|
zoux posted:What were the soviets doing in Afghanistan anyway? What were their military aims? They aimed to protect a friendly Afghan government, the coup against Amin was rather pointless, but that was their goal there.
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2024 15:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 10:37 |
|
|
Wasn't Amin even the one who asked the Soviets for help in the first place? Or am I misremembering the events?
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2024 16:27
|
|
|
zoux posted:What were the soviets doing in Afghanistan anyway? What were their military aims? Ok, so the really short version is that in the early 70s the last Afghan king was deposed by one of his siblings in a palace coup. The new guy styled himself the first president of the Afghan Republic, but it was your pretty standard issue single party "president for life" style dictatorship. In the late 70s another coup ousted him in favor of the People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan, an equally run of the mill local Marxist organization. They were obviously pro-Soviet. Then poo poo gets weird there's in-fighting among the Afghan Marxists. Within a few years there's an ugly split over ideology, and the Soviets send in a bunch of commandos to assassinate the head of one side to tip things in favor of the other faction. Basically the head of the pro-Soviet faction got deposed and probably murdered, then they killed the new guy who took over. They claimed he was secretly a pro-Western fascist, but my two cents are that he probably leaned more Maoist and the USSR and China were still a tad on the outs. Not as bad as in the 60s, but still not quite warm and fuzzy. After that they invade to support the new government and end up sucked into a bunch of years fighting Mujahadeen who were broadly anti-Communist on religious grounds. The irony is that the Soviets managed to unite Afghan society with their invasion in a way that it had never been before that, even if there continued to be tons of internal divisions even among the Mujahadeen.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2024 16:40
|
|
|
are there any good books about the balkan front of WWI? Especially on audible.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2024 18:26
|
|
|
edit: never mind you wrote "Balkan" but my idiot brain auto-filled "Baltic"
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2024 18:34
|
|
|
Random kind-of-specific milhist question that I've always wondered but never seen mentioned anywhere: What was the deal with German army group names during WW2? At times they used geographic names (like Army Group North, Africa, or Group South Ukraine) and at other times they used A, B, C... and there doesn't seem any particular reason for the switch. For the invasion of Poland there were Army Groups North and South, then for the battle of France there were B, A, C from north to south, then for Barbarossa there was North, Center, and South, but South later split into A and B. Was there any real reason for this naming, or was it just 'whatever seemed good at the time'? It makes sense to me that they wouldn't follow the WW1 tradition of naming army groups after their commanders, since Hitler was often at odds with commanders and would replace them, but the geographic vs letter designations always struck me as odd.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2024 18:43
|
|
|
Hitler: "Ok, so get this: we name the army groups 1, 2 and 4..."
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2024 07:24
|
|
|
Pantaloon Pontiff posted:Random kind-of-specific milhist question that I've always wondered but never seen mentioned anywhere: What was the deal with German army group names during WW2? At times they used geographic names (like Army Group North, Africa, or Group South Ukraine) and at other times they used A, B, C... and there doesn't seem any particular reason for the switch. For the invasion of Poland there were Army Groups North and South, then for the battle of France there were B, A, C from north to south, then for Barbarossa there was North, Center, and South, but South later split into A and B. Was there any real reason for this naming, or was it just 'whatever seemed good at the time'? It makes sense to me that they wouldn't follow the WW1 tradition of naming army groups after their commanders, since Hitler was often at odds with commanders and would replace them, but the geographic vs letter designations always struck me as odd.  You can see the same thing on the Soviet side.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2024 07:45
|
|
|
Grumio posted:Hitler: "Ok, so get this: we name the army groups 1, 2 and 4..." So the germans didnt do this, which is why we get the https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_tank_problem
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2024 22:55
|
|
|
DTurtle posted:Considering how often they got renamed, I think it was simple convenience: The specific thing that I find odd isn't renaming them, it's switching between generic letter designations and geographic designations. I don't see that on the Soviet side, Soviet Fronts were named for the area where they operated (and the one "Reserve Front) and changed names as the area of operations changed and they got split, merged, or disbanded. For example, the Northern Front split into the Leningrad and Karelia Fronts, but it didn't split into front A and front B. It's the thing where German Army Group South split into AG A and AG B, the later those turned to AG South Ukraine and AG South that doesn't make sense to me - If they were always A, B, C, D (or numbers, like the Western Allies army groups) or always geographic (like the Soviet fronts) I wouldn't have the question. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Front_(military_formation)
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2024 00:25
|
|
|
Pantaloon Pontiff posted:The specific thing that I find odd isn't renaming them, it's switching between generic letter designations and geographic designations. I don't see that on the Soviet side, Soviet Fronts were named for the area where they operated (and the one "Reserve Front) and changed names as the area of operations changed and they got split, merged, or disbanded. For example, the Northern Front split into the Leningrad and Karelia Fronts, but it didn't split into front A and front B. It's the thing where German Army Group South split into AG A and AG B, the later those turned to AG South Ukraine and AG South that doesn't make sense to me - If they were always A, B, C, D (or numbers, like the Western Allies army groups) or always geographic (like the Soviet fronts) I wouldn't have the question. A and B show up because for Case Blue, the Germans wanted to split the two divergent objectives of the offensive into different army groups. C actually existed from the beginning of the war to cover the Western defenses during the invasion of Poland. And then the other letters kinda show up as they want army group commands for broad theaters. There are some intelligence functions to being weird about it, but mostly, army groups in the german army were more administrative units than anything else.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2024 09:59
|
|
|
bob dobbs is dead posted:there have been mcdonalds in japan for 53 years the guy who got rich bringing mcdonalds to japan is loving wild too: quote:His strategy for selling McDonald's to the Japanese people involved the following statement: "The reason Japanese people are so short and have yellow skins is because they have eaten nothing but fish and rice for two thousand years... If we eat McDonald's hamburgers and potatoes for a thousand years we will become taller, our skin become white, and our hair blonde." He went on to write a book claiming that his secret to business success was his Jewish superpowers, since one of the lost tribes of Israel ended up in Osaka, and that discrimination against the Kansai accent was antisemitism on the order of the Holocaust.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2024 22:02
|
|
|
Only 930 years and we'll find out if he was right
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2024 22:10
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:A and B show up because for Case Blue, the Germans wanted to split the two divergent objectives of the offensive into different army groups. C actually existed from the beginning of the war to cover the Western defenses during the invasion of Poland. And then the other letters kinda show up as they want army group commands for broad theaters. There are some intelligence functions to being weird about it, but mostly, army groups in the German army were more administrative units than anything else. Right, I get why they went from one Army Group in the area to two. What I wonder about is why did it start as Army group 'South' for Poland, then become 'A' for the battle of France, then become 'South' again for Barbarossa, then split with part named 'A' and part 'B', then 'B' turned into 'South' and later 'North Ukraine' then 'A' again then ended on 'Center' while the 'A' part became 'South Ukraine', then 'South', then 'Ostmark'. It's not the reorganization into two parts that I wonder about, it's why there were multiple switches between arbitrary (A, B, A again) and positional (South, Center, South Ukraine) naming conventions, and I don't know if it's just 'no reason they just did it' or if there was a reason. As far as I know other armies didn't do this, they had one naming convention of either arbitrary (numbers for the western allies) or positional names (Leningrad Front, Stalingrad Front, 1st-4th Ukranian Fronts) and stuck to it. I'm guessing there was no real reason for it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2024 01:08
|
|
|
From what I read from one WW2 textbook, in one of those cases it was about trying to remove the "stink" of recent defeat from them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2024 02:17
|
|
|
44°38'53.55"N, 63°34'50.82"W What is this? It's kinda got the zig zag pattern on trenches but I've never seen it anything quite like it before and the placement seems odd too
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2024 02:18
|
|
|
Pantaloon Pontiff posted:Right, I get why they went from one Army Group in the area to two. What I wonder about is why did it start as Army group 'South' for Poland, then become 'A' for the battle of France, then become 'South' again for Barbarossa, then split with part named 'A' and part 'B', then 'B' turned into 'South' and later 'North Ukraine' then 'A' again then ended on 'Center' while the 'A' part became 'South Ukraine', then 'South', then 'Ostmark'. It's not the reorganization into two parts that I wonder about, it's why there were multiple switches between arbitrary (A, B, A again) and positional (South, Center, South Ukraine) naming conventions, and I don't know if it's just 'no reason they just did it' or if there was a reason. As far as I know other armies didn't do this, they had one naming convention of either arbitrary (numbers for the western allies) or positional names (Leningrad Front, Stalingrad Front, 1st-4th Ukranian Fronts) and stuck to it. The German army had no traditional Army Group North or Group B or whatever. They were formations established to group together more persistent units for a specific task. One of the things that a higher general might have to do when taking over is establish or reorganize commands to suit the task at hand. (As detailed above by Panzeh) Without knowing the details of it, I'd say it comes down to the discretion of the generals and staff planning the operation. An army that barely existed a decade prior probably didn't have any longstanding policy on the naming of groups of army corps. Although it's also possible that the German high command did have a naming policy at that level which was frequently meddled with. Jaguars! fucked around with this message at 02:47 on Apr 23, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2024 02:25
|
|
|
Milo and POTUS posted:44°38'53.55"N, 63°34'50.82"W That's just a bastion fort I think?. Like a star fort but littler E: I guess it's more accurate to say it's 4 bastions that make a little star fort PittTheElder fucked around with this message at 02:49 on Apr 23, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2024 02:26
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
Milo and POTUS posted:44°38'53.55"N, 63°34'50.82"W Seems like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citadel_Hill_(Fort_George) ?
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2024 02:27
|
|
|
The specific point is on streetview as a trench warfare exhibit.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2024 02:29
|
|
|
Jaguars! posted:The German army had no traditional Army Group North or Group B or whatever. They were formations established to group together more persistent units for a specific task. One of the things that a higher general might have to do when taking over is establish or reorganize commands to suit the task at hand. (As detailed above by Panzeh) And lets not forget around 1943ish where they just start naming army groups or whatever after the General in charge because everything is such a mess and they're just scraping formations together.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2024 09:22
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:edit: never mind you wrote "Balkan" but my idiot brain auto-filled "Baltic" Don't be sad, I read all of "Balkan front of the WWF" and to the end before my brain realized something was wrong 
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2024 09:45
|
|
|
Tias posted:Don't be sad, I read all of "Balkan front of the WWF" and to the end before my brain realized something was wrong BAH GAWD THAT'S GAVRILO PRINCIP WITH A STEEL CHAIR!!!
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2024 10:46
|
|
|
Vittorio Emanuele: It's me Kaiser! Franz Joseph: Aww son of a bitch. Vittorio Emanuele: It's me Kaiser, it was me, all along Kaiser!
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2024 13:06
|
|
|
Jaguars! posted:The specific point is on streetview as a trench warfare exhibit. That's it then. I did try streetview but I couldn't find that angle. PittTheElder posted:That's just a bastion fort I think?. Like a star fort but littler Well yeah that I knew lol
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2024 18:36
|
|
|
Well then I didn't understand the question.  Still don't really, everything there seems like a very bog standard early 19th century British fort, is there something you're seeing that I am not? The version google is serving to me doesn't include trenches, just ditches around the fort. e: VVV ahhh I see, yeah I hadn't flipped it to satellite view PittTheElder fucked around with this message at 18:52 on Apr 23, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2024 18:49
|
|
|
If you zoom in there is a small section of crenelated trenches in the moat of the fort.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2024 18:50
|
|
|
Libluini posted:Wasn't Amin even the one who asked the Soviets for help in the first place? Or am I misremembering the events? Yes basically the Soviets thought the dude was an idiot whose brutality and purges were destabilizing the country (they were right), so they couped him out to replace him with someone more pliable it's just the cure was worse than the disease so to speak
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2024 19:14
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3_Hoot_uprising
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2024 19:19
|
|
|
I've noticed a common refrain in history throughout the 18th, 19th, and most of the 20th century of civil unrest turning explosive when armed soldiers/guards/policemen go off to confront it armed mainly with guns. When you send off a bunch of people to confront an unruly crowd and the only thing that they have to work with is their uniforms and their guns, it seems natural that when the uniforms alone fail to intimidate the crowd, the only advantage they have left to deal with the crowd is their guns. But these days there's a lot of complex and diverse options for riot police to use to control and directly deal with crowds. Some of them may be more technologically complex like tear gas and water cannons, but the most common tool modern riot police is simple shields. Maybe they're fancy transparent lightweight polymers, but the basic tool is millennia old. Why did it seemingly take people so long to reinvent the idea of shield walls for nonlethal confrontation?
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2024 22:20
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:I've noticed a common refrain in history throughout the 18th, 19th, and most of the 20th century of civil unrest turning explosive when armed soldiers/guards/policemen go off to confront it armed mainly with guns. When you send off a bunch of people to confront an unruly crowd and the only thing that they have to work with is their uniforms and their guns, it seems natural that when the uniforms alone fail to intimidate the crowd, the only advantage they have left to deal with the crowd is their guns. Uh, the Peel Principles arean incredibly recent form of policing, unruly peasants were absolutely not getting nonlethal confrontation before guns came along. I mean generally people would try and resolve civil unrest without violence because killing your own labour force bad, but there are a hell of a lot of pre-18th century protests that are remembered as 'the X massacre'.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2024 22:42
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:I mean generally people would try and resolve civil unrest without violence because killing your own labour force bad, but there are a hell of a lot of pre-18th century protests that are remembered as 'the X massacre'. 20th-century ones, too.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2024 02:05
|
|
|
it ain't called the deescalation of blair mountain
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2024 04:47
|
|
|
thatbastardken posted:it ain't called the deescalation of blair mountain #unionstrong.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2024 04:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 10:37 |
|
|
Arbite posted:Vittorio Emanuele: It's me Kaiser! lmfao
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2024 06:25
|
|
