|
I'm starting Eastern Inferno and I get the sense there's going to be a lot of summary executions.quote:Meanwhile, a few comrades have pulled the remaining Rotarmisten [Red Army soldiers] and Jews from their hiding places. A solo gun performance echoed across the square and with that, the mob ascended to the heavens of “the English High Church.” quote:This afternoon, when Russian tanks appeared, the crew of one of our panzers climbed out to position its cannon. When we returned, we found it all in flames. A civilian who was in hiding had set it on fire. He was captured and also set on fire.
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 14:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 09:06 |
|
|
Shade2142 posted:I'm starting Eastern Inferno and I get the sense there's going to be a lot of summary executions. I've got that on my wishlist. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 14:22
|
|
|
HEY GAIL posted:i would go there To come, and see, sure, but conquer?
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 15:45
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:Oh that's certainly a defeat so epic that Sabaton could make an entire album out of it, but maybe a bit different because the Paraguayans were still winning several battles for a couple of years and in theory stood a chance of some kind of victory or truce over the alliance. Meanwhile Albania's plan was to A) hunker down in bunkers sprinkled across the countryside and B) ???, a strategy that works only in tower defense games. I mean, I guess the Maginot line was sufficiently obstructive as to merit invading another country to avoid. And I think Switzerland has the whole "everyone has an assault rifle in their house and bunkers everywhere" thing going which seems to work out for them. I think the idea is just to be too loving annoying to invade rather than to necessarily win. Besides bunkers are cool. Also the UK is also full of bunkers it's just ours are less publicized.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 16:22
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I mean, I guess the Maginot line was sufficiently obstructive as to merit invading another country to avoid. And I think Switzerland has the whole "everyone has an assault rifle in their house and bunkers everywhere" thing going which seems to work out for them. Switzerland's relative safety in neutrality is based far, far, FAR more on housing international institutions that are useful places for hostile powers to have a discreet talk than it is their forts and militia. Don't get me wrong I loving LOVE their shooting culture (swiss gun ranges are the BEST), but the idea that that's what kept Hitler out is a pipe dream on the order of asserting that the NRA kept Japan out of California and not, you know, the USN.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 16:30
|
|
|
Well yeah I suspect doing Nazi Germany's accounting services would have been more pertinent there. Just saying that "make the country really loving annoying to invade" is not a unique strategy or an entirely unsuccessful one.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 16:34
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Besides bunkers are cool. Also the UK is also full of bunkers it's just ours are less publicized. Shh don't tell them that, now everyone will want in!
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 16:36
|
|
|
Today I want to talk to you all about the start of what I think is probably the most interesting war of the 20th century. The reason I say that is that it was the one that had the most disruption, it was two powers of similar size hammering at each other with varying levels of technical sophistication, and the consequences of the various blockades, purges, backroom deals and dictatorial meddling are just utterly fascinating to me in how the war unfolded. The levels of competency varied wildly depending on a huge array of factors that constantly shifted throughout the war. This post will be about the political context and the two men who would command each side. Context to the war. In many ways the regimes of Iran and Iraq were similar in their approaches to foreign policy. Saddam had been angling for a long time to create a Pan-Arab state under the Ba’ath banner, he had botched relations with Syria in the 70’s over the demand that Iraq be the senior partner in an Arab union. He believed that victory in the war over the old Persian enemy would serve as a rallying call and establish Iraqi pre-eminence in the Arab world, which was to be the first step of a Pan-Arab superstate and the creation of a superpower. Khomeini believed that his Islamic revolution was the first step in a popular overthrow of the Middle East, he wanted to tear down the monarchies of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait and to destroy the secular regimes of the Ba’athists and create a grand set of theocratic states. While he did not explicitly call for him as the leader it would only logically follow that as the progenitor of successful Islamic revolution that he would take a pre-eminent place, especially among Shia theocracies. Iraq. A brief history of Iraqi governance.  Iraq was a country created out of the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire after WW1, here are a couple of quote from Gertrude Bell, (A British empire official and renowned Arab expert) in her participation in the creation of Iraq: “Politically, too, we rushed into the business with our usual disregard for a comprehensive political scheme … The coordinating of Arabian politics and the creation of an Arabian policy should have been done at home – it could only have been done successfully at home. There was no-one to do it, no-one who had ever thought of it, and it was left to our people in Egypt to thrash out, in the face of tremendous opposition from India and London, some sort of scheme which will, I am persuaded, ultimately form the basis of our relations with the Arabs.” “The real difficulty here is that we don’t know exactly what we intend to do with the country”. Essentially the creation of Iraq was hashed out locally without real clear instruction from central authority, the revolt in 1920 was the trigger for its creation and splitting off from the Empire. It was the stitching together of 3 large areas of completely different background and nationalities, the Kurds in the north, the Sunnis in the centre and the Shia in the south. The Shia in the south were deeply involved in the revolt and as a result got pretty shafted by the creation of Iraq. The British were very influenced by the Sunni elites in the centre and let them come to dominate the political institutions of the newly formed country. The upshot of this is that Iraq was a totally fractured country, similar in many ways to Iran though more pronounced, the first monarch of Iraq, King Faisal would remark in 1933. “There is still – and I say this with a heart full of sorrow – no Iraqi people, but unimaginable masses of human beings, devoid of any patriotic idea, imbued with religious traditions and absurdities, connected by no common tie, giving ear to evil, prone to anarchy, and perpetually ready to rise against any government whatever.” Shortly after he made that statement there was the 1936 military coup headed by General Sidqi, who was assassinated a year later setting off a bloody series of coups that would only end in 1941 with Prime Minister Rashid Ali. He tried to align with the Germans and the British wasted no time in invading across the Transjordan and deposed him. They would dominate Iraq for the next 15 years, shortly after they left there was another coup in 1958 and then another in 1968 that would bring the Ba’athists to power. Exactly when Saddam came to power in Iraq is a debateable point, for a long time he had been the essential power in Iraq. He sat as Iraq’s Vice President and more importantly Vice President of the Revolutionary Command Council from 69-79, but conducted a lot of the functions of president, he was responsible for negotiations with Syria about the creation of a Pan-Arab state, and also the 1975 Algiers agreement with Iran and many other functions besides. However the point that he came to official power was in 1979 with the deposition of Ahmed al-Bakr, exactly what happened is not completely clear but there are accounts that the situation was essentially, step down or be overthrown. The fact that Saddam had the Ba’ath party purged shortly after does lend credence to that story, shortly after he came to power he had 22 ministers of the old government executed for colluding with Syria and Iran. The reason I harped on the background of coups in Iraq so much is because I think that Saddam is somewhat misinterpreted or perhaps oversimplified as a man. He was capable of great insight alongside his great follies. The need for Dictators to purge the military was I think the only way that he would remain in power, he was a paranoid man but even paranoid men have enemies, had he not done so, I do not doubt that the Ba’athists would have left power fairly quickly. He should not be dismissed as a paranoid for his military purges without an understanding of exactly the historical context of government in Iraq that lead him to make that decision. Algiers Agreement -1975.  This agreement that resolved territorial disputes between Iraq and Iran is important because its abrogation was as part of the Casus Belli that Iraq used to start the war. The background to this was Iran arming the Kurds in the north of Iraq, Iraq attempting to arm Khuzestan rebels in the south of Iraq. Iraqi occupation of the whole of the Shatt-Al-Arab waterway since the treaty of 1935, the river border between the two countries, and Iraqi claims on parts of western Khuzestan (the majority Arab border region of Iran). Iraq was losing and losing badly to Kurds in the north, the Shah was arming them heavily and they were giving the Iraqi army a seriously hard time. It was said by Saadoun Hammadi, the foreign minister at the time, “it was either that (Algiers Agreement) or we lose the entire north of the country”, and he was right. The Shah extracted everything he could from Iraq, getting sovereignty up to the midpoint of the Shatt-Al-Arab, Iraq renouncing its claims to western Khuzestan and many other small territorial complaints resolved in favour of Iran. The humiliation of this festered with Saddam all the way through to the fall of his regime in 2003 and was a huge part of his decision to launch the invasion. The Shatt especially held such importance because it was Iraq’s only real route to the gulf for oil exports, its other pipelines went through Turkey and Syria, both potentially hostile states. The border was set at the Thalweg (midpoint) by the accords, in accordance with pretty much every other border waterway in the world, but Iraq was very neurotic about that waterway. Sadams presidency.  Saddam himself was a very effective dictator, he had absolutely no qualms about using excessive force to hold Iraq together and crush dissidents. He was a great admirer of Stalin and would frequently talk of him and his methods in glowing terms, he was a great lover of WW2 documentaries about the Eastern front and would often derail strategic discussions in the war about the effectiveness of weapon systems like the Katyusha rockets and how Stalin dragged Russia up to become a first rate world power. I note this at this point because it is important to note how his style of government and how it explicitly tried to emulate Stalin’s pre WW2 years was a large part of what deprived the Iraqi army of competent leadership. He was well aware that the only institution that could overthrow him was the armed forces, it had happened previously in 1963. He purged the army of commanders that showed too much intelligence and appointed family members or close associates from Tikrit (Where Saddam got his political start as a hitman for the Ba’ath party). The army had reasonable success suppressing internal enemies like the KDP and the southern Arab dissidents which lead him into a false sense of security. He entered the war with a military as effective as he wanted and allowed it to be, but against a foe like Iran who was three times the size of Iraq in population it was not as effective as it had to be. Sadam and Israel. Other important things to note about Saddams mindset was his utter hatred of Jews, he was influenced by his uncle in this matter and when he came to power republished in 1981 a book written by his uncle, “Three whom god should not have created: Persians, Jews and Flies”. The very reason he wanted to create a Pan-Arab state was in a large part to wipe out Israel, to a lesser extent Iran and to resist western colonial domination which he saw returning at every turn. His fears of those 3 elements would become a recurrent theme throughout the war, especially when Israel bombed the Iraqi reactor complex at Osirak. The Camp David accords of 1978 lead to him denouncing Sadat, the move essentially made Egypt a Pariah state in the Arab world, and Saddam saw opportunity to seize the mantle of the leading Arab state on the back of his existing hatred for Israel, he described Sadat in the following terms: “That al-Sadat is the scum of humanity, the scum of humanity. What an immoral man. It is clear why our history names him as the number one traitor”. He would plot secretly with the Arab world to destroy Israel in its entirety, which bought him a significant amount of political capital he would leverage during the war for support. He made the following statement early in the war about the links between the Iranians and the Israelis. (Specifically with relevance to Iranians obtaining weapon supplies for their western equipment). “This is a fact, I mean you should not belittle [the Iranians], and regard them as turbans. No, they are not turbans, the Iranians are satanic turbans, and they know how to conspire and know how to plan sedition, and they know how to communicate with the world, because they are not the ones doing the communicating. Look can we communicate with the world? Can we achieve the same way the Iranians can? It is Zionism, it is Zionism that is guiding [the Iranians]. Zionism is taking the Iranians by the hand and introducing them to each party, one by one, channel by channel. I mean Zionism – come on comrades – do I have to repeat this every time” Final comments. Saddam saw the war against Iran as a quick and easy victory over the old enemy Persia that he could use to elevate himself in the Arab world, maybe harangue Syria into a union and build up the political capital necessary for an invasion of Israel, not just to right the wrongs of 1973 but to very literally wipe Israel off the map. He saw Iran as a weakened and easy target that would quickly capitulate, a tragically common assessment of many countries by their enemies before a long and bloody war. His assessment wasn’t completely wrong, Iraq could have had great success with the right preparation, the right planning and most importantly the right commander. Without those it was doomed to attrition warfare that Iraq was ill equipped to fight against an enemy three times its size. Iran.  Note the areas to the west that were lost to the Ottomans by various treaties, these are the areas that the Shah regained at Algiers. The collapse of the Shah. I think that possibly the most instructive short quote (and one of my favourite historical quotes period) about the fall of the Shah was extracted from an exchange of letters between him and King Faisal of Saudi Arabia (Not a bad chap historically speaking as kings of Saudi Arabia go): Shah Pahlavi: “Please, my brother, modernize. Open up your country. Make the schools mixed women and men. Let women wear miniskirts. Have discos. Be modern. Otherwise, I cannot guarantee you will stay on your throne.” King Faisal: “Your majesty, I appreciate your advice. May I remind you, you are not the Shah of France. You are not in the Élysée. You are in Iran. Your population is 90 percent Muslim. Please don’t forget that.” It was prophetic that in a large part that Shah Pahlavis modernisation efforts would serve to enrage the population of Iran. At that point Iran was essentially the guardian of the Middle East, they were armed by America to keep order in the area and they did a fairly reasonable job of it. But as that exchange showed the Shah really didn’t quite grasp the seriousness of the hornets’ nest he was stirring up. Though that is not to paint the Shah as a moderniser brought low by reactionary religious forces, his regime was very oppressive. SAVAK his security forces were brutal and his regime corrupt. I mention the modernisation issue in more detail because it was one of the most effective weapons of the man who would come to lead Iran. Ayatollah Khomeini. (I am leaving out a larger examination of Iran’s social issues, it’s fascinating stuff but not relevant to the figures being discussed). Khomeini.  As this will come up a lot in this section, I am no expert in Islamic theology, and I apologise for any sweeping generalisations or mistakes I make. Khomeini was more unique than most of the religious dissidents from Iran in that he was a man with a political philosophy, not just a religious one. He wanted to upend not only the Shah but the traditional means of Shia governance, his theory was called Guardianship of the Islamic Jurist, essentially it was the theory that would lead to him being declared as the supreme leader of Iran, the idea is in short that Islam necessitates a Grand Jurist be appointed over people, there is debate over whether that is purely in Islamic matters or whether it is all encompassing, Khomeini was as you may imagine a proponent of the all-encompassing philosophy. He was expelled from Iran in 1964, went to Turkey, then went to Iraq, he was a serial troublemaker and made problems for his Iraqi hosts as well as for Iran. His speeches were widely distributed in Iran where he railed against the “Westoxification of Islam.” He was expelled from Iraq as part of the 1975 agreement, a part that Saddam did not mind given how much of a nuisance he was proving and went to France. When the Shah fell it took everyone by surprise, and Khomeini would return in great fanfare to Iran in February 1979. When he returned however he was not confronted by consensus, the Communists, the Democrats, the Islamists and a dozen other forces besides were vying for power. The revolution was a popular one, not an Islamic one, it was just at the end of it that the Islamists stood atop the pile, thanks in a large part to the unifying effect that the Iraqi invasion had. The following was said by a British commentator towards the end of the war with regards to the beginning: “Ayatollah Khomeini presided over a bitterly divided and factionally fragmented nation, his Islamic Government establishment being only precariously kept in power by secret trials and executions, wholesale imprisonment without trial and the perverse activities of the Revolutionary Committees and the Pasdaran against hostile militias. It was Khomeini’s immense prestige, power, influence, and political acumen that held the Islamic Republic together during 1979 and until September 1980, after which war with Iraq engendered the essential cement of nationalism. Many considered it problematic how long he could have held his country together otherwise.” Khomeini used the spread of revolution abroad to solidify his hold on power, he advocated active Islamic revolution throughout the world and even in the depths of the war with Iraq he would attempt to achieve this goal. He was a man with designs on greater power. He became the first man in a millennium to be referred to as “Imam of the Age and the Lord of Time”. In brief, according to a belief held by parts of Shia Islam that there was an infallible male descendant of Muhammed who disappeared in the 10th century and will return as a messianic figure to bring justice and peace. It is supposed to come around every “Age” which was taken by many to be a millennium. The beliefs starting point was 941 AD, and many were looking for the return of this figure, while he did not actively call himself this figure, his followers did the work for him in that matter. But it established him as a major divine figure to many Iranians and explains in part the huge religious fervour that he commanded. Khomeini’s aim was made clear by this extract from a speech he made: “Colonialism has partitioned our homeland and has turned the Muslims into separate peoples … The only means that we possess to unite the Muslim nation, to liberate its lands from the grip of the colonialists and to topple the agent governments of colonialism is to seek to establish our Islamic government. The efforts of this government will be crowned with success when we become able to destroy the heads of treason, the idols, the human images and the false gods who disseminate injustice and corruption on earth.” He wanted a greater Islamic state, and the idols and false gods took the part of the western powers and their cultural influx. He would adapt this position after the start of the Iran Iraq war to seek the overthrow of all secular governance in the middle-east. The decision to go to war. Saddam very quickly lost any aspirations he had about negotiation with the Iranian regime next door, they immediately started subversive campaigns in Iraq and other Arab states. He retaliated quickly by expelling tens of thousands of Iraqi Shias, attempting to organize his potential allies in the Arab world into a united pan-Arab front against Iran, had the spiritual leader of the Dawa Party killed, and supported separatist Kurdish and Arab elements within Iran. He also organised, armed and trained the terrorists who would seize the Iranian embassy in London in 1980, this lead to a break in diplomatic relations and sporadic raids along the border by both sides. Saddam tried to position himself as the aggrieved party, which while not complete nonsense as Iran had largely started the fresh conflict. His claims lost all meaning in the way that he was responsible for its escalation. In 1980 he decided to confront Iran with large scale military operations based on the reports from his intelligence services on the state of Iran’s deteriorating armed forces. “We expect more deterioration of the general situation of Iran’s fighting capability. It is probable it will send other troops to the Kurdish region to confront the armed Kurds. Moreover, the shortage of spare parts and the continuation of the general dislocation and contradiction will lead to the continuous decline in combat capability … it is clear that, at present, Iran has no power to launch wide offensive operations against Iraq, or to defend on a large scale. However, it is necessary to pay attention in taking protective measures because [we] cannot guarantee that the Iranian enemy could not launch a special operation of a dangerous nature … if their troops or interests encounter effective losses due to our activities, or when the operation of weakening [the] al-Khomeini regime reaches a more intensive stage.” A not unfair summary of Iranian military capability at the time, the purges which I will cover in the assessment of general military capability next time were in full swing. However it does not account for Iraq’s own military incompetence. Saddam was to void the Algiers accords in early September of 1980 and invade in late September of 1980. Both sides were completely at ideological odds, both leaders on either side were indifferent to casualties and the vast wealth of both states, driven by the oil price of the 70’s would be turned into weapons and deaths on a scale only seen elsewhere in the 20th century in the World Wars, but conducted with none of the technical competence that those wars were fought with. Next time – The armies, the objectives and the beginning. Polyakov fucked around with this message at 19:35 on Feb 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 16:38
|
|
|
Rockopolis posted:So, I'm off for a trip to France at the end of the month. I'll be staying for about a week. Is there any place you'd really recommend I visit or avoid? A week seems intense for Prague + Paris + Venice. I think Venice is the sort of place you only really need 1-2 days in though, so that sort of works out. Paris there's a ton of things. Big caveat: I have no particular milhist knowledge, just have been to stuff in paris, some of which was military. - Les invalides (specifically the musee de l'armee and related museums) is good for an overview of french military history. I think a catacombs tour would be up your alley if you're a milhist sort of person. - There's also a sort of small museum about the republican guard, whose name escapes me but which should be googleable. Interesting because it's about a ceremonial unit. - Musee de la resistance nationale: french resistance museum, i liked it a lot - musee des gardes suisse: Swiss guard. This one was all right, but don't remember that much. - l'arce de triomphe -- presumably you'll see it, but for sure worth checking out - If you're a milhist sort of person you'd probably enjoy the catacombs - musee de l'air et space (sp?): air and space museum -- not military per se, but has fighter planes and such I think most of the castles around Paris are more like gentleman's chateaus or hunting lodges than actual castles per se. I definitely don't have a very comprehensive knowledge of these, but vincennes is probably your best option near the city to see something more like a real castle. I think it was technically built as a lodge or something in like the 1300s, but it was fortified after. It also has some interesting wwii history. Fusion Restaurant fucked around with this message at 16:45 on Feb 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 16:41
|
|
|
Polyakov posted:Today I want to talk to you all about the start of what I think is probably the most interesting war of the 20th century, the reason I say that is that it was the one that had the most disruption, it was two powers of similar size hammering at each other with varying levels of technical sophistication and the consequences of the various blockades, purges, backroom deals and dictatorial meddling are just utterly fascinating to me in how the war unfolded, with levels of competency varying wildly depending on a huge array of factors that constantly shifted throughout the war. This post will be about the political context and the two men who would command each side.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 16:44
|
|
|
Siivola posted:Could you break your text up a bit? Your sentences run super long (a whole paragraph long, in places), and it makes your effortposts kinda exhausting to read. Sure, ill go fix that, my grammar is dreadful and i really should so something about it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 16:48
|
|
|
Wow, thanks for the effort Polyakov!
Nine of Eight fucked around with this message at 16:59 on Feb 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 16:55
|
|
|
I just patched the grammar, is that more readable? Any other comments are welcome, I'm trying to improve these as i produce more and feedback is handy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 17:03
|
|
|
This is going to be good.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 17:11
|
|
|
Woo! More Iran-Iraq! The Shah just wanted to look at women in miniskirts. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 17:18
|
|
|
Polyakov posted:I just patched the grammar, is that more readable?
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 17:30
|
|
|
Oh my god this is going to be amazing. Thank you for this. Before I changed majors, one of my last upper division history courses had to do with the modern (Napoleon/Tripoli forward more or less) Mideast and I was fascinated by the different approaches to pan-Arabism everyone took (I.e. Nasser, Assad, Hussein, etc) and how it seemed like Khomeini's approach was an attempt to achieve the same unification of pan-Arabism but using Islamic legalism to allow Persians in the room. But this was like a 3000 level class and I ended up withdrawing when my mother developed pulmonary embolisms so it wasn't much more than fascination.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 18:24
|
|
|
Amazing text, I look forward to future updates 
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 18:53
|
|
|
Yeah keep up the great work man.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 19:02
|
|
|
N-th'ing the Iran-Iraq war post. Can't wait to see the rest!
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 19:20
|
|
|
Polyakov posted:I just patched the grammar, is that more readable? I didn't catch it until after the update, but it's definitely smoother to read than some of your earlier work, so I'd say you're doing good. The substance, I think, stands on its own, no feedback needed.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 19:54
|
|
|
Thanks for the Iran-Iraq effortpost Polyakov. It's one of those subjects I've meant to study up on but I've never known where to start.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 20:30
|
|
|
Likewise, looking forward to seeing more.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 20:58
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I mean, I guess the Maginot line was sufficiently obstructive as to merit invading another country to avoid. And I think Switzerland has the whole "everyone has an assault rifle in their house and bunkers everywhere" thing going which seems to work out for them. Uh huh. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 21:06
|
|
|
Rockopolis posted:
The Venetian Arsenal!
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 21:15
|
|
|
Also what a coincidence, just saw a movie on the Iran/Iraq war. Good read
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 21:23
|
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:I'm imagining a bunch of a guys on a ship in the middle of the med just turning to each other one day and going "Bail... Bail? I think Bail" and turning for America This is pretty much what happened to lots of Italy so
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 22:01
|
|
|
Polyakov posted:
Haha, what a NEEERRRRRDDDDDD Thanks for this dude, these are good posts
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 22:26
|
|
|
Thanks for the Iran-Iraq effortpost. I just finished The Prize so I'm really looking forward to reading all of this.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 23:50
|
|
|
This is fantastic. Now I'm inspired to order the book on this conflict I wishlisted from a recommendation here.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 00:02
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I mean, I guess the Maginot line was sufficiently obstructive as to merit invading another country to avoid. And I think Switzerland has the whole "everyone has an assault rifle in their house and bunkers everywhere" thing going which seems to work out for them. Bunkers are good, but building them with an autistic enthusiasm with no regard to their placement or to the army that would be manning them, not so much. Eg. Switzerland had a system of bunkers, but they also had a real believable army and I believe they gave some thought to their placement. And Maginot line was intended to be a speed bump that would let the French army to counter-attack with its ample mobile divisions. But yes bunkers are absolutely cool! Artillery bunkers, pillboxes, trenches dug in rock etc. are always exciting to explore. You never know what you will find, bats like to hibernate in the ones around here during winter which is nice because they eat mosquitoes (you have to enter carefully and retreat if you see bats in winter, the heat eminating from your body can wake it up which could result in it dying). One bunker was completely infested by spiders, they were on walls and ceilings everywhere, and it was a bit icky going in with a headlamp. Fortunately I'm not arachnophobic and local spiders aren't harmful anyway.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 00:58
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S34cVkL6zCE
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 01:42
|
|
|
Leftover bunkers in Normandy, often too difficult and expensive to remove so often they weren't. Besides, the cows quiet like them for sleeping in and such.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 01:43
|
|
|
THE ITALIAN NAVY IN WORLD WAR 2 1940 co-tinued!
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 02:17
|
|
|
handcrafted, artisanal torpedoes, each one lovingly fashioned according to the ancient traditions of italian small-studio craftsmanship this is only slightly exaggerated. at least their planes were good
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 02:27
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 03:11
|
|
|
bespoke torpedoes
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 04:01
|
|
|
organic fair-trade gun cotton.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 04:37
|
|
|
HEY GAIL posted:bespoke torpedoes I'm picturing an Italian craftsman whittling the propeller out a solid block of brass
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 04:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 09:06 |
|
|
HEY GAIL posted:handcrafted, artisanal torpedoes, each one lovingly fashioned according to the ancient traditions of italian small-studio craftsmanship Still better than the Mark 14
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 04:59
|
|