|
This thread, or it's previous incarnation, have already had this exact same topic discussed numerous times. People here, not me, but others have actual degree's and actually study history for a living. So posting some youtube rando is not exactly going to be met with height praise, especially when his entire motivation seems to be to "debunk" some PragerU video. From what I gather PragerU is some Rightwing pseudoeducational service, but when you start with a conclusion, that the atom bombs weren't justified, and work backwards from it you're already operating in bad faith. I'm not going to watch the whole thing because gently caress that, but I watched the part entitled "The Invasion Narrative" and many problems already revealed themselves. First off he's cherry picking data to fit his conclusion. He uses the fact that the one million dead American points in the PragerU video actually comes from a column published in 1948. He then extrapolates from this that the one million dead is a justification for using the bomb after the fact, however he glosses over the fact that obviously Truman would've been briefed on the suspected casualties of allied forces in an invasion. Even just looking at wikipedia show's the numbers, while varying wildly, we're being tabulated by allied planners going years back, to use only the million dead number by Stimson published after the war, while ignoring all the other figures that would've been known to Truman and his staff is intellectually dishonest at best. I was gonna type up more on how he's more interested in attacking the phrasing used in the PragerU video, instead of y'know actually presenting facts, but gently caress that. From what I've seen the video is a hard pass, If you actually wanna know about something read papers or books published by people in the field, don't watch two hour long video's by people on youtube.
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2020 05:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 18:20 |
|
|
You uh missed most of his points because you didn't watch the video. Not saying you should but even your examples make at least some sense in the larger context. People should either watch the whole video and then discuss it or we should just not talk about it all. I like the latter, and that's as someone who watched the whole video and went "O that's an interesting take."
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2020 05:13
|
|
|
I'm not sure but it seems like it was presented to the thread as, "Hey look at this interesting video by a prominent youtuber about this milhist topic, I think its neat." And posters in the thread from there could take it or leave it to either engage with it or not, I don't think anyone was like, "Hey is this specific argument made in this video valid?"; and even if that were the case I mean, what good is having a bunch of posters with expertese if you know, they don't get to stretch those legs every once in a while to "peer review" for lack a better term, a presented video? In D&D terms that video would be something like a 9,000 word long effort post spanning 3-4 pages and would spark off healthy debate so all in all I agree with Xiahou Dun that it seems like harmless content in a slow moving thread? Like my response to it without seeing it, "Huh I wonder if he references X, that'd be interesting". Also I mean like, it's also a little ironic like if the topic was addressed before wouldn't it be fairly easy for the relevant people to link back to those posts, like a kind of citation or such, to respond to something specific that caught their eye? It's not like tank destroyer doctrine aficionados opining about the wonders of tank destroyers every other page forcing a dead horse to rise from the grave. You took a brief look at it, noted the problems with it from a scholarly perspective and took note and listed them off and then chose to disengaged at a point fair is fair you decided you had enough with either the poor methodology or evidence being used to determine the rest is presumably a waste of your time; but I on the other hand still took enjoyment from your post and I'm sure others do too.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2020 05:19
|
|
|
remember during iteration 54 of the atomic attacks debate when some guy was arguing they should used bombers to drop food instead of bombs? that was cool
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2020 05:24
|
|
|
bewbies posted:remember during iteration 54 of the atomic attacks debate when some guy was arguing they should used bombers to drop food instead of bombs? that was cool Some guy took the quote about bluejeans wining the cold war a little too literally.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2020 05:27
|
|
|
Related to atomic attacks discussion: My own thoughts about Operation Starvation is that it likely would have ended the war sooner had it been implemented as soon as the Marianas were available as bomber bases. It also would have killed way, way, way more Japanese civilians than the firebombing/atomic attacks would have. Had they gone down that route, how do you think modern folk would think of it as compared to the atomic attacks?
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2020 05:30
|
|
|
I honestly think It wouldn't even be discussed outside of academic circles, the only people get so wound up about the bombs is cause, well they're bigass bombs that killed a lot of people real fast. How many germans and Austrians did Britain's blockade kill in WWI? People aren't gonna remember a number like that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2020 05:36
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:foraging, which is a cute euphemism for something hideous
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2020 05:55
|
|
|
bewbies posted:remember during iteration 54 of the atomic attacks debate when some guy was arguing they should used bombers to drop food instead of bombs? that was cool Butter not bombs
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2020 05:56
|
|
|
Gaius Marius posted:That entire British Pathé Channel is an absolute treasure trove of cool old film. I'm particularly fond of the ones showing the operations of the automat. is the pekignese racing https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVagSWJD2Bs
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2020 05:57
|
|
|
GotLag posted:If a nuke is just a really big, really expensive bomb that's never been tested in combat and isn't perceived by the world at large as being a war-ender, does anyone go to the trouble and expense of building a lot of them, especially after the big war has just finished? Yes. RDS-1 would have happened one way or the other. bewbies posted:remember during iteration 54 of the atomic attacks debate when some guy was arguing they should used bombers to drop food instead of bombs? that was cool I always roll my eyes at the suggestion that “they should have dropped the bomb over the ocean and let Japanese leadership watch with binoculars.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2020 06:07
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:I always roll my eyes at the suggestion that “they should have dropped the bomb over the ocean and let Japanese leadership watch with binoculars. Not commenting as to whether that was a good idea or not, but wasn't that actually one of the suggested plans at the time?
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2020 06:09
|
|
|
HookedOnChthonics posted:Some incredible footage here I've never stumbled across before from the landing deck camera of a carrier in the pacific Oh yeah, that thing is dodging air attackers (probably kamikazes if it's late in the war).
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2020 06:23
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Not commenting as to whether that was a good idea or not, but wasn't that actually one of the suggested plans at the time? It was a contemporary idea with some prominent voices behind it, yes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2020 06:34
|
|
|
FuturePastNow posted:Oh yeah, that thing is dodging air attackers (probably kamikazes if it's late in the war). There's more vids like this? I don't think I've seen onboard cameras recording combat operations like this before.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2020 07:43
|
|
|
Invasion casualty projections are all speculative, but it seems odd to dismiss the hundreds of thousands-to-millions projection given that the closest reference point is the Battle of Okinawa and we know for a fact the Japanese defence plan was to put a bamboo spear in the hands of every civilian and expect them to die for their Emperor. Those numbers seem entirely plausible.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2020 09:53
|
|
|
HEY GUNS posted:no what we need; LRADIKAL posted:There's more vids like this? I don't think I've seen onboard cameras recording combat operations like this before.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2020 12:13
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:People should either watch the whole video and then discuss it or we should just not talk about it all. I like the latter, and that's as someone who watched the whole video and went "O that's an interesting take." This is sort of the mirror universe of chuds saying 'you should watch this 2 hour PragerU video' and then getting annoyed when people don't want to do that, though? Not talking about it at all was the better bet but that's kind of off the table when someone posts that unless you think the whole thread is going to spontaneously practice omerta and just ignore the post altogether.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2020 14:04
|
|
|
Warden posted:Mostly relax the incredibly restrictive and old-fashioned laws and regulations. For example: So it looks like that the empire didn't actively help much, more that they didn't actively hinder the autonomous province's modernizations. While the railroads also help locals, they aren't built by empires from altruism, but to tie the conquered areas more tightly to the empires, and to extract more money from them. I don't think that it was Western criticism that led to the abolition of serfdom, but rising Russian liberalism.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2020 16:08
|
|
|
White Coke posted:This article somewhat answers the question I had regarding the rare use of infantry squares to fight off cavalry during the 18th century. It seems that armies would often be formed into what was essentially a giant rectangle, with grenadiers filling in the gaps between two main lines of infantry. Grenadiers were also deployed at the flanks of battalions, where they could be relied on to wheel around to better fire on the flanks of an enemy when possible so it seems that they were regarded as more reliable units who could perform more complex roles even though they no longer used grenades or were otherwise equipped differently than line infantry. That link is a pro-click for people interested in 18th c. tactics.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2020 16:09
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:Invasion casualty projections are all speculative, but it seems odd to dismiss the hundreds of thousands-to-millions projection given that the closest reference point is the Battle of Okinawa and we know for a fact the Japanese defence plan was to put a bamboo spear in the hands of every civilian and expect them to die for their Emperor. Those numbers seem entirely plausible. My great aunt was dragooned in to one of those militia units comprised of university students. Training with spears, improvised explosives, and Murata rifles. I'm glad she got to avoid the experience of deploying those "skills" in combat.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2020 16:12
|
|
|
ChubbyChecker posted:So it looks like that the empire didn't actively help much, more that they didn't actively hinder the autonomous province's modernizations. That's one way of looking at it, sure. But it should be mentioned that often the old-fashioned regulations were relaxed first in Finland to observe the results a bit before doing the same in Russia proper. And Russians made a concentrated effort to attract foreign capital and entrepreneurs specifically to Finland ("Come to Finland! Untapped resources! Cheap labor! No worker rights! Possibility of getting a state-approved monopoly!"). quote:While the railroads also help locals, they aren't built by empires from altruism, but to tie the conquered areas more tightly to the empires, and to extract more money from them. That's certainly true yes, but taxes raised in Finland were not spent elsewhere in the Empire but instead within the Grand Duchy itself, unlike how it was under Swedish rule, where there often was the sentiment that the eastern part of the realm had to bear the heaviest burdens for smallest rewards. It was one of the changes made by Alexander I that won over many Finns in the beginning of the autonomy. quote:I don't think that it was Western criticism that led to the abolition of serfdom, but rising Russian liberalism. That's a fair point. Although one could argue that Russia falling behind the west and people being aware of it was one of the reasons for rising Russian liberalism. Edit. Towards the end of the 19th century there was a growing feeling within Russia proper that the Empire was not benefiting adequately from the Grand Duchy of Finland, and that Finns got more out of the empire than they put in. It's one of things that leads to the Russificiation period (We call them "the Ages of Oppression") which I will cover in my next entry, probably tomorrow. Warden fucked around with this message at 16:31 on Dec 13, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2020 16:23
|
|
|
bewbies posted:Related to atomic attacks discussion: No matter the solution, the end of war in Japan wouldve been controversial; unlike the war in europe in which the results could literally be measured in gained ground the progress in war against japan would be in one way always measured in killed civilian population no matter the option taken- Especially If Operation starvation would have been selected, but even an invasion would have had this scenario. Whilst during the war this was covered by ”But we have a war to win; sucks for them” after the war the solution picked would have gone under more intense scrutiny. Being an island, after loss of the marianas one of the key races between allied actions (bombing, embargo, invasion) was always ”can we cause more human suffering to the population than the japanese government can take and remain in rule” which as even an indirect military action is very, very questionable in hindsight. Very much a kobayashi maru scenario.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2020 16:32
|
|
|
ChubbyChecker posted:That link is a pro-click for people interested in 18th c. tactics. Indeed. Everyone should stop relitigating the morality of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and instead talk about the morality of platoon fire and oblique order.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2020 20:13
|
|
|
Platoon fire, lots more of it.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2020 20:45
|
|
|
Greetings from Internet VFW:Suntan Boy posted:Military ERs are always a special flavor of batshit, in a medical field rife with WTF stories.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2020 23:03
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:Greetings from Internet VFW: haha drat btw, what's ntc?
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2020 23:26
|
|
|
ChubbyChecker posted:haha drat National Training Center, where they do the biggest combat training and dress rehearsals.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2020 23:33
|
|
|
gohuskies posted:National Training Center, where they do the biggest combat training and dress rehearsals. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2020 23:52
|
|
|
Danger is sexy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2020 23:59
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:Invasion casualty projections are all speculative, but it seems odd to dismiss the hundreds of thousands-to-millions projection given that the closest reference point is the Battle of Okinawa and we know for a fact the Japanese defence plan was to put a bamboo spear in the hands of every civilian and expect them to die for their Emperor. Those numbers seem entirely plausible. The Allied planners had no real reason to discount it, in hindsight the status of Okinawans as second-class citizens who could be freely coerced by the IJA was a big factor in the civilian casualties during the Battle of Okinawa. Regarding overall casualties, troop density and quality was much higher on Okinawa than on the Home Islands, purely due to the difference in size. The biggest fear for the Allied planners was not armed civilians, but just more kamikaze attacks on troop carriers and lighter warships. These were devastating at Okinawa, and that was with the kamikazes flying in from Japan itself. With the planned landings at Kyushu, the troopships would have been moored within the maw of airbases located in all of Japan.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2020 00:27
|
|
|
bewbies posted:remember during iteration 54 of the atomic attacks debate when some guy was arguing they should used bombers to drop food instead of bombs? that was cool I do simply because it was so dumb/funny
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2020 00:52
|
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:The Allied planners had no real reason to discount it, in hindsight the status of Okinawans as second-class citizens who could be freely coerced by the IJA was a big factor in the civilian casualties during the Battle of Okinawa. Regarding overall casualties, troop density and quality was much higher on Okinawa than on the Home Islands, purely due to the difference in size. Additionally IIRC the Japanese surmised correctly where the landings would take place, so the Allied landings would likely face full resistance?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2020 01:04
|
|
|
I'm sorry but I felt compelled to make this
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2020 01:06
|
|
|
why did the dude have a live 203 round at the ntc?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2020 01:07
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:This week's article is one of mine and is a pretty specialist topic: Sherman tank mobility in mud I thought the Panther had good ground pressure, at least, so it surprises me it wasn't terribly good in mud. Was it a traction problem? Spoiler:The panther's transmission broke during the trials 
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2020 01:17
|
|
|
bewbies posted:Related to atomic attacks discussion: Far less bad. We remember the blockade of German in WW1 as 'a thing that happened' despite it leading to mass famine in 17-18. But I don't think it would be remembered nearly as significantly is for the same reason it wouldn't have ended the war - you can really drag out a worsening food supply and not be forced into any critical decisions if you don't want to. Starvation is a sign you are losing a war, but by 1945 the Japanese government has known for a long time that it's losing the war. The Japanese war faction pins its hopes on two things: 1) We can negotiate peace through the Soviets 2) We can make an invasion so bloody the US will negotiate rather than go for it. Because it happens so quickly we'll never know the precise proximate cause of the decision, but in 24 hours both of those hopes get wiped out. No, Stalin is not going to broker a peace. No, the Americans might not feel the need to invade - they might just keep dropping nukes on us. My feeling is that the psychological shock of both arguments collapsing at once meant the war faction just didn't have space to create a new argument for why Japan must fight on to the death.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2020 01:18
|
|
|
How y'all can continue to talk about the atomic bombing of Japan after I posted... that... is truly impressive. I feel like I should relinquish my milhist degrees to you lunatics.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2020 01:25
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:Greetings from Internet VFW: If it's 40x45, does that mean that the casing wasn't included? Was it a dummy round, ultimately?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2020 01:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 18:20 |
|
|
Fangz posted:If it's 40x45, does that mean that the casing wasn't included? Was it a dummy round, ultimately? I dunno, ask the story teller.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2020 02:00
|
|