|
Don Gato posted:Would the Allies accidentally bombing Switzerland count? Not more than Germany bombing Ireland or Soviet Union bombing Sweden would, I think. I also don't remember any of those being particularly deadly.
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 17:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 05:57 |
|
|
Anyone got a detailed write up of why Ireland sat out WW2? I've always wondered and haven't really seen much out there.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 17:43
|
|
|
Britain is a position to smash Ireland easily if it swings German, so can't go that way. Also, the IRA are chummy with the Germans and enemies of the Irish state. Simultaneously, don't want to chum up with the colonial oppressors and certainly don't want to collaborate too closely, so Ireland punishes people who do military service in the British forces (especially deserters from their own army - and continued to do so until they died). The Allies ultimately got better treatment than the Axis from the Irish, though. Still, a rather embarrassing chapter overall for Ireland. Disinterested fucked around with this message at 17:57 on Dec 16, 2014 |
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 17:54
|
|
|
sullat posted:The joint American-Canadian invasion of... Attu, I think? One of the Aleutians. Had something like 300 fatalities recapturing an uninhabited island. Kiska. A destroyer hit a mine, a bunch of guys found booby traps the hard way and when the canadian and american landing parties (which had landed on differnet ends of the island) first met, they mistook each other as Japanese and started shooting at each other and calling for naval gunfire. All set to the lovely kind of weather you get in the Aleutians.  Another nice one: The first loss of a ship of the Royal Navy in WWII was also the first kill of the Royal Navy in the war and I think the first sub-on-sub kill of the war. Magni fucked around with this message at 18:07 on Dec 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 18:01
|
|
|
Additionally the Irish Prime Minister sent a condolences letter to Nazi Germany upon the death of Hitler.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 18:07
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:Additionally the Irish Prime Minister sent a condolences letter to Nazi Germany upon the death of Hitler. Although a lot of people thought that was outrageous at the time, most of officialdom just thought that was them keeping up the appearances of neutrality and being consistent...even if it was a little distasteful. People are very cloudy on how De Valera actually felt about that Nazism business. I think for the die hard republicans amongst the Irish there was a strong degree of moral equivalence between Britain and Germany, and that that sense has only been eroded after deepened understanding of Nazi atrocities, which are simply on another level to anything committed by any colonial empire. Except maybe Belgium.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 18:10
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:Britain is a position to smash Ireland easily if it swings German, so can't go that way. Also, the IRA are chummy with the Germans and enemies of the Irish state. Simultaneously, don't want to chum up with the colonial oppressors and certainly don't want to collaborate too closely, so Ireland punishes people who do military service in the British forces (especially deserters from their own army - and continued to do so until they died). The Allies ultimately got better treatment than the Axis from the Irish, though. Oddly enough the Irish defense forces worked out plans for cooperating with the British in the event of a German invasion. They also happily let a lot of Irishmen sneak off to England to work in factory jobs and suchlike.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 18:14
|
|
|
Yeah. As I briefly alluded to, the Irish just do not want to get too close to Britain because they see it as a tremendous threat to their relatively new independence, but they can see Germany is a tremendous threat. On the other hand, the Irish aren't above innuendos and provocations of the British throughout this period when it serves their purposes. The net result of the war for Ireland was that the Irish state became a lot more solidified through the use of emergency powers to lock poo poo down.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 18:17
|
|
|
IIRC the Allies had a pretty bad friendly fire incident during Operation Husky. The transport armada delivering the airborne crossed over the fleet shortly after a Luftwaffe raid had been repelled and the entire fleet started hammering away at the transports. Killed about 350 people and shot down like two dozen Skytrains. Also, a funny one from Wiki: quote:Two battalions of the 77th Infantry on Guam exchanged prolonged fire on 8 August 1944, the incident possibly started with the firing of mortars for range-finding and angle calibration purposes. Small arms and then armour fire was exchanged. The mistake was realized when both units tried to call in the same artillery battalion to bombard the other. Those artillerymen must have been joking about it for years.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 18:20
|
|
|
Rhymenoserous posted:Anyone got a detailed write up of why Ireland sat out WW2? I've always wondered and haven't really seen much out there. Wargaming's The Chieftain wrote an article that kinda touched on it recently. Not too in-depth but does give a decent idea.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 18:30
|
|
|
Patrick Spens posted:Jesus, what happened there? Late in the war, Germany was evacuating from the Courland pocket with anything they had that would float (Operation Hannibal). Meanwhile the Allies were trying to sink anything that Germany had that could still float. Keep in mind they weren't just evacuating combat troops, but civilians, because the Russians were coming. So the loss of life was...considerable. A Russian sub sank one ship that had about 10000 people on it, about 9500 died, including thousands of civilians. Same sub sunk another ship and killed about 4000, although a good chunk of those were crew and wounded soldiers. The SS Cap Arcona, on the other hand, was packed full of camp inmates, and it's likely that the Nazis were planning on just scuttling the thing and killing them all anyway. It was spotted, attacked by the RAF, and sank in the Baltic sea. Most everybody died.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 19:13
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:A Russian sub sank one ship that had about 10000 people on it, about 9500 died, including thousands of civilians. Same sub sunk another ship and killed about 4000, although a good chunk of those were crew and wounded soldiers. Those would be the Wilhelm Gustloff and the Steuben, respectively. The Gustloff, in particular, stands out as being the largest loss of life in the history of maritime disasters.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 21:15
|
|
|
Operation husky had some awful fratricide figures. 23 C-47s carrying paratroopers shot down by the navy, pilots frantically dumping out troops wherever they could.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 22:20
|
|
|
Rhymenoserous posted:Anyone got a detailed write up of why Ireland sat out WW2? I've always wondered and haven't really seen much out there. Because they'd just gotten independence proper like 20 years prior (after like 1000 years of dealing with the crown's poo poo) and didn't want to gently caress it up by picking a side and having the British occupy the island which would have happened regardless of who they supported. Neutrality is different - you look like a real rear end in a top hat when you violate it, more so when you're Britain and went to war with the same assholes the last time because they violated Belgian neutrality, or at least that's what you told everyone you were fighting for.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 03:02
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Because they'd just gotten independence proper like 20 years prior (after like 1000 years of dealing with the crown's poo poo) and didn't want to gently caress it up by picking a side and having the British occupy the island which would have happened regardless of who they supported. Unless it's Iceland, Iran or India. What did the British Empire have against "I" countries anyway?
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 03:31
|
|
|
Azran posted:Okay, it seems the film was renamed Blessed by the Fire, which is pretty fun considering how terribly botched the translation of movie titles is in Argentina. Nenonen posted:Not more than Germany bombing Ireland or Soviet Union bombing Sweden would, I think. I also don't remember any of those being particularly deadly. Disinterested posted:Britain is a position to smash Ireland easily if it swings German, so can't go that way. Also, the IRA are chummy with the Germans and enemies of the Irish state. Simultaneously, don't want to chum up with the colonial oppressors and certainly don't want to collaborate too closely, so Ireland punishes people who do military service in the British forces (especially deserters from their own army - and continued to do so until they died). The Allies ultimately got better treatment than the Axis from the Irish, though. The TL;DR: is that Ireland pursued a position of military neutrality and humanitarian actions during the war which it still does to this day and which, TBH, serves us very well. More specific relevant details include Ireland being part of the Commonwealth during the war, the massive trade links with the UK, the shared land border making things all kinds of awkward, the matter of confused citizenship of everyone born on the island at the time, the sheer lack of interest from a country that had just fought two wars and seen the capital city shelled. Probably a solid dose of "it'll be grand" too, being honest.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 04:20
|
|
|
OctaviusBeaver posted:Unless it's Iceland, Iran or India. What did the British Empire have against "I" countries anyway? They shared the letter with Israel.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 05:06
|
|
|
Whoops I meant to say Argentinian movie.  I guess the British filming a movie there before makes sense. "An ungentlemanly act" is such a British name, drat.Ghost of Mussolini posted:Signals Of War is a good book but it is dated now. Have you read more modern sources? Not really, no. It is the first time I have shown interest in Argentinian military history really. Just like with North Korea, I was mostly looking to get informed and recognize false information/myths (the current student council at my university has celebrated Kim Il-Sung, Stalin and Lenin's birthday so far, putting them alongside Khadafi, Chavez, Guevara and Castro as people who gave it all for their countries and deserve worldwide recognition for improving their countries immensely. But I am digressing). Any recommendations? I am having a weird case of deja vu right now for some reason. Azran fucked around with this message at 07:01 on Dec 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 06:52
|
|
|
Azran posted:Whoops I meant to say Argentinian movie.  reply to the Argentinian commander at a certain point. It's a great moment of pure distilled   , but it probably never happened.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 07:23
|
|
|
Yo Kemper Boyd, Peter Burschel's Soeldner im Nordwestdeutschland des 16. und 17. Jahrhunderts pretty much supports what I was saying about religion in Saxon armies; in fact, he mentioned that he is aware of no case in which warlords forbade common soldiers whom they knew to be of a different religion from themselves to practice their religion openly. For instance, when a regiment of Swedish dragoons wanted to enter the service of the prince-bishop Christoph Bernhard von Galen in 1676, he allowed them to hold Protestant services freely. He also mentions that when Tilly took Goettigen in 1626 he refrained from restricting the Protestant churches (which he would have been within his rights to do) only out of concern for his Protestant soldiers. (And this isn't a guy like Pappenheim, who was raised Calvinist and converted to Catholicism because he was a huge history nerd and he went to Rome once, Tilly was a straightforward soul who never really wrapped his mind around why anyone would even think of changing from the religion which had been good enough for everyone since the beginning of Christianity.) I don't think I'd talk about a "sharper distinction between soldiers and civilians" at this time, though. Before the development of the standing army, soldiers were recruited out of the floating labor pool that supplied lots of other seasonal jobs, and in addition to the dudes I saw who'd been soldiers for sixty years or something there must have been plenty who served for a single campaign and then left again. Also, since there are no barracks, they live in your house, and since there are no uniforms they often dress like everyone else, just also with armor and weapons. Edit: Meanwhile, in the 16th century:  "Then let the captain have the drums beat where the war-people are waiting to be enrolled, and lead the Landsknechts together...then let him close the ring [circular group which Landsknechts form for all official assemblies, unofficial assemblies, or mutinies] and then the captain walks into the ring...wishes them a good day, and says thus: dear landsknechts, dear war-people, since and because you have...followed me onto this muster place according to my advertisement and proven yourselves to be honest landsknechts..." "Good day, dear landsknechts" is a really lovely salutation. HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 09:10 on Dec 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 07:41
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:Yo Kemper Boyd, Peter Burschel's Soeldner im Nordwestdeutschland des 16. und 17. Jahrhunderts pretty much supports what I was saying about religion in Saxon armies; in fact, he mentioned that he is aware of no case in which warlords forbade common soldiers whom they knew to be of a different religion from themselves to practice their religion openly. For instance, when a regiment of Swedish dragoons wanted to enter the service of the prince-bishop Christoph Bernhard von Galen in 1676, he allowed them to hold Protestant services freely. About religion: I think it's a matter of how you interpret it. You can't get away from religion being extremely important for everything at the time, unless you're a fedora-tipping athi or something, but at the same time you see a variety of responses to the catholic/protestant split. The distinction between soldiers and civilians is something I've come across on lectures by Nils Erik Villstrand, the prof at my university. The way he sees it is that while soldiers did come from that same labor pool, soldiering at the time was not a profession (because talking about profession in the modern sense doesn't really work) but a way of life. While there was significant soldier-civilian contacts in war, these were in peacetime far more rare before you start to see established garrisons and barracks (and in Sweden, the newer allotment system), and soldier's families were not a part of the civilian community because they were integrated into the tross and had important military support functions.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 10:38
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:I disagree with almost everything in this post. The only thing that isn't highly debatable is the lovely post-war treatment of those who served in the British military: that was a national disgrace to tack onto the end of the pile of mid-20th century shameful situations in this country. The only thing that is debatable is whether it's embarrassing. It can't really be argued that: (a) Britain could have relatively easily forced itself onto Ireland militarily with its WW2 level of military mobilisation (which would have ultimately barred any alliance with Germany - not that there was any will for one except amongst the IRA and and extreme minority of Irish citizens) (b) That the IRA was friendly with the Nazis (c) That there is a tangible fear that any close collaboration with Britain is regarded as a threat to Irish sovereignty and its independent character Still, it's embarassing on a world historical level - in my opinion - because the Nazi regime is so threatening that to not actively participate in its destruction is essentially invite it to destroy you. That isn't just a matter of modern perspective - it's become a widespread belief already after the war starts. I do not think any form of neutrality or pacifism against it is either (a) intelligent just from a self-interested point of view or (b) morally valid. Even if you have the insight that it's not to worry about because you have predicted the allies will win inevitably, I believe that still to be immoral because you're letting the rest of the world do the heavy lifting for you (and punishing your own citizens who have had the realisation that Nazism has to be fought!) Re: your point on the commonwealth - The fact that Ireland was part of the commonwealth was not regarded as a plus point necessarily - rather, it was regarded as very awkward for there to be a commonwealth member that was neutral. That actually helped to make the relationship more strained from the British perspective. The rest is obviously true. I never questioned that the Irish didn't have good reason to be neutral or that they had an allied leaning. I still think it's a moment to be engaged with critically. quote:The distinction between soldiers and civilians is something I've come across on lectures by Nils Erik Villstrand, the prof at my university. The way he sees it is that while soldiers did come from that same labor pool, soldiering at the time was not a profession (because talking about profession in the modern sense doesn't really work) but a way of life. While there was significant soldier-civilian contacts in war, these were in peacetime far more rare before you start to see established garrisons and barracks (and in Sweden, the newer allotment system), and soldier's families were not a part of the civilian community because they were integrated into the tross and had important military support functions. Most educated Europeans would have had a grip on Roman law and classical history, in which the distinction between combatants and non-combatants had always been fuzzy at best. The idea of the protection of pilgrims in the crusades may have been a germinal point for a lot of this stuff. It would probably be worth looking at what is going on in Italy at a similar time. quote:You can't get away from religion being extremely important for everything at the time, unless you're a fedora-tipping athi or something There are plenty of historians who aren't that but write about the crusades as being mostly about socio-economic factors, so don't ever put it past people.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 11:18
|
|
|
My favorite medieval thing is King John being pissed off at the pope and considering converting to islam ironically.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 11:38
|
|
|
So I'm about to GM a roleplaying session where my players get the unenviable roles of squad members in the Romanian 4th army, during the Battle of Podu Iloaiei. It's basically going to be an instructive, nerve-pumping "look how lovely WW2 is if your equipment is not up to scratch" game played for an afternoon or two. I've just made Seasoned Riflemen in GURPS, which represents soldiers relatively bloodied by the initial invasion of Romania and competent enough - but without much equipment. I've given them: Uniforms, Vz. 24 rifles, knives Ruby pistols Orita M1941 SMG A smattering of grenades and support weapons. I'm trying to give a "crash course" on the Romanian mindset, but while Antonescu was ready to commit his forces to retake lost Romanian territory, how did the average soldat understand the conflict? Was commitment to Iron Guard ideology widespread, or was it more of a lip service thing? Did they know how badly Soviet tank regiments outclassed them? The thing is, I don't know a great deal about how life as a Romanian soldier was, except that they were often maltreated and had inferior heavy weapons, save where the axis loant them Pzkw III / IV. Internet searches yield nothing about the Romanian soldiers, and I'm intent on trying to portray it as realistically as I can. Anything you can tell me about the Romanian mindset, culture (civilian or military) and equipment at the time would be really appreciated!
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 12:21
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:There are plenty of historians who aren't that but write about the crusades as being mostly about socio-economic factors, so don't ever put it past people. Out of curiosity, then, what DO these historians think the Crusades are about? And what does this thread in general think about those conclusions?
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 13:17
|
|
|
Tomn posted:Out of curiosity, then, what DO these historians think the Crusades are about? And what does this thread in general think about those conclusions? I guess there is a realpolitik viewpoint that the crusades give kings an opportunity to build an international reputation as a righteous, strong leader, by beating up on an enemy that no-one can sympathise with, in a relatively low risk war? I mean, in terms of domestic policy, Richard Lionheart was a pretty awful king. But hey, he killed Muslims for Jesus. Fangz fucked around with this message at 13:40 on Dec 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 13:33
|
|
|
Fangz posted:I guess there is a realpolitik viewpoint that the crusades give kings an opportunity to build an international reputation as a righteous, strong leader, by beating up on an enemy that no-one can sympathise with, in a relatively low risk war? These were pretty high risk wars with high casualty rates and massive expenditure. Richard the Lionheart bankrupted his kingdom in order to go crusading. And the problem with the socio-economic arguments for the crusades (which tend to revolve around problems of feudal inheritance) is that they ignore that fact that the majority of knights who went on the crusades were landed guys (who had to be in order to pay for the trip and any men-at-arms they brought) who went home afterwards. There isn't really a way around the fact that religion was a massive motivating factor for these people in a way that those of us in a more secular age might have trouble emphasizing with.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 13:53
|
|
Tomn posted:Out of curiosity, then, what DO these historians think the Crusades are about? And what does this thread in general think about those conclusions? If I could lay out the three arguments about the crusades there are 1) Religion 2) Socio-economics 3) It's actually all about the Byzantines Re: 2. A lot of it is to do with primogeniture, bad economic conditions and lack of opportunity. You wind up with a lot of second and third sons of aristocratic families with poo poo all to do to make a living, except perhaps become a clergyman. So you wind up with a bunch of people gambling everything to make their name and fortune somewhere else where they have a chance. A lot of people would say this was a big factor pushing people even if it isn't reason numero uno. 3 is a lot about the Byzantine Empire essentially asking for help from the Latins and then finding they can't easily exploit the Latins for muscle to reclaim their empire - and poo poo just unravelling very badly as a consequence. You need to get to grips with a lot of how the first crusaders saw what they were doing as they set out, including the semi-feudal relationship they founded and then broke with the Komnenoi. Disinterested fucked around with this message at 14:05 on Dec 17, 2014 |
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 14:01
|
|
|
Azran posted:What would be the worst case of friendly fire in recorded history? I know it is a broad question, but it is purposefully so. The 1944 bombardment of the Dutch city of Nijmegen with 800+ killed springs to mind.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 16:38
|
|
|
I have never really seen it discussed in this thread but can someone talk about the history of child soldiers? When did they start appearing? I figure they became more common when rifles were wide spread because a gun makes a kid useful but they would obviously be no good carrying around pikes and poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 16:46
|
|
|
Well, they were already in use as musicians and couriers well before gunpowder, but it's not really my strong suit. One really lovely use was as "powder monkeys", running with gunpowder to load cannon during the age of sail, while a naval battle raged around them! By most accounts, those who survived were heavily traumatized.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 17:31
|
|
|
In the age of paid commissions in the British army, army officers and especially naval midshipment could be low teens. There are recorded incidents of Roman legionaries or auxiliaries enlisted at 11. In the modern era, 100,000's of people enlisted underage for WW1. It's as easy as referencing the Volksturm to think of times boys have fought in Europe in the era of total war. tl;dr Child soldiery is as old as soldiery - at least using 'childhood' by our definition of just a pure age break. In cultures before ours that were less legalistic, the concept of manhood was more malleable. In fact, sometimes your question is actually backwards. In some cultures, manhood is defined as an age that one can bear arms. Men didn't become soldiers - becoming soldiers made them men! Plus, let's not be kidding ourselves. You can enlist in a lot of modern and western armed forces at 16, 2 years below voting age.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 17:36
|
|
|
Azran posted:Whoops I meant to say Argentinian movie. Malvinas: La trama secreta by Cardoso, Kirschbaum and van der Kooy is probably the most widely read book, you should be able to get that in any bookstore. Rarer but very insightful is Malvinas: Diplomacia y conflicto armado, comentarios a la historia oficial britanica by Vicente Berasategui (former ambassador to London) , 1982 by Juan B. Yofre is also good and deals with a wider frame, but obviously the war features extremely prominently.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 17:43
|
|
|
Kim Il Sung improved Korea by taking a backwater agricultural nobody and turned into an industrialized country known around the world. Starvation and stuff are just side effects.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 18:07
|
|
|
I just imagine his council all wearing those terrible shirts with all those guys heads on them, you know the ones. The most obnoxious ones siding with the least beneficial dictators on said list.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 18:09
|
|
|
What, you guys don't celebrate Idi Amin's birthday?
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 18:11
|
|
|
Ghost of Mussolini posted:Amazing. Guevara, Castro, Chavez and even Lenin I could take in full stride without batting an eyelash, but the others is a bit much, what party are they affiliated to? It is the Revolutionary Guevarist Party. Like I barely know about Latin American governments beyond the Argentinian ones - but after reading Nothing To Envy, it is basically criminal to defend the Kim dynasty. Yes, there was a point in the '60s where North Korea had an incredible advantage over South Korea economically. That still doesn't excuse all the poo poo they did with South Korean POWs and their own countrymen. When you can fill a couple hundred pages of human right violations just by talking to refugees, you know a country is beyond hosed up. I think it was in Bolivia (or Venezuela?) that, when the first rumour about Nelson Mandela's death was spread (a couple of years before he actually died), he got put into the Wall of Lamentation, alongside Khadafi, amongst others. This will never stop being funny.Anyway, I think I've seen those books in my local bookstores. Gonna get them then, thanks for the recommendations.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 18:23
|
|
JcDent posted:Kim Il Sung improved Korea by taking a backwater agricultural nobody and turned into an industrialized country known around the world. This tension particularly manifests itself in relation to some giant dam they built, which despite being an industrial wonder also brought on massive famine in the nearby area. Apparently when they display it to visitors they sort of appear embarrassed and proud at the same time.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 18:28
|
|
|
I mean, gently caress, in one of the free lectures they've done, they uttered the following phrase. "North Korea's continued existence is incredibly important, as it is one of the last bulkwards of the free, socialist world against the advance of the imperialist-NATOist advance. Our deepest thanks go to the glorious and proud people of our brother country". (Imperalista-Otánico was the original word)
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 18:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 05:57 |
|
|
Disinterested posted:Re: 2. A lot of it is to do with primogeniture, bad economic conditions and lack of opportunity. You wind up with a lot of second and third sons of aristocratic families with poo poo all to do to make a living, except perhaps become a clergyman. So you wind up with a bunch of people gambling everything to make their name and fortune somewhere else where they have a chance. A lot of people would say this was a big factor pushing people even if it isn't reason numero uno. There's a lot wrong with your post, for example you conflate all crusades with the First Crusade, but I don't have time to dissect all of it. So let me just say this: there was NO form of primogeniture in the 11th century that left 2nd and 3rd sons with "poo poo all to do to make a living". Indeed, ANY form of primogeniture was rare at this time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 19:18
|
|
