|
Isn't the idea of "Stalingrad but a year earlier" not that the 1941/42 counter offensives happen earlier, but that the Germans by virtue of reaching Moscow end up being deeply committed to the battle, end up spending a couple of months bogged down in urban combat with a massive exposed flank in addition to even further overextend supply lines that leaves them more vulnerable to the same counter offensives in winter of 41/42 but now without the advantage of having surrounded the 300,000 soldiers in Kiev?
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 23:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 14:07 |
|
|
Ithle01 posted:Considering how often France had to join a coalition or alliance of forces to take on the Hapsburg family web I'm not sure we can say that France was the greatest of the Great Powers in the Early Modern. someone said post-ancien regime earlier so post 1792
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 23:42
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:someone said post-ancien regime earlier so post 1792 Okay, then things are getting confusing because I was responding to Panzeh talking about the Early Modern period.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 23:46
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:Let's, uh, not forget that France's former colonies include fun, exciting, and exceptionally stable places like Syria and Lebanon. Lebanon spent a pretty good while as a relative beacon of stability in the region?
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 23:48
|
|
|
HEY GAIL posted:are you from the us? it's all this poo poo now: Someone trying to learn German by reading Kant and Hegel would be an extremely serviceable supervillain origin story
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 23:55
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:someone said post-ancien regime earlier so post 1792
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 00:05
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Um, I'm pretty sure the Commonwealth would have something to say about that. Indian PM dropping a truth bomb on Britain in 1997: "Britain is a third-rate power nursing illusions of grandeur of its colonial past. It created Kashmir when it divided India. Now it wants to give us a solution."
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 00:06
|
|
|
My perspective on the whole thing is that in the game Europa Universalis, France is the final boss supervillain that can absolutely wreck your poo poo if you haven't done extensive preparation beforehand. When Napoleon took on basically all of Europe, it seemed absurd, but he went a fair bit towards making it happen. France in the modern day fights most of its wars in places that the average American never hears about, like Africa.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 00:06
|
|
|
whenever-1580s: hapsburg-valois slapfight (the valois become dead and gay) 1590s-1750s: hapsburg-bourbon slapfight (franco austrian allegiance)
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 00:09
|
|
|
aphid_licker posted:Someone trying to learn German by reading Kant and Hegel would be an extremely serviceable supervillain origin story Can confirm Had an actual native German in my Kant class. He confirmed that no it's not the translation, he's just as horrible to read in actual German
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 00:27
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Can confirm My polisci teacher told us that most German students of Kant would actually rather read the English translation for clarity reasons.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 00:49
|
|
|
Ithle01 posted:Considering how often France had to join a coalition or alliance of forces to take on the Hapsburg family web I'm not sure we can say that France was the greatest of the Great Powers in the Early Modern. I think we're on the same page here. I think France pretty much eclipsed the Hapsburgs in the 1600s and remained on top for quite a while, and they were great even before the Hapsburgs became powerful.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 00:55
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:Lebanon spent a pretty good while as a relative beacon of stability in the region? And then collapsed into a brutal civil war that lasted several decades and still has ramifications today. Turns out setting up an explicitly Christian-dominated government that refused to grant additional representation to the growing Muslim population was a bad idea!
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 00:56
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:France in the modern day fights most of its wars in places that the average American never hears about, like Africa. And with the assistance of the US
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 01:02
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:And then collapsed into a brutal civil war that lasted several decades and still has ramifications today. Last I checked, the power structures in government were deliberately mixed between the different denominations according to the old census, and everyone didn't want to give representation to the refugee populations. Christians were over represented, but it it weren't for a lot of refugees, it wouldn't have been as drastic as it wound up being.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 01:02
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:I think we're on the same page here. I think France pretty much eclipsed the Hapsburgs in the 1600s and remained on top for quite a while, and they were great even before the Hapsburgs became powerful. eh, I don't know because the definition of a great power basically requires that there be a 'global' aspect to their empire and the French monarchs don't have that until well after 1600 whereas the Hapsburg dynasty is maintaining one for a prolonged period of time and even in the post 1600 era we have the Spain-Austria team taking on a series of other notable European powers, often simultaneously. Post 1650 is where I'd put the Hapsburg decline in with France gradually rising ascendant while they slowly push against the cage surrounding them. But in this whole scenario we're also overlooking another legit European contender for the number one spot, the Turks and I think that even if we're discounting Hapsburgs (because they're a nebulous dynasty) then if should go to the Ottoman sultanate for the Early Modern period. I would, however, definitely agree that the Early Modern period saw the rise of France whereas many others were broken apart by internal strife or forcibly cast down..
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 01:29
|
|
|
If I'm a putative great power by virtue of a global reac, and you are a regional power, and you can kick my teeth in, who is really the great power? The global standard seems arbitrary.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 02:11
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:If I'm a putative great power by virtue of a global reac, and you are a regional power, and you can kick my teeth in, who is really the great power? The global standard seems arbitrary. You can't really say that you've kicked in their teeth or been able to threaten them in an existential way if you're only able to wield regional power because they can just come back again and again. France's wars against the Von Hapsburgs weren't short or decisive in the 1600's. After the War of Spanish Succession I completely agree with Panzeh, but that's the tail end of the Early Modern period. I do agree with him about the last century of the Early Modern, but I don't think that's a good representation of the whole time period despite France's regional victories throughout.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 02:58
|
|
|
I mean by this metric the only great power in ~1500 was Spain. Is that the argument you're making?
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 03:19
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:I mean by this metric the only great power in ~1500 was Spain. Is that the argument you're making?  
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 03:51
|
|
|
HEY GAIL posted:because this kind of analysis has always taken the russians for granted as fundamentally passive, more like a force of nature than human beings who make decisions. the agents are always the nazis. probably because americans still think of the eastern front from the nazi pov, despite everything It's weird, right now I'm watching Frank Capra's Why We Fight: the Battle of Russia (1943) and the USSR is portrayed as anything but passive. The people are brave, their tactics and strategy are sound. It was hard and terrible but they persevered and shattered the myth of nazi invincibility. In fact the narrator loves Stalin and the Soviet Union so much that it comes across as almost baffling to someone like me who grew up during the Cold War. It seems crazy how much America's perception of the Eastern front changed so drastically once the war was over.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 04:39
|
|
|
i love the ww2 russians and everyone else should too i go to a church with a lot of russians in it and they have a small Victory Day party every year. sometimes i tear up.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 04:45
|
|
|
the western powers captured a bunch of ex-wehrmacht people who tried to rehabilitate and clean their reputations and so are the source of many of the myths about the eastern front
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 05:09
|
|
|
I went to high school in Texas and Russia's contribution to WW2 is completely overlooked, which is a shame. I guess they have to cut something to make room for a required Texas history class.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 05:10
|
|
|
HEY GAIL posted:i love the ww2 russians and everyone else should too I like the small ones a lot more than the big ones. The 2014 ceremony was very... concise, I guess? The 2015 one, the big 70 year anniversary, was enormous and a lot more commercialized, tons of poo poo being sold, lots of politicians schmoozing with potential voters, it didn't seem like that much was done for the actual veterans that time.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 05:12
|
|
|
Since we're on the subject of Russia in WW2, are there any good first hand accounts or diaries of a grunt in the Red Army? I'm reading Eastern Inferno right now and it's a nightmare and I'd love the Soviet equivalent. Storm of Steel and Poilu have me hooked on first hand accounts of the world wars.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 05:17
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:Last I checked, the power structures in government were deliberately mixed between the different denominations according to the old census, and everyone didn't want to give representation to the refugee populations. Christians were over represented, but it it weren't for a lot of refugees, it wouldn't have been as drastic as it wound up being.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 05:36
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:I like the small ones a lot more than the big ones. The 2014 ceremony was very... concise, I guess? The 2015 one, the big 70 year anniversary, was enormous and a lot more commercialized, tons of poo poo being sold, lots of politicians schmoozing with potential voters, it didn't seem like that much was done for the actual veterans that time. the one i'm thinking of was just a bunch of people from my church watching youtubes of old newsreels in the parish hall
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 06:01
|
|
|
Live At Five! posted:Since we're on the subject of Russia in WW2, are there any good first hand accounts or diaries of a grunt in the Red Army? I'm reading Eastern Inferno right now and it's a nightmare and I'd love the Soviet equivalent. Storm of Steel and Poilu have me hooked on first hand accounts of the world wars.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 06:02
|
|
|
If you want something accessible and in book form Ivan's war is good
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 06:04
|
|
|
I'll check out both of those, appreciate it.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 06:05
|
|
|
GotLag posted:I feel it's important to distinguish between Anglo/European colonies and imperial possessions. Eisenhower didn't just help defeat Nazi Germany, but also the British & French Empires.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 06:09
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:Last I checked, the power structures in government were deliberately mixed between the different denominations according to the old census, and everyone didn't want to give representation to the refugee populations. Christians were over represented, but it it weren't for a lot of refugees, it wouldn't have been as drastic as it wound up being. More or less. . . however there were a lot of reasons for the changes in Lebanon's demographic structure besides the influx of Palestinian refugees, and also the system was designed from the beginning to give the Christians disproportionate power more-or-less because the French liked them more. The system was supposed to be updated every 10 or so years following a new census, but the government avoided that issue by just never taking a census again. The Christian population of Lebanon was historically more urban, better educated and more connected through trade with Europe and America, which led naturally to lower birthrates and higher emigration. The political system kind of spiraled downward into bickering and gridlock, and without any kind means of accomplishing political objectives through legitimate means the system simply broke and the civl war ensued. Despite all that compared to its neighbors Lebanon's government since the civil war ended has been remarkably effective at diffusing conflict, although it is still rather prone to gridlock. Slim Jim Pickens posted:FLN was legitimately suppressed, and the French army was cutting off rural support by making literal concentration camps. It was stuff that would have worked in like 1912. I don't think the military was responsible for changing the social fabric of France through its actions though, that was the culmination of the previous 50 years of French history. Given it was a threat of a coup from the French army's Algerian battalions that precipitated the collapse of the fourth Republic in 1958 and de Gaulle's return to the Presidency I think you are underestimating just how big a role the military had in changing the French social fabric  But really, you can't divorce military action from the political environment. Wars are fought to fulfill specific goals and objectives, and for some reason I can't imagine turning Algeria into a giant prison camp would have been viewed as a successful outcome by the French government. Peasants don't produce much tax revenue locked up away from their fields and orchards. 19th century colonies were (in theory) supposed to be profitable, and hundreds of thousands of garrison troops are not cheap. A great big cash sink, which actively and openly threatened the stability of the French government, even trying to kill de Gaulle himself, after helping to install him in the first place. And a suppressed enemy is not a defeated one. See this graph of conflict related fatalities from the Iraq War:  We can see a clear negative trend in deaths after 2007, due largely to the military defeat of the radical Sunni and Shia factions in the civil war. With Al Qaeda suppressed by 2010 American troops were able to leave the country and sectarian violence gradually came to and end, and Iraq entered a new era of peace and democracy.  Oh wait no, none of the underlying issues that produced the conflict were ever addressed and just three years later it all exploded into an insane orgy of violence. You don't end insurgencies with force alone. You have to have a political solution. Sometimes forever wars and occupations are acceptable, say for Morocco in Western Sahara, or India in Kashmir, but in most cases that is just not possible and the opportunity to keep shooting foreigners in a barren desert indefinitely is not a victory condition that will be accepted by very many. Squalid fucked around with this message at 06:15 on May 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 06:11
|
|
|
Live At Five! posted:Since we're on the subject of Russia in WW2, are there any good first hand accounts or diaries of a grunt in the Red Army? I'm reading Eastern Inferno right now and it's a nightmare and I'd love the Soviet equivalent. Storm of Steel and Poilu have me hooked on first hand accounts of the world wars. It's been a while since I read it, but Red Road from Stalingrad was pretty good. There's also Through the Maelstrom, but I haven't read that one personally.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 06:17
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:I like the small ones a lot more than the big ones. The 2014 ceremony was very... concise, I guess? The 2015 one, the big 70 year anniversary, was enormous and a lot more commercialized, tons of poo poo being sold, lots of politicians schmoozing with potential voters, it didn't seem like that much was done for the actual veterans that time. Veterans of the GPW, or just veterans in general? I wouldn't imagine there could be too many of the former left by 2015, especially with the general lower lifespans experienced in the wake of the SU breaking up. Squalid posted:And a suppressed enemy is not a defeated one. See this graph of conflict related fatalities from the Iraq War: Unrelated to the point you're making, but this seems to suggest things in Iraq are sort of looking up these days? Nice if true.  e: oh wait, that's 2003-2013, and predates the emergence of ISIS. 
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 07:07
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
PittTheElder posted:Unrelated to the point you're making, but this seems to suggest things in Iraq are sort of looking up these days? Nice if true. Not to be an rear end, but to be an rear end, did you skip all the text around that graph?
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 07:19
|
|
|
I sure did. I mean it's clear things are bad, but perhaps getting better?
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 07:42
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:I mean by this metric the only great power in ~1500 was Spain. Is that the argument you're making? No, I'm saying that the von Hapsburgs were consistently the greatest power in Europe during the Early Modern period. Their global empire made them difficult to defeat by their foes because they could return after any regional losses The Dutch had countless victories against the Spanish during the Eighty Years War, but would you say that they were one of the greatest powers in Europe at the time? France could do the same, but France's power was strongly limited to France and areas around it until around 1700 compared to the von Hapsburgs.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 08:59
|
|
|
Ithle01 posted:No, I'm saying that the von Hapsburgs were consistently the greatest power in Europe during the Early Modern period. Their global empire made them difficult to defeat by their foes because they could return after any regional losses The Dutch had countless victories against the Spanish during the Eighty Years War, but would you say that they were one of the greatest powers in Europe at the time? France could do the same, but France's power was strongly limited to France and areas around it until around 1700 compared to the von Hapsburgs. They only drew any significant kind of manpower from Europe, and their commercial enterprises only help so much. This is why rich countries like Austria can get their asses beat by poor countries like Prussia, or England by Normandy. Spanish colonial holdings did not save them from imperial collapse post-Westphalia, and any kind of major Spanish territorial loss in Europe would basically spell their death as a great power. This isnt a game of Total War where you can produce armies in captured provinces purely by virtue of exercising putative control. Also, hell, your own criteria would make the Netherlands a great power by the end of the 80 years war because of Indonesia, but that is clearly laughable. HEY GAIL posted:and consider that it's the spanish army inside france, never vice versa Lol retire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Barcelona_(1651) Rodrigo Diaz fucked around with this message at 09:48 on May 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 09:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 14:07 |
|
|
HEY GAIL posted:kinda sucked in the early 17th century, made up for it by the late 17th century, and swept the 18th century I'm not sure France can sweep the 18th century if you count the Seven Years War as well   FastestGunAlive posted:And with the assistance of the US France is basically the only country in the world that can do power projection without the assistance of the US, so they are actually performing missions in a bunch of countries in Africa (Chad is the only one I can remember off the top of my head) by themselves. I'm always amazed that France spends $10 billion less on defence than the UK but somehow seems to be able to do so much more.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 09:50
|
|
