|
Eej posted:Was there any point at all where the leadership of the A-H realized how badly they screwed everything up or did they spend literally all their time ratfucking each other to the very end? The internal politics of the country were totally hosed up and everyone knew it, but fixing the problems were way beyond the scope of what they could do immediately before and during WWI. It didn't help that the main guy who wanted to give power to the empires slavic population was the guy who got shot by Serbia (not coincidentally) and kicked the whole thing off. Hence why they have to do stuff like bring Hoetzendorf back to lead the army even though he recently got shitcanned for being a barely competent nutjob. I think it would have been interesting to see whether AH could have fixed it a internal problems in the absence of the war, but as it was the country's structure and position was just not equipped to deal with the amount of poo poo WWI dropped on its lap.
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 14:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 04:41 |
|
|
My god how hosed are things when all you have left is Hoetzendorf and only him. And you just fired him too. Also, they dropped the official Dunkirk trailer today, thoughts?
|
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 15:00
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:My god how hosed are things when all you have left is Hoetzendorf and only him. Looking forward to Harry Styles being crushed by a boat or drowned. They aren't even using a real BF109
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 15:13
|
|
|
Sadly I imagine it is super expensive to wheel out the surviving versions of those aircraft for films and a lot of tape to curt through too.
|
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 15:17
|
|
|
People oughta make some spergin' reconstructions with easier to maintain frames and engines, we more or less have the means anyway.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 15:20
|
|
|
Well wait a decade for the Industrial next step to the 3D printer and soon every nerd with a big bank account will be able to scare the local wildlife in their specially reconstructed Maus.
|
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 15:24
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:Also, they dropped the official Dunkirk trailer today, thoughts? Movie better has a scene where a French general turns out in his finest dress uniform to tell his British counterpart (dirty, ragged) "Go. We will buy you the time." and then there is a twenty minute sequence where the French die gallantly to stop the Germans, to the point where Hitler declares that he needs to preserve his tanks to finish of the French before they can counter attack and leaves the job to Göring. aphid_licker posted:My questions itt keep getting dumber and dumber but what's the difference between a monarch and a dictator? Monarchs draw their legitimacy from the crown their predecessors (usually their ancestors) wore, and which they will give over to their children. They are the legitimate ruler because they are the truebon heir of the last king, and he gave the crown to them like you might leave your favourite DVDs to your children. The crown is an entity that is entirely separate from the person wearing it, and in essence private property being inherited. Dictators draw their legitimacy from strength. They are the legitimate ruler because if you say they aren't you go to jail (if you are lucky) or get shot (if you are not). The line gets blurry at times, and there have been royal dictatorships (Romania in the interwar period being a famous example). Of course, republican enlightenment was big on the idea that the first kings were just dictators that managed to be remembered fondly and get their sons to keep their lands. put simply: in a monarchy, people follow the commands of the head of state because he is the King. In a dictatorship they follow commands because bad things happen if they don't. Take away the king, and the crown remains. Whoever holds the crown can then issue commands with the same authority. Take away the dictator and you have a power struggle at best, and a civil war at worst.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 15:29
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:My god how hosed are things when all you have left is Hoetzendorf and only him. One time as a kid my friends and I were playing in the woods near a friend's house. It was getting late and we were all ready to go back inside and play video games. We were up on a hill so we could already see the house, but there was a thicket of thorn bushes in the way. The trail was a long detour back around the hill and down the road. In the interest of saving time, someone chirped up with "Let's go through the bushes!" Ten minutes later everyone's bleeding in a dozen places, and from that day on any particularly stupid idea would be responded to with "let's go through the bushes!" I tell this story because I can't think of Conrad von Hotzendorf without imagining him saying "let's go through the Carpathians!"
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 15:32
|
|
|
aphid_licker posted:My questions itt keep getting dumber and dumber but what's the difference between a monarch and a dictator? To add to all of this, what despotic powers do you think Her Most Britannic Majesty Queen Elizabeth II exercises on a day to day basis? 
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 15:44
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:To add to all of this, what despotic powers do you think Her Most Britannic Majesty Queen Elizabeth II exercises on a day to day basis? She uses despotic powers constantly, but only against Corgis and Prince Charles
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 16:20
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:To add to all of this, what despotic powers do you think Her Most Britannic Majesty Queen Elizabeth II exercises on a day to day basis? Prince Charles, the existence of. As for my WWI question, what was that crucial small unit tactics/ditch digging/not running away training that the Kitchener's Army dudes lacked? Is it about learning when to stay down, take cover, and not to bunch up? I think this thread has drilled me hard on individual marksmanship not mattering, doubly so when presented in the war where artillery asked itself "what if I could do my bombardment thing, but indirectly and for a week?" It's not like the units have a lot of combined arms action to know, or many tanks not to leave without infantry cover - and even then, tanks left without ablative manz armor is the fault of the officer, not Pvt. Bollocks. I think I'm clearer on the AH thing. Poor morale, some lovely guns, armies that aren't cooperating...
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 16:20
|
|
|
ArchangeI posted:Movie better has a scene where a French general turns out in his finest dress uniform to tell his British counterpart (dirty, ragged) "Go. We will buy you the time." and then there is a twenty minute sequence where the French die gallantly to stop the Germans, to the point where Hitler declares that he needs to preserve his tanks to finish of the French before they can counter attack and leaves the job to Göring. This gets kinda muddy, since a monarch who doesn't have a lot of strength quickly loses most of their legitimacy, too. The various english civil wars being the obvious example, but also china's history of rebellion against emperors who've lost divine mandate (which usually translated to "the emperor is unable to deal with issues in our society") also seems pretty relevant. In a lot of ways, dictators and old feudal monarchs are pretty similar, since in both cases they're nominally absolutist rulers who need control over a bunch of people who control force on their behalf to maintain power.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 16:35
|
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:It didn't help that the main guy who wanted to give power to the empires slavic population was the guy who got shot by Serbia (not coincidentally) and kicked the whole thing off. I thought there's been enough of a discussion of this topic in this thread so far to make it clear that this is a very innacurate way to frame things. The assassination itself was planned out by Princip and his friends. They were heavily influenced by writings of Kropotkin and Bakunin, and most of them were initially anarcho-syndicalists or social-democrats, but the sheer power of and the weight of oppression inflicted by Austria-Hungary made them go "gently caress it, the Empire must burn, no matter how, no matter the cost", eventually driving them towards nationalism, and seeing Serbia as the only possible vector of accomplishing their goals. They expected a world war to happen eventually, and were desperately trying to trigger a revolution (the likes of which they thought was also brewing all over Europe) that would liberate the oppressed (and in particular, Slavic) people in A-H before the Empire could be dragged into such a war and everything'd go to hell. Originally, they planned to kill Oskar Potiorek, since he was the imperial governor of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and directly responsible for maintaining the institution of serfdom there, persecution of Serbs, and general oppression of the population. However, by the time they were able to organize a proper assassination attempt, Franz Ferdinandwas to visit Sarajevo, and they changed their plans, since short of killing the Emperor himself, there was (from their point of view) no bigger blow they could possibly inflict on the Empire. Then happened a clusterfuck of the "I know a guy who knows a guy" sort that ended with the conspirators getting weapons from members of the Black Hand, and the Serbian government learning too late about what was going to happen, and flailing in panic trying to cover its rear end when it became clear that it was too late to stop the assassins. "Serbia shot Franz Ferdinand (because he wanted to give power to Slavs)" is bullshit of the highest order. Besides, I'm still failing to understand how Franz Ferdinand's plans to nominally add yet another vaguely racial division to the Empire would do anything for the stability of the Empire considering that nationalism was merely the focal point of anger against colonialist exploitation of Slavic peoples, and institutional racism that permeated that whole system, not the source of the unrest. Nominal concessions of the sort would have done jack poo poo. Were they going to build schools? Were they going to alleviate poverty? Were they going to end the bureaucracy that inspired Kafka's "The Trial"? Were they going to stop the aristocracy from making GBS threads on everyone it could every chance it got? It's one of those "what if"s that don't actually add up to much once you think them through. Here's a copy-paste of a (bad, poorly formatted) English translation of something that the people interested in the topic might want to read: quote:Dr. Martin Pappenheim’s Conversations With Gavrilo Princip
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 16:39
|
|
|
No matter how good technology gets at killing people, whether it be artillery, tanks, planes, helicopters, autonomous spider drones etc. if you want to actually take something you need some guys with rifles to leg it over and take it. While there were plenty of advances in killing technology in WWI there was also a lot of sophistication in the defences you were trying to take. Learning to shoot a rifle was only a part of that in the effort to train Kitchener's army (and holy poo poo was there a lot of consternation about whether even that was necessary), in order to successfully take and defend a trench you had to be trained in: - Construction and digging of trenches, plus how to live in them - What orders meant and how to carry them out/interpret them - How to advance across no-mans land with a creeping barrage - Once you were sent over the top, what to do once you got to the enemy trenches, since you might not receive any new orders for a while - Hand to hand combat if artillery didn't kill everyone in the defensive trenches - Throwing bombs/grenades (if you were issued them) - Conducting night raids (which were themselves good practice of all the above once you actually got to the front) - Later on, more advanced small unit and infiltration tactics amongst other things. There were big works uncovered recently in the UK where mock trenches had been built, so clearly people were getting trained in trench warfare being bein sent across the channel. I should also point out that training was changing all the time and there were big debates about what exactly it was the British Army wanted the average infantryman to be trained in - things like whether it was worth the risk of changing over from wave to infiltration tactics, or whether rifle marksmanship had any value at all compared to just training soldiers to throw grenades and bayonet Germans in the followup to an artillery barrage. By the end of the war, the training that troops were receiving and the type of fighting expected was (aside from differences in technology) pretty comparable to what troops would be doing in WWII and beyond.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 16:42
|
|
|
Monarch is a pretty word and implies a more certain line of succession, and maybe recognition of legitimacy by western governments. Dictator is an ugly word and people like to use it to evoke some level of implicit oppression, although there are some theories that hinge on that not necessarily the case. In the modern day, most monarchs have been integrated into governments that restrict them to mostly ceremonial positions, but that has no bearing on the history before the restrictions were present. Theoretically the difference people bring up is that a dictator has "absolute power", whereas a monarch has to work with an aristocracy or whatever, although that's a very nebulous concept at best, especially since it is not physically possible for one person to rule a country without any intermediaries and regardless of what their direct claims are, and it's disingenuous to claim that monarchs don't claim absolute power, because there are plenty of monarchs throughout history that have made such claims, and taxonomic differentiation of philosophical/sociological/political terms is absurd. Every government has its own structure. For a more definite difference, a dictator is one of the dudes in ancient Rome who, in times of crisis would take power without any of the normal governmental restrictions because those can be a hassle. They were then supposed to step down after the crisis was over.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 17:00
|
|
|
Can we do a dictator power rankings? I think Franco and Castro would be at the top since they survived and their country didn't implode into civil war upon their death. Not that, that makes them good guys, but it does put them ahead of say... Mummar Gadaffi or Assad Jr.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 17:18
|
|
|
Flipswitch posted:Does any goon have any information on the Polish Home Army, and specifically their part in the Warsaw Uprising? According to Wikipedia their number was approx 40,000 during 1944. How does a resistance movement organise and maintain such a level and size while under the thumb of the Nazi Germany? I can mentally picture small groups of partisans obtaining supplies by raiding etc, but how did they manage this on such a scale? Similar questions for the Uprising itself, it's a bit mind blowing how they managed to co ordinate it.I'm currently reading Wikipedia for information but would love to hear someone else chime in, this thread is great for information that's easy to digest. This is from more than a few pages back. The Home Army (Armia Krajowa,* AK) was an organisation that operated from 1939 to 1945 on a territory ranging from the Oder to what is today Belarus, Lithuania and Ukraine. They organised intelligence and propaganda operations as far west as the Atlantic Wall, and, in the summer of 1944, when their numbers were the greatest, they totalled nearly 390 000 fighting men and women. To understand how they could operate an organisation that size, you have to understand that the key here was keeping a clear chain of command on one hand and significant independence on the other. In other words, they did not intend to be a resistance movement so much as, well, the Home Army - an army that acts in the occupied home territory. This is what gave it the legitimacy, with people seeing the organisation as an extension of the legal government. Moreover, it remained in constant communication with the government in London and directly subordinate to the Underground State - i.e. the civilian stay-behind administration, including a parliamentary organ representing all the major political forces (fascists and communists refused to join, and nobody wanted them in anyway). While the Home Army went through a number of reorganisations over the years, it did not stop growing until the Warsaw Uprising. The armed resistance groups of the various political forces eventually subordinated themselves to the AK, with notable exceptions being radical parts of the National Armed Forces (namely the parts that would quickly go full fascist) and the People's Guard/Army (Soviet-controlled Communist guerrilla). _____________ The Service for Poland's Victory (Sluzba Zwyciestwu Polski, SZP) - AK's predecessor - was formed in 1939 in Warsaw by the order of the city defence commander, who had been authorised to do so by the Commander-in-Chief. This ensured that the organisation had a legal basis for its actions and a singular top commander. Its first goals were to protect Polish soldiers going into hiding after being overrun by the Germans and to get them out West to continue the fight. Once this concern stopped being so pressing, the SZP turned to providing itself with a foundation for further activity. Lines of communication within and without the country were established by creating a network of couriers, some of them specialising in travelling to London and back, and by obtaining radio gear from hidden caches, British airdrops, or by other means. Weapons were secured from secret caches left behind by surrendering or retreating army forces. Cadre cells were created throughout the nation. Recruitment was never an issue. People of all ages and walks of life joined to get a chance to hit back at the Germans and do their patriotic duty. German occupation was brutal, and few families had not lost someone either to the original invasion or to repression. The scouting movement, outlawed by the Germans, was integrated pretty much wholesale into the Home Army. But it took quite some time before they could be remade into fighting formations. Let's look at an example. The Staff Battalion (Batalion Sztabowy, Baszta), formed in December 1939, was originally supposed to provide personnel for communications and protect the Central Command, which is why it included many women. However, by mid-1943, it was bumped up to a regiment-sized formation with three battalions, totalling some 2300 troops. It was a combat formation that also served as a training centre for officers and NCOs. The resilience of the resistance movement can be ascribed to several factors. For one, it could count on some of the best minds of the country - the Germans closed down any and all institutions of higher learning, instantly creating a ton of very smart idle hands. Two, it followed a strict principle of one-way, top-to-bottom communications: nobody knew the real names or addresses of their superiors beyond perhaps their most direct comrades, and would not contact them unless requested. This meant that it was impossible to neutralise or heavily disrupt the organisation with a single arrest, and even a number of them would not be capable of doing much damage.** Three, the Germans were actually not as effective in their repression as the NKVD - and, in some respects, not even as repressive. If there is anything at all you would like me to elaborate on, please ask. *As an aside, I've seen English-language academic papers working on Russian material that were clueless enough to translate the name as "Krajow's Army", believing it to be some sort of a Russian force they could not otherwise identify. **However, when the top brass was arrested, the Home Army suffered greatly. Grot-Rowecki's arrest in 1943 was a heavy blow, but a survivable one; Bór-Komorowski's captivity after the Warsaw Uprising was one of the main factors in the Home Army's decline over the following months.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 17:23
|
|
|
Good to see you posting again Tevery Best! I find this thread shines the most when we get stuff that isn't always about Europe or the West, which is interesting but annoyingly loud and always at the forefront, but learning stuff about central and eastern europe is always pretty drat cool.
|
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 17:47
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:Sadly I imagine it is super expensive to wheel out the surviving versions of those aircraft for films and a lot of tape to curt through too. Really modern graphics has made it unnecessary. Back in the 60s-70s the only way to get a good looking vehicle was to wheel one out. They're still out there if you want to use them. As late as that Pearl Harbor movie they were using some of the last flying Zeros for it. 109s aren't all that rare either, especially if you're willing to use those Spanish ones. At the end of the day, though, CGI is looking pretty good now and you can get some bonkers shots with it that you can't with a real aircraft.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 18:17
|
|
|
Audiences still value the sense of authenticity you get from using real world props and items (even if they aren't historically accurate), and it comes across in stuff like realistic reactions from actors and so on. There's a reason why the likes of Mad Max Fury Road was so successful, whereas Pearl Harbour was widely panned.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 18:37
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Audiences still value the sense of authenticity you get from using real world props and items (even if they aren't historically accurate), and it comes across in stuff like realistic reactions from actors and so on. There's a reason why the likes of Mad Max Fury Road was so successful, whereas Pearl Harbour was widely panned. Mad Max is chock full of CGI, it's just done very cleverly and not as a replacement for foreground practical effects.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 18:56
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Audiences still value the sense of authenticity you get from using real world props and items (even if they aren't historically accurate), and it comes across in stuff like realistic reactions from actors and so on. There's a reason why the likes of Mad Max Fury Road was so successful, whereas Pearl Harbour was widely panned. Pearl Harbor was one of the last big examples of using real aircraft. It got panned because the script was poo poo, not because of CGI.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 18:59
|
|
|
spectralent posted:This gets kinda muddy, since a monarch who doesn't have a lot of strength quickly loses most of their legitimacy, too. The various english civil wars being the obvious example, but also china's history of rebellion against emperors who've lost divine mandate (which usually translated to "the emperor is unable to deal with issues in our society") also seems pretty relevant. In a lot of ways, dictators and old feudal monarchs are pretty similar, since in both cases they're nominally absolutist rulers who need control over a bunch of people who control force on their behalf to maintain power. Feudal slash manorialist slash high middle ages (note the existence of 'feudalism' per se as an ideology is kinda disputed in recent decades) monarchs are very specifically not absolutist rulers. That's an idea that only comes along in the early modern, 'l'etat c'est moi', it's the king and then everyone else, kind of thing. More usually in the middle ages the King is much more first amongst equals; if he tries telling his largest nobles what to do they will merrily tell him to get hosed and by legal right, privilege and tradition they will be viewed as in the right to do so. These guys even have embassies of their own to foreign governments, because the whole concept of 'a state' and a singular 'head of state' is a lot more fluid. Even in England, which post Norman Conquest was way more centralised than eg mediaeval France, you've got people like this - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/County_palatine#Durham.2C_Chester_and_Lancaster This is not the hallmark of absolutism.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 18:58
|
|
|
They could have built an actual, functional battleship fleet, and a fleet of actual Japanese aircraft carriers, and all the Zeroes and Vals and Kates they needed, and then actually recreated the air raid in practical, and that movie still would have been utter poo poo.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 18:59
|
|
|
Isnt that company that is building fw190s and me262s building new 109's?
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 19:51
|
|
|
Many modern dictatorships are described was having broad but shallow powers, i.e. the dictator might be able to disappear someone at will, but good luck getting them pay their income tax or even stop their own soldiers from running smuggling rackets. Power is a funny place thing, as are the silly stories of divine right or the will of the People we use to justify it.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 21:57
|
|
|
JcDent posted:Prince Charles, the existence of. There was a big lack of training in grenade, patrol, and mortar work according to Graves. Part of it is stuff you just can't teach. What does a 5.9 vs a 7.7 cm shell sound like? When do you take cover because the 5.9 is going to hit near you and when do you carry on because it's 200 yds to the left of you? What tricks do the Germans use to get you to expose yourself to fixed rifle or machine gun fire? All this stuff has to be taught on the job regardless and it has to be taught by veteran enlisted and noncoms. If you build a battalion from scratch, there's no one to do the teaching in the trenches after basic and advanced courses are done.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 22:48
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Audiences still value the sense of authenticity you get from using real world props and items (even if they aren't historically accurate), and it comes across in stuff like realistic reactions from actors and so on. There's a reason why the likes of Mad Max Fury Road was so successful, whereas Pearl Harbour was widely panned. I assure you there was many reasons why Pearl Harbor was widely panned, not just "bad cgi" Apparently "War Horse" comissioned the building of a prop Panzer III or IV, which is now at the tank museum at bovington. TBH I think when it comes to these little details in war films, thanks to video games and the like people actually have pretty high accuracy standards. Hopefully this will lead to more prop tanks, like those later era suits of armor people had made
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 23:03
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Really modern graphics has made it unnecessary. Back in the 60s-70s the only way to get a good looking vehicle was to wheel one out. They're still out there if you want to use them. As late as that Pearl Harbor movie they were using some of the last flying Zeros for it. 109s aren't all that rare either, especially if you're willing to use those Spanish ones. At the end of the day, though, CGI is looking pretty good now and you can get some bonkers shots with it that you can't with a real aircraft. According to wikipedia, they did use a few Spits and a Buchon for the flying scenes (supplemented with CG, obviously).
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 23:09
|
|
|
I'll always find it funny that of all the high-budget World War II movies that came out of the '60s and '70s, when plenty of legitimate equipment was still around, one of the few movies that actually came close to having a decent amount of technical accuracy was loving Kelly's Heroes.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 23:21
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Really modern graphics has made it unnecessary. Back in the 60s-70s the only way to get a good looking vehicle was to wheel one out. They're still out there if you want to use them. As late as that Pearl Harbor movie they were using some of the last flying Zeros for it. 109s aren't all that rare either, especially if you're willing to use those Spanish ones. At the end of the day, though, CGI is looking pretty good now and you can get some bonkers shots with it that you can't with a real aircraft. A lot of movie vehicles are very hit and miss, especially by modern standards. 
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 23:27
|
|
|
So as far as I'm aware, no relatively closeup/high quality footage exists of a battleship getting hit by fire from another battleship. Why hasn't this been in a movie yet? I want high quality battleship battles. Also has any movie has ever really accurately shown an aircraft engaging another with guns, to include what tracers etc looked like, and what HE cannon shells detonating look like?
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 23:31
|
|
|
bewbies posted:So as far as I'm aware, no relatively closeup/high quality footage exists of a battleship getting hit by fire from another battleship. Probably in large part because battleship-on-battleship action almost never happened outside Jutland.  Hope for a Guadalcanal movie that focuses on the navy, maybe, but I wouldn't hold my breath.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 23:33
|
|
|
Really your only hope is a Taffy 3 movie that opens with Surigao Strait.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 23:36
|
|
|
RE: adaptation chat, a friend did a fantastic podcast about the making of Band of Brothers, well worth listening to. https://thestorytoolkit.wordpress.com/2017/04/22/46-band-of-brothers-currahee-adapting-from-real-life/
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 23:36
|
|
|
well it doesn't have to be a HISTORICAL movie. I would totally pay to watch a movie that was nothing more than battleships lining up one-on-one and fighting each other in a bracket style tournament
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 23:41
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:I'll always find it funny that of all the high-budget World War II movies that came out of the '60s and '70s, when plenty of legitimate equipment was still around, one of the few movies that actually came close to having a decent amount of technical accuracy was loving Kelly's Heroes. I was just looking at some pictures of the "Tiger" in it, and it doesn't look terrible from some angles. I've not seen Fury but I know the Tiger they used in the battle scene was the one from bovington, IE the world's only running Tiger I.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 00:06
|
|
|
Remake Das Boot except its the Russian Baltic Fleet in 1905 and instead of the air raid at the end it's the battle of Tsushima
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 00:22
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Apparently "War Horse" comissioned the building of a prop Panzer III or IV, which is now at the tank museum at bovington. TBH I think when it comes to these little details in war films, thanks to video games and the like people actually have pretty high accuracy standards. Hopefully this will lead to more prop tanks, like those later era suits of armor people had made
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 00:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 04:41 |
|
|
Re: dictatorship/monarchy, I think it's good to look at it like the greeks would. Aristotle says that there's monarchy (simply rule by one), and that there's a good form, kingship (rule by a virtuous ruler within a defined legal structure) and a tyranny (rule by one person who usurps the authority or inherits a usurped authority, who is above the law). I think there are lots of possible approaches to separating them, but I think in most cases the comparison will rest on some combination of the legitimacy of rule and the manner of rule, and I think that is a good encapsulation. Tyrant, of course, would also have been a more typical description in most western literature of a cruel and/or illegitimate ruler until recently; most people until the 19th century would have understood the word 'dictator' in a way that's much closer to its Roman etymology - a ruler with emergency powers, appointed for a limited time to resolve a particular problem. Hence 'dictatorship of the proletariat', a phrase to which we often bring our mid 20th century baggage. Edit: And one should note very few dictators in a given list came to power by the ordinary or legitimate means available in their society. Disinterested fucked around with this message at 00:29 on May 8, 2017 |
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 00:26
|
|
