|
zoux posted:Assuming time machines or massive geopolitical shifts: would you guys go to a nuclear test shot if you could? My dad's uncle got to watch one, he was a sailor on one the observation bosts. Probably also an unwitting test subject too.
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2021 02:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 17:06 |
|
|
zoux posted:Assuming time machines or massive geopolitical shifts: would you guys go to a nuclear test shot if you could? In a heartbeat
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2021 07:09
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
sullat posted:My dad's uncle got to watch one, he was a sailor on one the observation bosts. Probably also an unwitting test subject too. Any cool first-hand stories from the tests?
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2021 08:51
|
|
|
zoux posted:Assuming time machines or massive geopolitical shifts: would you guys go to a nuclear test shot if you could? PittTheElder posted:In a heartbeat I'd need a fresh pair of pants to change into because well, just thinking about nukes make my stomach queasy I can't imagine what actually witnessing one detonate would do, but I'm betting I'd soil myself. Still - in a heartbeat is right.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2021 16:58
|
|
|
It might be amazing, but I'd be too worried about some kind of health consequences even if the scientists did all the math that said there would be no or negligible exposure. I've also heard enough stories of early nuclear scientists or even unqualified radiation enthusiasts killing themselves I definitely wouldn't trust their judgement.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2021 18:29
|
|
|
I'd absolutely do it, it would be an awe-inspiring and terrifying experience.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2021 18:42
|
|
|
It's kind of like a hypothetical ride on the space shuttle for me, yeah it might be dangerous but the experience is too good to pass up. When HD was coming widespread, me and my friends bought a projector and screen and had like a 100 inch image. I'll never forget watching Trinity and Beyond on it, and how awesome, in the biblical sense, some of those explosions looked. Being in person and feeling the heat of the flash, the percussion, seeing a mushroom cloud towering above you into the stratosphere - I wouldn’t be surprised if it made some observers fall to their knees. In the original tweet, the guy wondered if seeing a nuclear explosion in person would’ve changed Eisenhower's stance on nukes - what was Ike's view on atomic bombs?
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2021 18:44
|
|
|
Steven Zaloga's article on Omaha Beach and the British "Funny" tanks was published in the latest Journal of Military History and Ensign should read it ASAP because it's exactly his sort of work. TL;DR is that no, the Americans didn't refuse to use those new-fangled goofy Limey engineering tanks, there just weren't enough to go around and the American sectors drew the short straw.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2021 18:54
|
|
|
Tree Bucket posted:Any cool first-hand stories from the tests? Afraid not. Wish I had asked him about it before he died, but so it goes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2021 04:12
|
|
|
I'm currently reading Europe's Tragedy by Peter H. Wilson, and I'm starting to realize I may have bit off more than I can chew in terms of Thirty Years' War history books. I got it in my head to learn about the war after realizing it was one of the deadliest wars in Europe and I knew next to nothing about it. I normally read things that are more social history as opposed to super- focused troop movements, and this is granular to the point of confusion. I'm about a third of the way in and I still don't understand how the Holy Roman Empire's system of governance works or why exactly this war was so deadly, but I did learn exactly how many people were deployed in which groups at the Battle of White Mountain. Any recs for something a bit more focused or easier to read? Maybe a biography of Ferdinand or this von Mansfeld guy who nobody seems to like?
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2021 06:05
|
|
|
Are there any good and reasonably easy to digest books about the economic collapse of The Soviet Union?
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2021 08:55
|
|
|
Pinball posted:I'm currently reading Europe's Tragedy by Peter H. Wilson, and I'm starting to realize I may have bit off more than I can chew in terms of Thirty Years' War history books. I got it in my head to learn about the war after realizing it was one of the deadliest wars in Europe and I knew next to nothing about it. I normally read things that are more social history as opposed to super- focused troop movements, and this is granular to the point of confusion. I'm about a third of the way in and I still don't understand how the Holy Roman Empire's system of governance works or why exactly this war was so deadly, but I did learn exactly how many people were deployed in which groups at the Battle of White Mountain. Any recs for something a bit more focused or easier to read? Maybe a biography of Ferdinand or this von Mansfeld guy who nobody seems to like? You should fix the bolded part by reading Peter H Wilson's other massive book, The Holy Roman Empire!  Also you don't understand why it's so deadly because that part largely hasn't happened yet, it more of the middle third that really kills everybody as the devastation of Germany really kicks into high gear. PittTheElder fucked around with this message at 09:31 on Jan 28, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2021 09:28
|
|
|
Pinball posted:I'm currently reading Europe's Tragedy by Peter H. Wilson, and I'm starting to realize I may have bit off more than I can chew in terms of Thirty Years' War history books. I got it in my head to learn about the war after realizing it was one of the deadliest wars in Europe and I knew next to nothing about it. I normally read things that are more social history as opposed to super- focused troop movements, and this is granular to the point of confusion. I'm about a third of the way in and I still don't understand how the Holy Roman Empire's system of governance works or why exactly this war was so deadly, but I did learn exactly how many people were deployed in which groups at the Battle of White Mountain. Any recs for something a bit more focused or easier to read? Maybe a biography of Ferdinand or this von Mansfeld guy who nobody seems to like? An acolyte of the Curious Goon clan had been pouring over books in their chamber for weeks to no avail. In desperation, they knocked on the door of the masters' meditation chamber. An old master opened the door and invited the acolyte in. "I do not understand the functioning of the Holy Roman Empire and the reasons behind the 30 Years War", the acolyte said, bowing their head. "Despite my weeks of reading, I can not get the big picture or what caused it." "In this world, you can collect butterflies for two reasons. Those who do it for the first, collect them for their beauty, appreciating them as individuals. Those who do it for the second, do it to understand why it rained today. Only one of these people will ever be happy." "I think I understand what you are saying, master, but what if I wish to understand the monsoon?" queried the acolyte in wonderment. "You are in search of the droplet that fell the dam during a monsoon," admonished the master. "Thank you master. Perhaps, then, I'd wish to know who built the dam, and why it was so fragile," considered the acolyte. "In the case of the Holy Roman Empire," sighed the master, "your answers lie in the memoirs of hundred generations of beavers and trees." In that moment, the acolyte was enlightened. (sorry)
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2021 09:31
|
|
|
Pinball posted:Any recs for something a bit more focused or easier to read? When I was a kid the first book I read on the subject was The Thirty Years' War by CV Wedgewood. I am sure that this is thoroughly obsolete as it was written in 1938. The next book I read was The Thirty Years' War by Geoffrey Parker. It was written in the late 90s and may be outdated to modern scholarship, but it was readable and enjoyable.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2021 16:22
|
|
|
Pinball posted:I'm currently reading Europe's Tragedy by Peter H. Wilson, and I'm starting to realize I may have bit off more than I can chew in terms of Thirty Years' War history books. I got it in my head to learn about the war after realizing it was one of the deadliest wars in Europe and I knew next to nothing about it. I normally read things that are more social history as opposed to super- focused troop movements, and this is granular to the point of confusion. I'm about a third of the way in and I still don't understand how the Holy Roman Empire's system of governance works or why exactly this war was so deadly, but I did learn exactly how many people were deployed in which groups at the Battle of White Mountain. Any recs for something a bit more focused or easier to read? Maybe a biography of Ferdinand or this von Mansfeld guy who nobody seems to like? It starts to move quicker after they lay out all the groundwork 1/3 of the way into the book. I felt the same way learning about the various counts, electors, angry neighbors, Croats, Ottomans, Spanish, Italians, French, Hungarians, relations, Dutch... As someone not familiar with that era of European history it was kind of a tedious read. When the Swedes get involved the story picks up. There seemed like so much was going on that is either lost to history or this book didn't cover.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2021 20:56
|
|
|
Yooper posted:It starts to move quicker after they lay out all the groundwork 1/3 of the way into the book. I felt the same way learning about the various counts, electors, angry neighbors, Croats, Ottomans, Spanish, Italians, French, Hungarians, relations, Dutch... As someone not familiar with that era of European history it was kind of a tedious read. When the Swedes get involved the story picks up. There seemed like so much was going on that is either lost to history or this book didn't cover. O no. You’ve summoned Hegel.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2021 21:38
|
|
|
I asked about Wedgewood in the last thread when I was reading through it last year, I thought it was quite readable and helped as a baseline understanding of the conflict.HEY GUNS posted:it's out of date but it's really well written so i still recommend it as an introduction while telling people "and some of her ideas are wrong"
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2021 21:40
|
|
|
It's my understanding that Wedgewood wrote that while she was still in her twenties. For a young woman to write such a book at that time is impressive.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2021 22:22
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/nelianne90/status/1353779360289992705 I'm pretty sure this is not from the recent riots in the Netherlands Also, Mike Duncan is back with the revolutions podcast, so he can complete his final chapter on the Russian revolution. So, you know how the founder of a nation is usually idolized (both for the obvious reason and because they did great things, and had they been less brilliant the nation likely wouldn't have been founded?) Well I'm starting to think there's an opposite trend in revolutions: where if a big revolution happens a part of it is some King who had they been less oblivious and dumb it never would have happened? Exibit A: Czar Nicholas II After the 1905 revolution uprising after murdering lots of people an actual Duma has been established. Naturally there was an upper house filled with aristocrats, and a lower house filled with *electeds*. So the Czar addresses his aristocrats exclusively in a short speech to the Duma. He wanted 'unity' and 'mutual understanding' in the face of the almost-revolution. So the commons decided to write a note responding to the Czar's short address. They did attempt to draw a distinction between power the duma had, and mere requests to the Czar, they did want stuff, like the dissolution of the posh clubhouse of the house of lords, which the Czar put together only after he resoundingly lost the election, amnesty for political prisoners, land reform, actual governmental oversight, etc. The Czar refused the note, insisting that the plebs hand it to his prime minister. Then the PM gave a long speech to the duma, where he rejected all of this "doing stuff" talk, and just so they got the message, made it explicit that the Duma's ideas had not been considered and rejected, the PM had just rejected them because who the gently caress do you think you are peasants, and Poles, and Jews The Duma did about the only thing they could: loudly denounce all of this to the continuous applause of their fellow Duma-ists. They then drafted a statement saying that the government had lost the confidence of the Duma, and that the PM and all the ministers should resign, so that others more reliable could be appointed. The response from the Czar was to completely ignore the Duma and instruct everybody in the government to ignore the Duma, and if they did need to communicate, send underlings instead of themselves. They also cranked their fake news apparatus up The funny thing here is that all this was actually making the aristocrat clubhouse worried. The whole idea behind the Duma was to maybe solve a few problems so that another almost-revolution didn't happen.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2021 00:48
|
|
|
Thing is though, that event was already called a revolution. The Revolution of 1905. That's how they got the Duma in the first place, a mass strike along with some violence. Much like how I think the French Revolution was being called a revolution long before they got around to the war with Austria and beheading the king. In theory though, sure, maybe. If an absolute monarch could probably avert things if they had made the right choices and done the right management, but the biggest reason that they don't is usually that they don't like giving power and decision-making away to some kind of representative group of people, probably after being brought up their whole lives with the idea that their people love them and need them and all reports of dissent come filtered through a mob of yes-men and asskissers. Alternatively, there may be a level of brutality that could put down that kind of unrest that is either too uncomfortable or too expensive to maintain. Because even if you successfully suppress dissent, you still have to use your control to actually do things, and brutally suppressed populations are just plain worse at a lot of things.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2021 02:35
|
|
|
Also too, my understanding is both Nicholas II and Louis XVI were both the exact wrong person for the moment in that they were very hands on in a micromanagey sort of way and didn't like to make hard choices. So had they been either less interested or more competent things could have turned out differently.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2021 03:11
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:Thing is though, that event was already called a revolution. The Revolution of 1905. That's how they got the Duma in the first place, a mass strike along with some violence. Much like how I think the French Revolution was being called a revolution long before they got around to the war with Austria and beheading the king. It is rather impressive that the October Revolution was the second revolution Russia had that year, and the third in 12 years. Carillon posted:Also too, my understanding is both Nicholas II and Louis XVI were both the exact wrong person for the moment in that they were very hands on in a micromanagey sort of way and didn't like to make hard choices. So had they been either less interested or more competent things could have turned out differently. It seems that the most important trait in a ruler whose reign precipitates a revolution is indecisiveness. They won't commit to reforms nor will they use the amount of violence that would probably crack down on dissent.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2021 03:19
|
|
|
Well, in contrast you have King Charles, who refused to ever bend to the point that even when he lost the war and was put on trial, he was still trying to find an angle to bring in a new army to take his country back. I'm not really sure how things would've turned out if he managed to get through the trial without any provocation, but Parliament definitely didn't have a plan for ruling without a king. Although there's sort of bad analysis in working with only a few examples and focusing mainly on the cases that went horribly wrong.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2021 04:29
|
|
|
I have a dumb question even by the standards of my dumb questions : I've been listening to the Behind the Bastards mini-series about various fascist take-overs (worth putting on some headphones while you do the dishes or clean the bathroom), and it got me to wondering if there has ever been actually good, benevolent dictator? A few riders on this : 1) Any argument like "Yeah they did bad things but on the net they advanced [Cause]," doesn't count no matter which way it goes. If they had some kind of minor kerfuffle but mostly just rebuilt the housing and education infrastructure we can talk, but no tanky (or even worse, Nazi) bullshit. 2) No monarchies. I mean literal dictators. So like a dictator who gained power and spent their term of power doing beneficial things to the populous (e.g. health-care reforms or whatever) and then didn't do anything evil. This is non-political curiosity just cause I can't think of an example. I'm left with stuff like, "Uh, I guess some of the ones in South Korea and Taiwan weren't totally terrible, and Castro had his problems but he did make a good hospital system?????"
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2021 06:15
|
|
|
Cincinnatus
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2021 06:24
|
|
|
Stalin? Can't think of any others.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2021 06:27
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:Cincinnatus Being semi-mythical helps for this.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2021 06:27
|
|
|
GotLag posted:Stalin? Can't think of any others. He said good and benevolent.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2021 06:32
|
|
|
Does being assassinated moments after taking power count?
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2021 06:33
|
|
|
Yeah for the record I'd be shocked if someone pulled out Jeff IV, President of Rodonda ; this is mostly a case study if absolute power always makes you a shitbird/only shitbirds want absolute power. Total thought-experiment land. And no sweet weeping Christ how could you ever think of Stalin as a benevolent dictator. He's literally one of the only people I can think of who fought the Nazis and still didn't have it come out as a moral wash.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2021 06:45
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:I have a dumb question even by the standards of my dumb questions : There have certainly been good kings and queens by this standard, however. Probably the most recent clear example would be Pedro II.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2021 06:50
|
|
|
Depending on your definition of dictator there honestly hundreds that could qualify as benevolent. Lee Kuan Yew for example managed to transform singapore from a backwater microstate to one of the leading economies in asia. Augustus as emperor ended decades of civil war and put in place a system that was a hell of a lot more stable than the absolute poo poo show that was the late republic. MacArthur's leading of the occupation was a hell of a lot more successful than any of his campaigns, and while the postwar period isn't exactly bright in Japan they did manage to get enough food and medicine that they staved off a large portion of the mass starvation that would've taken place if the war would've continued.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2021 06:52
|
|
|
Gaius Marius posted:Depending on your definition of dictator there honestly hundreds that could qualify as benevolent. Lee Kuan Yew for example managed to transform singapore from a backwater microstate to one of the leading economies in asia.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2021 06:59
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Your problem is that this situation probably only exists in crisis situations, and even if the dictator resolved the crisis adequately, most people would not give up that power afterwards. A really successful dictator became the founder of a dynasty until pretty recently, and arguably the Kims in DPRK are a dynasty now even if they do not call themselves by the specific name, "king." I think you've misunderstood the question. It's only mine in the sense that I posed it, and I specifically said not monarchies (or something that's equivalent). I'm literally asking if there is some version of like Franco (or whatever) that got into power, redid some railways and then just drank tea and was chill about it. Specifically because I can't think of a counter-point I'm curious.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2021 07:08
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:I think you've misunderstood the question. It's only mine in the sense that I posed it, and I specifically said not monarchies (or something that's equivalent).
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2021 07:16
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:https://twitter.com/nelianne90/status/1353779360289992705 wrt. duncan, he isn't a historian, he's just a guy with a microphone and internet connection his rome series was full of glaring errors and he had the habit of jumping into strange conclusions
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2021 08:29
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:I have a dumb question even by the standards of my dumb questions : What do you actually mean by dictator here? Someone who gained power by non democratic means? Someone who came to power outside of the usual method of succession? Or do they have to rule or attempt to rule until death or deposition? Because that usually is where the evil comes in. There's a number of Roman Emperors that were essentially dictators and not monarchs, because they did not succeed the previous ruler by pure hereditary succession. Trajan, Hadrian, etc. They were considered quite good... Well within the context of a militarized imperial state anyway. Fangz fucked around with this message at 10:45 on Jan 29, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2021 10:37
|
|
|
Also roman dictators were elected, at least at some point in time. I'm sure others here can fill in more about that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2021 10:50
|
|
|
Fangz posted:What do you actually mean by dictator here? Someone who gained power by non democratic means? Someone who came to power outside of the usual method of succession? Or do they have to rule or attempt to rule until death or deposition? Because that usually is where the evil comes in. Well, hang on. The Roman Empire was very explicitly NOT a monarchy, they were rather firm on the matter in fact, and especially not a hereditary one (note that the one doesn't go with the other - see also the HRE or the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth) . What makes them less legitimate here? feedmegin fucked around with this message at 11:21 on Jan 29, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2021 11:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 17:06 |
|
|
feedmegin posted:Well, hang on. The Roman Empire was very explicitly NOT a monarchy, they were rather firm on the matter in fact, and especially not a hereditary one (note that the one doesn't go with the other - see also the HRE or the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth) . What makes the likes of Trajan less legitimate here? Well my point is that the whole definitions here seem kinda fuzzy, I didn't mean to say that Trajan was illegitimate. "Monarchy" was the only thing that was ruled out by the original poster.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2021 11:21
|
|