|
HEY GAL posted:Hahaha, holy poo poo: horoscopes of your important figures are important matters of state and your enemies will try to steal them. Pretty sure you're supposed to fold those up. 
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 07:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 00:29 |
|
|
Jaguars! posted:Edit: Der Edel herr google translates to "the noble lord?" and the center is the date of the prediction? (or maybe the date/time when the constellations are in these positions?) HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 09:47 on Sep 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 09:44
|
|
|
Kemper Boyd posted:Shattered Sword makes the point that Midway wasn't actually a decisive battle in the sense that it's usually portrayed as. Japanese victory at sea would just delay the inevitable and make the war more bloody. Yeah, the problem is basically that carrier parity basically remained true throughout the yearlong period after Midway(the numbers varied but it was about 2 on 2). Basically, the US fleet did not make a huge impact until 1944 when they had so many ships that four extra Japanese fleet carriers would have made little difference(The US main force in 1944 had 16 fleet carriers). The problem for the Japanese is that the Solomons proved to be where their resources were stretched thin. A lot of what we faced on the way back toward Japan on the islands were base force troops, rather than IJA infantry because garrisoning and supplying all those isolated island garrisons was hard.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 12:41
|
|
|
Would it have been more accurate to say that Midway caused a shift in strategic initiative? Unrelated: a photo album of WW2 German Panzer reenactors, including tanks.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 13:28
|
|
|
AATREK CURES KIDS posted:98 years ago. Tanks didn't enter the war until 1916. gently caress, I'm dumb. Yes, 98 years. Sleep deprived posting is bad.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 14:08
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Note that Pearl Harbor led to US entry to the European war because Hitler declared war on the US. Not the other way round. If there is no Pearl Harbor, but Hitler still gets into his head that declaring on America is a good idea, then little changes. And the only reason he declared war on the US was because the US declared war on Japan in response to Japan declaring war on the US
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 15:30
|
|
|
SocketWrench posted:And the only reason he declared war on the US was because the US declared war on Japan in response to Japan declaring war on the US Ummm, no, not really. It takes a pretty special reading of history to assume that Hitler gave two shits about things like treaty obligations or causus belli. One reason that Hitler cited, for instance, was the idea that declaring war on the USA meant that the Germans could go for full unrestricted submarine warfare everywhere instead of having to tip-toe around in the Western Atlantic for fear of bringing the Americans in. Hitler declared war because he thought, wrongly as it turned out, that it was in his best interest to do so. If he didn't think that, he'd happily have flushed the Tripartite Pact down the same toilet he had the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and the Munich Agreement.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 16:02
|
|
|
jng2058 posted:Ummm, no, not really. It takes a pretty special reading of history to assume that Hitler gave two shits about things like treaty obligations or causus belli. One reason that Hitler cited, for instance, was the idea that declaring war on the USA meant that the Germans could go for full unrestricted submarine warfare everywhere instead of having to tip-toe around in the Western Atlantic for fear of bringing the Americans in. Hitler declared war because he thought, wrongly as it turned out, that it was in his best interest to do so. If he didn't think that, he'd happily have flushed the Tripartite Pact down the same toilet he had the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and the Munich Agreement. America was pretty fully in ''not touching you'' war mode by then. The land "lease" was more "lets just give an arbitrary quantity of material to the people the Nazis are fighting", like you say the convoys were set up so the Nazis would have to attack American ships to continue their shipping disruption and America had already taken Iceland. All of those things meant even before America was at war, American and Nazi ships were shooting at each other: Wikipedia posted:American warships escorting Allied convoys in the western Atlantic had several hostile encounters with U-boats. On 4 September, a German U-Boat attacked the destroyer USS Greer off Iceland. A week later Roosevelt ordered American warships to shoot U-boats on sight. A U-boat shot up the USS Kearny as it escorted a British merchant convoy. The USS Reuben James was sunk by U-552 on 31 October 1941.[11] I very much doubt Hitler would have let this course of action continue, FDR was doing absolutely everything in his power to provoke Hitler to avoid having to force it through Congress.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 16:12
|
|
|
CoolCab posted:America was pretty fully in ''not touching you'' war mode by then. The land "lease" was more "lets just give an arbitrary quantity of material to the people the Nazis are fighting", like you say the convoys were set up so the Nazis would have to attack American ships to continue their shipping disruption and America had already taken Iceland. All of those things meant even before America was at war, American and Nazi ships were shooting at each other: Pretty much. Which meant that the Japanese bombing Pearl was a nice excuse, but there was a reasonable expectation that it'd have happened regardless of what the Japanese did or didn't do.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 16:21
|
|
|
I think the thing to remember w/r/t the Pacific War was that Japan was never going to and was never planning (outside of the worst delusionals) to beat the American's bloody and then march on DC by way of Los Angeles. Their plan was to beat the Pacific fleet bloody, take the staging areas that could threaten them across the Pacific (The Philippines, Wake, Midway, Guam, etc.) and then make the whole endeavour of rooting the Japanese empire out of the Asian-Pacific area not impossible, but simply bloodier, costlier and more painful than the US could realistically support. They had done this before successfully to the Russians. Would Japan have ever survived a total war with even the late Tzarist Russians? No. But they won Manchuria off of them by being way the gently caress away and by loving with the Russian ability to project power out that far. Japan didn't lose WWII when it lost it's carriers, it lost WWII when it failed to capture the American forward staging areas. Midway was the biggest 'loss' (well, failure to gain) at Midway, not the fragile floating airstrips, the big unsinkable one you could throw umpteen gallons of fuel and however many crates of bombs and torpedoes. I think this thinking also colors the Japanese conduct in the late war. We all 'know' that a Japanese victory was long since impossible and see the continued resistance as futilely suicidal at best. Propaganda aside, most of Japanese high command knew that too, but they weren't fighting to the hilt for the sake of winning, they were fighting to lose less badly, to bloody the Americans enough and to demonstrate that they meant to make every island and atoll bloody and painful in the hopes that maybe, maybe, the American's would go 'gently caress it, we're tired of fighting, just give us Manilla back and you can keep raping China, maybe see us again in 30 after you've built up an industrial base in Manchuria, we'll see how it goes then.' Obviously that was a pretty futile effort in itself, but it's not totally unreasonable. I think it's more true to say that the (sane-ish, rational-like) parts of Japanese high command were 'fighting the last war' more than the generals of WWI. It was a new age with new rules and Tokyo didn't cotton on to that until ~1943, and then spent the next year or so in denial about that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 16:50
|
|
|
CoolCab posted:I very much doubt Hitler would have let this course of action continue, FDR was doing absolutely everything in his power to provoke Hitler to avoid having to force it through Congress. How much of 1941's congress were WWI veterans or in their 20s by 1910 or so? Or was there another reason they didn't declare war in Oct/Nov?
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 16:52
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:How much of 1941's congress were WWI veterans or in their 20s by 1910 or so? Or was there another reason they didn't declare war in Oct/Nov? Mostly because their constituents (for the most part) would have hung them by their balls. The American public ca. Thanksgiving 1941 was just slightly more eager to go fight another world war than we are to go balls deep, boots on the ground in a third round of Iraq today. It's really, really easy to underestimate just how much of a 180 public opinion did after Dec 7.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 17:17
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Mostly because their constituents (for the most part) would have hung them by their balls. The American public ca. Thanksgiving 1941 was just slightly more eager to go fight another world war than we are to go balls deep, boots on the ground in a third round of Iraq today. It's really, really easy to underestimate just how much of a 180 public opinion did after Dec 7. Oh yeah, Pearl Harbor changed everything. As you say, it did galvanize public support for full-scale US involvement in the war. However, this shift wasn't a complete reversal of US public opinion. It was a major shift, but a major shift in a direction Americans were already heading. By October 1941, US public wasn't in favor of sending a second AEF to go fight in Europe. A sizable portion (about 40%) of Americans thought US involvement in WWI had been a mistake and people weren't champing at the bit to do it all over again. Yet there'd been a real sea change in US public opinion between 1940 and 1941. Arguably, 1940 had been the heyday of American isolationist sentiment. American First, Lindbergh, all that jazz. But by mid-late 1941, the US public was measurably more interventionist/less isolationist. A November 1941 Gallup poll found that 68% of Americans thought it was more important to defeat Germany that to keep the United States out of the war. Roosevelt had managed to pass Lend-Lease (an enormous break from US neutrality) with very solid public and Congressional support. The Neutrality Patrols had been implemented without major public outcry. So, while Americans weren't eager to grab guns and go to war, they did feel threatened by WWII and wanted to do something about it (e.g. Lend-Lease). Why did US opinion shift? Roosevelt deserves some of the credit. Since early 1940, FDR had been issuing increasingly dire warnings about Hitler. He'd made a very public effort to get the US mentally and materially ready for war. The Four Freedoms speech is a good example of his rhetoric during this period. We should also give some credit to media. Murrow's broadcasts during the London Blitz had a huge impact on US public sentiment, and made Americans a lot more pro-Britain/anti-Germany.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 18:13
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Mostly because their constituents (for the most part) would have hung them by their balls. The American public ca. Thanksgiving 1941 was just slightly more eager to go fight another world war than we are to go balls deep, boots on the ground in a third round of Iraq today. It's really, really easy to underestimate just how much of a 180 public opinion did after Dec 7. Sounds about right. Between WWI's horrors being well within living memory and the country still recovering from the depression I could see how "hey let's fight a war overseas" is a tough sell when the war is still pretty abstract given the US' geographic separation.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 18:58
|
|
|
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=15887quote:Franklin D. Roosevelt Even though all indications pointed to a Roosevelt landslide (and he won the electoral college 449-82 over Wendell Wilkie), he still felt the need to counter Wilkie's campaign strategy of portraying him as a warmonger in those extremely strident terms.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 19:14
|
|
|
Bacarruda posted:An open-ocean showdown between the IJN and the US Navy would have been a pretty even fight. Not necessarily, but being 50% outnumbered by Japanese carriers, outnumbered in literally everything else as well, and, as you mention, having non-functional torpedoes without knowing it...I don't see reasons to anticipate a happy fun time for the US fleet in that situation. It's not suicide but the odds are with the Japanese.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 19:29
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Would it have been more accurate to say that Midway caused a shift in strategic initiative? I'd say no, because the only avenues of strategic expansion Japan had available to it directly before Midway were India, Hawaii and Alaska, all of which are really non-starters for one reason or another. Mostly the fact that the Japanese Army was already stretched thin holding things in China and poor coordination and competition between the Japanese Navy or Army. Even if Midway had been a decisive victory for Japan all that would have been accomplished would be a delay in an Allied offensive. More time to fortify, more time to produce a few more planes, more lives lost by the Allies in their attritional campaign across the Pacific, but there was never any strategic end game for Japan that Midway would have derailed.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 20:28
|
|
|
GhostofJohnMuir posted:I'd say no, because the only avenues of strategic expansion Japan had available to it directly before Midway were India, Hawaii and Alaska, all of which are really non-starters for one reason or another. Mostly the fact that the Japanese Army was already stretched thin holding things in China and poor coordination and competition between the Japanese Navy or Army. Comedy option: Australia. In one of these threads way back someone gave a great run down of the slap fight between the IJN and IJA planners on a hypothetical Australia invasion. I recall the likely predicted results being somehow even more of a disaster then Sea Lion. Also not to derail but if you haven't read it yet this is some chuckle worthy analysis of that one. http://www.philm.demon.co.uk/Miscellaneous/Sealion.htm
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 21:34
|
|
|
By the by, is that post particularly accurate? It sounds on the level, I'd just like to have a second opinion that isn't 'some Usenet post', not that 'some SA post' is necessarily all that better.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 21:46
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
Well, I figure the check they had received at Coral Sea meant Australia wasn't in the immediate cards. So I guess, India, Hawaii, Alaska and New Guinea in preparation for Australia. New Guinea may have been possible if they had won decisively at Midway and had some more time with the initiative, but there certainly is no way they'd be able to continue on to the actual invade Australia part.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 21:48
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=15887 Throughout the entire pre-war period FDR made a clear effort to avoid making public statements that could be taken as pro-war. But he wasn't a raging pacifist in private or in public. Remember the reason FDR has to give that speech in the first place is because he's pushing for the first peacetime draft in American history. That's not an interventionist move, but it's a major development for a post-WWI United States. Bacarruda fucked around with this message at 22:14 on Sep 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 21:56
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:By the by, is that post particularly accurate? It sounds on the level, I'd just like to have a second opinion that isn't 'some Usenet post', not that 'some SA post' is necessarily all that better. Sealion being impossible is a well-known alternate history community thing and has been for decades, so at least in essence it is, or at least no-one in 20 years has found a convincing way to prove otherwise. Definitely the Germans in 1940 had nothing like the logistics, naval strength, aerial dominance, manpower of the Allies by 1944 in Overlord and that was still touch and go in places.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 22:04
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:Sealion being impossible is a well-known alternate history community thing and has been for decades, so at least in essence it is, or at least no-one in 20 years has found a convincing way to prove otherwise. Definitely the Germans in 1940 had nothing like the logistics, naval strength, aerial dominance, manpower of the Allies by 1944 in Overlord and that was still touch and go in places. Yeah, just compare and contrast to what it actually took on D Day. Compare Omaha and all the other beaches; Omaha didn't have an amphibious tank assault to soften up for the assault due to error. All the other beachheads were war, but Omaha was what got the Saving Private Ryan war-is-hell treatment. Compare the casualties. Now, imagine instead of missing just a tank assault, imagine they were missing that, air support, naval superiority, intelligence superiority, proper amphibious assault vehicles (ie not towed barges that can't actually cross the Channel uncontested due to the waves) and doctrine, a cohesive or sensible plan on how to start getting material from the ocean to the beach and the biggest material advantage in the history of the world.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 22:12
|
|
|
Weren't they trying to cover significantly more frontage with light infantry just for starters?
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 22:29
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:Not necessarily, but being 50% outnumbered by Japanese carriers, outnumbered in literally everything else as well, and, as you mention, having non-functional torpedoes without knowing it...I don't see reasons to anticipate a happy fun time for the US fleet in that situation. It's not suicide but the odds are with the Japanese. A big problem (which raised its head in amazing form at Midway) had to do with training. (Shattered Sword is one hell of a read, go check it out now now now) Japanese ship crews weren't set up to handle damage control in the way US crews were. You had a specialized team of DC officers and if they all, say, pass out fighting a fuel fire on the hangar deck or die in an explosion, your damage control ability suddenly drops off a cliff. There was a lot of luck happening at Midway in the USN's favor, but had Japanese crews been trained to a man in some degree of firefighting and shipboard damage control they wouldn't have taken the cataclysmic losses they did at Midway. It would have been disastrous for the IJN while maybe more significant in losses for the USN. You can get lucky with bombs but you never get lucky with a fire on a ship.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 22:45
|
|
|
So as I understand it, Japan could have drawn out the war in the Pacific by winning some of the battles they didn't but ultimately still would have lost. My question is, if Japan had succeeded in doing this, would the Soviet entry in the war have a greater impact, maybe even have reached Japan before the US did? Historically they pretty much rolled over Manchuria but I'm not sure how their naval capabilities looked like at the time.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 23:18
|
|
|
scissorman posted:So as I understand it, Japan could have drawn out the war in the Pacific by winning some of the battles they didn't but ultimately still would have lost. The soviet navy ca. WW2 was a complete loving joke. Their pacific fleet's most important contribution to the war was as a manpower reserve for the land fighting in the west. They had a halfway decent sub contingent, but the surface component was laughable. Something on the order of a cruiser and ten destroyers. The fact that they had effectively zero way to get soldiers onto Japan in any kind of contested landing (and near-zero even if it was a completely peaceful transfer of occupation troops) played a huge part in them not insisting on an active part of the occupation.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 23:39
|
|
|
scissorman posted:So as I understand it, Japan could have drawn out the war in the Pacific by winning some of the battles they didn't but ultimately still would have lost. As long as the Soviets were fighting the Germans, they simply didn't have the resources or energy to pick a serious fight with the Japanese. So in this alt-history scenario, assuming the Eastern Front plays out as it did historically, the Soviets don't declare war on Japan until 1945. If the US and its Allies have been fighting Japan since 1941 (and have built up a critical mass of manpower and material by 1943-1944), Soviet entry into the war would have been helpful, but not a game-changer. Navally, the Soviet Pacific Fleet wasn't especially strong. And, as the Battle of Shumushu showed, the Soviets weren't great at amphibious work yet. For one, they didn't have the ships do it (they had to borrow former USN LCIs to invade the Kurils, for example). No way in hell the Soviets could have successfully tried an Operation Coronet-style invasion of the Home Islands by 1945.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 23:44
|
|
|
Yeah, the Soviets could (and did) land maybe a regiment's worth of men and light artillery on a lightly defended island, but barring something ridiculous like the Black Sea or Baltic Fleets transferring a significant amount of vessels to the Far East, an invasion of the more populated islands isn't going to happen. Also Cyrano, your mailbox is full, but sure, send over the thing and I'll give it a quick translation.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 23:45
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:Also Cyrano, your mailbox is full, but sure, send over the thing and I'll give it a quick translation. Awesome. I'll clear some space right now.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 23:51
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:The soviet navy ca. WW2 was a complete loving joke. Their pacific fleet's most important contribution to the war was as a manpower reserve for the land fighting in the west. They had a halfway decent sub contingent, but the surface component was laughable. Something on the order of a cruiser and ten destroyers. Basically they end up with the same problem as Germany 1940. Once the Soviets overrun Manchuria and Japan-occupied China there's no reason for the war to continue - but they can't invade to force the issue. So with a Japan victorious in the Pacific but having lost its continental Asian empire you end up with the reverse of the historical position at the end of 1944/start of 1945. Given how delusional the Japanese peace efforts were in reality and how much everyone lied after the fact, it becomes really difficult to even hypothesize over what point the Japanese government decided to sue for peace and what terms it would ask for.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 23:52
|
|
|
Also it's worth noting just how quickly Japanese holdings fell once the full US force was finished. A year's worth of progress in 1943 was maybe a month's worth in 1945. The larger Japanese force might have made breaking the IJN's power a bit harder, but they'd still be up against a much superior foe.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 00:00
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:So with a Japan victorious in the Pacific but having lost its continental Asian empire you end up with the reverse of the historical position at the end of 1944/start of 1945. Given how delusional the Japanese peace efforts were in reality and how much everyone lied after the fact, it becomes really difficult to even hypothesize over what point the Japanese government decided to sue for peace and what terms it would ask for. Wasn't delusion among Japanese peace efforts encouraged by Stalin?
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 00:04
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:Sealion being impossible is a well-known alternate history community thing and has been for decades, so at least in essence it is, or at least no-one in 20 years has found a convincing way to prove otherwise. Definitely the Germans in 1940 had nothing like the logistics, naval strength, aerial dominance, manpower of the Allies by 1944 in Overlord and that was still touch and go in places. Oh yeah, I'm 100% sure it would never have worked, like you say the sheer volume of effort required to pull off Overlord makes that pretty clear. But I was just more curious as to whether the Wehrmacht really had drawn up plans like that, whether those barge tests actually happened, whether anyone ever actually thought they were a good idea, etc. GhostofJohnMuir posted:Well, I figure the check they had received at Coral Sea meant Australia wasn't in the immediate cards. So I guess, India, Hawaii, Alaska and New Guinea in preparation for Australia. New Guinea may have been possible if they had won decisively at Midway and had some more time with the initiative, but there certainly is no way they'd be able to continue on to the actual invade Australia part. Wasn't the big reason for the Japanese presence on Guadalcanal to further isolate AUS/NZ as well?
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 00:29
|
|
|
We all joke about what WWII would have been like with gay hitler, but what if I told you that world already existed?
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 00:41
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:We all joke about what WWII would have been like with gay hitler, but what if I told you that world already existed? I would watch an otherwise completely played straight hospital drama staring Dr. Gay Hitler.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 00:45
|
|
|
CoolCab posted:I would watch an otherwise completely played straight hospital drama staring Dr. Gay Hitler. Somebody already made a Hitler sitcom (a Hitcom?). It was as big a trainwreck as you'd expect. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mf9jJx0NSjw
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 00:54
|
|
|
100 Years Ago The blokes on the Aisne are coming perilously close to settling down into some sort of routine, aided and abetted by some utterly hilarious stereotypical Teutonic efficiency. quote:Cpl Holbrook, 4th Royal Fusiliers The British soldier was not slow to notice the comedic possibilities inherent in the name of General von Kluck; a popular trench song of the time went, to the tune of the perennial favourite The Girl I Left Behind Me: Kaiser Bill is feeling ill; the Crown Prince he's gone barmy; and we don't give a gently caress, for old von Kluck, and all his fuckin' army. His army's artillery bombardments would begin quite punctually at 1pm every day, and he soon became "old One o'clock". Holbrook continues. quote:I saw a funny thing happen there. I saw a horse hit on the new bridge and have his leg sliced off. I saw it cross the bridge on three legs! You can believe it or not. He got over the bridge on three legs, though it seems impossible. I saw another one that I thought was odd. This horse was hit in his side, big lump of shell, and I saw some fellow come along, I don't know if he was a vet or what he was, and stick his hand inside this horse, pull this lump of shell out, the horse just standing there, and to stop the bleeding he took a lump of straw and plugged it over this hole, and the horse was off on its way! Just stuffed the wound up with straw. So, the strategic discussion. The Germans have learned a simple lesson from the Aisne that will serve them well for the next four years; that miles of territory are far less valuable to them than favourable ground. Attacks along the established front will now only be carried out in order to secure ground of strategic importance before it can be properly fortified; other areas will see minor retirements to better defensive positions. Their digging is being conducted with the possibility in mind that they may have to occupy these positions for some time. Both sides are also having similar thoughts at about the same time. Frontal attacks are clearly going to be very difficult, and there's going to be an awful lot of front to attack. The only sound move to make is to attempt a flanking manoeuvre. There's hundreds of miles of open country north-west of the Aisne, and the strategically vital Channel ports are still wide open. If the Germans had only a few men spare, they could have swept west behind the main thrust of the Army, established German control over the whole of Belgium and vital areas of northern France, and now the war is so different a proposition that you're deep into wanking over counterfactuals. As it happens, the Germans do have two corps of relatively fresh troops who could have been used to perform exactly this role. Unfortunately, they've been completely tied up in with a serious problem in the rear, of which more tomorrow.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 01:09
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:100 Years Ago These are great. Keep 'em coming! 
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 01:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 00:29 |
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:100 Years Ago Getting an enemy commander called von Kluck is exactly the kind of morale coup that allowed the British Empire to thrive. Loving these writeups. Please don't stop.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 01:38
|
|