical. Any ideas?
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 10:39
|
|
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:As long as we're talking about books, is there anything good about the military R&D/buildup of the interwar years? I mean, nobody wanted to repeat the slaughter on the Marne and a lot of theorists kinda figured that they had the technological/logistical abilities to avoid a repeat, but the only big European conflicts I can think of were the Polish-Soviet War of the early 20s (which was a real grab-bag technologically), the Irish War of Independence (which was largely irregular) and the Spanish Civil War. The Irish war of independence was very low scale, hardly big by any definition, would that count? There was also a war between Hungary and Romania as well as the Turkish war of independence.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 11:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 08:11 |
|
|
khwarezm posted:The Irish war of independence was very low scale, hardly big by any definition, would that count? There was also a war between Hungary and Romania as well as the Turkish war of independence. Edit: No. I just woke up, sorry about that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 11:36
|
|