|
Unfortunately today I didn't have a chance to go. I woke up late, went to the Technology Museum near my place and then wandered towards the old town and went on this tour. The next time I visit here I guess! Or I can at least go have a look in the evening after dinner, depending on how things pan out on that front. Also the change from the old city coat of arms, to the new one, of adding a little arm holding a sword sticking out the gate is  as hell.
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2016 18:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 16:38 |
|
|
bewbies posted:Essentially, secession was brought on by this assumption that the Republican victory meant eventually they'd take away are negroes, not that there was any particularly imminent threat of doing so. Modern day gun control opponents are kind of similar... Sadly, I've come to the same conclusion. The proponents are extreme in their views, and see any deviation from their line as literally threatening (to their guns.) It's become such a hot political issue most professional politicians can't be bothered with it. Looking back on Presidents in the runup to the civil war, the two aforementioned factors made them either 1) toe the party line, or 2) adopt increasingly untenable compromise positions. Meanwhile, it was becoming obvious to everybody outside the political structure that the status quo was untenable, and something had to change.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2016 18:20
|
|
|
Xerxes17 posted:... in the evening after dinner... edit: they've got a cool motto too, prague mother of cities, PRAHA MATER VRBIVM edit 2: it's such a cool motto it's in their train station HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 18:29 on Jul 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2016 18:20
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:please wander tipsily around the old town, that's good times I shall endeavor to steal a pike and make Sebastian Shutze pround 
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2016 18:23
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:In the case of eg the Spanish or Russian or Finnish Civil Wars, the losers largely got shot (or fled). There's no way that a majority of Finnish Reds or Spanish Republicans died or fled. The leadership? Sure. But what about the rank and file guys?
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2016 18:24
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:I don't think the South ever properly dominated the country politically, the most it did was force the entire slavery debate into its stupidest form. The south certainly dominated the country's early politics. Of the first 12 presidents, 7 were born in Virginia. Jackson and Polk were born in the Carolinas before settling in Tennessee. All 9 were slaveowners. This was no accident. Part of what made the Democrats so successful was enlisting southern support by placing prominent Southerners on their tickets. The Whigs did it as well to get cross-sectional appeal- both their successful tickets had at least one southerner.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2016 18:49
|
|
|
Didn't Grant say is his memoirs that Buchanan was surrounded by Southerners who were rather blatantly trying to stack the deck for secession by positioning a whole bunch of federal armories down south so the Confederacy could grab them easily when (not if) they seceded?
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2016 19:01
|
|
|
Xerxes17 posted:Hey Gal, why are all these Catholics in Prague this week going around the old down chanting, singing and yelling hallelujah? Maybe they were pilgrims on their way to the (Catholic) World Youth Day in Cracow? There are tons of them all over Germany/Austria right now too
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2016 19:07
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:There's no way that a majority of Finnish Reds or Spanish Republicans died or fled. The leadership? Sure. But what about the rank and file guys? Finland sent the rank and file (and in a lot of cases, their families too) to concentration camps with. About ten thousand fled to Russia, 76 thousand were imprisoned initially, of which a tenth was executed. Ten thousand died in the camps. It's rather notable considering most of the concentration camps were only in existence for about half a year. At the end of 1918, less than seven thousand prisoners remained, the rest had either died or received a pardon.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2016 19:11
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:There's no way that a majority of Finnish Reds or Spanish Republicans died or fled. The leadership? Sure. But what about the rank and file guys? E; Perhana, beaten.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2016 19:11
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:The South fought a civil war because the South had dominated the country politically and wielded the majority of political power up to that point (which is why the North had to put up with Fugitive Slave laws they opposed), and Lincoln's election despite the fact that every Southern state voted against him demonstrated that the South no longer dominated US politics. Slavery, as the biggest and most divisive policy difference between the North and the South, became a proxy for that clash over political influence. Similarly, expansion of slavery became a metaphor for expansion of political power - would a new state (with its associated Senate seats, House representation, and electoral votes) have a pro-Southern government or a pro-Northern government? At the same time, slavery was harped about so much (and eventually became cause for war) because slavery was the backbone of the Southern economy. Slave-based agriculture was a gigantic, multi-billion dollar industry that gave the South their actual economic power. Any threats to slavery's existence were viewed as a threat to Southern power because slavery was their power. So yes, the war was technically fought over the South losing power over the federal government. But the only power they were ever concerned with was the one based in a slave economy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2016 19:29
|
|
|
Yvonmukluk posted:Didn't Grant say is his memoirs that Buchanan was surrounded by Southerners who were rather blatantly trying to stack the deck for secession by positioning a whole bunch of federal armories down south so the Confederacy could grab them easily when (not if) they seceded? Including his Vice President, who was a Real Shithead.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2016 19:34
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Sadly, I've come to the same conclusion. The proponents are extreme in their views, and see any deviation from their line as literally threatening (to their guns.) It's become such a hot political issue most professional politicians can't be bothered with it. Looking back on Presidents in the runup to the civil war, the two aforementioned factors made them either 1) toe the party line, or 2) adopt increasingly untenable compromise positions. Meanwhile, it was becoming obvious to everybody outside the political structure that the status quo was untenable, and something had to change. I also think it's interesting to look at the particular speed at which secession in the South moved in the run up to the civil war (which I think is expounded upon in McPherson's Battle Cry of Freedom). A lot of the guys who drove the rush to secession in South Carolina remembered the Nullification Crisis, and their opinion was that by attempting to move slowly and avoid overt confrontation, they were forced into compromise by a bunch of despicable moderates. This time they were going to get their way, either in the Union or outside of it. GreyjoyBastard posted:Including his Vice President, who was a Real Shithead. Hey now, let's not ignore James "let me just interfere with this upcoming Supreme Court ruling" Buchanan, one of the bigger shitheads of the bunch. PittTheElder fucked around with this message at 21:13 on Jul 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2016 21:10
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
PittTheElder posted:I also think it's interesting to look at the particular speed at which secession in the South moved in the run up to the civil war (which I think is expounded upon in McPherson's Battle Cry of Freedom). A lot of the guys who drove the rush to secession in South Carolina remembered the Nullification Crisis, and their opinion was that by attempting to move slowly and avoid overt confrontation, they were forced into compromise by a bunch of despicable moderates. This time they were going to get their way, either in the Union or outside of it. Well yeah, but he didn't quite reach the point of deliberately aiding and abetting treason and secession.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2016 22:30
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:Including his Vice President, who was a Real Shithead. So glad goons went for Fremont in the SA Decides thread.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2016 22:32
|
|
|
Yvonmukluk posted:So glad goons went for Fremont in the SA Decides thread. We are about to abolish the Presidency and institute full Marxist-Wingism. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2016 22:47
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:We are about to abolish the Presidency and institute full Marxist-Wingism. I know. But I anted to vote for Teddy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2016 23:33
|
|
|
100 Years Ago 21 July: The French have also done their fair share of failing recently, but at least it's controlled, managed failure. The Germans are struggling with bad doctrine, and the BEF is just bad. There's mission creep in the air at the moment, and my mood is rapidly approaching Yosemite Sam levels of frustration. General Haig sucks up to Lord Northcliffe; BEF Intelligence goes "whoops, our bad" for misleading everyone about how many men the Germans have; Louis Barthas has no patience for being paraded for General Gouraud; Oskar Teichman talks about making drinking water in the desert; Alan Bott is moving slowly in the general direction of France; and Max Plowman arrives at Etaples for seasoning. 22 July: Time for some avant-garde back to front formatting. We begin with Lt-Col Tennant at Basra heading some extremely bad news; Max Plowman has stories of Somerset men being grabbed, put into kilts, and sent up the line as reinforcement for the Black Watch; Oskar Teichman gets buzzed by an enemy plane; more horrors of war for Emilio Lussu; morale is improving in the French rear as they watch the enemy removing men to go to the Somme; and the Royal Flying Corps has discovered at the last moment an extremely inconveniently-sited new trench. And then General Haig offers an opinion. So I offer a different opinion.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 00:25
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:100 Years Ago I'm glad to see the RFC uses sailmakers as well; I've heard of them as flying crew for German Zeppelins. Also, you did a thing on July 22nd that would be a pretty good username: "Royal Arse Hortillery."
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 01:38
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:None of those international agreements barred what people were indicted for at Nuremberg. Bormann was charged with "conspiracy to wage a war of aggression, " which is not a thing even touched upon in any international agreement. But Germany wasn't a party to the Washington or London Naval treaties?
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 01:50
|
|
|
JaucheCharly posted:Arrowmaking is actually quite labour intense, so you need to recover and repair them. The military arrows in the museums are quite uniform in their appearance, luckily, there's lots of them left here in Vienna. They were 3 fletched with the cockfeater up, made from pine and about 28" long, the section where the feathers were attached dyed bright red, which makes them easier to find in the field. Most arrows show signs of use, deformed of broken heads, many have their nocks repaired in a rather crude fashion compared to the original nocks. Standard damage when they're shot into something hard repeatedly. How exactly would they make the shafts? Getting them straight must have been a real job; did they start off with long square bits of wood and lathe them down, or what? Given how many arrows people must have needed, it seems like an incredible amount of work. HEY GAL posted:In general, it's like..."if people think well of you," but there are also certain places in life that are honorable by definition (soldiers, guilds) or dishonorable by definition (executioners, shepherds, tanners). So it seems to me soldiers are honourable by definition because they need their comrades to rely on them, and officers moreso because they need to be honourable to command their men - am I right? But why were shepherds dishonourable (and come to think of it, butchers must have been dishonourable by definition too, right?) How would people deal with something dishonourable that needed doing, eg a suicide's body - pretend they died by accident, or pay a dishonourable person to clean and carry the body?
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 03:00
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:I'm glad to see the RFC uses sailmakers as well; I've heard of them as flying crew for German Zeppelins. Also, you did a thing on July 22nd that would be a pretty good username: "Royal Arse Hortillery." He's been making that joke for 102 years.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 04:41
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:I'm glad to see the RFC uses sailmakers as well; I've heard of them as flying crew for German Zeppelins. Also, you did a thing on July 22nd that would be a pretty good username: "Royal Arse Hortillery." Yeah he does that a lot and it's wonderful.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 06:39
|
|
|
House Louse posted:So it seems to me soldiers are honourable by definition because they need their comrades to rely on them, and officers moreso because they need to be honourable to command their men - am I right? But why were shepherds dishonourable (and come to think of it, butchers must have been dishonourable by definition too, right?) How would people deal with something dishonourable that needed doing, eg a suicide's body - pretend they died by accident, or pay a dishonourable person to clean and carry the body? Generally speaking dishonourable professiones can be divided into three groups: Firstly those whose job led them outside of their respective communities where society couldn't control and supervise them (e.g. millers, Türmer [can't find the English expression for this, maybe "tower wardens"? These guys sat in high towers and watched the town for fires, but were also on th elookout for approaching enemies] and tanners). Then there were those who didn't belong to a proper community at all, e.g. shepherds, rag-and-bone men, wandering musicians and tinkers. And finally those professions were dishonourable who were "unclean", i.e. those in contact with dirt, blood and death, like executioners, tanners again, gravediggers, charcoal burners, torturers, but also barbers. This isn't a hard rule, though - many professions belonged to several columns at once (you can see this above with tanners for example, but could have done this with more). Butchers weren't dishonourable because they were living right in the town centre where everybody could see them and see what they were doing. Also handling dead animals was much less problematic than handling dead human bodies, and there were tons of people who had at least their own hens or geese or whatever, even if they weren't necessarily farmers or butchers. Finally I should mention that a profession being "dishonourable" wasn't set in stone - it could differ from area to area and even city to city, and it of course changed throughout time; there was a number of imperial laws in the 16th century for example that opened up guild membership for the children of various "dishonourable" professions. And finally being dishonourable wasn't all the same, a miller and an executioner were worlds apart in how people treated them and would hardly have seen each other as belonging to the same social group. Just as there were nuances in the honour of various social subgroups, there were those for dishonourable folk as well. e: there was also a group in France whose name I can't remember for the life of me who were seen as strongly dishonourable without it being tied to the profession, but simply belonging to that (familial?) group sufficed, and modern historians iirc had/have a really hard time understanding this phenomenon. Anyone know what I'm talking about? System Metternich fucked around with this message at 07:21 on Jul 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 07:18
|
|
|
System Metternich posted:e: there was also a group in France whose name I can't remember for the life of me who were seen as strongly dishonourable without it being tied to the profession, but simply belonging to that (familial?) group sufficed, and modern historians iirc had/have a really hard time understanding this phenomenon. Anyone know what I'm talking about? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cagot Thanks, QI!
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 07:50
|
|
|
System Metternich posted:e: there was also a group in France whose name I can't remember for the life of me who were seen as strongly dishonourable without it being tied to the profession, but simply belonging to that (familial?) group sufficed, and modern historians iirc had/have a really hard time understanding this phenomenon. Anyone know what I'm talking about? You're probably thinking of the Cagot. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cagot
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 07:51
|
|
|
Kemper Boyd posted:You're probably thinking of the Cagot. That's them, thanks! 
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 10:13
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:Of course there would have to be large scale executions. It would've been worth it, though. Why? Couldn't you just have imprisoned or deported them? I'm sure Stalin and Berija thought the same thing when they murdered Polish academics, artists, judges and officers, that doesn't make it not insane or bloodthirsty.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 10:26
|
|
|
Tias posted:Why? Couldn't you just have imprisoned or deported them? Imprisoning people is expensive en masse, and you can't deport people who are citizens of your own country, without the agreement of whatever country you're sending them to anyway  (not actually supporting mass executions here)
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 10:31
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:Imprisoning people is expensive en masse, and you can't deport people who are citizens of your own country, without the agreement of whatever country you're sending them to anyway Yeah I guess, but it wouldn't have been so hard for Stalinist Russia in May 1940. Hell, put them in penal battalions or labor armies or something, but no, you gotta slug everybody because they're a threat to the Polish revolution 
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 10:34
|
|
|
House Louse posted:How exactly would they make the shafts? Getting them straight must have been a real job; did they start off with long square bits of wood and lathe them down, or what? Given how many arrows people must have needed, it seems like an incredible amount of work. You can make them on an industrial scale through coppicing. If you manage a hazel or birch plantation, you'll be getting thousands of suitable dowel stems about every two years. I think the production of arrows was done at a local level - The King tells the local sheriff "your quota is 5,000 arrows" or just the feathers, or the heads, or the shafts. The Sheriff then has to make that happen. If you have a small hazel plantation you end up with something like 25 tonnes of dowel every five years, per hectare of land. So you have multiple small coppiced plantations, which produce thin, strong shoots by the thousand, and you rotate which ones are harvested. Working down to an arrow shaft from a coppiced shoot is no doubt a total ball-ache, but you're working from something a lot closer to the end product.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 10:40
|
|
|
Tias posted:Why? Couldn't you just have imprisoned or deported them? You know how Poland in 1939 was a fascist and anti-semitic state? Why did the people behind that need to be preserved?
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 12:28
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:You know how Poland in 1939 was a fascist and anti-semitic state? Why did the people behind that need to be preserved? I, er, don't rightly know how to respond to that. Keep on thinking it's cool to murder everyone who disagrees with you, I guess.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 12:50
|
|
|
Well to be fair it kinda was. Doesn't excuse Katyn though
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 13:07
|
|
|
StashAugustine posted:Well to be fair it kinda was. Doesn't excuse Katyn though It really does not. I'm as antifascist as the next dude, but the soviets grinding everyone with a higher education into paste to make sure their brand of totalitarianism stuck isn't really helping anyone.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 13:08
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:100 Years Ago That Farina Cuirass story is utterly infuriating.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 13:30
|
|
|
so i found some stuff. does anyone know what the acronym GSM might mean? context is that the gear the acronym is on, is (probably) some US army gear from 42-43. feel free to send me a PM if you happen to recognize the acronym. it's a shoulder bag btw. found some packages of US army issue gauze dated 42 along with it, which is all the context i've got. can't know if it's related because only the shoulder bag has the GSM & it's got no other print or markings on it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 13:41
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:You know how Poland in 1939 was a fascist and anti-semitic state? Why did the people behind that need to be preserved? It wasn't fascist by any stretch of the imagination (unless you're a Soviet propagandist, I guess) and for all the ugly anti-semitic stuff it didn't rank worse in that regard than the Soviet Union, whom you're excusing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 13:44
|
|
|
Tevery Best posted:It wasn't fascist by any stretch of the imagination (unless you're a Soviet propagandist, I guess) and for all the ugly anti-semitic stuff it didn't rank worse in that regard than the Soviet Union, whom you're excusing. What would you call the colonels' government? The National Democrats?
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 13:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 16:38 |
|
|
Panzeh posted:What would you call the colonels' government? The National Democrats? Especially when discussing the 1930s, fascist has a more specific meaning than 'run by the military'.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 14:01
|
|