|
Libluini posted:Does anyone still remember the WWI-blog on makersley.com? The one going through WWI day-by-day? He did - real life commitments got in the way iirc. You realise I hope that the he in question is a regular itt.
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 09:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 18:30 |
|
|
Randarkman posted:The 12th SS, the Hitlerjugend, who participated in Normandy was drawn by conscription from the start, the idea being to form a division entirely drawn from that year's crop of 17 and 18 year olds in the Hitlerjugend. These were ofcourse very different from "normal soldiers", but they were still conscripted, no one ever said that conscripts can't be fanatics. Please bear in mind all 'Aryan' German kids were pretty much obliged by law in the 30s to join the Hitler Youth. Hitler Youth member != fanatic. Bearing that in mind, they wouldn't have had to conscript outside the Hitler Youth, either, because the Hitler Youth was basically 'all German teenagers'.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 09:45
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:He did - real life commitments got in the way iirc. You realise I hope that the he in question is a regular itt. I know, but I keep forgetting his name, so I have to ask roundabout like this, whenever I have questions about his blog.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 09:53
|
|
|
Say, question. So steppe nomads have been a constant problem for more settled nations near the steppes pretty much since horse-riding became a thing. However, by the 19th century the Russians had effectively claimed and conquered the steppes. How did they do this? How were they able to accomplish what no other empire in the past had ever really managed? How did the Russians defeat the steppe riders? If the answer is somehow "guns," related follow-up question: It is sometimes stated that one reason why China might not have developed firearms heavily is because they're questionably effective against steppe nomads, their primary military problem. If guns worked for the Russians, though, why not the Chinese?
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 12:12
|
|
|
Historically the way to defeat the steppe nomads is to *be* the steppe nomads. Failing that, to ally with them, as the Tsars did with the Cossacks. EDIT: Arguably that was China's (and also Rome's) main defense in terms of how it would bribe Mongols and play up rivalries, and it mainly worked until it didn't. But then after the Mongols invaded they ran things, which also meant 'those steppe nomads' generally ceased to be a problem - in the traditional sense, at least. Fangz fucked around with this message at 12:31 on Apr 9, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 12:21
|
|
|
I laughed
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 12:27
|
|
|
Tomn posted:Say, question.  I have some books on this actually. Though it's been a little while since I read them. Part of the answer is guns actually. More specifically it is large disciplined armies with artillery and muskets that can hold their ground against cavalry inflict murderous casualties on them when they closed and outrange them with artillery (and muskets too really when you look at the 19th century), perhaps more important is the logistics and the increasingly powerful sedentary civilizations that could field and maintain such armies on the steppes and bring the steppe nomads to battle. You should also remember that the semi-nomadic Cossacks were very important in the Russian conquest and settlement of the Steppes, so the old wisdom of using steppe nomads to fight steppe nomads held partly true. It's also often overlooked how the Chinese also expanded against and conquered many steppe nomads and their lands in the 18th and 19th centuries, the Junghars are perhaps the best example, so it wasn't just the Russians doing it. I've never heard that thing about firearms not being effective against fighting steppe nomads. As to why the Chinese then didn't develop firearms heavily I can't say, I guess the very earliest firearms wouldn't have been that effective. Though I think that's besides the point because at many times in history Chinese armies were actually quite effective already at fighting steppe nomads in battle, they weren't desperately searching for this one weird trick that Modu Chanyu hated. At the high points it basically revolved around Chinese infantry utilizing field fortifications, artillery and crossbows supported by large numbers of allied steppe cavalry and it worked quite well. Also at its frontiers the Chinese usually were content to regulate the movement and commercial activities of steppe nomads into their lands (that's what the Wall was for), and when they were strong and united they quite frequently attacked and expanded into lands that had been controlled by steppe nomads. The problem was bringing them to battle.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 12:39
|
|
|
Tomn posted:Say, question. different firearms. the cannon of 12th century china is not the same thing as the horseback carbine of 19th century russia. the theory you're referring to is about why the chinese never developed the small handheld firearm in the first place
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 14:26
|
|
|
After what Really enjoyed the various war diaries, both finished and ongoing. I also found Jobbo's Italian airplane posts fascinating, I'd love to see more if you have the time.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 14:32
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:Yeah Holocaust deniers will literally claim that more civilians died at Dresden than were killed in concentration camps. They claim 500,000 died at Dresden compared to a few hundred thousand prisoners who conveniently only ever died due to disease and malnutrition stemming from innocent things like logistical difficulties and not abuse and murder. The people in the camps wouldn't have died if the allies hadn't bombed Dresden obviously, putting a tremendous strain upon the noble, virtuous Wehrmacht army.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 15:49
|
|
|
Libluini posted:I was reading it today and was baffled when it suddenly ended in August 1916. Did he just stop this project midway? I was really anticipating 1917 and 1918, kind of sad that it just ends this way Excluding big days from the first day of a new offensive; it went from taking about an hour per update in 1914 to taking about four hours per update, at which point a week of blogging takes 35 hours, and the books were selling about a tenth of what might have made it feasible to carry on.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 15:56
|
|
|
Chamuska posted:Very interesting, from what I have read in history books and articles, it has always proclaimed the bombings as a controversial topic. You brought up some good sources that prove otherwise. And it only makes sense.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 16:00
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:Excluding big days from the first day of a new offensive; it went from taking about an hour per update in 1914 to taking about four hours per update, at which point a week of blogging takes 35 hours, and the books were selling about a tenth of what might have made it feasible to carry on.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 16:06
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:Excluding big days from the first day of a new offensive; it went from taking about an hour per update in 1914 to taking about four hours per update, at which point a week of blogging takes 35 hours, and the books were selling about a tenth of what might have made it feasible to carry on. That is kind of sad, but understandable, if my family ("what is his-tory?") are any measure, history generally isn't drawing the kind of numbers where you can just drop some eBooks and expect to make money. Do you want to try again with a Book on Demand company? Some of them sell you actual ad packages to help get people to know your books. (And more important in case of print books, get book stores to know you, heightening your chance to get some shelf space. Not really applicable if you go the eBook-only route, of course.) Considering all the research and work you put into this project, this should be enough to get you the money to continue. Edit: Or yeah, this new-fangled "Patreon"-thing could help, too Libluini fucked around with this message at 17:46 on Apr 9, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 17:42
|
|
|
I mean, I regret the Dresden firebombing, probably more deeply than anyone else in this thread because I live there half the year and the way the city looks is really weird now. One of the guys I study was buried in a church that was half destroyed. The new government never renovated it because baroque churches were OK but Gothic churches were a step too far for a Communist government, so they demolished it against the wishes of the locals in the middle of the night. A weed-strewn plaza next to a shopping center with a tacky as poo poo bar in it is there now. I know what that guy's epitaph says but I will never see it. I've walked across the city square where they brought the people who died in the firebombing and burned the bodies. The reason the guy who wrote the new book on the firebombing can have an accurate death count is that he talked to the guy who directed that. But was the firebombing a morally justifiable act, given that it happened in the context of a war against an enemy whose explicit aims included enslaving half the population of Eurasia, and had already started murdering millions of human beings who were no threat to them just because of their religion/ethnicity/they were disabled? That's a more complicated question. A lot of beautiful things have gotten destroyed in a lot of wars. You're asking "Would you destroy this priceless artifact if doing so helped stop Hitler?" and if I were reasonably certain it would--it would hurt a whole lot but yeah, probably. HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 18:50 on Apr 9, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 18:26
|
|
|
OK, someone asked for good reads on the reconstruction of Germany after WW2. I'm just raiding the bibliography of my dissertation for this. Disclaimer: I focused on the reconstruction of the German educational system. A lot of the literature I dealt with was specific to that, although I'm trying to pick out the more general works. That said, it's a great microcosm of the entire clusterfuck precisely because it was so politicized and the objectives of the Soviets and the Western Allies were pretty divergent. First off, watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=821R0lGUL6A It's Your Job in Germany, a 1945 war department film that was shown to occupation soldiers to get them on board as far as what the challenges and goals of the occupation were. Of course it doesn't tell the whole story, but it is a good entry point to what the Americans at least saw as their job. Fun fact: it was written by Theodor Geisel, better known as Dr. Seuss, and directed by Frank Capra. A year later Warner Bros. picked up the rights to it, edited it a bit to take out some of the more ghastly stuff and released it as Hitler Lives? to tell more or less the same story to civilian audiences. It won the 1946 academy award for documentary features. Forgive the formatting, I'm just copy-pasting this poo poo because I'm lazy. I'll add a bit of commentary. Jarausch, Konrad H. After Hitler: Recivilizing Germans 1945-1995. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005 If you only read one, grab Jarausch's book. It's a broad overview of the issues surrounding Germany's 50 year transition from being totally on its rear end following the war to its post-unification as the economic (and some would argue political) heart of the EU and one of the leading proponents of peaceful European cooperation. It was published before the big migrant crises and the resurgence of the right in the form of Pegida etc, but it's still a really spot on examination of how you get from Hitler to Merkel. Only the first quarter or so is narrowly about the occupation and rebuilding there, but I think it's a subject that really needs to be handled on a broader timeframe because dealing with its Nazi past is something that Germany had to do in stages. Here's a great example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUqbbdTrCW0 That's a standup routine in W. Germany in 1973. The important part (that you don't need to speak German to understand) is the first 30 seconds or so. The looks on the faces of the people in the audience - almost all of whom would have been of military age during the war - show it all. The question of how you get from a fascist dictatorship to a situation where a stand up comedian can leverage it for awkward humor (in the west) is what is really at the core of Jarausch's take. As a side note, Jarausch is also really skilled at weaving large narratives like this. He's at his best when it comes to writing large, overview histories that trace the big movements. (he's done fiddlier stuff to - he's insanely productive). As such, After Hitler is a very readable book. If you're only going to grab one of these this is the one. Tent, James F. Mission on the Rhine: Reeducation and denazification in American-occupied Germany, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1982 This is a great treatment of the American zones of occupation and, since American policy really drove what went on as the Western Zones coalesced into W. Germany, it has a lot to say about how W. Germany ends up in general. In particular he dives deep on the role of the American military government and how the and the civilians under the State Department shaped an emerging democratic BRD. It's a slightly earlier take on the subject material clocking in at 35 years old now, but still holds its own. Easy number two on my list. Naimark, Norman M. The Russians in Germany: A history of the Soviet zone of occupation, 1945-1949. Cambridge: Belknap Press, 1995 What Tent does for W. Germany, Naimark does for E. Germany. I don't think he's quite as good as Tent is, but it's still a solid as gently caress book. If you've read Jarausch and Tent and now want a more detailed look at what the Soviets were thinking and why they built the DDR they way they did, he's a great read. Those are the big 3. If you read all 3 of those you will have a really solid grasp on what the gently caress is going on with reconstruction in Germany, and chances are you will also find you have some really strong opinions about the post-war occupation and reconstruction of Iraq. Everything past this point are more narrow studies that really only shed light on some particulars. Above this line you're just a normal person who's got an interest in why Germans aren't Nazis any more, past this point you're officially becoming a military occupation policy geek. Vogt Timothy R. Denazification in Soviet-Occupied Germany: Brandenburg 1945-1948, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2000 Vogt basically does what Naimark does, only burrows down deep into what went on in one specific state. It's a great look at how things played out on the ground and what the specific challenges were for the Soviets. Lansing, Charles B. From Nazism to Communism: German Schoolteachers under Two Dictatorships, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2010 If you liked Vogt, Lansing basically does the same thing only looks narrowly at how the Soviets tried to un-gently caress German schools. He looks at the same territory (Brandenburg) that Vogt does, so there is a lot of interesting overlap between the two. You read Naimark to get the big national-level policy poo poo, you read Vogt to see how that played out in an individual state, now Lansing has a lot to say about how successful all that was when applied to a single politically sensitive profession, teaching. It's a personal favorite of mine because of the way he takes down the myth that West Germany hosed up denazificaiton while the Soviets, having fewer qualms about tossing everyone out on their asses, at the very least succeeded in rooting out all the Nazis in the east. Far from it, Lansing show just how badly they failed in this. Looking at school teachers in particular he shows how the same teachers who were working under Hitler were, by the early 1950s, right back in their jobs in the East German anti-fascist state even if they suffered a few years of unemployment. It's one of the most pervasive myths of the post-war era (I could get into that at length - a lot of it has to do with the cold war and the protest movements of the 60s) and one that he blows up pretty masterfully. Blessing, Benita. The Antifascist Classroom: Denazification in Soviet-occupied Germany 1945- 1949, New York: Palmgrave, 2006 Blessing takes a more general approach to the politics of educational reform in the east, specifically the desire of the Soviets to set up new schools with the explicitly political agenda of creating staunch antifascists. In a lot of ways it was a much more ambitious project than what you see in the West, complete with a total restructuring of the German school system in some really profound ways that, ironically, look more like the modern American school system than the modern German school system. Puaca, Brian M. Learning Democracy: education reform in West Germany, 1945-1965, New York: Berghahn Books, 2009 Still with me? What Blessing does for the DDR Puaca does for the BRD. Like Blessing he also focuses on the goals of the occupation authorities in the west and how they tried to restructure German education to promote a vibrant, democratic society. Like Lansing he's also a much needed corrective to an earlier narrative that the west basically failed in denazification. He does a lot of work in examining the ways that democratic practices were introduced at every level which itself had the direct result that the West Germans were more active agents in the reconstruction of their schools. This led both to some reforms being sidelined through native resistance (you never see a unified, single track system like the Russians push through, for example) but also helped establish the legitimacy of the newly elected democratic officials who were helping to shape it. Paradoxically this leads to a system that is structurally far less reformed than what you see in the east, but which does far more to support a more vibrantly democratic society than the single-party dictatorship of the SED. As a side note he did his PhD under Jarausch so if you read the first book you can see some bleed over between them as far as ideas and themes. I believe Jarausch published After Hitler about the same time that Puaca defended. Nelson, Keith. Victors Divided: America and the Allies in Germany: 1918-1923. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1975 Finally, if your'e still with us this is a pretty OK, narrow, single volume on America's role in the post-WW1 occupation of Germany. It's a good coda to all this because this was the US's most recent experience with occupying a foreign country AND an almost abortive attempt at it. A lot of people looked at what went on in this period and tried to learn from it as they started out planning for the eventual occupation of Germany, planning which began as early as 1942. Anyways, that's a short list. If anyone can read German I can throw a few more out there. Or if there's questions I can field those as well.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 18:48
|
|
|
Randarkman posted:perhaps more important is the logistics and the increasingly powerful sedentary civilizations that could field and maintain such armies on the steppes and bring the steppe nomads to battle. I'd assume a significant factor in this is that it's really hard to both be nomadic and also industrialise and countries that underwent industrial revolutions just became horrifically powerful compared to ones that didn't?
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 20:22
|
|
|
spectralent posted:I'd assume a significant factor in this is that it's really hard to both be nomadic and also industrialise and countries that underwent industrial revolutions just became horrifically powerful compared to ones that didn't? The firearms you can give to horsemen are wheellocks or caplocks. It takes a lot of steps to get there and most of those steps are inhabited by firearms you can't give to them. Once that step was reached, you can put some kind of gun in the hands of people who fight steppe nomads. (In my opinion.) HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 01:21 on Apr 10, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 20:27
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Jarausch, Konrad H. After Hitler: Recivilizing Germans 1945-1995. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005 "So many old comrades." :x: Seems like he made a couple of other references to the war years, but the fact that he was able to get such a spontaneous reaction from the crowd is hilarious. Anyone know if there is a translation of this anywhere?
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 22:39
|
|
|
HEY GUNS posted:It was, because of the city's beauty. A number of British people were heartbroken by this decision. At least they decided to spare Heidelberg. And Prague survived almost unscathed, thank God. I really don't like how the pop treatment of strategic bombing has turned to 'poor, defenseless, harmless, beautiful Dresden" as if nothing was lost in Koln or Hamburg or Mannheim or Lubeck etc. and implicitly making it okay for ugly cities like Pforzheim or Wesel or Kassel to get firebombed. I hate how the morality of strategic destruction is most often discussed around Joseph Goebbel's terms and not over examples of actual moral crises, like bombing up Italian peninsula after they surrendered, or obliterating Caen and Le Havre. Not that anybody has actually said this itt, I'm just annoyed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 22:45
|
|
|
Video of the attack on Mers-el-Kebir. I believe there's footage of a Battleship taking some direct hits, with catastrophic damage accompanying it, could be wrong though, I'm poo poo at identifying boats. https://giant.gfycat.com/DismalFickleHamadryas.webm
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 23:29
|
|
|
That standup bit has me speechless. Sheeeit
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 23:29
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:Video of the attack on Mers-el-Kebir. I believe there's footage of a Battleship taking some direct hits, with catastrophic damage accompanying it, could be wrong though, I'm poo poo at identifying boats. Jesus I didn't know there was video footage of this. If it's Mers-el-Kebir than the exploding ship should be the WWI Dreadnought Bretagne. You can see a Dunkerque and Provence in the foreground of most shots. It's crazy how close those ships are to each other, that's a brave camera guy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 23:39
|
|
|
13th KRRC War Diary, 9th Apr 1918 posted:Everything as usual, in the evening Batt. H.Q. moved to the H.Q. vacated by the 10th R.F.  Copies of the movement orders are being included more in the appendices, but most are hand-written and nigh on impossible to decipher. The order for today's movements is presented without further comment.  
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2018 00:19
|
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:I really don't like how the pop treatment of strategic bombing has turned to 'poor, defenseless, harmless, beautiful Dresden" as if nothing was lost in Koln or Hamburg or Mannheim or Lubeck etc. and implicitly making it okay for ugly cities like Pforzheim or Wesel or Kassel to get firebombed. I hate how the morality of strategic destruction is most often discussed around Joseph Goebbel's terms and not over examples of actual moral crises, like bombing up Italian peninsula after they surrendered, or obliterating Caen and Le Havre. Also Magdeburg got destroyed at least three times and came back uglier each time, kind of remarkable really HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 00:58 on Apr 10, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2018 00:49
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:Video of the attack on Mers-el-Kebir. I believe there's footage of a Battleship taking some direct hits, with catastrophic damage accompanying it, could be wrong though, I'm poo poo at identifying boats. This film shows the main anchorage at Mers-el-Kébir. Moored stern-first at the mole are the WWI-era Bretagne-class dreadnought battleships Bretagne and Provence, the Washington Treaty Dunkerque-class battleships (sometimes called battlecruisers) Dunkerque and Strasbourg, and the one-off seaplane tender Commandant Teste. I've tried identifying the ships and events by timestamp below: 0:00 - Bretagne or Provence in foreground, Dunkerque or Strasbourg in background. Based on this diagram, I suspect we're viewing Provence and Strasbourg from the deck of Dunkerque. 0:04 - The stern of Dunkerque or Strasbourg, showing the aircraft catapult and hangar. 0:08 - As the camera pans, we once again see the stern of the same ship with two of the secondary turrets and the mainmast coming into view. 0:16 - The splash of a large caliber projectile partially obscures the stern of a Dunkerque-class ship. Behind her is an old Bretagne-class battleship, the slender after funnel, midships turret, and thicker fore funnel of which are neatly framed between the mainmast and funnel of the Dunkerque. Based on the above diagram, we are seeing either Dunkerque and Provence, viewed from the shore, or Strasbourg and Bretagne, viewed from Provence. 0:18 - The frame jumps briefly but appears to remain focused on the same two ships. In the background, the older battleship is aflame, smoke pouring from her after turrets. This strongly indicates that she is Bretagne, which suffered a penetrating hit below the waterline abeam turret IV (the after superimposed turret) causing a magazine explosion. 0:23 - The view is much the same, except that Bretagne is an utter catastrophe at this point. The enormous smoke plume is most likely the aforementioned magazine explosion. 0:39 - We're so close in here that it's difficult to identify the ship we're seeing. We see, left to right, a crane facing away from the camera, a pair of searchlights one above the other, a funnel, and a second crane. Taken together, and based on the ships in harbor at the time, I think we're aboard Provence looking aft from above the midships turret, viewing the after funnel and adjacent cranes. The searchlights are mounted on the side of the mainmast abaft the funnel. 0:42 - The stricken Bretagne, settling by the stern. Behind her, at the extreme left of frame, we see the mainmast and quarterdeck break of the seaplane tender Commandant Teste. 0:45 - The stern of a Bretagne-class ship, presumably, at this point, the relatively unharmed Provence. In the background is a huge smoke plume that I assume is from Bretagne's magazine explosion. Altogether, it looks like we're seeing at minimum two separate sets of film spliced together, one taken from the deck of Dunkerque, the northernmost (farthest starboard) of the five ships, and one from Provence, immediately to port of Dunkerque.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2018 01:53
|
|
|
How accurate is this documentary about British history? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMgZPTbB5Hs
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2018 01:53
|
|
|
OpenlyEvilJello posted:magazine explosion.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2018 01:57
|
|
|
WW2 Data The last of the ground pyrotechnics are up for inspection. Which signal(s) is used to simulate air-bursting artillery projectiles? What protective gear should be worn when in the area of its explosion? Do we get to see the predecessor to the flashbang? All that and more at the blog!
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2018 02:18
|
|
|
HEY GUNS posted:Also Magdeburg got destroyed at least three times and came back uglier each time, kind of remarkable really Demonstratably false  If you don't vibe with Hundertwasserhaus you can  http://www.gruene-zitadelle.de/de
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2018 05:07
|
|
|
aphid_licker posted:That standup bit has me speechless. Sheeeit SimonCat posted:Anyone know if there is a translation of this anywhere?
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2018 12:34
|
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:I hate how the morality of strategic destruction is most often discussed around Joseph Goebbel's terms and not over examples of actual moral crises, like bombing up Italian peninsula after they surrendered, or obliterating Caen and Le Havre. Next time, give ’em this: 
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2018 13:04
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:Next time, give ’em this: Quote is false though, Gobby never said that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2018 13:42
|
|
|
frankenfreak posted:How have you never seen that before? I thought the bit about the drunk trying to order drinks was pretty decent in a dad joke sense. Randarkman posted:Quote is false though, Gobby never said that. Which itself is kinda meta as gently caress in the context.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2018 13:48
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:I thought the bit about the drunk trying to order drinks was pretty decent in a dad joke sense. Yeah, good point.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2018 14:57
|
|
HEY GUNS posted:mother of christ, ugh I wonder if this awkwardly ended the battle like the last time this happened too because a whole ship exploding and suddenly killing everyone on board is horrible.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2018 14:59
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:I wonder if this awkwardly ended the battle like the last time this happened too because a whole ship exploding and suddenly killing everyone on board is horrible. The Strasbourg and some escorts made it to open sea so the later phases of the battle mostly centered on trying to run them down or sink them with torpedo planes, but neither worked out and the Strasbourg escaped. Comrade Gorbash fucked around with this message at 15:12 on Apr 10, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2018 15:09
|
|
|
So they went full Copenhagen on this one then.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2018 15:11
|
|
|
So what's the more generally accepted casualty count for the Dresden bombing? I figure it's really difficult to estimate, especially if the city was hosting alot of refugees. I remember hearing around 50 000 as the high estimate, wikipedia says 20-25 000. Does that leave Operation Gomorra over Hamburg as the deadliest air raid conducted against Germany? That's about 40-50 000 deaths, 1 million people left homeless, and actually quite major damage done to the city's industry.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2018 15:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 18:30 |
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:Video of the attack on Mers-el-Kebir. I believe there's footage of a Battleship taking some direct hits, with catastrophic damage accompanying it, could be wrong though, I'm poo poo at identifying boats. God it just seems like such a gently caress up from start to finish. In saying that, my only knowledge of it comes from wikipedia. My take is that it was a huge breakdown of communication and probably some I've love to hear some reasoned explanations, however I feel like it could be one of those "why did Truman drop the bomb" scenarios I'm a little surprised that Mers-el-Kebir isn't used by wehraboos as a "but they were as bad not worse" argument
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2018 15:14
|
|