|
ArchangeI posted:The term you are looking for is "mental maps", i.e. how people create a picture of the world in their heads. The modern equivalent is knowing which road to take to work, without necessarily knowing or caring if that road runs south or west.
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 01:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 18:40 |
|
|
Rodnik posted:Hi all, HEY GAL posted:That's probably going to be difficult because I'm pretty sure they didn't think about their relationship to space in the same way that cultures that make accurate maps do. I might be pulling this out of my rear end, but from the way I've read people from these times write about movement, they think about passage from one spot to another and the relationships between those spots (or their political status) rather than all of those spots' relationships to a common, supposedly objective, framework. So, you might find something that tells you how many days' march Modena is from Milan, or a verbal description of which pass is good and which pass sucks, but I think a survey of the Po valley would be an Enlightenment thing. If that makes sense. Stop worrying and learn to love the point-to-point map 
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 01:53
|
|
|
Were compound bows--as in the kind with pulleys--really a modern military innovation? I would have figured with crossbows that something like that would have come about before firearms. Is it because the materials necessary to build one were all modern inventions?
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 02:20
|
|
|
Pro-Soviet Thread: It has a slant on itChamale posted:I love reading about the way people think in completely different ways about supposedly commonplace things. Then you''ll probably think those Polynesian wave-chart maps are super loving cool then like me. Frostwerks fucked around with this message at 03:22 on May 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 03:19
|
|
|
Frostwerks posted:Pro-Soviet Thread: It has a slant on it More slant then t34 armor
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 03:25
|
|
|
 What is this cool piece of work I can't even. Modern art or old school map?
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 03:27
|
|
|
Frostwerks posted:
Looks like a polynesian wave chart.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 03:36
|
|
|
Wow, rude.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 03:52
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:i am pretty sure jauchecharly, citizen of vienna in the year of god 2015, has not gotten a job in an einsatzkommando You'd be surprised, they'll let anybody in nowadays. Kanine posted:Like how could so many people (ie soviet invaders pillaging en masse, or any of the countless German soldiers killing locals earlier in the war) inflict bodily harm on a man/child/woman right in front of them, screaming and (in another language) begging for mercy and still hurt them? People say this is dehumanization, but I mean, like, of course they would beg for mercy, why would you listen to them? You have a job to do. Its one thing to discuss murder philosophically and almost anyone who has studied ethics can draw up dozens of convincing arguments for why murder is bad, but like, who gives a gently caress when its you and the other guy, and you know you have to kill him. Tomn posted:Also, there is the fact that if the CSA had continued to exist, so would the institution of slavery and all that implies. Not to mention that even before the Civil War Southerners were actively talking about turning the entire Gulf of Mexico into slave states in order to ensure the continued health and prosperity of the slaveholding South, so it's pretty likely they'd have plumped for that as much as possible after becoming a sovereign nation. The orgin of the word "filibuster"! Although maybe I read about that earlier in this thread. It's tough to keep things straight. Rocko Bonaparte posted:Were compound bows--as in the kind with pulleys--really a modern military innovation? I would have figured with crossbows that something like that would have come about before firearms. Is it because the materials necessary to build one were all modern inventions? Not a miltiary invention at all. I present Holless Wilbur Allen's 1966 patent for “Archery bow with draw-force multiplying attachments" , recognizeable as a primitve dual-cam compound bow. To make a compound bow you need a stiff riser, which ought to be made of metal, and composite limbs (wood, fiberglass, carbon composite). And of course, the cams, which for good letoff need to be rather well made.  Cams are unneccessary in crossbows, since the crossbow requires no strength to keep drawn. I am sure you have seen the various braces and winches on crossbows and ballistae, those are just to help draw the bow to begin with, once drawn all of the force is stored in the bow and there are no forces on your hand.  my dad posted:You racist little poo poo. remove halva Please don't remove halva. In fact, bring me more halva, I only have 300g left of the bit I smuggled in from Miletopl.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 03:54
|
|
|
I don't believe that the Soviets were the "good guys" at all and I think many people in this thread do. I can dislike the Nazis and the Soviets both without excusing either of them for what they did. I won't go as far as the people who say Hitler = Stalin. However I also don't believe my country (the USA) should have been in WW2 at all and that basically makes me the Pope of Crazytown in a lot of people's books. I'm sorry for cluttering up the thread with my wacky views, it should always be more about history than history posters.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 04:03
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Looks like a polynesian wave chart. Hey, look at that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Islands_stick_chart
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 04:05
|
|
|
cheerfullydrab posted:However I also don't believe my country (the USA) should have been in WW2 at all and that basically makes me the Pope of Crazytown in a lot of people's books. well it definitely does when you don't even try and justify that stance. were you transplanted here right from 1940 or something?
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 04:08
|
|
|
I think that the war was an unmitigated tragedy that would have been smaller without us in it, and that we could have done a lot more for the world by helping out in humanitarian ways. Something so unlikely it's even hard to measure with Gay Black Hitlers.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 04:10
|
|
|
cheerfullydrab posted:Something so unlikely it's even hard to measure with Gay Black Hitlers. What's the next unit above that? Yellow Tranny Stalins? Purple Lesbian Hirohitos? VVVV Red Sober Churchills Jobbo_Fett fucked around with this message at 04:24 on May 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 04:17
|
|
|
Red Pacifist Churchills Brown Philanthropic Davises
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 04:21
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Hey, look at that: I hate you people more than anything.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 04:25
|
|
|
Frostwerks posted:I hate you people more than anything. I'm sure there's at least one poster in this thread that hates way more than you do.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 04:40
|
|
|
cheerfullydrab posted:I think that the war was an unmitigated tragedy that would have been smaller without us in it, and that we could have done a lot more for the world by helping out in humanitarian ways. Something so unlikely it's even hard to measure with Gay Black Hitlers. Do you mean "without the US entering the war in Europe?" Or not against Japan either?
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 04:47
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Do you mean "without the US entering the war in Europe?" Or not against Japan either? Both good. One would have been easier than the other. Both about as likely as a gigantic, prehistoric squid crawling out of the South Atlantic and leading a successful revival of vaudeville in the United States.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 05:05
|
|
|
cheerfullydrab posted:I think that the war was an unmitigated tragedy that would have been smaller without us in it, and that we could have done a lot more for the world by helping out in humanitarian ways. Something so unlikely it's even hard to measure with Gay Black Hitlers. This makes me wonder if the Soviets could have won without Lend Lease or a second front.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 05:07
|
|
|
cheerfullydrab posted:Both good. One would have been easier than the other. Both about as likely as a gigantic, prehistoric squid crawling out of the South Atlantic and leading a successful revival of vaudeville in the United States. I think the losses on the Allies side would have continued to mount absent a US entry, and the holocaust would have been much larger in scale had the Nazis managed to expand and solidify their holdings, but the deaths in China were certainly not contingent on the US declaring war on Japan. Any mitigation in damages due to US belligerence would likely have been eclipsed by the war being a much longer affair. As far as the post-war timeline goes, I agree. The Cold War is still causing harm to this day, but it probably would have happened if it was just Monty and Zhukov in Berlin.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 05:19
|
|
|
cheerfullydrab posted:I think that the war was an unmitigated tragedy that would have been smaller without us in it... mournful HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 05:47 on May 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 05:19
|
|
|
Personally, I don't think the British boarding American ships to impress British-born sailors is that big of a deal. They are still technically subjects of the crown, and the British probably need all the extra sailors it can get to deal with that nasty ol' Mr. Napoleon.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 05:34
|
|
|
Yvonmukluk posted:So if Beevor is a hack, what are some good recent books that look at the Eastern Front in WWII, or that refute his allegations directly? Beevor is not a hack.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 05:38
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:i'm a little drunk right now, but jesus dude, that belief is a loving mess I'm sorry. I seem to be starting most of my recent posts with I'm sorry. I'm not changing what I said. I don't think effecting European political change with bombs and bullets was a good idea. A good idea would have been helping people get out and letting in every refugee, for just a start. I don't believe in "Good War" narrative.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 06:00
|
|
|
what do you do, as a head of state, when it becomes clear diplomacy isn't working?
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 06:02
|
|
|
cheerfullydrab posted:I don't think effecting European political change with bombs and bullets was a good idea. And how exactly do you do this when you're dealing with a man like Hitler, who wants war and isn't interested in negotiations except to the extent they can improve his position to launch future wars?
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 06:02
|
|
|
cheerfullydrab posted:I'm sorry. I seem to be starting most of my recent posts with I'm sorry. I'm not changing what I said. I don't think effecting European political change with bombs and bullets was a good idea. A good idea would have been helping people get out and letting in every refugee, for just a start. I don't believe in "Good War" narrative. Well, not responding to a direct attack on your territory is an open invitation for anybody else to do the same. So there wasn't a lot of choice with respect to Japan. And Germany declared war on the US, not the other way around.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 06:04
|
|
|
cheerfullydrab posted:I'm sorry. I seem to be starting most of my recent posts with I'm sorry. I'm not changing what I said. I don't think effecting European political change with bombs and bullets was a good idea. A good idea would have been helping people get out and letting in every refugee, for just a start. I don't believe in "Good War" narrative. It's one thing if you're a pacifist but the war would have been the same scale of disaster without the US and quite possibly a bigger one.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 06:05
|
|
|
well, the best war would have been if france and czechoslovakia had curbstomped nazi germany, but failing that we had a poor second-place
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 06:06
|
|
|
Counterfactuals are easy on the surface, but they're glib, nobody ever takes into account every consequence because it's impossible. It's even easier to second-guess the actions of people with hindsight. I don't want to do either, though I have been dipping into that a little bit, which was wrong of me. People did what they did, it happened, it's never going to not have happened. Just at least don't ask me to believe it was a Good War. I'm not trying to do that thing where posters unload some controversial statement then walk it back slowly or just abandon a topic. I like reading this thread and I didn't mean to be an rear end in a top hat and start something like this.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 06:20
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:well, the best war would have been if france and czechoslovakia had curbstomped nazi germany, but failing that we had a poor second-place I curbstomped Germany as a Czech-polish alliance in hoi2 once, it owned.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 06:20
|
|
|
Keldoclock posted:Not a miltiary invention at all. I present Holless Wilbur Allen's 1966 patent for “Archery bow with draw-force multiplying attachments" , recognizeable as a primitve dual-cam compound bow. To make a compound bow you need a stiff riser, which ought to be made of metal, and composite limbs (wood, fiberglass, carbon composite). And of course, the cams, which for good letoff need to be rather well made.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 06:42
|
|
|
cheerfullydrab posted:I'm not trying to do that thing where posters unload some controversial statement then walk it back slowly or just abandon a topic. You kind of are, though. You said something that reveals your mindboggling ignorance of the subject and are scrambling now that people are pointing it out.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 06:51
|
|
|
Rocko Bonaparte posted:That was mostly my the point. I'm surprised it wasn't a thing until the latter half of the 20th century. Is that even something that could have been developed in a time period before firearms dominated? Would it have actually been useful?
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 06:51
|
|
|
cheerfullydrab posted:Counterfactuals are easy on the surface, but they're glib, nobody ever takes into account every consequence because it's impossible. It's even easier to second-guess the actions of people with hindsight. I don't want to do either, though I have been dipping into that a little bit, which was wrong of me. People did what they did, it happened, it's never going to not have happened. Just at least don't ask me to believe it was a Good War. I'm not trying to do that thing where posters unload some controversial statement then walk it back slowly or just abandon a topic. I like reading this thread and I didn't mean to be an rear end in a top hat and start something like this. You are being hopelessly ignorant and naive. The Second World War was certainly not a "Good" war, but it was drat certainly a necessary one for the US to fight. Millions had died by the time the US entered the war, and millions more would have died had the US not been forced to intervene. Saying that we should have merely "Provided support" is just utter, utter nonsense. The best support we could have provided was to help bring an end to the murderous and destructive regimes of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan as quickly as humanly possible, and that's the course of action that we eventually took. Edit: And this is of course ignoring the basic fact that the US was, quite literally, dragged into the war, and staying out after December 8th would have involved ignoring a direct attack on our territory, the deaths of over 2,000 sailors and civilians, and multiple open declarations of war. Acebuckeye13 fucked around with this message at 07:11 on May 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 07:09
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:You kind of are, though. You said something that reveals your mindboggling ignorance of the subject and are scrambling now that people are pointing it out. Which part do you want me to prove? I've consistently framed this as my opinion, my belief, not some sort of thing that I consider Absolute Fact. Give me at least the slightest bit of credit for that. I'm defending it weakly because people have a lot of very set opinions about how very right fighting WW2 was, and they're not the easiest thing to shift. Why even try?
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 07:39
|
|
|
cheerfullydrab posted:Which part do you want me to prove? I've consistently framed this as my opinion, my belief, not some sort of thing that I consider Absolute Fact. Give me at least the slightest bit of credit for that. I'm defending it weakly because people have a lot of very set opinions about how very right fighting WW2 was, and they're not the easiest thing to shift. Why even try? It more seems like you're defending it weakly because your position is built upon sand and with further reflection is hopelessly naive.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 07:43
|
|
|
you're also arguing against a strawman (we're saying world war 2 was necessary, you're saying we're saying it was good) and when you originally said this thread is pro-soviet you seem to be doing that thing where people who disapprove of a group morally also say they're incompetent, like the people who hate slavery (duh) so they refuse to say forrest was good at his job (unwarranted)
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 07:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 18:40 |
|
|
Source4Leko posted:It more seems like you're defending it weakly because your position is built upon sand and with further reflection is hopelessly naive. What do you want me to tell you? HEY GAL posted:you're also arguing against a strawman (we're saying world war 2 was necessary, you're saying we're saying it was good) and when you originally said this thread is pro-soviet you seem to be doing that thing where people who disapprove of a group morally also say they're incompetent, like the people who hate slavery (duh) so they refuse to say forrest was good at his job (unwarranted) This is a bit true. I'm getting everything kind of muddy. People can think of a war as a necessary war without thinking of it as a good war. You're right that I started all this by calling people pro-Soviet, and when I said that I meant that people think they were the "good" side, and I didn't agree. Then I expanded things and muddied things up. I'm sorry. Also the Soviets were drat good at making war in WW2, I'm not anti-Soviet in that way. I mean the lights at Seelow Heights were pretty stupid but that's about it.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 07:59
|
|