|
I'm not sure if this counts as milhist, but I just this evening encountered a Patton Truther. By which I mean someone who believes that the US killed Patton to stop him from apparently singlehandedly kicking off WWIII.
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 22:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 06:25 |
|
|
OwlFancier posted:The ammo for that is going to be real expensive because surely without guided rounds you're gonna run into accuracy limitations based more around the intervening atmosphere rather than any limitation of the gun. I'm interested what bewbies has to say on this because maybe he's an engineer or something based on him getting those pics? So he might have better insight than my dumb artillery self. But meteorological conditions at regular intervals throughout the atmosphere are already accounted for in firing solutions so it would just be a matter of beginning to adding the newly relevant layers to the MET messages.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 22:25
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:The ammo for that is going to be real expensive because surely without guided rounds you're gonna run into accuracy limitations based more around the intervening atmosphere rather than any limitation of the gun. Sure, conventional rounds fired at a larger distances will have greater dispersion, but as the Russians have shown in Ukraine, massed artillery at very long ranges is still capable of inflicting some horrendous effects on target. Those guided artillery rounds may be expensive, but they are going to be cheaper than the guided Rocket artillery rounds that you otherwise use to reach out to those distances. And those guided artillery rounds may be expensive, but they are certainly cheaper than firing a missile (and its accompanying plane/fuel/pilot/logistical tail) that may not even be able to reach the target through a very dense SAM environment.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 22:48
|
|
|
Yvonmukluk posted:I'm not sure if this counts as milhist, but I just this evening encountered a Patton Truther. By which I mean someone who believes that the US killed Patton to stop him from apparently singlehandedly kicking off WWIII. That jeep should have been given a medal.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 22:53
|
|
|
Mr Crustacean posted:Sure, conventional rounds fired at a larger distances will have greater dispersion, but as the Russians have shown in Ukraine, massed artillery at very long ranges is still capable of inflicting some horrendous effects on target. Oh I'm sure people will spare the expense, I'm just wondering what the dispersion is going to be like at maximum range given that the longer the round is in the air, the less you can control the accuracy by building a better gun.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 23:36
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:We definitely shouldn't accept the premise that rapid industrialisation and mass death go hand in hand - because they don't - but social dislocation is definitely inevitable. Plus, both China and the USSR industrialised without wide access to the world market and in the spirit of fear of imminent external invasion and internal revolt. i believe italian communist leader amadeo bordiga wrote an essay on how to industrialise in a non-horrendous way and his conclusion was pretty much "yeah someone's going to have to uplift you at massive temporary expense to themselves", which was why industrialisation could only really be carried out after the world revolution and the breakdown of geopolitics as a driving force of course, the sino-soviet split made that a little awkward for everyone
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 23:39
|
|
|
it should also not be understated how much western industrialisation cost in terms of human suffering and extreme exploitation, though obviously those were much less intensive and also for a large part redirected to imperial subjects or what have you
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 23:40
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:it should also not be understated how much western industrialisation cost in terms of human suffering and extreme exploitation, though obviously those were much less intensive and also for a large part redirected to imperial subjects or what have you No joke. Highschool me was horrified beyond words when I read accounts of the English industrial revolution from the factory workers' perspective, and that of those who were out of work because of it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 23:44
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:it should also not be understated how much western industrialisation cost in terms of human suffering and extreme exploitation, though obviously those were much less intensive and also for a large part redirected to imperial subjects or what have you This is the huge part. Countless millions died to industrialize Western Europe and the US, it's just that most of them were located conveniently away from the places that benefited. Also it should be remembered that it was none too gentle to the agricultural workforces that were dislocated as a result even in the home country.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 23:48
|
|
|
And also being spread out over a century versus a decade.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 23:53
|
|
|
The point I'm trying to make is that massive short term sacrifice in order to jump start industrialization is how the Great Leap Forward was promoted, a military style campaign in which the whole nation mobilizes and suffers to advance fifty years in five, but it didn't work. Peasants didn't give their lives so that glorious new factories could be built and China didn't become a superpower by 1970. They died digging worthless ditches because of pointless stupidity and when it was finally over they had less agricultural production and less industrial production than before they started.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 00:00
|
|
|
P-Mack posted:The point I'm trying to make is that massive short term sacrifice in order to jump start industrialization is how the Great Leap Forward was promoted, a military style campaign in which the whole nation mobilizes and suffers to advance fifty years in five, but it didn't work. Peasants didn't give their lives so that glorious new factories could be built and China didn't become a superpower by 1970. They died digging worthless ditches because of pointless stupidity and when it was finally over they had less agricultural production and less industrial production than before they started. I don't think anyone here is disputing that?
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 00:01
|
|
|
Yvonmukluk posted:I'm not sure if this counts as milhist, but I just this evening encountered a Patton Truther. By which I mean someone who believes that the US killed Patton to stop him from apparently singlehandedly kicking off WWIII. Did they have an explanation for why MacArthur was allowed to live?
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 00:04
|
|
|
Ataxerxes posted:A regiment was an adminstrative thing and a brigade was the actual combat formation of 2 or 3 regiments, can't remember which. Regiments would not form by themselves in battles, they would always be a part of a brigade. I have a feeling that this changed sometime after the Battle of Nördlingen, more definitively not really around during the late stages of the war, as the armies started to become smaller and more cavalryish. Internet sources are really poo poo for 30YW history, but at least it looks like the Yellow Brigade started out as a regiment and was reinforced up to a brigade without adding regiments as such. I wish I had those glorious big grey books around at home.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 00:09
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:Did they have an explanation for why MacArthur was allowed to live? They probably just assumed he'd loving get himself killed showing off like a shithead at some point. Clearly the new world order rolled snake eyes on that one.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 00:35
|
|
|
Also, the problem of agency. 10 million people die in the industrialisation of a capitalist society? No one industrialist is responsible for the deaths of more than a tiny faction of them, and if the industrialist profits in the meantime of setting up his factory or whatever all is well. 5 million people die in the industrialisation of a communist one? Well, you have one leader who gave the order to industrialise to pin the blame on. They personally decreed a course which kills 5 million people: so they are histories greatest monster, right?
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 00:38
|
|
|
nothing to seehere posted:Also, the problem of agency. That totally ignores the point though. The industrialisation of the west was a bloody affair, but it was a long process that took decades to achieve. What happened in China was a man so deluded that he thought it was a smart idea to turn his country against itself, attempted to rush a complicated process without a firm understanding of how it worked which led to China being a much weaker nation by the end of the great leap forward.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 00:45
|
|
|
my dad posted:I don't think anyone here is disputing that? SlothfulCobra posted:Did they have an explanation for why MacArthur was allowed to live? I'm envisioning a bumbling NWO agent and a series of comical mixups with two seemingly identical corn cob pipes, one of which was stuffed with explosives.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 00:48
|
|
|
P-Mack posted:I'm envisioning a bumbling NWO agent and a series of comical mixups with two seemingly identical corn cob pipes, one of which was stuffed with explosives. That is why I find it so funny that anybody believes in a shadowy organization controlling the world. For if that was the case then they are doing quite the lovely job of it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 00:52
|
|
|
This just reminds me of when the Denver airport put a bunch of New World Order poo poo on their website for april fools day
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 00:57
|
|
|
Hunt11 posted:That totally ignores the point though. The industrialisation of the west was a bloody affair, but it was a long process that took decades to achieve. What happened in China was a man so deluded that he thought it was a smart idea to turn his country against itself, attempted to rush a complicated process without a firm understanding of how it worked which led to China being a much weaker nation by the end of the great leap forward. For the record GDP continued to grow during the GLF, not at the intended rate but "weaker" isn't entirely accurate either.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 01:29
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:For the record GDP continued to grow during the GLF, not at the intended rate but "weaker" isn't entirely accurate either.  China's National Bureau of Statistics shows a GDP drop from 147 to 123 billion yuan from 1960 to 61.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 01:45
|
|
|
P-Mack posted:
I can't exactly find if this source I have Here presents GDP figures but it's assessment does provide a somewhat more nuanced view than "left the country weaker": quote:There were some gains from the Leap, especially in terms of learning-by-doing And other things like how the large cities were mostly unaffected or possibly benefited and so on. But I can't find anything that says or supports that national GDP grew during the Leap so I'm probably wrong there.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 02:00
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure you are, and that "learning by doing" sounds like they're reaching hard to find anything positive to spin. Even in the PRC they don't pretend the Great Leap Forward was a good thing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 02:08
|
|
|
Yvonmukluk posted:I'm not sure if this counts as milhist, but I just this evening encountered a Patton Truther. By which I mean someone who believes that the US killed Patton to stop him from apparently singlehandedly kicking off WWIII. A few months after World War II ended?
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 02:23
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:welcome to the 17th century, plz enjoy your stay I'm going off of a /r/askhistorians post that I vaguely remember, but wasn't clothing in the pre-industrial era incredibly expensive? To the point where we should regard your guys stripping corpses of their outfits as being more akin to quickly riffling through the dead guy's wallet?
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 02:41
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:I can't exactly find if this source I have Here presents GDP figures but it's assessment does provide a somewhat more nuanced view than "left the country weaker": "Many" had "barely seen" steel seems like a lot of hedging, and doesn't take into account that while steel may have been comparatively rare, China had good iron production all the way back to the medieval period. For a lot of agricultural tools like hoes, shovels, rakes and certain kinds of plough there is very little practical difference between iron and steel. I also would assume (though this is only an assumption) that knives would be about as common in agrarian China as they were in agrarian Europe (i.e. everywhere) so there would be at least SOME steel that these peasants were highly familiar with. It wouldn't be like modern foundry steel but it would still be steel.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 02:54
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:A few months after World War II ended? Operation Unthinkable (and other, much saner plans/contingencies) were pushed by some VERY big names in that time period, it wasn't completely out of the question.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 02:55
|
|
|
P-Mack posted:
FWIW the fall in 60-61 in particular is more due to the cancellation of the GLF policy (with 60 being the peak year in terms of deaths), the rolling back of centralisation efforts, and the refocus on agriculture and agricultural imports rather than industry and exports. I think the general situation in the GLF can't really be reduced to 'because Mao'. That's certainly a big part of it, but there's also the growing rift with the USSR, the desire to develop socialism with Chinese characteristic, internal conflict between the rightists and leftists, overconfidence because of the success of land reforms and the first five year plan, the lack of competent managers at pretty much any level of the decision making hierarchy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 03:03
|
|
|
Polyakov posted:Mines from 1967 to 1991. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=un01zw62n70 COs of USS Samuel B. Roberts and USS Cole in the relevant time periods in a Q&A on leadership's importance during damage control.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 03:55
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:The latter isn't entirely unreasonable, there was a US mission to Yannan and the CPC had tried really hard to woo the US mission over. If the US had taken a pragmatic approach to China much like the British did and didn't ignore the Chinese concerns regarding Korea I think China could have been opened up 20 years earlier. I think the Soviets were a big enough pain in the rear end between 1949 and the Korean War that even the slightest interest by the Americans to normalize relations would've been seriously considered with enough prodding by Zhou Enlai. This reminds me of this weird little bit of German Cold War history: During the early years, German diplomacy in West Germany pretended to hate China, while the DDR pretended to love them, both states following the feelings of their respective overlords astonishingly close. When feelings between China and the USSR cooled of later during the 50s, both nations switched places on this issue. Suddenly West Germany didn't think China was that bad anymore and East Germany developed cold feet about their relationship. I think I even faintly remember reading some positively ancient German newspaper articles on microfiche about the US complaining about our (Western) sudden switch to CHINA NOT BAD.  (Of course the situation was more complex, I'm simplifying a lot to make a joke.)
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 08:24
|
|
|
Monocled Falcon posted:I'm going off of a /r/askhistorians post that I vaguely remember, but wasn't clothing in the pre-industrial era incredibly expensive? To the point where we should regard your guys stripping corpses of their outfits as being more akin to quickly riffling through the dead guy's wallet?
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 09:27
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:it was, but these guys will steal anything they can from anything they can, down to breaking windows to get the lead in their frames to make bullets To shoot out of the now open window?
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 09:39
|
|
|
OfficialGBSCaliph posted:To shoot out of the now open window?
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 10:04
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:A few months after World War II ended? Some of the more fire-breathing anti-communists pretty much wanted to segue into World War III from World War 2 by immediately attacking the Soviet Union. Hell, in the dying days of the Reich that was the last hope of the Nazis, that the Western Allies would team up with them to kill off the Soviets.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 10:22
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:Did they have an explanation for why MacArthur was allowed to live? Apparently that was different because reasons. Patton was so beloved they had to kill him, because otherwise the GIs would have followed him into fighting the Soviets no questions asked. Never mind McArthur kicking off WW3 in Korea would actually have been worse since nukes were in play. chitoryu12 posted:A few months after World War II ended? Yeah apparently he was pushing for it. Never mind that a lot of people were not happy with letting the Russians have half of Europe (including Churchill) that nonetheless recognised that another war was A Very Bad Idea. I'm sure he recognised that too.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 10:29
|
|
|
Yvonmukluk posted:Apparently that was different because reasons. Patton was so beloved they had to kill him, because otherwise the GIs would have followed him into fighting the Soviets no questions asked. Never mind McArthur kicking off WW3 in Korea would actually have been worse since nukes were in play. "letting the Russians have" half of Europe 
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 10:47
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:Some of the more fire-breathing anti-communists pretty much wanted to segue into World War III from World War 2 by immediately attacking the Soviet Union. Hell, in the dying days of the Reich that was the last hope of the Nazis, that the Western Allies would team up with them to kill off the Soviets. Once everyone realized the war was truly over, there was a bit of a stunning moment where the realization that the whole thing wasn't fought for moral reasons slowly sunk in. Same thing happened with WWI, almost more dramatically.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 10:47
|
|
|
Yvonmukluk posted:Yeah apparently he was pushing for it. Never mind that a lot of people were not happy with letting the Russians have half of Europe (including Churchill) that nonetheless recognised that another war was A Very Bad Idea. I'm sure he recognised that too. It's pretty funny when people always call Roosevelt naive about Stalin and then Churchill divvies up the Balkan countries with bizarre percentages of influence and then thinks that will mean anything. "Hey look, Romania is 80/20 yours, okay?"
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 11:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 06:25 |
|
|
Feral_Shofixti posted:"letting the Russians have" half of Europe What do you call it then?
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 12:38
|
|
