|
BalloonFish posted:There was also a level of "acceptance" rather than support - there were British business interests that didn't particularly want the Confederacy to survive (or even that it could), but were happy to make money off it while it existed. Lots of shipbuilders in Birkenhead and Glasgow became very rich building blockade runners and cruisers for the CSA, often financing the construction of the ships to their owners for a cut of the profits. Glasgow's preeminent status as a world shipbuilding centre in the 19th century was in large part created by its activities during the US Civil War: Glasgow had already become rich as a terminus for trans-Atlantic trade (especially tobacco, while Liverpool majored on cotton imports) and had a significant shipbuilding industry, but it mainly built ocean-going sailing ships (especially clippers) and smaller steamships for coastal trade. It had a particular niche making fast shallow-draught paddle steamers which were used up and down the Clyde estuary, the lochs of western Scotland and for linking the Hebrides. That was why the businessmen of the CSA came to the Clyde shipbuilders when they needed blockade runners - paddle steamers based on Clyde packet boats could go fast enough to outrun the Union blockade and could land in minor ports with shallow waters. A lot of the blockade runners were manned by crews drawn from Glasgow and it made the sailors, owners and builders very wealthy while it brought the quality of Clyde-built steamships to the world's attention. I was broadly aware that the British were making money off the war and also wanted to regain access to cotton exports from the rebel states. I guess I had hoped that by the interwar era, other British folks would be thinking of those days in terms of "hold your nose and get rich shoveling the (moral) poo poo" rather than Fuller's enthusiastic talk of states' rights and use of the word "darkie" in one quote. I guess the Trump era left me a little raw about certain topics.
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2021 20:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 13:29 |
|
|
BalloonFish posted:There was also a level of "acceptance" rather than support - there were British business interests that didn't particularly want the Confederacy to survive (or even that it could), but were happy to make money off it while it existed. Lots of shipbuilders in Birkenhead and Glasgow became very rich building blockade runners and cruisers for the CSA, often financing the construction of the ships to their owners for a cut of the profits. Glasgow's preeminent status as a world shipbuilding centre in the 19th century was in large part created by its activities during the US Civil War: Glasgow had already become rich as a terminus for trans-Atlantic trade (especially tobacco, while Liverpool majored on cotton imports) and had a significant shipbuilding industry, but it mainly built ocean-going sailing ships (especially clippers) and smaller steamships for coastal trade. It had a particular niche making fast shallow-draught paddle steamers which were used up and down the Clyde estuary, the lochs of western Scotland and for linking the Hebrides. That was why the businessmen of the CSA came to the Clyde shipbuilders when they needed blockade runners - paddle steamers based on Clyde packet boats could go fast enough to outrun the Union blockade and could land in minor ports with shallow waters. A lot of the blockade runners were manned by crews drawn from Glasgow and it made the sailors, owners and builders very wealthy while it brought the quality of Clyde-built steamships to the world's attention. Shhh, don't let the Scottish Nationalists hear you talk about how Scotland was an enthusiastic part of the Empire. They don't like facts getting into the way of all of Scotland's problems being caused by the English. Plus Britain wasn't at war with the Confederacy so why shouldn't they trade? America traded with France when Napoleon was trying to subjugate all of Europe.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2021 20:59
|
|
|
Belligerant rights was a huge issue. If the Confederates are rebels then dealing with them is committing a criminal act in and towards the US. If the Confederacy is a belligerent state then you can deal with it as long as you limit your dealings to the kind that neutral states are permitted to deal in without interference. What happened in the event was a bit of a fudge where nobody formally recognised the Confederacy but the US declared a blockade of the Southern States, to which everyone pointed out that you can't blockade yourself, so if you want us to acknowledge the legitimacy of this blockade then clearly someone has belligerent rights that can be exercised and everyone unofficially agreed to leave it at that. e: formally establishing a blockade being important because as a legal concept in international law it gives you rights to use force against third party vessels that you wouldn't otherwise have. Alchenar fucked around with this message at 21:14 on Nov 12, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2021 21:11
|
|
|
Zorak of Michigan posted:I was broadly aware that the British were making money off the war and also wanted to regain access to cotton exports from the rebel states. I guess I had hoped that by the interwar era, other British folks would be thinking of those days in terms of "hold your nose and get rich shoveling the (moral) poo poo" rather than Fuller's enthusiastic talk of states' rights and use of the word "darkie" in one quote. I guess the Trump era left me a little raw about certain topics. It's going to depend very much who you're talking about. https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/from-the-archive-blog/2013/feb/04/lincoln-oscars-manchester-cotton-abraham Britain's no more a monolith than anywhere else after all. Or if we are talking about JFC Fuller he was notoriously and controversially a fascist, on the BUF policy committee even.The interwar period is kind of known for racism after all! feedmegin fucked around with this message at 22:04 on Nov 12, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2021 21:28
|
|
|
sullat posted:IIRC there was a Russian scientist that went looking for articles about nuclear physics in like 1943, noticed that nothing had been published in several years, so he immediately wrote to comrade Stalin saying "hey the Americans are censoring this branch of science, we need to start researching it yesterday" Indeed there was, that was Georgy Flyorov. Though in the event Stalin already knew, the Cambridge Five had passed information about the British determination of the feasibility of an atomic weapon as early as 1941. Which reminds me of an odd anecdote from Rhodes' Making of the Atomic Bomb, where at one point Soviet officials asked for a (very tiny) sample of U-233 as part of a lend-lease shipment, and the Americans actually delivered it (flown via the ALSIB route). PittTheElder fucked around with this message at 21:50 on Nov 12, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2021 21:48
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
Cessna posted:Depends on the army. VERY broadly speaking, nations defeated by the French (I'm thinking of Prussia and Russia) early on underwent significant reorganizations in order to incorporate lessons learned. That’s what I’ve read, that after getting beaten by Napoleon his enemies reformed their militaries based on France’s. From what you posted it seems like many of the reforms were based around recruiting and training more men to try and match France’s numbers. But were there tactical reforms too or just organizational?
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2021 21:48
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:Or if we are talking about JFC Fuller he was notoriously and controversially a fascist, on the BUF policy committee even.The interwar period is kind of known for racism after all! I remembered him as "that tank guy who couldn't convince anyone in the UK" and had not retained any recollection of his fascism. You got me checking Wikipedia and oh hey look quote:Fuller spent his last years believing that the wrong side had won the Second World War. So, I went into this book with wrong expectations about the author's point of view, but now I get it. Furthermore, what an rear end in a top hat. Worse than Lee, even!
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2021 22:44
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:Belligerant rights was a huge issue. If the Confederates are rebels then dealing with them is committing a criminal act in and towards the US. If the Confederacy is a belligerent state then you can deal with it as long as you limit your dealings to the kind that neutral states are permitted to deal in without interference. What do you mean you can't blockade yourself? Is there some kind of magic words in Maritime Law that says a nation can't control the shipping coming into and out of its territory?
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2021 22:56
|
|
|
PeterCat posted:What do you mean you can't blockade yourself? Is there some kind of magic words in Maritime Law that says a nation can't control the shipping coming into and out of its territory? I mean if you tried it now you would be violating all sorts of international trade agreements.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2021 23:07
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:I mean if you tried it now you would be violating all sorts of international trade agreements. Just goes to show the triumph of capital over national sovereignty.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2021 23:17
|
|
|
Yes you cannot just start using your navy to seize merchant shipping from other countries, that's an act of war - unless those vessels are trying to breach a validly constituted blockade. Also worth noting that since 1945 rights to establish blockades got passed to the UN and for pretty much all practical purposes the legal concept has been subsumed by the concept of economic sanctions. e: this has absolutely nothing to do with any conflict of interests of capital vs national sovereignty. Alchenar fucked around with this message at 23:22 on Nov 12, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2021 23:19
|
|
|
PeterCat posted:What do you mean you can't blockade yourself? Is there some kind of magic words in Maritime Law that says a nation can't control the shipping coming into and out of its territory? Sort of, yes. If it was just an insurgency or rebellion, it was a matter of "closing the ports." But once you formally declare war and impose a blockade you thereby recognize the South as a sovereign entity. Sec. of the Navy Wells said: "The very fact of the blockade would raise the insurgents to the level of belligerents - a concession to the Confederate organization admitting it to be a quasi government."
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2021 23:23
|
|
|
Foxtrot_13 posted:Shhh, don't let the Scottish Nationalists hear you talk about how Scotland was an enthusiastic part of the Empire. I don’t know that this is what you would call “a Scottish city making profits as part of an oppressive empire”, without making some huge leaps about who and what is profiting and if profit equals societal enthusiasm.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2021 23:49
|
|
|
Cessna posted:Sort of, yes. They probably should have done this. Wasn't reconstruction severely hampered by the fact that technically, legally speaking, the confederacy never existed? And then reconstruction failing led to the following 1.5 century+ of racial and economic problems since.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2021 00:22
|
|
|
Uncle Enzo posted:They probably should have done this. Wasn't reconstruction severely hampered by the fact that technically, legally speaking, the confederacy never existed? And then reconstruction failing led to the following 1.5 century+ of racial and economic problems since. it’s super naive to think reconstruction could have meant the end of American racism. But yes, reconstruction failing was the first sign that the South had no intention of backing off it’s horrifying beliefs.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2021 00:31
|
|
|
Uncle Enzo posted:They probably should have done this. Wasn't reconstruction severely hampered by the fact that technically, legally speaking, the confederacy never existed? And then reconstruction failing led to the following 1.5 century+ of racial and economic problems since. No, reconstruction was severely hampered by the fact that the landowning elite of the south resisted it fiercely at every turn, relying on mob violence and terrorism to push back any attempt to peaceably heal the wounds of slavery. And so when a corrupt politician agreed to end reconstruction in exchange for support for his presidential recount campaign, all the progress of 11 years was almost immediately undone.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2021 00:40
|
|
|
Uncle Enzo posted:They probably should have done this. Wasn't reconstruction severely hampered by the fact that technically, legally speaking, the confederacy never existed? No. Where did you hear this? Reconstruction failed because - read the two posts above this one. Uncle Enzo posted:And then reconstruction failing led to the following 1.5 century+ of racial and economic problems since. Recognizing the Confederacy as a sovereign state would have given them a legitimacy they neither deserved nor earned. If anything it would have enabled even more support for their cause.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2021 01:43
|
|
|
Cessna posted:Sort of, yes. So, how did the US blockade Cuba without a declaration of war? I'm sure you're correct, this is just a bizarre idea to me though. The United States is attempting to secure it's border with Mexico and leaving aside the treatment of migrants, etc.. there doesn't seem to be any international outcry about it. Apparently it's OK for the US to say, no trucks from Mexico may drive in, no planes from Mexico may fly in, but it's a bridge too far to say no commercial ships from Mexico can sail in? (Just using Mexico as an example, any country will do.) PeterCat fucked around with this message at 05:47 on Nov 13, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2021 02:20
|
|
|
PeterCat posted:So, how did the US blockade Cuba without a declaration of war? The blockade of Cuba wasn’t one, legally. The US government got a two-thirds vote from members of the Organization of American States. Additionally, forces from numerous other countries participated in the totally-not-a-blockade, including Venezuela, Argentina, Colombia, and the Dominican Republic, so it wasn’t even unilateral. It had just enough diplomatic cover to kinda make the fat gently caress fly. Also, we’re not touching you. See how we’re not touching you? This is totally legal. There’s lots of reasons the whole affair is seen as such a dangerous example of brinksmanship.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2021 02:33
|
|
|
Lady Radia posted:I don’t know that this is what you would call “a Scottish city making profits as part of an oppressive empire”, without making some huge leaps about who and what is profiting and if profit equals societal enthusiasm. Probably the same level of enthusiasm as the majority of the population of England. The narrative being referenced is that Scotland is an oppressed victim of English colonialism which is plainly cobblers, they participated and benefitted just like the rest of us.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2021 08:55
|
|
|
PeterCat posted:So, how did the US blockade Cuba without a declaration of war? Illegally. The American executive committee knew a blockade would be absurdly illegal, the quarantine was a legal fiction invented to stop something that Cuba and the Soviet Union were well within their rights to do, but the US political establishment could not abide. But it was something that wasn't a catastrophic military response that JFK deserves a fair bit of credit for forcing onto his military advisors.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2021 09:07
|
|
|
Uncle Enzo posted:They probably should have done this. Wasn't reconstruction severely hampered by the fact that technically, legally speaking, the confederacy never existed? And then reconstruction failing led to the following 1.5 century+ of racial and economic problems since.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2021 10:47
|
|
|
They did do it. Lincoln declared a formal blockade and the rest of the world (that was paying attention) duly recognised the Confederacy as a belligerent with belligerent rights (which is not quite the same as a recognition as a sovereign state). The Union calculated that the blockade would be effective enough that the Confederacy gaining belligerent rights would not matter, and enough diplomatic pressure could me maintained on Britain and France that they wouldn't go further and formally recognise the Confederacy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2021 11:08
|
|
|
I heard that Britain had some tight cotton supply for a year or two and then realized you could grow cotton in Egypt real well, at which point lol @ King Cotton. I imagine there was some hope on the British's part that this might kneecap the USA, which it didn't take much imagination to foresee surpassing England in the not too distant future, but it wasn't worth much more than the aid they gave the Confederates. Polyakov posted:Probably the same level of enthusiasm as the majority of the population of England. The narrative being referenced is that Scotland is an oppressed victim of English colonialism which is plainly cobblers, they participated and benefitted just like the rest of us.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2021 11:08
|
|
|
Egyptian cotton is still seen as being a signifier of quality.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2021 12:23
|
|
|
Nessus posted:I've heard this one about Ireland, which seems to have at least one large, potato-based complicating factor. You will however note that i didnt say Ireland. The equation of the treatment of the Irish and the scots within the UK is offensive in regards to what happened in Ireland.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2021 12:52
|
|
|
So as some of you know I'm running a small wargame pbp on the Russian front of WW1, and that's got me wondering - how the hell were Russian armies in WW1 organized? It's all division this and regiment that, but it's hard to get any fix on number of men to a regiment or squadron, as well as equipment, as standardisation and having the stuff on your equipment table seems to be more of a vibe than actual stats. E: also, did Russians have flamethrowers and light mortars? No, right? Tias fucked around with this message at 14:11 on Nov 13, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2021 13:28
|
|
|
Polyakov posted:You will however note that i didnt say Ireland. The equation of the treatment of the Irish and the scots within the UK is offensive in regards to what happened in Ireland. So much so that the Scots-Irish ethnic group managed to retain an enormous portion of Ireland in the British empire. And even before then, after the fruits of colonialism in Ireland stopped bearing fruit, the Scots-Irish moved to fresher pastures in the American midwest. But no there's that one movie where some nobles having their usual cousin-loving disputes with other nobles leads to a really good line delivery by Mel Gibson. In any case Scotland should seperate from England because the English have their own terminal case of brain disease with their pathetic attempts at reviving the British empire and Scotland has no need to follow the English in their idiocy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2021 13:41
|
|
|
sullat posted:No, reconstruction was severely hampered by the fact that the landowning elite of the south resisted it fiercely at every turn, relying on mob violence and terrorism to push back any attempt to peaceably heal the wounds of slavery. And so when a corrupt politician agreed to end reconstruction in exchange for support for his presidential recount campaign, all the progress of 11 years was almost immediately undone. Southern elite resistance was to be expected, but what rendered it unviable was that the northern coalition that fought the war broke up fairly quickly once the main issue started to go away. Northerners and westerners simply didn't consider it important or right to maintain the reconstruction governments against this, and things reverted mostly to form.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2021 13:59
|
|
|
Tias posted:So as some of you know I'm running a small wargame pbp on the Russian front of WW1, and that's got me wondering - how the hell were Russian armies in WW1 organized? It's all division this and regiment that, but it's hard to get any fix on number of men to a regiment or squadron, as well as equipment, as standardisation and having the stuff on your equipment table seems to be more of a vibe than actual stats. It's a bit hard to find information online about these, only a few were produced. http://www.passioncompassion1418.com/Canons/Eng_AfficheCanonGET.php?IdCanonAffiche=1451 Flamethrowers were more numerous, both captured and domestically manufactured ones were used. Maybe not to the extent of the western front but eastern front also involved a lot of trench warfare around fortresses and cities. https://en.topwar.ru/133595-voyska-dyma-i-plameni-chast-3-detische-russkogo-imperatora.html
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2021 15:18
|
|
|
Phobophilia posted:In any case Scotland should seperate from England because the English have their own terminal case of brain disease with their pathetic attempts at reviving the British empire and Scotland has no need to follow the English in their idiocy. Take your current events takes somewhere else please.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2021 16:25
|
|
|
Cross-posting my request from the book barn: Is there a good overview book of WWII, comparable to the American Civil War's Battle Cry of Freedom by James McPherson? I've got the itch to recap that massive war, but I'd prefer an overview instead of a deep dive into any specific subject in the war.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2021 16:32
|
|
|
I don't know how it's looked upon by the thread, but the second world war by Martin Gilbert comes to mind.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2021 16:47
|
|
|
This might get some sneers for being a bit too popular history, but Antony Beevor's The Second World War is a comparative length, covers the whole war, and crucially starts in 1931 so like Battle Cry of Freedom he establishes the chain of events that lead up to the war.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2021 16:57
|
|
|
*adding books to my list* I also asked in the discord and was asked to be more specific, so here's my response: I am interested in: - general overview of the war as it's been years since I was in school and while I remember the broad strokes of it (hitler gains power, invades poland, goes to war with everyone except the USSR for a while, basically owns europe for a while until D-Day and then Operation Barbarossa hits and the Soviets win. Pacific Theatre: Japan makes a stupid decision, kind of holds their own for a little, then Midway, then Nukes, then USA wins) Deeper dives into: - the Russian view of the war (but NOT Stalin focused, I've read enough about the man and would like to not focus on him) - Tanks and/or aircraft warfare (how were these used? How did they evolve?) - D-Day and the invasion of Europe, I don't know details about this area of the war except that France has the worst goddamn landscape / gardens / hedges in the entire world - USA vs Japan, anything about naval combat / Midway. Not the nukes, I have a book on that. I do not want to read about: - spies - war crimes / genocide (too depressing, too realistic, I've already read a LOT about the holocaust / Unit 731) - civilian perspectives (as war sucks! too depressing!) - the leadup to the war. I've read Hitler and Stalin: Parallel Lives by Alan Bullock and I don't need to hear about Hitler taking advantage of Germany / Stalin loving over Lenin and co again. Obligatory mention: I'm diagnosed ADHD and read like 5-10 books at a time constantly and don't finish everything. I love to get giant stacks of books and just go collecting/reading until my interests turn. So giving me a giant pile of recs makes my brain light up with joy as I sort 'em and decide what to read and dive in. Obligatory mention #2: Warcrimes are gonna happen regardless of what I'm reading. It's goddamn war. I just don't want to read a book like "Holocaust: Here's How It Happened" as my only topic. If a given book contains war crimes in the process of explaining how e.g. Barbarossa happened, that's okay.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2021 17:35
|
|
|
Clarence posted:Egyptian cotton is still seen as being a signifier of quality. It was pretty funny when an American entrepreneur bought the entire cotton supply of Egypt and then was forced to try to feed it to soldiers to get rid of it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2021 17:56
|
|
|
StrixNebulosa posted:
Two books here, Shattered Sword is the now-standard story of Midway, and explains a great deal about how carrier forces fought during the war. Excellent book, lots of detail drawn directly from Japanese records salvaged from burning carriers. Two Ocean War. This is an excerpt of the official history of the US Navy and covers the Atlantic as well as the Pacific. Morison was a history professor who asked Roosevelt for a navy commission so he could go to sea and then tell the story with a sailor's perspective; he ended up being the Washington's gunnery officer relieving the one who'd sunk the Kirishima and got the real story, at sea, from the crew that did the job. The one disservice this book will do you is that it was published before our codebreaking efforts were declassified. Just figure that any time it looks like the Allies made a lucky guess, we were reading the other side's mail. Shattered Sword will give you some coverage anyway, Station Hypo played a big part in our win at Midway. If anyone knows a better naval history of the war, I'm all ears.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2021 18:01
|
|
|
PeterCat posted:So, how did the US blockade Cuba without a declaration of war? In 1962? They didn't. They "quarantined" it. Of course it was a blockade, but they didn't call it a blockade. This is one of those legal "words mean things" situations. The distinction seems terribly silly in retrospect, but was important at the time for the reason I said - calling what they did in "blockade" would have been de facto declaring war at a time when doing so would have been bad.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2021 18:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 13:29 |
|
|
So apologies if this is too old for this thread's purview, but I was wondering something; what was a medieval European navy like? Basically how was a medieval navy organized (were there peasant commanders or like the land-based military was the captain of a ship also a knight or some other martial noble) and how was it equipped? For the sake of clarity since I'm well aware how broad in space and time 'medieval European' is, let's say French since in many ways, to me at least, they're kind of the archetypal feudal kingdom, and for time period, let's say High and Late Middle Ages; gunpowder is a thing and ships have those front-facing cannons, but there's no moveable gun carriages yet and the age of gunpowder has yet to truly emerge.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2021 18:28
|
|
