|
BattleMoose posted:I think people may not have noticed that the guy I was referencing is actually extremely credible and my view points have largely been influenced by him, J David Markham. He ummm appears to be a high school teacher? This may not be the level of academic credibility you are shooting for, you know.
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 10:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 23:14 |
|
|
Phobophilia posted:A more serious question: what is the viability of beaching an obsolete battleship you can't afford to man and maintain up next to a coastal fortified position, to basically drop a coastal battery next to someone? Or would it be too vulnerable to attack and capture? It's not the exact same scenario but I'm reminded of the fate of the Konigsberg, a German Light Cruiser that hid itself in a river in East Africa for repairs during WW1. The Brits found it November 1914, but because it was basically a fortified position in the middle of nowhere they weren't able to sink the ship until July 1915, and the sailors actually managed to salvage the guns and hook up with their land forces.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 10:45
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:He ummm appears to be a high school teacher? This may not be the level of academic credibility you are shooting for, you know. Maybe read Cyrano4747 post on the guy. He might not be a proper academic scholar but he is a great deal more than a high school teacher, you know. Did you read his wiki page, did you look at the books he has authored?
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 10:50
|
|
|
BattleMoose posted:Maybe read Cyrano4747 post on the guy. He might not be a proper academic scholar but he is a great deal more than a high school teacher, you know. Did you read his wiki page, did you look at the books he has authored? Anyone can write books in these self-publishing days, even high school teachers. Doesn't mean they're good. I note that precisely one book in his wikipedia entry lists a publisher, incidentally.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 11:03
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:And that weekend invasion joke is still being told, at least in Finland. I heard it the first time in Yes Minister. According to graphic documentary "Asterix in Britain" (1965), that was how Caesar won the Britons.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 11:12
|
|
|
That guy could not have bailed out any later, holy poo poo
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 11:52
|
|
|
Always knew there were napoleon apologists/revisionists but never realized there were so many secret societies and cabals.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 12:09
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:The places that he is getting a lot of press from are all unabashedly pro napoleon. That's fascinating in and of itself. I wasn't aware that there was a napoleonic equivalent to die hard monarchists.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 12:19
|
|
|
HEY GAIL posted:oh there are plenty of bonapartisans out there When did they stop being an important political group?
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 12:23
|
|
|
some pics: Japanese depiction of Napoleon Bonaparte and his exile at St. Helena, from a Japanese book circa 1815-1820.  Guet-Apens (Ambush), L'Eclipse, March 17, 1872: This map comments how the Paris Commune rose and was violently subdued, after the capture of Napoleon III in the Franco Prussian war and the defeat of the subsequent Third Republic. What's the pear symbolising? 
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 12:29
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:
 So here the pear symbolizes the Orleanist faction among the monarchists.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 12:50
|
|
|
Mantis42 posted:Wasn't that the plan for the Yamato, in the end? It got sunk at sea before it could make it to any beach but I remember reading that somewhere. Worked in Leningrad  Edit: For the uninitiated - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_battleship_Petropavlovsk_(1911) quote:When the Germans invaded on 22 June 1941 she was in Kronstadt and provided gunfire support to Soviet troops in September as the Germans approached Leningrad. Later that month she had her bow blown off and sank in shallow water after two hits by 1,000-kilogram (2,200 lb) bombs that detonated her forward magazine. She was refloated several months later and became a stationary battery, providing gunfire support during the Siege of Leningrad. Jobbo_Fett fucked around with this message at 13:53 on Jun 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 13:13
|
|
|
Bourricot posted:French King Louis-Philippe was famously depicted as a pear: ah, thanks i've seen that pic before, but can't remember where Would you mind posting about that and the other monarchist factions?
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 14:12
|
|
|
Squalid posted:I'm not much interested in moralistic hot-takes on any conflict, much less ones in which popular narratives are as politicized as Vietnam In many colonies the colonial administration substantially predated any sense of national spirit which one could betray. I do however always love hearing new historical narratives and from new perspectives. I'm interested in war as a social phenomena, a phenomena which often pulls back the heavy veil that otherwise often masks the true nature of power, identity, and society. I mean I was only an undergrad. There are many people on this forum who are much more qualified to give the answers you seek. I can only give anecdotes on some of my fiance's family history or give you facts that you already know, such as the OSS providing material and covert support to the Vietminh during WWII or the massive amount of assistance the US/UK gave to the French to fund their colonial war. You bring up one interesting question. Why did Vietnam have a much larger Catholic population compared to the other areas of Indochina, such as Laos or Cambodia. If I had to take an educated guess, I would say that by being a coastal region, Vietnamese people have been exposed to westerners for far longer. The Portuguese were trading with various Vietnamese dynasties as early as the 16th century. It would also probably explain why the Vietnamese writing system was romanized (previously they used Chinese characters) while the Laotian and Cambodian systems were not. Again though, someone in this thread can probably give a much more detailed answer and I would be happy to hear! Solaris 2.0 fucked around with this message at 14:51 on Jun 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 14:46
|
|
|
Phobophilia posted:A more serious question: what is the viability of beaching an obsolete battleship you can't afford to man and maintain up next to a coastal fortified position, to basically drop a coastal battery next to someone? Or would it be too vulnerable to attack and capture? That's exactly what was done with the Tirpitz. After suffering some heavy bomb damage it was decided to repair her just to the extent that she could be used as a floating battery and moored off of Norway. Then the Brits blew her upside down with Tallboys.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 15:51
|
|
|
I was thinking that you'd physically lodge it on the beach, so it's not possible to actually sink or capsize it. The Tirpitz seemed to only be partially beached, semi buoyant, so it was still capsizable. But obviously that doesn't do anything about a heavy bomber from dropping a few dozen tons of tnt on a stationary target and blowing the magazine. But looking at the wikipedia page, jfc, they had 1.6k crewmen on board, doing nothing that could even act like a fleet-in-being. Was that really the minimum for a skeleton crew to turn the guns around?
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 16:15
|
|
|
Phobophilia posted:
The main guns? No. The secondary batteries and all the AAA? Yes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 16:19
|
|
|
Also the engines have to be working to provide power to the whole ship (even if the propellers aren't turning).
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 16:24
|
|
|
After the St Nazaire Raid, it probably seemed a very bad idea to leave any major coastal asset without a sizeable complement, even if it could be operated with fewer.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 16:31
|
|
|
What I'm getting here is that the movie Battleship was seriously underestimating the number of WW2 vets it would have taken to get the Missouri going again.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 16:32
|
|
|
BattleMoose posted:Maybe read Cyrano4747 post on the guy. He might not be a proper academic scholar but he is a great deal more than a high school teacher, you know. Did you read his wiki page, did you look at the books he has authored? Is he a high school teacher? I didn't spot that last night. That would explain his training - he's got the education of one. I would still be wary of taking what he's writing as some kind of searingly insightful historical analysis. He seems to be running counter to what most academic historians are writing and none of them really seem to be engaging with him. I'll reach out to a friend of mine who does 18th century France and see if he's ever heard of the guy. feedmegin posted:Anyone can write books in these self-publishing days, even high school teachers. Doesn't mean they're good. I note that precisely one book in his wikipedia entry lists a publisher, incidentally. I hadn't thought of the publisher angle. Looking at them it looks like most of his books are published by Pen & Sword or Brassey's, which are two publishers that go deep on military history enthusiast books. That isn't all bad - Brasseys' is the one currently publishing Sajer's Forgotten Soldier for example, which despite controversy is a good memoir if you want to get a feel for the eastern front - but it's not great either. Publishers like those tend to concentrate more on how well you tell as story and whether milhist geeks will buy the book than any kind of academic argument. Not having an academic publisher isn't the end of the world, but it's another thing that raises eyebrows when assessing the guy's scholarly credentials. Rather, not having any published by a scholarly publisher is the real concern, as even authors who publish lots of page turners for the Borders crowd tend to have a footprint in more niche academic circles where they make a more nuanced argument for a different audience.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 16:36
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:What I'm getting here is that the movie Battleship was seriously underestimating the number of WW2 vets it would have taken to get the Missouri going again. The crew of the Missouri in the 90s was something like 60% of the WWII complement, specifically because the AAA guns were gone (and a bunch of the 5", I think). The really impressive bit was firing two rounds from the 16" guns in like 30 seconds with only about 5 guys to operate the turret in Under Siege.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 16:36
|
|
|
Hmm, assuming that the ship is somehow in full running order, what *is* the minimum number of crew to sail a battleship for an hour or so and shoot at something? Like, if you disregard things like maintenance completely.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 16:43
|
|
|
While I cannot answer that question, I can answer the number of goons asking OPSEC questions requiered for Lowtax to receive another angry letter form the Government: 1.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 17:16
|
|
|
The formation and handling of NATO as a purely Anglo-American, Euro-centrist militant organization - was a bad thing in retrospect, right?
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 17:23
|
|
|
Famous Anglo-American organization, NATO.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 17:27
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:The formation and handling of NATO as a purely Anglo-American, Euro-centrist militant organization - was a bad thing in retrospect, right? 7
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 17:27
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:The formation and handling of NATO as a purely Anglo-American, Euro-centrist militant organization - was a bad thing in retrospect, right? Why? Its purpose was to defend Europe from a Soviet attack, at the time it was formed what else could it have been?
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 17:28
|
|
|
Polyakov posted:Why? Its purpose was to defend Europe from a Soviet attack, at the time it was formed what else could it have been? G.I. Joe and Action Man vs the World?
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 17:31
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:ah, thanks I'll do my best based on what I can remember from high school  In the picture you posted, you see the republic (with its Phrygian Cap) threatened by Germany and the three monarchist factions : - The Bonapartists, who don't need any further presentation (their name is their program) - The Legitimists (with the fleur-de-lis), who wanted a king from the House of Bourbon - The Orleanists, who wanted a king from the House of Orleans The difference between Legitimists and Orleanists came to be after the Revolution of 1830 when Louis-Phillipe (of the House of Orleans) took power. The July Monarchy was a much more liberal regime (i.e. on the British model) than its predecessors, and marked the end of the absolute monarchy. Now Legitimists consider the Revolution of 1830 to be a coup and therefore Louis-Philippe to be illegitimate. They finally managed a compromise after the demise of the Second Empire, but things didn't go as planned: Wikipedia posted:The French legislative election of 1871, held in the aftermath of the collapse of the regime of Napoleon III, resulted in a monarchist majority in the French National Assembly that was favourable to making a peace agreement with Prussia. The "Legitimists" in the National Assembly supported the candidacy of a descendant of King Charles X, the last monarch from the senior line of the Bourbon Dynasty, to assume the French throne: his grandson Henri, Comte de Chambord, alias "Henry V." The Orléanists supported a descendant of King Louis Philippe I, the cousin of Charles X who replaced him as the French monarch in 1830: his grandson Louis-Philippe, Comte de Paris. The Bonapartists were marginalized due to the defeat of Napoléon III and were unable to advance the candidacy of any member of his family, the Bonaparte family. Legitimists and Orléanists came to a compromise, eventually, whereby the childless Comte de Chambord would be recognised as king, with the Comte de Paris recognised as his heir. Consequently, in 1871 the throne was offered to the Comte de Chambord.[2] 
Bourricot fucked around with this message at 15:42 on Jun 23, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 17:35
|
|
|
BattleMoose posted:Maybe read Cyrano4747 post on the guy. He might not be a proper academic scholar but he is a great deal more than a high school teacher, you know. Did you read his wiki page, did you look at the books he has authored? Not to step on Cyrano's toes here 'cause he knows a hell of a lot more about this stuff than me, but I think you should also question a bit how you seem to be willing to die on this hill for the dude. Even for super qualified historians, you wanna be a bit wary about considering everything they say as gospel. For a thread like this it's normally not that big a deal to lean on one source like that (in my opinion, anyway), and I don't doubt that you know a lot more about Napoleon than the vast majority of people. But know your limitations, and when you get confronted with a different point of view... maybe don't be so condescending about it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 18:02
|
|
|
Polyakov posted:Why? Its purpose was to defend Europe from a Soviet attack, at the time it was formed what else could it have been? Turkey was a member of NATO three years before West Germany was. So was Greece. Founding members included Italy, Norway, Denmark, and Portugal. The only way anyone could get "purely Anglo-American" out of that is by huffing glue.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 18:04
|
|
|
zocio posted:While I cannot answer that question, I can answer the number of goons asking OPSEC questions requiered for Lowtax to receive another angry letter form the Government: 1. Something tells me that the crewing requirements for a battleship are not among the US military's current concerns.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 18:05
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
PittTheElder posted:Something tells me that the crewing requirements for a battleship are not among the US military's current concerns. The US Government released "Battleship" as a test to see how many people could believably run a battleship.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 18:09
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Turkey was a member of NATO three years before West Germany was. So was Greece. Founding members included Italy, Norway, Denmark, and Portugal. The only way anyone could get "purely Anglo-American" out of that is by huffing glue. I was more addressing the european centric part of the question. But yes, NATO is not and never really was purely Anglo American and never really could be given on whose territory they would be fighting their advesary on.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 18:12
|
|
|
Well, seeing as the Russians were the next big threat, it kinda makes sense for it to be euro-centric...
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 18:13
|
|
|
Relatedly, how serious was the Soviet Union's attempt to join NATO? Like, was it just a PR stunt or was it the kind of thing where they actually wanted it?
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 18:15
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Sajer's Forgotten Soldier for example, which despite controversy is a good memoir if you want to get a feel for the eastern front What's the controversy? I googled "forgotten soldier controversy" but got results from stormfront and something called axishistory.com and chose not to dig further at work
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 18:19
|
|
|
Ainsley McTree posted:What's the controversy? I googled "forgotten soldier controversy" but got results from stormfront and something called axishistory.com and chose not to dig further at work Some people who were in the Grossdeutschland Division(s) don't ever recall Guy Sajer being in their group, despite the author's insistence. This has led people within the veteran community to shun him and his work, and others to discredit his writings. I think "recently" the Grossdeutschland veterans have accepted that maybe Sajer was a soldier with them but they just didn't notice him or that some details (such as a commander's name) may have been wrong simply due to human nature, but that it doesn't discredit his experiences that he wrote about.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 18:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 23:14 |
|
|
Ah. Well, worst case scenario is that it's at least extremely realistic historical fiction, which sounds like it's still worth a read.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 18:26
|
|