|
Gnoman posted:Surprisingly enough, that particular clause is critical in Turtledove's alternate history book. Don't think that's surprising. That and the whole slavery thing are really the only two significant departures from the US Constitution. It's not that strange that Turtledove took that clause as a key plot device,
|
# ? Aug 11, 2017 04:37 |
|
|
# ? May 28, 2024 15:16 |
|
more memes one for hey gal
|
# ? Aug 11, 2017 05:01 |
|
|
# ? Aug 11, 2017 05:17 |
|
zoux posted:I know that the lifespan of an African slave in the Brazilian cane fields was measured in a handful of years, since the Portuguese flouted the international ban on the slave trade and could replenish their supply. The more "humane" treatment of African slaves in the US was to maintain a breeding population, since the US recognized the international ban on importing slaves in 1807 but didn't outlaw slavery until later. Kinda sorta? Slaves were actually treated more harshly towards the end of slavery because of increased fear of slave revolts (partly because of the increase in abolitionist sentiment/activity, and also doubling down on the Peculiar Institution in general in opposition to Northern sentiment), but they also become more valuable because of scarcity. It wasn't so much intentionally trying to maintain a breeding population as for the same reason you don't take a two by four to your Mercedes (or very expensive combine harvester) if it's annoying you.
|
# ? Aug 11, 2017 10:42 |
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhHw60mqcMM
|
|
# ? Aug 11, 2017 13:55 |
|
What were the LMGs, MMGs, and HMGs of the Red Army in WW2? I just recall one of them is the one with the funny circular magazine clip thingy but I can't even recall the name.
|
# ? Aug 11, 2017 13:57 |
|
I like military memes.
|
# ? Aug 11, 2017 14:26 |
|
gradenko_2000 posted:What were the LMGs, MMGs, and HMGs of the Red Army in WW2? I just recall one of them is the one with the funny circular magazine clip thingy but I can't even recall the name. The Degtyaryev infantry machinegun (Degtyaryev Pekhotniy, DP) mod. 1928 was fed with flat disk magazines, that's probably the one you're thinking of.
|
# ? Aug 11, 2017 14:41 |
Didn't they also use Maxim machine guns of all kinds too?
|
|
# ? Aug 11, 2017 14:44 |
|
Forget about Dunkirk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukJ5dMYx2no
|
# ? Aug 11, 2017 14:44 |
|
gradenko_2000 posted:What were the LMGs, MMGs, and HMGs of the Red Army in WW2? I just recall one of them is the one with the funny circular magazine clip thingy but I can't even recall the name. IIRC they kept with the Maxim for HMG, replacing it with the DShK over the course of the war. EDIT: Oh I guess there was also the SG43. Fangz fucked around with this message at 14:53 on Aug 11, 2017 |
# ? Aug 11, 2017 14:45 |
|
zoux posted:Forget about Dunkirk Steve Buscemi as Nikita Khrushchev
|
# ? Aug 11, 2017 15:13 |
|
Jason Isaacs plays a fuckin' spot-on Zhukov
|
# ? Aug 11, 2017 15:17 |
|
Fangz posted:IIRC they kept with the Maxim for HMG, replacing it with the DShK over the course of the war. The SG was a replacement of the Maxim, the DShK was meant for a different purpose. It was also not produced in sufficient numbers, even though everyone wanted to get their hands on it. Because of this, the T-60 was armed with the 20 mm TNSh and T-34s didn't get 12.7 mm AA mounts like IS series tanks did.
|
# ? Aug 11, 2017 15:18 |
|
It makes me nervous when NukeMap is down due to too much traffic
|
# ? Aug 11, 2017 16:02 |
The PM M1910 was a 7.62x54mm Maxim gun used as a heavy machine gun in the original sense of the term: a large, mostly immobile gun that would be dragged into place on the battlefield and left there to deliver constant fire until moving it was absolutely necessary. The SG-43 was a lighter 7.62x54mm gun that was easier to move, but still had the ergonomics of a heavier gun (spade grips and thumb triggers) so you had to lug it around like a heavy machine gun anyway. The DShK, or "Dushka", fits the modern definition of a heavy machine gun: it fires a 12.7mm (.51 caliber) round that can penetrate light armor and blow heads clean off. The M1910 and SG-43 both came on wheeled carriages so you could move them around easier, but I've exclusively seen DShKs on pintle mounts or tripods. The Degtyaryov DP-28 was their light machine gun, also chambered in 7.62x54mm but with a 47-round pan magazine and a traditional rifle stock and trigger configuration. It was modified in 1946 to the RP-46, which was belt fed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_dbl7AJkX4Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzJRDzt3jvQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PzUffOw1TKA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgXWJEZzFHE
|
|
# ? Aug 11, 2017 16:06 |
|
zoux posted:It makes me nervous when NukeMap is down due to too much traffic Sky King, Sky King, do not answer I need not another lie Sky King, Sky King, do not answer You're only there to watch us die Seriously, though, nah, don't panic.
|
# ? Aug 11, 2017 16:08 |
|
my dad posted:Sky King, Sky King, do not answer Oh I'm not worried about catching a nuke here in the middle of Texas but I don't like that for the first time since like 1991 I have to worry about a nuclear exchange between us and another state actor. Although I'm more concerned about us starting it than the DPRK, I get that their nuclear capability is more of a tool to protect against being hosed with than as a weapon.
|
# ? Aug 11, 2017 16:15 |
|
zoux posted:Forget about Dunkirk I deeply appreciate that they just said gently caress it about doing accents.
|
# ? Aug 11, 2017 16:27 |
|
Reading a book on the German Army in 1917 (frontline experiences of the various Allied offensives) and there's quite a few references to 'automatic rifles' in the British and French armies. Any idea what they're referring to?
|
# ? Aug 11, 2017 16:28 |
Alchenar posted:Reading a book on the German Army in 1917 (frontline experiences of the various Allied offensives) and there's quite a few references to 'automatic rifles' in the British and French armies. Any idea what they're referring to? Probably the Chauchat.
|
|
# ? Aug 11, 2017 16:29 |
|
chitoryu12 posted:The M1910 and SG-43 both came on wheeled carriages so you could move them around easier, but I've exclusively seen DShKs on pintle mounts or tripods. The DShK had one too.
|
# ? Aug 11, 2017 16:42 |
|
Alchenar posted:Reading a book on the German Army in 1917 (frontline experiences of the various Allied offensives) and there's quite a few references to 'automatic rifles' in the British and French armies. Any idea what they're referring to? For Britain it'll be the Lewis Gun most likely - their LMG which was often referred to as an automatic rifle.
|
# ? Aug 11, 2017 17:06 |
|
howe_sam posted:I deeply appreciate that they just said gently caress it about doing accents. alternative: accents for first two minutes of conversation, cast collectively drops character and says "these accents are fuckin' stupid, I'm from New York or Liverpool or whatever" and then the movie carries on sans accent. they're going for a wacky black comedy power struggle kinda feel, might as well do it gonzo.
|
# ? Aug 11, 2017 17:25 |
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:alternative: accents for first two minutes of conversation, cast collectively drops character and says "these accents are fuckin' stupid, I'm from New York or Liverpool or whatever" and then the movie carries on sans accent. they're going for a wacky black comedy power struggle kinda feel, might as well do it gonzo.
|
# ? Aug 11, 2017 18:16 |
|
Do books written by David Irving have any value or is it just Nazi apologetics all the way down?
|
# ? Aug 11, 2017 18:56 |
|
(thick Scottish accent) nu parle ruski?
|
# ? Aug 11, 2017 18:56 |
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Do books written by David Irving have any value or is it just Nazi apologetics all the way down? He did one really early thing on Dresden that was well received at the time, but in hindsight it turns out his figures were horseshit. Pretty much anything with his name on it can be ignored. He's not well respected as a historian, to say the least. And it's not just Nazi apologetics, he goes straight to Holocaust denial.
|
# ? Aug 11, 2017 19:10 |
You can pick some good seeds out of David Irving but it's not worth the trouble given the availability of sources that don't require you to take the trouble. The most instructive work in relation to David Irving are the books written by Lipstadt and Richard Evans about the trial - Denial: Holocaust History on Trial, Denying the Holocaust, and Lying About Hitler: History, Holocaust and the David Irving Trial.bewbies posted:(thick Scottish accent) nu parle ruski? Yeah this is actually the best.
|
|
# ? Aug 11, 2017 19:14 |
|
Cyrano4747 posted:He did one really early thing on Dresden that was well received at the time, but in hindsight it turns out his figures were horseshit.
|
# ? Aug 11, 2017 19:14 |
|
Disinterested posted:You can pick some good seeds out of David Irving but it's not worth the trouble given the availability of sources that don't require you to take the trouble. The most instructive work in relation to David Irving are the books written by Lipstadt and Richard Evans about the trial - Denial: Holocaust History on Trial, Denying the Holocaust, and Lying About Hitler: History, Holocaust and the David Irving Trial. Plus he's one of those giant loving red flags that if he's in your footnotes and your'e not directly addressing that yes, you just cited David loving Irving and here's why people are going to look at you really funny.
|
# ? Aug 11, 2017 19:16 |
|
Alchenar posted:Reading a book on the German Army in 1917 (frontline experiences of the various Allied offensives) and there's quite a few references to 'automatic rifles' in the British and French armies. Any idea what they're referring to? Yeah, they're likely referring to single-man-portable machine guns, which the German army never really did; their primary machine gun in 1918 was still basically the same MG 08 as they were using in 1914, and the "light" variants they came up with were still too heavy to be used as flexibly as a Lewis or Chauchat. Same deal with mortars; the Minenwerfer was revolutionary in 1914, but they never bothered to seriously develop it, and while it remained a very good gun in 1918, it still needed a crew of six to move it around and properly emplace it before firing, whereas the Stokes mortar or the French 37mm infantry gun could be carried anywhere and fired without much ceremony in relative ease by two idiots.
|
# ? Aug 11, 2017 19:18 |
The Evans book in particular is like one giant cefte post of never endingly owning Irving but without the swearing and rudeness.
|
|
# ? Aug 11, 2017 19:23 |
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:alternative: accents for first two minutes of conversation, cast collectively drops character and says "these accents are fuckin' stupid, I'm from New York or Liverpool or whatever" and then the movie carries on sans accent. they're going for a wacky black comedy power struggle kinda feel, might as well do it gonzo. Or go the Mel Brooks To Be Or Not To Be route and have a voiceover declare that the rest of the movie will not be in Russian
|
# ? Aug 11, 2017 19:34 |
quote:In a postscript typed a day later Miller wrote to Irving with further quote:As if Irving’s new evidence were not already threadbare enough, the pdfs suck Disinterested fucked around with this message at 20:27 on Aug 11, 2017 |
|
# ? Aug 11, 2017 20:22 |
|
zoux posted:Forget about Dunkirk You had me at Armando Iannucci.
|
# ? Aug 11, 2017 20:39 |
|
bewbies posted:Without the war, they, and slavery, weren't going anywhere...even as cotton prices bottomed out, new opportunities for free labor to make the planter class gobs of money (read: oil) were about to emerge. Re: the oil. How would the south have used slave labor to profit off of oil? The Texan oil fields weren't developed really until the 1890's. Before that the oil and gas industry was centered almost totally around Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New York.
|
# ? Aug 11, 2017 21:55 |
|
Disinterested posted:pdfs suck
|
# ? Aug 11, 2017 22:07 |
|
PzII Ausf. D-E Queue: PzII Ausf. F, PzII trials in the USSR, Marder II, Field modifications to American tanks, Israeli improvised armoured cars, Trials of the TKS and C2P in the USSR, Polish 37 mm anti-tank gun, T-37 with ShKAS, Wartime modifications of the T-37 and T-38, Tank destroyers on the T-30 and T-40 chassis, 45 mm M-42 gun, SU-76 prototype, ZIK-7 and other light SPG designs, SU-26/T-26-6, SU-122 precursors, SU-122 competitors, Light Tank M5, Medium Tank M3, Tankbuchse 41, s.FH. 18, PzVII Lowe, Tiger #114, Chrysler K, A1E1 Independent, Valentine I-IV, Swedish tanks 1928–1934, Strv 81 and Strv 101, Pak 97/38, 7.5 cm Pak 41, Czechoslovakian post-war prototypes, Praga AH-IV, KV-1S, KV-13, Bazooka, Super Bazooka, Matilda, 76 mm gun mod of the Matilda, Renault FT, Somua, SU-122, SU-122M, KV-13 to IS, T-60 factory #37, D.W. and VK 30.01(H), Wespe and other PzII SPGs, Pz38(t) in the USSR Available for request: IM-1 squeezebore cannon GAZ-71 and GAZ-72 25-pounder Churchill II-IVNEW 105 mm howitzer M2A1 NEW Pz.Sfl.V Sturer Emil PzII Ausf. G-H NEW L-10 and L-30 Strv m/40 Strv m/42 Landsverk prototypes 1943-1951 Strv m/21 Strv m/41 pvkv m/43
|
# ? Aug 11, 2017 22:37 |
|
|
# ? May 28, 2024 15:16 |
|
Disinterested posted:You can pick some good seeds out of David Irving but it's not worth the trouble given the availability of sources that don't require you to take the trouble. The most instructive work in relation to David Irving are the books written by Lipstadt and Richard Evans about the trial - Denial: Holocaust History on Trial, Denying the Holocaust, and Lying About Hitler: History, Holocaust and the David Irving Trial. Agreed, the trial was incredibly interesting. I haven't gotten around to reading those books, but I have read a pretty decent account of it somewhere. My personal "favorite" is one of Irving's witnesses, a guy named Leuchter. Dude went to Auschwitz, took a piece of the wall from a gas chamber (without the museum's permission, no less,) did a bunch of tests, and put together a whole report about how the building couldn't have been a gas chamber. Irving & co are all delighted that now they finally have scientific proof, right? Except it turns out that Leuchter isn't remotely qualified as a scientist. Not in chemistry, not in toxicology, nothing. The defense called up actual experts, who proceeded to utterly wreck his arguments and credibility. If you like seeing takedowns of pseudoscience, it's a pretty great moment.
|
# ? Aug 11, 2017 23:23 |