Ask me about Military History!

The Something Awful Forums > Archives > Comedy Goldmine > Ask me about Military History!

Mister Gopher: Oct 27, 2004; I eat my own poop; Soiled Meat

feedmegin posted:

I seem to recall that book comes with a foreword urging NATO countries to spend a lot more money on defence to prevent the scenario in his book from occurring, and the author was in the Army at the time. One suspects he had a vested interest in playing up the doom, much as the defence establishment of the time would publish books about the Soviet Union's new superweapons and/or incredibly huge hordes of tanks in order to get more funding.

Still a good read, though.

The author is a bit of a nut, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Peters

Check out his map published on how a better middle east would look like. Especially the new Saudi Arabia called Saudi Homelands Independent Territories (S.H.I.T)

# ¿ Jul 21, 2010 19:13

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 26, 2024 00:56

Mister Gopher: Oct 27, 2004; I eat my own poop; Soiled Meat

l33t Lurker posted:

Sort of, but this statement doesn't entirely make sense. What billion dollar bitch said is closer to the truth. The Canadian territories weren't confederated until 1867, so there were no Canadian forces, there was a British colonial force. The commanders who were in place at first pretty inept (as you might assume, they were in charge of a sparsely populated, second rate colony) and insisted on defending one of the territories at the expense of the other, and not mounting any offensive campaigns.

The Americans were in equally poor shape though, they weren't prepared for a war at all, as they weren't expecting one. The plan was that they'd march a token force into Canada, declare their "liberation" or whatever and the people would be stoked to join them. Not what happened, even the Quebecois weren't very happy about the idea.

By the time veteran British forces arrived the US had realized the actual situation and gotten their poo poo together a little better, so there were sort of two stages of both sides screwing around before starting the war proper.

Also remember that during the War of 1812 the New England states were completely against the war, continued to trade with Britain during it, and even had the Essex conspiracy to secede from the US. Most of the people who wanted and fought the war were from the west. 64% of all those killed on the American side during the War of 1812 were from Kentucky. Kentucky and Tennessee contributed most of the troops for the war. This was not a national war of conquest, but a war by a bunch of hawks in the center-west region of the US that almost blew up in our faces.

# ¿ Sep 9, 2010 17:14

Mister Gopher: Oct 27, 2004; I eat my own poop; Soiled Meat

dokmo posted:

I'm reading Tuchman's Guns of August and she portrays Joffre as a tunnel-visioned bumbler who can only focus on the Plan 17 offensive at the start of the war, ignoring all reports of a large German right wing offense, temperamentally incapaple of listening to subordinates who call for a defensive strategy. I can't believe anyone this stupid would be put in charge, and suspect that Tuchman may have exaggerated Joffre's decision making for dramatic effect. What is the historical consensus on Joffe?

Also consider that right when WWI started, France and Germany had military parity only because of the fact that France had a larger percentage of its manpower in the regular army than Germany, due to the extra 20 million or so German people. Thus, it was in France's strategic interest to go on the offensive at first. The theory was that France's peacetime army would be able to penetrate the German frontier due to the local imbalance of troop strength (due to German commitment in the East) and the quality of the peacetime army. If France waited until after the German population could be mobilized and transported, then any French advantage would disappear, and the weight of German troops would crush France as it did in the Franco-Prussian War.

Based on how WWI turned out, it was a really bad move (A large percentage of France's army was destroyed on the frontier), but at the time, when a quick and decisive war was foreseen, the cult of the offensive made strategic sense.

# ¿ Dec 15, 2010 03:12

Mister Gopher: Oct 27, 2004; I eat my own poop; Soiled Meat

Rabhadh posted:

As much as I hate to bring things back to WW2, I have to ask, was Hermann G�ring actually useful/good for anything?

In the run-up to the Nazi seizure of power, he had a shitload of industrial and business contacts that financed the party and got them into power. Plus, he was quite devious (he was behind the Reichstag fire, and the trickery that killed the Social Democrats).

But during WW2 itself? Not so much

# ¿ Dec 19, 2010 16:28

Mister Gopher: Oct 27, 2004; I eat my own poop; Soiled Meat

Mr. Sunshine posted:

You're entirely right. That's why "The Germans are putting Jews in concentration camps!!!" wouldn't have gotten a whole lot of reaction out of contemporary Europeans.

And also remember that in WW1 there was a crap-ton of anti-German propaganda that turned out to be completely false and was a part of the whole American anti-Allies sentiment right after WW1 along with the loan paybacks. Everybody knew about the camps (Charlie Chaplan even had one in the Great Dictator in 1938, a place where Jews were placed and just were imprisoned) and the Nazi's violence to Jews since Kristallnacht was well known.

Even the fact that Germany killed 1 million Soviet POW's was known to the USSR since they formally protested that late in 1942 while they were at each others throats. What surprised everyone was the extent of the numbers, the fact that the extermination was a main Nazi policy goal, and the total scope of the camps.

# ¿ Oct 19, 2011 01:08

Mister Gopher: Oct 27, 2004; I eat my own poop; Soiled Meat

Nenonen posted:

Actually, I would really much enjoy reading about this kind of useless minutiae. If that is your expertise, do share. Of course, the thing is you could write hundreds of pages about it if you really get down into it. But it's really interesting how the differing naval technologies - sail vs. coal vs. fuel oil (is this a correct term for ships?) vs. nuclear have fundamentally changed every aspect of naval strategies so many times within the span of just a couple of centuries. Whereas wind is free (and by 19th century it was figured out how to prevent scurvy even on long trips), coal had to be supplied one way or another, which meant a strategic challenge for it greatly favoured great naval powers like UK that had bases all along the coasts.

It did not just change naval strategies. The coal stations and supply of coal was a giant cause of colonialism in the Indian Ocean and far Pacific. And coal based fleets were very dependent on coal quality and availability for their actions.

The most well known is the Russian Baltic fleet that went from Petersburg all the way to Japan only to get smashed at Tsushima. That story is quite amazing, truth be told. After the Japanese launched a sneak attack at the Russian fleet at Port Arthur (sound familiar?) and torpedoed the fleet out of the conflict, the Russian Baltic fleet was dispatched to go help. This fleet suffered bad luck wherever it went. First of all, in the North sea the fleet attacked some British fishing boats assuming they were Japanese. Yep, Japanese fishing boats off Denmark was their reasoning. That almost caused war with Britan, who had an alliance with Japan. Hard to believe that a few years from then they would ally. Nonetheless, any thought of the fleet refueling at British ports was out of the question. Or using the Suez Canal. So what was left?

The French Empire.

Taking the LONG way to Japan, (with world news reporting their positions, and the Brits supplying the Japanese with ship intel), the fleet went from French port to port always filling up and taking their time. In Madagascar and Indochina they overstayed their welcome and were diplomatically forced to leave after coaling and resupply. Morale was low, the coal was low quality, resulting in slower ships and more smoke from their stacks. And eventually the Japanese caught them and smashed them, supposedly by viewing the hospital ship that was fully lit according to the Geneva convention, and figuring out the position of the fleet itself.

The coal situation caused the slow fleet speed, the predictable path of the fleet around the world, and logistical nightmares throughout the colonies, not to mention the battle limitations. Pre-dreadnoughts began to spray fuel oil on their coal as a regular measure, and navies would use dual coal/fuel driven ships. It was not until 1912 that Churchill as First Lord would seek an arrangement with the Anglo-Persian Oil Company (later called BP) for a constant supply of high quality fuel, that the UK created a fuel only super-dreadnought, the Queen Elizabeth class.

It is interesting that right before WW1 the armies of all the nations were mostly old-guard thinkers who did not really incorporate technology in their plans and doctrine, but the navies were always at the cutting edge with new doctrines and new integrations of technology.

# ¿ Nov 7, 2011 04:41

Mister Gopher: Oct 27, 2004; I eat my own poop; Soiled Meat

Grand Prize Winner posted:

I think he does, and isn't he right? Clippers were amazingly fast but their sails required a lot more manpower than coal-fired engines so once coal became cheaper than manpower they were unsustainable. By the 1940s or so there were pretty much no civilian sailing ships left that weren't pleasure craft.

I remember reading something about the last clipper ships serving into the 1930s in the South Pacific hauling coal.

Also a large amount of sail ships owned by the powers in WW1 were either captured, sunk, or retired for the new merchant crafts put out by the industrial nations during the war. Especially the UK, France and Italy. Even the neutral powers of the Netherlands, Spain and Norway quickly industrialized their remaining merchant fleets during that time.

# ¿ Nov 11, 2011 03:37

Mister Gopher: Oct 27, 2004; I eat my own poop; Soiled Meat

Rodrigo Diaz posted:

Even if this were true, this is well after Crusading in any real sense had ended, so your point is inapplicable. Smirking about politics' primacy over religion is pretty much false when it comes to the crusades, especially the First Crusade.

There are a bunch of examples where local politics trumped religion. Bohemond I of Antioch, the original crusader, allied with local muslims and took on Byzantium, only to have Venice come in with the Byzantines and revoke his independence. Or when Baldwin II of Edessa was captured in battle, his catholic regent refused to go through the motions to negotiate. What ended up happening was a weird 5 way war/negotiation between the regent (backed by some crusader states), Arabs, Byzantines, Turks, and Kurds. Alliances were changing all the time, and Baldwin got released and became king of Jersualem a bit while later.

And the alliances between Crusaders, Fatamids, and Seljuks remind me of the medieval Italian states.

Never a dull moment in Outremer.

# ¿ Mar 25, 2012 23:47

Mister Gopher: Oct 27, 2004; I eat my own poop; Soiled Meat

Base Emitter posted:

If the case is nobody caring about genocide, not annoying Turkey is exhibit A.

Words right out of my mouth. Yeah, the whole Turkey vs Kurds issue definitely swung Turkey (and thus European members NATO) firmly into the Iraq camp. The USA did not need any encouragement after the revolution and hostage crisis.

# ¿ Jun 11, 2012 22:27

Mister Gopher: Oct 27, 2004; I eat my own poop; Soiled Meat

4.29 of French citizens died. When you get to the 18-34 year old male demographic, its more likely that you were injured or killed than not. And that includes non-combatants.

However, 16% of ALL Serbians died.

WW1 and 2 are scary to reflect on.

EDIT: There is a single French village (Thierville), of around 150 people, that is known as the only village in France that had no men killed during WW1.

Mister Gopher fucked around with this message at 20:46 on Jul 1, 2012

# ¿ Jul 1, 2012 20:44

Mister Gopher: Oct 27, 2004; I eat my own poop; Soiled Meat

asbo subject posted:

That war is like talking about third division football, with britains C team just making up the numbers.

The two premier league teams were having a proper war in europe.

And then after the end in Europe the premier team went on a tour and got spanked by Andrew Jackson. Not that it mattered, since it was an exhibition game after the season ended.

# ¿ Jul 4, 2012 14:14

Mister Gopher: Oct 27, 2004; I eat my own poop; Soiled Meat

ArchangeI posted:

Rule of thumb: IJA planes are labeled with Ki-<number>, IJN planes have a complex Letter/Number combo. The Zero's official code was A6M - 6th Fightertype for carriers(A) accepted into naval use, made by Mitsubishi (M).

The Japanese Military is really a good example of what happens when inter-service rivalry goes too far. By the end, the Army had their own (landing-) ships, and the Navy always maintained land forces as well. It's a wonder they ever got anywhere.

Different ships are one thing, but the IJA and IJN were in such rivalry that they even had hard liners assassinate each other in the 30's, and they would not share information about casualties or battles, so that the IJA had no idea about the IJN forces and losses from 42 to 44.

Interservice rivalry at the most extreme, only the SS-Werhmacht rivalry comes anywhere close.
Oh and maybe the NKVD-Red Army from the purge to the Winter war.

# ¿ Jul 9, 2012 00:54

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 26, 2024 00:56

Mister Gopher: Oct 27, 2004; I eat my own poop; Soiled Meat

iv46vi posted:

That would be a pretty one sided rivalry, unless you mean specifically intelligence operations abroad.

Usually I would say that you were right, but during early WW2 there were numerous incidents of NKVD forces that were officially attached to Red Army units that were deliberately vastly under supplied and put in the worst tactical situations, or in a few cases were not supplied rations or ammunition. Independent NKVD units with their own logistics fared much differently than the early attached ones.

# ¿ Jul 9, 2012 17:35

The Something Awful Forums > Archives > Comedy Goldmine > Ask me about Military History!