|
PittTheElder posted:Wasn't there at least one guy who got acquitted on the grounds of 'we should probably be lenient here, given that we [the Western Allies] have been doing the exact same thing?' Donitz, submarine warfare.
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 19:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 11:48 |
|
|
PittTheElder posted:Wasn't there at least one guy who got acquitted on the grounds of 'we should probably be lenient here, given that we [the Western Allies] have been doing the exact same thing?' Yes, it was Doenitz, who was supposed to be skewered for unrestricted submarine warfare. He was also treated leniently in general because he wasn't seen as an active participant in instigating the war. Ghetto Prince posted:Is there any real evidence for that? Or is that just one of those things we like to tell ourselves? Do you think that that the US, or Russia, or any other power could get away with blasting away the entire city of Raqqa or Aleppo with a 500 bomber sortie? Or, perhaps, a nuclear bomb?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 19:05
|
|
|
Ghetto Prince posted:Is there any real evidence for that? Or is that just one of those things we like to tell ourselves? Coming up with evidence that it happens less might be hard, but evidence that it's not acceptable isn't hard to find. A huge portion of the conversation about any use of force in the Middle East today will be about targeting precision and our ability to avoid killing innocent civilians. Compare that to Bomber Harris' effort to de-house the population of Germany. It's a different attitude.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 19:06
|
|
|
Tomn posted:
No, for the same reason that the submarine campaign wasn't. In any case, the luftwaffe's defendant was Goering, who had a laundry list of detestable behaviour, from war crimes down to table manners.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 19:08
|
|
|
Zorak of Michigan posted:Coming up with evidence that it happens less might be hard, but evidence that it's not acceptable isn't hard to find. A huge portion of the conversation about any use of force in the Middle East today will be about targeting precision and our ability to avoid killing innocent civilians. Compare that to Bomber Harris' effort to de-house the population of Germany. It's a different attitude. And that's just the allies. No one, except certain right wing nutter bloggers, are saying hey, the people of [insert location] are basically subhuman, so let's go there and wipe them out. Murder of civilians has receded from a potential goal of a campaign, to an acceptable side effect, to something that is in most cases not accepted. Today the West generally goes to war in the belief (at least publically) that what it's doing will in the long term make things better for most of the people in the countries we are bombing. Fangz fucked around with this message at 19:18 on Dec 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 19:13
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Today the West generally goes to war in the belief (at least publically) that what it's doing will in the long term make things better for most of the people in the countries we are bombing. Not that I disagree with your main point, but strictly speaking didn't the Victorians start that up in the first place? The White Man's Burden and all that. The idea of going to war and doing 'orrible things in the short run to make things better for the people there in the long run isn't THAT new. For that matter, can anyone think of any Greeks or Romans using similar justifications? I wouldn't be at all surprised to find some.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 19:29
|
|
|
Tomn posted:For that matter, can anyone think of any Greeks or Romans using similar justifications? I wouldn't be at all surprised to find some. I sure would; ancient warfare by and large is instigated with the aim of benefiting one's own polis/kingdom/republic/empire at the expense of everyone else. With the possible exception of the guest/host relationship, I don't think the idea that we have moral obligations to foreigners was too common in the ancient world.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 20:06
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:Panzerfaust wasn't a rocket launcher but a recoilless rifle, so it didn't leave a smoke trail. But it still had a backblast which would kick up dust. But then I'd wager that PIAT also produced some muzzle blast that would kick up dust especially in urban environment. Well, "grenade launcher" would be more accurate since the Panzerfaust didn't have any rifling. It was just a big grenade with a tail stuck into a tube, with a big black powder charge behind it. The RPG-2 is effectively a reloadable Panzerfaust. This video shows how much smoke the thing produced on firing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4a6lauRPH8 The PIAT also had one potential flaw: the firing may not recock the spring, requiring the soldier operating it to painstakingly cock it. The ideal method of cocking the PIAT was to set it on its butt, stand on the shoulder rest, and pull the body of the weapon up to cock the spring. You had to bend over and use your entire torso coming up to have the sufficient strength to do this, so good luck if you're short, weak, or trying to lie prone. It also wasn't recoilless, and just relied on padding and stout British constitution to absorb the recoil.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 20:09
|
|
|
count_von_count posted:I sure would; ancient warfare by and large is instigated with the aim of benefiting one's own polis/kingdom/republic/empire at the expense of everyone else. With the possible exception of the guest/host relationship, I don't think the idea that we have moral obligations to foreigners was too common in the ancient world. I wouldn't think many people genuinely wanted to benefit others, but couldn't the idea of waging war for more than purely selfish reasons serve as a propaganda point if needed? "We're intervening in this civil war because so and so (who is our client) is a good king and his opponent is a bad king," for instance. For that matter, I don't know that they went to war purely for that reason but I thought the Romans were pretty proud about "civilizing" the people they conquered and bringing them to much superior Roman ways?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 21:13
|
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:Do you think that that the US, or Russia, or any other power could get away with blasting away the entire city of Raqqa or Aleppo with a 500 bomber sortie? Or, perhaps, a nuclear bomb? I think if ISIS were a large nation-state engaged in an industrial scale war of annihilation with those states, yes they could. The outrage about civilian deaths is only there because of the perceived overwhelming military superiority of the people doing the bombing; I think people see it as 'unfair' to wipe out a shitload of civilians when they're just sort of hanging around and aren't actually living/working in a country that has it's own airforce and army and navy doing their best to gently caress you up on a strategic scale. There's this idea that we can and should do things better somehow because we have the luxury of time, resources, material, technology et al and I think a lot of those moral compunctions would go out the window if the combatants were perceived to be anywhere near to having martial parity. The ol' 'it's either us or them!' mentality would kick in and there'd be JDAMS showering munitions factories left right and center.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 21:14
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:so there's no French Ensign Expendable out there? I'm actually thinking of taking a trip to the archives at Vincennes and see what i can find on the early tank development, the WWI stuff seems decently indexed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 21:20
|
|
|
Tomn posted:I wouldn't think many people genuinely wanted to benefit others, but couldn't the idea of waging war for more than purely selfish reasons serve as a propaganda point if needed? "We're intervening in this civil war because so and so (who is our client) is a good king and his opponent is a bad king," for instance. For that matter, I don't know that they went to war purely for that reason but I thought the Romans were pretty proud about "civilizing" the people they conquered and bringing them to much superior Roman ways? Sure, but that came way after conquering them, with the actual conquest generally motivated by removing threats and (often personal) profit. Don't forget the whole issue of making Italian allies Roman citizens led to civil war. Slavvy posted:I think if ISIS were a large nation-state engaged in an industrial scale war of annihilation with those states, yes they could. The outrage about civilian deaths is only there because of the perceived overwhelming military superiority of the people doing the bombing; I think people see it as 'unfair' to wipe out a shitload of civilians when they're just sort of hanging around and aren't actually living/working in a country that has it's own airforce and army and navy doing their best to gently caress you up on a strategic scale. There's this idea that we can and should do things better somehow because we have the luxury of time, resources, material, technology et al and I think a lot of those moral compunctions would go out the window if the combatants were perceived to be anywhere near to having martial parity. The ol' 'it's either us or them!' mentality would kick in and there'd be JDAMS showering munitions factories left right and center. JDAMs are still guided munitions. Bombing munitions factories is still one step removed from the logic of the WWII firebomb where the worker in his family home is a valid target. We're really talking about dropping MOABs on crowded cities, and that's still beyond the pale - with the exception of if it's part of MAD, and they shot first. Fangz fucked around with this message at 21:28 on Dec 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 21:20
|
|
|
Times were tough for German cavalry.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 22:21
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:Times were tough for German cavalry. Seems to make more logistical sense than a lot of things the Germans were trying. Feed your cavalry on most anything, and if you're starving on the Eastern Front or your mount is wounded, BACON.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 22:24
|
|
|
Reticence to kill civilians can to some degree be explained by materialistic concerns (no point in killing everyone you want to rule over) but nowadays a ton of it goes back to Augustinian Just War theory, and especially the proportionality of force. Fangz posted:Sure, but that came way after conquering them, with the actual conquest generally motivated by removing threats and (often personal) profit. Don't forget the whole issue of making Italian allies Roman citizens led to civil war. the need to remove perceived threats or protect oneself from them is how a lot of wars get started, back to ancient times. Your example is a good one, but to use another Philip Ii of Macedon got into his long feud with Athens in part because they supported pretender to the Mac. throne whom Philip fought against in his ascendancy. Athens formed its empire in the first place to defend against Persia. It is not often that pure megalomania is the animating impetus behind war.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 22:27
|
|
|
Pellisworth posted:Seems to make more logistical sense than a lot of things the Germans were trying. Feed your cavalry on most anything, and if you're starving on the Eastern Front or your mount is wounded, BACON.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 22:28
|
|
|
Fangz posted:And that's just the allies. No one, except certain right wing nutter bloggers, are saying hey, the people of [insert location] are basically subhuman, so let's go there and wipe them out. Murder of civilians has receded from a potential goal of a campaign, to an acceptable side effect, to something that is in most cases not accepted. Today the West generally goes to war in the belief (at least publically) that what it's doing will in the long term make things better for most of the people in the countries we are bombing. I think at least as much of this change should be attributed to differences in the strategic objectives of modern campaigns as to moral progress. World War II was fought principally to destroy the ability of Japan and Germany to wage war. Vietnam was fought to create a stable anti-communist and pro-American government. The first project is served by indiscriminate destruction of civilian life and infrastructure. In Vietnam and Algeria, colonial powers learned you can't brutalize people into supporting you. I think basically I'm agreeing with Slavvy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 22:30
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Sure, but that came way after conquering them, with the actual conquest generally motivated by removing threats and (often personal) profit. Don't forget the whole issue of making Italian allies Roman citizens led to civil war. I don't think that's a terribly accurate way to sum up the whole Gracchi-> Marius->Social War-> Sulla period of Roman history.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 22:34
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:Times were tough for German cavalry. Q: Why does Germany have such a shortage of pork? A: The last pigs joined the Wehrmacht.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 22:43
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:hey, horse meat is delicious I've had it once, at a Mexican restaurant in Helsinki. It was pretty good. Then again, I was drunk at the time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 22:49
|
|
|
StashAugustine posted:Q: Why does Germany have such a shortage of pork? I feel this is a joke my grandparents could have told their friends in hushed tones during the war. One joke my grandpa loved to tell was quote:q: What is the similarity between the Dutch flag and NSB leader Anton Mussert? Another good one is quote:At a certain moment NSB-man Meinoud Rost van Tonningen had a conversation with a high-ranking Nazi.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 22:55
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:Wasn't there at least one guy who got acquitted on the grounds of 'we should probably be lenient here, given that we [the Western Allies] have been doing the exact same thing?' Dönitz. He basically was sentenced for being the head of state of the Reich after Hitler's suicide. The tribunal decided that he was guilty of waging unrestricted submarine warfare, but it didn't actually sentence him to any punishment for doing that, because if it was going to go that way the fact that Nimitz and and the Admiralty were guilty of the exact same thing would have been somewhat awkward when that was brought up in court. Similarly, while Jodl and others were convicted of engaging in a conspiracy to start a war against Poland, the Soviets who were part of the exact same conspiracy weren't accused or tried of such. On one hand, Nuremburg was making up a bunch of ex post facto laws and then holding the losers responsible for having violated them, and there was a lot of contemporary criticism of them by legal experts of the day. But on the other hand, it would have been very, very easy to just line them up against the wall and execute them en masse, and the whole bit about the tribunal and evidence and lawyers and rules *instead* of doing that was for our benefit. It may have been the justice of the victor, but so far as that sort of justice usually goes it was atypically considered and high-minded. Phanatic fucked around with this message at 23:08 on Dec 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 23:03
|
|
|
It used to be that a losing Head of State was personally off limits, usually facing exile at worst (revolutions and civil wars excepted). As much as Napolean scared everybody, he wasn't killed. After WW2, that stops being the case so much. Today we have arrest warrants for high government officials, even Presidents, sometimes without being at war. Though I don't remember any being caught without losing a war first. Hey Gal, what happened when your guys captured a commander or ruling noble? Did they hold a party or an execution?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 23:52
|
|
|
BurningStone posted:Hey Gal, what happened when your guys captured a commander or ruling noble? Did they hold a party or an execution? head of state? i can't recall that ever actually happening during this war
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 23:59
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:commander? everyone's chill and nice to him Does Landgraf Ludwig V. von Hessen-Darmstadt and his son count? Both were captured by General von Mansfeld, employed by the Winterking at the time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2015 00:18
|
|
|
Libluini posted:Does Landgraf Ludwig V. von Hessen-Darmstadt and his son count? Both were captured by General von Mansfeld, employed by the Winterking at the time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2015 00:28
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:commander? everyone's chill and nice to him Is ransoming still a thing in your era? Does anyone know when it stopped being pay X dollars for Sir Commander back?
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2015 00:29
|
|
|
Chillyrabbit posted:Is ransoming still a thing in your era? Does anyone know when it stopped being pay X dollars for Sir Commander back?
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2015 00:31
|
|
|
 This is the Landing Craft Tank (Rocket). The British built it to support amphibious landings in places like Normandy. The deck is covered in rockets to pulverize anything up on the beach ahead of the big landing. There were 1066 rockets on the thing. It is unknown whether this number was chosen intentionally 
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2015 00:49
|
|
|
anything's a katyushka if you put your mind to it
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2015 00:52
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:anything's a katyushka if you put your mind to it New thread title right here E: it should be "Katyusha" if I recall, though I'm thinking of the WWII rocket artillery truck and you may be thinking of an obscure pike. FAUXTON fucked around with this message at 01:00 on Dec 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2015 00:55
|
|
|
Double post.
Keldoclock fucked around with this message at 01:14 on Dec 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2015 01:03
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:I guess a landgraf counts. What happened to them? Wikipedia doesn't mentioned it, but apparently the imprisonement by Mansfeld was only short. He ended up being the only Protestant lord voting against the Protestant Union in 1623. The Kaiser gave him the other half of Hessen-Marburg, since Landgraf Moritz von Hessen-Kassel was on the losing side. After unifying both halves of Hessen-Kassel, he got even more land after 1648, when the peace treaty gave him the Niedergrafschaft Katzenelnbogen (and no that's not a typo). He died during the siege of Castle Rheinfels while asserting control of KatzeneInbogen and I assume his son Johann took over, since the confusing story of KatzeneInbogen ends here and only gets interesting again in Napoleonic times, when it was temporarily annexed by the French empire. Like my old hometown Nienburg, interestingly.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2015 01:03
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:New thread title right here Libluini posted:Wikipedia doesn't mentioned it, but apparently the imprisonement by Mansfeld was only short. He ended up being the only Protestant lord voting against the Protestant Union in 1623. The Kaiser gave him the other half of Hessen-Marburg, since Landgraf Moritz von Hessen-Kassel was on the losing side. After unifying both halves of Hessen-Kassel, he got even more land after 1648, when the peace treaty gave him the Niedergrafschaft Katzenelnbogen (and no that's not a typo).
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2015 01:05
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:i was thinking of that too, i just couldn't spell it Yes and please don't confuse the Niedergrafschaft KatzeneInbogen with the Obergrafschaft KatzeneInbogen. Both are part of the Grafschaft KatzeneInbogen. Sometimes the Niedergrafschaft KatzeneInbogen is called Untergrafschaft and no of course this isn't confusing at all now that I think about it sorry I even brought it up. Castle KatzeneInbogen still stands today, if you ever travel through the Taunus, go visit it. It looks pretty ugly.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2015 01:10
|
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:Do you think that that the US, or Russia, or any other power could get away with blasting away the entire city of Raqqa or Aleppo with a 500 bomber sortie? Or, perhaps, a nuclear bomb? Yes. Fangz posted:We're really talking about dropping This is what I mean. Who benefits from enforcement of MAD, after the first detonation? Better to accept the loss of those assets than to go and completely destroy both your own and those of your enemy. I cannot believe that a nuclear force would, given that choice, choose to follow laws written by dead politicians or perform reprisals on countervalue targets rather than trying to immediately surrender or sue for peace. quote:Reticence to kill civilians can to some degree be explained by materialistic concerns (no point in killing everyone you want to rule over This is essentially my stance, except that I would say, if they are not insurgents or partisans, you shouldn't kill them because they are ultimately harmless. Indeed you should prepare an evacuation and voluntary resettlement program(or, if you think your claim to the new territory is weak, a "voluntary" resettlement program). Phanatic posted:Dönitz. He basically was sentenced for being the head of state of the Reich after Hitler's suicide. The tribunal decided that he was guilty of waging unrestricted submarine warfare, but it didn't actually sentence him to any punishment for doing that, because if it was going to go that way the fact that Nimitz and and the Admiralty were guilty of the exact same thing would have been somewhat awkward when that was brought up in court. Similarly, while Jodl and others were convicted of engaging in a conspiracy to start a war against Poland, the Soviets who were part of the exact same conspiracy weren't accused or tried of such. See? That's garbage, these rulers should have prosecuted their own generals along with the enemy. At the very least they should have done something like, sentenced to death, postponed 10 years and then carefully orchestrated their escape to Brasil or Switzerland, thereby preserving the reputation of the state both internally and externally. Keldoclock fucked around with this message at 01:17 on Dec 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2015 01:13
|
|
|
Libluini posted:Yes and please don't confuse the Niedergrafschaft KatzeneInbogen with the Obergrafschaft KatzeneInbogen. Both are part of the Grafschaft KatzeneInbogen. Sometimes the Niedergrafschaft KatzeneInbogen is called Untergrafschaft and no of course this isn't confusing at all now that I think about it sorry I even brought it up.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2015 01:16
|
|
|
Keldoclock posted:See? That's garbage, these rulers should have prosecuted their own generals along with the enemy. At the very least they should have done something like, sentenced to death, postponed 10 years and then carefully orchestrated their escape to Brasil or Switzerland. What, all of them? That would make for an awkward meeting of all those Soviet/German/US/British/whatever-generals. That's about as likely as Brazil taking all those generals and using their knowledge to make the best army ever and take over the world.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2015 01:16
|
|
|
You might say he gave him the schaft E: Libluini posted:What, all of them? That would make for an awkward meeting of all those Soviet/German/US/British/whatever-generals. That's about as likely as Brazil taking all those generals and using their knowledge to make the best army ever and take over the world. GOD DAMNIT WHY DO YOU loving RESPOND FOR gently caress'S BLEEDING SAKE JUST IGNORE THE loving gently caress
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2015 01:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 11:48 |
|
|
Libluini posted:What, all of them? That would make for an awkward meeting of all those Soviet/German/US/British/whatever-generals. That's about as likely as Brazil taking all those generals and using their knowledge to make the best army ever and take over the world. Just the ones you can't spare. You don't want to gut your own military, after all, and if the general thinks he's sure to die, he won't help you train his replacement. It's a fair deal, if you yourself have deniability for the war crimes in question. If you don't, resign and hope that your successor is good- if you live or die, you're done playing the game either way. Obviously you wouldn't bother orchestrating such a charade for the Axis here, unless you really really wanted generals in west Germany. I wouldn't, personally- too much risk of betrayal for little reward. Pro tip : Ignoring things makes you ignorant. Keldoclock fucked around with this message at 01:25 on Dec 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2015 01:20
|
|