Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
Nebakenezzer
Sep 13, 2005

The Mote in God's Eye



If we're posting effortposts/blogs, I have a few

But let me start with a request: does anybody have a link to that history of the Taiping civil war?

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Nebakenezzer
Sep 13, 2005

The Mote in God's Eye



Also on the subject of flying and food, I've been told that USN blimps during WW2 had waffle irons onboard

Nebakenezzer
Sep 13, 2005

The Mote in God's Eye



Trin Tragula posted:

I'd also like to encourage all the lurkers who feel intimidated by big hulking megathreads to get stuck in and just ask whatever's on your mind about military history.

Hear him, friends!

Nenonen posted:

Happy Finnish independence day, btw. Ask me anything about Mannerheim's knights or something

It's a subject I know nothing about, aside from this vague impression you were on the edge of other people's kingdoms/empires, and I most definitely salute Finland being on the periphery of the Russian/Soviet empire and managing to thread that needle pretty well.

Nebakenezzer
Sep 13, 2005

The Mote in God's Eye



Effortposts: on mah blog

So it's a cold fact of life lots of people like doing effortposts ITT, and this soon leads to blogging. Some, like our current IK EnsignExpendable or JobbaFett have dedicated blogs to milhist stuff, while people like me have blogs that *mostly* have milhist stuff. Because mine is most, not entirely, I'm'a gonna just quote the milhist relevant stuff. If it seems interesting to you, click it or don't!

On the Fw 200 Condor Part 1, Part 2

A twelve part series I wrote for AI's Aviation thread about a decade ago on German Naval Airships in WW1, titled Achtung Zeppelin!

A two part series on the Heinkel 219 "Owl" night fighter. Part 1: A Fledgeling in Search of Parents and Part 2: Combat and Bird Puns

On the Junkers 290, the very rare large transport and maritime recon aircraft. 1. Actual Facts. 2. The Myth of Flights to Japan. 3. Did the Ju 290 Make Secret Flights to Atlantis?!?

The Convair B-36 'Peacemaker'

I Watch it so You Don't Have To: Disney's Victory through Airpower If you want to understand strategic bombing as the World War people understood it, it is not bad. Also, gifs

Tankom 1/144 P.1000 Ratte I build a model and learn about Germany's hypothetical ultra-tank

A three part post on the Soviet/Russian Kirov class battlecrusiers, and their amazingly depressing cousin, the Ural spy ship.

On Amerika Bombers, right now an 8 part post. Getting accsess to a university library let me trace big aircraft production in the Third Reich from the early 1930s to after its total collapse. Lots of related themes, including 1) why were the Nazis so bad at it, 2) why the He 177 proved to be a gypsy curse on Luftwaffe aviation, 3) why the Fw 200 and BnV 222 were civilian-developed stopgaps that never saw replacement, 4) why the Nazis had a longstanding obsession with creating bombers to strike at America, and 5) why the fourth point was a insane complication the Third Reich stapled to pretty much all their big aircraft plans.

Nebakenezzer
Sep 13, 2005

The Mote in God's Eye



Memento posted:

The reason I asked this (old thread) is that you were talking about the Short Sunderlands, and then you mentioned the Short Shackletons, but I thought the Shackletons were made by Avro, and I didn't want you to get incredibly politely lynched by any Canadian Avro tragics.

Hahaha fair

Short Shackletons? Yeah, that's not right

Nebakenezzer
Sep 13, 2005

The Mote in God's Eye



LoudPipesSaveLives posted:

I've been looking but probably someone who knows how to look for this kind of thing can help me, I've never really understood the hierarchy of naval ships in ww2 I get my Destroyers and Corvettes mixed up with Cruisers and Battleships. I keep hoping I'll stumble across a big diagram while I do my little searches online but never have. Just something that is concise and has the biggest ships at the top and the littlest ones at the bottom and a little blurb of why.

There's definately a hiarchey insofar as what individual ship can beat up whom, but it's probably easier to understand as "there's a bunch of ship classes, each built for different jobs."

Destroyers: Fast, heavily armed, zero armor. Originally invented to protect dreadnoughts against newly invented torpedo boats, they branched out into protecting against submarines, aircraft, and generally screening larger ships, as well as getting torpedoes for sinking larger ships.

Destroyer Escorts: destroyers built for escorting civillian ships. Less guns, just as much AA, slower.

Corvettes: If there is such a thing as a naval millita, this is their ship. An extremely cheap and cheerful escort ship focused around fighting submarines. The most famous of these were the Flower Class corvettes, which were de contented enough that they could be built by civilian shipyards, based on a whaler design, depth charges, sonar, a gun, as miserable as a U-boat to serve on.

PT boats: "Patrol-torpedo" boats were short range small boats that carried a few torpedoes to huck at larger ships.

Cruisers [various]: This is probably the most confusing class. Cruisers in the age of sail were largish, long endurance ships that could 'cruise' and raid enemy merchant shipping. This turned into an intermediate class between the very big, enormously expensive heavy armor battleships, and the unarmored destroyers. In the middle pretty much defines them. They can take on smaller naval ships like destroyers, etc, and run away from battleships as the "some armor: approach has its virtues. A destroyer in turn could outrun it, and a battleship could cripple a cruiser without too much of a fight. But then it gets more confusing because cruisers become specialists as well: heavy cruisers have bigger guns and heavier armor, light cruisers are like extra beefy destroyers, being faster and with lighter armor, anti-aircraft cruisers specialize in exploding' aircraft; battlecrusiers are crusiers with a battleship's guns but with a crusier's speed and armor....

battleships: enormous, super expensive both to build and maintain, giant guns of terrible destructive power, very heavily armored. The battleship exists to fight other battleships - and exists as a trump card. This gets almost old school "line of battle ship" type thinking, since the equity of battleship firepower in one fleet has to be matched or beat by the other if you just shout 'get 'em' at the enemy fleet.

Nebakenezzer
Sep 13, 2005

The Mote in God's Eye



Camrath posted:

So where do frigates fit into the naval ship hierarchy? Both historically and in the present day.

People with the boat-smarts can say more about age of sail frigates. Post ww2, frigate became the name of essentially the standard fighting ship class, because it did almost everything all the old ship classes did with precision munitions and advanced sensors.

Nebakenezzer
Sep 13, 2005

The Mote in God's Eye



P-Mack posted:

Shamed with my unfinished effortpost series...

Unfinished?! Goddamnit, how does it end?!

Nebakenezzer
Sep 13, 2005

The Mote in God's Eye



Cythereal posted:

Also something to bear in mind for these discussions is that you don't have to sink a ship to effectively kill it. None of the Japanese carriers at Midway, for example, were actually sunk by the Americans. They were gutted and reduced to drifting, burning hulks, but none of them sank until the IJN scuttled them.

Ships are generally designed to float above all other design considerations, and it tends to take something severe to make them stop floating. But you can render a ship completely useless and fit only for the scrap yard without seriously compromising the ship's ability to float.

2020 can serve you up an example of this, and from a kind of carrier, no less:

Phanatic posted:

Stuff like the USN's decision to scrap its burned-out LHD:

https://news.usni.org/2020/11/30/navy-will-scrap-uss-bonhomme-richard

For those that don't know, the US Marine Corps had its amphibious assault ship Bonhomme Richard catch on fire while docked, and if you look for photos you can see many things melted and distorted

Nebakenezzer
Sep 13, 2005

The Mote in God's Eye




I don't know where this is from but it is nice to see 'taking the piss' is universal

Nebakenezzer
Sep 13, 2005

The Mote in God's Eye



Vincent Van Goatse posted:

Point of order but destroyers were absolutely not invented to protect dreadnoughts from torpedo boats. They were invented specifically to hunt down torpedo boats more than a decade before Dreadnought herself was even an idea.

So ships that could keep up with the fleet but were fast/small enough to waste trash mobs of PT boats?

Nebakenezzer
Sep 13, 2005

The Mote in God's Eye



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

Nebakenezzer
Sep 13, 2005

The Mote in God's Eye



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

Nebakenezzer
Sep 13, 2005

The Mote in God's Eye



I was going through the old cold war thread looking for posts to highlight, and Cyrano wrote this in 2012 and I never really forgot about it because of his characteriztion of Hermann Goering:

quote:

The short version is that before the war, when the army was exploring the possibility of airborne operations like just about every other country on the planet, Goering thew a giant loving hissy fit and said that any German airborn units had to be part of the Luftwaffe because they had something to do with airplanes. No compromise here, either - you couldn't have Luftwaffe aircrews flying army dudes over the drop zone, they had to all be Luftwaffe. Since Goering was really good at screaming and crying until he got his way he got handed his own personal little mini-army inside the German airforce.

Fast forward to 1941. Germany does a 100% airborne invasion of the Greek island of Crete and, while successful, suffers some loving appalling casualties. They were bad enough that Hitler nixed any future airborne operations and the German airborne units basically became simple light infantry. This is how they operated for the rest of the war. So, you had an entire branch of the Luftwaffe that existed only to be a conventional light infantry force and which operated in conjunction with the regular army. Why the gently caress didn't they just fold the now not-so-airborne into the army? Because politics.

It gets even more stupid. Using the same " b-b-b-but AIRPLANES! " logic the Luftwaffe managed to get (essentially) all AA crews folded into their organization as well. Want to shoot at an airplane? Gotta be in the Luftwaffe to do that. Those famous FlaK 88s? Airforce crews. One little problem: it quickly became really loving apparent that those FlaK 88s were REALLY loving good at blowing up tanks. So, now you had airforce guys and their (mostly) airforce-only AA pieces deploying with the regular army as combo AA/AT units, because the regular 'ol FlaK 88 was designed so that the main gun could depress down to the horizontal.

As for the specialized weapons, the most egregious example of this is the FG42. It was initially designed with some REALLY retarded post-Crete specifications to be a combination gun that would simultaneously fill the role of battle rifle, SMG, and LMG. Truth be told it was good at none of that, but the Army thought the design had some merits as a really light mag fed LMG, similar to how the US used the BAR and how the Brits used the Bren. Of course Goering wasn't going to have those poors in the Army paying with his ~*~*Limited Special Collector's Edition Luftwaffe Preorder Only*~*~ gun so he cock blocked that every which way he could, with the end result that he was given gently caress near zero production support from the Army and a TINY number of FG42s were ever built. In all fairness that was probably a good thing for the Army.

There were a few other random examples of this having to do with rifle variants and pistols and I think a few light mortar designs, but the FG42 is the most famous example and the one I remember the best.

This wasn't just the Luftwaffe being retards either. THe Army did its damndest to keep the G/K43 and StG44 out of the hands of both the SS and the Luftwaffe infantry units as well.

Seriously, the worst Cold Warrior inter-service rivalry dickhead the US ever produced has absolutely nothing on the Germans, and I'm including all that post-WW2 Army/USAF/Navy dickwaving over missile development.

Nebakenezzer
Sep 13, 2005

The Mote in God's Eye



Cyrano4747 posted:

Also I donít know how true this is but Iíve heard that part of the reason for that early grip was to fit the gun in the drop tubes the luftwaffe used for their gear.

Yeah they didnít drop with their guns. This caused some problems on Crete.

The Luftwaffe also attempted a paradrop during the Battle of the Bulge which was a disaster, partially because of this "drop poo poo seperately" thing. The reason why poo poo was dropped separately was that the Ju 52 was so tiny relative to even the C-47 that getting the paratroops and their gear just didn't fit.

e: ^^^ or what Cessna said? Hm.

Nebakenezzer fucked around with this message at 16:00 on Dec 15, 2020

Nebakenezzer
Sep 13, 2005

The Mote in God's Eye



Cessna posted:

No, like I said, it was doctrine.

Allied paratroopers dropped high, at night, and carried their stuff.

German paratroopers dropped low, in daylight, and didn't carry their stuff.

Yeah, sorry, I just noticed.

Was this docterine thing because of the Ju 52 being small, or was their doctrine always about dropping into defended airspace to take strong points?

For that matter, were Allied Paratroopers looked at differently (kinda like Air Dragoons - you get em into combat via plane) or did they believe that paradrop surprises just worked better dropping next to defended airspace?

Nebakenezzer
Sep 13, 2005

The Mote in God's Eye



BalloonFish posted:

This bit reminded me of something I read recently:


Which laid out how the Luftwaffe's pilot shortage did not begin with the Battle of Britain (closely followed by Barbarossa which took a heavy toll on the inadequate contingent of new pilots coming out of the training system to replace those lost in the BoB).

It actually began with the Low Countries campaign and the widespread use of the Ju52 as a paratrooper platform. The Luftwaffe did not have enough experienced transport pilots to fly the number of Junkers proposed for the paratrooper campaign, and there was also pressure for new fighter pilots for the coming battles over France and Britain. So the Luftwaffe took would-be fighter pilots from the final stages of the training system and deployed them as co-pilots in Ju52s so they could get the required air-time before going to the operational training squadrons. Result? A large portion of the Luftwaffe's new fighter pilot contingent was lost as the Ju52 suffered heavy loses over the Low Countries, hollowing out the training system even before the losses of the Battle of Britain start biting. From spring 1940 the Luftwaffe was always playing catch-up with its fighter pilot numbers and never managed to make up the lost ground.

While I have not read this specific story, I totally believe it. I've read that the Luftwaffe was raiding aircraft in training (in this case, Ju 52 fuselages) and reassigning them to transport during the invasion of Poland.

Nebakenezzer
Sep 13, 2005

The Mote in God's Eye



Drachinifel has an new video that is pretty interesting, on what sank the HMS Hood. I'd always known it was a lucky (or unlucky) shot that destroyed her, and by Drachinifel's account it was that, but I didn't realize how lucky it was.

Nebakenezzer fucked around with this message at 22:23 on Dec 19, 2020

Nebakenezzer
Sep 13, 2005

The Mote in God's Eye



Biographical note from "Rockets and People":

quote:

19. Iosif Samuilovich Shklovskiy (1916Ė85), head of the radio-astronomy department at the Shternberg Astronomical Institute, was one of the most prominent Soviet astronomers of the 20th century. His memoirs were published posthumously in English as Five Billion Vodka Bottles on the Moon: Tales of a Soviet Scientist (New York: W. W. Norton, 1991)

Nebakenezzer
Sep 13, 2005

The Mote in God's Eye




Later adapted into the Bill Murray comedy "Stripes"

Nebakenezzer
Sep 13, 2005

The Mote in God's Eye



HEY GUNS posted:

It is ubiquitous but despised--to the point where I have been told by more than one person to use euphemisms to describe what I do. I woud probably agree with your last sentence there.

That's messed up.

Nebakenezzer
Sep 13, 2005

The Mote in God's Eye



Fearless posted:

Yeah but we didn't do it this time

or the last time, really

hush, "a noble spirit enbiggens the smallest man"

Nebakenezzer
Sep 13, 2005

The Mote in God's Eye



So I'm trying to finish a post I started a long time ago. Did you know the V-2 had a third variant to its guidance system? So the Lorentz company did something fairly amazing in the early 1930s: it developed a blind landing system. Since radar was not a thing, how it worked was two guidance beams would be broadcast on either side of the runway. The landing aircraft has a radio set receiving both signals. When out of alignment it'd produce noise, but when in the approach path, the two signals would create a continuous tone.

So a system very similar to this was built to improve V-2 guidance. Two signals broadcast into the sky, a reciever on the V-2 to steer the missile into the continuious signal. This control signal also seems to have been wired into the first guidance system, initially used in tests, of measuing rocket speed by radar Doppler shift, and sending the cutoff signal when the time was right. In order to achieve an accuracy of 250m CEP at a distance of 250 km, "the speed at burn stop had to be 0.5% exact."

So this accuracy assist system appears to be completely done, ready for production in the end of 1943. But fortunately it took an entire year for the equipment to be manufactured and issued to Missile units.

Another cool thing I found: this site has an example of a high speed low altitude photo run by a Mosquito.

Nebakenezzer
Sep 13, 2005

The Mote in God's Eye



Neophyte posted:

Why not just make tiltrotor C-5s?

Ah, yes sir, we did consider that!

Executive summary

Nebakenezzer fucked around with this message at 00:14 on Jan 15, 2021

Nebakenezzer
Sep 13, 2005

The Mote in God's Eye



Tulip posted:

The PRC is extremely paranoid about geographic data, to the extent that official maps of the PRC are straightforwardly wrong, and possessing maps or other geographic data without the right approvals carries hefty fines (that are actually pursued). Restricting civilian flight lanes feels like a reasonable extension/enforcement of that law (regardless of how you feel about the law itself).

This isn't something particularly secretive, there's even a nice little wikipedia page about it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restrictions_on_geographic_data_in_China

WTF, why? It's not like anybody who's an actual threat to the nation of China can't get that info anyway.

Nebakenezzer
Sep 13, 2005

The Mote in God's Eye




The 101st Airborne is a weird example of this, since their screaming eagle symbol dates back to units in the civil war, but the rest of the unit does not:

quote:

The 101st Division headquarters was organized 2 November 1918 at Camp Shelby, Mississippi, having been constituted on 23 July in the National Army. World War I ended 9 days later, and was demobilized on 11 December 1918.[6]

In 1921, the division headquarters was reconstituted in the Organized Reserves, and organized on 10 September 1921, at Milwaukee, Wisconsin.[6] It was at this time that the "Screaming Eagle" became associated with the division, as a successor to the traditions of the Wisconsin volunteer regiments of the American Civil War.[7] (See also: Old Abe)

As part of the reorganization of the 101st as an airborne division in the Army of the United States, the reserve division was disbanded on 15 August 1942.[6]

It was reconstituted as an airborne division the next day.

Nebakenezzer
Sep 13, 2005

The Mote in God's Eye



Ensign Expendable posted:

T-34 was basically World of Tanks: The Movie. I still haven't seen it, maybe I can do a video series on awful Russian war movies.

This sounds great, just post

Nebakenezzer
Sep 13, 2005

The Mote in God's Eye



This looks like a book that would be my jam, as well as a few other people's ITT

https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2021/01/14/hitler-conspiracies-antarctica/

Nebakenezzer
Sep 13, 2005

The Mote in God's Eye




Haha, wow. I assume everybody there would have been super embarrassed to have the president witness a nuke test a couple ordered of magnitude bigger than planned.

Nebakenezzer
Sep 13, 2005

The Mote in God's Eye



feedmegin posted:

2.5 times is 2 orders of magnitude?

(Tsar Bomba x10 would certainly have been....impressive, mind. And rather lethal to Eisenhower one assumes)

I am incarnate at my incorrect use of the term orders of magnitude

zoux posted:

Assuming time machines or massive geopolitical shifts: would you guys go to a nuclear test shot if you could?

Absolutely.

Nebakenezzer
Sep 13, 2005

The Mote in God's Eye



https://twitter.com/nelianne90/status/1353779360289992705

I'm pretty sure this is not from the recent riots in the Netherlands

Also, Mike Duncan is back with the revolutions podcast, so he can complete his final chapter on the Russian revolution. So, you know how the founder of a nation is usually idolized (both for the obvious reason and because they did great things, and had they been less brilliant the nation likely wouldn't have been founded?) Well I'm starting to think there's an opposite trend in revolutions: where if a big revolution happens a part of it is some King who had they been less oblivious and dumb it never would have happened?

Exibit A: Czar Nicholas II

After the 1905 revolution uprising after murdering lots of people an actual Duma has been established. Naturally there was an upper house filled with aristocrats, and a lower house filled with *electeds*. So the Czar addresses his aristocrats exclusively in a short speech to the Duma. He wanted 'unity' and 'mutual understanding' in the face of the almost-revolution. So the commons decided to write a note responding to the Czar's short address. They did attempt to draw a distinction between power the duma had, and mere requests to the Czar, they did want stuff, like the dissolution of the posh clubhouse of the house of lords, which the Czar put together only after he resoundingly lost the election, amnesty for political prisoners, land reform, actual governmental oversight, etc.

The Czar refused the note, insisting that the plebs hand it to his prime minister. Then the PM gave a long speech to the duma, where he rejected all of this "doing stuff" talk, and just so they got the message, made it explicit that the Duma's ideas had not been considered and rejected, the PM had just rejected them because who the gently caress do you think you are peasants, and Poles, and Jews

The Duma did about the only thing they could: loudly denounce all of this to the continuous applause of their fellow Duma-ists. They then drafted a statement saying that the government had lost the confidence of the Duma, and that the PM and all the ministers should resign, so that others more reliable could be appointed.

The response from the Czar was to completely ignore the Duma and instruct everybody in the government to ignore the Duma, and if they did need to communicate, send underlings instead of themselves. They also cranked their fake news apparatus up

The funny thing here is that all this was actually making the aristocrat clubhouse worried. The whole idea behind the Duma was to maybe solve a few problems so that another almost-revolution didn't happen.

Nebakenezzer
Sep 13, 2005

The Mote in God's Eye



KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:

You've set an impossible bar, I challenge you to name any temporal government that hasn't done anything evil.

In terms of relatively not-bad dictators, I'll put Ismet Inonu on the table.

Castro and Tito?

Lee Kuan Yew

Nebakenezzer
Sep 13, 2005

The Mote in God's Eye



Gaius Marius posted:

Being published doesn't mean poo poo.

Which as we've seen here is absolutely true and thus a little weird that Duncan is being criticized for not having credentials.

ChubbyChecker posted:

wrt. duncan, he isn't a historian, he's just a guy with a microphone and internet connection

So what you're saying here is...the czar was unfairly treated by duncan in that episode?

Nebakenezzer
Sep 13, 2005

The Mote in God's Eye



Rodrigo Diaz posted:

All this talk about blast radii reminds me of this:
https://twitter.com/BitsHammer/status/1080576295208071168

gently caress. You'd have to be in a high earth orbit to even be able to perceive it as an event

Nebakenezzer
Sep 13, 2005

The Mote in God's Eye



While propaganda broadcasts in the Third Reich usually didn't talk about defeats at all, I think the fall of Stalingrad got a dignified announcement saying there was a big defeat. They didn't talk about *why* it had happened, but it was too big a catastrophe to treat any other way.

Actually, here's a question about propaganda the Third Reich and conquored regions: I know radio broadcasts from the BBC were covertly listened to. How factual were they? If I were in change of programming the German/French BBC broadcast, I'd keep it as factual as practical to counter Nazi propaganda to build credibility.

Nebakenezzer
Sep 13, 2005

The Mote in God's Eye



Cyrano4747 posted:

While that's not wrong, I wonder if a more competent Fuhrer would have never gotten to where the Germans were in the Winter of '41 just because he'd have been smart enough to not, you know, invade all his neighbors at once and never gotten the string of lucky wins that let Hitler look like a military genius for two years.

Yeah, I feel like "risk-assessing Hitler" doesn't get as far, because he'd give up the idea of becoming a dictator in another country as farfetched

Nebakenezzer
Sep 13, 2005

The Mote in God's Eye



I love German Wikipedia:

quote:

A lorry ( truck , truck ), short truck or lorry , in Switzerland also Camion , [1] commonly known vices or truck , is the commercial vehicles belonging vehicle with which goods are transported. A truck can also be operated with a trailer; this combination is called a truck , the truck in this combination is called a motor vehicle . If the tractor is short and the Trailer is placed on it , the trailer combination is called .

Vehicles approved for road traffic for the transport of goods under 2.8 t gross vehicle weight as well as special vehicles such as heavy transport vehicles or large mobile cranes are not referred to as trucks.

Nebakenezzer
Sep 13, 2005

The Mote in God's Eye



Tias posted:

Pionier-Bataillon 233 (divisional pioneer unit)
Heeres-Pionier-Bataillon 73 (Corps pioneer unit)

Should I be inferring something about these units from where they are attached? I'm fuzzy on German army organization.

Nebakenezzer
Sep 13, 2005

The Mote in God's Eye



Cessna posted:

Yes and no. We know a lot, but there's a lot we don't know. I had a History prof use the analogy of "trying to study the US Army in the 70s through Beetle Bailey cartoons."

The joke will be on us once in a thousand years time a major document for understanding the last decade of the cold war will be the movie "Stripes"

And then the belief of the Anti-Tank RV will become the new morning star (IE the spiky ball on a chain)

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Nebakenezzer
Sep 13, 2005

The Mote in God's Eye



wiegieman posted:

There's literally no end to it, god drat. Just one horrible loving atrocity after another.

From what I've read, when it comes to Nazis and slave factories, the Nazis always had two goals. The first was to kill lots of untermenchen, and the second was to use untermenchen slave labor, and while they may or may not succeeded with the second, they always succeeded with the first.

I saw Schindler's List for the first time last year, and I thought they did a good job with that SS commander in portraying what an actual SS dude would have as motives. His main job as he sees it is to kill all the untermenchen, and the use of their labor is just a lark for awhile, and no matter how many he murders, he can't get out from under this feeling that the job is still nowhere near done...

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply