Ask Us About Military History: Remove Balls To Fire Blanks

The Something Awful Forums > Archives > Comedy Goldmine > Ask Us About Military History: Remove Balls To Fire Blanks

«‹›2 »

Ghost of Mussolini: Jun 26, 2011

Those of you who have had their interest piqued by all this right-before-WWI talk should probably check out The Sleepwalkers by Christopher Clark. It is excellent and very much in-depth, covering a lot of the points which have been raised over the last few posts.

# ¿ Aug 23, 2014 09:59

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 16, 2024 14:08

Ghost of Mussolini: Jun 26, 2011

Captain_Indigo posted:

My knowledge of history is Jack-of-all-trades-master-of-none. I don't know if this is an impossible to answer what-if question, BUT...

Why did The West allow the walling up of West Berlin? It seems like a very important event, not just one that seems important in retrospect like a lot of these things. It broke treaties, and whilst it wasn't physical invasion of western soil - it was a distinctly agressive act. I know it happened very quickly, and I know that it ended up being much more about isolating East Berlin from the West rather than the other way around, but it seems like a sort of event horizon in The Cold War that nobody stopped. Was it a case of things getting too far before they intervened, and thus they missed their chance? Was it because The West were actually glad it happened as it took things off the burner slightly and kept things from breaking out in full?

Would it have happened differently if the east were not in possession of nuclear weapons?

I don't know if these are really basic History 101 questions with simple answers or "we'll never really know", but any answers would be great appreciated.

Firstly, and this is important, the wall was entirely built on DDR territory. Not at the border even, but rather quite a few meters inside of DDR land so a) nobody could dispute it, b) a cleared space could be left to shoot anyone who made it over the wall. Midnight of the day that the construction began, Grenztruppen (the border guard) closed off the entire border with West Berlin. By the next morning, all the streets in or out, or running right alongside, had been torn up. Barbed wire went up first and then fences. It remained as a fence/wire setup for around three years, and the concrete wall didn't go up until 1965, and it was reinforced and upgraded in 1975. Construction of the wall (and each stage of the wall) was also carried out under NVA/Grenztruppen protection to keep anyone out.

The western allies had actually expected the East Germans, either by themselves or on Soviet orders (as was the case), to have blocked off West Berlin much earlier. They also saw the wall as a great embarrassment to East Germany, which would score cheap propaganda points for the West and which would be seen negatively by most East Germans. The wall stopped the flow of people from the East to the West as well, which was a huge problem for East Germany, but also a problem for West Germany in terms of accommodating the refugees, so even that was a small plus for the west.

# ¿ Aug 23, 2014 13:46

Ghost of Mussolini: Jun 26, 2011

Cyrano4747 posted:

If you really want an interesting view of how the explanations for the beginning of the war have shifted over the years, start with The Guns of August (it's by far the most readable of the three in my understanding - I haven't personally read the Sleepwalkers yet, but hear it can get a bit ploddy in places - and will give you a great grounding in the initial events) for the early orthodox view, then read Fischer for the counter-thrust, then read Sleepwalkers. Seeing how the arguments change chronologically like that can be just as fascinating as the material they're discussing.

In any event report back on the Sleepwalkers. I know people who love it and people who disagree with it pretty strongly, so I'd love to hear your take on it.

The Sleepwalkers is very good and anyone interested in WW1 should read it. It is very thorough and I wouldn't say it gets ploddy at all.

# ¿ Aug 31, 2014 22:51

Ghost of Mussolini: Jun 26, 2011

AATREK CURES KIDS posted:

War of the Worlds has a brilliant chapter where the Martians try to cross the English Channel and a naval ram destroys three of their fighting machines. A fast-moving ship ramming the enemy was the most powerful weapon in existence at that time, and modern adaptations have always fallen short of the story because the Martians need some kind of immunity to nuclear weapons for the plot to work. It's so much better when the naval ram is the best weapon we have, and a single one destroys 1/17th of the Martian invasion force, but after they learn to avoid open water the war goes right back to being hopeless for humanity.

HMS Thunder Child hero of humanity :britain:

It was almost certainly based on HMS Polyphemous, launched in 1881. Wells wrote the book from 1895 until publication in 1898, so at the time there were a lot of people betting a lot of money that these new small craft, and their torpedoes, would be able to counter battleships for a fraction of the cost. Although it evidently did not render large all-gun craft obsolete, at the time it could be argued that it was a cutting-edge weapons system. This is key because although it is able to bring two tripods down, it is ultimately defeated by a third one. From Wells' (British) perspective, it being a naval craft is also obviously important. The best humanity could muster is ultimately unable to do more than put a small dent in the invasion.

Better than a heat ray :smug:

This theme is kept up, the infamous Orson Welles 1938 radio 1938 radio broadcast replaces the Thunder Child with the top weapon system that the US had available at the time, a B-17, also representing the growing importance of air-power. It is equally ineffective. In the 1950s film, a YB-49 drops a nuclear bomb on the tripods, which also doesn't do anything. The Jeff Wayne musical, although released in the late 70s, was set in the original time. However, in a small patch of revisionism, the torpedo ram is upgraded to a Canopus-class battleship (this is also updated in the 1999? videogame).

The Spielberg version has a scene in which a bunch of Abrams and Apaches are wiped out just outside the view of the characters, but this is sort of ruined in the completely horrible ending (not only just limited to this) anyways when ARE TROOPS are able to defeat the martians because their shields are down.

e: :spergin:

Ghost of Mussolini fucked around with this message at 08:54 on Sep 2, 2014

# ¿ Sep 2, 2014 08:50

Ghost of Mussolini: Jun 26, 2011

sullat posted:

HG Wells, right? In Orwell's invasion story, the "good guys" don't win.

In a lot of the invasion stories the "good guys" don't win. The first one, Battle of Dorking, from 1870/1871, an unspecified (Germany) enemy invades England, and England is completely ruined for decades to come. In some the good guys end up winning, but the imposition of a defeat is meant as a moral lesson. Either as a jingoist message to lay down more keels and conscript everyone, or as an examination of the true cost of conflict and loss (which is where the HG Wells example would fall). There's too many of these stories to mention, and a lot of them are serialized and mediocre, but just look up "invasion stories/literature". The simplicity of the stories themselves means that they are quick reads, and they are interesting in terms of gaining context as to how part of society then thought. Whoever mentioned them upthread as the airport-novel Tom Clancy of their day is completely right.

# ¿ Sep 3, 2014 11:08

Ghost of Mussolini: Jun 26, 2011

John Mosier is also notably not employed as a historian, but as an English professor, he puts out these books as a side project. I've read the Blitzkrieg Myth and I don't particularly recommend it.

# ¿ Sep 26, 2014 09:47

Ghost of Mussolini: Jun 26, 2011

Slavvy posted:

From Tigers in Combat by Wolfgang Schneider:

The vehicle losses (tiger and tiger 2 only) by percentage with cause of loss, organised by battalion.

SPA 502 (511)
13% destroyed by crew
82% enemy activity
5% other

and so on.

Can you provide the definition of destroyed by crew vs. enemy activity as given by the author? There are very clear-cut scenarios in either category (i.e. took a shell through the turret vs. completely broken down during a hasty retreat so its was blown up), but what about more muddled scenarios? A crew which detonates their own tank because they're in danger of being outflanked and can't be extracted by a recovery vehicle, for example. Would the author put that down to "enemy activity", because they have somehow lost mobility through damage and enemy movement prevents recovery, or is it "destroyed by crew" because a crewmember places a detonator so the tank isn't given away? An informative post by the way, thank you.

# ¿ Oct 31, 2014 12:47

Ghost of Mussolini: Jun 26, 2011

Azran posted:

What would be the worst case of friendly fire in recorded history? I know it is a broad question, but it is purposefully so.

As an aside - I finally finished Nothing to Envy. Wow, just... wow. I'm gonna try and track down Under the Loving Care of the Fatherly Leader, but I should finish Signals of War to make an effortpost about the Falklands war here

Signals Of War is a good book but it is dated now. Have you read more modern sources?

# ¿ Dec 16, 2014 16:06

Ghost of Mussolini: Jun 26, 2011

Azran posted:

Whoops I meant to say Argentinian movie. I guess the British filming a movie there before makes sense. "An ungentlemanly act" is such a British name, drat.

Not really, no. It is the first time I have shown interest in Argentinian military history really. Just like with North Korea, I was mostly looking to get informed and recognize false information/myths (the current student council at my university has celebrated Kim Il-Sung, Stalin and Lenin's birthday so far, putting them alongside Khadafi, Chavez, Guevara and Castro as people who gave it all for their countries and deserve worldwide recognition for improving their countries immensely. But I am digressing). Any recommendations?

I am having a weird case of deja vu right now for some reason.

Amazing. Guevara, Castro, Chavez and even Lenin I could take in full stride without batting an eyelash, but the others is a bit much, what party are they affiliated to?

Malvinas: La trama secreta by Cardoso, Kirschbaum and van der Kooy is probably the most widely read book, you should be able to get that in any bookstore. Rarer but very insightful is Malvinas: Diplomacia y conflicto armado, comentarios a la historia oficial britanica by Vicente Berasategui (former ambassador to London) , 1982 by Juan B. Yofre is also good and deals with a wider frame, but obviously the war features extremely prominently.

# ¿ Dec 17, 2014 17:43

Ghost of Mussolini: Jun 26, 2011

He could have also been part of the effort to train and equip the Ethiopians. They sent troops to Korea (and later to many UN missions) and that would fit with the time-frame.

# ¿ Dec 24, 2014 11:14

Ghost of Mussolini: Jun 26, 2011

vuk83 posted:

I think it is corto maltese in siberia. But im not sure if its supposed to be the real baron he meets or someone based on/inspired by the real baron.

It is indeed the real baron, as well as Semyonov. Corto Maltese is full of real-life characters.

# ¿ Jan 2, 2015 15:33

Ghost of Mussolini: Jun 26, 2011

Animal posted:

He was quite racist at first, as were many Argentinians of the time.

As opposed to Argentina now :cryingbolivian:

# ¿ Jan 13, 2015 18:07

Ghost of Mussolini: Jun 26, 2011

Nenonen posted:

Not to beat a dead horse but

yes, I'm fond of inspecting horse meat, where do I enlist?

This would actually be a really sweet gig during a war/conscription. Getting involved with the veterinarians would give you a really solid foundation to eventually passing whatever qualification was out there at the time post-service and coming out of the war with a tradeable skill. Rather than a skill for wasting time (you'd probably pick that up as well). I remember reading about the Arab armies in the context of the conflict with Israel, and how the respective sides dealt with their conscripts. One thing that really stood out to me was how people would almost kill each other to get assigned as a driver of a tank, apc, artillery tractor, etc. because it meant that after you were done your service anyone would recognise you as trained to drive a tractor on a farm or drive a heavy truck at a factory. Also, personal anecdote, but my father did conscription in a communications unit. He didn't really care because he knew he was going to university etc. but a lot of other people really appreciated getting to tinker with radios, switchboards, and other equipment rather than to just practice digging trenches and standing guard all the time.

# ¿ Jan 15, 2015 00:06

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 16, 2024 14:08

Ghost of Mussolini: Jun 26, 2011

IM_DA_DECIDER posted:

My grandpa told me how he saw a guy get shot for sleeping while on guard duty and I always thought this was because of so that's interesting to hear.

Discussions on the merits of capital punishment aside, falling asleep at your post when you are on guard is an extremely dangerous thing to do when at the front. It could be like 99% of other nights and nothing happens or you could have the 1% chance of being the one guy who raises the alarm and everyone else doesn't get stabbed in their beds. So its no surprise that if you fall asleep you get shot.

# ¿ Mar 31, 2015 07:35

The Something Awful Forums > Archives > Comedy Goldmine > Ask Us About Military History: Remove Balls To Fire Blanks

«‹›2 »